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 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.

[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

[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 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.

[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'......

[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.

[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.