Buying New

[Mtns2Skies]

Okay I have to admit... I finally get it. Initially I was a big naysayer of buying new planes using the argument of "oh you can get so much more for the money if you go used"... and you can... but there's so much more than meets the eye. Just having peace of mind and not having to constantly be planning upgrades and repairs can be worth it.

I love my Skywagon and wouldn't trade it for anything in the world, but holy cow it's a lot of work. I bought it as a flying restoration and *thought* I knew what I was getting myself into, but 6 months into ownership, the plane has been on-and-off down for Mx for at least 40% of that. I'm not going to chronicle all that I've done just yet, once I hit a year of ownership we'll see how different of a plane it is than when I bought it.

Of course, that being said 98%, of the work I've been doing to the plane could have been deferred to annual but... it's my baby. By the time I finish doing all that I want to do with the plane, I'll easily have put in double what I bought it for which would be about the price of a 2010-2015 T182... it wouldn't be THAT big of a leap to go new at that point, coupled with the fact that tax benefits, and lenders are far more lenient with new aircraft.

Having a plane built for you with new top-of the line avionics, new engine, new paint, new interior. Not having to scrounge for parts and make modifications. All the logistics involved with getting it to and from Avionics, Maintenance and anywhere else it may need to go. Not having to fix prior owners/A&P's shoddy work - yeah I can see how if I had the money, I'd buy a brand-spanking-new T206H or T182 or at least one built in this millennium.

With all of that considered... my plane has a personality. It's seen so many things and would likely tell some amazing stories. For me to be able to give it the care it needs humbles me to no end. I've learned every single system in the plane intimately and know the quirks inside and out. If I had to do it again... I wouldn't change a thing. But I do completely understand and respect someone's decision to buy a off-the-assembly-line plane.

 

[CC268]

I feel ya...I feel ya

If I had the money I’d buy a new plane.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I was fortunate enough to go factory new with one of my planes. It was quite nice to know exactly what the machine's life had been, and to not have aging plastic randomly breaking off in your hand. However, don't fool yourself into thinking new means trouble free. It ain't a Toyota

 

[Radar Contact]

I hear you @Mtns2Skies. That said, in my case I got 90% of the range, 90+% of the speed, same number of seats and 100 lbs more useful load with my old 310 compared to a new Baron at 6% of the cost. I have been down for maintenance and upgrades a bit over the last 2 years but not too much.

Of course if you look at the interior/panel of a new Baron and compare it to my 310 I'm not in the same hemisphere on the luxury department or new plane smell.

 

[James331]

But then you’d have a new cirrrus, which would be boring as all get up compared to a skywagon, only new stuff that’s really interesting outside of the experimental world would be smaller stuff like a carbon cub.

For new level money I’d rather have a done up skywagon or beaver or cub or steerman etc.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I feel ya man. Same here with MX. End of June was 1 year for me. Always said I would sell it if it didn’t work out. Learned a lot. Hasn’t chased me off yet. But the hands on improvements and changes/adjustments and the lessons on MX have been part of the fun for me.

It’s the journey, not the destination.

I built up 4 drag cars. Each time after they were finished and reached what I considered their max for the combo (perfection), I’d race for a couple more years, then sell, except for this last one (yet). It was the building and dreaming and striving that was the most fun. I think it feels the same with this old bird. Even swapping out worn looking screws and CamLocs is somehow satisfying, plane and I bonding...

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I was fortunate enough to go factory new with one of my planes. It was quite nice to know exactly what the machine's life had been, and to not have aging plastic randomly breaking off in your hand. However, don't fool yourself into thinking new means trouble free. It ain't a Toyota

Yep, just ask @arnoha on his experience with a newer bird. May be a case of leasebackitis, but maybe not.

 

[Morgan3820]

For the money, I always thought that it be economical to do a frame up restoration of certain aircraft, say a C-180. We do it where I work for military aircraft. The aircraft comes in. Everything is pulled off, engines, avionics, transmissions, everything down to the frame. Everything is rebuilt, replaced, overhauled. Damaged airframe components are replaced. Then it all get reassembled. I know that it sounds expensive but it has to be cheaper than new.

