used aircraft valuation

[private]

I have often heard (from people in the business) that a good opening offer
for what

(well) used aircraft (particularly light twins) are worth (wholesale?)

Total of the core value + time remaining on the engine(s) and prop(s) +
value of avionics and radios or other easily removable equipment.

airframe minimal or none

I think that small hobby aircraft seem to add a (sometimes large) premium
for very shiney or special.

Please comment

Blue skies to all

[OtisWinslow]

I think you're dreaming. Good luck on having your offers
accepted.


"private" > wrote in message
news:oDE9e.1086442$8l.623457@pd7tw1no...
>I have often heard (from people in the business) that a good opening offer
> for what
>
> (well) used aircraft (particularly light twins) are worth (wholesale?)
>
> Total of the core value + time remaining on the engine(s) and prop(s) +
> value of avionics and radios or other easily removable equipment.
>
> airframe minimal or none
>
> I think that small hobby aircraft seem to add a (sometimes large) premium
> for very shiney or special.
>
> Please comment
>
> Blue skies to all
>
>

[xyzzy]

private wrote:

> I have often heard (from people in the business) that a good opening offer
> for what
>
> (well) used aircraft (particularly light twins) are worth (wholesale?)
>
> Total of the core value + time remaining on the engine(s) and prop(s) +
> value of avionics and radios or other easily removable equipment.
>
> airframe minimal or none
>
> I think that small hobby aircraft seem to add a (sometimes large) premium
> for very shiney or special.
>
> Please comment
>
> Blue skies to all
>
>
According to AOPA aircraft valuation service:

1966 Piper Cherokee 140: , 5070 TTAF, 1000 hrs SMOH, basic radios: $27,600

new engine makes it worth 33,600.

runout engine (2000 hours) makes the value $21,600

GNS430 adds $5K to the value.

So if this is accurate, the basic airframe value is about $21,600. Not
an insginficant part of the price.

So I think you're all wet.

HTH

[private]

If runout engine is valued at $21,600
and assuming that AOPA is correct?
actual sale vs asking price?
wholesale value?

minus engine core $8,000?
minus prop $2,000?
minus panel & radios $5,000?

= hobby aircraft airframe premium $6,600?

If new engine is valued at $33,600
and assuming that AOPA is correct?
actual sale vs asking price?
wholesale value?

minus engine time remaining $18,000?
minus engine core $8,000?
minus prop $2,000?
minus panel & radios $5,000?

= hobby aircraft airframe premium $3,600?

Please note that this formula is the opinion of many others in the business
who HAVE purchased many aircraft.

I do NOT have enough experience to have or voice a personal opinion, but in
other transactions I have been amazed by what I call the "power of the cash
offer."

I have seen aircraft (with for sale signs) sit on the ramp for years while
their owners wait for a "book value" sale.

Never fall in love before you negotiate a purchase, or retain love for what
you want or NEED to sell.

It is easier to buy smart than to sell high because buyers can walk for
free. Nobody I know NEEDS to buy an aircraft.

Blue skies to all

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> private wrote:
>
> > I have often heard (from people in the business) that a good opening
offer
> > for what
> >
> > (well) used aircraft (particularly light twins) are worth (wholesale?)
> >
> > Total of the core value + time remaining on the engine(s) and prop(s) +
> > value of avionics and radios or other easily removable equipment.
> >
> > airframe minimal or none
> >
> > I think that small hobby aircraft seem to add a (sometimes large)
premium
> > for very shiney or special.
> >
> > Please comment
> >
> > Blue skies to all
> >
> >
> According to AOPA aircraft valuation service:
>
> 1966 Piper Cherokee 140: , 5070 TTAF, 1000 hrs SMOH, basic radios:
$27,600
>
> new engine makes it worth 33,600.
>
> runout engine (2000 hours) makes the value $21,600
>
> GNS430 adds $5K to the value.
>
> So if this is accurate, the basic airframe value is about $21,600. Not
> an insginficant part of the price.
>
> So I think you're all wet.
>
> HTH
>

[xyzzy]

private wrote:

> If runout engine is valued at $21,600
> and assuming that AOPA is correct?
> actual sale vs asking price?
> wholesale value?
>
> minus engine core $8,000?

This value is speculative, and Lycoming may have something to say about it.

> minus prop $2,000?

OK

> minus panel & radios $5,000?

