Saratoga, A36, or....?

Jared Kornelsen said:
Lol. I bet there are scenarios like that for some people.
Click to expand...

It's not a hypothetical. I couldn't afford the discretionary expenditures in my hobby if I had more children, provided my self-imposed moral imperative to provide the same level of time and monetary expense to child (n+1) as I do for child (n). Some people choose to not have children outright in order to live a more personally comfortable life.

But I know what you mean. The operation of a TBM is much larger in scale on an ongoing basis than the aggregate baseline cost of living (food/shelter/clothing/education/healthcare) of children of the size of a median family, and even beyond that. So to compare them is indeed hyperbole. Where you rival the TBM costs is if you include 4 year college into that ledger, or if one or more of your kids is chronically sick or development-challenged. That where the TBM costs can get a run for their money.

I limit these comments to America. The rest of the Western world doesn't have that level of financial penalty for having children, sick or otherwise. I digress.
 
Good points, I’d like to add another. If kids didn’t think they had to go to $25k a semester college that may change too. My wife is a graduate RN and we have maybe $15k-$20k in her education in total. She could get the same job as the next RN that may have spent $100k plus on a big name college. Also I wish the general population in America would stop thinking that everyone now a days needs to get college educated, it’s great if you do something with it but it also is almost painful to see some people invest 4 years of their life and money to study something they never end up using or going because it’s what’s expected of them and not because their heart is in it. Lol now I digress.

Back to planes. No one really answered my question about wether it’s a good idea to buy a high time plane for cheap and figure cost of an overhaul into financing?
 
From what I’ve seen on most 70-80’s Lances & Togas you either get a low SMOH time & need to update avionics or high SMOH time & might get some descent avionics but very few with both...unless your willing to increase your budget to 250-300K+...I’ve finally zeroed in on a Saratoga now just seeing how I find out what a reasonable starting offer is...
 
Jared Kornelsen said:
Back to planes. No one really answered my question about wether it’s a good idea to buy a high time plane for cheap and figure cost of an overhaul into financing?
Click to expand...

IMO, yes, provided the airplane is priced appropriately. Then, any time you get above TBO is a "free" bonus.

I wouldn't actually borrow money for the overhaul with the loan for the airplane (it sounds like that's what you're asking?), but definitely have the financing ready if that's how you plan to pay for the overhaul. Avoid it if possible, though.
 
Rgbeard said:
I like the Lance Jared found. It's just a shame it's 100hr away from TBO.
Click to expand...

That's a desireable feature. Beat down the seller using a Lycoming factory overhaul quote and then have the forty thousand dollar guy do the overhaul.
An aircraft financing company will often finance the entire deal including the overhaul (actually, they wouldn't finance the deal without the overhaul is probably more accurate).
 
Last edited:
For the lance I posted a link to, so I know for future reference, what would be deemed a good price for it if you tried buying it or a similarly equipped plane with the plan to overhaul it right away? Also how much to get some new leather and carpet in a plane like that?
 
Jared Kornelsen said:
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...O+LANCE+II&listing_id=2338357&s-type=aircraft
Click to expand...

Jared Kornelsen said:
For the lance I posted a link to, so I know for future reference, what would be deemed a good price for it if you tried buying it or a similarly equipped plane with the plan to overhaul it right away? Also how much to get some new leather and carpet in a plane like that?
Click to expand...

I ran that plane through Vref and I get a value of $102,881.90. They say it's a seller's market right now, so maybe it'll go for the $109K asking price, but I definitely wouldn't go there with my first offer. Seller's market or not, a high time engine will scare away a lot of buyers. Of course, the 750 might bring them back. (It's always paint and radios...)

A new interior will likely run you ~$15K, ±$5K depending on what you put in.
 
Let’s say it could be bought for $105,000 and add another $55-$60,000 for overhaul and interior. Sitting at $165,000 for a zero time, new interior, awesome panel Lance sure does not sound bad to me, am I wrong?
 
If the overhaul runs higher even at $175-180 wouldn’t that be a pretty solid position to be in?
 
He means it’s not going to be worth that much when you’re done. If you tried to turn around and sell it for that the price would be lower. But if that’s not a concern to you then that’s fine.
 
Jared Kornelsen said:
Let’s say it could be bought for $105,000 and add another $55-$60,000 for overhaul and interior. Sitting at $165,000 for a zero time, new interior, awesome panel Lance sure does not sound bad to me, am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Its great. But if you posted it for sale at 165, there would be a thread on POA ridiculing you for 'thinking that there is a Lance that is worth 165k'.

Buying a plane and overhauling the engine works if:
- you can buy the plane at a discount because the timed out engine scares away buyers
- you dont suffer from 'airplane ADHD' and are able to keep it for a few years.

If you are the kind of person who buys a Lance and after one season decides that he needs a Seneca, followed by a 414, and then another Lance, then spending lots of money on upgrades may not work out.
If you buy the lance at 95, spend 60 on the overhaul of engine and prop, 15 on a new interior, you will have a beautiful plane. You fly it for 8 years and 1000hrs, it'll still be a beautiful plane and you won't think twice about what you spent when you bought it. Relative to the cost of owning and flying a HP single for 8years, minor differences in purchase price become a rounding error.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
@Ted DuPuis brought his 310 to Gaston's a couple years ago... And I think the nose gear on the 310s is stronger than it looks, but ya gotta be sure to rig it at EVERY annual.
Click to expand...

I never did a full re-rig on either the 310 or the 414. In something around 1200 hours that I put on the two planes, I also never had any gear issues. On the 310 the mechanic in Ohio I used did check the various tensions and such to make sure everything looked correct. Other than changing tires and rebuilding the struts on the 310 (and changing tires on the 414), the gear never gave me any headaches.

Now, keep in mind that I was flying planes that had undergone good maintenance from previous owners. My general thought is that you typically run into issues when you have a plane that has been poorly maintained (i.e. not maintained) for a long time. However, there's no doubt that the Twin Cessna landing gear is more fragile than its Piper or Beechcraft counterparts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top