 

[Ken Ibold]

For the money, I always thought that it be economical to do a frame up restoration of certain aircraft, say a C-180. We do it where I work for military aircraft. The aircraft comes in. Everything is pulled off, engines, avionics, transmissions, everything down to the frame. Everything is rebuilt, replaced, overhauled. Damaged airframe components are replaced. Then it all get reassembled. I know that it sounds expensive but it has to be cheaper than new.

Mike Jones was doing that in Murfreesboro TN with his Lock and Key Navajos. Turned out an excellent product, but they were a million bucks.

 

[Timbeck2]

I wouldn't know what to do with a new airplane even if I could afford one. I know my airplane, I wouldn't know a new one....and not in the biblical sense.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I know my airplane, I wouldn't know a new one....and not in the biblical sense.

Yeah, whatever.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Years ago I flew for an FBO that was a Beech dealer...the salesman used to cringe if I got within 50 yards of one of his prospects, because I had a VERY practical view of airplane ownership...why buy a new King Air when a used Baron would do the job?

Then I bought my first airplane, and came to understand why people buy the airplanes they do. It's not for performance, economy, capability, or anything like that...it's all about what you think you look good getting out of on the ramp!

 

[Timbeck2]

Yeah, whatever.

Was it that obvious?

Okay, I'd like a new one...who wouldn't?

 

[Timbeck2]

Years ago I flew for an FBO that was a Beech dealer...the salesman used to cringe if I got within 50 yards of one of his prospects, because I had a VERY practical view of airplane ownership...why buy a new King Air when a used Baron would do the job?

Then I bought my first airplane, and came to understand why people buy the airplanes they do. It's not for performance, economy, capability, or anything like that...it's all about what you think you look good getting out of on the ramp!

Being as there is no graceful way of exiting a Cherokee, I've just accepted that I'll never look good.

 

[jmp470]

New all the way here, if I could. I could write the planes history. Same with a dog. Puppy vs older inherited one. Yes, new items have warts, but,once they are out of the system, more than likely it will be a great plane.

I’m willing to put theory to test if someone is willing to buy me a Da62, or a Cirrus Jet.

 

[Eric Gleason]

My CAP unit took possession of a factory-new G1000 182. As I recall, the first couple of years and annuals included a lot of teething pains for a brand new vehicle. After that experience, I'm not sure buying new is that much of an advantage over an older one that's been taken care of well. There weren't significantly fewer problems than our legacy planes.

For the money, I always thought that it be economical to do a frame up restoration of certain aircraft, say a C-180. We do it where I work for military aircraft. The aircraft comes in. Everything is pulled off, engines, avionics, transmissions, everything down to the frame. Everything is rebuilt, replaced, overhauled. Damaged airframe components are replaced. Then it all get reassembled. I know that it sounds expensive but it has to be cheaper than new.

I think if you did the math on that, you'd find that you'd sink about twice as much money into refurbing it as the plane is worth. It would be a hell of a nice plane, though, and you see a fair number of these come up for sale. I think that the rebuild process is only profitable on larger planes that are worked hard and fly a lot of hours, like the Navajos, Twin Otters, etc. Those planes get to a point where they need enough maintenance that they're no longer good tools for the business so they need to be refurbed and replaced, and you can amortize the cost of the refurb over thousands of hours.

 

[arnoha]

Yep, just ask @arnoha on his experience with a newer bird. May be a case of leasebackitis, but maybe not.

My plane ain't that new...2003 with 3800 hours on it. The leaseback does not appear to have caused any particular issue. Instead, the leaseback means the issues come on an accelerated schedule, but it appears they would nearly all have happened anyway...just later in time. I actually attribute many of the issues to this having been a personally-flown coastal (Clearwater) Florida aircraft. Learned that lesson...humidity and salt are not your friends. Plane's in much better condition now, so hoping the litany of failures has ended.

