Confused about used aircraft prices

B

Blair Ross

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3
Display Name
Display name:
Blair
I'm looking at buying a used family aircraft within the next 2 years. In starting my research I set out my requirements as follows:
1. Carry 4 adults plus weekend baggage
2. Piston powered.
3. Easy maintenance/ good parts availability. (I'm an A&P)
4. IFR grade panel/equipment
5. Max price point about $50k

I started looking at C172/180s but I didn't like what I saw in equipment and pricing. After looking at 206s, 182s, archers, ect. I figured I'd see what light twins were going for. I was shocked to find that I could get a better equipped 310 for the same price point of a 172/180 or a 182. I would post links to controller or trade-a-plane of examples, but this is my first post.

Can anyone explain to me why I can buy a loaded 60's-70's 310 for the same price as a VFR or barely IFR 60's-70's 172?
 
Most likely desirability, coupled with parts cost/availability and somewhat higher operating costs. Also while the 310 isnt especially hard to fly, it can bite. The early models are pretty easy to load with CG aft of limits.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
 
You would be better off spending an extra 20k to get a single you like as that difference will disappear real quickly operating a twin. If you want a twin for safety by all means go ahead.
 
Long story short, gas, maintenance, insurance are all significantly more than a 172/182 and then you have the pilot rating/proficiency issue with twins. The other factor that drives 172/182 prices up is so many people trained in them and desire them, it drives prices up.

This from a guy that is currently in the process to buy a 310, pre-purchase is scheduled for Thursday. If you are serious about buying one, go over to twincessna.org and join. Very valuable information.

Good luck on the buying process.
 
PS. If you have the need to carry 4 normal size adults and bags and want any real range out of the plane you are going to be numbered on options with single engine planes. Most 4 seat singles won't work. Many 6 seat singles will struggle unless your range demand is low. The saratoga I fly (being retract/air conditioned/O2) requires me to offload a lot of gas for 4 adults (large adults) and bags.
 
The requirements you've set out are a pretty tall order. As you probably know, there aren't a lot of 4-seat airplanes that will haul 4 adults, bags and fly very far. Limiting your price to $50k further narrows that field. Wanting a decent IFR panel brings you down to what will ultimately be a pretty small list of possible candidates, if you stay with singles. If you're an A&P, a twin might not be ridiculous if you can find the right one.

If you want to stick to singles, your options are probably going to include:

1) Older Bonanza/Debonair - finding one with a good panel will be an exercise in frustration
2) Super Viking
3) 182 ($50k will be tough here)
 
Basically it comes down to supply and demand. This is not a new phenomenon. I paid $40k for my Aztec in 2009, which was a twin with one low time engine, one mid time engine, about a 6-7 on P&I, and an IFR panel (although not a great one). Yes, it was better equipped than a similarly priced and similar age 172.

The thing is, the 172 at the time cost ~$100/hr to operate (probably less) and the Aztec cost ~$250/hr to operate. Figuring the speed increase, about 2x/mile. It's easy to spend $20-50k/yr on ownership of a twin.

With your mission criteria I would look at a Comanche 250. That said, if you're an A&P you can probably keep a 310 operating at relatively reasonable costs provided it's in good condition to start. You'll never get away from the higher fuel burn, but you can get the efficiency improved. A 310 is a great 4-person airplane. The Aztec is more reliable, but it's hard to find a good one anymore.
 
A Comanche with tip tanks would probably do the trick.

And since you are an A&P you can do the labor intensive repairs yourself.

Heck, even a Twin Comanche shouldn't he too hard on the Mx fund, those IO-320s are pretty robust.
 
Even an older 182 or Bonanza is going to be tight on those specs. The useful load is going to sit right at 1000 lbs in either case. Now that's four passengers and bags (if they're slender) is 800 lbs. That leaves 200lbs for fuel. With IFR reserves, you're going to have about 260 miles for your destination (plus alternate). Less if you're live load is heavier.
 
