Motivated (crazy) sellers

Caramon13

Caramon13

Pattern Altitude
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
2,261
Location
Sarasota, FL
Display Name
Display name:
Romeo
You could build one of those yourself for a lot less money than that, if you were so stupid.
 
Caramon13 said:
Here's another. 1956 Super Cub, $285K. Closest other super cub 200K less.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/152970521/1956-piper-super-cub
Click to expand...

I’d give that one somewhat of a pass. In the Super Cub market you get what you pay for and the Cub pricing is pretty steep right now. Even basket case flying PA-18-150s are fetching $60k plus. That Cub is nice and it has all the typical mods plus a $60k set of amphibious floats. It won’t fetch $285k but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that it sold for $230-250k.
 
@midwestpa24 @mondtster Yikes, that is crazy though, a two seater 63 year old amphib conversion for that much? You can get 185's, 23 years newer with better performance and a couple extra seats for less.
 
A while back there was Beech Skipper... same thing, tons of new avionics.. I think the guy was asking $80K for it.. little overkill for a $100 Cheeseburger bug squasher...
 
Caramon13 said:
@midwestpa24 @mondtster Yikes, that is crazy though, a two seater 63 year old amphib conversion for that much? You can get 185's, 23 years newer with better performance and a couple extra seats for less.
Click to expand...

Despite looking similar on paper, a 180/185 doesn't do the same thing that a Cub will do. Although closer, neither will a Husky or a Scout. The aviation industry is pretty efficient at determining airplane values and people have decided that the Cub and the 180/185 are the best for their respective markets. Also, as was pointed out it is likely that the only thing left from the 1950s on the airplane in question is the data plate and logbooks.

There will always be a top end of the market. In my opinion the smart guys buy up there when they can rather than buying someone else's worn out airplane that needs one of everything to be nice. In the Cub market the hidden gems are the ones Piper built in the late '80s and early '90s. You can frequently find them on wheels with low time (500ish hours) in excellent condition for around $100k. They have a lot of minor improvements on them over the older ones too.
 
Caramon13 said:
Inspired by the Barnstormers thread, thought I'd create one for posting any obvious scams or "wtf was the seller thinking" aircraft.

And to start it off, here's one for anyone that happens to have a couple hundred grand around and wanted to buy a 55 year old aircraft:

$235K for a 1964 172:

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/33928267/1964-cessna-172-180-conversion

Owner went a little "glass happy"
Click to expand...

Saw that one. Definitely received a hearty laugh. There are a couple other ones on Trade-a-plane that, while no where near that bad, are considerably higher priced than similar listings.
 
Half Fast said:
Or he was ordered to sell it at that value in the divorce decree....
Click to expand...
Odd. The divorce stories that I hear the lucky buyer spent a small fraction of what it's really worth.
 
Please note that the 172 has only 15 hrs since it's hot section was done. So... A Turbine 172 may be worth the price.

If it exists.

Probably doesn't.
 
Appears there's only one. lol. Engine was 44k euro in 2015. They have an RV-10 with it as well, couldn't find any performance specs, though.
 
Caramon13 said:
@midwestpa24 @mondtster Yikes, that is crazy though, a two seater 63 year old amphib conversion for that much? You can get 185's, 23 years newer with better performance and a couple extra seats for less.
Click to expand...

Read the list of specs for that Super Cub. Its no ordinary Super Cub with all the modifications Wipaire has done to it, on top of being a total ground up restoration by a reputable shop. Not saying I'd buy it, but I know some people that would.
 
Bonchie said:
I think this one is as bad as the 172. At least that one has a ton of new glass and new paint/interior.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/34326617/1979-cessna-182q-skylane

That’s a 1978 182Q with some STOL equipment and 300HP conversion, original paint, and a Garmin 430 panel complete with ADF for 299K. Just adding the engine and katmai I came up with this:

The engine is 90 SFRM but come on.
Click to expand...

That's not some STOL equipment...that's a Katmai conversion with added canard. It's a $150k add-on if you could get it done; the Peterson shop isn't accepting deposits last time I checked as they have too many conversions in the pipeline. That 300hp upgrade is also a $60k (at least) overhaul, so the $300k selling price doesn't sound that far fetched.

