What is up with the prices of old spam cans?

midwestpa24 said:
To add to my post about the fleet being downsized by mother nature, we've also see a large surge in "rusty" pilots coming back to flying in the last couple of years. As a CFI I've worked with several that got their license in the 1990s, then life got in the way. Now they are older with time and cash to fly with and ready to buy a plane and get back into it.
Click to expand...
This is me. Hi everyone! New member here. I got my PPL as a teenager and flew into my early 20's. Just taking friends sightseeing or for $100 burritos (there is a fantastic Mexican place on field at PNC that is 68nm from my home field - perfect for building CC time). Then as they say, life got in the way.

Now I'm in my mid-40's and have time (kids are out of the "trying to kill themselves every 2 minutes" stage) and money. All this corona craziness was the kick I needed to get back into it. going to meet my CFI and get my medical tomorrow.

I found a Cirrus club and plan to do that for a while. Like someone else posted in the recent "what plane should I buy" thread, I have fantasies of taking the family to visit friends and family nearby a couple times/month. If that happens then I'll likely buy. If not, will stick with the club/rental.

If I do end up buying, I will probably look at a twin. I'm still doing research but I like the idea of an upgraded 340A. I think going pressurized will be an easier sell to the family. Also, I'm hoping that the increased licensing requirements and higher op costs will keep twin prices lower.

I also agree w/ the poster who mentioned boats. You can't find a boat for sale these days. Everyone is realizing that boating is a great way to get out and still socially distance. We bought our boat in the Fall of 2019. My dealer called me a couple months ago offering over what I paid for it to sell it back to him. They have time and stimulus checks burning a hole in their pockets.

Finally, I agree that in a couple years that there will be deals to be had. People are paying crazy prices now but after a year or 2 they will be facing maintenance costs, plus their payment, they aren't flying as much as they thought they would, etc.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Then why'd you e-mail him? You two are clearly never going to align on price so did you just e-mail him to be "so kind" to inform him about his plane isn't worth anything?
Click to expand...

I was actually interested in it. One question I ALWAYS ask is how many hours in each of the last 3 years. I take that answer, along with engine time and price BEFORE pursuing any further. It was a simple initial question along with date of the last OH, and damage history/hail damage. The quickest way to get upside down in an airplane is to buy a high risk engine on a high price airframe.

Let me ask YOU, a question.... would you pay $60k for a 1968 182 with no GPS, ADSB, and 1000 hrs on a 1500 TBO, that ONLY has 5 hrs TOTAL over the last 3 years, and take a risk of a corroded cam dumping another 30-35K into an engine OH?
 
Rcmutz said:
Let me ask YOU, a question.... would you pay $60k for a 1968 182 with no GPS, ADSB, and 1000 hrs on a 1500 TBO, that ONLY has 5 hrs TOTAL over the last 3 years, and take a risk of a corroded cam dumping another 30-35K into an engine OH?
Click to expand...
yes, and it's worked out quite well for me. Pricing was even similar. See my signature.

It's clearly not worth it to you, but it's worth it to someone. Not sure why you see the need to belittle the ad.
 
Last edited:
Rcmutz said:
I was actually interested in it. One question I ALWAYS ask is how many hours in each of the last 3 years. I take that answer, along with engine time and price BEFORE pursuing any further. It was a simple initial question along with date of the last OH, and damage history/hail damage. The quickest way to get upside down in an airplane is to buy a high risk engine on a high price airframe.

Let me ask YOU, a question.... would you pay $60k for a 1968 182 with no GPS, ADSB, and 1000 hrs on a 1500 TBO, that ONLY has 5 hrs TOTAL over the last 3 years, and take a risk of a corroded cam dumping another 30-35K into an engine OH?
Click to expand...
Actually, the low risk scenario is a run out engine. You know that you have an engine in need of overhaul at the facility of your choice. You pay a premium price for a low time engine But it has only the promise of reliability. Past the warranty period you have nothing. I am certain that people have paid high for a low time engine only to have to do another overhaul at a low time.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Actually, the low risk scenario is a run out engine. You know that you have an engine in need of overhaul at the facility of your choice. You pay a premium price for a low time engine But it has only the promise of reliability. Past the warranty period you have nothing. I am certain that people have paid high for a low time engine only to have to do another overhaul at a low time.
Click to expand...

Don’t disagree, a high time engine is a low risk IF, the plane is priced correctly. You are correct, I don’t think it is priced right for the age of the engine AND the fact that it has not flown but 5 hrs in the last three years. Seems like you have some connection to the plane that is for sale. Peace out.
 