Seriously doubt the base radios in a 1964 Cherokee 140 are worth $5000

[Dude]

"private" > wrote in message
news:oDE9e.1086442$8l.623457@pd7tw1no...
>I have often heard (from people in the business) that a good opening offer
> for what
>

What business? Anyone telling you that its this simple is either stupid or
leading you on.


> (well) used aircraft (particularly light twins) are worth (wholesale?)
>

Sort of depends on the airframe and what you mean by "well used"

> Total of the core value + time remaining on the engine(s) and prop(s) +
> value of avionics and radios or other easily removable equipment.
>
> airframe minimal or none
>

This is where you are going wrong. Some models are near worthless hulls as
they close on airframe life or just get up there in hours while others are
not. If you were selling, I would be happy to give you double this formula
on some models.

> I think that small hobby aircraft seem to add a (sometimes large) premium
> for very shiney or special.
>

Yes, and they get it often. Lots of idiots buy the paint and interior.
Others pay a premium because they want a particular air frame. Some air
frames are valuable for the air frame parts (Beech for instance).

If you try to buy a plane for yourself with this formula, you will likely be
buying a lousy plane. The ability to cash out of it or even make a profit
will not be of value if the plane kills you.



> Please comment
>
> Blue skies to all
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

http://www.planedata.com/aircraft%20evaluation%20methods.htm

[private]

Thank you for URL link

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.planedata.com/aircraft%20evaluation%20methods.htm
>
>
>

[Dude]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.planedata.com/aircraft%20evaluation%20methods.htm
>
>
>

It seems to me that in the end, they claim to have better data than the
other sources. I would be curious what makes their data more reliable than
the "value guides" they mention. I did like the example they give for an
appraisal document, but it seemed to me they did a lot of the same things
that thier "methods" page pours doubt upon.

Where do they get this pristine data?

Best part to me was that if you go by published prices - you will be high.
So true.

OTOH, it doesn't matter what "average" is. That argument is fallacious.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> > http://www.planedata.com/aircraft%20evaluation%20methods.htm
> >
> >
> >
>
> It seems to me that in the end, they claim to have better data than the
> other sources. I would be curious what makes their data more reliable
than
> the "value guides" they mention.

They explain that in this and other linked articles.

>I did like the example they give for an
> appraisal document, but it seemed to me they did a lot of the same things
> that thier "methods" page pours doubt upon.

They explain the caveats.

> Where do they get this pristine data?
>
> Best part to me was that if you go by published prices - you will be high.
> So true.
>
> OTOH, it doesn't matter what "average" is. That argument is fallacious.

And they explain what really is divergence from "average". Look at any
listing and see how many items for sales list their interiors/exteriors as
8/10 or 9/10.

Most guides are based on selling ad space to SELLERS, thus they have to let
them run pretty much whatever they want. Also, final selling prices are
never recorded so at lest they make an effort to explain ALL facets, rather
than just "asking price".

When I bought my current bird, I made first contact with the seller almost
seven months before we concluded the sale. During that time, the asking
price dropped nearly 40% whilst the seller was involved in a traumatic
divorce and business upheaval. I could have missed out on that particular
airplane, but it had what I wanted (just short of TBO, good avionics) but at
a price rather higher than I wanted to and was willing/able to pay. He, like
most others, rated the airplane as though it was sacred. I didn't (and still
don't) ever buy that.

I certainly don't think anyone could give a totally objective guide short of
knowing precisely what the final price was, but it does run over the very
common fallacies that the market spews (such as new avionics, new
upholstery...).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Mike Rapoport]

If your premise was true, every airplane would be parted out.

