Looking to purchase a plane

[Henning]

Sorry gang, been away for a while.... work tends to get in the way of fun. Thank you all for the posts.

So, I've been looking at some planes and running them through AOPA's Vref, and the prices are usually pretty far off the asking price.

Here are a couple of examples:

I looked at the Tomahawk being advertised on trade-a-plane.com for $15,500... its value on AOPA's Vref is like $7500!

I was also looking at a 1965 Cherokee 140 with 3900 hours and 1800 SMOH, with everything advertised put into the calculator... $13,000! Asking price was $21,700.

Is this calculator so far out of whack that it's not even being used anymore or what's the story with it?

Tell ya what, AOPA's VRef is a long way from a quality evaluator. The results are far different when you you use the NAAA Evaluator in Trade a Plane which is considerably more comprehensive. There's way more to an aircraft's value than engine and airframe hours.

 

[denverpilot]

Agreed with some of the valuation comments but two other thoughts come to mind also...

1. There's a lot of folks out there who think they're going to break even on their airplanes who quite frankly, are delusional. (I suspect, for example, that our airplane could be had for $20K less than we've paid for it now. The STOL adds a bit of value -- for the right buyer -- but inflation is really here folks, even if the Fed says it isn't. Wages don't support the housing or aircraft markets, and they're blowing more air into the bubble by printing money.)

2. Dad's old phrase: "It's only worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it today." Make your offer of what it's worth to you. If the seller is offended, that's their own emotional problem to deal with (it's worth more to THEM than it is to you). Plenty of owners have put stuff up for sale in the current economy, gotten low offers, decided they didn't need to sell after all, and the aircraft sits on the ramp with flat tires and a run-out engine.

There isn't going to be any cash for clunkers deal to bail out the airplane manufacturers and artificially create scarcity in the aviation market. A lot of people are going to lose a lot more money holding onto aifcraft that they're "sure" will someday increase in value as they continue to depreciate. Only once those aircraft are in the junkyards will the few who held out that long will find they have "rare classics" that someone wants.

The capitulation in pricing hasn't gotten into full-swing yet in aviation. I expect another 10% down before people start panic-selling.

You can actively search for "cherry" aircraft with "motivated" sellers. They're few and everyone's playing that game. Or you can search for the same thing and actively low-ball prices. You'll probably make a maximum 10 offers before someone bites.

The old tried and true way also works. Buy something run-out for a song with the plan to throw mountains of cash at it until it's what you wanted. The downside there is again, wages. A&P's aren't lacking for work so those hours to fix one up are going to be relatively expensive.

If you're worried about getting a bad rep as a tire-kicker, it's easy to show real numbers on a spreadsheet to the seller what it would cost you to fix up their bird in the current circumstances that will prove their beloved bird is nearly worthless...

 

[AEROBAT]

I really like the Tri Pacer/Pacer but check the fabric good before you buy. As far as the 172's go the older ones with manual flaps are much nicer to fly but the O-300 has a few issues.

 

[jesse]

As far as the 172's go the older ones with manual flaps are much nicer to fly but the O-300 has a few issues.

..like..being horribly underpowered?

 

[poadeleted20]

..like..being horribly underpowered?

Not if you don't overload it, which is unfortunately easy to do.

 

[Henning]

..like..being horribly underpowered?

The plane isn't "horribly underpowered" with a 145hp O-300, it just isn't "well powered". It is "economically powered". It has sufficient power to fulfill it's roll. If you needed more you had the 175 and 182 to choose from. Later the 175 was replaced by the 177.... The issue is when you try to redefine the roll the plane was designed for which typically adds weight requiring more power to perform adequately. Also we have redefined our performance expectations for the plane.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I really like the Tri Pacer/Pacer but check the fabric good before you buy. As far as the 172's go the older ones with manual flaps are much nicer to fly but the O-300 has a few issues.

Such as being much better than any equivalent Lycoming?

 

[alaskaflyer]

..like..being horribly underpowered?

That is inherent in any 172 with less than 180 horsepower. The early 172's also had a lighter gross weight to go with that O-300.

I flew a 172R out of a 8000MSL strip about 25 lbs undergross earlier this summer and I was wishing I had my 170 on that trip!

Having flown Taylorcrafts, Champs and Chiefs on warm days, as well as a 150HP Stinson, I don't consider any model of 172 to be critically underpowered

 

[Tom-D]

The C-145 and the 0-300-A-D had 5, read it 5. less horse power than the 0-320-E-2-D, and it has 15 less than the 0-320-H-2-AD.

and is a whole lot less costly to own.

And smoother than both...

 

[Tom-D]

the O-300 has a few issues.

like what?