 

[GRG55]

Years ago I flew for an FBO that was a Beech dealer...the salesman used to cringe if I got within 50 yards of one of his prospects, because I had a VERY practical view of airplane ownership...why buy a new King Air when a used Baron would do the job?

Then I bought my first airplane, and came to understand why people buy the airplanes they do. It's not for performance, economy, capability, or anything like that...it's all about what you think you look good getting out of on the ramp!

I think I am much like you in the trying to take a practical view of airplane ownership. I get in and out of an Aztec. The ONLY people who pay attention to me on the ramp are the 100LL fuelers. They have BIG smiles on their faces when I taxi up.

Being as there is no graceful way of exiting a Cherokee, I've just accepted that I'll never look good.

So tiring of the lack of attention on the ramp we are apparently all supposed to crave, I went and bought a Husky. There is no graceful way to get in or out of that thing, and it makes the Cherokee look like entering with airstairs.

 

[GRG55]

Okay I have to admit... I finally get it. Initially I was a big naysayer of buying new planes using the argument of "oh you can get so much more for the money if you go used"... and you can... but there's so much more than meets the eye. Just having peace of mind and not having to constantly be planning upgrades and repairs can be worth it.

I love my Skywagon and wouldn't trade it for anything in the world, but holy cow it's a lot of work. I bought it as a flying restoration and *thought* I knew what I was getting myself into, but 6 months into ownership, the plane has been on-and-off down for Mx for at least 40% of that. I'm not going to chronicle all that I've done just yet, once I hit a year of ownership we'll see how different of a plane it is than when I bought it.

Of course, that being said 98%, of the work I've been doing to the plane could have been deferred to annual but... it's my baby. By the time I finish doing all that I want to do with the plane, I'll easily have put in double what I bought it for which would be about the price of a 2010-2015 T182... it wouldn't be THAT big of a leap to go new at that point, coupled with the fact that tax benefits, and lenders are far more lenient with new aircraft.

Having a plane built for you with new top-of the line avionics, new engine, new paint, new interior. Not having to scrounge for parts and make modifications. All the logistics involved with getting it to and from Avionics, Maintenance and anywhere else it may need to go. Not having to fix prior owners/A&P's shoddy work - yeah I can see how if I had the money, I'd buy a brand-spanking-new T206H or T182 or at least one built in this millennium.

With all of that considered... my plane has a personality. It's seen so many things and would likely tell some amazing stories. For me to be able to give it the care it needs humbles me to no end. I've learned every single system in the plane intimately and know the quirks inside and out. If I had to do it again... I wouldn't change a thing. But I do completely understand and respect someone's decision to buy a off-the-assembly-line plane.

A 182??? Seriously dude, I can't see you trading the 180 for a new-car-smell 182, even if you won a lottery. Unless you were going to put it on floats. But then who puts an overweight, shiny new, leather swathed, G-1000 gizmoed, swoopy-striped 182 in the water? You're the envy of me and half the others on this forum that you got a proper 180. Don't squander that foolishly.

All of us (should) know going in that most of the airplanes out there that are in the "affordable" range for most of us are wanting for attention and deferred something or other. Mine was reasonably well maintained and flown regularly. But in the first few years of owning my Aztec I put in new ignition harnesses (one failed, the other got changed next annual), one new mag, overhauled two others (gawd, only one more to go ), new brakes and discs, new starters on both sides (one failed and the other got changed at next annual) and I can't remember what all else. Now I am dealing with new Lord mounts and a progressive hydraulic system re-build. At least we get to "buy" our re-furbished airplanes a bit at a time, with some control over the installment payments, without needing a mortgage bigger than the one on the house.

That's the way these old birds are and, just like you, if (when?) I hand it off to the next owner I expect it may be a better plane than when I received it. The way I look at it is if one was to start with a clean sheet and design a brand new 180, 182, Aztec (or whatever) to do exactly what our airplanes can do, the airframe would probably look pretty well like the airframes we already own. As long as that is sound the rest of the stuff - avionics, engines, props, paint, interiors and the now mandatory iPad mount - just bolts on and can be changed any time the bank account or the loan officer allows. I think this is one reason new airplane sales are so slow - there's nothing remarkably new about new airframes. Even a Cirrus isn't all that innovative when it comes to the basics of the airframe configuration, is it.

