Cessna 150's getting cheaper?
The Original Foot
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna 150's getting cheaper?
As an avid wannabe aircraft buyer, I keep a regular eye on what's about (Top Gear's equivalent to sitting on the loo reading Autotrader...) I have noticed recently a few examples of C150's well under £10k. They seem to have moved from their previous pretty stuck position of £15k. Just wondered what peoples thoughts were on the state of the market.
Also, has anybody got any experience of borrowing against an aircraft, where to go and what sort of deals are about?
Also, has anybody got any experience of borrowing against an aircraft, where to go and what sort of deals are about?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also feel that alot of the traditional training aircarf pa-28, pa-38, C150 etc don't seem to be selling that fast either. Maybe it the time of year, maybe there are less buyers?
Perhaps the market is recognising that aircraft such as the PA28-140 or C150 are old, often in poor condition, expensive to run - without the compensating enjoyment or charm of something like a Pacer or Cub, or the much better performance and lower running costs of something more modern such as a Europa.
G
G
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SW
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FTO's have flirted with much more modern and efficient types and the 150 now does little for those with penis problems but it is still hard to knock as a cheap basic trainer particularly in the USA with much cheaper fuel and parts.
Inevitably, prices are falling in a recession but, also, because any 150 is now older than most students ! However, very much like tractors, a cheap and old but well-maintained machine is perfectly adequate for most purposes and especially training- but you must be prepared to spend the money to keep it that way.
Inevitably, prices are falling in a recession but, also, because any 150 is now older than most students ! However, very much like tractors, a cheap and old but well-maintained machine is perfectly adequate for most purposes and especially training- but you must be prepared to spend the money to keep it that way.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hampshire
Age: 50
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had noticed this too. It seems that the 'good old boys' i.e PA-28's, C150/2 etc are going for silly money even with good amounts of kit.
I had toyed with the idea of buying a C152 but TBH, with all things considered I have decided to build a Vans RV7. As much as I dearly love the Cessna's theres just no comparison in terms of performance, technology etc.
Obviously theres the issue of CofA Vs Permit but I can live with the restrictions.
Now, only if those twins would drop drastically in price
................
Spamcan
I had toyed with the idea of buying a C152 but TBH, with all things considered I have decided to build a Vans RV7. As much as I dearly love the Cessna's theres just no comparison in terms of performance, technology etc.
Obviously theres the issue of CofA Vs Permit but I can live with the restrictions.
Now, only if those twins would drop drastically in price
................Spamcan
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too expensive to fuel.
Too expensive to maintain.
Too expensive to keep on C of A.
Therefore with the current climate the prices are bound to fall.
LAA & BMAA plastic fantastics from around 20K up offering better performance at a fraction of the cost is where it seems to be happening.
Unless you want IFR and the trappings it is where the sport will go.
Too expensive to maintain.
Too expensive to keep on C of A.
Therefore with the current climate the prices are bound to fall.
LAA & BMAA plastic fantastics from around 20K up offering better performance at a fraction of the cost is where it seems to be happening.
Unless you want IFR and the trappings it is where the sport will go.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, has anybody got any experience of borrowing against an aircraft, where to go and what sort of deals are about?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had noticed this too. It seems that the 'good old boys' i.e PA-28's, C150/2 etc are going for silly money even with good amounts of kit.
I had toyed with the idea of buying a C152 but TBH, with all things considered I have decided to build a Vans RV7. As much as I dearly love the Cessna's theres just no comparison in terms of performance, technology etc.
Obviously theres the issue of CofA Vs Permit but I can live with the restrictions.
Now, only if those twins would drop drastically in price ................
Spamcan
I had toyed with the idea of buying a C152 but TBH, with all things considered I have decided to build a Vans RV7. As much as I dearly love the Cessna's theres just no comparison in terms of performance, technology etc.
Obviously theres the issue of CofA Vs Permit but I can live with the restrictions.
Now, only if those twins would drop drastically in price ................
Spamcan
Have to admit one big reason for changing from CofA to permit was EASA.
If you are starting a RV check out www.rvforum.co.uk and my site Building & Flying the Vans RV7 (click build diary) maybe handy for your RV7 build. Stick with it you will get a great a/c.
Tim
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is, I still love my old straight tail C150... even when it wouldn't start 
(got the new battery from Lasham, thanks for the advice Tim)
Oh, and it's parked next to Tim's RV
BEX
(got the new battery from Lasham, thanks for the advice Tim)
Oh, and it's parked next to Tim's RV
BEX
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless you are pretty smart and have certain engineering capabilities, the ownership cost of something as old as a C150 is likely to be eye watering - simply due to the cost of the constant stream of airframe parts which need replacing.
