used aircraft valuation

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

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


"private" wrote in message
newsDE9e.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

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

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

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

"private" wrote in message
newsDE9e.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

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

Thank you for URL link

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

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

"Dude" wrote in message
...

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