Nope, # 190
Alexis wrote:
I understand that a Warrior is not a “collectible”.
Unless you happen to own serial number 1.
My father bought a 4 yo Warrior in 1978 (i was 19) for DM 60.000. 39 years later i still have the airplane.
It has a Garmin stack now, a Fuel Computer and a 8 yo 2-axis A/P and is worth around € 50 K, i think (or hope). But even without the new avionics it should be worth € 30 K.
I understand that a Warrior is not a “collectible”.
Peter wrote:
Do you think those Burmese Spitfires are pure fiction?
I can imagine that there are buried aircraft somewhere. Maybe not Spitfires and maybe not in Burma. At the end of a war outdated weapons aren’t worth much. Usually they get destroyed (like the dozens of planes the Royal Air Force just pushed over the cliff at their Hal Far base in Malta because – in their eyes – they were not worth the fuel required to fly them back to England) but why not bury or otherwise hide some instead?
If anyboday wants to launch a Kickstarter campain for another Spitfire dig I may donate/invest 100 Euros. But certainly not more.
Do you think those Burmese Spitfires are pure fiction?
It’s a fun story 
BTW there was a period in 2002 when you could have bought a TB20 for 175-200k + VAT and sold it a year later for 260k+VAT. It was because Socata jacked up the price steeply, without admitting they had already stopped making them.
Rwy20 wrote:
…that earthlings dig out the gold from one place …
The airplane enthusiasts among those earthlings do not dig for gold but for Spitfires instead. So far with not much success, but who knows, maybe tomorrow?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/man-who-tried-to-dig-up-140-spitfires-in-burma-2015-9?IR=T
LeSving wrote:
The only way to make money on it, is to charge someone to fly it.
Or, as in the case of those warbirds mentioned in the second article, by buying it for less than you hope to be able to sell it at a later date (minus storage costs and risks).
A bit like the reason why people buy gold and stuff it away somewhere. Apart from some industrial or jewellery uses, it is practically useless: You can’t eat it, you can’t burn it, and it won’t grow by its own. All you can hope for is to find someone “more stupid” later who will pay you at least what you paid now for the gold you own. If someone looked on from space and saw that earthlings dig out the gold from one place with a lot of effort just to bury it somewhere else as deeply and securely as possible, the whole process must appear utterly comical.
Silvaire wrote:
Since then (over the last 15 years or so) values have been flat, reducing real purchase cost substantially for some very nice planes. Assuming their value won’t start rising again that makes them not so much an investment as a good value recreational purchase, especially considering that so many other comparable activities involve buying fast depreciating hardware.
The value of such a plane is roughly 1/10 of the value of a similar new one. We would say such a thing only has “useful” value left (don’t know the English term). What it means is that the value of the aircraft as a useful object, is larger (to you) than the value you will get for it in money when/if you sell it. All value as any kind of investment is therefore gone, nothing left.
For a recreational thing, like a private aircraft, the “useful” value can in principle be all or nothing, and anything in between, and is usually different from person to person. For an aircraft to be an investment, you have to make money on it. The only way to make money on it, is to charge someone to fly it. Then a new one is usually a better investment than an old one, because maintenance and particularly lost income due to unexpected maintenance, makes older planes literally useless as money making machines.
In the US, from about 1960 to about 2000, small aircraft generally rose in value at the rate of inflation or better. Most people expected that every year their plane would be worth more than the year before. Since then (over the last 15 years or so) values have been flat, reducing real purchase cost substantially for some very nice planes. Assuming their value won’t start rising again that makes them not so much an investment as a good value recreational purchase, especially considering that so many other comparable activities involve buying fast depreciating hardware.
The biggest ‘investment ’loss’ in the ownership of a classic plane is the cost of inside storage… They almost invariably need to be kept inside and that costs money. My response to that was to find a fairly large rented hangar and make it a place where we can socialize and have fun, and also a workshop, somewhat disconnecting the cost from the aircraft. For years this meant I could comfortably live in a smaller house, saving the money spent on hangar rent (and more).
I think the biggest issue in Europe specifically for vintage planes is that airspace constraints and regulatory equipment requirements make them more of a toy than a toy that can also take you to far off places. To me, that would push me towards owning a small biplane or the like, something that you wouldn’t typically use to go places anyway.
Hey, nobody says it’s a real investment, but people at least need a reasonable excuse to plunk down a noticeable amount of money for something of no obvious direct benefit.