The Original Foot
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Appreciate I wouldn't borrow to buy a £10k aircraft, but how does aircraft finance work, if it indeed it does work these days. (I am guessing from the comments here, a £10k C150 isn't the place to go...)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot claim to have type specific knowledge (I own a TB20) but the problem isn't borrowing 10k for a C150, as a personal loan which will always be ultimately recoverable from the borrower personally (even if the small print doesn't say so).
The problem is that it might cost you 8k on the first Annual, and you might get a bit p*ssed off by then, but you still have to pay back that 10k, and unless you spend the 8k on the repairs the plane is worthless
These old wrecks have a value which is basically the time left on the engine - same as old piston twins really.
A certified engineer can pick up an old dog, repair it and get it flying by the application of a lot of his own time, signing off the work as he goes. Then he can end up with a nice cheap plane. There is nothing actually wrong with a C150 - it flies very nicely. Slowly
But for a non-engineering non-hands-on relative novice owner (apologies if I got this description wrong) looking for a cheap runaround which will last him a few years and then be dumped, forget it. You can do that with cars (well you could in the days when you could buy a dodgy MOT for £25) but not with planes. Well you can do it in Botswana but not in the UK
The problem is that it might cost you 8k on the first Annual, and you might get a bit p*ssed off by then, but you still have to pay back that 10k, and unless you spend the 8k on the repairs the plane is worthless
These old wrecks have a value which is basically the time left on the engine - same as old piston twins really.
A certified engineer can pick up an old dog, repair it and get it flying by the application of a lot of his own time, signing off the work as he goes. Then he can end up with a nice cheap plane. There is nothing actually wrong with a C150 - it flies very nicely. Slowly
But for a non-engineering non-hands-on relative novice owner (apologies if I got this description wrong) looking for a cheap runaround which will last him a few years and then be dumped, forget it. You can do that with cars (well you could in the days when you could buy a dodgy MOT for £25) but not with planes. Well you can do it in Botswana but not in the UK
Moderator
I find the ownership and operating cost of my 150 to be very reasonable. I do a lot of the maintenance work, and keep up with all of the maintenance items, so they don't deteriorate. My generous annual maintenance cost to just keep airworthy (not including upgrades) would be less than $1500 per year. I have owned this particular 150 for nearly 22 years, with 2400 hours flying in that time. I have never had an unexpected expendature of more than $500. In all that time, my dispatch reliability has been 100%.
The Cessna 150 is what it is, and then some. It is very well understood by the industry at large, which always helps to keep costs down. Insuring it (full coverage - same deductable) costs less than insuring my 2003 VW Jetta. When I work out my actual operating costs for business expense purposes, and factor in the value of my time, the cost to operate either the diesel car or the plane as personal transportation comes out about the same.
My plane has taken on many varied roles, which have included both public service (searches) and experimental development. The flight testing which I did today is shown as follows. The 150 was very much more cost effective for this testing in 1/3 model size, than the turbine DC-3, which will have the final version of the full scale equipment installed. I agree that this is a not common use for 150 though!
An for those who hold the opinion that the flaps of the 150 create a challenge to a safe overshoot when fully extended, I will offer the video which can be seen here:
C150 40 Flap Takeoff video by PilotDAR - Photobucket
Oh, by the way, it was cold with the door off again today, at -21C!
We'll fly this again next week...
The Cessna 150 is what it is, and then some. It is very well understood by the industry at large, which always helps to keep costs down. Insuring it (full coverage - same deductable) costs less than insuring my 2003 VW Jetta. When I work out my actual operating costs for business expense purposes, and factor in the value of my time, the cost to operate either the diesel car or the plane as personal transportation comes out about the same.
My plane has taken on many varied roles, which have included both public service (searches) and experimental development. The flight testing which I did today is shown as follows. The 150 was very much more cost effective for this testing in 1/3 model size, than the turbine DC-3, which will have the final version of the full scale equipment installed. I agree that this is a not common use for 150 though!
An for those who hold the opinion that the flaps of the 150 create a challenge to a safe overshoot when fully extended, I will offer the video which can be seen here:
C150 40 Flap Takeoff video by PilotDAR - Photobucket
Oh, by the way, it was cold with the door off again today, at -21C!
We'll fly this again next week...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cessna 150 is the perfect first aircraft and yes, the prices are coming down.
However, it tends to be the more tired ones that are going for sub £10k at the moment and when they are tired, they cost money. The £8k Annuals DO happen and are not just myths.
