Newer vs Older

[Tonym3]

Hi guys – sorry if this should be in Private Flying but I was hoping to get some views to help me make a decision on my first aircraft purchase. One of the factors is old vs new. Headlines have caught my eye where CASA and others are expressing concern about “the aging GA fleet”.


I am told, and believe, that a well maintained aircraft will last a long time and that year of manufacture shouldn’t be a detracting feature of a plane. Unfortunately, the headlines and instincts suggest that newer is possibly better – from a maintenance point of view and a resale point of view. On the other hand, this is going to be my first plane and I’d prefer to be able to tie up a smaller amount of capital until I see the number of hours I will be able to do. At this stage I would expect to do about 70 h.p.a, generally 4 up but sometimes a ringin or two, mostly in 3 to 4 hour legs and am ignoring the Floats, Flies or F:mad: rule.


So my question is: If you had the readies to buy a post 1990’s plane as opposed to pre-80’s (considerations being A36 or Saratoga/Lance, but 182 also in back of mind), do you think spending the extra dosh now is likely to save money in the long run?


Leaving aside special bargains or plane differences, I guess I am asking whether the cost of capital on say $100K difference is likely to be less or greater than the value of the reduced maintenance + smaller loss on resale over say a 5-7 year period? Or should I take the view that I will either be lucky on the maintenance costs and resale or unlucky and it doesn't matter whether I buy old or new?


I am also being told that now is a great time to be a buyer. Any views on that or other suggestions for a first time buyer?


Thanks in advance

[baron_beeza]

A good post.
You will get a multitude of replies obviously and with wildly countering points of view.

I do get involved in buying and selling a bit, - both for myself and doing pre-purchase reports for others.

A few things caught my eye. For starters you sound like a typical first time owner operator.... that has to be a good thing.
You are not seeking or expecting anything out of the ordinary.

Your envisaged utilisation will be optimistic. It always is. If you can get up to that figure it will make your operating costs look a lot more realistic.

There will be a big difference in the cost of operating a retractable over a fixed gear machine. Your flights are not that long and few and far between.. you may want to broaden the range a little as a result.

You will also discover that there is a big difference in operating costs between manufacturers.
Brand C engines may cost more to operate than brand L for example.
Similarly brand C aircraft may be more than brand P..... I say maybe because you will never get agreement there.

I have been around long enough to know the maintenance requirements of most of those machine. Recently I spoke to other Chief Engineers and we were all thinking along the same lines.

The best thing for you is to do your research. Keep an open mind, - but then get a good and knowledgeable character to do the pre-purchase.

You can never ask too many questions.
All the best with it, I believe it is a buyers market.

[Weekend_Warrior]

One factor to consider when purchasing older aircraft is the manufactorers introducing expensive inspection requirements -Cessna's SIDs for twins is an example. There is every chance they will be extended to cover more recent models including singles. Other makers will surely follow suit.

Newer aircraft will cost more in finance but less in maintenance - older aircraft vice-vera - and it's better to pay the bank than the engineer.
Newer aircraft are generally better equiped - upgrading old avionics is hellishly expensive and can easily cover the cost of a more modern aircraft to begin with.

Newer also = easier to sell when the time comes.

I agree with Baron re comparison of brand C and L engines - Ive owned several of each - and C and P airframes - never owned a brand P but know enough from talking to people who have.

[Arnold E]

and it's better to pay the bank than the engineer.

Why is that??? the engineer is likely to at least be local, extremely unlikely that the bank is.:rolleyes:

[Ultralights]

Yeah, but bank repayments don't tend to quadruple overnight when the engineer finds something ugly.


With my own aircraft, I figured out a monthly budget, repayments, insurance, fuel, hangarage,regular replaced items, plugs, filters, Tyres etc. 100hrly and regular maintenace estimates, airways charges. Then deposited double that amount into an account dedicated to the aircraft every month, All bills are paid from that account, and when maintenance comes around, I found I am well covered even for unexpected items like a radio overhaul.

[Jabawocky]

Smart man that UL :ok:

[Tonym3]

Thanks for the contributions.

At this stage, at least one clear vote for spending the extra now on a newer plane, based both on cost of maintenance and resale value. I take Ultralights to be advocating similar based on his supporting the proposition of paying the banks rather than the LAME but I'll take it as a 0.5 since I couldn't be sure.

I appreciate the other great purchasing and financial preparation suggestions.

Any other votes to be cast?

[Jack Ranga]

Mate, even with a new aircraft you will NEVER know how much a 100 hourly will cost you :ugh: You can't budget for that stuff.

If you go for an older aircraft, get a pre-purchase from a LAME who's done them before (he'll have a pro forma made up). It will give you leverage on the buying price and let you know what you are up for at your first 100 hourly.

[Arnold E]

You will learn much from the purchase of your first aeroplane. Whatever you get first time will more than likely fall short of what you were expecting in one way or another. Despite everybody here telling you what you can expect, the only way you are realy going to know is after you have purchaced. There is almost inevitably something that will come up that you have not thought about. For this reason I would suggest going the older,cheaper route first. Of the aircraft you first mentioned the 80's C182 would be where I looked first. The reason is that they are popular and have a good resale value and there are many of them that have had avionics upgrades.
It goes without saying that you must get a pre-purchase inspection, whatever you buy with the possible exception if it is brand new.
I have seen some dogs in older aircraft and some dogs in newer aircraft as well as seeing very good older aircraft and good newer aircraft. Like I say, you will learn much from your first aircraft.:ok:

[QFF]

Any views on that or other suggestions for a first time buyer? Find and join a type club - for the A36, the Bonanza Society and the Cessna Pilots Assoc (& Australian chapter) for the 182 are very useful sources of information for the first time owner - many contributing to those forums have been there and done that - well worth the $50-100 annual fee to learn from the mistakes of others rather than learning the hard (expensive) way yourself!

