Buying an older airplane

[Kai Glaesner]

Hello community,

imagine you consider byuing an older airplane, e.g. a Piper from the Pa-28
Arrow series: is there an age (or a year of birth ;-) you would not exceed?
If yes, for what reason (e.g. may be that corrosion-protection was not usual
before that year, or that copper was so expensive, they used something less
conductive as a replacement)?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Regards

Kai Glaesner

[Larryskydives]

I recently purchased a 69 Piper Arrow. This was after owning a 56 Cessna 172.
So I immediately went from a 48 y/o airplane to a 35 y/o airplane.

I have no problems with older aircraft, as long as a prebuy is done, all of the
logbooks are in order and make sense. And do your own search for damage. Be
leery if the N-number is changed from the original. I looked at one Piper
Arrow that was absolutely beautiful. The N-number had been changed and the
owner didn't know why. He and his partner bought this aircraft from a broker
in Ohio last year. After doing a search on NTSB website, FAA website, and
myairplane.com. I found that in the last three years the aircraft had three
incidents - 2 gear ups, and 1 off airport landing - all resulting in moderate
damage.

Be samrt - Be aware - and don't be in a hurry.

Good luck.

[Dude]

Personally, I would not want to own a plane over 30 years old. Not that
they are unsafe, just that I wouldn't want to have to sell it.

I think they get harder to sell when they get a certain age. Also, it seems
to go with decades. At this point, a sixties vintage bird just sounds OLD.
It conjures up thoughts of antiques rather than used planes.

If I you were to buy a plane that was that old, I would think somehting
collectible would be best. A V tail Bo, or something that people find
nostalgic. Not something that has tens of thousands of copies made after
yours left the factory. If you are going to go through the added expense
and attention that an older plane should get, don't you desire a certain
amount pride for it? Of course thats me, I would just ensure that you are
going to be happy, and thats something you know better than I.

Having said all this, acquisition costs are not the sort of thing that bug
me. If you are less concerned about the upkeep than the price tag or hangar
hours, then you may enjoy the older bird more.



"Kai Glaesner" > wrote in message
...
> Hello community,
>
> imagine you consider byuing an older airplane, e.g. a Piper from the Pa-28
> Arrow series: is there an age (or a year of birth ;-) you would not
exceed?
> If yes, for what reason (e.g. may be that corrosion-protection was not
usual
> before that year, or that copper was so expensive, they used something
less
> conductive as a replacement)?
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> Regards
>
> Kai Glaesner
>
>
>
>

[jsmith]

What is your definition of "older aircraft"?
My definition is pre-1960. Then again, I fly a 45 Champ.

Kai Glaesner wrote:
> Hello community,
> imagine you consider byuing an older airplane, e.g. a Piper from the Pa-28
> Arrow series: is there an age (or a year of birth ;-) you would not exceed?
> If yes, for what reason (e.g. may be that corrosion-protection was not usual
> before that year, or that copper was so expensive, they used something less
> conductive as a replacement)?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Kai Glaesner wrote:
>
> imagine you consider byuing an older airplane, e.g. a Piper from the Pa-28
> Arrow series: is there an age (or a year of birth ;-) you would not exceed?

I wouldn't go much further back than 1917.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[Ray Andraka]

You'd have some pretty hard work convincing me to 'trade up' to a later model
Cherokee Six. I fly a 1965 PA32-260. The useful loads on Cherokee Sixes lost a
few pounds every year they were in production, to the point that the new 6x is
really a 5 seat airplane (useful load is 150 lbs less than mine). Mine is a
young 39 years old though, with only about 3200 TTAF and a fresh overhaul.

Dude wrote:

> Personally, I would not want to own a plane over 30 years old. Not that
> they are unsafe, just that I wouldn't want to have to sell it.
>
> I think they get harder to sell when they get a certain age. Also, it seems
> to go with decades. At this point, a sixties vintage bird just sounds OLD.
> It conjures up thoughts of antiques rather than used planes.
>
> If I you were to buy a plane that was that old, I would think somehting
> collectible would be best. A V tail Bo, or something that people find
> nostalgic. Not something that has tens of thousands of copies made after
> yours left the factory. If you are going to go through the added expense
> and attention that an older plane should get, don't you desire a certain
> amount pride for it? Of course thats me, I would just ensure that you are
> going to be happy, and thats something you know better than I.
>
> Having said all this, acquisition costs are not the sort of thing that bug
> me. If you are less concerned about the upkeep than the price tag or hangar
> hours, then you may enjoy the older bird more.
>
> "Kai Glaesner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hello community,
> >
> > imagine you consider byuing an older airplane, e.g. a Piper from the Pa-28
> > Arrow series: is there an age (or a year of birth ;-) you would not
> exceed?
> > If yes, for what reason (e.g. may be that corrosion-protection was not
> usual
> > before that year, or that copper was so expensive, they used something
> less
> > conductive as a replacement)?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any help.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Kai Glaesner
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[[email protected]]

On 1-Apr-2004, "Kai Glaesner" > wrote:

> imagine you consider byuing an older airplane, e.g. a Piper from the Pa-28
> Arrow series: is there an age (or a year of birth ;-) you would not
> exceed? If yes, for what reason (e.g. may be that corrosion-protection was
> not
> usual before that year, or that copper was so expensive, they used
> something
> less conductive as a replacement)?