The reason twins can be bought for so little money is because it costs about 3 times as much per hour to fly one as a single (with one engine of that type). That and supply and demand. Ive seen used Twin Commaches go for 5k. Runout engines and needing a rebuilt engines, props, windshield, avionics and interior. The cost of rebuilding it equaled its value after rebuild. Essentially worth very little. The economics are different for you. You are a mechanic.
 
midcap said:
Heck, even a Twin Comanche shouldn't he too hard on the Mx fund, those IO-320s are pretty robust.
Click to expand...

Twin Comanches end up being very efficient birds and a good option.

coloradobluesky said:
The reason twins can be bought for so little money is because it costs about 3 times as much per hour to fly one as a single (with one engine of that type).
Click to expand...

That's not true. A twin typically costs about 30%/mile more than an equivalent single. Often it's hard to find an equivalent single, but the best ones to look are at Comanche 250/Twin Comanche, Lance/Seneca, Bonanza/Baron. This even works pretty well if you look at single vs. twin turboprops, but again they need to be equivalent.

The problem can come in if you get a particular twin that is cheap on paper but needs a lot of work, vs. a single that perhaps is in better condition. Even comparing a 172 to an Aztec was about 2x the cost per mile, but you're also going a lot faster. A 150-170 kt single is also more expensive per mile than a 172.
 
I see your point.
It's what I was told by someone that was trying to sell his Twin Commache. He was comparing it to a 172. Twin Commache's rent for about 300 an hour.
 
The Piper 235 / Dakota fits the bill. And some earlier 182's. These will be MUCH cheaper to maintain than any twin.
 
I'm willing to negotiate on carrying capacity. My family consists of two adults, a 4yr old and a 6yr old. So at least for now 4 "adults" isn't an iron clad requirement. However I would prefer it to be an aircraft the family can grow into. Especially it its going to be an aircraft that I make my own.
 
Ahh... a lightweight family. Best bang for the buck might be a Grumman Traveler. 1000lb useful load pretty much and $25k
 
coloradobluesky said:
I see your point.
It's what I was told by someone that was trying to sell his Twin Commache. He was comparing it to a 172. Twin Commache's rent for about 300 an hour.
Click to expand...

Twin rentals will always be expensive. Low utilization when compared to a 172 and much higher insurance, and the boss still needs to make a profit off of the rental.

Most people I know who plan to get their multi rating and actually fly it will buy something entry level like a Twin Comanche, 310, etc. and do their multi rating in it. Or else they'll go to a pilot mill for a weekend multi and then transition into it. This also keeps the demand for twin rentals fairly low. Many people who fly <100 hours per year will just rent a 172 or other club plane for their flying. Most twin pilots have more of a mission they need to fulfill, and as such they'll buy a plane to have access to it when they need.
 
Blair Ross said:
I'm willing to negotiate on carrying capacity. My family consists of two adults, a 4yr old and a 6yr old. So at least for now 4 "adults" isn't an iron clad requirement. However I would prefer it to be an aircraft the family can grow into. Especially it its going to be an aircraft that I make my own.
Click to expand...

My Piper Archer fits my family of 4 with a 9 year old and a 7 year old. Maintenance is generally cheap. But as your family grows, you'll have to start leaving fuel behind.
 
Something else I forgot to include - most of the pilots who can afford to operate a $250+/hr twin can also afford to spend $100k or more on the acquisition cost. That's why you see the prices on older twins tank so badly. A 310R will run $100k for a really low one up to $200k+. It will cost about the same to operate as a 1955 310, and has a lot of benefits. Since most people who can afford the operating cost can afford a higher purchase cost, most of them buy new ones.

I have always gone with twins that are a bit older and a lower purchase cost. It has worked well for me, but my situation is pretty unusual.
 
A $50k budget might be a little difficult to fulfill those requirements. Forget a 172, even a 180hp variant isn't going to suffice for the mission you're looking to do.
 
50k caps you at 4 bangers (low useful), or six bangers without the volumetric space to make use of the six banger (Cherokee 235). For anything better, people seem to want 80plus. It sucks. Supply and demand though.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I have always gone with twins that are a bit older and a lower purchase cost. It has worked well for me, but my situation is pretty unusual.
Click to expand...