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Don't forget the fixed costs of parking/hangarage, insurance and calendar-time-based checks.

[VH-XXX]

A wise CFI once told me, "owning and aircraft is like a bacon and egg sandwich. The chook is involved but the pig is committed."

[baron_beeza]

All good stuff so far.
I think we should also add that you are accruing expenses even when not flying.
They will be a significant part of the operating expense.

Now would be a good time to sort out hangarage, if you haven't already done so.
Asking other owners at the airfield will give you some idea of their thoughts and maybe even a few leads on the maintenance facilities.

Ask about, and visit, the various maintenance hangars and listen very carefully to all the Chief Engineer is telling you. Don't put so much emphasis on what the pilot's say.

We all have our biases and favourites.
I drive a Holden but would wear Ford regalia.
I would wear a cap with a red and blue 'P' emblem... and while Arnold mentions 182, - I would be thinking 180/181... 235/236.

Think back to the hangarage and what the engineering support there is like.

[Arnold E]

Find and join a type club - for the A36, the Bonanza Society and the Cessna Pilots Assoc (& Australian chapter) for the 182 are very useful sources of information for the first time owner I would take some convincing that is a good idea, the reason being that each club there is biased to that particular type, they will highlight the types good points but gloss over its bad points. For instance the A36 is the most expensive aircraft on your list and without doubt the most expensive to maintain (regardless of age) but the Bonanza Society is unlikely to highlight this. They will instead highlight its flying characteristics which are great from a pilots point of view. Be wise, stay cheaper until you have at least experienced ownership once and learned the pitfalls which realistically can only be learned by ownership.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

A 'small point' Mr 'T',

I would go out of my way to avoid 'anything turbocharged' unless you have a passionate love for the higher levels and deep pockets...

Have you considered a 'vintage' aeroplane - at least the depreciation won't hit you hard.
IF they are 'looked after', then you may very well find that the machine holds its value rather well. So when it comes time to sell, fewer tears....

Other than that - 'Ultralights' has nailed it...along with the other well thought out offerings...!!

'rotsa ruck'......:ok:

[Andy_RR]

If you're only using it privately and are handy with a spanner, give serious consideration to buying an Experimental-class aircraft.

[Jabawocky]

Not quite true, well not yet anyway. Buy a second hand Exp and you are needing a LAME again.

A good RV for example will cost less anyway, but a LAME is required all the same.

[Jabawocky]

Get a like minded partner, and be careful to get a good one, nd split the fixed costs.:ok:

[mostlytossas]

Join or create a syndicate with fellow thinking pilots.
The only way I know to keep costs reasonable and give you the safety net of sharing the costs if/when the big expensive items occur. (and occur they will). After a couple of years part ownership if you are still keen to be a sole owner then sell your share in the syndicate and go it alone.

[Tonym3]

Good to see some votes coming in for the cheaper choice. Part of me wants to take that option but I feared it might be false economy.

Not good with spanners and want the loading capability of at least a 182 so exp out for me.

A syndicate is something that I have considered but again I wonder about the flexibility and economy of that. I did 100 hours in each of the last 2 years (which includes training hours) with some long trips - think three trips of 10plus days and plenty of smaller ones too. Not too fair on a syndicate.

I can see the thrill consuming me initially so my usage would be high but I also have to countenance the possibility that the enthusiasm could wane over the initial 5 to 7 years. Wife's loving it for now but who knows in 5 years.

I did talk to some people at the abs and they loved the 36. I spoke to the cessna dealers who thought the 182 the only way to go. I haven't found a piper club but some of the brokers reckon they are better value than the bo's even if they aren't quite as good looking.

Fact is, the choices have been torturing me for months, finally driving me to the seek the wisdom of pprune.

[baron_beeza]

Leaving aside special bargains or plane differences, I guess I am asking whether the cost of capital on say $100K difference is likely to be less or greater than the value of the reduced maintenance + smaller loss on resale over say a 5-7 year period? Or should I take the view that I will either be lucky on the maintenance costs and resale or unlucky and it doesn't matter whether I buy old or new?


I will be brave here. I own a couple of late '70's machines.
I also work on a multitude of 'normal' GA machines in my employment. I personally have not worked on or flown a new machine for many years.
The newest I can remember was a 400Hr Tomahawk in 1994.

While the Tomahawk was nice, I assembled it out of the container and then ferried it, it was not that much different to any other of the period.

Even now an 11,000 Tomahawk can be just as good or better than a 4000 hour one. Indeed I fly many of them and know that to be a fact.

I have worked on many.... a good factory corrosion proofed aircraft with a 300 hr engine would be hard to beat. It then comes down to configurations, trim and mods.

I don't see an issue with an older machine compared to a newer version. The loss on Capital expenditure will be less (generally) and the interest would cover any increased maintenance, - if any.

I get to review the complete histories of many GA aircraft. For an import coming on to the register for example. Often I see a larger amount of maintenance being done in the first 5 years and then they settle down.

This is the case with a new design where many SB's are issued, and I am seeing that again now. Many of the recent C172 AD's for example, are only for the newer models.

Both Cessna and Piper are introducing increasing inspection procedures for their older fleets.
In practice this is only a case of the paperwork catching up with what the better hangars have been doing anyway.
I always break any maintenance into three parts.
Inspection, Defect Rectification and Preventative Maintenance.

