I'm sorry... what?

M

Mtns2Skies

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,631
Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
You make a lowball offer of, say, $79,000 and they sell it to you. You're convinced that you got a smokin' hot deal.
 
Why did they sink all that money into them and only get flown 20 hours a year?
 
TCABM said:
Most interesting piece of those three ads: “AOPA is retiring its Ambassador fleet. “

Wonder what’s next.
Click to expand...

Q: "So, why are you retiring the ambassador fleet?"

A:"From a practical standpoint, we don't care about about the little guy any longer, so why pretend with these crappy little C-152's? You know, $300k will buy a lot of hookers and blow in DC these days."
 
Arnold said:
"152-reimagined" I don't see much imagination, just a restoration.
Click to expand...

They imagined that they were upgrading the plane significantly.

I wish them luck in selling. There's probably some people out there who want an AOPA airplane, but an old 152 for over 100k? No thanks, I'll get the Mooney.
 
If I was going to spend that kind of money it wouldn't be for a rebuilt 152. I do realize that a new light sport runs $124-220k and the total refurbishment is a pricey undertaking, but my '64 Mooney has only 2850 total time, 850 SMOH, and more capability for less than half the price. IMHO that is a better use of my money. YMMV
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Since WHEN were 152's listed at 6 figures?!?!

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...52+AEROBAT&listing_id=2392113&s-type=aircraft

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...&model=152&listing_id=2392096&s-type=aircraft

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...&model=152&listing_id=2392063&s-type=aircraft

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...&model=152&listing_id=2392097&s-type=aircraft

Is the market REALLY that insane?
Click to expand...

The 150/152 looks like it's becoming a bit of a cult following.
Look at what some people are prepared to pay for a 65 year old 180 Skywagon. :D

The Aerobat would be a hoot. Seriously, someone could buy all 4 and for 400 AMUs have a very economical fleet to start a flight training operation. The rental rates on the planes for ab initio, commercial time building, IFR and basic aerobatics could be pretty competitive.
 
GRG55 said:
Seriously, someone could buy all 4 and for 400 AMUs have a very economical fleet to start a flight training operation. The rental rates on the planes for ab initio, commercial time building, IFR and basic aerobatics could be pretty competitive.
Click to expand...

That, in my opinion, is the target market for these. $400k buys you a new 172 or 4 100% refurbished 152s that would be a good start to a quality flight school.

Threads like this one pop up from time to time and the response is always the same, because the posters are the same or at a minimum everyone is like minded. This mindset views a repainted and overhauled engine 1963 172 as equivalent to a brand new or completely refurbished 172, except that it isn't. If my experience flying and working on both brand new and antique airplanes is any indicator, I feel there is significant value to a new airplane. That value comes with a large price tag however...

At the end of the day, the equation remains the same. How much airplane can you afford. Do you want to pay a big price on the front end or buy an average old airplane and have many minor problems that result in a smaller but constant outflow of money and downtime to keep the airplane going?
 
mondtster said:
That, in my opinion, is the target market for these. $400k buys you a new 172 or 4 100% refurbished 152s that would be a good start to a quality flight school.

Threads like this one pop up from time to time and the response is always the same, because the posters are the same or at a minimum everyone is like minded. This mindset views a repainted and overhauled engine 1963 172 as equivalent to a brand new or completely refurbished 172, except that it isn't. If my experience flying and working on both brand new and antique airplanes is any indicator, I feel there is significant value to a new airplane. That value comes with a large price tag however...

At the end of the day, the equation remains the same. How much airplane can you afford. Do you want to pay a big price on the front end or buy an average old airplane and have many minor problems that result in a smaller but constant outflow of money and downtime to keep the airplane going?
Click to expand...

Most people look at this sort of thing and say they would rather buy something else (such as a Mooney) as a personal airplane. Understandable. But that seems a bit apples and oranges.

The art of running a business is generating a return on capital employed that is higher than the cost of capital. And that cost is, in part, a function of how much capital is sunk into the enterprise. Flight training is hard on airplanes. In the hands of students a $400k new 172 is going to, in relatively short course, be an airplane that starts having minor problems too.
 
mondtster said:
At the end of the day, the equation remains the same. How much airplane can you afford. Do you want to pay a big price on the front end or buy an average old airplane and have many minor problems that result in a smaller but constant outflow of money and downtime to keep the airplane going?
Click to expand...