 

[Tom-D]

The plane isn't "horribly underpowered" with a 145hp O-300, it just isn't "well powered". It is "economically powered". It has sufficient power to fulfill it's roll. If you needed more you had the 175 and 182 to choose from. Later the 175 was replaced by the 177.... The issue is when you try to redefine the roll the plane was designed for which typically adds weight requiring more power to perform adequately. Also we have redefined our performance expectations for the plane.

the newer ones have less weight to power ratio than the older pre-67, simply because the later models got fat with equipment.

Cessna seemed to forget the purpose of the 172 was to transport 4 people.

 

[AEROBAT]

like what?

Like what...like four more plugs to buy and oil cooling issues on hot days.

The plus side of the O300 is a far smoother running engine.

The older 172's with the O-300 engine are usualy lighter than the later models and the ones I have flown are just as fast as the Lycoming O-320 planes. Most of the older ones don't have the stupid electric flaps either.

 

[DavidWhite]

You can find a deal on an older skyhawk with a 180 engine

 

[Tom-D]

Like what...like four more plugs to buy and oil cooling issues on hot days.

The plus side of the O300 is a far smoother running engine.

The older 172's with the O-300 engine are usualy lighter than the later models and the ones I have flown are just as fast as the Lycoming O-320 planes. Most of the older ones don't have the stupid electric flaps either.

4 plugs = 100 bucks every 500 hours, off set by a smoother running engine producing less vibrations that wear less on gyros, instruments, radios, hinges, and other vibration prone items.

think pilot fatigue, what makes you tired, wears the aircraft too.

 

[Skylane81E]

For 25K you aren't going to get to be very picky.

Here's my standard advice for buying a plane. Pick the type of plane that meets your wants/needs then buy the best one you can afford. When buying airplanes you can pay now or pay later, and unless you're an A&P (and often even if you are) you will pay more later.

On engine times, I'd want one very low time or run out. My thinking is thus:
If low time there hasn't been as much time for it to be abused.
If run out (and priced accordingly) any time you get out of the engine before overhauling is gravy and once overhauled you KNOW how it was operated from day one.


However when looking at inexpencive airplanes the cost of an engine overhaul can become a very large percentage of the value of the plane. I've seen 150s for sale for not much above the cost of an overhaul. Makes one wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper just to sell the plane and buy another when an overhaul is needed.

 

[Skylane81E]

4 plugs = 100 bucks every 500 hours, off set by a smoother running engine producing less vibrations that wear less on gyros, instruments, radios, hinges, and other vibration prone items.

think pilot fatigue, what makes you tired, wears the aircraft too.

TCM did hit on some magic on their 6cyl engines, they are super smooooooth!

 

[DaleB]

I've seen 150s for sale for not much above the cost of an overhaul. Makes one wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper just to sell the plane and buy another when an overhaul is needed.

Ah, you have hit upon my super secret strategy! I have no intention of continuing to rent once I get licensed. I'm scouting now, learning all I can and doing my research so that when the time its right to buy, I'll know what I'm looking for (and what I'm looking at when I see it) and be ready to make a good buying decision. And I'll have the cars paid off so I can afford to park it, gas it and keep it flying.

I figure I'll buy what I can afford that will do what we want/need it to do (the current low-TSMOH prospects in my target price range are mostly PA28s and Sundowners). When it's getting close to time for a rebuild, I'll sell the sucker and move on to something a little quicker, a little nicer.

I'll bet (purchase price - selling price) < (cost of overhaul). If it is, I get a newer, better plane for less than or equal to what I'd be paying anyway. If not, there's always the alternative -- I can keep it and do the major.

 

[Henning]

the newer ones have less weight to power ratio than the older pre-67, simply because the later models got fat with equipment.

Cessna seemed to forget the purpose of the 172 was to transport 4 people.

Was that ever the roll of the 172 to do 4 full sized people though? I thought it was supposed to be the "Young Family" model with the 175 being the higher peromance "TWeen/Teen family size people. "Four Adults" has always been the 182's marketed mission profile. The 205 & 206 were marketed to the Utility operators, the 210 to the Business Man and the 310 to the Executive.

 

[bgdriveway]

I'll jump in here too. I am sort of in the market for a IFR equipped aircraft for less than $30k. 25 is probably better spot, but I used $30k. I have more or less settled on a Cherokee 140/160 for that role. I had thought about getting a low end Mooney, but with operational costs and such being higher, decided I didn't want to get a low grade Mooney. I'd rather have a nicer Cherokee.