Some operators seem to get by on half of that. That is until they realise the aircraft are falling apart around them, or costing in unserviceabilities (away breakdowns).

I see buying a cheaper, well configured, good condition aircraft, with appropriate component times, a good option.

This is where a thorough Pre-Buy comes to the fore.

I have seen a company put down a $15,000 deposit on a lemon.... then got wind of it. A pre-buy (subsequent) advised that they walk away from the deal. An expensive mistake but to their credit they did and went and bought a better aircraft.

Going back to the question. The $100,000 difference on a machine doing 70 hrs pa will pay for a lot of maintenance.
Buy the right machine and it may even pay for all of it. ;)
Especially if you can manage to bring a little appreciation in also. :)

[poteroo]

A realistic approach to flying is to look at the loadings you are likely to be taking. Everyone is optimistic...... yup, I'll need to allow for loads of 4,5,6 and so on. Then, after a few years, you realise that the 3rd row has never been filled, and you've only been 4 up about 20% of the time.

I reckon that if you think you'd loove a 6 seater - buy a 4, and rent a 6 for the few times you'll need it.

If you think carefully about the 4 seater, maybe you really need 2 - so go rent a 4 when you need it.

You can apply the same arguement for speed and distance. Everyone needs to get there at 160 kts? No way - learn to plan and fly smart and you'll do just as well at 125 kts. If you are really only doing 200-300 mile trips - you won't be smart doing that in a fast r/g which cost you double a f/g.

My C182P was the best investment ever - it actually doubled in value over 10 years, and I flew 2200 hrs in that time. (conveniently forgetting inflation and the <value of the $$!). The other 9 aircraft I've owned over the past 33 years have not done as well. Win some - lose some!

All the other advice you've read so far is good stuff - wish I'd had some of it way back when.......good luck,

happy days,

[NazgulAir]

Older aircraft, especially aging ones, may have ADs that require additional inspections. These can be timed to coincide with regular maintenance to save money.

It is more the age of timed components that determine costs. Engines, wing spars, etc. of aircraft younger in calendar years could be older than those of an older aircraft in calendar years that has flown fewer hours.

It's a fairy tale that the maintenance of newer planes is much cheaper than that of a well-maintained older plane. That is only true if you postpone maintenance and sell the plane before having to do 500 or 1000 hour maintenance. This is one of the major reasons, appart from "ramp appeal" considerations, that newer aircraft lose their value so rapidly.
Maintenance costs will even out after the initial period. The newer plane will require more maintenance as it gets used, the older's initial higher maintenance bill will even out once you bring the plane up to standard.

What matters is what kind of ownership the aircraft has had. Has it been mishandled, badly maintained, operated or kept in adverse conditions? Has it been flown by one person, a small group, a club? Has it been hangared or parked outside? Is there an accident history?
All used aircraft have had previous owners and a previous history. The older the aircraft is, the more difficult it will be to eliminate the risk of buying a lemon. Prebuy inspections and a careful examination of the aircraft's records are a must.

Older or newer? We opted for older. We're still not finished with our "five year plan" (which could easily become seven years) of improvements before everything is "as good as new" perfect, but we had a good starting point and sorted out the mechanics first, and cosmetics are something that can be tackled later.

I agree with poteroo that you have to look at your load. But load is not just load in terms of people, it includes luggage and fuel. What kind of tluggage are you likely to take with four on board and would you require full fuel? Likewise you have to look at all other factors that are important to you in your operation. Find out what you want, then determine how much you want it. For instance, if you don't want to have to go through an engine overhaul for at least ten years, grade the 'low-engine-hours' factor with a higher number. There are hundreds of little things that might influence your choice of type. The better you have thought about these things, the less likely you are to make a purely emotional decision that doesn't suit you.
With your list of properties, start looking for aircraft on offer -- of any type. Then you'll find out what type will suit your operation.

[VH-XXX]

Even new aircraft have AD's, don't forget that...

You truly will never know what it will cost to run an aircraft, there is no way to know. All you can do is budget accordingly and hope for the best keeping in mind that you could blow a crank at a moments notice, regardless of the age.

Use your figures as a guide but remember you need spare cash or the ability to get it as things literally "pop" up that you would never expect.

[nomorecatering]

My take on the sitiation.

By something small, brand new. C172, Archer (around 360K) Maybe a C182. at 400+. A Bonanza will cost around 700k.

Ive worked with 2 different fleets in the last 5 years. The first fleet were all 20 year old Piper trainers, reliability was crap, started, wiring, spas corroding, firewalls corroding, wing bolts needing replacement, ailerons, belly skins, firewalls all needing replacement. 100 hr insopections routinely costing 8-12 grand. Corrosion is a big factor.

I now operate a fleet of 15 new C172's. Not only do you get the latest avionics, a nice cabin, paint, trim etc, the despatch reliability has been in the order of 99%. The occasional starter going us is about all we have had. Theres been a few issues with the G1000 but thats turned out to be dirty contacts. 100hr inspections have turned up no major issies with thae oldest airframes now approaching 2000hrs.

So my vote is to go brand new.....and keep it in a hanger and fly it at least oce per week.

[nasa]

In my experience, the first question you should be asking yourself is do I WANT an aircraft or do I NEED an aircraft!!!! If you WANT an aircraft, than you buy new and bugger the expense after all it's only a toy, however, if you NEED an aircraft, than sit down and weigh up your options based on cost.

Another point I would make is that if you are flying 70 - 100 hours PA, would it not be less expensive for you to hire an aircraft as required and/or get into a joint venture with other liked minded individuals and share the cost.