If you look at the entire life cycle (and have some money up front and have time/inclination on your hands), building and flying something like an RV makes a lot of sense, especially if you sell it with a reasonably low-time engine. I'm at 450 hours right now, and will likely sell it in a few years, at which time it will have maybe 750 hrs TTSN on the airframe, engine and prop. I have little doubt that I can make enough to cover the component costs, and as for my time building, those 2.5 years were a ton of fun and incredibly life-affirming. Substitute "fun and challenging hobby" for "labor cost" and you'll see where my mind set lands.

Not the solution for everyone, I realize.
 
GRG55 said:
Most people look at this sort of thing and say they would rather buy something else (such as a Mooney) as a personal airplane. Understandable. But that seems a bit apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

If you compare price point alone it will appear that you get "a lot more airplane for your money" in an equivalent Mooney or Bonanza. That would sway many private buyers, including myself, if I was looking for a more travel oriented airplane. I would not expect the condition of the Mooney or Bonanza to be the equivalent of these 152s however, which seems to be where a lot of people get lost. I expect a 152 at this price point to be the absolute best money can buy, where the Mooney or Bonanza would be mediocre at best.

Most folks likely wouldn't see the difference in dispatch reliability because most are flying planes as a recreational endeavor. So not being able to take a trip because an alternator that was on its last leg and failed or the worn out strut is leaking and flat again is an inconvenience and a bummer. To me they are a major annoyance and one I won't accept.

GRG55 said:
The art of running a business is generating a return on capital employed that is higher than the cost of capital. And that cost is, in part, a function of how much capital is sunk into the enterprise. Flight training is hard on airplanes. In the hands of students a $400k new 172 is going to, in relatively short course, be an airplane that starts having minor problems too.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The problems that I am talking about with old airplanes aren't ones that a flight school and students that are hard on planes would induce however. Old airplanes are in varying states of being used up and being a mess due to inept owners and mechanics. When you start with a new airplane those sins largely don't exist.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
If you look at the entire life cycle (and have some money up front and have time/inclination on your hands), building and flying something like an RV makes a lot of sense, especially if you sell it with a reasonably low-time engine. I'm at 450 hours right now, and will likely sell it in a few years, at which time it will have maybe 750 hrs TTSN on the airframe, engine and prop. I have little doubt that I can make enough to cover the component costs, and as for my time building, those 2.5 years were a ton of fun and incredibly life-affirming. Substitute "fun and challenging hobby" for "labor cost" and you'll see where my mind set lands.

Not the solution for everyone, I realize.
Click to expand...

I think that is part of the reason why you're seeing the numbers of kit built airplanes increasing at a significant rate. I'm sure some of it has to do with flying something more "interesting" than a 172 but it is also a great way to get into a new airplane. If a person has the time and money to put into a kit plane they make a lot of sense for an enjoyable ownership experience. And the subsequent buyer should also have a positive one.

I've never really tracked the RVs, do you have any idea how much time some of the higher time airframes have on them? How are they doing as they age? There's obviously some variability with builder and maintainer skill level but I'd imagine one could get a general idea.
 
 
Yes, you might get that older Mooney for less than that overpriced 152, but that's where the cost advantages stop. You'll have retractable gear, constant-speed prop, and a bigger engine, all of which add to maintenance costs.

Insurance will cost more for a retract, too.

I've had the unhappy experience of dealing with owners who bought complex airplanes for really attractive prices, only to discover that they couldn't afford to keep them.

Remember that maintenance costs aren't based on the age or size of the airplane. Old airplanes can be all sorts of expensive fun.
 
mondtster said:
That, in my opinion, is the target market for these. $400k buys you a new 172 or 4 100% refurbished 152s that would be a good start to a quality flight school.
Click to expand...

I had no idea renting a 152 for $200/hr wet was an indication of quality instruction. Lol
 
denverpilot said:
I had no idea renting a 152 for $200/hr wet was an indication of quality instruction. Lol
Click to expand...

Where does purchase price dictate hourly rate? For that matter, I’d love to hear how the experts here figure an hourly rate in a school setting.
 
mondtster said:
Where does purchase price dictate hourly rate? For that matter, I’d love to hear how the experts here figure an hourly rate in a school setting.
Click to expand...
Usually a written P&L that includes all costs like most businesses?

