High fuel prices = buyer's market?

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

Anyone care to speculate on what fuel prices will do to the plane market
over the next four or five months? As prices rise do you think this will
create good opportunity for buyers? That is to say, planes placed on the
market because they can't afford to pay for fuel?

Greg

[Jim Burns]

I usually keep track of what Piper Aztecs are going for and over the last 12
months I've watched a solid $20k+ fall off of late 60's and early 70's Aztec
prices. And I've also watched Piper Archer and most 2 place (even non light
sport) airplane prices continue to climb. So I think planes that are
burning 10gph or less are increasing in value and those that burn 15 gph and
more are decreasing, everything else being equal. Just an observation.

As far as the next four or five months go, I see nothing changing. The cash
contract fuel prices for upcoming months that I am offered twice per week
show a continued increase in both unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel although
refinery utilization is approaching 92% and production is finally getting
back to 4bgpd. Hurricane season then heating season will combine with world
events to keep prices high despite the increasing production.

If you have the cash, it may be a good time to buy or trade up. Someday
people will become accustomed to the high price of fuel and airplane values
will rebound.

Jim

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone care to speculate on what fuel prices will do to the plane market
> over the next four or five months? As prices rise do you think this will
> create good opportunity for buyers? That is to say, planes placed on the
> market because they can't afford to pay for fuel?
>
> Greg
>
>

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:20:59 -0500, Jim Burns wrote:

[snip]
> And I've also watched Piper Archer and most 2 place (even non light
> sport) airplane prices continue to climb. So I think planes that are
> burning 10gph or less are increasing in value and those that burn 15 gph and
> more are decreasing, everything else being equal. Just an observation.
>

Fine! Be a bearer of bad news. Just poke me in the eye next time. ;)
I've been eyeing Archers for a while now so that's clearly not good news.


Greg

[Jim Burns]

What have you seen in Archer values?
Two local pilots each recently purchased Archers for prices that I thought
were on the high side, then I checked other ads and recent purchases. I was
suprised to find the market that strong. I've always been a fan of the
Archer for it's all around utility and it's ability to hold it's value.
What suprises me the most is the number of older Archers listed and selling
for $75k and up.
Jim

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:20:59 -0500, Jim Burns wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> And I've also watched Piper Archer and most 2 place (even non light
>> sport) airplane prices continue to climb. So I think planes that are
>> burning 10gph or less are increasing in value and those that burn 15 gph
>> and
>> more are decreasing, everything else being equal. Just an observation.
>>
>
> Fine! Be a bearer of bad news. Just poke me in the eye next time. ;)
> I've been eyeing Archers for a while now so that's clearly not good news.
>
>
> Greg
>

[Robert M. Gary]

Mooneys will be in high demand.

-Robert


Greg Copeland wrote:
> Anyone care to speculate on what fuel prices will do to the plane market
> over the next four or five months? As prices rise do you think this will
> create good opportunity for buyers? That is to say, planes placed on the
> market because they can't afford to pay for fuel?
>
> Greg

[[email protected]]

I wouldn't dismay. The advertized prices remain high.
But look at how thick trade a plane is!! Equilibrium isn't
acheived until the sellers figure out that the supply is
really pretty high.

You will be in the driver's seat. It's never easy to sell
any plane.

Bill Hale

Greg Copeland wrote:
> Anyone care to speculate on what fuel prices will do to the plane market
> over the next four or five months? As prices rise do you think this will
> create good opportunity for buyers? That is to say, planes placed on the
> market because they can't afford to pay for fuel?
>
> Greg

[ktbr]

Greg Copeland wrote:
> Anyone care to speculate on what fuel prices will do to the plane market
> over the next four or five months? As prices rise do you think this will
> create good opportunity for buyers? That is to say, planes placed on the
> market because they can't afford to pay for fuel?

Yes, I will throw in my $.02.... There are a lot of planes on the
market right now and that does make it more of a buyers market,
although some LSA and two seaters are not a bargain IMHO.

One reason is that people that are marginally able to really afford
an airplane in the first place (and probably can't afford to fly much
anyway) are deciding to sell because of the higher fuel prices.
Another is the overall aging of the pilot population... a guy gets
older, flys less and finally the high prices precipitate the decision
to sell.

There are some great bargains to be had out there. Just as when world
crisis causes the stock market to tank thus opening up great bargains
for those with some cash handy, this is a great opportunity for those
with the where-with-all to take advantage of it. When things turn around
again (and they will) the LSA aircraft will not hold their current
values.