 

[eman1200]

....I went and bought a Husky.....

How ‘bout some updated pics/vids?

 

[hindsight2020]

I can't relate. My '73 Arrow has been a real sweetheart when it comes to dispatch rate. The thing has left me stranded off-station exactly ZERO times. It really doesn't get better than that.

I'm not trying to make a Luddite argument here, just keeping perspective of the fact that we are able to attain a performance metric on such a discount it makes the alternative a complete non-starter.

Don't get me wrong, there are curator airplanes out there; but the Cessna 180/185 doesn't strike me as part of that cohort. I simply cannot say a brand new Piper would afford me an improvement on dispatch rate commensurate with the current 10x capital outlay delta. At that delta it's not only cheaper to overhaul/IRAN, it's actually cheaper to own a spare 2nd aircraft sitting Zulu alert when the primary breaks.

 

[Morgan3820]

My CAP unit took possession of a factory-new G1000 182. As I recall, the first couple of years and annuals included a lot of teething pains for a brand new vehicle. After that experience, I'm not sure buying new is that much of an advantage over an older one that's been taken care of well. There weren't significantly fewer problems than our legacy planes.



I think if you did the math on that, you'd find that you'd sink about twice as much money into refurbing it as the plane is worth. It would be a hell of a nice plane, though, and you see a fair number of these come up for sale. I think that the rebuild process is only profitable on larger planes that are worked hard and fly a lot of hours, like the Navajos, Twin Otters, etc. Those planes get to a point where they need enough maintenance that they're no longer good tools for the business so they need to be refurbed and replaced, and you can amortize the cost of the refurb over thousands of hours.

I agree that it would be a money loser. My thought is that it would be less of a money loser than buying new. Not that I will ever find out.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

A 182??? Seriously dude, I can't see you trading the 180 for a new-car-smell 182, even if you won a lottery. Unless you were going to put it on floats. But then who puts an overweight, shiny new, leather swathed, G-1000 gizmoed, swoopy-striped 182 in the water? You're the envy of me and half the others on this forum that you got a proper 180. Don't squander that foolishly.

Oh don't you worry, this 180 is never leaving my possession. I was just giving an example since they don't make 180s anymore. It IS so fulfilling to be putting this plane back together piece by piece and I wouldn't trade it for anything. Like @455 Bravo Uniform said it's the journey not the destiation. I just no longer look unfavorably at people that buy new airplanes.

 

[Rockymountain]

Kind of like a new car. You can sure save money on a used one, but it will have some wear on it, and you never really know how it was driven to church. Reliability, though, depends on the manufacturer and actual plane. Most seem to come from the factory squawk free, and give great dispatch rates, but some seem to have been assembled before a long weekend, and need some desquawk time. ;-) At least with a new plane, if you do have a squawk, the OEM is usually going to be right there trying to fix it right, on their nickel, whereas you are kind of on your own when the plane is out of warranty.

 

[frfly172]

Have had three older used airplanes,loved them all,then purchased new,the factory demo. Have saved money on maintenance,and the fuel burn is great.

 

[Ravioli]

The fallacy here is that maintenance is less on a the new stuff.

Case in point. A brand spanking new SR22T is still running an IO-550. Does that power plant know it's in a brand new plane? I think no. Factory new engines have all the same potential issues.

You may have the peace of mind you know everything that has ever been squawked, and maybe fixed, but that's about it.

High price to pay IMHO

 

[G-Man]

Mtns2Skies, I've followed your airplane purchasing and enjoyed your adventures. In this case, your argument may be a bit binary. I haven't purchased yet, but it seems there's a spectrum of aircraft at various prices and conditions - a quarter the level of what you got for half the money, up to gorgeously recently-restored maybe better than new for a lot more money. New is on that spectrum, too, if it's the aircraft you want.

