I think someone mistook cost for value.

Deelee said:
...Somebody will buy it.
Click to expand...

Probably make an attractive IFR trainer for a private instructor. Unlikely anyone could buy a similar airplane and fit it out this way for that price.

There do seem to be people out there that like to take on project airplanes, blow their brains out and sell then on for a loss. I saw one guy a few years ago that dolled up a Baron 55. Probably had $350k into it when he put it up for sale.
 
I was approached by an acquaintance about a potential Baron 58 partnership, but the share price seemed out of whack to the hull value. He finally admitted that he and his partners bought the plane based on the word of another guy they know. When they get to the 1st annual, they find that they'd been sold a pig in a poke and the 1st annual cost them $60k to correct all of the deferred mx.

The share price they offered me was including a slice of the $60k, and that is why it was good bit above what the share would be based on the real value of the plane. I told them that I was sorry they got hoodwinked, but it wasn't my job to help make them whole and I walked.
 
Both of those people are dreaming if they think anyone who knows anything would buy those planes at even close to their asking price. They either are looking for someone who doesn't know the market, or they were told by their wife to put the plane on the market, so they did, at a price that guarantees it won't sell.
 
But but but... he "invested" 80 grand.

I always marvel at over-avionic'ed or over-upgraded planes. I guess the owners prefer upgrading them to flying them?
 
schmookeeg said:
But but but... he "invested" 80 grand.

I always marvel at over-avionic'ed or over-upgraded planes. I guess the owners prefer upgrading them to flying them?
Click to expand...

Oh, there's a few of them on this board, too.
 
schmookeeg said:
I always marvel at over-avionic'ed or over-upgraded planes. I guess the owners prefer upgrading them to flying them?
Click to expand...

How much overimproved do you feel the airplane in question is? What I see in the pictures suggests that it has at least one generation old stuff and really isn’t that far out of line for what most people want for radios these days. It is certainly far better than a set of narcos and steam but not that great either.

A friend of mine bought a brand new Archer that was definitely in the “over-avioniced” territory for $220k. That was a far better buy than getting someone else’s old junk with a dressed up panel in my opinion. All we did with that plane was fly it, not work on it.
 
EdFred said:
Oh, there's a few of them on this board, too.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and if God forbid, you don't want the "latest and greatest" you get berated for being a "luddite."
 
There are a ton of examples like these on the market right now, maybe not as obvious. In general there are a lot of airplanes being hauled out of barns and weeds, given a spit shine, and put up for sale at the current inflated market price. I'm not sure where the flood of ill-informed buyers is coming from. Maybe it's because financing one has gotten easier maybe? But yea you should expect to take a hit if you equip a trainer with a TBM grade panel. Or the guy who rant and raves about having a G5 in place of a gyro in a VFR sport airplane :rolleyes:. mini rant over
 
mondtster said:
How much overimproved do you feel the airplane in question is? What I see in the pictures suggests that it has at least one generation old stuff and really isn’t that far out of line for what most people want for radios these days. It is certainly far better than a set of narcos and steam but not that great either.

A friend of mine bought a brand new Archer that was definitely in the “over-avioniced” territory for $220k. That was a far better buy than getting someone else’s old junk with a dressed up panel in my opinion. All we did with that plane was fly it, not work on it.
Click to expand...

Not terribly, I should probably have qualified that. I think a single Aspen would've been my own limit on a PA28.

I just saw a Cessna 152 with a 530W for sale recently. I think that is a toe over the limit too, although I bet it makes a decent IFR trainer (...maybe. I wonder if it's too slow to be effective at that)

I was more thinking about the 65-year old bonanzas with the G500 + 750 + 650 setup that started life as a $35,000 bird and had $100K panels installed. That just seems frivolous to me.

btw I try to purchase planes from such revelers, after the market disappoints them and their initial asking prices. :D Haven't bought one yet like that though, so clearly there is demand for "turnkey" over-avionic'ed planes at prices higher than I'll pay.
 
schmookeeg said:
Not terribly, I should probably have qualified that. I think a single Aspen would've been my own limit on a PA28.
Click to expand...

