Story of My Failed Negotiation on C182

As a guy who does these deals frequently, my advice is to write your contract so that both agree, then require that both parties execute it prior to any other action that requires time or money, with the exception of log-book reviews.

Buyer pays for inspection, seller fixes airworthy squawks and installed stuff that doesn't work. If seller won't fix the squawks, he pays for the inspection and gets the squawk list to handle however he wants. Many deals over many years; most have worked, a few haven't.
 
If the factory would only put the hard points in the new 182's to mount conventional gear, or make it an option, now that would be an airplane. :goofy:

While we're at it, do the 206 too. :rockon:
 
wabower said:
As a guy who does these deals frequently, my advice is to write your contract so that both agree, then require that both parties execute it prior to any other action that requires time or money, with the exception of log-book reviews.

Buyer pays for inspection, seller fixes airworthy squawks and installed stuff that doesn't work. If seller won't fix the squawks, he pays for the inspection and gets the squawk list to handle however he wants. Many deals over many years; most have worked, a few haven't.
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of in writing and having an escrow company hold it and some earnest money. My money in escrow taped to a written contract that says who the dinero goes to if the sale falls through is skin in the game enough. If that's not enough for the seller, then my motto is "some folks just weren't meant to be in business together". No animosity, business deals fall through everyday. I had more sellers than not refuse that arrangement. For me, that was all I needed to know about the plane. I had one of those boiler plate pre-purchase agreements where you circle who is responsible for what and how much. Plus some room to write in anything else. I'd send a blank copy to the owner and have him call me to work out what to circle. Maybe 10% of the sellers would even agree to entertain that idea, and I only got one through with all the circles agreed on. Brought it home a few weeks later.
 
As a general rule, you can assume that sellers will want to set the cost of repair and pass the responsibility to the buyer based on their assertion "yeah, that bulkhead has been cracked for a while, shouldn't take more than $250 to fix" and then try deflect paying because "it hasn't bothered me so far that it's cracked so I don't want to pay for it as part of the sale just because you don't like it."

Don't do it.

bartmc said:
I'm a fan of in writing and having an escrow company hold it and some earnest money. My money in escrow taped to a written contract that says who the dinero goes to if the sale falls through is skin in the game enough. If that's not enough for the seller, then my motto is "some folks just weren't meant to be in business together". No animosity, business deals fall through everyday. I had more sellers than not refuse that arrangement. For me, that was all I needed to know about the plane. I had one of those boiler plate pre-purchase agreements where you circle who is responsible for what and how much. Plus some room to write in anything else. I'd send a blank copy to the owner and have him call me to work out what to circle. Maybe 10% of the sellers would even agree to entertain that idea, and I only got one through with all the circles agreed on. Brought it home a few weeks later.
Click to expand...
 
I never want to be the first guy to make a serious offer - because the sellers always think the fmv is higher than it is - being the first means the deal never gets done.

As for the particulars - - when questioned about an annual as the inspection - my response has always been: "you've been flying the plane, you are certifying it is airworthy every time you fly it - not sure what the problem is?"

As for paying for the inspection - the rule that has worked for me has been if I buy the airplane I'll pay for it - if you refuse to sell the airplane for whatever the annual finds - and don't want to fix - then you pay for it - whomever gets the benefit of the inspection gets the bill. That kind of makes lots of sense.

Then you also have that the seller will pay for airworthiness - non-deferrable repairs - anything a reasonable IA would need fixed to sign off - so carpet tears, old hoses etc etc etc - don't count as AW related. But YOU then know what your next repair bill is gonna look like.

Being the first offer is hard --
 
txflyer said:
If the factory would only put the hard points in the new 182's to mount conventional gear, or make it an option, now that would be an airplane.
Click to expand...
That would be a C-180.
 
wabower said:
As a general rule, you can assume that sellers will want to set the cost of repair and pass the responsibility to the buyer based on their assertion "yeah, that bulkhead has been cracked for a while, shouldn't take more than $250 to fix" and then try deflect paying because "it hasn't bothered me so far that it's cracked so I don't want to pay for it as part of the sale just because you don't like it."