 

[Rockymountain]

Not sure that is true. I have heard it but it does not pass the sniff test. Of course there are no good data in small GA, so we can argue without recourse There are data in larger fleets, and airlines replace aircraft for good reason after some period of time. Here is a recent research paper on the topic where they looked at SDR's for unscheduled maintenance and unscheduled landings. Interesting read, but the math is hard to follow. Everything on an airplane starts deteriorating from its first flight onward. Maintenance can slow the deterioration of many components, replace old with new, but also increases the likelihood of introducing new problems like maintenance induced failures (MIFs).

 

[GRG55]

The fallacy here is that maintenance is less on a the new stuff.

Case in point. A brand spanking new SR22T is still running an IO-550. Does that power plant know it's in a brand new plane? I think no. Factory new engines have all the same potential issues.

You may have the peace of mind you know everything that has ever been squawked, and maybe fixed, but that's about it.

High price to pay IMHO

My only observation would be that New avoids all the age-related replacement stuff hassle that often comes with used - engine mounts, hoses, scratched windows, fatigue cracks in skins, that sort of thing. The 1996 Husky I just acquired is probably the newest and lowest time airplane I will ever own. But it has a list of age related rubber part replacements that I need to attend to. Just comes with the territory.

A new one has a bit more useful load, a near zero-time engine & prop, no cranium threatening aileron spades on the revised wing, eye catching graphics and an updated radio. And it costs multiples of what one would pay for a good mid-90s version.

I can replace almost everything, including the engine, and still have mucho money in my pocket for the difference. As you noted, a high price to pay for new.

 

[GRG55]

How ‘bout some updated pics/vids?

Coming, coming...

 

[FloridaPilot]

No matter if you buy new or used. An airplane is going to need attention....they ALL do.

 

[mondtster]

All of us (should) know going in that most of the airplanes out there that are in the "affordable" range for most of us are wanting for attention and deferred something or other.

I think there are fewer owners that realize that than some of us would think. I actually got out of maintaining light airplanes for other people because I got tired of the never ending squealing by many owners when you’d tell them they needed to replace anything, including normal wear items.

The real benefit I see to new airplanes is that all the wear items are new and not worn out, they aren’t full of corrosion, and they aren’t all torn up from years of being disassembled for inspections and maintenance. A friend of mine owns several airplanes less than 10 years old and except for one cylinder repair all they’ve needed are the typical brakes, batteries, oil, etc. The older airplanes he owns seem to always need something, but they’re slowly getting brought back to new standard so he can start over again. Of course, bringing them back to like new standard takes time and money. The last “annual inspection” I did on one of his older airplanes took about 1.5 years to complete and get it to an acceptable (but not finished) level.

 

[GRG55]

I think there are fewer owners that realize that than some of us would think. I actually got out of maintaining light airplanes for other people because I got tired of the never ending squealing by many owners when you’d tell them they needed to replace anything, including normal wear items.

The real benefit I see to new airplanes is that all the wear items are new and not worn out, they aren’t full of corrosion, and they aren’t all torn up from years of being disassembled for inspections and maintenance. A friend of mine owns several airplanes less than 10 years old and except for one cylinder repair all they’ve needed are the typical brakes, batteries, oil, etc. The older airplanes he owns seem to always need something, but they’re slowly getting brought back to new standard so he can start over again. Of course, bringing them back to like new standard takes time and money. The last “annual inspection” I did on one of his older airplanes took about 1.5 years to complete and get it to an acceptable (but not finished) level.

I hear you. I do a lot of the work under supervision on my Aztec. I have long held the view that none of these airplanes are easy to maintain because they were never meant to last as long as they have. Some parts of them are just a "beech" to access/maintain/replace. I just replaced some steel main gear structure on both sides of my Aztec that had corrosion induced hairline cracks radiating from the boltholes. Accessing one side of the fasteners was near impossible, and they can only be seen with a mirror. These were obviously never meant to be replaced once the airplane was riveted together.