My main use of a plane is long trips, usually by myself, but occasionally would have someone with me. I am usually in the 300-500 mile range of travel. Looking around at the options for sale, a Cherokee is the only thing that I have seen that is in my price range, and fits the bill.

The one thing that is still a bit of an unknown for me, is like the OP, I am a bit taller. Having not actually sat in a 140/160 cockpit, I have no idea if I will think it's comfortable. I did fly a 161 warrior once for a few hours, but I am not sure if a 140 is smaller.

I have other reasons for not buying for the next couple of months, but I am also still trying to decide what options I want. I am not sure if I'd rather have a 160 hp engine, or a 140 with a powerflow exhaust, or maybe the 160 with the powerflow (if that's possible, I don't know.) But then, you are starting to get more expensive with all that. I will almost assuredly be adding VG's and wingtips if the plane doesn't come with them. Maybe some of the gap seals and fairings that are also out there. I have heard that a 140 can cruise 130 kts if properly equipped, but that costs usually about $10k. (I am an A&P so I'm not including labor in there.)

Maybe there are some 140/160 owners that could shed some light on which way to go with the engine options. If I remember right, most of the 160 horse engines won't play nice or legally with the Autofuel STC's. I would consider a Cherokee 180 for the better performance, but you start to get over that $30k at that point. So my field has been narrowed to the Cherokee series at this point. (As for Beech or Cessna or whatever else, they seem to be priced higher right now.)

 

[Bob Noel]

Maybe there are some 140/160 owners that could shed some light on which way to go with the engine options. If I remember right, most of the 160 horse engines won't play nice or legally with the Autofuel STC's. I would consider a Cherokee 180 for the better performance, but you start to get over that $30k at that point. So my field has been narrowed to the Cherokee series at this point. (As for Beech or Cessna or whatever else, they seem to be priced higher right now.)

I own a cherokee 140 and upgraded the engine to 160hp.

I want to point out that the operating cost of the 140 and a 180 will be approximately the same. So the main difference in your total ownership costs will be the purchase price. If you can afford the initial purchase of a good 180, you'd be better off.

So why did I buy a 140? Because at the time (1994) I was more interested in have the aircraft *now* and not wait to save my pennies.

Anyway, good luck

 

[studiomusic]

Just bought a nice Cherokee 140 with the 160 engine.

Also have high lift wing tips. Just had the center spar replaced (old one had a little corrosion on it), new control wires, new paint, new seat covers, new hoses in the cowl, new beacon, new brakes, new starter, basic IFR package, fresh annual... all for incredibly cheap (very incredibly cheap!).

At one point it had rear seats, but they were taken out. I think I'm going to put them back in since the mounts and belts are still there.

Carries me and my CFI brother very easily with full tanks.
We fly out of BTF with an altitude of 4234 MSL.

 

[Henning]

Just bought a nice Cherokee 140 with the 160 engine.

Also have high lift wing tips. Just had the center spar replaced (old one had a little corrosion on it), new control wires, new paint, new seat covers, new hoses in the cowl, new beacon, new brakes, new starter, basic IFR package, fresh annual... all for incredibly cheap (very incredibly cheap!).

At one point it had rear seats, but they were taken out. I think I'm going to put them back in since the mounts and belts are still there.

Carries me and my CFI brother very easily with full tanks.
We fly out of BTF with an altitude of 4234 MSL.

I'd wait before I put the back seat in. You may find the plane has more utility without it unless your mission is for 3 people. If all you ever put back there is "stuff" all the back seat does is take up space, performance and useful load.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I'll jump in here too. I am sort of in the market for a IFR equipped aircraft for less than $30k. 25 is probably better spot, but I used $30k. I have more or less settled on a Cherokee 140/160 for that role. I had thought about getting a low end Mooney, but with operational costs and such being higher, decided I didn't want to get a low grade Mooney. I'd rather have a nicer Cherokee.

My main use of a plane is long trips, usually by myself, but occasionally would have someone with me. I am usually in the 300-500 mile range of travel. Looking around at the options for sale, a Cherokee is the only thing that I have seen that is in my price range, and fits the bill.

Sounds to me like a T-18 would be a better fit.

 

[bgdriveway]

Well not knowing anything about the t-18 other than a quick google excursion, I don't know if that's something I'd like. One problem is that it would need to fit a tall pilot (me). A lot of homebuilts that I have seen are kinda small. That's the same problem I see with the grummans. I haven't seen every model of a grumman, but the couple that I did some work on seem rather cramped in the cockpit. But as I already stated, I still have to climb into a 140/160 cockpit for the same reason.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Well not knowing anything about the t-18 other than a quick google excursion, I don't know if that's something I'd like. One problem is that it would need to fit a tall pilot (me). A lot of homebuilts that I have seen are kinda small. That's the same problem I see with the grummans. I haven't seen every model of a grumman, but the couple that I did some work on seem rather cramped in the cockpit. But as I already stated, I still have to climb into a 140/160 cockpit for the same reason.

