Damage History, devaluation, insurance, etc

[drainge]

I am looking at an RV-7A that has extensive damage history. The aircraft had an engine out and was forced to land on a soft dirt road -- upon landing the nose gear dug in and the plane flipped. The builder replaced the fuselage and empenage (QB fus.), engine, and prop. The wings were reused.

Since the accident the plane has logged 180TT.

What would be the appropriate devaluation of an aircraft with this history? How will this effect my ability to resell the plane? How will it effect my ability to insure the plane?

Thanks in advance, Dan

[Auburntsts]

Seems like it would have been easier based upon the amount that was replaced (and not repaired) to have gone after a new AWC otherwise you have all of this damage history which really isn't relevant since for all intents and purposes this is a new airplane from the one that was damaged.

[lr172]

This is difficult to say. A reasonable and experienced buyer will recognize that the damage isn't relevant in your case, due to the extent of rebuild. However, we are often not so lucky to get reasonable and experienced buyers. Many simply run when they hear the word "damage" without even understanding what was involved or repaired. What is most amusing is the buyers that trust a non-damaged airplane built by someone with no experience, yet summarily dismiss one repaired by a seasoned mechanic. Sorry, I digress.

In the end, as a seller you are stuck with the perceptions of your buying community. I would expect a plane with damage history to go for less than one without, even in your case where it is not really damage, as everything was replaced.

How much devaluation is tough to say, as it will depend upon the specific buyers in the market when you sell. If you can buy it at a discount from market value today, you should be in a position to "stay above water" when you sell. If you put a lot of hours on the plane during ownership, that should help to reduce risk for more savvy buyers. I would expect it to take longer to sell a plane with "damage history" as your target market is a only a percentage of the buying market.

I can't see how these repairs would impact your ability to get or the cost of traditional insurance, but you should ask a broker to be sure.

Larry

[SMRacer]

The airplane in question might well be an essentially new airplane, but it still carries the "damage history" scarlet letter. I can't comment on the value of such an airplane.

However, I can comment on the effect of selling one with damage history. I have been looking for an RV7 for about three months now. Of six that I have been somewhat interested in, 3 of those had damage history. I chose not to pursue any aircraft with significant damage history. So what I can say, for a fact, is that there are some buyers out there that won't consider buying that airplane. You can decide if you want to take that risk if and when you ever decide to sell.

[rvbuilder2002]

I own an RV-6A that I rebuilt after an accident.

During the rebuild quite a number of construction errors were discovered. Some that would have probably been missed during a prebuy inspection by even more experienced inspectors.

So I ask the question....

Of two RV's (same model) built and equipped identically and with about the same amount of total time......

Which is worth more?

The one built by an inexperienced first time builder, but with no damage history?
Or the one rebuilt from the ground up by a very experienced builder, but with damage history?

My opinion is that damage history in and of it self should not cause a reduction in value. More influential for me would be who did the repair work and what were the circumstances? Was it a for profit shop that had little to no prior experience with RV's, etc.

[SMRacer]

I understand the sentiments regarding repairs. But the argument that the original builder was a novice and the repairman was an expert just doesn't necessarily hold true.

A damaged airplane has been overstressed, thus the damage. How do we really know how far that shockwave migrated through the airframe?

Foolish, misguided or not, this buyer is not interested in an airplane with "significant" damage history.

[Mel]

Scott make a very valid point. A "beginner" is not at all likely to take on a rebuild project. Typically rebuilds are done by experienced people. These people know what to look for and how to to repair properly.
And now you have 2 totally different builders who have been through the aircraft.
Of course each project needs to be judged on it's own basis.

[alpinelakespilot2000]

Originally Posted by SMRacer

A damaged airplane has been overstressed, thus the damage. How do we really know how far that shockwave migrated through the airframe?

Count me among those who, having built myself and, despite knowing that repairs can often be made that improve upon initial quality, would nonetheless never buy an aircraft with the damage history noted above, at least not without a major discount. Too many unknowns, not all of which may be visible.

Besides, there are too many others without damage history that regularly come up for sale. Assuming equally proficient/quality builds, why would one pay the same amount for one with damage history as they would for one without?

[cajunwings]

The example in the first post sounds like a new plane with used wings. I would guess that all the hardware, instruments, controls ect and any thing else useable got transferred to the new build. I would be curious about those parts that could be stressed in a nose over. Before considering this aircraft for purchase I would want to know about any damage to wings and how the engine mount, rudder bar assembly and all the control pushrods were inspected. After that it's just like inspecting any other undamaged plane. In a previous career I did a lot of structural repair on GA aircraft and have no concerns about buying or flying a properly repaired plane. How far the shockwave has migrated thru the structure is addressed by removing rivets in strategic locations to inspect for shear loading and/or hole deformation. I've been evaluating aircraft for purchase for clients for 25+ years and a number have had various degrees of damage history. On "no damage history" aircraft there is no way to know if the plane has been flown thru rough air going too fast or had an overspeed or other undetectable over stress. Each to his own but I would never pass up a plane based on damage history alone. We have very competent list members who can evaluate properly. I don't know of any historical evidence to show that repaired small aircraft (unpressurized, non airline) are any less safe than aircraft that have never been damaged. There have been some lost or could have been lost to build errors however. There is usually a value deduction for damage history, but it works out. You pay less initially and sell for less when the time comes.

Don Broussard A&P, IA, ATP, Consultant
RV 9 Rebuild in Progress
57 Pacer

[lr172]

I think this thread has given you some good insight into the mind of the potential buying pool. 2/5's wouldn't consider it even though most of the plane was replaced and 3/5's would look and evaluate based upon actual condition. Unfortunately for the seller of a "damaged aircraft," I don't believe the sample population posting on this thread is representative of the percentage split in the typical RV buying pool. Most buyers do not have the experience or skill to evaluate the condition of a plane, let alone proper damage repair. Further, they have likely heard about the risks involved in buying damaged airplanes and apply that universally to all reports of Damage, even if it was repaired. In fairness to that group, I don't think they understand or appreciate the faith they put in an undamaged airplane built by an inexperienced builder. I think that if each buyer read the "Check those tails" thread they would think more holistically about the equation.

The good news is that if you can get a good deal on the plane and don't feel that you would ever be in a rush to sell it, there is a market. Assuming, of course, that the work was done to a good standard.

Larry