Don't do it.
Click to expand...
Advertise it as is, where is, and price it right.

after you inspect it, if the aircraft isn't what you want, walk away.
 
No. Not paying for an inspection on the come.

Tom-D said:
Advertise it as is, where is, and price it right.

after you inspect it, if the aircraft isn't what you want, walk away.
Click to expand...
 
Tom-D said:
Advertise it as is, where is, and price it right.

after you inspect it, if the aircraft isn't what you want, walk away.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it took me hiring two mechanics for inspections to determine that walking away multiple times was going to get expensive if you go that route.
 
txflyer said:
If the factory would only put the hard points in the new 182's to mount conventional gear, or make it an option, now that would be an airplane. :goofy:

While we're at it, do the 206 too. :rockon:
Click to expand...

The 1982 Cessna 185's wing had brackets for a flap motor. Must have been the same wing as for the 182.
 
comanchepilot said:
I never want to be the first guy to make a serious offer - because the sellers always think the fmv is higher than it is - being the first means the deal never gets done.

Being the first offer is hard --
Click to expand...

I made an offer on a Conquest, very nice airplane, had everything I wanted, low times etc, but it was overpriced and the broker knew it, but he was friends with the seller.:dunno: I was ready to buy and explained it as well as I could, but the guy wouldn't budge, at least enough for my liking. Anyway, I love the one I bought, and had a guy approach me last week asking about operating costs etc. His boss was looking at upgrading from a 421C. I told him about the overpriced one, which he'd already looked at, they dropped the price $150K in the last 5 months.:dunno: If they had been a little more reasonable in March, he would own one less airplane.;)
 
bartmc said:
That green one is the one in MS I've been eyeballing. I don't anticipate it being on the market long unless there's something seriously wrong with it.
Click to expand...

The green one sure does look pretty. Ive contemplated going down to look at it. Just never have.
 
kgruber said:
The 1982 Cessna 185's wing had brackets for a flap motor. Must have been the same wing as for the 182.
Click to expand...


Sounds like it. I never heard that before.

Many members including the President of the 180/185 club pleaded with Cessna to put conventional hard points in the new ones, but no joy. :cryin:
 
Last edited:
When and how did you accumulate your data?

Henning said:
How? The Bo will go 20kts faster on the same fuel. At $5 a gallon, that adds up to $71.50 for every 1000 miles flown. Are you telling me a Bo needs $10.30 an hour gear maintenance reserve? Is that your experience with Beech gear? It's not mine.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
When and how did you accumulate your data?
Click to expand...

10 years owning a Beech 95, 2 years working as GA mechanic in Long Beach with a couple dozen Bonanza & Baron clients, a year working as a GA mechanic in N Tx, only had a couple Bo guys there, and a year and a half flying my ex's dad (a Dr) out to the Aborigine Communities for clinic in an A-36 landing them on unimproved strips.
 
And the 182's and fuel burn comparisons?

Henning said:
10 years owning a Beech 95, 2 years working as GA mechanic in Long Beach with a couple dozen Bonanza & Baron clients, a year working as a GA mechanic in N Tx, only had a couple Bo guys there, and a year and a half flying my ex's dad (a Dr) out to the Aborigine Communities for clinic in an A-36 landing them on unimproved strips.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
And the 182's and fuel burn comparisons?
Click to expand...

What are the fuel numbers for a 182 to go ~140kts? Cause, sure as heck it ain't going to go 160.

On my old injector-carb Bo I could go 140kts on about 8.7GPH carefully leaned. On the newer one that I didn't own very long I could go 140 on just over 9.5GPH. I lean aggressively, and I liked to run about 140kts most of the time.
 
My 180 must cruise at 7k or above to achieve any numbers that are attractive, and even then they are a gal or so worse. I shoot for 11.1 on the fuel flow and hope it works. I also wish for FI, but not worth changing at this point.