When many thousands of airplanes were being churned out every year, replacing with new every few years (like Dad trading the car every year back then) was probably the attitude.

 

[mondtster]

I hear you. I do a lot of the work under supervision on my Aztec. I have long held the view that none of these airplanes are easy to maintain because they were never meant to last as long as they have. Some parts of them are just a "beech" to access/maintain/replace. I just replaced some steel main gear structure on both sides of my Aztec that had corrosion induced hairline cracks radiating from the boltholes. Accessing one side of the fasteners was near impossible, and they can only be seen with a mirror. These were obviously never meant to be replaced once the airplane was riveted together.

When many thousands of airplanes were being churned out every year, replacing with new every few years (like Dad trading the car every year back then) was probably the attitude.

I’m glad you took on that landing gear job and I didn’t have to. That wouldn’t be fun at all.

There were a number of things on the Aztec that really were never meant to come apart in my opinion. An obvious one is the engine firewall that was built around the engine mount.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I hear you. I do a lot of the work under supervision on my Aztec. I have long held the view that none of these airplanes are easy to maintain because they were never meant to last as long as they have. Some parts of them are just a "beech" to access/maintain/replace. I just replaced some steel main gear structure on both sides of my Aztec that had corrosion induced hairline cracks radiating from the boltholes. Accessing one side of the fasteners was near impossible, and they can only be seen with a mirror. These were obviously never meant to be replaced once the airplane was riveted together.

When many thousands of airplanes were being churned out every year, replacing with new every few years (like Dad trading the car every year back then) was probably the attitude.

Bingo! Part of the reason airplanes cost so much new is the overhead of producing them is amortized over few units. And part of the reason there are few units is because the old ones last so long. And part of the reason they last so long is that they were built stoutly. This is a complex chicken-and-egg game. If there was an easy answer, Piper or Cessna or Diamond or Cirrus or Mooney or ... would have come up with it by now.

 

[GRG55]

Bingo! Part of the reason airplanes cost so much new is the overhead of producing them is amortized over few units. And part of the reason there are few units is because the old ones last so long. And part of the reason they last so long is that they were built stoutly. This is a complex chicken-and-egg game. If there was an easy answer, Piper or Cessna or Diamond or Cirrus or Mooney or ... would have come up with it by now.

When I learned to fly at a Cessna Pilot Center in 1974, the 150s had shiny paint, the interiors were blinding (1970s orange and yellow) as the upholstery wasn't faded, I don't recall any cracked or broken plastic, and it was rare to find radios or instruments that did not work...they were that new. I think the school only kept the airplanes about 2 or 3 years before they were traded in on new planes from Cessna.

To your point, now its not unusual to find 172s with well over 10,000 hours on the stoutly built airframes.

 

[NordicDave]

I bought it as a flying restoration and *thought* I knew what I was getting myself into, but 6 months into ownership, the plane has been on-and-off down for Mx for at least 40% of that. I'm not going to chronicle all that I've done just yet, once I hit a year of ownership we'll see how different of a plane it is than when I bought it

I agree with the rule of thumb, it takes a year of headache to get a newly acquired plane sorted out. Now standby for next 5 posts of guys saying "Bought my old plane squawk free with last 3 $500 annuals.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There's definitely more maintenance with older/higher time birds. One of the cheapest to maintain that I've been involved with is our club's 2006 DA40 - It's easily $15-20/hr cheaper on maintenance than the other club birds. And we've had excellent luck with the '97 Ovation as well. Yeah, it's still expensive to maintain, but it's a more predictable expensive. And still cheaper than the 70s birds.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

I agree with the rule of thumb, it takes a year of headache to get a newly acquired plane sorted out. Now standby for next 5 posts of guys saying "Bought my old plane squawk free with last 3 $500 annuals.

So far that is me but only 2 annuals in. I have done preventative maintenance though so there’s that...

 

[steingar]

New airplanes have their own share of maintenance woes. The only new airplane that you won't pay maintenance for is a Mooney.