How tall is tall? I'm 6'0, my brother is just a bit taller. No problem whatsoever. It's tight sidways though. And your tailwheel toes need to be up to speed. But it's pretty darn fast for the horsepower.

 

[bgdriveway]

5' 17" tall. (6' 5" for the mathematically challenged...)

I wouldn't mind a tail wheel. I have the sign off, not a whole lot of time since then though.

 

[Henning]

5' 17" tall. (6' 5" for the mathematically challenged...)

I wouldn't mind a tail wheel. I have the sign off, not a whole lot of time since then though.

LOL, you were teased for being tall weren't you...

 

[bgdriveway]

Not so much teased as I got annoyed at the constant question, "HOW tall Are you?" The 5' 17" throws them for a loop. Usually the response to that is, Well you can't be 5'. You have to be 6' something. I then explain I could be 4' 29'' or 3' 41''... or 77" if you ask the FAA..... Basically it's just to throw back the question at them. Maybe I should start giving it in centimeters.

Once I was filling out the paperwork to buy a gun and I almost wrote down 5' 17''....

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Looking around at the options for sale, a Cherokee is the only thing that I have seen that is in my price range, and fits the bill.

The one thing that is still a bit of an unknown for me, is like the OP, I am a bit taller. Having not actually sat in a 140/160 cockpit, I have no idea if I will think it's comfortable. I did fly a 161 warrior once for a few hours, but I am not sure if a 140 is smaller.

<snip> I have heard that a 140 can cruise 130 kts if properly equipped, but that costs usually about $10k. (I am an A&P so I'm not including labor in there.)

Maybe there are some 140/160 owners that could shed some light on which way to go with the engine options. If I remember right, most of the 160 horse engines won't play nice or legally with the Autofuel STC's. I would consider a Cherokee 180 for the better performance, but you start to get over that $30k at that point. So my field has been narrowed to the Cherokee series at this point. (As for Beech or Cessna or whatever else, they seem to be priced higher right now.)

What kind of aircraft are you servicing with your A&P? Transport category stuff? Hard to imagine a GA A&P not having been in a 140/160, as prolific as they are... Good luck with your search!!

 

[Henning]

Not so much teased as I got annoyed at the constant question, "HOW tall Are you?" The 5' 17" throws them for a loop. Usually the response to that is, Well you can't be 5'. You have to be 6' something. I then explain I could be 4' 29'' or 3' 41''... or 77" if you ask the FAA..... Basically it's just to throw back the question at them. Maybe I should start giving it in centimeters.

Once I was filling out the paperwork to buy a gun and I almost wrote down 5' 17''....

Or you could give your height and weight in Hands and Stone. British and Aussie's would get the Stone, "how tall are you?" "19hand1"

 

[Skylane81E]

Not so much teased as I got annoyed at the constant question, "HOW tall Are you?" The 5' 17" throws them for a loop. Usually the response to that is, Well you can't be 5'. You have to be 6' something. I then explain I could be 4' 29'' or 3' 41''... or 77" if you ask the FAA..... Basically it's just to throw back the question at them. Maybe I should start giving it in centimeters.

Once I was filling out the paperwork to buy a gun and I almost wrote down 5' 17''....

I stole from an old boss (6'7") the response to the question "did you play basket ball in school"

"I don't know, did you play miniature golf?"

 

[bgdriveway]

I stole from an old boss (6'7") the response to the question "did you play basket ball in school"

"I don't know, did you play miniature golf?"

I am going to use that now too.... Though I did play ball. But height is overrated in basketball. "Oh, you're tall you can play...." Height helps, but is overrated...

As to not having sat in a 140, I work on GA aircraft. First job was working on everything (except cherokee series A/C) from 150's/172's to tripacers and a Funk to King Airs. Mostly Beech and Cessna stuff. A fair bit of turbines. I did change an alternator on a 140, but I think that is the only work I actually did on a 140. And the owner wanted to be the one to run it up after the work was done. Now I'm working on Jet Rangers and a C206. Only been working on aircraft for a few years.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

5' 17" tall. (6' 5" for the mathematically challenged...)

I wouldn't mind a tail wheel. I have the sign off, not a whole lot of time since then though.

At 5'17" you probably would have to try particular airplanes yourself. A lot will depend on if a midget decided to add a couple inches to the bottom of the panel or something...

You can't drop the seat too far because the main spar goes under your legs.