Lastly, should you proceed to purchasing an aircraft, the best advice I can give is to read the Log Books. There is a wealth of knowledge to be gained by reading the Log Books and in particular, read between the lines.

Best of luck...........

[baron_beeza]

There we are, I knew we would get a range of opinions.... it is similar to asking which type of oil is best, or which political party for that matter.

It all comes down to horses for courses. No two operations will be identical so what works for one may not necessarily apply to another.

NMC has obviously discovered what works best for him. Has learned by trial and error and that is the nature of the game.

I see a big difference with between a high utilisation, fleet environment and that of a one pilot privately owned machine.
Most of my more recent customers were owner operators and few achieved 100 hours per year. The lowest was 26 hours with the average at 50 to 80 hrs.

The hourly rate for these guys was crippling. Having said that the maintenance bill was more hundreds rather than thousands of dollars.
Preventative maintenance formed a large part of that.

It is the standing costs that are the killer on low utilisation machines, - bank fees, insurance and hangarage.

I have seen a privately owned $20,000 machine do exactly the same job as a $120,000 one. After two years one is still worth the same, the other has depreciated $20,000.

I agree for a fleet where the aircraft need to be reliable and fly 4 hours a day the new is the way to go. This is even more so where you are trying to attract paying customers.
You will see some aeroclubs in NZ doing a full refurbishment of their Tomahawks. The reason being the aircraft have already paid for themselves several times over (as well as staff wages etc) and they know the operating costs. A full refurb will not change much there but still attracts new students.

As for the defects on the Piper fleet NMC mentioned, - that will be over a fleet of machines and over a period. It really does sound like a bad run also... I have seen thousands of hours of fleet maintenance and have only done a small fraction of those tasks.
I have logbooks for six aircraft in front of me now... all have done between 6,000 to 11,000 hours. The only major work I can see on any of them is repairs after heavy landings.. yes, they were all training aircraft.


If you own an aircraft for 3 years then I would expect to see oil, filters perhaps a couple of spark plugs and maybe some exhaust repairs.
Indeed that would be the norm for a well maintained low utilisation machine.

The airframe may require a battery, landing lights, avionics checks and perhaps a tyre or two.
It all comes back to how the aircraft are kept and maintained...... some really do just keep on going and going.

One aircraft log in front of me shows a massive amount of maintenance over the past 3 years. It can soon be seen why though, it is the aircraft has gone to a new operator and the contract has a strange maintenance clause.

That is exactly the type of thing a skilled eye will detect on a pre-purchase.
Corrosion and similar defects don't just happen either.

It really is not difficult to source a good machine and at the same time bypass the lemons.

[osmosis]

My first question is WHERE it will be flown. 1500m+ tarmacs is very different to a rutted 400m dogleg beside a creekbed.
How USABLE is your potential a/c?
Can it be cross-hired? Would you want it to be?

[Tonym3]

Poteroo:

I reckon that if you think you'd loove a 6 seater - buy a 4, and rent a 6 for the few times you'll need it.


This rings a lot of bells for me. The trouble is that I don't think it is that easy to rent a six seat plane in the Sydney region, particularly if you only have 250hours. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

One of the options I am considering is buying a 182 for the short flights and joining a Bonanza syndicate for the longer ones. But it does feel a bit like dead money to be paying fixed costs for two aircraft (albeit one only a share).

Nas, this is definitely a want thing rather than a need thing. I understand that I am spending money on lifestyle. Renting has been ok thus far but I am pretty sure that ownership of a plane will bring the same sort of flexibility and joy that I have got from my house, motorbike and .... dare I say it... wife :}, even if they all have cost a bit of money and taken a bit of extra work.

The thing is that even though I know I am "wasting" money, I still want to make the better economically rational decision.

So it seems to me there is a clear split in views:

NMC and Weekend Warrior say newer is probably better. VH-XXX and Nazgul seem to be saying that ADs and other maintenance costs are going result in spending roughly the same on old or new. The logical extension of this is, buy older. Baron and others are saying commit less capital is smarter for a first time purchaser but make sure you get a quality pre-purchase inspection.

I wonder if there is anyone in the business of acting as a buyer's agent like they do for real estate now. All of the brokers I have spoken to seem like nice people but they clearly have the sellers' interest as their focus.

[Arnold E]

I wonder if there is anyone in the business of acting as a buyer's agentI dont know if such a thing exists, I haven't heard of one but that doesn't mean much.
The best buyers agent is probably yourself. Get around and talk to a few LAME's, most of them are smart and dont (unlike myself) own an aircraft so they have no particular biases.
Good luck in your quest.:)

Just one other thing to consider, do you really like aeroplanes and things aviation or, do you just like flying. If it is the latter then definitely keep renting. You must be honest with yourself here because you will find that owning a private aircraft will chew up much more time than that just spent flying.

By the way, A Bo is definitely NOT a 6 seater if you are talking adults and any more than an egg cup full of fuel.:ok:

[VH-XXX]

Is new always better?

The new Cessna 172 has 13 fuel drain points!

[Howard Hughes]

I have seen a privately owned $20,000 machine do exactly the same job as a $120,000 one. After two years one is still worth the same, the other has depreciated $20,000.
Not an accountant but with the right financial set up, surely the second has gone a long way to paying the running costs for a year.:ok:

[chimbu warrior]

Lots of good points already made here.

Ask about, and visit, the various maintenance hangars and listen very carefully to all the Chief Engineer is telling you. Don't put so much emphasis on what the pilot's say.