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:33:15 -0500, Jim Burns wrote:

> What have you seen in Archer values?
> Two local pilots each recently purchased Archers for prices that I thought
> were on the high side, then I checked other ads and recent purchases. I was
> suprised to find the market that strong. I've always been a fan of the
> Archer for it's all around utility and it's ability to hold it's value.
> What suprises me the most is the number of older Archers listed and selling
> for $75k and up.
> Jim
>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:20:59 -0500, Jim Burns wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>> And I've also watched Piper Archer and most 2 place (even non light
>>> sport) airplane prices continue to climb. So I think planes that are
>>> burning 10gph or less are increasing in value and those that burn 15 gph
>>> and
>>> more are decreasing, everything else being equal. Just an observation.
>>>
>>
>> Fine! Be a bearer of bad news. Just poke me in the eye next time. ;)
>> I've been eyeing Archers for a while now so that's clearly not good news.
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>

I'm seeing Archers range from $70K - $90K depending on the year,
avionics...blah...blah... Over the last year, my gut seems to be saying
the price has gone up about $5k on average... To be clear, that's
strictly anecdotal and not grounded in fact. But I do agree *I think*
I've been observing and upward trend there.

Greg

[Michael[_1_]]

Greg Copeland wrote:
> Anyone care to speculate on what fuel prices will do to the plane market
> over the next four or five months? As prices rise do you think this will
> create good opportunity for buyers? That is to say, planes placed on the
> market because they can't afford to pay for fuel?

The reality is that unless you are really skimping on the maintenance,
not planning for major expenses like engine overhaul, not hangaring,
etc., fuel is at most 30% of your expenditures - and that assumes you
own the plane outright. If you have a note, it's less. The people who
find themselves priced out because the fuel has gone up are thus the
ones who were skimping on all these other expenses and just can't
afford any increase.

So you're going to see a lot of planes that are pretty old and poorly
maintained selling for a lot less. Older gas-guzzling twins especially
- a lot of people bought those beacuse they were actually a lot cheaper
than singles (my friend bought a Baron because it was less money than
the Cherokee he really wanted, now he can't afford to fly it). Even at
a bargain price, those planes are no bargain. The people who are
really maintaining their planes can afford to pay more for gas -
they're simply not going to sell in this depressed market.

If you're looking at a well mainained and reasonably economical
airplane (something that doesn't burn much more than 15 gph) you're not
going to see any softening. The stuff that burns less than 10 gph will
probably get MORE expensive.

Michael

[Dico]

Just out of curiosity. What kind of income would you suspect the
average pilot has in the US? People all talk about fuel prices.... but
if you fly 100 hours/year burning 10gph and the price goes up $1 per
gallon... its $1000. Not the end of the world considering you might be
in for a rude awakening at annual time and cost way more than $1000.

Are average pilots making $50k/year? or would the number be lower? or
higher?

Just curious as to people speculations.

-dr

[Jay Honeck]

> The reality is that unless you are really skimping on the maintenance,
> not planning for major expenses like engine overhaul, not hangaring,
> etc., fuel is at most 30% of your expenditures - and that assumes you
> own the plane outright. If you have a note, it's less. The people who
> find themselves priced out because the fuel has gone up are thus the
> ones who were skimping on all these other expenses and just can't
> afford any increase.

While there is some of that, I don't agree with your broad-brush
premise.

There are a LOT of really well-maintained aircraft on our field that
are simply not flying since gas doubled in price. When your fuel bill
goes from $160 to $320 per fill, that's a HUGE deterrent to flying.

Even among those who can easily afford it, the thought of paying that
much for a tank of gas is simply stupifying enough to make one think
twice before flying. It's going to take a while -- maybe a long while
-- for people to get used to it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Howard Nelson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> While there is some of that, I don't agree with your broad-brush
> premise.
>
> There are a LOT of really well-maintained aircraft on our field that
> are simply not flying since gas doubled in price. When your fuel bill
> goes from $160 to $320 per fill, that's a HUGE deterrent to flying.
>
> Even among those who can easily afford it, the thought of paying that
> much for a tank of gas is simply stupifying enough to make one think
> twice before flying. It's going to take a while -- maybe a long while
> -- for people to get used to it.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Yep. Like Jay's pathfinder my 182 now cost over $50/hour fuel to operate.
Hard to justify as transportation. Under 200 miles car is lots cheaper and
gets there in same amount of time (plus I have a car when I arrive). Over
400 miles commercial is cheaper and faster for up to 3 passengers. With
insurance/hanger/maint/fuel my costs for the 182 now exceeds $150/hr at
100hrs/year. The proverbial $100 hamburger of 1990 has now become the $300
hamburger. I think my (well maintained) 182 will decrease in value and light
sport aircraft will be the future for those who simply "want to fly".