You won't get aircraft finance for a £10k machine. You need to be looking at £50k+ to be offered a deal by the Lombards of this world. Also, I personally wouldn't take out a personal loan for a luxury item in these times, especially for an item that might take some time to sell if you need to when the £8k annaul appears.
That said, I bought one when I was 20 and flew her for 300 hours back in 1993 to 1996. I learnd a lot in her and quite miss her actually.
The Canadian one above is a beauty but in that condition, you'd be looking at circa £17k even in this market.
Good luck
However, it tends to be the more tired ones that are going for sub £10k at the moment and when they are tired, they cost money. The £8k Annuals DO happen and are not just myths.
You won't get aircraft finance for a £10k machine. You need to be looking at £50k+ to be offered a deal by the Lombards of this world. Also, I personally wouldn't take out a personal loan for a luxury item in these times, especially for an item that might take some time to sell if you need to when the £8k annaul appears.
That said, I bought one when I was 20 and flew her for 300 hours back in 1993 to 1996. I learnd a lot in her and quite miss her actually.
The Canadian one above is a beauty but in that condition, you'd be looking at circa £17k even in this market.
Good luck
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and the owner can do his own maintenance
That kind of technical + paperwork capability transforms aircraft ownership from top to bottom.
I could spend hours typing up examples...
That kind of technical + paperwork capability transforms aircraft ownership from top to bottom.
I could spend hours typing up examples...
Moderator
There is very little relationship between the people who can properly maintain an aircraft, and the people who can maintain one. I know many people who can do both well, and many others who can only manage one responsibility (and just a few who cannot manage either adequately).
The premise that the owner of an amateur built aircraft could maintain it, and therefore was approved to do so, was based on the idea that that person had built it. Good chance that if someone built an aircraft, and successfully flew it, they can safely maintain it. But, Once that aircraft is sold, the purchaser likely does not have the experience of building that aircraft as the basis for having the skill to maintain it. That does not mean that they can't do a good job, but there's no assurance either, unless they are an experienced maintenance person.
I've frequently heard the attraction of a non-certified aircraft as being the opportunity avoid paying for professional maintenance. This must be the worst safety minded attitude ever. You're already starting with an aircraft which might have been maintained just outside the "norm" of aircraft maintenance (or could be well outside the norm, if the seller was not the builder either). Now the new buyer has to not only meet a safe standard of maintenance, but probably bring the whole aircraft up to that standard as well.
There are many excellently designed and maintained amateur built aircraft out there, and they are a true delight. Indeed, there are very few which are of inadequate design for what they are...
But, economy of purchase and operation is a really poor reason for going the amateur built route. It simply costs money to be safely off earth. If you want to be up there safely, prepare to pay the cost. If you're spending less, you're either flying on borrowed time, or flying an aircraft which is deteriorating as you use it - which I guess is also flying on borrowed time!
Like many certified aircraft, the C150 is very well known and understood. They have their weak points, though not as many as some other types, even some more recent Cessnas. The condition of these aircraft can be very accurately determined, thus the costs to maintain. Non-standard types can be more difficult to cost, and can be equally surprising come maintenance time, no matter who's doing it!
Like everything; in aviation, you get what you pay for!
The premise that the owner of an amateur built aircraft could maintain it, and therefore was approved to do so, was based on the idea that that person had built it. Good chance that if someone built an aircraft, and successfully flew it, they can safely maintain it. But, Once that aircraft is sold, the purchaser likely does not have the experience of building that aircraft as the basis for having the skill to maintain it. That does not mean that they can't do a good job, but there's no assurance either, unless they are an experienced maintenance person.
I've frequently heard the attraction of a non-certified aircraft as being the opportunity avoid paying for professional maintenance. This must be the worst safety minded attitude ever. You're already starting with an aircraft which might have been maintained just outside the "norm" of aircraft maintenance (or could be well outside the norm, if the seller was not the builder either). Now the new buyer has to not only meet a safe standard of maintenance, but probably bring the whole aircraft up to that standard as well.
There are many excellently designed and maintained amateur built aircraft out there, and they are a true delight. Indeed, there are very few which are of inadequate design for what they are...
But, economy of purchase and operation is a really poor reason for going the amateur built route. It simply costs money to be safely off earth. If you want to be up there safely, prepare to pay the cost. If you're spending less, you're either flying on borrowed time, or flying an aircraft which is deteriorating as you use it - which I guess is also flying on borrowed time!
