9A_LDSH wrote:
@hazekGuess this one can thick on your box?
Yes, this one exactly ticks my boxes if you meant as an example of exactly the kind of absurd over priced ads I see. I’m sorry but the Aspen is wasted on this 172, the engine is near TBO and I don’t know how it was flown and how often so might as well consider it as requiring an urgent overhaul, it’s 1975 airframe that does 100kt and can’t climb above 7500ft in summer.
I want a plane, desperately. I have the money to buy it. But I would never buy this plane for more than 75k and I’m rather without it for the listed price. I can see this plane selling to a school for 90k only because schools can make money with it. But 172 is not what I’m looking for anyway.
What you need to get is a serious maintenance shop, which you can rely on for mechanical things – first thing on. And once you visit a plane that could make it, send him to pre-buy. you may also use it as a Camo for the first year in order to ramp on the thing.
greg_mp wrote:
Sometimes you can see very nice planes. If you like the HR100/250, this one is great:
https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=56243
It’s expensive. There is another on aircraft24 who’s less expensive with a new engine. I didn’t went to see them because finally, HR100 is not really suitable for short fields. But if you like metallic Robin, they are good plane, just a tiny bit slower than TB20.
Well, first no AP, that’s a bummer. And then if a very thorough prebuy checked out on that 8k+ TT airframe and landing gear and if the fuel economy on that giant engine wasn’t too bad it would be a great plane for 140k€, no VAT.
As is, too expensive in my opinion.
mri wrote:
Also, buyers seem to take for granted that they can buy planes for significantly less than what was recently invested in them. That seems to be over for the time being. As an owner of a „resurrected dinosaur“ I‘m currently not too sad about that.. :-)
That’s also true, but many times there is a “market value” on a certain aircraft and just because owner has “over invested” in his aircraft it doesn’t mean that he will get all his money back at time of sale or near future.
I think that is what has happened with the HR100.
It looks to be a very good restored aircraft.
The problem is whether or not something being sold restored is worth the same or more than buying unrestored and having the restoration done yourself to your own specifications. It’s rather like ( or at least similar principles apply to) buying a classic car or a house.
But in this case before thinking about the price, we know for @hazek the lack of AP makes it a deal breaker at that price.
hazek wrote:
Well, first no AP, that’s a bummer. And then if a very thorough prebuy checked out on that 8k+ TT airframe and landing gear and i*f the fuel economy on that giant engine wasn’t too bad* it would be a great plane for 140k€, no VAT.As is, too expensive in my opinion.
planecheck_F_BXGQ_56243_pdf
Actually that’s an IO540, you can run it at 55% with same performance than a IO360 at 75%. But you can also run it a 75% and fly faster. But you are right, it’s too expensive. this one falls in the case “the owner wants a payback on its investment”.
I’m not sure this is any different than it’s ever been. Any aircraft pre-1980 is going to be a one-off evaluation. Sure there is a blue-book price but that is for an aircraft that, at that age, hardly exists. This asking price is just that. Who knows what the seller is willing to accept? Or what squawks could be discovered with a pre-buy inspection? There will always be trade-offs that go into the prospective buyer’s own evaluation. There simply isn’t the “perfect” aircraft out there for a given specific buyer. If looking for that, then one won’t likely get very far. As mentioned in the thread, there are many factors at play and the importance and priority of each play a role in the decision to a) rule out from the start or b) take it to the next step. Buying an aircraft is a multi-step process with decisions at each step. If one tries to find (and implicitly “decide on”) the best buy aircraft before going beyond step a), then the experience will likely be unsatisfying.
F-BXGQ is a nice looking aircraft for its age, from the pictures. But it is impossible to make a judgement only on that. Logs will tell a lot. If it’s been flown as a tourer, then the hours on airframe and landing gear should not be a big concern. Corrosion would need to be checked though. If an a/p is an deal-breaker for the buyer, then so be it. Even if there were an approved a/p for this aircraft (and there likely is), it would be from another generation and future maintenance of some concern given the lack of alternatives. An a/p requirement also implies the desire to fly it IFR, so an avionics upgrade would be in its future (GNS430, King 155, evtl txpdr). While I agree that a seller can’t expect to get full money back from modern avionics, it does make an aircraft more saleable and hence worth more than a non-PBN, non-8.33, non S-mode equipped aircraft.
Yes.
Another factor is that pre-1980 planes are likely to contain a lot of corrosion, and “somebody” needs to decide on what is acceptable. I recall a case of a ~1975 Mooney which someone here got a prebuy on (!) and bought it and then shortly afterwards took it for an Annual and the company grounded it, asking for 5 figures to make it legal. Obviously the prebuy guy either didn’t look inside at all, or thought “this is normal for the age”. I saw the photos… My A&P saw them too (actually they were openly posted elsewhere) and he said they are almost all like that.
OTOH I am having the Annual done right now and the A&P says there is not even the smallest spot of corrosion inside the airframe. I know there are spots externally but they are readily visible. It was always hangared… that also usually means no corrosion inside the propeller. But logs are not likely to show the hangarage history, so a proper internal visual check is always needed. One guy I knew who did prebuys disposed of one dispute by saying “I did basically firewall forward; nothing more was agreed” which was outrageous.
It’s a tricky business…
On corrosion, there was a golden age around late 1970’s where some manufacturers corrosion proofed their aircraft with zinc chromate primer, which has been banned since 2007. The Comanche benefitted from this in the early 1970’s. This priming was applied before assembly so also protects seams etc.
Comanches were zinc chromated since the beginning in 1958. They often look literally like new inside. My plane built in 1971 was internally primed with something that looks like DP40 epoxy primer but I don’t know what is actually is. Epoxy is generally better than zinc chromate and so it has zero internal corrosion.
Cessnas were internally primed as an option, or so I’ve read, and the Reims built ones are (often? always?) so equipped.
As always when buying a plane knowledge is ‘power’, and the broad market doesn’t always know everything.