There are a number of factors at work here. Fist of all, purchase price:
All else being equal, most people would prefer a newer airplane but budget
dictates how much they can spend. Barring collectible/antique factors,
purchase price generally goes down with age. So do annual hull insurance
costs. But it is crucial to remember that maintenance and other costs
(direct operating, hangar/tiedown, liability insurance) do not. Other than
depreciation, it will cost about as much to own and fly a 30 year old
airplane as it will a 5 year old version of the same model. Maybe even
more, since the older plane is likely to require more maintenance.

Corrosion is certainly more likely to be a problem with an older airframe,
but that's not a hard and fast rule. I've seen 40 year old airplanes that
have been well maintained and are totally free of corrosion. I've also seen
10 year old airplanes that look like they might dissolve any minute.

One major reason a buyer might choose to limit the age range he/she would
consider is that most models undergo refinements/improvements over the
years. For example, Piper Arrows got a much-needed cabin stretch in the
early '70s. Then, with the Arrow III version in '77 they got much greater
fuel capacity (which increased range from adequate to awesome).


-Elliott Drucker

[Mark Astley]

Kai,

Age need not be a limiting factor if you do your homework and get a good
pre-purchase. The cherokee and descendents (including the arrow) are
essentially unchanged from the original models which appeared in the 60's.
For aircraft like the cherokee, the danger that comes with age is wear/tear,
corrosion, and damage history, hence the need for a good pre-purchase.

Here's a random selection of other intangibles: before the mid to late 60's,
most light aircraft had random panel/flap/engine control arrangements (if
this is important to you); quaint items like "toe brakes" may not appear on
older aircraft; you may find it difficult to find parts for certain older
aircraft.

mark

"Kai Glaesner" > wrote in message
...
> Hello community,
>
> imagine you consider byuing an older airplane, e.g. a Piper from the Pa-28
> Arrow series: is there an age (or a year of birth ;-) you would not
exceed?
> If yes, for what reason (e.g. may be that corrosion-protection was not
usual
> before that year, or that copper was so expensive, they used something
less
> conductive as a replacement)?
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> Regards
>
> Kai Glaesner
>
>
>
>

[Dan Truesdell]

But our 1964 C172 "maturity" let us park in the Vintage Aircraft parking
at OSH last year.

Dude wrote:
> Personally, I would not want to own a plane over 30 years old. Not that
> they are unsafe, just that I wouldn't want to have to sell it.
>
>>


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[John Galban]

"Dude" > wrote in message >...
> Personally, I would not want to own a plane over 30 years old. Not that
> they are unsafe, just that I wouldn't want to have to sell it.

Why not? Selling an older airplane is often easier than selling a
newer one. Since they tend to be priced lower, there's a larger
market for them.

>
> I think they get harder to sell when they get a certain age. Also, it seems
> to go with decades. At this point, a sixties vintage bird just sounds OLD.
> It conjures up thoughts of antiques rather than used planes.

My plane is of a 60s vintage. It's quite a popular model and I
don't think I'd have any trouble selling it. Folks with similar
planes generally sell them within a few weeks. I've flown a current
model('03) of my plane and there is very little real difference
between the two. The new bird is slower and carries less load, but is
constructed pretty much the same as the 60s version. The major
difference is in aquisition price (~$200K difference).

>
> If I you were to buy a plane that was that old, I would think somehting
> collectible would be best. A V tail Bo, or something that people find
> nostalgic. Not something that has tens of thousands of copies made after
> yours left the factory.

<snip>

Now you're getting into the "harder to sell" category. A popular
model also ensures that parts availability will not be a problem and
that most mechanics will be familiar with the airplane. These are big
pluses when considering the amount of time and expense that will be
required to maintain the aircraft.

> If you are going to go through the added expense
> and attention that an older plane should get, don't you desire a certain
> amount pride for it? Of course thats me, I would just ensure that you are
> going to be happy, and thats something you know better than I.

So, those with non-collectible old planes are not proud of them?
I'm willing to bet that you are not an airplane owner :-)

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Craig]

jsmith > wrote in message >...
> What is your definition of "older aircraft"?
> My definition is pre-1960. Then again, I fly a 45 Champ.
>


My Fairchild and Stinson were built in 1944, my Aero Commander was
built in 1957....The only big problem can be factory support for
aircraft over 20 years old, but there are almost always type or model
clubs that generate their own support network.

As to having N numbers changed, take the time and order the a/c
history and see what the reason was for the change. I know of several
aircraft that have gone through the change process to put personalized
numbers on them every time they were sold.

Craig C.