That would be my personal threshold as well. I tend to draw the line at the point where additional equipment really exceeds the capabilities of the airplane, and I really don’t fee the second screen adds value in this case.

schmookeeg said:
I just saw a Cessna 152 with a 530W for sale recently. I think that is a toe over the limit too, although I bet it makes a decent IFR trainer (...maybe. I wonder if it's too slow to be effective at that)
Click to expand...

Ive given some instrument dual in 152s and it is ok but not my preference. On the other hand, if you plan to do any instrument flying in small town USA in the 150/152 a gps is almost a necessity. The ground based approaches are dwindling fast these days.

schmookeeg said:
I was more thinking about the 65-year old bonanzas with the G500 + 750 + 650 setup that started life as a $35,000 bird and had $100K panels installed. That just seems frivolous to me.
Click to expand...

I agree, for the most part. Where the panels start making some sense is when you’re doing a restoration or something similar and you need one of everything anyway. Then the G3X or similar starts to look pretty appealing.

But the average person paying to upgrade one of those planes had better like it for a real long time or accept the fact that they will likely take a loss on their investment. The guy I mentioned that bought the Archer is one of those guys - he doesn’t really care what it costs him, he just wants what he wants and enjoys it. But he is also a shrewd negotiator and wins more than he loses.
 
I recently saw a PA28-140 with a nicer panel for $65k. I thought that was crazy for a -140, but it sold in 24 hours.
 
Just curious, about the plane in the OP, is the second Aspen what allowed the vacuum system to be removed?
 
midwestpa24 said:
I recently saw a PA28-140 with a nicer panel for $65k. I thought that was crazy for a -140, but it sold in 24 hours.
Click to expand...

I had a 140 (sold it in 2021). And yup, I upgraded the panel beyond what was really need, albeit I never bothered with a GPS.

Why? Because I could and I wanted to. I didn't care one single bit about being excessive. And when I sold it, I didn't consider how much I had in it. I set a fair price based primarily on airframe and engine.
 
So you want a really nice airplane with modern avionics and that new airplane smell. Cheapest way is to go buy something old and tired, spend to restore. Redo firewall forward, interior, all new avionics, the works. Yeah, you'll spend a fortune, but you'll have a really nice airplane at a fraction of the price of a new one. Oh, you can buy a new one and get all your money back? Not so fast, these things depreciate. What is the depreciation on new compared to the overspending on old and tired? I bet they're close.
 
What's wrong with the plane that it won't fly coordinated. Nearly every in-flight picture shows the ball way out to the right.
 
flyingron said:
What's wrong with the plane that it won't fly coordinated. Nearly every in-flight picture shows the ball way out to the right.
Click to expand...
The plane is just all ate up with motor. :)
 
I would gladly pay for a nice panel...just not in an archer, cherokee, or almost any other piper. A cub yes, Seneca sure, Mirage/M600 definitely. But I am not a fan of those old 1960s, 70s, 80s pipers. A 206, 210 or 182 with a $100k plus spent on the panel sounds great though.
 
One thing I like about the Cherokees is that they have a large enough baggage door to fit my folding bike.
 
YKA said:
I would gladly pay for a nice panel...just not in an archer, cherokee, or almost any other piper. A cub yes, Seneca sure, Mirage/M600 definitely. But I am not a fan of those old 1960s, 70s, 80s pipers. A 206, 210 or 182 with a $100k plus spent on the panel sounds great though.
Click to expand...
@Tantalum is gonna have a field day with you, lol.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
 
SoonerAviator said:
@Tantalum is gonna have a field day with you, lol.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Hahah I saw it but decided to take the high road

Someone above said it right.. "overkill" is when the capabilities of the avionics exceed the capabilities of the airplane itself.. honestly for any "old" 70s PA28/172/182 a 430 and a single G5 are the most they realistically need..

One of the club planes here is a 172N 160hp.. thing has a 650, two G5, and a GFC500... why?!?!