Mike
MU-2


"private" > wrote in message
news:HlQ9e.1093908$8l.347752@pd7tw1no...
> If runout engine is valued at $21,600
> and assuming that AOPA is correct?
> actual sale vs asking price?
> wholesale value?
>
> minus engine core $8,000?
> minus prop $2,000?
> minus panel & radios $5,000?
>
> = hobby aircraft airframe premium $6,600?
>
> If new engine is valued at $33,600
> and assuming that AOPA is correct?
> actual sale vs asking price?
> wholesale value?
>
> minus engine time remaining $18,000?
> minus engine core $8,000?
> minus prop $2,000?
> minus panel & radios $5,000?
>
> = hobby aircraft airframe premium $3,600?
>
> Please note that this formula is the opinion of many others in the
> business
> who HAVE purchased many aircraft.
>
> I do NOT have enough experience to have or voice a personal opinion, but
> in
> other transactions I have been amazed by what I call the "power of the
> cash
> offer."
>
> I have seen aircraft (with for sale signs) sit on the ramp for years while
> their owners wait for a "book value" sale.
>
> Never fall in love before you negotiate a purchase, or retain love for
> what
> you want or NEED to sell.
>
> It is easier to buy smart than to sell high because buyers can walk for
> free. Nobody I know NEEDS to buy an aircraft.
>
> Blue skies to all
>
> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> private wrote:
>>
>> > I have often heard (from people in the business) that a good opening
> offer
>> > for what
>> >
>> > (well) used aircraft (particularly light twins) are worth (wholesale?)
>> >
>> > Total of the core value + time remaining on the engine(s) and prop(s) +
>> > value of avionics and radios or other easily removable equipment.
>> >
>> > airframe minimal or none
>> >
>> > I think that small hobby aircraft seem to add a (sometimes large)
> premium
>> > for very shiney or special.
>> >
>> > Please comment
>> >
>> > Blue skies to all
>> >
>> >
>> According to AOPA aircraft valuation service:
>>
>> 1966 Piper Cherokee 140: , 5070 TTAF, 1000 hrs SMOH, basic radios:
> $27,600
>>
>> new engine makes it worth 33,600.
>>
>> runout engine (2000 hours) makes the value $21,600
>>
>> GNS430 adds $5K to the value.
>>
>> So if this is accurate, the basic airframe value is about $21,600. Not
>> an insginficant part of the price.
>>
>> So I think you're all wet.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>
>

[Dude]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > http://www.planedata.com/aircraft%20evaluation%20methods.htm
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It seems to me that in the end, they claim to have better data than the
>> other sources. I would be curious what makes their data more reliable
> than
>> the "value guides" they mention.
>
> They explain that in this and other linked articles.
>

All I see is them saying that they use data from actual sales. Not how they
get it.

>>I did like the example they give for an
>> appraisal document, but it seemed to me they did a lot of the same things
>> that thier "methods" page pours doubt upon.
>
> They explain the caveats.
>

They explain it after they have already slammed it. The pitch boils down to
this "We do ALL the things that others do rather than just a FEW of them so
we are more thorough. We are professional, because we are part of an
organization."

In the end, they look at all the methods and data, and then swag it. Unless
they can prove thier data is somehow less tainted than others, it doesn't
matter. I know the flaws with the Blue Book, so I can work with it. I have
also done all the things they do in their appraisals when necessary.
Personally, I think this site makes the association look bad.

>> Where do they get this pristine data?
>>
>> Best part to me was that if you go by published prices - you will be
>> high.
>> So true.
>>
>> OTOH, it doesn't matter what "average" is. That argument is fallacious.
>
> And they explain what really is divergence from "average". Look at any
> listing and see how many items for sales list their interiors/exteriors as
> 8/10 or 9/10.

Yes, but the ads are judged by the sellers. Besides, the condition isn't
the end all anyway. What matter is the condition if you can't stand the
color scheme? Their explanation doesn't matter. If you know how the guide
you are using works, then "average" just doesn't matter. It comes out in
the wash.

> Most guides are based on selling ad space to SELLERS, thus they have to
> let
> them run pretty much whatever they want. Also, final selling prices are
> never recorded so at lest they make an effort to explain ALL facets,
> rather
> than just "asking price".
>

I am missing something you are seeing. I can't seem to find where they get
"actual" selling prices. You are right about the ad prices bringing up the
averages, but that has known affects you can account for. Also, sellers ARE
motivated to price properly if they actually want to sell the plane.


> When I bought my current bird, I made first contact with the seller almost
> seven months before we concluded the sale. During that time, the asking
> price dropped nearly 40% whilst the seller was involved in a traumatic
> divorce and business upheaval. I could have missed out on that particular
> airplane, but it had what I wanted (just short of TBO, good avionics) but
> at
> a price rather higher than I wanted to and was willing/able to pay. He,
> like
> most others, rated the airplane as though it was sacred. I didn't (and
> still
> don't) ever buy that.
>
> I certainly don't think anyone could give a totally objective guide short
> of
> knowing precisely what the final price was, but it does run over the very
> common fallacies that the market spews (such as new avionics, new
> upholstery...).
>

The common fallacies are common for a reason. People find value in what you
and I might call a fallacy. The Blue Book actually values new paint and
interior at less than cost. I can tell you that only a very savvy buyer
would do that. Plenty of buyers will pay high for this because they don't
want anything to do with having it painted or putting in an interior. To do
both takes weeks of downtime, and plenty of management by the owner.