The reality is that in many situations this all disappears into the "rounding error" column in a yearly expense budget because of all the stuff we do with these planes other than long-range trips that show off their optimum performance. If a guy is flying what he really wants to fly for whatever reason, the little stuff doesn't seem to matter.

I've flown all over north Texas and southern OK burning less than 10 gal/hour in the 180 because we were rubbernecking and playing with no need to hurry, and done similar trips in the A-36 that were about the same.

I like Beech gear too, but spend way too much time at the shop to think it's "bullet-proof" or free of problems, as Tom-D's manual about how to fix them clearly points out.
docmirror said:
What are the fuel numbers for a 182 to go ~140kts? Cause, sure as heck it ain't going to go 160.

On my old injector-carb Bo I could go 140kts on about 8.7GPH carefully leaned. On the newer one that I didn't own very long I could go 140 on just over 9.5GPH. I lean aggressively, and I liked to run about 140kts most of the time.
Click to expand...
 
I stand by my statement about the Bo gearabox being bulletproof. Compared to anything attached to a Cessna, or Piper the Bo gearbox(vs pumps, hoses, motors, etc) is a thing of beauty.

One mans "rounding error" is not generally associated with a 15-25% delta in values, but it's just money - so who's counting? Both the Bo and the 182 are 'go somewhere' planes. Sure, you can tootle around the patch in a King Air if you want, but the two planes in question are for travelling, and fuel burn is a significant cost factor, not a rounding error.
 
Of the total annual budget, what's your estimate of total budget cost difference in dollars and percent based on average owner use of 100 hours? I don't pretend to know where all the planes go when they leave KADS, but I know a lot of them end up at the same places where I go, so any attempt to tell me they're going-somewhere (of any distance) planes doesn't fly (NPI).

I'll be happy to show you some gear invoices that will demonstrate that the difference in fuel burn can be a pittance compared to the cost of gear repairs. Buy hey, they weren't on your plane so they must not have been on anybody else's plane either, right? And like you say it's not your money anyway, so who cares? And even if it was your plane, all you need is a junkyard and a drunk mechanic to make the problems go away. Only suckers get their MX done by real shops.

docmirror said:
I stand by my statement about the Bo gearabox being bulletproof. Compared to anything attached to a Cessna, or Piper the Bo gearbox(vs pumps, hoses, motors, etc) is a thing of beauty.

One mans "rounding error" is not generally associated with a 15-25% delta in values, but it's just money - so who's counting? Both the Bo and the 182 are 'go somewhere' planes. Sure, you can tootle around the patch in a King Air if you want, but the two planes in question are for travelling, and fuel burn is a significant cost factor, not a rounding error.
Click to expand...
 
You've worn me down. The 182 is the better plane. No one should ever consider a Bo, the 182 is the gold standard for all things aviation and the Bo is a cheap POS, which breaks every flight, and costs an arm and leg to repair. All 182s run forever on branch water, and never need a part. All Bo's break every trip around the pattern. The 182 goes faster, hauls more, and is safer because it's rated stronger than the Bo. All Bo drivers and mechanics are idiots and drunks and all 182 drivers are princes and their mechanics are saints who work for Dr Pepper and a ham sandwich.
 
Doc, be very careful. It appears that Geico has stolen your userID.

docmirror said:
You've worn me down. The 182 is the better plane. No one should ever consider a Bo, the 182 is the gold standard for all things aviation and the Bo is a cheap POS, which breaks every flight, and costs an arm and leg to repair. All 182s run forever on branch water, and never need a part. All Bo's break every trip around the pattern. The 182 goes faster, hauls more, and is safer because it's rated stronger than the Bo. All Bo drivers and mechanics are idiots and drunks and all 182 drivers are princes and their mechanics are saints who work for Dr Pepper and a ham sandwich.
Click to expand...
 
docmirror said:
I just can't stand going that slow, burning that much gas. But, it's a popular choice.
Click to expand...


