Club Homepage Forums Classified Ads Buy & Sell - Everything But Airplanes Aircraft Inactivity

Just had a rather disappointing day of aircraft hunting. Looked at a 1977 C-150. Specs and pictures convinced me to take the check book along. What transpired would be a tutorial on what not to do to a good bird. Due to illness the aircraft was quite inactive over the last three years. A little over two hours between annuals, little or none in the air, can be devastating to the health of the bird. I really did not want to pass on this bird, but the engine runup suggested real problems ahead. Aircraft was also being hangared with hardly any fuel in the tanks. Oh well, there is always tomorrow!

Man that's rough, but I can understand your position.

I assume from your post, the owner did nothing to preserve the engine while it was idle? There are ways to do that, but it sounds like it was left in running condition. He may have a ahard time selling it.

Good for you, though. You had the presence of mind to walk away from something you considered a bad deal. That's hard to do, but it shows good judgment and the ability to stick with your decisions.

Good luck in your seach.

Reminds me of a J-3 on one of my old fields.

The airplane was tied down outside and hadn't flown in a decade (that I know of!) but was annualled regularily. They had to reinflate the tires to move into the maintainance hanger.

When approached to sell the owner wanted $25,000 because it only had 25 hours since it was resoted and overhauled almost 15 years ago. I had to laugh because you could see where the paint was cracking and where the interior cloth was peeling off. You can only wonder about the condition of the tubing.

I disagree with the conclusion here. If the engine ran badly, it could be from old car gas, or maybe some kind of problem that occurred before the airplane was ignored, not necessarily because the airplane sat idle.

My personal experience does not agree with the standard theory that airplanes that sit for long periods of time are always seriously harmed.

When I purchased my first 150, it was 30 years old, and only had 1,100 hours on the engine, never overhauled or topped. During those years it had sat several times for 2 years or longer, with no flying hours at all. It ran fine, compressions good, had a little extra iron in the oil at first but this soon straightened out. During my ownership I also neglected the airplane for more than two years without a single engine start (I had purchased another airplane, and planned to sell the original 150, but just couldn't bring myself to put it on the market.)Then after about 2 and half years I decided to fly the original 150 to Clinton. It needed a new battery and oil change, and ran perfectly ever since, no compression problems, no rough running, just as if it had sat for a day instead of 30 months.

I should note that I live in a low humidity area, and the airplane formerly lived in Saskatchewan, Canada, also a low humidity area. I assume that airplanes from high humidity areas would likely have far more rust in the cylinders, and presumably more problems from sitting idle without some engine preservative oil.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a good thing, I just disagree that it is a catastrophe. Another example I can think of is Mike Nass (Clinton airport manager). Mike bought a Cessna 120 that had sat neglected for more than 10 years in Iowa with the tanks full of auto gas. The gas had turned to something resembling varnish. He cleaned out the fuel tanks, changed the oil, and the airplane has been running fine ever since.

I think it's entirely possible as Royson has said for this airplane to be in good shape. I'd like to drain the old fuel in there and give it a go with some fresh fuel. His plugs could have been lead fouled as well. I'd at least check it a bit more in depth before ruling it out.

Thanks Royson.

I've noticed that quite a few posts tend to make me feel bad about my management of my airplane. (What! You don't use MMO, or STP, shame on you. What! You don't fly it at least once a week, you're going to ruin the cylinders. What! You don't use auto gas, you're heading for problems! What! You go 50 hours between oil changes!

Throughout my training it was drummed into my head to fill the fuel tanks before putting the plane away to avoid condensation. So, despite being dead tired after a day of flying, I'd climb the ladder, and manhandle the hose to fill the tanks. Now I know that condensation is not a problem in our little tanks.

No one says it now, but in some of the older books I read, the experienced pilots cautioned against landing on anything but grass fields. Otherwise that hard concrete will damage the landing gear.

Exactly how much money is saved in preserving the engine should be balanced against convenience, cost of the measures to baby the engine, and the cost of overcoming whatever "damage" may be done.

I fly the plane, but I don't let it become a millstone causing me to enjoy it less by all the things I "should" do.

John/Royson

Reminds me of something (barely) releavnt that my wife and I often discuss.

If each of us did exactly what was recommended for everything we owned - tuned the lawn mower per their schedule, lubricated the kids tricycle wheels every 25 hours of use, calibrated the temperature probes in our enegine analyzers once a year - we'd never get anything done. Nothing.

I always take the common sense approach - as Royson does in his example. Recommendations are great starting points, but the realist in me agrees with Royson.

And yesterday the lowest diff compression was 73/80 on #4. Oil analysis still shows normal. 1838 TT and climbing! WOW! What a ride!

You're right, Royson.

Long periods of inactivity do not always mean catastrophe, but I think the real conclusion that was reached above is that the chances of unforseen problems were increased beyond the buyers comfort level. I agree that perceived problems can't be confirmed without further investigation, but proceeding with troubleshooting or a pre-buy inspection when the first instinct is to walk away is almost always not advisable in a purchase. I can't find fault in following one's instincts on this, especially if you're not a mechanic capable of performing a few simple tests. Your experience level and mine might have yielded different results, but the chances aren't that good!

I can tell you from my own experience that for every good experience in restoring a neglected engine to service, there is at least one equally as bad! That's a 50/50 chance at best! Perhaps you (and Ken) were very lucky?

I'm gonna butt in here on the side of the prospective buyer on this one. If this is a first airplane or someone with minimal experience dealing with planes that have sat, I can see how they'd walk away from this situation. If things didn't look promising, I'd be worried about what else I would find or how much it would cost me. I'd be viewing this type of aircraft as more of a project rather than something I could fly soon. Weather or not I could take on such a project would depend upon my financial circumstances and other resources, such as the availability of a hangar in which I could work on the plane as well as an A&P to assist me if I wasn't up to the task myself.

It may not be all that bad but I wouldn't be buying it myself unless I was up to the task of thoroughly going over the plane and able to fix it up.