Howard

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

There are a lot of valid points being made here. For our family, at this
time in our lives, flying and airplane ownership is where we choose to spend
our "play" money. We have no vacation home, no time-share, no RV, no
motorcycles or four-wheelers, no boat, no antique cars or tractors, no
season tickets to any sporting event, no swimming pool, no skiing or lift
tickets, no gym memberships, nor many of the other recreational niceties
that seem so popular albeit possibly less expensive. In fact, these were
some of the very reasons that we decided that we could afford airplane
ownership.

Like many things in life, when costs increase, it becomes a matter of A) do
you really need it? and B) if you don't need it, how bad do you really want
it?

The biggest change that I see in my personal flying is that we simply don't
pull the Aztec out for many $300 hamburgers, instead we'll wait and go on
longer flights less often.

Jim

[Jay Honeck]

> The biggest change that I see in my personal flying is that we simply don't
> pull the Aztec out for many $300 hamburgers, instead we'll wait and go on
> longer flights less often.

Personally, I don't plan on changing our habits too much. For short
flights to dinner (or what have you), the price is painful yet doable.
For long flights, on the other hand, the cost of avgas is really giving
me pause.

For example, our flight around the Midwest last month would cost much
more this month -- and the fuel cost was already difficult to bear.

Our flight to Madeline Island last week only took one fill-up of avgas
(ouch!), and our flight to Milwaukee didn't require that I buy ANY of
that expensive, awful stuff -- so the cost was doable. Of course, it
cost $150 to fill the Might Grape's 50 gallon transfer tank
yesterday...

I simply can't imagine feeding your Aztec right now, Jim. Doubling my
hourly cost would just kill me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I think my (well maintained) 182 will decrease in value and light
> sport aircraft will be the future for those who simply "want to fly".

I agree, Howard. That little Rotax-powered LSA "CT", sipping 4-gallons
per hour, is looking better and better....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

I guess what we've been doing with the Aztec is flying it on trips that have
a higher personal value. We'd much rather come down to IOW or across the
pond to visit the in-laws than do a short dinner run. A road trip to IOW or
around the lake to GRR simply wouldn't happen, even though it would be
cheaper, we simply haven't the time.

Our trip to KYIP was really a bargain as far as fuel costs are concerned.
Driving distance would have been 956 round trip. In our gas guzzler Tahoe
it would have cost $231 for gas and taken 18 hours. The Aztec used 100
gallons during 4.6 tach / 5.0 hours hobbs costing $380. Yeah, I know, most
trips don't require that you drive around a lake :) But when you can
instead go over it, it sure is nice!

Jim

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > The biggest change that I see in my personal flying is that we simply
don't
> > pull the Aztec out for many $300 hamburgers, instead we'll wait and go
on
> > longer flights less often.
>
> Personally, I don't plan on changing our habits too much. For short
> flights to dinner (or what have you), the price is painful yet doable.
> For long flights, on the other hand, the cost of avgas is really giving
> me pause.
>
> For example, our flight around the Midwest last month would cost much
> more this month -- and the fuel cost was already difficult to bear.
>
> Our flight to Madeline Island last week only took one fill-up of avgas
> (ouch!), and our flight to Milwaukee didn't require that I buy ANY of
> that expensive, awful stuff -- so the cost was doable. Of course, it
> cost $150 to fill the Might Grape's 50 gallon transfer tank
> yesterday...
>
> I simply can't imagine feeding your Aztec right now, Jim. Doubling my
> hourly cost would just kill me.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Ray Andraka]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I agree, Howard. That little Rotax-powered LSA "CT", sipping 4-gallons
> per hour, is looking better and better....
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
But Jay, you're not going to get Mary and both kids into anything LSA.
You'd have to have 'his' and 'hers' planes, and then you'd still
probably not have the payload you have with Atlas, plus you're talking
about more like 8 GPH for the two airplanes, double the hangar space,
two annuals etc.

