Mike wrote:
"Mike Spera" wrote in message
m...



Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in
many instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there
which are very well equipped because those who were in them spent a
lot of time and they could justify costly improvements.

Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:

This one is listed for $39K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=114817

This one is listed for $89K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=115832

Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the
same speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might
be in a little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even
functionally, but not $50K worth. If I were in the market for such a
plane, I would be more inclined to buy #1 and that's even knowing it
almost certainly spent a good part of it's life as a trainer (notice
the wear on the rightside yoke).


My observations:
The second airplane had VERY low hours (1060) AND a zero time engine
overhaul AND a prop overhaul AND a 496 in the panel AND new glass,
mags, brakes, oil/fuel lines, tires, tubes, bat, vac lines, harnesses,
AND overhauled primary instruments AND new carpets/glareshield AND
repainted plastics AND a fresh strip/paint job. We have no idea what
the low buck, high time bird has because the listing only shows the
plane's generic specs for that year. Usually a dead giveaway that the
plane's actual equipment list has some skeletons (run out engine,
damage history, "suspicious" logbooks, inop equipment, etc.). All the
pics for the low buck plane are taken just far enough away and in low
light that it could actually look like anything in real life (great to
terrible). The pics on the higher priced plane are in the full light
of day and appear to show a plane in top shape (well they BOTH had
Cessna radios...).

If the low dollar bird is typical (for 11k hours) these two planes can
easily be $50k (or more) apart. Hard to say specifically without a
better listing for the high timer and a personal inspection.


You're assuming worst case scenario for the high time bird and best case
scenario for the low time bird. The high time bird is either in decent
shape, or it is highly overpriced because you can definitely buy a
decent 172 of that vintage for $39K. As far as the low time bird goes,
the question that should be going through one's mind is why would
someone sink that kind of money in a nearly 30 year old aircraft just to
sell it? My guess is the plane probably sat in a field for years before
someone started to fix it up and they found some "skeletons" such as
corrosion which was going to cost significantly more to repair or one of
a number of other issues. There are "skeletons" that can be found in
high time and low time aircraft. Furthermore you certainly can't give
full value to all the improvements made to the low time bird because you
will never be able to recoup those investments (although the seller is
certainly trying). The bottom line is people put a premium on low time
aircraft, and there's simply not much reason for it. I'd rather have an
aircraft that spent its life flying than one that spent a good part of
its life as a bird and wasp refuge.

Some great points Mike. Thanks for bringing me back down to earth on
this one. I must have been real crabby that night.

I do have to stick to my opinion about the condition of the low time,
high priced bird because it is based on the descriptions, data, and
pictures. That said, even if it is pristine, at $89k I believe it is
about 15% or so overpriced for this market. You are correct in that the
high time bird may not be all that bad. But the pics and (non)
description don't inspired confidence. I agree that it may not be the
disaster I suggested. Have to have a look and more info.

As to your point on "upgrades", I agree that they should not (and do
not) command a full payback. But I don't consider a 0 time engine an
upgrade and would tend towards near full value on engines. Paint and
interior are also not upgrades in my mind, but they do appear to only
fetch a fraction of their cost in the used arena (Vref says $3k for
interior and I believe $5k for paint). Most of the rest of the replaced
components are also not upgrades to me. But having the stuff replaced is
better than having a hundred "crap shoots" bolted to the beast that
could go at any minute because of age and/or wear. That said, at 11k
hours, they MUST have replaced lots of stuff on the high timer. Again,
the lack of description of that plane leaves us guessing.

When I think about upgrades, I think about higher HP engines, 1 piece
windshields, Powerflow exhaust, flap/gap seals and other speed mods,
late model color moving map GPS in the panel, custom built seats and
interiors, speed cowlings, aerodynamic wing/stab tips, etc. I tend to
think of an upgrade as something the factory never put in the plane.
Opinions may vary on what constitutes an upgrade. I'm not terribly
wedded to my definition. It is just a word.

I also have to agree that we would need to hear the "story" about the
low time bird. Why someone would sink the dollars into the thing is a
great question. This one has "owner contracted disease and shelved the
bird hoping for a comeback" written all over it. But to your point, it
could also be a resurrected disaster that sat rotting in the high weeds
for 25 years.

You see, we are not all righteous, stubborn jerks on the 'Net (although
some of my postings may sound that way - apologies to the more sensitive
readers).

Thanks for the counterpoints,
Mike