Rcmutz said:
Don’t disagree, a high time engine is a low risk IF, the plane is priced correctly. You are correct, I don’t think it is priced right for the age of the engine AND the fact that it has not flown but 5 hrs in the last three years. Seems like you have some connection to the plane that is for sale. Peace out.
Click to expand...
It's a continental, it'll be fine.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
It's a continental, it'll be fine.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
Tom-D said:
People that restore aircraft don't do it for the money. Believe me. BTDT
Click to expand...
Absolutely right. The only way to make money doing that is in restoring very rare antique airplanes that some wealthy collector would pay real money for. Like the car guys that restore Duesenbergs and the like. A restored 182 is just another 182. Most buyers don't appreciate the amount of work that goes into the restoration. One needs to restore a warbird or maybe a Tiger Moth or a Staggerwing.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The only way to make money doing that is in restoring very rare antique airplanes
Click to expand...
Or any popular rag and tube aircraft as the fabric shops are dying on the vine. Every time I work with a little fabric and Stewarts System I get a wild idea to look for a J3 or Champ project. Then I smarten up and think maybe just a set of PA-18 or Stearman tail feathers. But thankfully I sleep on it and here we are till the next cycle.:rolleyes:
 
Bell206 said:
Or any popular rag and tube aircraft as the fabric shops are dying on the vine. Every time I work with a little fabric and Stewarts System I get a wild idea to look for a J3 or Champ project. Then I smarten up and think maybe just a set of PA-18 or Stearman tail feathers. But thankfully I sleep on it and here we are till the next cycle.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
the PA-180 bunch are well, and busy.
ready to paint aircraft =$25K

OBTW these guys Airtech.com are the easiest to do, and fire proof.
http://airtechcoatings.com
 
Isn't their some kind of plastic shrink wrap in Canada for recovering aircraft, anybody know if their working on a STC for it down here.
 
Tom-D said:
OBTW these guys Airtech.com are the easiest to do, and fire proof.
Click to expand...
Can't do solvent based systems anymore. If I'd known about AFS/Stewarts back when I got away from Stits I'd probably still be working fabric today as a retirement hobby.
brien23 said:
n't their some kind of plastic shrink wrap in Canada for recovering aircraft, anybody know if their working on a STC for it down here.
Click to expand...
It's German and called Oratex. Already have TCCA approval and there are a number of FAA STCs also.
 
Bell206 said:
Can't do solvent based systems anymore. If I'd known about AFS/Stewarts back when I got away from Stits I'd probably still be working fabric today as a retirement hobby.
Click to expand...
Do you really think the because it is water born it is solvent free it's safe.
 
Tom-D said:
Do you really think the because it is water born it is solvent free it's safe.
Click to expand...
Not a point of whether it's "safe" or not. As I mentioned, I can't interact with the solvent based systems/paints anymore but can work with Stewarts or water borne paints all day long. Nothing more.;)
 
midwestpa24 said:
Also don't forget to realize everything else is getting more expensive as well. There are pickup trucks on the road today that surpass $80k new. I remember my dad about to croak over spending $30k on his Tahoe 20 years ago. My 12 year old truck stickered for $40k new, today you'd have to buy one at least 2 years old to get the same.

Uses trucks are also going way up in price too. A friend of mine is a dealer and said it has become unreal, trucks are gaining $5k in retail value while sitting on the used lot, and people are still buying them.
Click to expand...

Looked at another way - it’s the same truck - the money has lost it’s value.
 
samiamPA said:
What is up with these price increases? Is it BasicMed or some sort of nostalgia?
Click to expand...

Here's a different answer to your question.

It's The Fed.

The Federal Reserve drove down interest rates to stimulate the economy. That drives up the price of assets. Like stocks. And apparently, spam cans as well.

That's a halfway serious answer. It might even make sense, if you think about buyers who take out a loan. With low interest rates, they can pay more for a plane.
 
NoHeat said:
Here's a different answer to your question.

It's The Fed.

The Federal Reserve drove down interest rates to stimulate the economy. That drives up the price of assets. Like stocks. And apparently, spam cans as well.

That's a halfway serious answer. It might even make sense, if you think about buyers who take out a loan. With low interest rates, they can pay more for a plane.
Click to expand...
And - simultaneously a ton of cash with no "work" value behind it was dumped on the economy.
 
Bell206 said:
Or any popular rag and tube aircraft as the fabric shops are dying on the vine. Every time I work with a little fabric and Stewarts System I get a wild idea to look for a J3 or Champ project. Then I smarten up and think maybe just a set of PA-18 or Stearman tail feathers. But thankfully I sleep on it and here we are till the next cycle.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
I suffer from the same recurring infection. I always enjoyed fabric work. Maybe if I encountered an old Champ or Chief or T-Craft whose fabric is totally shot and so the airplane isn't worth much.
 
NoHeat said:
Here's a different answer to your question.

It's The Fed.