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Galban wrote:
>
> So, those with non-collectible old planes are not proud of them?
> I'm willing to bet that you are not an airplane owner :-)

I'd be more inclined to bet that he doesn't talk to many aircraft owners or hang
around airports much. Anyone who's seen someone polishing the bugs off his old Cessna
140 after a flight knows better.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Kai Glaesner wrote:
> >
> > imagine you consider byuing an older airplane, e.g. a Piper from the
Pa-28
> > Arrow series: is there an age (or a year of birth ;-) you would not
exceed?
>
> I wouldn't go much further back than 1917.
>
Meaning you wouldn't fly an aircraft that's older than you are? Me, neither.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> John Galban wrote:
> >
> > So, those with non-collectible old planes are not proud of them?
> > I'm willing to bet that you are not an airplane owner :-)
>
> I'd be more inclined to bet that he doesn't talk to many aircraft owners
or hang
> around airports much. Anyone who's seen someone polishing the bugs off his
old Cessna
> 140 after a flight knows better.
>
Somehow, the thread that ran recently about how out-of-date the vintage
aircraft (pre 90's??) are compared to the new generation (i.e., Cirrus)
comes to mind.

[Frank Stutzman]

Tom Sixkiller > wrote:

> Meaning you wouldn't fly an aircraft that's older than you are? Me, neither.

I've owned three planes. Only one of them was younger than I am and it
was made while I was in gradeschool. And I'm going to be looking at 50
sooner than I want to think about.



--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Dude]

I hang around airports quite a lot. I run into more renters than owners, as
I rent my plane out. The owners I speak to more often than not have a
warbird, aerobatic plane, homebuilt, etc.

A Cessna 140 would not fit my description of a common plane which has tens
of thousands of newer copies running around. Why? Because at some point,
there was so little demand for them that they tended to get parted out.

Twenty ears from now, a clean 152 will have the same charm and desirability
as a 140 does now. They don't make them anymore. But I would not bet on the
curve before that time, nor desire to keep one up in the meantime. Most of
the schools here are starting to sell them off cheap because they are not
making money and are too much trouble to manage.

I don't see many people out taking great care of their 30 plus year old
172's. I see those planes rotting in hangars for lack of care and use, or
working out their last days in an FBO. Now, there is a great market for old
172's as rental planes, but the schools are not paying top dollar. There are
exceptions, there are a couple 172's that have been fully restored to better
than new with cool custom paint jobs. However, if those owners had put the
same amount of care into a less commodity type plane, they would be able to
recoup more of their value in a sale.

While we are making bets, I bet you make quick judgements about people more
than you should.


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> John Galban wrote:
> >
> > So, those with non-collectible old planes are not proud of them?
> > I'm willing to bet that you are not an airplane owner :-)
>
> I'd be more inclined to bet that he doesn't talk to many aircraft owners
or hang
> around airports much. Anyone who's seen someone polishing the bugs off his
old Cessna
> 140 after a flight knows better.
>
> George Patterson
> Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if
treason
> be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[Dude]

>
> Why not? Selling an older airplane is often easier than selling a
> newer one. Since they tend to be priced lower, there's a larger
> market for them.
>

Um, you will have to define "newer" and "older"

>
> My plane is of a 60s vintage. It's quite a popular model and I
> don't think I'd have any trouble selling it. Folks with similar
> planes generally sell them within a few weeks. I've flown a current
> model('03) of my plane and there is very little real difference
> between the two. The new bird is slower and carries less load, but is
> constructed pretty much the same as the 60s version. The major
> difference is in aquisition price (~$200K difference).
>

Will you have the same confidence about it holding its value for another 5
or 10 years?

>
> Now you're getting into the "harder to sell" category. A popular
> model also ensures that parts availability will not be a problem and
> that most mechanics will be familiar with the airplane. These are big
> pluses when considering the amount of time and expense that will be
> required to maintain the aircraft.
>

I know what I am saying is counter to common wisdom, but the world is
getting ready to change. In 5 or 10 years, how many people are going to buy
a plane from the 60's to be flown 100 hours or more a year? The parts issue
starts to get less important to people buying a collectible as opposed to a
working plane. I believe the FAA may have an adverse affect on the older
working planes over the next few years. The cost of operation will be going
up. ( by working plane, I mean one that is bought by someone that places
more value on the flying part, than the owning part).


>
> So, those with non-collectible old planes are not proud of them?
> I'm willing to bet that you are not an airplane owner :-)

Don't be silly.

No, those buying non collectible planes are generally not buying them for
that reason. They are buying them to use. That means they are looking at
the cost of maintanence, safety, and dispatch reliability. They may be
looking for an unusual or fun flying experience.

I would make the argument that some owners are more proud than others.
Certainly there are proud owners of lots of common planes, and I enjoy
seeing them on the ramp. I am always complimentary of any well maintained
plane.

However, more and more of the generation where every man was a mechanic are
losing their medicals. The newer pilots are more affluent, and less
interested in spending time under the cowling. Great news for some, because
the value of older planes will be dropping. Many of the people on this
board do supervised work on their planes, but I see that type of pilot
becoming more rare.

