Used planes the good the bad and the ugly

brien23

brien23

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,489
Location
Oak Harbor
Display Name
Display name:
Brien
What is selling the Good the Bad or the Ugly are they all selling now or the good outsells all the others? What are the best sellers on the market, is their some tracking site that tracks any information on GA sales.
 
Seems like everything is up right now in the single engine market. I don't keep track of twins
 
Yea, I'm trying to buy one and they are all up 10-20% from two years ago. I'm struggling with the idea of buying a SEL with low hours, which makes sense to me, but then others tell me to buy one with higher hours. Ugh.
 
Will get a better price with a run out engine and then fly it on condition but be ready to drop coin for an overhaul. But yeah prices are up a good bit from 2 to 3 years ago.
 
Engine rebuild costs have tripled in the last 2 years.
 
Tom-D said:
Engine rebuild costs have tripled in the last 2 years.
Click to expand...

That hasn't yet been reflected in the price of used airplanes with good time left on the engine(s).

If I ever have to do my IO-540s, right now it's far cheaper to find a used Aztec with good overhauls and 1000+ hours left to TBO. Swap out the engines, install the best two of the four props, sell the engine cores and the other two props. Pawn the airframe to a parts outfit. Far less expensive than having the engines overhauled at today's prices.
 
GRG55 said:
That hasn't yet been reflected in the price of used airplanes with good time left on the engine(s).
Click to expand...

What is “good time left on them”? I have one 2003 with 1300 hours and a 2004 with 1800 hours, each about the same asking price. TBO is 2000 hours. Go with 1300 because it has less hours or with 1800 because it is constanly used?
 
Jason608 said:
What is “good time left on them”? I have one 2003 with 1300 hours and a 2004 with 1800 hours, each about the same asking price. TBO is 2000 hours. Go with 1300 because it has less hours or with 1800 because it is constanly used?
Click to expand...

I'd go 1300 hour one. It's proven itself so far and still has time left. But TBO is just a number and they can and often do get flown beyond TBO and opposite they don't always make TBO either. But both being equal here I would take the 1300 hr engine. Both equal in avionics? Damage history? Have you looked at the logs?

Last year a buddy of mine had his O-320 overhauled for around $20k at a shop here in MS.
 
steingar said:
I know how to run all the airplane prices down in a hurry. All I have to do is try and sell mine.
Click to expand...
Have you considered offering a service where you list your airplane for sale for a few weeks then remove it form the market? :D
 
jsstevens said:
Have you considered offering a service where you list your airplane for sale for a few weeks then remove it form the market? :D
Click to expand...

You might be on to something here! Why limit to Mooney.
Each time a PoA member decides to buy a plane (from a non-member, of course) we could run this system. :D
PoA members could clean up the market for every decent Mooney, Bo and even MU-2 hot section :cool: out there. :)
 
Jason608 said:
What is “good time left on them”? I have one 2003 with 1300 hours and a 2004 with 1800 hours, each about the same asking price. TBO is 2000 hours. Go with 1300 because it has less hours or with 1800 because it is constanly used?
Click to expand...

Between 1/3 and 2/3 of the TBO time remaining to used.

It also depends on engine model - some have a reputation for going beyond TBO, and some have a reputation for never making it. There's a plane at my airport with the original O-320 (never been overhauled) with 3400 hours on it. I was in it with the owner for an hour long flight a couple months ago and it's a sweet flying airplane...you would never know the engine hours were that high.

To your question about 1300 hours vs 1800, if you are thinking about buying one of them the engines are only one factor in that decision.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Between 1/3 and 2/3 of the TBO time remaining to used.
It also depends on engine model .
Click to expand...

2003 SR 22 1,300 hrs vs 2004 G2 1,800 hrs. Both IO-550-N. Besides the generation difference, logs are clean, consistently updated maintenance and avionics are stock.
The 2004 has a very recent annual where as the 2003 is 6 months in.
 
Mags only have 200 hours on them, exhaust, alternator and starter are fine so are being re-installed. I put on a new carb, but mainly because the original is 50 years old and it just seemed like the right thing to do.

If you add up the other things, not related to the engine, the price is north of 40K.
 
Tom-D said:
Engine rebuild costs have tripled in the last 2 years.
Click to expand...
I'm going to call bullsh_t on that. Increases, perhaps, but not 300% increases.