Not only listen to the engineer, but do as he suggests. It won't be cheap, but will be cheaper in the long run.

Have you considered a 'vintage' aeroplane - at least the depreciation won't hit you hard.

Consider this : a ground-up restoration of a rag and tube aircraft effectively combines the best of both worlds (provided it is done properly), as you will have everything new or overhauled.

Wife's loving it for now but who knows in 5 years.

The cost of aircraft maintenance pales in comparison to the maintenance costs of wives.

I don't see an issue with an older machine compared to a newer version.

I'm afraid I have to differ here. Just have a read of the SDR's in the latest Flight Safety Australia (well, somebody has to read it....). Older GA aircraft feature heavily in the reports of items found that had the potential for catastrophic failure. Whilst new aircraft have some quality issues, they usually don't suffer fatigue/neglect issues that are showing up more and more in GA maintenance.

One has to presume that you have resigned yourself to the following -

whether old or new, it will cost a lot
ownership is a choice that is hard to justify financially, but gives you the greatest flexibility
despite all the forgoing, you alone need to make the choice


Good luck, whatever you decide.

[Arnold E]

The cost of aircraft maintenance pales in comparison to the maintenance costs of wives.

Ha Ha Ha, love your work.:E

[Tonym3]

Older GA aircraft feature heavily in the reports of items found that had the potential for catastrophic failure. Whilst new aircraft have some quality issues, they usually don't suffer fatigue/neglect issues that are showing up more and more in GA maintenance.



Chimbu goes with NMC and WW. It is sort of this issue that caused me to start the thread. I also know at least one person whose older Baron was effectively consigned to the scrapheap with structural issues. Whilst these things might occur in newer planes, I guess the likelihood is lower.

I suppose the correct way to think about Chimbu's comment is that whilst the maintenance costs might be the same for both old and new, the risk of a major blow out in costs or, worse, a forced or catastrophic termination of the plane's flying days is higher with an older plane.

I don't know but it seems to me that, at some point, many of these pre-80's SE aircraft are going to stop flying, either because they are broken or because the owners have upgraded and can't sell the old ones anymore.

My first question is WHERE it will be flown. 1500m+ tarmacs is very different to a rutted 400m dogleg beside a creekbed.
How USABLE is your potential a/c?
Can it be cross-hired? Would you want it to be?


Suffice to say that I have considered this issue and am comfortable that my shortlist is OK for all strips I would expect to land on. Not thinking cross-hire at this stage.

Again, let me thank all contributors. Although the vote is split, looking like 50/50 at the moment, the thoughts have all been very valuable.
:ok:

[Arnold E]

I would just like to add to this by saying that there is one aircraft that is not on your short list that is well worth considering. It has good load carrying (better than anything else on your list) will carry 6 bums and a decent amount of fuel and that aircraft is the C210. There are, tragically, no new models of this aircraft. ( A huge oversight by Cessna in my opinion)
There, I've let my bias show, a C210 will be my next aircraft, if there is a next one.:ok:

[baron_beeza]

These threads will never give a definitive answer. I knew this would be a good one and we have done well to keep it subjective and yet still friendly.

You have asked for, and received some good advice.
The funny thing about aircraft purchases is that they are much more personal than we care to admit.

I see many aircraft bought and sold. Some, indeed most, sell themselves.
Having said that they could be in any kind of condition and yet still sell.

I have had two potential customers rock up at the hangar doors expecting maintenance on their new purchases. Both were turned away and were disbelieving when told that they had bought lemons that we were not prepared to touch.

I was talking to an aircraft broker and he was saying he does not need to sell... the buyer has already talked himself into it in the majority of cases. All the broker has to do is facilitate the deal.

I have been impressed with the quality of answer, these guys here have put some thought into it for you.

It is like the guy that drives into a car-yard looking for a vehicle to drive around the city, just him and occasionally the supermarket shopping.
He never goes on the open road and does not carry a load.

The Japanese office worker in Tokyo will be driving away in a completely different vehicle to the shoe salesman in Dallas/Fort Worth.

As for new versus old, no-one here can answer that one for you also. It would appear we were all in agreement about talking to the Chief Engineers though.

There is some good experience on this particular forum. Some about have correspondents that will write despite never having owned, worked on, or even flown an aircraft. It happens.

It is a huge investment. Don't rush into it but take your time and think about every possibility.
I am sure you will not be disappointed no matter what.

Somehow I suspect Arnold could have been backing the winner on this particular course. ;)

[aldee]

Been watching this thread with interest, wondering when the C210 was going to be thrown into the mix
Brilliant machine but like the horny mistress can rape your pocket :ooh:

The engineers at an oz club I was a member of maintained one for a car dealer who in later life flew it rather infrequently, was a well above average low time example
I recall an annual that required some retract work costing him 10k, he flew 7 hours that year prior :{

In the past had a share of a 2000 Archer 3 with around 2100hours on it
IFR, garmin etc., it cost more each annual than the C182 with 3 times the hours

Currently have a half share of an M5-235 Maule, we charge ourselves 150/hr flying + 325 each per month for fixed costs, shared hanger, both mechanically inclined so we assist with maintenance
Our bank account doesn't earn interest

BUT
absolutely no regrets, we are a long time dead, do it while you can

good luck and I'm sure you'll enjoy what ever you settle on

[Clearedtoreenter]

New beats old every time. Not that there will necessarily be any difference in maintenance cost. The last 3 aircraft I've bought have all been US imports, low time Cessna restart models and frankly they are just in a different league to the usual high time 30 year old Aussie hacks, with dodgey old avionics and autopilots, crappy seats, broken plastics, crazed windscreens that go opaque when the sun comes out, dubious paint jobs, no corrosion protection and a list of owners and LAME's as long as as your arm. Dont be fooled by the claims of 'as good as a new one' either, just because someone has a had a shiney paint job done, tidied up the interior, fitted an Aspen panel and a Garmin 430 and had the auotpilot looked at. They are still mostly old shat boxes underneath.

