The Vanishing Act of Quality EASA SEPs in 2024: Discussion

Dan wrote:

Gave it a few days thought, then wrote to the owner and made an offer, only slightly lower than the asking price. No answer, so a couple of weeks later I reached for the phone… “oh no, I don’t know, there’s another potential buyer coming in next week, call me back later”.

That’s what I wrote few pages earlier – make an offer and if the seller doesn’t have a counter-offer or doesn’t reply, just walk away, don’t waste your time.

I did all that @Dan recommends in 2010, with success. It was a good deal for both of us, because while I bought it for a reasonable price there wasn’t a big market for the plane and it had some undisclosed issues that I subsequently had to sort out, and did so without hassle for the seller.

Currently I have the potential flip-side of the same situation: an aging owner who has owned, loved and flown his plane for 50 years approached me because he knows me and above all wants it to go to a good home. I’ve told him I’m interested but he needs to decide what I’d need to pay him, then we will see.

I think one helpful hint in buying a plane is to become part of a aircraft type community or local area community or something else that builds personal links to the guy who is emotionally attached to his plane, and allows you to show him who you are. Aircraft are often personal things, and in these cases need to be respected as such.

hazek wrote:

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.

The Aspen is often a better and easier upgrade than some others if you have to replace some instruments at once. I know a Jodel which has an Aspen just because they are quite neat instruments and replace a lot of old style stuff. Why not. I have one in my Mooney and love it. Frankly, if I ever got to buy another plane which is purely analogue, the first thing I’d put in is an Aspen.

gallois wrote:

we know for @hazek the lack of AP makes it a deal breaker at that price.

Actually, I was very interested in the HR100 for a while because of it’s fantastic range. The problem is, that other than the ancient BC AP which is one axis, there apparently are no AP’s which can be put on the HR100. That is really bad for a plane which has up to 10 hours range. Frankly for me, it would be a deal breaker too, particularly if there is no way to install one. Even a measly Stec 30 in connection with an Aspen make for a totally different cruise experience.

Peter wrote:

I don’t think a C172 will go over 7.5k if full rich, and that is how most European PPL training is done – no leaning.

That may well be the problem. C172’s are often flown by newbies who have no idea about how an engine is managed. The same is said about the C150 and I’ve had mine up to 13000 ft several times. C172’s with 160 hp in Switzerland operate in the Alps all the time, but we learn how to lean. Also the reason a lot of 160 hp C172’s “never reach book figures” is because they are flown overloaded a lot. A normal 172 should be able to do 12k ft DA any time.

172driver wrote:

Chaps, we are talking about a 210hp Reims Cessna here!

Yep, totally different animal. Also the 180 hp 172 is a different story.

Maybe Piper did not do it too stupidly by naming their 160 hp PA28 differently to the 180 hp incarnation. With the Cessna 172, lots of people don’t know the difference, which obviously is huge.

hazek wrote:

I did qualify that I meant in the summer. And I’d really love to see you Peter with a fully loaded C150 go over 7000ft when it’s +15 ISA.

Pity I don’t have mine anymore, I’d be happy to show you. I’ve done many alpine crossings in that plane in full summer, none of them below 8500 ft or so. It takes time and to stay withing max weight, but yes, it can be done.

For me, 180 hp is the minimum I’d like to deal with if I have to cross the Alps regularly, 200 hp is even better. IFR, you might even start thinking Turbo.

hazek wrote:

I would just like something that is reasonably princed for what it is and am looking for 135kt+, 4 seater cert, with fuel injection(preferably turbo), GPS (430+), AP and EDM that can handle overflying the Alps in summer and doesn’t burn crazy amount of fuel like a 182 for example.

Well, there are plenty of 4 seaters which can cross the Alps in summer, not all of them will fly 4 100 kg guys though. If you are looking at a plane which can take 4 people when you need it to but is a good 2-3 seat traveller, the selection is more open. If you are talking taking 4 adults with bags = 500 kg over the alps in summer, the 182 is probably one of the few which can do that, more likely 210’s or a Cherokee 6/Lance.

Also the consumption question. GPH is not necessarily the value to look for, as the actual efficiency is hugely speed dependent. 4 people being able to fly over the Alps in summer would favour a TB20 for instance. But that one has a similar sized engine as a 182. Which does not mean it’s not possible to fly it economically, just as Peter does. Clearly they are pricy though.

If you are on a tighter budget, the following come to mind:

135 kts is Arrow II/III territory, they have injected IO360’s and 200 hp. There are lots of those around. The Turbo Arrows will do the alps just fine and ad 170 kt to it. Arrows also tend to be not too extremely priced and there are many clubs and schools who divest themselves of rather well equipped Arrows as people tend to like Archers better. Recently, I recall a club airplane with full IFR/LPV/Ap e.t.c. being advertized very competitively, half time engine and decent shape and well equipped go within a few days.

Efficiency, look at a M20J or, for regular alpine crossings, a K. Quite a few around, many of them in good shape and it does not come much more efficient than that. Even an “F” will do the job. Most of them have AP’s and most are decently equipped. None of them are fill 4 seats and full fuel though. If you are looking at a “K”, disregard any GB engine, LB or MB are what to look for.

Classic Bonanzas with O470 engines will also do the job without the consumption of a 182. Some of those are very capable planes. But they are often quirky and need someone who really wants to work themselves into them. A classical owner plane therefore.

There are more options, lots of them, if you are flexible and open minded.

The emotional factor which Dan mentions is huge with private sellers. First of all, many simply add up all investments and expect to get them back. Won’t work of course. Likewise a lot of them are widely delusional about their possibilities to return to flying (including myself maybe) after their license expires or they loose the medicals due to old age. I’ve known people who were fighting to get their medicals back and could not accept that it would not happen, even though it was brutally clear. Planes like that get sold after they die normally. We had one like that, a PA28, which sat for 15 years polished and regularly engine runs done a few years back and once it got sold (against MASSIVE advice by know alls) it became a totally trouble free airplane for the guy who bought it.

hazek wrote:

doesn’t burn crazy amount of fuel like a 182 for example.

Huh? Properly leaned (again, y’know, that red knob…) it burns between 11 and 13gls/hour, depending on engine model.

Lot’s of time in the Swiss Army knife Cessna 182. The Lycoming 182S and 182T is not too shabby at IFR flight levels. In my experience it delivers better than book at around 145 KTAS at FL90 and 13 USGPH, with a reasonable useful load and very long range tanks (89 USG useable). 55% around 130 KTAS and 10 USGPH.

They hold their value and are a pleasant passenger aircraft. Cessna ailerons have always been on the ponderous side, but gap seals and the Sportsman leading edge cuff make the handling a bit more pleasant.

Quite a few people I know looking for that “real” 4 seater with good speed and load have ended up with a 182. As you say, the proverbial Swiss Army knife. And in terms of holding value, there are not many planes which do that better.

It has been the case since for ever that advertised prices were some 20% above actual sale prices. The dealers support this policy otherwise, they say, the whole market will fall by 20%.

If you sell privately and want a fast sale, look for 20% under stuff advertised by dealers.

Now, with the covid overhang still present, probably 30%.

I know some prices actually paid for quality stuff like TB20GT and they were much lower than the 200k+ advertised.

Most sellers won’t be on EuroGA.