Airborne_Again wrote:
I don’t see that? What information? But the most interesting thing is that in the last update to the ad, the aircraft is suddenly “VAT free”.
In all three PDF attached by @Dimme it was listed VAT free – whatever this means in reality, maybe just that it is registered to a company?
MichaLSA wrote:
In all three PDF attached by @Dimme it was listed VAT free
Ok, I was confused — but then I don’t see what information was removed.
MichaLSA wrote:
A rare Autofuel example experiment
Is this a bad thing? The system is designed to allow normal use of 100LL , so if you don’t like ADI+MOGAS, just don’t use it. The only drawback may be the weight (just empty the ADI tank if not using it or carry less if using it little!) and space used in the baggage compartment by the tank, but this is as large a compartment as they go anyway.
wing spars changed
Is a properly installed and freshly-certified and corrosion-protected spar worse than a 50YO one?
crack in crankcase
Well, the difficult-to-fix issues on these engines are the low-end. Top-end is cheap+easy. What this tells us is the bottom end was refreshed a short time ago, why would that damage confidence on the engine?
damage history
I’d have a look at this thread for perspective on whether declared damage history is a good or a bad thing
This is a relatively expensive aircraft to maintain, yes, but without turbo, pressurization or deicing, relatively on the low-side of the 210 bracket. I am familiar with the type, if not this particular airframe, and I can as a minimum say this is nowhere near the worst 210 example in the market. The real technical issues specific to this airframe are explained in this post and some others above.
In exchange for such cost and acquisition price, you get a viable aircraft with over 1000lbs “useful load” (after you have filled it with 89USG fuel, so we should call it “payload”) at 160KTAS …is there anything that gets close in SEP-land?
It can’t be “VAT free” if being sold by a VAT registered individual or corporate body.
For that claim to be true the seller must be non VAT registered.
FWIW, a lot of people spend an absolute fortune on a plane – even voluntarily, like avionics – and then sell it rapidly.
Dimme wrote:
has gradually been removed from the ad
The iPad holder is still in the offer! But still without iPad.
However it got a bit slower in the course of the ad.
Anyway, I don’t get it. To me this aircraft looks like a very capable platform. Don’t know about the maintenance specific to this…?
My Comanche is somewhat similarly capable, and the MX is quite doable.
Peter wrote:
It can’t be “VAT free” if being sold by a VAT registered individual or corporate body.
It can, if:
OR
Sure, but does anybody do that?
The whole point of having a plane in a VAT registered company is so you can reclaim absolutely everything 
And very few VAT regd companies will buy a plane from a non VAT registered seller – because they lose so much immediately.
I think N-reg does not help the sale.
I recall a similar discussion about a C172 recently which was however D-Reg and was poh-poohed by many but sold within several days.
Other than that, true, I wonder why it does not sell. It’s a very capable platform.
It can, if: the trader (VAT registered individual or body) never deducted VAT on maintenance, repairs, …the trader didn’t deduct VAT on purchase
Why one would do that?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I think N-reg does not help the sale
I would be happy to keep a 172 on EASA-reg in Europe. I would think twice about a 210 since the maintenance complexities are on another level. Granted it is ELA2 with all associated advantages, but the FAA system is way more practical for everything maintenance in a complex aircraft.