Yes, your piper will have parts availability for a long time. That makes it
a safer investment and protects the value - to a point. It is also going to
get to the point where people consider it an antique. Rare antiques bring
more money. Your plane is likely in better shape than many of the same make
that are ten years newer, but how can you advertise your plane for sale on
the market without discounting yours against the newer ones?

There are not people lining up to buy 60's 172's for restoration. There are
surely a few, but there are lots and lots of those planes to go around.

Lastly, planes at that end of the market attract more tire kickers and
useless phone calls than I would want to take.

So, I am a plane owner, and I may be an owner of two planes before long. My
present one was built in this millenium, but I may be buying an older one
which will be more for looking at and showing off. I won't be taking my
family in it, and I won't be flying it IFR.

Hope no one took your bet.

As I said, I know that I am bucking the old school here, but I call them
like I see them, and I didn't get the money to buy a new plane by being
wrong all the time. Also, I didn't make it in the plane business, so feel
free to ignore me if you please :)






>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Dave Stadt]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> I hang around airports quite a lot. I run into more renters than owners,
as
> I rent my plane out. The owners I speak to more often than not have a
> warbird, aerobatic plane, homebuilt, etc.
>
> A Cessna 140 would not fit my description of a common plane which has tens
> of thousands of newer copies running around. Why? Because at some point,
> there was so little demand for them that they tended to get parted out.
>
> Twenty ears from now, a clean 152 will have the same charm and
desirability
> as a 140 does now. They don't make them anymore. But I would not bet on
the
> curve before that time, nor desire to keep one up in the meantime. Most
of
> the schools here are starting to sell them off cheap because they are not
> making money and are too much trouble to manage.
>
> I don't see many people out taking great care of their 30 plus year old
> 172's. I see those planes rotting in hangars for lack of care and use, or
> working out their last days in an FBO. Now, there is a great market for
old
> 172's as rental planes, but the schools are not paying top dollar. There
are
> exceptions, there are a couple 172's that have been fully restored to
better
> than new with cool custom paint jobs. However, if those owners had put the
> same amount of care into a less commodity type plane, they would be able
to
> recoup more of their value in a sale.
>
> While we are making bets, I bet you make quick judgements about people
more
> than you should.

You must hang around some sorry ass airports.

[Dude]

Sorry, but that is my opinion. If you don't like it, you still have no
reason to throw stones.

I am not saying anyone's baby is ugly, and I resent the comments that I am
not a plane owner (implication that I am too poor, stupid, or ignorant to
own one so no one should listen to me) or that I hang out in bad places ( so
that I am low class, poor, stupid, ignorant, etc.)

I have seen some of the incredibly personal stuff that has flown around on
this board, and while this is incredibly low level, it only shows the
weakness of your position to take these stances.

If you have a worthwhile point make it. Otherwise, please feel free to
ignore my posts. No one will learn anything from your snide comments except
for the value of your character.

The owners of the kinds of planes we are talking about will not pay for
hangar fees at my airport. They get them half price down the road, and they
are not as nice. If this gives me a warped view of the airplane world, so
be it. That's what I see at my airport.

What airport do you think is an example of one that is not "sorry"..


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I hang around airports quite a lot. I run into more renters than
owners,
> as
> > I rent my plane out. The owners I speak to more often than not have a
> > warbird, aerobatic plane, homebuilt, etc.
> >
> > A Cessna 140 would not fit my description of a common plane which has
tens
> > of thousands of newer copies running around. Why? Because at some
point,
> > there was so little demand for them that they tended to get parted out.
> >
> > Twenty ears from now, a clean 152 will have the same charm and
> desirability
> > as a 140 does now. They don't make them anymore. But I would not bet on
> the
> > curve before that time, nor desire to keep one up in the meantime. Most
> of
> > the schools here are starting to sell them off cheap because they are
not
> > making money and are too much trouble to manage.
> >
> > I don't see many people out taking great care of their 30 plus year old
> > 172's. I see those planes rotting in hangars for lack of care and use,
or
> > working out their last days in an FBO. Now, there is a great market for
> old
> > 172's as rental planes, but the schools are not paying top dollar. There
> are
> > exceptions, there are a couple 172's that have been fully restored to
> better
> > than new with cool custom paint jobs. However, if those owners had put
the
> > same amount of care into a less commodity type plane, they would be able
> to
> > recoup more of their value in a sale.
> >
> > While we are making bets, I bet you make quick judgements about people
> more
> > than you should.
>
> You must hang around some sorry ass airports.
>
>
>

[Kai Glaesner]

Thanks for all the answers.

No it seems to me, that age is not necessarily a factor, however propper
prebuy is mandatory. But selling the plane years from now has to be
considered (especially if it's not a classic).

Best Regards

Kai Glaesner

[Larryskydives]

Kai - Selling - After four years of ownig a 56 172 - I sold it in three days of
putting it on on www.barnstormers.com

Dude - If your not an owner - you are on the outside looking in. I had some of
your same thoughts before I bought my first plane. Once in ownership, and
seeing some of the ins and outs - good and bad - getting more versed in the
aircraft and maintenance issues - my thougths changed on some issues.