The Federal Reserve drove down interest rates to stimulate the economy. That drives up the price of assets. Like stocks. And apparently, spam cans as well.

That's a halfway serious answer. It might even make sense, if you think about buyers who take out a loan. With low interest rates, they can pay more for a plane.
Click to expand...


Maybe. But I've missed purchasing several Warriors this summer, and they went to cash buyers. There's lots of cash being spent out there.
 
"What's up with the price..."

There were rumors I was looking... Everyone knows my wife won't approve... So, they're making it easy on me...

Oh look... Nope, can't afford that...

Oh, hey... Shucks, too much...

Hey, there's a project... Say what? That's a new price...


Sigh... Need more yellow paper for the birdcage anyway.... And I don't have a bird... Or, yellow paper for that matter...
 
steingar said:
Most of these will not return to the air, they'll be totaled by the insurance companies.
Click to expand...

Being "totaled" is an economic decision, not an airworthiness one. Many of these "totaled" aircraft are sold by salvage operations to individuals or shops that repair the aircraft and return them to flying status. If you want to avoid your airplane going that route, insure it appropriately... underinsured aircraft are much more likely to be economically totaled, then rebuilt by others. Retain that option for yourself!

Even if your insurance adjuster considers your airplane a constructive loss compared to the insured value, negotiate to retain and repair the salvage yourself, with whatever diminished payout that might be associated with... remain Owner-In-Command! :)

Paul
 
PaulMillner said:
Being "totaled" is an economic decision, not an airworthiness one.
Click to expand...
FYI: While the use of the term "totaled" maybe still used in conversation, more insurance companies have been using the terms "destroyed" and "scrapped" when making various aircraft record entries after accidents/incidents. For some insurance companies this is their SOP when settling a claim. Unfortunately, the use of those terms does have a airworthiness implication as the FAA has been moving in that direction over the past years. Aside certain requirements in Part 47, there is existing FAA policy when aircraft are deemed "destroyed." So from a mx standpoint, what used to be a robust business in rebuilding "totaled" aircraft 20-30 years ago is now a much narrower niche market with a higher emphasis on parting out those airframes vs repairing.
 
atbroome said:
Sure, listing price is not selling price and this one has not gotten sold in < 1 week like other ones..but still $117k for a Tiger without a modern GPS or autopilot

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=GRUMMAN/AMERICAN+GENERAL&model=AG5B+TIGER&listing_id=2385717&s-type=aircraft
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe I was wrong about Grummans. Either way, I still feel like what you're getting versus what you're paying is not commensurate

I fly ~120 hrs/yr.. for my mission (300-500 nm legs) renting is just easier. After about 10 years I will have spent the equivalent of a lightly used and very well-equipped SR22T.. but without all the headache and hassle of constant maintenance issues

My area has access to a very nice G5 SR22T, an older but we'll taken care of G1 SR22, and a host of other toys. The PA28 is my go-to short range (200nm or less) machine.. and as long as the wings don't fall off I'm very happy with this arrangement
 
Dan Thomas said:
No. They make more profit from one Citation than from all the singles they build in a year. That's what I was told while working for a Cessna dealer. And what manufacturer should be expected to provide new parts for 50-year-old airplanes? Car manufacturers sure don't. Cessna still sells a lot of those parts but they have to have them built in very small numbers, so the prices are crazy.
Click to expand...

While car makers don't sell parts for 50 YO cars, there are lots of other places that do. I have a catalog 3 inches thick on my desk that sells nothing but Firebird parts, and they're not from the factory. You can essentially build a whole car with nothing but a credit card.

The STC / PMA process is broken, and has been for a long time. If the big makers were interested in supporting GA, they'd license out their IP or the Feds would loosen up the PMA process. Company's sell off IP all the time, but in this industry it is particularly absent. Not to put on my tin foil hat, that's probably why BigCos don't stop support altogether...because they know without factory support, the Feds would be much more lenient to approve other parts sources.

That all being said, I don't see a lot of support even the "remanufactured" airplanes...the one's that have been essentially rebuilt with new engines/interiors/paint/avionics. Yingling & Aviat announced their 172 and 152 respectively back in 2015, and judging from advertisements (or the lack thereof), have gone slow despite being relatively value priced compared to new aircraft.

RM
 
I just checked the asking of several Bonanzas similar to my V35. Some of them are asking twice what I paid 5 years ago. And yes, I understand the difference between selling and asking prices.
 
Richman67 said:
The STC / PMA process is broken, and has been for a long time. If the big makers were interested in supporting GA, they'd license out their IP or the Feds would loosen up the PMA process. Company's sell off IP all the time, but in this industry it is particularly absent. Not to put on my tin foil hat, that's probably why BigCos don't stop support altogether...because they know without factory support, the Feds would be much more lenient to approve other parts sources.
RM
Click to expand...

