Club Homepage Forums Classified Ads Buy & Sell - Everything But Airplanes Damage History

Imagine these situations:
1. You are a young single guy and you meet this attractive girl at church. She is not only pleasant to look at but has a very pleasant and gentile personality; she is very caring and affectionate. She is intelligent and has a great sense of humor, she is neat, clean, cooks and sews and you really like her. But wait a minute you find out that at age 7 she broke her arm when she fell out of a swing. She has damage history.

2. You are in the market to buy a good used car. A friend tells you about a car that is exactly what you are looking for, low mileage, clean interior, good mechanical condition, impeccable cosmetics and a fair price. But you learn that in the first month on the street (two years ago) a finder was damaged and replaced. Even though the repair was well done and there is no apparent evidence the car has damage history!

3. You find a Cessna 150/152 that is just what you want, good paint, good interior, decent avionics, mid time engine and generally good condition. The asking price is reasonable. However, you find in reading the logbooks that a valve stuck and a cylinder was replaced. Damage history.

I won?t go any farther with the examples you get the point!

I seriously doubt that any of the examples would cause a reasonable person to ?walk?. Why would structural damage to the airframe that was repaired correctly, properly documented and has a long history of use make any difference at all in your decision of whether or not to purchase an airplane. The airplane is airworthy or it is not!

I strongly suspect that damage history is more often an excuse rather than a reason for not purchasing an airplane.

I have bought and sold airplanes with damage history. When buying I look at the total picture and if the plane is sound I make my buying decision based solely on the basis of a reasonable price for a reasonable value. I don?t beat the seller up because of ?damage history?, either the price is right for the total package or it isn?t. I don?t haggle.

When selling if the prospective buyer attempts to haggle for a lower price based on damage history I simply wish him good luck in finding what he is looking for and terminate the negotiation. In every case, save one, it turned out that the prospect didn?t really care about the history and bought the airplane.

Deceit is a completely different subject. If a seller ever attempts to deceive me about anything the deal is off, right now, end of discussion.

Well put!!!

Wayne,

I usually agree with your posts, but not in this case.

* In example #1, the girl's broken arm doesn't affect her appearance, so it's not a factor. Now, if she had fallen thru a glass window and her face is full of scars from stitches, I'd consider that "damage history".

* In example #2, if the repair was "well done and there is no apparent evidence the car has damage" then it's OK. But if there's any mismatch in the paint or part alignment, then it's less desirable than one that wasn't involved in a fender-bender.

* In example #3, I wouldn't consider a stuck valve and a replaced cylinder "damage"; I'd call them "engine problem".

I know the point you were trying to make, but I think the examples were not very well selected.

Wayne good post, But a stuck valve isn't damage. But to the subject, When I get into full fledged airplane buying here in a couple years, if there is damage history and properly repaired and the most important documented properly then there is no issue.

After I bought 29X I got the FAA records and learned that she had been destroyed and completely rebuilt 3 months after coming off the assembly line in 1967. My 1st reaction was one of surprise because there is nothing to indicate there was ever any damage. I guess my point is, she looks and flies great and, with proper care, will continue to do so until one of us is no longer around to enjoy the other.

Ok Hung lets have at it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Isn?t a replaced spar (major damage) analogous to a properly mended bone? You just made my point that the damage history is not a factor if it doesn?t affect from or function. Thanks

A condition of the example was that there was no apparent evidence of the damage or repair. I am not going to fall for you changing the conditions and then saying that the example is not well chosen. Your fiddling with the example completely changes the situation. Again the ?damage? has not affected form or function. . I think that you made my point again by having to change the conditions to find fault.

I just knew that someone would fall for this one. Of course a broken engine is damage. It had to be repaired else the airplane is not airworthy. The difference is that we expect for engines to wear out and things in them to brake and therefore we ignore broken engines as damage. If you wore out a part of the airframe that cause a secondary failure I?ll bet money, marbles and chalk that your would yell ?damage history?



The whole point of the quote is that if damage is properly repaired and documented the effect that the damage has on the value of the airplane is purely EMOTIONAL. I think that the way that you took exception to each of the examples drives home the point that I was trying to make. Thanks a bunch.

Touche'

BCP II

OK, play nice boys. But what I want to know is who owns the bat and ball?

Not to worry Stephen. I have known and respected Hung for several years and I mean him no disrespect and I am sure that he feels the same. This is just a discussion, with slightly differing viewpoints. It is not difficult to disagree without being disagreeable if there is mutual respect. I was very sincere in thanking Hung for his input.

My original post was intended to generate some thoughtful consideration of a often discussed subject. With Hung at least I seceded.

Wouldn?t it be boring if everyone thought the same about everything?

Yep, I bit it, hook..line..and sinker