It's like the old saying - "If we have to explain it, you wouldn't underst

[Darrel Toepfer]

Larryskydives wrote:
> Kai - Selling - After four years of ownig a 56 172 - I sold it in three days of
> putting it on on www.barnstormers.com
>
> Dude - If your not an owner - you are on the outside looking in. I had some of
> your same thoughts before I bought my first plane. Once in ownership, and
> seeing some of the ins and outs - good and bad - getting more versed in the
> aircraft and maintenance issues - my thougths changed on some issues.
>
> It's like the old saying - "If we have to explain it, you wouldn't underst

Hi Larry...

And my dad and I flew across state lines to see it... <g>

<ad quote>
1956 CESSNA 172 - 19,000.00 . MAKE OFFER . 1956 Cessna 172 - 3700 TTE&A
- 2600 TSOH - Fresh Annual - All cylinders over 75 - Basic VFR - Good
Interior and Paint. I have owned this plane for 4 years. Would fly
anywhere. If you want a great time builder at a great price - Upgrading
to larger plane!! - Don't miss this one!!! - located Madison, MS USA .
Posted January 19, 2004
</ad quote>

We ended up with the C152 that we saw on the way back. Did you get your
new plane yet? I'm still shopping for something with 4 to 6 seats...

[Dude]

Larry,

gratz on selling your older plane. why did you sell it?

Yes, I own a plane, and ownership has changed some of my thoughts as well.
Getting maintenance paid for under warranty made me think that an extended
waranty would be a good idea. I never buy extended warranties on anything,
but a plane purchase changed my outlook.

"Larryskydives" > wrote in message
...
> Kai - Selling - After four years of ownig a 56 172 - I sold it in three
days of
> putting it on on www.barnstormers.com
>
> Dude - If your not an owner - you are on the outside looking in. I had
some of
> your same thoughts before I bought my first plane. Once in ownership, and
> seeing some of the ins and outs - good and bad - getting more versed in
the
> aircraft and maintenance issues - my thougths changed on some issues.
>
> It's like the old saying - "If we have to explain it, you wouldn't underst

[Newps]

Dude wrote:

> I know what I am saying is counter to common wisdom, but the world is
> getting ready to change.

No, it's not.


In 5 or 10 years, how many people are going to buy
> a plane from the 60's to be flown 100 hours or more a year?

As many if not more than today.


The parts issue
> starts to get less important to people buying a collectible as opposed to a
> working plane. I believe the FAA may have an adverse affect on the older
> working planes over the next few years. The cost of operation will be going
> up. ( by working plane, I mean one that is bought by someone that places
> more value on the flying part, than the owning part).

Baloney. The 50's thru the late 70's planes will always sell well
because that's when most of the planes were made. You will always have
less popular models such as the cheap Beech products but even they will
still sell. Models like the Cessna 140/170/172/180/182/185/205/206/210
can be easily sold today and will continue that way for the indefintite
future. Likewise with the Cherokee line.

[Newps]

Dude wrote:

> Larry,
>
> gratz on selling your older plane. why did you sell it?
>
> Yes, I own a plane, and ownership has changed some of my thoughts as well.
> Getting maintenance paid for under warranty made me think that an extended
> waranty would be a good idea. I never buy extended warranties on anything,
> but a plane purchase changed my outlook.

That's ridiculous and shows how little you have learned to date. A
warranty on a new plane won't save you any money as nothing breaks in
the first few years and the warranty cost is figured into the cost of
the plane. I have a 67 182 and would consider selling it for an older
182 or a 206. Older 182's have more performance than newer ones and of
course a 206 can't be beat.

[Dave Butler]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Dude wrote:
>
>> Larry,
>>
>> gratz on selling your older plane. why did you sell it?
>>
>> Yes, I own a plane, and ownership has changed some of my thoughts as
>> well.
>> Getting maintenance paid for under warranty made me think that an
>> extended
>> waranty would be a good idea. I never buy extended warranties on
>> anything,
>> but a plane purchase changed my outlook.
>
>
> That's ridiculous and shows how little you have learned to date. A
> warranty on a new plane won't save you any money as nothing breaks in
> the first few years and the warranty cost is figured into the cost of
> the plane. I have a 67 182 and would consider selling it for an older
> 182 or a 206. Older 182's have more performance than newer ones and of
> course a 206 can't be beat.

He never said he would save money. Maybe he just likes to have predictable costs.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Dude]

And your evidence, feeling, or intuitive notions on why their will be no
change in the market is...?

Seriously, all you did was state that I was wrong. You didn't need all
those words for that.


