Opinion on Plane Purchase

J

jflong

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Oct 26, 2022
Messages
9
Display Name
Display name:
jflong
Recently sold my plane and have started searching for a replacement. I've been looking a couple of weeks now for a Cessna 182. It's tough. Every time I zero in on a plane something pops up. I talked to one owner twice. After doing some more research I found the plane on the NTSB report had an accident last year. The owner purchased it from salvage for $55k. Repaired the wing, fuselage and firewall. Asking was $290. So now I'm a little gun shy.

With that, my question is if you come across a plane like a 2000 Cessna 182 with only 700+ hours on the engine & airframe. Would you consider the plane since it's averaged about 28 hours per year over the past 24 years. Now to make it more interesting. These planes originally sold with the King IFR package. KLN-94 gps etc. If this same plane now has a GTN750xi, GFC500, dual G5s and a few other upgrades. I'm trying to grasp why an owner would make this investment in a plane that barely gets flown. And then list it for sale.

Just curious how others view this.
 
I know people who spent $100k on a 5th wheel that they only use once a year. I know people with boats that only use them a few times a year. I try not to judge how or why other people spend their disposable income.

As far as a 24-year-old engine I would run it till it needs an overhaul. Maybe next week or it may make TBO. The avionics probably cost about the same as an overhaul. If I had the choice of either having to upgrade the avionics or doing an engine overhaul I would pick the engine overhaul. I would rather pick where and how the engine is overhauled than worry about who installed the avionics.

If the price is right and you have enough resources to overhaul the engine when the time comes than go for it.
 
There a lot of planes out there that are overequipped for the owner’s mission. Look how many RVs - or even factory-built planes - are stuffed with multiple-screen glass cockpits, full-featured autopilots, multiple alternators and batteries, and are flown day VFR for 20 hours a year. And then the owners update the avionics every few years.

For some guys, it’s more about the gadgets and keeping up with the Joneses than it is about the flying.
 
Why?

"Too many self indulgent wieners with too much bloody money!"
 
The airplane is a candidate for an overhaul. Figure what you think the avionics are worth to you.then figure in the cost of an overhaul.then the numbers may work for you.
 
One reason might be they wanted to fly more, planned to fly more, hoped to fly more but discovered they can’t/ aren’t/ and won’t . Nothing nefarious, just wrong decision tree.
 
Some people (lots of people actually) just like buying stuff…
 
jflong said:
With that, my question is if you come across a plane like a 2000 Cessna 182 with only 700+ hours on the engine & airframe. Would you consider the plane since it's averaged about 28 hours per year over the past 24 years. Now to make it more interesting.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I bought my airplane in 2020. It's last overhaul was 1993. Between 2003 and 2020 it only flew ~250 hours.
The engine got some attention from G&N after I bought it (an expected expense), but after dropping about $7k on that it's performed great for the last 700 hours.
I know everyone's case can be different, but it's amazing what just using the plane more regularly can do to help it.

As for why someone would drop coin on the avionics when they don't fly it?
I ask myself the same question about why someone spends $100k on a beefy, jacked up luxury truck when the most "utility" task they undertake is picking up groceries and navigating potholes in a suburban parking lot.
But I guess everyone gets their thrills from spending money in their own ways. Far be it from me to judge them or explain why.
 
My broker now has this C206 (an "oversized C182) listed on various sites like Trade-a-Plane. It's been a great plane for 40 years which I had planned to fly a lot longer until I developed seizures that grounded me for life (even under Basic Med). It's a little overdone avionically, but that was all funded primarily by a previous co-owner that moved out of town, selling his share back to me. If you're looking for a "camper" option, this one is hard to beat.

The only reason for selling is a brain tumor, not a plane that I didn't want and love . . .

Good luck with whatever you find. C182s and C206s are both great aircraft.
 
dbahn said:
My broker now has this C206 (an "oversized C182) listed on various sites like Trade-a-Plane. It's been a great plane for 40 years which I had planned to fly a lot longer until I developed seizures that grounded me for life (even under Basic Med). It's a little overdone avionically, but that was all funded primarily by a previous co-owner that moved out of town, selling his share back to me. If you're looking for a "camper" option, this one is hard to beat
Click to expand...
I started my craptacular Alaska career in a yellow and blue 206. I really wish I could take her off your hands and keep the adventure going. But I just can't swing it right now.

I am more saddened with the reason you have to sell.

dbahn said:
C182s and C206s are both great aircraft.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
 
Having just bought a 182 two months ago, I feel your pain. I ended up with a 1974 182P. It was bought by a couple of retired guys who flip airplanes (one is an A&P).

It's a matter of numbers. Look at as many planes as possible on line. Look at as many log books as possible for a good candidate to pay for a pre buy. Don't be surprised if a plane fails a pre buy.

Don't be afraid to walk away. There will always be another plane.

BTW - assume that whatever you negotiate down on the price, you'll spend twice that for repairs when you get it. :)

Your specific question on low hours per year airplanes. I purposely avoided a plane that hadn't flown regularly at least in the past few years. Besides the engine corrosion, there are lots of airframe parts that just don't like sitting idle (fuel lines, hoses, valves, fuel tanks, etc.).

jflong said:
I'm trying to grasp why an owner would make this investment in a plane that barely gets flown. And then list it for sale.
Click to expand...

It's the reason a person would spend even more money buying an airplane and not flying it. I don't really understand that reason, except as mentioned above maybe life got in the way, wanted the "prestige" of being a plane owner, etc.