I, and others, have pointed out that this board is not made up of "average
owners".

>
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dude" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > http://www.planedata.com/aircraft%20evaluation%20methods.htm
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> It seems to me that in the end, they claim to have better data than the
> >> other sources. I would be curious what makes their data more reliable
> > than
> >> the "value guides" they mention.
> >
> > They explain that in this and other linked articles.
> >
>
> All I see is them saying that they use data from actual sales. Not how
they
> get it.

Are you looking at the single article, or the other links as well? I see
much more than that, analysis of the pros and cons of various inputs.

>
> >>I did like the example they give for an
> >> appraisal document, but it seemed to me they did a lot of the same
things
> >> that thier "methods" page pours doubt upon.
> >
> > They explain the caveats.
> >
>
> They explain it after they have already slammed it. The pitch boils down
to
> this "We do ALL the things that others do rather than just a FEW of them
so
> we are more thorough. We are professional, because we are part of an
> organization."
>
> In the end, they look at all the methods and data, and then swag it.
Unless
> they can prove thier data is somehow less tainted than others, it doesn't
> matter. I know the flaws with the Blue Book, so I can work with it. I
have
> also done all the things they do in their appraisals when necessary.
> Personally, I think this site makes the association look bad.



> >> Where do they get this pristine data?
> >>
> >> Best part to me was that if you go by published prices - you will be
> >> high.
> >> So true.
> >>
> >> OTOH, it doesn't matter what "average" is. That argument is
fallacious.
> >
> > And they explain what really is divergence from "average". Look at any
> > listing and see how many items for sales list their interiors/exteriors
as
> > 8/10 or 9/10.
>
> Yes, but the ads are judged by the sellers. Besides, the condition isn't
> the end all anyway. What matter is the condition if you can't stand the
> color scheme? Their explanation doesn't matter. If you know how the
guide
> you are using works, then "average" just doesn't matter. It comes out in
> the wash.
>
> > Most guides are based on selling ad space to SELLERS, thus they have to
> > let
> > them run pretty much whatever they want. Also, final selling prices are
> > never recorded so at lest they make an effort to explain ALL facets,
> > rather
> > than just "asking price".
> >
>
> I am missing something you are seeing. I can't seem to find where they
get
> "actual" selling prices. You are right about the ad prices bringing up the
> averages, but that has known affects you can account for. Also, sellers
ARE
> motivated to price properly if they actually want to sell the plane.
>
>
> > When I bought my current bird, I made first contact with the seller
almost
> > seven months before we concluded the sale. During that time, the asking
> > price dropped nearly 40% whilst the seller was involved in a traumatic
> > divorce and business upheaval. I could have missed out on that
particular
> > airplane, but it had what I wanted (just short of TBO, good avionics)
but
> > at
> > a price rather higher than I wanted to and was willing/able to pay. He,
> > like
> > most others, rated the airplane as though it was sacred. I didn't (and
> > still
> > don't) ever buy that.
> >
> > I certainly don't think anyone could give a totally objective guide
short
> > of
> > knowing precisely what the final price was, but it does run over the
very
> > common fallacies that the market spews (such as new avionics, new
> > upholstery...).
> >
>
> The common fallacies are common for a reason. People find value in what
you
> and I might call a fallacy.

Geez...ya think?!?


> The Blue Book actually values new paint and
> interior at less than cost. I can tell you that only a very savvy buyer
> would do that. Plenty of buyers will pay high for this because they don't
> want anything to do with having it painted or putting in an interior. To
do
> both takes weeks of downtime, and plenty of management by the owner.
>
> I, and others, have pointed out that this board is not made up of "average
> owners".

I love the self-proclaimed "experts with an attitude" that can't get past
the fallacy debunkers.

[Dude]

>
> I love the self-proclaimed "experts with an attitude" that can't get past
> the fallacy debunkers.
>


Huh?

[omk]

> I think you're dreaming. Good luck on having your offers accepted

Well, not really - he emphesized he was talking about a starting
*offer* on an old light twin, presumably an Apache or such:

Lycoming O-320 x 2 = $12,000
Props x 2 = $6000
Radios & instruments = $3,000

Total = +/- $21,000

Little low-ball, yes, but not by much, that plane will sell for maybe
$30-35 on a good day, *if* it has decent paint... A salvager would have
to pay well under $20 to make any money, dealer hoping to eventually
resell it not more than $25. It's brutal.

I agree his statement is less true for singles or sought-after twins
like Twinkies where the margins between flyable airplane and salvage
are much wider.