"Newps" > wrote in message
news:XZgbc.162460$Cb.1651398@attbi_s51...
>
>
> Dude wrote:
>
> > I know what I am saying is counter to common wisdom, but the world is
> > getting ready to change.
>
> No, it's not.
>
>
> In 5 or 10 years, how many people are going to buy
> > a plane from the 60's to be flown 100 hours or more a year?
>
> As many if not more than today.
>
>
> The parts issue
> > starts to get less important to people buying a collectible as opposed
to a
> > working plane. I believe the FAA may have an adverse affect on the
older
> > working planes over the next few years. The cost of operation will be
going
> > up. ( by working plane, I mean one that is bought by someone that places
> > more value on the flying part, than the owning part).
>
> Baloney. The 50's thru the late 70's planes will always sell well
> because that's when most of the planes were made. You will always have
> less popular models such as the cheap Beech products but even they will
> still sell. Models like the Cessna 140/170/172/180/182/185/205/206/210
> can be easily sold today and will continue that way for the indefintite
> future. Likewise with the Cherokee line.
>

[Dude]

Curious how you insult my learning ability when you haven't even figured out
what an extended warranty is for.

Also, how many new planes have you owned? Have you even talked to a new
plane owner? Have you ever even had a new engine? New planes come with new
engines. New engines have problems.

Maybe you should try looking at the Cirrus owners group. They have a free
area where they used to talk about their troubles, but now they hide most of
the bad news in the members only section. I am not a member, but apparently
the discussions are a bit scary.

Maybe you should talk to some new 182 owners that had to have extensive work
done on their planes which were not manufactured to spec. All the new
planes have bugaboos. That's life.

I believe we all benefit from speaking freely in this forum, but if you are
going to be so condescending in tone, perhaps you should show some
restraint. After all, only the future will tell which one of us is right
about the changes in the market, so it would be foolish to tell the other
guy he is absolutely wrong.

I admit that I may be wrong, but I give reasons for my outlook. You on the
other hand are completely confident without stating any reasons whatsoever
except having the notion that history will never change.



"Newps" > wrote in message
news:P1hbc.165653$po.973812@attbi_s52...
>
>
> Dude wrote:
>
> > Larry,
> >
> > gratz on selling your older plane. why did you sell it?
> >
> > Yes, I own a plane, and ownership has changed some of my thoughts as
well.
> > Getting maintenance paid for under warranty made me think that an
extended
> > waranty would be a good idea. I never buy extended warranties on
anything,
> > but a plane purchase changed my outlook.
>
> That's ridiculous and shows how little you have learned to date. A
> warranty on a new plane won't save you any money as nothing breaks in
> the first few years and the warranty cost is figured into the cost of
> the plane. I have a 67 182 and would consider selling it for an older
> 182 or a 206. Older 182's have more performance than newer ones and of
> course a 206 can't be beat.
>

[Dude]

Dave,

You make an excellent point. I always refused extended warranties because I
thought they were just over priced insurance. But I do buy insurance on my
home because I cannot afford the loss.

I can pay cash for a new HSI, but I don't necessarily want to take that kind
of hit.

Predictability is a big reason why I think an extended warranty would be
good for a new plane purchase. Also a good reason why I am seriously looking
at my next plane having a glass cockpit. The repair prices are much more
predictable than standard avionics.




"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dude wrote:
> >
> >> Larry,
> >>
> >> gratz on selling your older plane. why did you sell it?
> >>
> >> Yes, I own a plane, and ownership has changed some of my thoughts as
> >> well.
> >> Getting maintenance paid for under warranty made me think that an
> >> extended
> >> waranty would be a good idea. I never buy extended warranties on
> >> anything,
> >> but a plane purchase changed my outlook.
> >
> >
> > That's ridiculous and shows how little you have learned to date. A
> > warranty on a new plane won't save you any money as nothing breaks in
> > the first few years and the warranty cost is figured into the cost of
> > the plane. I have a 67 182 and would consider selling it for an older
> > 182 or a 206. Older 182's have more performance than newer ones and of
> > course a 206 can't be beat.
>
> He never said he would save money. Maybe he just likes to have predictable
costs.
>
> Dave
> Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
>

[Newps]

Dude wrote:

> Curious how you insult my learning ability when you haven't even figured out
> what an extended warranty is for.

An extended warranty is an insurance policy that you have already paid
for. The company knows almost exactly how much profit is involved in an
extended warranty. Almost all of it.

New engines have problems.

We all have the same engines so that is a nonfactor.


>
> Maybe you should try looking at the Cirrus owners group. They have a free
> area where they used to talk about their troubles, but now they hide most of
> the bad news in the members only section. I am not a member, but apparently
> the discussions are a bit scary.

Every plane has its problems unique to itself.


>
> Maybe you should talk to some new 182 owners that had to have extensive work
> done on their planes which were not manufactured to spec. All the new
> planes have bugaboos. That's life.

I have flown in and seen many new 182's. Don't want one. A new 206 I
would seriously consider. But it is a lot of money to spend to not get
much improvement.

[Dude]

>
> An extended warranty is an insurance policy that you have already paid
> for. The company knows almost exactly how much profit is involved in an
> extended warranty. Almost all of it.
>

That would depend on the cost would it not? Perhaps you should research the
costs of extended warranties available on new planes and get back to us.

> New engines have problems.
>
> We all have the same engines so that is a nonfactor.
>

We don't all have new engines, and we don't all have warranties covering our
engines. Those would seem to be two factors more than zero.