Whatever, you buy you end up buying the previous owners' and their LAMEs' maintenance strategy... Which might be ok or might not. However with a younger, lower time plane, your chances of variation in maintenance strategy, and vague or unknown historical events are considerably reduced. The history being much shorter, is much easier to verify and the aircraft much more likely to be 'original'.

Just be careful. There's a lot of old crap out there that isn't worth a light and should have been pensioned off years ago. Those planes have the LAMEs rubbing their hands together every time they see them taxiing anywhere near. Some of those crap boxes don't get any better no matter how much you spend on them.

[gassed budgie]

I would just like to add to this by saying that there is one aircraft that is not on your short list that is well worth considering. It has good load carrying (better than anything else on your list) will carry 6 bums and a decent amount of fuel and that aircraft is the C210. There are, tragically, no new models of this aircraft. ( A huge oversight by Cessna in my opinion).



Yep, Cessna really dropped the ball here big time. They wanted to give us the NGP, a clean sheet design which in itself wasn't a bad idea considering that the 210 has been around in one form or another since 1958.
Everyone of course said at the time, 'If it doesn't do what the 210 can do, don't bother'. Well it didn't and Cessna haven't. It was very quietly tucked into the corner down the back of the hangar never again to see the light of day.
In the meantime, Cessna foolishly destroyed the 210 tooling, using this (amongst other reasons) as an excuse as to why new production wasn't going to happen.
Cessna flew a 210 in the mid 80's with a composite wing, giving it an increase of around 15kts to it's cruise IAS. They also relofted a fuselage and put a 12" plug in it, giving more legroom inside the cabin way down the back. This mod never flew. As the 210 is perhaps one of the best things that Cessna ever did, it would have been more than interesting to see where the airframe was taken if it had made it back into producion.
As far as hauling a load is concerned, nothing comes close. As much as I like the A36 (perhaps the classic GA machine), it just won't match the 210 when it comes to loading on people, fuel, bags and knick-knacks.

Been watching this thread with interest, wondering when the C210 was going to be thrown into the mix
Brilliant machine but like the horny mistress can rape your pocket.

Wouldn't know about the horny mistress, but it always suprises me that the 100hrly for the Cirrus is usually about double what the 100hrly for the 210 is. Different airframes and maintenance organisations I suppose. Now the Cirrus, alledgedly has a simpler airframe but an average 100 hrly comes in at around $6,000 as opposed to around $3,000 for the Cessna. Mind you, the last inspections were just on $5k above what normally is expected. A starter adpater and auto pilot issue for the Cirrus and valve guides in a couple of cylinder's for the 210. You get these little suprises every now and then.
I'm with Arnold, if you can find a nice, original, low time 210, grab it and chain it to the gate post. They're getting very, very hard to get these days.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Well, Mr 'Tony',

If you are interested in that (GOOD) advice, then I would suggest that your search may very well start here.......


CESSNA 210, Used CESSNA 210, CESSNA 210 For Sale At Controller.com - Page 1 (http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?ETID=1&setype=1&Manu=CESSNA&mdlgrp=210&catID=6)

Good Luck...... and Caveat Emptor.....and.....Talk to your favourite engineer first..;)

Cheers:ok:

[baron_beeza]

Cat amongst the pigeons

Immaculate Cessna 210G | Trade Me (http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/aircraft/aircraft/auction-340093768.htm)

We haven't even discussed on-condition engines yet...

[gassed budgie]

We haven't even discussed on-condition engines yet...


....spill your guts Beeza.

[1a sound asleep]

Have owned a few s/e planes privately. This is a multi faceted issue.

1. How much do you want to invest?
2. What is the minimum range you need with a full load?
3. What do you need to carry as a "FULL"load. ie 3pax 60kk luggage?
4. IFR or VFR?
5. Will the a/c be hangared? If not what sort of weather will it be exposed to when parked?
6. Will you be operating out bush or just into sealed airports?

As much as I love the 210 if you only need 4 pax the extra cost of that fold away gear and strutless wing on a 30 year old plane is a potential worry. My true love is likely a 182 - best compromise of all. Even an early 182P in good condition will likely give you half the dramas of a tired 210. Old planes and complex systems are where the dramas start

[nomorecatering]

I always use the car analogy.

A 1964 EH holden, no matter how wel restored is just that. Compar it to a new Commodore.

Same goes for an aircraft. My first 3000hrs were in clapped out dungers. Now going to a new C172,, Garmin 1000, Autopilot, nice cabin, great seats. Simply a nice place to be. if only I could have my own.

[VH-XXX]

In reality, a new 172 is like buying an EH Holden with leather seats and an LCD screen retro-fitted. Everything else is the same and it's gone up 5000% in price!

[Avgas172]

Had my own C172H model ('67) for nearly 11 years now and to be truthful hasn't cost me anywhere near what the interest alone would have cost over that time, added to that the $au would have cost me a heap more in loss compared to now .... having said that with the $ where it is today I would love to be able to afford a late model 182 & who knows the ellusive lotto win must be due soon.....

[Flying Binghi]

.

Hmmm... Tonym3, if yer new to the aircraft game just go and buy the aircraft yer like. You got an expensive lesson ahead of yer whatever you buy so just do it..:)





.