I plugged in just the engine and katmai conversion on VREF and got the following:
 

Attachments

  • EC4D4E0E-DE40-4C83-896F-05BEE5A488BB.png
    EC4D4E0E-DE40-4C83-896F-05BEE5A488BB.png
    162.5 KB · Views: 55
Last edited:
Bonchie said:
I think this one is as bad as the 172. At least that one has a ton of new glass and new paint/interior.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/34326617/1979-cessna-182q-skylane

That’s a 1978 182Q with some STOL equipment and 300HP conversion, original paint, and a Garmin 430 panel complete with ADF for 299K.

The engine is 90 SFRM but come on.
Click to expand...

that actually isn’t a bad price on that. Granted for that amount of money you could have a nice 185 but some people don’t want to deal with a taildragger.
 
Oh yeah, I'd pay that in a heartbeat for a Katmai if I could. Was drooling over those a while back. There was 3-4 of them on TaP last time I looked.
 
I would love to have a Katmai C-182.!!! (key word here is have) I have a total of 20 minutes in one. It was incredible to take off at 45, enter a 45 degree left turn and climb like a home sick angel.

Now if they would do the same conversion for a C-206.....
 
Todd Peterson finds already pristine 182P,Q,R models and modifies them to the customer’s specs. He says the less-than 3000hr 182s in good shape that he uses (corrosion free, no damage, logs since new) are getting harder and harder to find. That’s at least a $110-120k investment in the airframe before any canard, engine, interior, paint, and avionics work.

We all know how much engines and avionics cost. Add another $30-40k or so for paint and interior. Then add the canard STC. And wing extensions for the King Katmai version. There ya go. $300k+

Back to the “WTF was the seller thinking” thread...
 
Zeldman said:
I would love to have a Katmai C-182.!!! (key word here is have) I have a total of 20 minutes in one. It was incredible to take off at 45, enter a 45 degree left turn and climb like a home sick angel.
Click to expand...

I don’t have the balls/experience yet to do the immediate turn out after rotation speed. I’ve never ridden with Todd Peterson or anyone else who flies one to demonstrate it for me.

Short field approach is 55 kts (after 100hrs experience in the plane, per Todd). I’m just now getting comfortable with 60kts, lol.
 
The Aero-Car is going up for auction soon. No telling what it will go for.
 
Caramon13 said:
Here's another one. Priced low for quick sale.

14K total time, engine about 500 hours over TBO, King avionics, want's near 50K for it. You can buy a LOT better arrows for 20K more than this guy.
Click to expand...

I wonder if UND was/is dumping these not only due to the high time but because of the wing falling off of an ERAU Arrow?


The plane might be a good deal if it weren’t for the alleged inherent design flaw of the wings. Even though it’s got a ton of training hours, places like UND and ERAU maintain their fleet extremely well and the complex planes are usually as beat as the 172s because the only students flying them already have a private and instrument rating and probably most of their commercial lessons done before doing their complex work in the Arrow so they shouldn’t be too beat. Key word being shouldn’t. I know for a fact the primary trainers at those schools take a beating! Pretty sure an F/A-18 takes less of a pounding on carrier landings than the 172s at ERAU :D






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rogue_Ryder said:
I wonder if UND was/is dumping these not only due to the high time but because of the wing falling off of an ERAU Arrow?
The plane might be a good deal if it weren’t for the alleged inherent design flaw of the wings. Even though it’s got a ton of training hours, places like UND and ERAU maintain their fleet extremely well and the complex planes are usually as beat as the 172s because the only students flying them already have a private and instrument rating and probably most of their commercial lessons done before doing their complex work in the Arrow so they shouldn’t be too beat. Key word being shouldn’t. I know for a fact the primary trainers at those schools take a beating! Pretty sure an F/A-18 takes less of a pounding on carrier landings than the 172s at ERAU :D
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Could be. I thought it stood out because it had a engine far past TBO, avionics from the 70's and the high time. The spar issue is just icing on the cake. Anything that new with that many hours has GOT to be a trainer in most cases. It's hard to imagine someone putting 450 hours per year on their plane, every year. But maybe that could happen.

Yeah you would think by the time someone gets their private and instrument they have landings nailed, but Arrows and Cherokees are just different to land. They don't float as much and in most cases you have to carry power all the way to the flare. In a 172 you can chop the power midfield and you are good to go still, even in a normal pattern. Do that in an Arrow and you better be doing a short approach.

Cost of a spar was estimated at around $8K in an AOPA article. Assuming someone is willing to take on the possible expense of a $30k engine overhaul and $3K cost of making that thing ADS-B compliant, AND the $8K expense of replacing a single spar, sure, I guess that might be a good buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top