It might still be a good buy, but only a good inspection can help you decide that. And also factor in what it will cost to fix the items found, and then double that amount. Did I mention that before? :)
 
jflong said:
Recently sold my plane and have started searching for a replacement. I've been looking a couple of weeks now for a Cessna 182. It's tough. Every time I zero in on a plane something pops up. I talked to one owner twice. After doing some more research I found the plane on the NTSB report had an accident last year. The owner purchased it from salvage for $55k. Repaired the wing, fuselage and firewall. Asking was $290. So now I'm a little gun shy.

With that, my question is if you come across a plane like a 2000 Cessna 182 with only 700+ hours on the engine & airframe. Would you consider the plane since it's averaged about 28 hours per year over the past 24 years. Now to make it more interesting. These planes originally sold with the King IFR package. KLN-94 gps etc. If this same plane now has a GTN750xi, GFC500, dual G5s and a few other upgrades. I'm trying to grasp why an owner would make this investment in a plane that barely gets flown. And then list it for sale.

Just curious how others view this.
Click to expand...
I did just that, buy a 2000 C182-S with 750 hrs. Like you, I had concerns about the relatively low hours on a 22 year old plane. Compression in all cylinders in mid 70’s and the airframe looked like new. It had a GTN650 and GTX345 but otherwise original Nav III panel. I’ve put over 250 trouble free hours (replaced one vacuum pump and alternator). Just flew it from Louisiana to Wisconsin and back with complete confidence. I did add a pair of GI275’s and a GFC500 and ditched the vacuum.
 
Good luck in your search, be patient for the right one and it will turn up.
I searched over a year for my 182 and close to two years for my Citabria.

As to the logic of spending money and then selling, many great reasons above.

I will suggest this, you personally read every page of the log books.
Do not leave that to the prebuy A&P.
The logs should line up with dates, items you see installed, and repairs well documented.

Finally, it can be hard to research accident and incidents on prospects.
Here is a great database to search:

https://www.aviationdb.com/Aviation/AircraftQuery.shtm
 
robin ardoin said:
I did add a pair of GI275’s and a GFC500 and ditched the vacuum.
Click to expand...
I've always wondered about that. What happens when you have an alternator failure in IMC? Your iPad can used for navigation, but you quickly lose communication (ask me how I know) and if your attitude information is electronic you lose that too.
 
dbahn said:
I've always wondered about that. What happens when you have an alternator failure in IMC? Your iPad can used for navigation, but you quickly lose communication (ask me how I know) and if your attitude information is electronic you lose that too.
Click to expand...
Your ship's battery will give you enough radio time to talk to ATC (I also carry a handheld) and the AIs have a backup battery that is supposed to last about an hour.

To the OP, I wouldn't be too concerned about owners dumping cash into a plane. You see it all the time and as long as everything is properly logged I don't see it as a red flag. The ongoing costs of owning and flying are not insignificant, so there are many reasons why an owner might want to avoid the future cash outlays. The Arrow I bought last year had seen 2 owners put a good amount of investment in avionics (dual G5s and an Avidyne 540), a reman engine (cracked case), and other mx. I'm more than happy to not have to make those investments during my ownership and used that money to upgrade the factory autopilot and stec 60-pss to a GFC500.
 
dbahn said:
I've always wondered about that. What happens when you have an alternator failure in IMC? Your iPad can used for navigation, but you quickly lose communication (ask me how I know) and if your attitude information is electronic you lose that too.
Click to expand...
The GI275 has its own internal battery that has to be tested annually. It would have enough life to get me to VMC most likely. I also have a handheld radio, for what that is worth since it doesn't have an external antenna.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
dbahn said:
I've always wondered about that. What happens when you have an alternator failure in IMC? Your iPad can used for navigation, but you quickly lose communication (ask me how I know) and if your attitude information is electronic you lose that too.
Click to expand...

Well there’s the ship’s battery and, if you shed unnecessary loads, that may give a little time. Then, the 275s have their own internal backup battery that gives you up to another 30m after the ship’s battery gives out.

In IMC with electric/electronic AI/HSIs, losing the alternator needs to be treated as a land as soon as possible emergency, but unless you had a dual alternator setup, you should be doing that in IMC any ways.
 
I've had three or four alternator failures, one of which was just about to enter IMC at night with an emergency turn right back to Portland, Maine, which was otherwise uneventful except I lost radio contact on the taxiway. My most recent was this past November over Wilkes Barre in easy VFR. The tower treated it like an emergency although I never considered it one except to advise them of the situation and that I might be landing NORDO. As I recall you are technically required to land at the nearest airport suitable for landing, not the most convenient one for repairs.
 
dbahn said:
I've had three or four alternator failures, one of which was just about to enter IMC at night with an emergency turn right back to Portland, Maine, which was otherwise uneventful except I lost radio contact on the taxiway. My most recent was this past November over Wilkes Barre in easy VFR. The tower treated it like an emergency although I never considered it one except to advise them of the situation and that I might be landing NORDO. As I recall you are technically required to land at the nearest airport suitable for landing, not the most convenient one for repairs.
Click to expand...
And if you’re an emergency you can deviate from the rules to land safely anyway?
 
mandm said:
And if you’re an emergency you can deviate from the rules to land safely anyway?
Click to expand...
Years ago there were a couple of Midwest pilots who got violated for flying to a maintenance base instead of the nearest suitable airport. I think the FAA said that if it was really an emergency, they would have needed to land, thus the exemption didn't apply.
 
Racerx said:
Why?

"Too many self indulgent wieners with too much bloody money!"
Click to expand...

That applies to almost everyone on POA, whether your plane has fancy avionics or not, small GA planes (and boats) are the ultimate luxury items.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top