I somehow doubt the -235 or even my Six is going to decrease in value
much. There are plenty of folk who need the seats or payload.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Jim Burns" wrote)
> Our trip to KYIP was really a bargain as far as fuel costs are concerned.
> Driving distance would have been 956 round trip. In our gas guzzler Tahoe
> it would have cost $231 for gas and taken 18 hours. The Aztec used 100
> gallons during 4.6 tach / 5.0 hours hobbs costing $380. Yeah, I know,
> most trips don't require that you drive around a lake :) But when you can
> instead go over it, it sure is nice!

1000 miles
20 mpg
50 gallons x $3/per
$150

956 miles
24 mpg ...on road trips, in the '94 Grand Caravan (3.3 Six).
40 gallons x $3/per
$120

It looks like (Tahoe) vs. (23-24 gph) is costing you an extra $100 for every
1,000 miles driven @ $3/gallon prices.

You have got to get one of these used minivans. :-)


Montblack

[Al[_1_]]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Jim Burns" wrote)
>> Our trip to KYIP was really a bargain as far as fuel costs are concerned.
>> Driving distance would have been 956 round trip. In our gas guzzler
>> Tahoe it would have cost $231 for gas and taken 18 hours. The Aztec used
>> 100 gallons during 4.6 tach / 5.0 hours hobbs costing $380. Yeah, I
>> know, most trips don't require that you drive around a lake :) But when
>> you can instead go over it, it sure is nice!
>
> 1000 miles
> 20 mpg
> 50 gallons x $3/per
> $150
>
> 956 miles
> 24 mpg ...on road trips, in the '94 Grand Caravan (3.3 Six).
> 40 gallons x $3/per
> $120
>
> It looks like (Tahoe) vs. (23-24 gph) is costing you an extra $100 for
> every 1,000 miles driven @ $3/gallon prices.
>
> You have got to get one of these used minivans. :-)
>
>
> Montblack
I live in Oregon. A trip to the coast from here is about 100 miles, and
by air 41. I can't go round trip(KRBG->KOTH->KRBG) in my Honda in 7 gallons,
but I can in a C-172. Trip time on the ground is about 2 hours, in the air
about 25 minutes. Granted this doesn't happen often, but around here, the
roads follow the streams/rivers.

Al G

[M[_1_]]

Jim Burns wrote:
> I usually keep track of what Piper Aztecs are going for and over the last 12
> months I've watched a solid $20k+ fall off of late 60's and early 70's Aztec
> prices. And I've also watched Piper Archer and most 2 place (even non light
> sport) airplane prices continue to climb. So I think planes that are
> burning 10gph or less are increasing in value and those that burn 15 gph and
> more are decreasing, everything else being equal. Just an observation.
>

Everytime I fill up my autogas STC'ed 75 Grumman AA5 I feel like I am
handed a $30 for some free flying money. As Jay would tell you, mogas
is good for your soul!

I still do a lot of local flying. Power back, with mogas at 5.9GPH
boring circles in the sky at 100 knots it's not that bad! I guess my
Grumman must have increased in value.

[Jay Honeck]

> But Jay, you're not going to get Mary and both kids into anything LSA.
> You'd have to have 'his' and 'hers' planes, and then you'd still
> probably not have the payload you have with Atlas, plus you're talking
> about more like 8 GPH for the two airplanes, double the hangar space,
> two annuals etc.

Yeah, we're pretty much stuck with high fuel costs until the kids are
grown.

Then, look out! We just might pick up a Decathlon...or a Yak...or a
CT...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ray Andraka]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> Yeah, we're pretty much stuck with high fuel costs until the kids are
> grown.
>
> Then, look out! We just might pick up a Decathlon...or a Yak...or a
> CT...
>

Hey at least Atlas can burn mogas (well until they put ethanol in it).
I'm stuck with that blue stuff for my Six, no mogas STCs because of the
octane requirments. It'll be a long time before the kids are all grown
for me.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-07-20, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I agree, Howard. That little Rotax-powered LSA "CT", sipping 4-gallons
> per hour, is looking better and better....

I flew a friend's Europa over to Yorkshire the other week to get some
maintenance done. It has the Rotax 914S. 1600 fpm climb at 55 knots (at
takeoff power, you have 20 degrees nose up pitch), and 140 knots.

The best thing is economy cruise (about 130 knots) it gets 50 nautical
miles per gallon (no wind), better than most cars.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de