Or are you referring to some obscure, orphaned, radial made from unobtainium rebuild?
 
Jason608 said:
2003 SR 22 1,300 hrs vs 2004 G2 1,800 hrs. Both IO-550-N. Besides the generation difference, logs are clean, consistently updated maintenance and avionics are stock.
The 2004 has a very recent annual where as the 2003 is 6 months in.
Click to expand...

Nice planes. The older SR-22s are getting into the price range that more of us might consider them "affordable". And I expect a 15 year old airframe may experience fewer of the small problems (electrical, etc.) that tend to temporarily ground the 40 to 50 year old planes many of us are flying.

You will want to look at the logs and see how evenly over the years those hours were flown. Regardless of 1300 or 1800 hours, if those hours have been put on reasonably evenly the engines should be in good shape. If, however, one of those planes had a bunch of hours put on early, and it's been sitting for the past couple of years tied up in an estate sale or something it could still be a good purchase, but you'll want to investigate it more closely. Machinery generally does not like to sit.

Just out of curiosity are there major differences in the factory avionics or airframe improvements and such between G1 and G2?
 
GRG55 said:
Just out of curiosity are there major differences in the factory avionics or airframe improvements and such between G1 and G2?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think G1 were generally steam. G2 are glass; both Garmin and Avidyne.
If I recall correctly, G2 is also when the spar was switched to carbon fiber; interior fitting was upgraded some.
Door latch was also changed, but I do not recall why. There were a lot of other little changes, but I do not know well enough to pontificate on them.

Tim
 
Brad Z said:
I'm going to call bullsh_t on that. Increases, perhaps, but not 300% increases.

Or are you referring to some obscure, orphaned, radial made from unobtainium rebuild?
Click to expand...
O-300-D they are not rare, 3 years ago, I bought a re-ground crank for a bit over $3500. price them now at aircraft specialities. $9300 plus a $1800 core. ( no core 11,100) 3 years ago I could buy new ECI cylinders for 580 each. now Superiors are 1100. these prices are typical of the increases.
 
Without even taking 2 minutes to look or calling around, I found a better price than the 1100 you posted, and way less than the 9500 you posted as well.
 
bflynn said:
An O-320 rebuild is 50-60k now?
Click to expand...
One way to tell, try to buy one. Two of the E/AB guys I know are nearing needing one (0-360), you should hear them crying about the cost of the engines.
 
EdFred said:
Without even taking 2 minutes to look or calling around, I found a better price than the 1100 you posted, and way less than the 9500 you posted as well.
Click to expand...
show me what you found.
 
EdFred said:
http://www.serviceableaircraftparts.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=7

http://www.jjairparts.com/0-300_1007_2.html
Click to expand...
The 6500 crank is a great deal if it is only .010 under, If it is Superior's .020 that is twice what is sells for.
880 for rebuilt cylinders, Why would you choose that option when new is 1100

Signature has a rebuilt 0-300 for $22,400 after core, I'd bet they are running that at less than 10% profit margin.
How many aircraft that use the 0-300 is worth 22K without engine.
 
The way I interpret their page, I see 905 for new.
 
EdFred said:
The way I interpret their page, I see 905 for new.
Click to expand...
order one see what hits your CC. :)
My most resent bill shows list at $1132 my cost at $925 (new Superior) the new TCM are a no choke cylinder, they'll last about 500-600 hours.
 
Tom-D said:
I posted that link to the 0-300 group at FB.
They were quick in noting"

"That's a D crank.... naked. I sold mine with counter weights installed with bushings and balanced....don't forget $1000 in additional parts and the service of the cluster gear.

Lots of options to get a good crank ready to install.

The "A" cranks are even more expensive, because they are getting scarce.
Click to expand...

Take the continental off and install lycoming.
 
It's cheaper to buy airplanes than it is to buy new engines or new comm stacks.
It's more profitable to part out a plane and buy another than to fix it.
 
Shepherd said:
It's cheaper to buy airplanes than it is to buy new engines or new comm stacks.
It's more profitable to part out a plane and buy another than to fix it.
Click to expand...
It's getting that way very fast, If you are working the aircraft so that it supports its self. I just saw a bill from a local FBO to remove skis, and install amphibious floats, plus some very minor maintenance $13,200
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top