>
> >
> > Maybe you should try looking at the Cirrus owners group. They have a
free
> > area where they used to talk about their troubles, but now they hide
most of
> > the bad news in the members only section. I am not a member, but
apparently
> > the discussions are a bit scary.
>
> Every plane has its problems unique to itself.
>

Exactly my point, it seems we are getting closer to agreement.

>
> >
> > Maybe you should talk to some new 182 owners that had to have extensive
work
> > done on their planes which were not manufactured to spec. All the new
> > planes have bugaboos. That's life.
>
> I have flown in and seen many new 182's. Don't want one. A new 206 I
> would seriously consider. But it is a lot of money to spend to not get
> much improvement.
>

Well, I appreciate your perspective on the value of a new Cessna, but the
point was that new planes often need lots of work. This was stated to
disagree with your point that new planes don't have much go wrong, and
therefore the value of the warranty was cheap.

Some factories, most, have not always been quick to rush in and correct
thngs that were obviously a manufacturers defect but were some how
questionable warranty repairs due to the type of fault, or the time at which
it became apparent. Thus the value of an extended warranty. Personally, if
the extended warranty were similar to extended car warranties in percentage
of cost and terms , I would run away from the manufacturer because he
obviously knew the plane was a dud.

[Blanche]

Again, it gets back to condition of the aircraft and your flight
preferences. I have a 1969 cherokee and had no problems buying
an "older" aircraft. compared to corresponding 90's archers,
mine has a service ceiling 2000-3000 higher (very important
out here in the mountains), a bit more load (not as important)
and considerably cheaper than the $150-250K price tag!

Know what? All archers and warriors and cherokees fly pretty
much the same. Other than moving to a completely different style
of aircraft (e.g. husky, cirrus, cubi, pitts) it really doesn't
make that much difference to me.

I was willing to buy a '69 with no corrosion (ok, some damage but
that was back in the 70s). Upkeep is going to be just about the
same - hangar, fuel, insurance, annuals, etc. But what I saved
buying the older aircraft certainly covers 5-10 years of those
upkeep expenses!

[Dude]

Would you have been just as happy to buy a 1963 model? Could have saved
even more money. I just think that we all have an emotional level of how
far back we want to go. I am certainly willing to admit that it is not
always rational. I would rather have a low time, mint condition 63 than a
well worn 83, but if I were looking to buy I would not really be looking at
the ads on '63 models.

Would I possibly be over looking a better plane - yes. Do I think that
many, if not most plane buyers are like me - yes. I could be wrong, but I
do know that we don't exactly have a representative sample of average plane
buyers here. If we did, controller, trade a plane, and aso would be out of
business :)




"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Again, it gets back to condition of the aircraft and your flight
> preferences. I have a 1969 cherokee and had no problems buying
> an "older" aircraft. compared to corresponding 90's archers,
> mine has a service ceiling 2000-3000 higher (very important
> out here in the mountains), a bit more load (not as important)
> and considerably cheaper than the $150-250K price tag!
>
> Know what? All archers and warriors and cherokees fly pretty
> much the same. Other than moving to a completely different style
> of aircraft (e.g. husky, cirrus, cubi, pitts) it really doesn't
> make that much difference to me.
>
> I was willing to buy a '69 with no corrosion (ok, some damage but
> that was back in the 70s). Upkeep is going to be just about the
> same - hangar, fuel, insurance, annuals, etc. But what I saved
> buying the older aircraft certainly covers 5-10 years of those
> upkeep expenses!
>

[Blanche Cohen]

Dude > wrote:
>Would you have been just as happy to buy a 1963 model? Could have saved
>even more money.
>
>"Blanche" > wrote in message
>> Again, it gets back to condition of the aircraft and your flight
>> preferences. I have a 1969 cherokee and had no problems buying
>> an "older" aircraft.

The 1969 cherokee was local, discovered after 18 months of looking.
Given all the particulars, it was a logical decision. I never put
a use-by date on my search but I did have a few minimum conditions,
such as 180 hp (minimum), reasonably good shape. Didn't care about
the cosmetics.

[Rosspilot]

>
>I don't see many people out taking great care of their 30 plus year old
>172's.


Well, you just aren't hanging around the right places, then.

My 67 Skyhawk gets the most meticulous care and pampering. There's nothing I
enjoy more (besides flying her) than spending a sunny afternoon washing and
polishing her. She's been detailed at annual, had new paint and glass, and
many, many new additions (beacon, strobes, transponder, Strikefinder, air
vents, Rosen sunshields, headrests, new yoke covers, on and on . . . )

Besides, I have no intention of selling her anyway--so that's not anything that
enters into any decision I make regarding her.


www.Rosspilot.com

[Larryskydives]

Dude,

I sold it to upgrade - I bought a Piper Arrow. Faster and instument certified.
I am now working on my instrument rating.

The 172 was a great time builder and did a good job. It wasn't a maintenance
nightmare, just real reliable.

[Dude]

Good for you. I will put you on the list with the other 2 I know. Thats
three out of about 150.

The really good news for you is that you may still have a nice plane in ten
years, many of your peers planes will be facing a financially undesirable
restoration.



