CT Airframe Hours

[FlyingMonkey]

Other than normal wear and tear and engine TBO times, is there any disadvantage to buying a CT with more hours. For example, imagine two same-year CTs for sale, one with 200hrs and one with 600hrs. Both are well priced for their hours and well taken care of. Is there any structural reason that you would want the 200hr airplane if the 600hr one was a better deal? Is there a structural life limit to any of the CT airframe components? Some airframes (thinking Piper Tomahawk) have a life limit to components subject to flight loads (i.e. wing structure), so I was just wondering.

 

Also, what is the highest time CT flying out there, and how is it holding up?

[CT4ME]

It seems that environment has more to do with airframe condition, than time. Especially if the aircraft was kept outside in a moist environment. Rain, especially acidic rain, doesn't play well with the foam. I've seen some rusted/corroded parts on aircraft from moist areas, too. On an aircraft with considerably more time on it, I'd be looking for cracks and malformations.

FWIW, we haven't seen any ill-effects from our dry-heat. Of course, UVs aren't good for anything.

tim

[FredG]

I have never seen a published life limit on any component or on the entire airframe in any FD documentation for my 2006 CTsw. I'd be very curious if such a limit exists.

Fred

[Tom Baker]

I remember they had a press release for an airplane with over 13,000 landings, but I don't know the hours on the plane. I don't think there are many here in the states that you could call high time yet.

[Roger Lee]

I know of a couple CTSW's with over 2000 hrs. They aren't having any issues. Here is one thing to consider when buying a plane. If I had a 2006 CTSW with 100 hrs and one with 500 I would buy the 500 hr. Rotax engine's like to be flown other wise the possibility of leaks from "O" rings and around other parts are more common. Dried out areas that needed oil before the start will be more dry on its starts on the low hour plane.