Cessna 150 Price Outlook

Brent Rehmel wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
I doubt it. It doesn't appreciably outperform a 150 and it costs over
twice as
much.

I see. I guess that would explain the tremendous preference for 25 year old
cars, versus newer.

And, in fact, people who don't make much money *do* prefer old cars. For exactly
those reasons.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

I see. I guess that would explain the tremendous preference for 25 year old
cars, versus newer.

And, in fact, people who don't make much money *do* prefer old cars. For exactly
those reasons.

I've gotta add my weight to the "buy used" market segment. Until
my/our dreams come true and airplanes start costing $25,000 and
$50/year to operate, Aviation will be expensive! Even a 'dream' sport
aircraft will be expensive to own and operate. How would you expect to
get your 25' wingspan kitplane from the field to your local cheap auto
mechanic? Does anyone expect that on-field mechanics are going to be
as cheap for an oil change as the jiffy-lube down the street charging
$19.95?

Back to the used argument. I own, 100%/no financing, a 1997 Toyota
Camry that I purchased a year ago. I purchased it because it was
relatively safe, decent looking, reasonable on gas, and would get me
to and from work/weekend events etc. I went that route, because I want
to have enough money someday to own (part of?) a plane. When it comes
time to buy a plane, I'll probably go the same route: a used 172 or
cherokee for a first plane... why? the depreciation is mostly done
(almost all with the airplanes)... The safety records don't show that
2003 Toyotas are significantly better than 1997 ones, and with
airplanes this is even more obvious. When a pilot gets disoriented in
a cloud, or flies into the earth in IMC, no newfangled
Cirrus/Diamond/Kitplane/Cessna/whatever is going to save them and
their pax. Most of these airplanes (except the diamond/kitplane) use
the same engines that you can get at overhaul - negating a possible
argument for better reliability.

Finally - there's the tried and true argument I've read many times
here... I've also read horror stories about the new Cirrus planes
being in the shop for more labor hours than in the air by a factor of
2.

Anyhow - if a C152 ever drops in price from the current (guess range)
$20k to even $15k, I may just have to buy one! and that's supply and
demand... the price isn't going to drop much and I doubt at all...

"noah" wrote in message
I've gotta add my weight to the "buy used" market segment. Until
my/our dreams come true and airplanes start costing $25,000 and

You can get a Zodiac 601 HD flying with basic instruments and radios for
about $34,000. This is a good kit because it has very low construction time,
about 1/5 of what Van's RV aircraft require. The wings are removable so it
does not have to built at an airport.

A Rans Sakota can be had for about $24,000.

"Brent Rehmel" wrote in message
You can get a Zodiac 601 HD flying with basic instruments and radios for
about $34,000. This is a good kit because it has very low construction
time,
about 1/5 of what Van's RV aircraft require. The wings are removable so it

The build time for a Zodiac is a big factor. You can build a Zodiac 601 HD
from just the plans, shaping and cutting all of the aluminum yourself in
less time than it takes to build an RV-4. You can build a Zodiac from
scratch in the same amount of time it takes to build the latest prepunched
kits, like the RV-8.

You can build a Zodiac kit in about 1/4 the time as an RV-8 standard kit,
and it will still take 2 1/2 times as long to build the latest RV-8
quickbuild kit. The fastest a standard kit RV has ever been built is 87
days, the fastest a Zodiac has ever been built is 7 days.

You can get a Zodiac 601 HD flying with basic instruments and radios for
about $34,000. This is a good kit because it has very low construction time,
about 1/5 of what Van's RV aircraft require. The wings are removable so it
does not have to built at an airport.

A Rans Sakota can be had for about $24,000.

1. I don't know much about the Zodiac, and don't know anything about
the Sakota.

2. Explain to me how purchasing a fully functioning, on-field C152
with a good low time engine costs more than buying even the kit for a
Zodiac? Does the Zodiac at $34K include engine in the kit? (maybe -
I'm just asking). You can find good-looking, good spec C152s for well
under $25K.

3. Can I fly the Zodiac with pax? Can I put it on leaseback to a
flight school? Can I fly it in a busy class Bravo airspace
(Oakland/San Francisco, CA) ?

4. Can I build it in my 4th floor walkup (no elevator) apartment in a
city, with no garage? - even if I could - it wouldn't fit in my living
room, yet alone the fact that it wouldn't be a 'living room' anymore.

5. What is my time worth? You mention 1/5th the build time - let's say
300hrs @ 35/hr = $10,500 - and I have to work more than 40hrs/week as
it is!

6. Ok - the wings fold off. I don't have a garage - so what am I
supposed to do? purchase a trailer, have my Camry outfitted with a
hitch, and move it to the airport?