It's a hauler, easy to fly, comfortable to sit in, doors on both sides, easy for any decent A&P to annual and maintain, easy to upgrade to from a 150/152/172/140/170/180/185 and the older ones can burn mogas. What's not to like?
 
wabower said:
Of the total annual budget, what's your estimate of total budget cost difference in dollars and percent based on average owner use of 100 hours? I don't pretend to know where all the planes go when they leave KADS, but I know a lot of them end up at the same places where I go, so any attempt to tell me they're going-somewhere (of any distance) planes doesn't fly (NPI).

I'll be happy to show you some gear invoices that will demonstrate that the difference in fuel burn can be a pittance compared to the cost of gear repairs. Buy hey, they weren't on your plane so they must not have been on anybody else's plane either, right? And like you say it's not your money anyway, so who cares? And even if it was your plane, all you need is a junkyard and a drunk mechanic to make the problems go away. Only suckers get their MX done by real shops.
Click to expand...


Well, if the Bos go the same places as you and you are flying 100 hours, they aren't flying 100 hrs, they are flying 86 hrs on the same fuel burn.
 
Not when we're all gathering at Sherman, Greenville, Lancaster, Gainesville, the cheap gas stops around the area, or Cedar Mills, Ardmore, Pauls Valley and other places for breakfast, or the BBQ places scattered around TX, or the flyin's at Walt's and other places.

You're drawing bullseyes around your own bullet holes. Look at the flight log on their GPS if you want to know where they really fly in these planes. What's the ratio of gear cycles to hours flown on most Bo's?

And on long trips I'll be the first to admit a Bo will be more fuel-efficient, but only if a guy wants to own one.

Henning said:
Well, if the Bos go the same places as you and you are flying 100 hours, they aren't flying 100 hrs, they are flying 86 hrs on the same fuel burn.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
How? The Bo will go 20kts faster on the same fuel. At $5 a gallon, that adds up to $71.50 for every 1000 miles flown. Are you telling me a Bo needs $10.30 an hour gear maintenance reserve? Is that your experience with Beech gear? It's not mine.
Click to expand...

Well, the fact that I pay the same for insurance as the doc did, but have three times the hull coverage factors in too
 
Henning said:
Flying over 100hrs in both? 182 does 125 on 13gph and a Bo does 145 on 13gph.
Click to expand...
Have close to 400 hours on my T182T. I lean to highest TIT so I am no lean of peak. I use 26" at 2000RPM for cruise and my TAS is about 130 kts. I burn on cruise 10.8 gallons per hour(book say 11.1). Over my 400 hrs in the plane I am burning on average 8.5 gallons per hour.

Not saying my 182 is better than a Bo, but not saying it is worse. I like my 182, but is it the best plane out there? I do not know about that, but right now it is certainly the best plane for me.
 
I will give up what little speed and fuel burn difference there is for the utility of the 180/182 against the Bonanza.

If I had a woman, a dog, and two kid's going with me every time, I might want the Bo, but that's not the case. I fly alone and land on pastures a lot. The Bonanza can't do that as effectively as the Cessna.... not the pastures I land in.

You cannot put bushwheel's on a bonanza. :devil:;)
 
Skylane81E said:
Well, the fact that I pay the same for insurance as the doc did, but have three times the hull coverage factors in too
Click to expand...

Just shows that I'm a higher risk. Not that the Bo ins isn't higher, but I don't think it's too much higher. Anyway, the plane in question(Bonanza) has been disqualified as unfit to fly by humans.
 
wabower said:
That's an A model and probably not what you want to own. You can get a much better deal on a C model with -21 engines, so if I were you I'd keep looking.;)
Click to expand...


What is the C model going to set me back? Won't I have to get a bigger hangar with the C Model?

1978KingAirC90Exterior1.jpg







wabower said:
As a guy who does these deals frequently, my advice is to write your contract so that both agree, then require that both parties execute it prior to any other action that requires time or money, with the exception of log-book reviews.

Buyer pays for inspection, seller fixes airworthy squawks and installed stuff that doesn't work. If seller won't fix the squawks, he pays for the inspection and gets the squawk list to handle however he wants. Many deals over many years; most have worked, a few haven't.
Click to expand...