You know what though, it's always booked and flies a ton. People like the gadgetry
 
flyingron said:
What's wrong with the plane that it won't fly coordinated. Nearly every in-flight picture shows the ball way out to the right.
Click to expand...


Maybe he can’t fly and take pictures at the same time? ;-)
Also some pictures still show protective plastic.
I don’t know Aspens, but don’t they have HSI ability, or is that an option?
 
Anyone who thinks buying a plane is a good investment is deluding themselves. So why do we do it? It's simple, for most of us it's recreation, adventure and yes, the cool factor. If your looking for a good ROI, aircraft won't be it! So why not fly something that makes it a more enjoyable experience? Sure, we all know that in order to get from point A to point B you don't need a glass cockpit but I bet that if cost was not a factor, most people would install all the goodies.

I don't expect to make any money when I decide to sell, just putting time on the bird burns money. Most of us fly for the freedom and feeling of accomplishment that comes from being the PIC. That's what most of us are, recreational pilots and we invested heavily for that privilege. We started with the rent a wrecks and eventually wanted better.

So if you have the cash, why not get the best avionics you can? When I bought mine, there were some things I didn't like and knew I would be changing. So I put some big money into Garmin glass. Not because it needed it, because I wanted it. No, I won't get that money back when I sell but it makes flying more pleasurable for me and that's what counts!
 
steingar said:
So you want a really nice airplane with modern avionics and that new airplane smell. Cheapest way is to go buy something old and tired, spend to restore. Redo firewall forward, interior, all new avionics, the works. Yeah, you'll spend a fortune, but you'll have a really nice airplane at a fraction of the price of a new one. Oh, you can buy a new one and get all your money back? Not so fast, these things depreciate. What is the depreciation on new compared to the overspending on old and tired? I bet they're close.
Click to expand...

Excellent points. I know a fellow who bought a c-172 from a company in FL that refurbishes them and sells them for outrageous prices and is quite happy to know that the ship is essentially new. My perspective is "how does it compare on the used market" but the other is to ask "how does it compare to new."
 
Grum.Man said:
Anytime I see a 2stroke for sale that isn’t free, it’s over priced.
Click to expand...

I flew two stroke ultralight and sport planes for a number of years. Got pretty good at "dead stick" landings.

I've heard it said by some that two strokes can be as reliable as four strokes. I flew many hours in front of (pusher) and behind two strokes and had relatively few problems. But they tend to be a bit finicky and in my personal experience the reliability compared to a four stroke just isn't there.

Maybe I should go find my flame suit now ... :popcorn:
 
Daleandee said:
I flew two stroke ultralight and sport planes for a number of years. Got pretty good at "dead stick" landings.

I've heard it said by some that two strokes can be as reliable as four strokes. I flew many hours in front of (pusher) and behind two strokes and had relatively few problems. But they tend to be a bit finicky and in my personal experience the reliability compared to a four stroke just isn't there.

Maybe I should go find my flame suit now ... :popcorn:
Click to expand...

My dad's two stroke Saab always ran.
 
Cars, motor homes, motorbikes, boats, etc all suffer from the same consequences.

Anything is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.
 
Daleandee said:
I flew two stroke ultralight and sport planes for a number of years. Got pretty good at "dead stick" landings.

I've heard it said by some that two strokes can be as reliable as four strokes. I flew many hours in front of (pusher) and behind two strokes and had relatively few problems. But they tend to be a bit finicky and in my personal experience the reliability compared to a four stroke just isn't there.

Maybe I should go find my flame suit now ... :popcorn:
Click to expand...
the two-stroke thing was always peculiar to me, on paper it's a much simpler design with far fewer moving parts and more power for given size and weight, seems like it should be a slam dunk in an airplane..
 
Tantalum said:
the two-stroke thing was always peculiar to me, on paper it's a much simpler design with far fewer moving parts and more power for given size and weight, seems like it should be a slam dunk in an airplane..
Click to expand...
Two strokes generally run higher Rpm for a given Hp rating
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top