Newer vs Older
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 $$!). The other 9 aircraft I've owned over the past 33 years have not done as well. Win some - lose some!
All the other advice you've read so far is good stuff - wish I'd had some of it way back when.......good luck,
happy days,
I reckon that if you think you'd loove a 6 seater - buy a 4, and rent a 6 for the few times you'll need it.
If you think carefully about the 4 seater, maybe you really need 2 - so go rent a 4 when you need it.
You can apply the same arguement for speed and distance. Everyone needs to get there at 160 kts? No way - learn to plan and fly smart and you'll do just as well at 125 kts. If you are really only doing 200-300 mile trips - you won't be smart doing that in a fast r/g which cost you double a f/g.
My C182P was the best investment ever - it actually doubled in value over 10 years, and I flew 2200 hrs in that time. (conveniently forgetting inflation and the <value of the $$!). 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,
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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 hangar and fly it at least oce per week.
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 hangar and fly it at least oce per week.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...........
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...........
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 65
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
How USABLE is your potential a/c?
Can it be cross-hired? Would you want it to be?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poteroo:
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.
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.
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.
I wonder if there is anyone in the business of acting as a buyer's agent
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.
Last edited by Arnold E; 10th Jan 2012 at 01:26.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
Lots of good points already made here.
Not only listen to the engineer, but do as he suggests. It won't be cheap, but will be cheaper in the long run.
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.
The cost of aircraft maintenance pales in comparison to the maintenance costs of wives.
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 -
Good luck, whatever you decide.
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.
Have you considered a 'vintage' aeroplane - at least the depreciation won't hit you hard.
Wife's loving it for now but who knows in 5 years.
I don't see an issue with an older machine compared to a newer version.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
How USABLE is your potential a/c?
Can it be cross-hired? Would you want it to be?
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.
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.
There, I've let my bias show, a C210 will be my next aircraft, if there is a next one.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by baron_beeza; 11th Jan 2012 at 00:49.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 43 S
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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 hangar, 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
Brilliant machine but like the horny mistress can rape your pocket
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 hangar, 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
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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).
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.
Brilliant machine but like the horny mistress can rape your pocket.
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.