Yes, your approach is correct. I was just short cutting a bit due to my trust and the knowledge of the plane from my buddy.

I think your second paragraph describes what I thought we were doing.
 
Last edited:
AdamZ said:
He has posted it here on POA as well

To the OP do I understand that you were concerned that if the oner walked away you would have paid for his Annual? If that was the concern, you controlled the inspection, you could have done the annual and just treated as a pre buy by not having the IA make log entres. I think bat may have protected you. Best of luck in your search.
Click to expand...


This was a bit unique, as my buddy would be the one doing the pre-buy or annual. And, since he had already "kinda" done a "pre-buy" when it came back to his field, he knew the compression/cylinder issue, the muffler, and the tach.

I didn't see any reason in somebody, not getting economic value in whatever work and inspections got done. It probably would have been a schmuck move on my part for me not to allow my buddy to make log book entries in a plane he was asked to sell by the Seller.

Wasn't a completely "clean" transaction between all independent parties, but I was ok with trusting my buddy's judgement and ethics.
 
AdamZ said:
True but he was paying for a pre buy any way, and a lot of people like employing Annual standards to thier pre buys. That's what I understood th OP to want to do.
Click to expand...


Exactly. The plane was 40 days from being out of annual. The guy I wanted to do the pre-buy was the same guy the Seller will have do the Annual, and the same guy I would have had do the Annual. I have a hard time staying at someone's house, eating their food, drinking their booze, and not trusting them to do the work on my behalf.



Tom-D said:
I usually do with aircraft, I look for projects that I can flip. I paid 5k for the 170 I have now, but by the time I put away in my hangar I had 11K in it.

It sounds to me like a C-170 would fit your mission very well
Click to expand...

A 170 would fit my mission very well. And there is one local here that has been well maintained that is my Plan B C D E
 
comanchepilot said:
I never want to be the first guy to make a serious offer - because the sellers always think the fmv is higher than it is - being the first means the deal never gets done.

As for the particulars - - when questioned about an annual as the inspection - my response has always been: "you've been flying the plane, you are certifying it is airworthy every time you fly it - not sure what the problem is?"

As for paying for the inspection - the rule that has worked for me has been if I buy the airplane I'll pay for it - if you refuse to sell the airplane for whatever the annual finds - and don't want to fix - then you pay for it - whomever gets the benefit of the inspection gets the bill. That kind of makes lots of sense.

Then you also have that the seller will pay for airworthiness - non-deferrable repairs - anything a reasonable IA would need fixed to sign off - so carpet tears, old hoses etc etc etc - don't count as AW related. But YOU then know what your next repair bill is gonna look like.

Being the first offer is hard --
Click to expand...


Funny part is that I think my offer met his asking price. And he agreed to the repairs. The only thing he balked at was the last little bit of reimbursing me if he walked from the sale.

Chances are, that was not going to happen.

Chances are, if you are a pain in the ass to do business with, I am walking. I walked. He now is paying $3k for an annual, 100%.... And still has a C182 that needs a paint job...
 
wabower said:
No. Not paying for an inspection on the come.
Click to expand...

Then you will miss a lot of aircraft. Represent your aircraft correctly, and price it right, then stick to the price.

Due diligence is on the buyer, and the cost of any inspections to gain that, is the buyers.

If the buyer isn't smart enough to recognize a good buy when they see one doesn't deserve to own it.

JMHO
 
Tom-D said:
Then you will miss a lot of aircraft. Represent your aircraft correctly, and price it right, then stick to the price.

Due diligence is on the buyer, and the cost of any inspections to gain that, is the buyers.

If the buyer isn't smart enough to recognize a good buy when they see one doesn't deserve to own it.

JMHO
Click to expand...

What do you do for all the ones that aren't represented correctly?

Lots of lipstick on a pig type of deals, and the cost of a pre-buy from a remote location likely kills a lot of transactions. :dunno:

I liked the idea of all the costs and the shares negotiated up front, and, if somebody wanted to scuttle the transaction and they had value from the transaction, they reimbursed.

Each one will be different. My $350K King Air will be a bit different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top