7. Does the Zodiac need a hangar for rain protection? (just asking -
maybe it's fine outdoors)? The local airports have decade long hangar
waiting lists.

These are just a few of my questions... I have nothing at all against
kitplanes - in fact, I have as a *long* term goal a great desire to
build something like an RV-6... faster, more fun, bubble canopy, great
looking, etc.

Maybe one day when I have a house, garage-workspace, and a very
supportive family, I'll consider that... for now - I can daydream of a
C172 partnership that I *know* will get me off the ground safely and
at practically the lowest cost possible.

"noah" wrote in message
om...
You can get a Zodiac 601 HD flying with basic instruments and radios for
about $34,000. This is a good kit because it has very low construction
time,
about 1/5 of what Van's RV aircraft require. The wings are removable so
it
does not have to built at an airport.

A Rans Sakota can be had for about $24,000.

1. I don't know much about the Zodiac, and don't know anything about
the Sakota.

2. Explain to me how purchasing a fully functioning, on-field C152
with a good low time engine costs more than buying even the kit for a
Zodiac? Does the Zodiac at $34K include engine in the kit? (maybe -
I'm just asking). You can find good-looking, good spec C152s for well
under $25K.

3. Can I fly the Zodiac with pax? Can I put it on leaseback to a
flight school? Can I fly it in a busy class Bravo airspace
(Oakland/San Francisco, CA) ?

4. Can I build it in my 4th floor walkup (no elevator) apartment in a
city, with no garage? - even if I could - it wouldn't fit in my living
room, yet alone the fact that it wouldn't be a 'living room' anymore.

5. What is my time worth? You mention 1/5th the build time - let's say
300hrs @ 35/hr = $10,500 - and I have to work more than 40hrs/week as
it is!

6. Ok - the wings fold off. I don't have a garage - so what am I
supposed to do? purchase a trailer, have my Camry outfitted with a
hitch, and move it to the airport?

7. Does the Zodiac need a hangar for rain protection? (just asking -
maybe it's fine outdoors)? The local airports have decade long hangar
waiting lists.

These are just a few of my questions... I have nothing at all against
kitplanes - in fact, I have as a *long* term goal a great desire to
build something like an RV-6... faster, more fun, bubble canopy, great
looking, etc.

Maybe one day when I have a house, garage-workspace, and a very
supportive family, I'll consider that... for now - I can daydream of a
C172 partnership that I *know* will get me off the ground safely and
at practically the lowest cost possible.

Ask him about resale value and insurance cost.

Charles,

The cost of aviating is increasing and made a major increase after
9/11.

The result is that most people have had to move down one notch in
plane ownership:
- Doctors who used to buy new bonanza's are now getting used ones,
- (Lawyers are too scared to fly)
- Engineers that use to have Mooney's now get Cessna's or cherokees.
- Blue collar workers who used to get 182/172's now get 150/2s.

Also, more people are looking at total cost of ownership, which favors
the lower maintenance cost of single engine, fixed pitch, fixed gear
simple planes.

The result is:
- more demand at the bottom end and solid pricing for 150/2.
- Less demand for the older bo's and Mooneys.

Mitch - That my $0.02...Businessmen buy jets



"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...
Anyone want to guess the medium term price trends for a C-150?
By medium term I mean the next five-ish years.

My guess would be "more of the same" meaning increases of a few
percent a year with mild year-to-year variations.

The only effects I can see are whatever's left of the upward bounce-back
from the 9-11 price drops, any price drops that might occur becuase of
the current political trends against general aviation, and the possible
coming influx of "Sport Light Airplanes".

(N7155A) writes:

The result is:
- more demand at the bottom end and solid pricing for 150/2.
- Less demand for the older bo's and Mooneys.

I had a chat with a busy (Canadian) broker last December. He told me
at the time that the singles were selling fine (especially the simpler
ones, as you note), but that the used twin market had almost
completely collapsed.

I'd be surprised to see too many people buying a 150/2 for financial
reasons -- a Cherokee 140 costs about the same to purchase, fuel, and
maintain, but it has two more seats and flies faster. I think that
people who buy the 150/2 do it because of personal preferences for
style or handling.