[gassed budgie]

As much as I love the 210 if you only need 4 pax the extra cost of that fold away gear and strutless wing on a 30 year old plane is a potential worry.


So what's the problem with the strutless wing?

[Flying Binghi]

So what's the problem with the strutless wing?

No grab handles to help with pushing into the hanger..:)




.

[Tonym3]

The 210 seems to have legendary status amongst a lot of pilots.

I didn't put it on my list because it looks like a lot of aeroplane for what will mostly be 4 up flying. The 5th and 6th seats for me were just for the occasional short hop trips with a couple of extras.

I confess also to being influenced by wife's preference for the ride in the low wing planes. Not sure why but there it is...

[Arnold E]

Hmmm, 4 seat low wing, how about Rockwell commander 114 (RC114).
This is my second favourite production aeroplane. Did all of my cpl training and flight test in a 114 in the 80's. Great aircraft to fly and has huge cockpit and double glazing.
Actually I was reminded of this aircraft only yesterday when my son , who is a LAME at APAD, called me and said the 114 that I had done all my training in was at the GA park at Adelaide. I went down and had a look and it had been fully refurbished and looked a million bucks. Wish I could go for a burn in it, had a lot of great trips in that aircraft.:ok:

But there's the pilot side of me talking, maintenance would be a nightmare.:E

[rioncentu]

Tony

I'm fortunate to have one example chained to the gate post.

(Waiting with interest to hear exactly what the new SiDS programme has in store for us which may sway your views)

Ask your wife to go climbing in and out of the low wing plane fetching gear out of the front and middle rows and the 210 will all of a sudden look sensational.

There are still a few low time originals around. Put it on your short list for sure.

I've been fortunate do to a complete avionics upgrade so the thing owes me more than a cirrus 4 or 5 years old but its now just as advanced in the techno dept and I know what I'd rather fly and what will still be going in anther 20 odd years.

Cheers

[gassed budgie]

I confess also to being influenced by wife's preference for the ride in the low wing planes. Not sure why but there it is...


Was out and about in the Cirrus yesterday and the first thing Mrs.GB complained about was sitting in the sun. I did point out to her that that's one thing she's never had to complain about whilst riding pillion in the 210, she always gets to sit in the shade. So there you go.
Tonym3 if you only need the four seats and Mrs.T likes the aeroplanes with the wing bolted in the wrong spot, I'd probably plump for the Cirrus.
I normally fly a first generation Cirrus (2003), but I had the oppotunity to fly a new one around 6 months ago and the difference was quite marked.
With the Garmin 1000 package and the digital autopilot that goes with it, along with all the other countless small improvements that have been made along the way, it felt like a different aeroplane. I was impressed.
The 210 panel is the same as the day it left the factory (the only addition a small panel mount GPS, but everything else works), so in that respect it doesn't come close to matching the Cirrus.
Looks like I'll have to start saving for the Garmin 750/Garmin 650 and throw in an Aspen Pro pilot to replace the DG/AH.
Still got the 400B at the bottom of the stack rioncentu?

[rioncentu]

I was "in between" planes and hired a cirrus for a while to do a trip. I was keen on one but the trip made up my mind. I was a high wing man.

Nah we chucked everything out. Stec 55x at the bottom of the panel now.

I was just prior to the 650/750 evolution so I've already got an "old" panel!!

But the 55x and G500 and digital engine gauges make mine a 210NG (next Gen):O

[Arnold E]

Nah we chucked everything out. Stec 55x at the bottom of the panel now.

Nothing wrong with a 400B, its a very capable autopilot and is easily repairable.:ok:

[Tonym3]

Yeah, not so sure about the Cirrus. Nice looking aircraft and all, speed great, avionics seem brilliant.

But I understand that the wheels are small and the skirts create trouble with muddy or gravelly strips. They just don't look quite as solid to me. I am also not convinced they'll hold their value as well as a Bo, or a 182. There are some extra costs that are practical certainties that aren't necessarily so on other planes (parachute refurb).

But, as is indicated by all my posts on this thread ... what would I really know. :confused:

[rioncentu]

No one close to be able to repair the 400b and couldn't have the down time with it being sent away etc.

One thing with the Cirri and anything else with a castoring nose wheel is they are VERY hard to get moving in soft surface or in a rut etc. as there's nothing to keep the plane straight and if one main gets free, you'll do a 180 real quick.

Ask me how I know :mad:

[MyNameIsIs]

One thing with the Cirri and anything else with a castoring nose wheel is they are VERY hard to get moving in soft surface or in a rut etc. as there's nothing to keep the plane straight and if one main gets free, you'll do a 180 real quick.

Ask me how I know http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

Asymmetric power....
oh whoops, can't do that with a single! ha I sound like Wally! :}
I prefer the multis :ok:



When you figure out your price range and narrow down realistic options to suit your needs, and then figure out approximate insurance, running, maintenance and overhaul costs etc, increase your spending budget by at LEAST 25%. If you cannot afford that, you've gotta look for something cheaper, or wait till you can afford it.

Just like buying a "toy" (as opposed to 'working') car/boat/bike etc, there's more to it than just the initial purchase price. Insurance, rego, storage, the required and then the preventative maintenance- and the unexpected.

Start small with that covers your needs. If it falls a bit short of expectations/requirements then that's not going to hurt as much as biting off more than you can chew and possibly getting into a massive financial hole or even pranging it.

Generally speaking, we all spend more than we initially set out to when buying such "want" items!

[havick]

What about a Cessna 337? Another thread sparked my curiosity in this airframe type.