Any of us that own them know the round numbers. Not that difficult to predict.
 
mondtster said:
Where does purchase price dictate hourly rate? For that matter, I’d love to hear how the experts here figure an hourly rate in a school setting.
Click to expand...

I'm on the Board of our Flying Club. Our flight training unit currently has 12 x 172s, two Senecas and a Citabria in the training fleet. We typically fly 1000 to 1200 hours per month in the winter and that rises to 1700 to 1800 hours per month in the June to September season.

You can bet that the capital investment (book value) of the asset is one of the factors that drives what we charge per hour. The bulk of our 172s are 'N' models, and we spend a healthy amount on refurbishment and avionics upgrades on our 172s, including GTN 650s and G5s. So far we have resisted the allure of upgrading to 'S' or G1000 'T' models like some of our regional competitors have. Most aviation students are in the price sensitive cohort. Our hourly rates and the total cost of earning a rating at our FTU is measurably less as a result.
 
denverpilot said:
Usually a written P&L that includes all costs like most businesses?

Any of us that own them know the round numbers. Not that difficult to predict.
Click to expand...

I’m well aware. My point is, I’ve never seen an instance where there is a real correlation between asset cost and hourly rate at a flight school. For just one example, the FBO I learned to fly at rented 2 year old 172SP airplanes at $5 more than the guy at the other end of the airport that rented the typical clapped out garbage you usually see. Who do you think got more business? The outfit with the nice planes or the other guy?

I probably have more inside information on flight schools than many posters here and all I can say is it is a strange business. The primary factor on hourly rates seems to be what the other rental options within an area are charging rather than actual costs.
 
wheaties said:
That's how much the G1000 WAAS 172 at my flying club rents for. We're right outside NYC, too. I don’t think you're getting a good deal.
Click to expand...
The club's rates are comparable to the other rental operations on the field. Palo Alto Airport is not known for bargain prices!
 
Don’t forget the price of J3 Cubs. They’re like collector’s items (to some people).
 
mondtster said:
I’m well aware. My point is, I’ve never seen an instance where there is a real correlation between asset cost and hourly rate at a flight school. For just one example, the FBO I learned to fly at rented 2 year old 172SP airplanes at $5 more than the guy at the other end of the airport that rented the typical clapped out garbage you usually see. Who do you think got more business? The outfit with the nice planes or the other guy?

I probably have more inside information on flight schools than many posters here and all I can say is it is a strange business. The primary factor on hourly rates seems to be what the other rental options within an area are charging rather than actual costs.
Click to expand...

Oh. You were just saying half of them are going broke and headed for the bankruptcy car wash. Ha. Agreed.

Keeping money on deposit at a flight school is about as dumb as going on a date with Cosby. LOL
 
The concept behind the "Re-imagined" Cessna 152's potential success hinged on the possibility of convincing the public that an old airframe could be stripped, disassembled, cleaned, put back together again with new hardware, and essentially returned to zero time with at least "another lifetime" left in the future hours bank.

With AOPA and Aviat's names thrown into the hat, that possibility was real. May still be. But in the cold light of day an honest listing will show, and in this case does show an aircraft with 14,000 hours total time on the airframe. A buyer will have to reconcile the fact that his or her purchase will result in the same consideration when the aircraft is sold at some point in the future, perhaps when the paint isn't as fresh and the avionics need replacement. How much will it be worth at that point? Quite a few lower time Cessna 152s will be on the market, also without fresh paint or modern avionics, and any potential buyers will weigh the "re-imagination" against "no creative thought process needed to value this aircraft."

Tough value proposition there. But, the jury's out. Maybe these airplanes will sell for at or near asking prices, especially with the market in its present condition, and perhaps that value will be preserved when they're sold down the line to the next owners.

I wouldn't be brimming with optimism over that possibility, personally. But it is a possibility.
 
Ryan F. said:
But in the cold light of day an honest listing will show, and in this case does show an aircraft with 14,000 hours total time on the airframe.
Click to expand...
I can just picture a prospective student asking "Is that a lot?"
 
I find it bizarre that they refurbed a 14K hour airframe. WTF?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top