The market just isn't big enough to support big new STC's like it was in the hay maker days of 60's- late 70's. I'd argue the STC process for engine mods is easier today with the same regs due to availability of low cost digital instrumentation over the old data recording capability back then.

We also had many more aerospace engineers during during this period making many of the STC's back then as a side job or retirement effort. My Robertson STOL kit is a good example. Designed and manufactured in the 60's by well regarded Boeing engineer. He set-up his business on the opposite end of his old company's airport.

PMA parts issues are just nuts. The certification and testing process for some parts is ridiculous. Simple, but odd cut shaped covers or inspection panels are crazy priced without a substitute. Why is an exhaust band clamp for race car cost $35 and the same PMA clamp for a Cessna $375?
 
Last edited:
JOhnH said:
Bonanzas
Click to expand...
The Bonanza has become so ubiquitous though that I'm not surprised by this. There are some seriously beat up ones out there for a comparatively low price, and there are also people's pride and joy that, for whatever reason, they're now forced to sell.
 
Richman67 said:
While car makers don't sell parts for 50 YO cars, there are lots of other places that do. I have a catalog 3 inches thick on my desk that sells nothing but Firebird parts, and they're not from the factory. You can essentially build a whole car with nothing but a credit card.

The STC / PMA process is broken, and has been for a long time. If the big makers were interested in supporting GA, they'd license out their IP or the Feds would loosen up the PMA process. Company's sell off IP all the time, but in this industry it is particularly absent. Not to put on my tin foil hat, that's probably why BigCos don't stop support altogether...because they know without factory support, the Feds would be much more lenient to approve other parts sources.

That all being said, I don't see a lot of support even the "remanufactured" airplanes...the one's that have been essentially rebuilt with new engines/interiors/paint/avionics. Yingling & Aviat announced their 172 and 152 respectively back in 2015, and judging from advertisements (or the lack thereof), have gone slow despite being relatively value priced compared to new aircraft.

RM
Click to expand...
Quoted you just to like it twice. Spot on, the process is broken and OEMs in this moribund sector are not being honest brokers. Look no further than Textron for dynamics of what you're describing. Cessna retracts and v tail bos as two glaring examples.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Because of fatalities caused by clamp failures. https://www.gajsc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Final-Report-BPG-ACS_013018.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with the FAA advisory on V-clamps. Cessna is not manufacturing these clamps, they are buying Borg-warner or Eaton clamps for under $30 and marking them up with their part number.

My turbo STC holder sold their PMA V-clamps for $45 each until the STC was sold to a new owner who recently jacked the price to under $400 for the same clamp.

This is a classic case in point @Richman67 was making earlier and @hindsight2020 echoed about the burdensome PMA rules. Readily available parts like this significantly impacting safety should be more cost effectively available. The irony is they are available, the exact same part (not a like substitution) for 10% of what the aircraft & aircraft engine manufacturers are charging.
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
more insurance companies have been using the terms "destroyed" and "scrapped" when making various aircraft record entries after accidents/incidents.
Click to expand...

that's curious... why would they spend the time to reduce their salvage net back?

Is there an FAR that requires anyone to observe a non#mechanic's opinion on an airframe? Seem specious.
 
Every time you put a Cessna/Piper/Beechcraft/Cirrus part on your plane, you expose them to a lawsuit. Sorry, it’s just a fact of life. Trust me, they are not getting rich supporting their older fleet.
 
PaulMillner said:
why would they spend the time to reduce their salvage net back?
Click to expand...
That side of the business isnt what it used to be. Most underwriters seem to prefer to cut the liability chain clean now. Some have even started to pull data plates and surrender them. They've already made their money on the premiums.
PaulMillner said:
Is there an FAR that requires anyone to observe a non#mechanic's opinion on an airframe?
Click to expand...
No FAR but an Order came out several years ago which made it policy. Search "FAA destroyed order" and it should pop up. But most of the destroyed entries I saw were made by the owner or APs. There's also been been a couple high profile cases on "restored" aircraft to include a salvaged Bonanza that had its data plate surrendered and the new owner took it to FAA legal to get a new plate. I believe he has the nicest Bonanza flower pot around.;)
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
There's also been been a couple high profile cases on "restored" aircraft to include a salvaged Bonanza that had its data plate surrendered and the new owner took it to FAA legal to get a new plate. I believe he has the nicest Bonanza flower pot around.;)
Click to expand...
Why would they bother,, plenty of data plates in the salvage yards.
 
The popular answer above is the fleet is dwindling, but keep in mind inflation also hasn’t stopped in decades. And it multiplies.

Constant currency devaluation is the outcome if wages don’t keep up. Loss of purchasing power per dollar spent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top