Like many certified aircraft, the C150 is very well known and understood. They have their weak points, though not as many as some other types, even some more recent Cessnas. The condition of these aircraft can be very accurately determined, thus the costs to maintain. Non-standard types can be more difficult to cost, and can be equally surprising come maintenance time, no matter who's doing it!
Like everything; in aviation, you get what you pay for!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR
That may be true of the US system, but in the UK the LAA inspect everything and are responsible to the CAA for maintaining standards. In the UK it is possible to do your own maintenance on a permit aircraft, but the LAA inspector has to sign it off. The inspectors are mostly experienced enthusiasts who only charge expenses. My maintenance bill (including paperwork) dropped from £4000 a year to less than £400 by building my own!
Rod1
That may be true of the US system, but in the UK the LAA inspect everything and are responsible to the CAA for maintaining standards. In the UK it is possible to do your own maintenance on a permit aircraft, but the LAA inspector has to sign it off. The inspectors are mostly experienced enthusiasts who only charge expenses. My maintenance bill (including paperwork) dropped from £4000 a year to less than £400 by building my own!
Rod1
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the maintainance regime is different in Canada/USA to the UK.
A homebuilt over here still has to be maintained to a laid down standard. It is inspected by a LAA inspector who is usually a volunteer,and it is fair to say that where a less experienced owner is involved,he is expected to provide help and guidence in order to make sure the aircraft is airworthy.If it is not he will not sign it out and if he has any issues with the owner (lack of skills etc.) he is under no obligation to sign any work.
Hence ANY LAA administered aircraft is likely to be better maintained than an average CofA aircraft. As a LAA inspector myself,I would say that the average standard of a modern homebuild is far above that of the average aircraft available to rent.
This is because the owner of a homebuilt can lavish lots of time on his/her pride and joy.
By contrast a hire aircraft is maintained to a standard that is defined ( and NO MORE ) because of the fact that it is maintained in a commercial envirement and no one can afford to lavish the same degree of love and attention.
In theory there is no difference between the two,as the owner of the hire a/c can do all the maintainance under the supervision of the engineer involved ,but as it is a commercial envirement this doesn't happen very often in the real world and almost certainly wouldn't happen with a new owner who is unknown to the engineer involved.( who is under NO obligation to opperate in a teaching mode!).
A homebuilt over here still has to be maintained to a laid down standard. It is inspected by a LAA inspector who is usually a volunteer,and it is fair to say that where a less experienced owner is involved,he is expected to provide help and guidence in order to make sure the aircraft is airworthy.If it is not he will not sign it out and if he has any issues with the owner (lack of skills etc.) he is under no obligation to sign any work.
Hence ANY LAA administered aircraft is likely to be better maintained than an average CofA aircraft. As a LAA inspector myself,I would say that the average standard of a modern homebuild is far above that of the average aircraft available to rent.
This is because the owner of a homebuilt can lavish lots of time on his/her pride and joy.
By contrast a hire aircraft is maintained to a standard that is defined ( and NO MORE ) because of the fact that it is maintained in a commercial envirement and no one can afford to lavish the same degree of love and attention.
In theory there is no difference between the two,as the owner of the hire a/c can do all the maintainance under the supervision of the engineer involved ,but as it is a commercial envirement this doesn't happen very often in the real world and almost certainly wouldn't happen with a new owner who is unknown to the engineer involved.( who is under NO obligation to opperate in a teaching mode!).
Moderator
Rod,
Then the systems are different, and I think I like yours better. Canada has gone the wrong way with this lately.
If your maintenance costs have come down that much, you must be skilled at maintenance, and doing a good job, that's excellent. With that skill, however, I would wonder that you could not keep a simple certified aircraft maintained for a similarly small sum, with an inspector signing off that maintenance. That's what I do, and my money out of pocket for maintenance in any given year is really only a few hundred dollars, which is mostly parts and recertification of a few items of equipment - which you'd have to pay for with any type of aircraft.
As long as aircraft buyers are making informed decisions, and correctly budgeting their operating expenses...
Pilot DAR
Then the systems are different, and I think I like yours better. Canada has gone the wrong way with this lately.
If your maintenance costs have come down that much, you must be skilled at maintenance, and doing a good job, that's excellent. With that skill, however, I would wonder that you could not keep a simple certified aircraft maintained for a similarly small sum, with an inspector signing off that maintenance. That's what I do, and my money out of pocket for maintenance in any given year is really only a few hundred dollars, which is mostly parts and recertification of a few items of equipment - which you'd have to pay for with any type of aircraft.
As long as aircraft buyers are making informed decisions, and correctly budgeting their operating expenses...
Pilot DAR