[kingtoad]

Look carefully at the load carrying capability of a 337 before you do anything too rash. then a comparison to the 210 (esp cost per seat mile :E).

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

There's a selection of 182 / 182RG's here.....add cost of importing etc. for those o/seas....

Just for info...no attachment to company.....:\

Cessna 182 aircraft for sale - PlaneSales (Australia) (http://www.planesales.com.au/product_details.php?listing_id=2881)
This is already here in OZ.

1984 CESSNA TURBO R182RG SKYLANE Piston Single Aircraft For Sale At Controller.com (http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CESSNA-TURBO-R182RG-SKYLANE/1984-CESSNA-TURBO-R182RG-SKYLANE/1210195.htm?dlr=1&pcid=2208)

Esay to load...and you get to fly 'in de shade'....:cool:

Cheers and good hunting.....:ok:

[kingtoad]

Again be careful of the load carrying ability of the T182RG. The last one I had anything to do with went something like this ...

Full Fuel + pilot + small esky for lunch = MTOW

Std 182 is much better.

[Tonym3]

(http://www.planesales.com.au/product_details.php?listing_id=2881)Cessna 182 aircraft for sale - PlaneSales (Australia) (http://www.planesales.com.au/product_details.php?listing_id=2881)
This is already here in OZ.
(http://www.planesales.com.au/product_details.php?listing_id=2881)
So this 1968 one $100K with new engine

1984 CESSNA TURBO R182RG SKYLANE Piston Single Aircraft For Sale At Controller.com (http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CESSNA-TURBO-R182RG-SKYLANE/1984-CESSNA-TURBO-R182RG-SKYLANE/1210195.htm?dlr=1&pcid=2208)


Call this 1984 one $150K after import, GST, etc. with new engine

At the risk of covering ground already covered in the thread, it is good to make concrete comparisons say to:

Avation Trader - Your total aviation marketplace (http://www.aviationtrader.com.au/BrowseAndSearch/Text.aspx?35340503D7300004FF84930000000300)

A 1998 one for (negotiable) $240K with 700 hours or so to run.

Or Aircraft for Sale, Plane Sales, Planes for Sale - Aviation Advertiser (http://aviationadvertiser.com.au/classifieds/detail.php?id=1896)
A 2003 one with maybe the same times to run for $275K.

Difference in price will be $100-$150K. Call the opportunity cost of capital at a generous 10% per annum = $10-$15K (my investing skills haven't got that result lately but let's imagine things pick up).

The $10-$15K pays a lot of unexpected maintenance but in the meantime the flying is done in something a bit newer and, perhaps, a bit nicer.

In 5 years time, 1968 airframe is almost 50 years old but engine doesn't need overhaul. The 1984 airframe less aged. Arguably however both become less sellable given the likelihood more and more similar older aircraft will come onto the market.

In 5 years time, the 2003 airframe is only 15 years old but either I need to overhaul engine or the price will be reduced by the costs of such an overhaul. So maybe add $30K to the newer ones to do that.

Hence, cost to own newer aircraft (be generous and take the lower differential in cost of capital) = 5 x $10K = $50K plus overhaul $30K = $80K less any difference in maintenance solely caused by aging components (say $20K) = $60K is the price of owning the newer plane.

The older ones will (or should) fall in value given usage and engines being closer to overhaul so maybe take another $5K off the differential.

Perhaps the newer ones aren't more sellable than the older ones in 5 years time but my guess is that they would be. Will the resale price differential between old and new be the roughly $55K. No-one can really guess what the market for old planes will be like in 5 years ime but probably not I suppose.

Ergo - buy good quality older plane.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I have nothing to gain from whichever your decision, however, its worth pointing out that an 'older' straight 182 will carry 4 bums and your luggage at around the same figures as a 'new' one......give or take for inc gross over the years if any.

And depending on the maint etc, it should cost you less to buy, so less to lose later...see your favourite engineer.

And if you have the capability to create a company to run the aeroplane, you might even be able to reclaim the GST??

Just a thought.

Rotsa Ruck..:ok:

[baron_beeza]

I look at those websites and see

http://aviationadvertiser.com.au/classifieds/images/1918_2011090345.jpg
Aircraft for Sale, Plane Sales, Planes for Sale - Aviation Advertiser (http://aviationadvertiser.com.au/classifieds/detail.php?id=1918)

Piper PA-28-236 Dakota - Performance Data

Horsepower: 235 Gross Weight: 3000 lbs
Top Speed: 148 kts Empty Weight: 1608 lbs
Cruise Speed: 143 kts Fuel Capacity: 72 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 56 kts Range: 650 nm

Piper PA-28-236 Dakota Performance Information (http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane417.shtml)

Aircraft for Sale, Plane Sales, Planes for Sale - Aviation Advertiser (http://aviationadvertiser.com.au/classifieds/detail.php?id=1544)

Avation Trader - Your total aviation marketplace (http://www.aviationtrader.com.au/BrowseAndSearch/Text.aspx?35340503D7300004FF6C480000000200)

Avation Trader - Your total aviation marketplace (http://www.aviationtrader.com.au/BrowseAndSearch/Images.aspx?36350503D7300004FF6C7F0000000200)

Avation Trader - Your total aviation marketplace (http://www.aviationtrader.com.au/BrowseAndSearch/Text.aspx?35340503D7300004FF85550000000200)

Avation Trader - Your total aviation marketplace (http://www.aviationtrader.com.au/BrowseAndSearch/Text.aspx?35340503D7300004FF84980000000300)
The Archer, not necessarily the Tomahawk.

Then again I am sure my bias is obvious.