"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >I don't see many people out taking great care of their 30 plus year old
> >172's.
>
>
> Well, you just aren't hanging around the right places, then.
>
> My 67 Skyhawk gets the most meticulous care and pampering. There's
nothing I
> enjoy more (besides flying her) than spending a sunny afternoon washing
and
> polishing her. She's been detailed at annual, had new paint and glass,
and
> many, many new additions (beacon, strobes, transponder, Strikefinder, air
> vents, Rosen sunshields, headrests, new yoke covers, on and on . . . )
>
> Besides, I have no intention of selling her anyway--so that's not anything
that
> enters into any decision I make regarding her.
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>

[Dude]

This is my point exactly. Common wisdom on this group is to buy a plane
locally, where you can get a decent chance of real history on the plane.

Another board favorite seems to be, "the best plane deals are never
advertised."

We are not the norm if the ads are any indication.


"Blanche Cohen" > wrote in message
...
> Dude > wrote:
> >Would you have been just as happy to buy a 1963 model? Could have saved
> >even more money.
> >
> >"Blanche" > wrote in message
> >> Again, it gets back to condition of the aircraft and your flight
> >> preferences. I have a 1969 cherokee and had no problems buying
> >> an "older" aircraft.
>
> The 1969 cherokee was local, discovered after 18 months of looking.
> Given all the particulars, it was a logical decision. I never put
> a use-by date on my search but I did have a few minimum conditions,
> such as 180 hp (minimum), reasonably good shape. Didn't care about
> the cosmetics.
>
>

[Aaron Coolidge]

Dude > wrote:
: Personally, I would not want to own a plane over 30 years old. Not that
: they are unsafe, just that I wouldn't want to have to sell it.

: I think they get harder to sell when they get a certain age. Also, it seems
: to go with decades. At this point, a sixties vintage bird just sounds OLD.
: It conjures up thoughts of antiques rather than used planes.

If you're referring to a "common" airplane, age seems to less important
then condition (as you state in a later post). The airport that I fly out
of has a large group of owners who take very good care of their aircraft,
not one of which is newer than 1975 - and many are much older. Only one I
would consider collectable, and that's a Swift. We have ramp queens, too,
but I would say about 1/2 the airplanes fly regularly and look good.
When I have shown some new pilots my airplane, thay cannot believe that
it is 36 years old (they have been flying reliable, but ugly, rentals -
all from the late 1980s, by the way). I don't think I have a collectable
airplane, but it is a desirable personal transportation airplane - despite
being older than I am. If I manage to maintain it in its present condition,
I will have no trouble selling it should I decide to. The only real
difference between my airplane and the 2004 model is in avionics. I could
have the same avionics installed into my airplane for a fraction of the
cost of changing airplanes. I am considering just this, perhaps next year
after the weather datalink settles out a bit and Chelton STC's their
autopilot for PA-28.

One other thing that I have not yet seen mentioned in this thread:
The supply of *certified* airplanes is not like that of autos. There is
a continuous reduction in the number of airplanes that are in existance.
The total yearly production does not appear to offset the number of
airplanes that are wrecked or scrapped - at least by my reading of the
NTSB data. Unless the supply of pilots decreases as well, one would think
that demand would increase.

: Having said all this, acquisition costs are not the sort of thing that bug
: me. If you are less concerned about the upkeep than the price tag or hangar
: hours, then you may enjoy the older bird more.

I don't entirely agree with your second sentence. There just aren't that many
components to break in a "common" fixed-gear airplane. Now, if the problem
cannot be diagnosed the airplane could be out of service for a long time.
I think that the diagnosis problem is unrelated to the age of the plane,
though, and newer airplanes may well be more difficult to diagnose.

I fly my airplane about 200 hours a year - probably 75 to 80 flights with
150 individual legs. I've had it for just over 3 years. I have *NEVER* had
the airplane not operate when I wanted it to. Certainly I have had items
break, and I have replaced other items that seemed to be on their last
legs. I think this policy is the key to dispatch reliability. On the other
hand, many folks seem to save up all their maintenance for annual time,
with the result of large annual bills and less than stellar reliability.

About your first sentence: Don't get me wrong. I applaud anyone who will
buy a new airplane. This ensures that the supply of airplanes will decrease
more slowly than otherwise. I personally don't see the additional value
over a used airplane in good condition, but that is my opinion, and you
know what they say about opinions...

--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

[PaulH]

I have a very clean 69 Arrow with 2200 hours, though some gear
collapse history. I recently considered whether to upgrade the Arrow
with STEC 30 and stormscope or purchase a new Cirrus and decided to
upgrade the Arrow.

A well equipped Cirrus will run around $350K. Interest alone on this
is over $2K per month. 10% depreciation runs another $3K per month.
Although it's faster than the Arrow, it accomplishes this with a fuel
burn that's 50% greater and an engine that won't run any better (most
PA28R users can run the Lyc IO360 LOP without GAMIs).

My maintenance bills are high since there are always things to do, but
the Arrow is still the better buy, which is why there will be a market
for a long time.