All the best,


David

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:56:47 +0000, Brent Rehmel wrote:

No. You cannot buy a new C 150 for anywhere near that price. It is
ridiculous to compare a 25 year old aircraft with one that is brand new. If

You can find C150's all the time for 15K - 18K. And they'll be airworthy
to boot. It's not ridiculous to compare the two. What major design
difference is there now between a metal Zenith vs a 25 year old design?
Look closely, you'll find many older designs that are better than the
Zenith, and some of the others you mentioned. Not one of them us cutting
edge, all they are is just new paint and metal. The Tiger is more
revolutionary than the designs you mentioned, as is the Mooney and many
others. You must keep in mind that old does not mean bad, I'd rather fly
in a T210 than the Zenith in IFR conditions, it's a better plane in every
single respect you can list. You also listed planes using tube and
fabric, that is very old technology, and yet you belive those are superior
to the newer laminar flow wings found on some of the 25 year old certified
aircraft. Again, newer does not mean better. We have not come full
circle, just branched off is all.

you actually add up mainenance costs and avionics upgrade cost, your cheap
150 costs more than a Zodiac, not less.

Not hardly, my maintenance is very low. My A&P allows me to assist in
things if I choose to, and since the plane is built already I don't need
to pay them to install stuff. But in any event, unless you build the
plane, you can't work on it without somebody else willing to sign off on
things, ala the conditional inspection. I don't know if the new planes
will be the same in terms of working on them as current ones are. I don't
know where you get your figures from, but you can buy an IFR certified
C150 for $25K pretty easy, why would I want to upgrade that? None of your
planes used a Garmin 430 or better, or the newer UPS moving map stuff.
Don't give me the avionics upgrade hassle, I could imagine every plane out
there needing it. I've seen people buy a plane with a 430 in the panel
and want to upgrade it. There's always something better no matter what
you buy.

BTW, was the factory plane you flew in an HD, HDS, or XL model? My guess is

It was the 601XL and had the Lycoming o-235 in it. It most definitly did
not meet the sport pilot requirements at the time.

surprise me a bit if a stock 601 HD with 80 HP would not be faster than a C
150 with 100 HP. A stock 601 HD would easily meet all reqirements for Light

If you don't believe me, then look at the matronics list and you'll notice
lots of people who've complained that their planes come no where near the
specs Zenith claimed for them.

but wouldn't be close to the stall requirement. The XL is a heavier version,
designed for 100 HP, with more wing area and designed for Light Sport.

They claim that now, but I doubt it since the plane existed before the
proposal, at least I didn't hear of this NPRM until well after the 601xl
debut and shortly after that their adds appeared touting the facts you
quote now. In fact, the planes specs changed after that as well as the
engine. I liked the o-235, very nice combination in my opinion.

I will tell you this, the Zenith 601XL I flew was more stable than my 150,
10 mph faster in cruise, and probably 2400 fpm faster in climb. I have to
guess there since the prototype didn't have a VSI in it, so it was seat of
the pants stuff. It's stall was benign, easier than the Cessna 150,
similar I think to a C172 in characteristics. The stick was pretty easy
to get used to, and the only reason I'm not building one now is because at
the time they didn't have the manuals for it in print, and in the past
Zenith has abandoned a design that was started but never finished. The
Gemini for example. They also dropped the aerobatic plane they had, so I
was reluctant to plop down money. There was no clock in the plane, I
didn't have a watch, so I had no way to do accurate timings for VSI.

I am now gearing up to build the Wag Aero Sportsman 2+2 because my mission
profile does not work well with a 2 seater, and I wanted something more
capable than my 150, closer to a 172. But I didn't want a certified
aircraft. My only requirement is that I fly behind a certified AC engine,
no Rotax's or auto conversions. I don't trust them. I don't like Rotax
in a plane, and I figure if the Katana dropped them in favor of something
else then that proves my point. I don't like their TBO, which is not
mandatory for part 91 flying.

I've always heard it's great to fly an experimental, but to fly an
experimental with an experimental engine is much more work and more
dangerous.

So for me, it's Continental or Lycoming, or none at all.

Now if you want to compare the XL to the HD, or HDS, it goes like this.
The HDS is the most stable due to the higher wing loading, then HD, then
XL. All are fine flying aircraft.

I live but 20 minutes by air from Mexico and so I've been there many times
and am very familar with their planes. The 4 place design of theirs is
nice, but it's cramped in terms of where to put the feet. I like it
however, but have never flown it.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:54:05 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:

Ask him about resale value and insurance cost.

What resale value, and about that insurance. Mine is cheaper than what
I'd pay to fly a Zenith. I think he's got pie in the eye and is missing
something. I've known experimental owners to cut them up rather than sell
them, or other similar things so that they won't be sued by the next owner
when they crash. Not many do stupid things like that however.

Sure, you can build a Zenith for the price he's quoting, but I challenge
him to make it IFR equipped with a 0 time engine. I say 0 since he's
comparing a brand spanking new plane to 25 year old stuff like the older
planes are dangerous.

He can't do it. Look at what the kit costs, then add in a new engine, and
an IFR panel and he's well above what you can buy a 25 year old plane for.