Is that because you can do a lot of work on the plane yourself? I keep dreaming about owning a Twin Comanche, but as someone that would just drop it off with a mechanic anytime anything needs to be done, I'm a little spooked by the operating costs, especially since I don't really *need* a twin. Someday....
 
kayoh190 said:
Is that because you can do a lot of work on the plane yourself? I keep dreaming about owning a Twin Comanche, but as someone that would just drop it off with a mechanic anytime anything needs to be done, I'm a little spooked by the operating costs, especially since I don't really *need* a twin. Someday....
Click to expand...

Any airplane is going to be expensive with that maintenance method. IMHO, the best way to manage your maintenance expenses is to get intimately involved with maintenance (troubleshoot, turn wrenches, source parts, etc.).
 
kayoh190 said:
Is that because you can do a lot of work on the plane yourself? I keep dreaming about owning a Twin Comanche, but as someone that would just drop it off with a mechanic anytime anything needs to be done, I'm a little spooked by the operating costs, especially since I don't really *need* a twin. Someday....
Click to expand...

As a non-profit we have been able to negotiate a good number of donations and discounts on parts and labor, which has helped to keep costs lower than average. Being able to turn wrenches obviously helps as well, as does picking my mechanics wisely. Some shops will rake you over the coals on every little detail and some are more pragmatic. Hourly rates come into play, too. Obviously the non-profit aspect is unique, but anyone with some good mechanical knowledge can turn wrenches and shop around for a good shop. A Twin Comanche is really a pretty affordable twin as far as those go. You've got perhaps the most reliable engines in the world, and the Comanche as an airframe is stout. If you pick the right mechanic who has a pragmatic approach and reasonable hourly rates, then you can probably keep your prices in check. I did almost no work on the Aztec, and didn't do much work on the 310 the first few years. We still had reasonable hourly costs.

What I was also pointing out is that by having the plane with a lower cost of entry, that money that I didn't spend is able to work elsewhere to make money. Or another way of thinking about it is I don't have to take out a loan, which is really what I would've had to do. Just by not taking out a loan that lowers the monthly out-of-pocket cost significantly.
 
Blair Ross said:
I'm looking at buying a used family aircraft within the next 2 years. In starting my research I set out my requirements as follows:
1. Carry 4 adults plus weekend baggage
2. Piston powered.
3. Easy maintenance/ good parts availability. (I'm an A&P)
4. IFR grade panel/equipment
5. Max price point about $50k

I started looking at C172/180s but I didn't like what I saw in equipment and pricing. After looking at 206s, 182s, archers, ect. I figured I'd see what light twins were going for. I was shocked to find that I could get a better equipped 310 for the same price point of a 172/180 or a 182. I would post links to controller or trade-a-plane of examples, but this is my first post.

Can anyone explain to me why I can buy a loaded 60's-70's 310 for the same price as a VFR or barely IFR 60's-70's 172?
Click to expand...





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
...double cost: fuel/parts/oil/headaches...you have one choice: Piper Cherokee 260/300...period/but cost $70-80...not $50...you won't go wrong...I've had 3..!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A36 Bonanza. Search and you will fine one.
 
pkuhns said:
Ahh... a lightweight family. Best bang for the buck might be a Grumman Traveler.
Click to expand...

A Grumman Tiger, maybe, but not a Traveler. Most modern day Travelers are going to be somewhere around 1300-1400# empty, add 220# fuel, and your useful load goes down to about 600#. Plus, with the shorter horizontal stabilizer, you don't want too much aft loading with baggage and such.

The Traveler is really a two person plane, with room to throw stuff in the backseat. Maybe a Cheetah might be a better/cheaper consideration, until the kids get older.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Not for his price range he won't.
Click to expand...

He might, unless of course he wants it to include "extras" like an engine and avionics. If he thinks those parts are important, well, his budget is probably $70k light.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
bradg33 said:
He might, unless of course he wants it to include "extras" like an engine and avionics. If he thinks those parts are important, well, his budget is probably $70k light.
Click to expand...

Fuel consumption goes way down if you don't have an engine. So does empty weight.
 
Simple supply and demand. Everything is worth exactly the same as everything else. What you can get for it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top