Antonio wrote:
THank you! never seen it be4! It resembles the style of many Spanish18th century literary masterpieces (incl Quixote)
You can get the movie with Hugh Jackman, or if it is the music you are interested in, I recommend the 25th anniversary edition from the O2.
I’ve seen it twice in NY with Ramin Karimloo as Valjean. Life experience. I also travelled to Shannon to see a concert of the original Valjean, Colm Wilkinson.
I have seen peak Beechcraft V35B (some might be offered for $325k), but this early 1966 PA24-260 at around US$450k must be the winner.
https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=49830
planecheck_NOREG_49830_pdf
RobertL18C wrote:
at around US$450k must be the winner.
I’ll also sell my 1970 Turbo Comanche immediately for 450k$!
Anyone?
RobertL18C wrote:
early 1966 PA24-260 at around US$450k
Hmm, should one not do a bit more marketing effort when asking that kind of money?
Antonio wrote:
Hmm, should one not do a bit more marketing effort when asking that kind of money
Depends. Seller seems to be waiting for the real seller’s market 
An interesting video :
As usual from Mike Bush a very balanced view based on lots and lots of experience.
I agree with most of what is said, only for the European market I’d think that the typical US thing of buying – selling – upgrading is not as easy here in Europe as it is in the US, where the market is a lot bigger.
Hence, I personally go rather in a direction of not buying something you’ll tire of quickly and need to upgrade within a few years, particularly at the low end of the budget.
Having said that, it is very true that maintenance cost can be massively different between types. So maybe one really interesting factor may be to compare regular maintenance bills people have on different types. Airplanes which have expensive repetitive AD’s, airplanes which have a lot of systems to maintain and exotic planes with no part support may be well much more expensive than others with less.
There was one tiny mention I find very valid though and which explains a lot about the success of Cirrus in the US apart from the shute question. Cirri are NON COMPLEX, as they don’t fold the legs. In the US, insurance has become a MASSIVE problem in the last years, as soon as complex airplanes (and old pilots but that is another problem) is concerned. In recent years, I’ve read countless posts in Mooneyspace and elsewhere of people who found they can’t get insurance on complex planes without either having to go through a ridiculous amount of training (up to 100 hrs in some cases, arbitrary number set by the insurer) or get outpriced offers indicating the insurer wishes to get rid of them. And, quite a few won’t get insurance at all.
This problem however is not present in Europe at this time. Whether that will stay that way is a very different question as also here prices have hiked up massively. However, for now, not going complex for insurance reason is not a factor in Europe to the best of my knowledge.
Yet: it is well worth looking at non-complex airframes vs complex ones from the perspective of maintenance as well as general cost of ownership. What Mike calls “the need for speed” is often hugely overrated, particularly as you can find non-complex airplanes which have quite respectable speeds. And even those trusty low enders like PA28-140/180 or the Cessna 172 will be very much enough for quite a lot of missions.
I would mention the Grumman Tiger here (140 kts), the Dakota (135) and the SR20 which runs about 140 kts as well. So in practice, any of those will run in the same kind of speed league as a Piper Arrow II/III or a vintage Mooney C or G but at lower cost due to the fixed gear.
And with retracables, cost of maintenance for the gear can be massively different. On the lower end, you’ll find retracables like the Johnson Bar Mooneys or the Gardan Horizon, which have manual landing gear which in most cases costs next to nothing to maintain. At the higher end, complex hydraulic gear systems like in some Cessnas or Pipers can be massively more expensive to keep going.
complex hydraulic gear systems like in some Cessnas or Pipers can be massively more expensive to keep going.
What I have seen is that this depends strongly on how much neglect the aircraft has seen in years past. Actually that’s true for everything else in maintenance also.
My expenditure on my hydraulic landing gear, since 2002, is negligible. I think the pressure switch was changed once. The emergency gear release valve was a problem (pointless “maintenance” required under CAA/EASA) until I went N-reg and since then it has been on-condition.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
What Mike calls “the need for speed” is often hugely overrated, particularly as you can find non-complex airplanes which have quite respectable speeds. And even those trusty low enders like PA28-140/180 or the Cessna 172 will be very much enough for quite a lot of missions.
I agree in general, but there’s one massive difference between Europe and the US, at least the western part: distance. Out here the distances for any halfway meaningful x-country are simply much, much longer than in Europe. Of course you can fly a C172 from L.A. to South Lake Tahoe, but you prob90 need a vacation to recover from the ordeal.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
At the higher end, complex hydraulic gear systems like in some Cessnas or Pipers can be massively more expensive to keep going.
They are a constant source of worry and that translates into AUs. Our club has now – sadly and, IMHO, stupidly – sold our C210. Much as I loved that airplane, the gear was a constant source of mx events. Nothing big, but there always were issues. The Sword of Damocles that hung over it was the main gear power pack which was way over its normal lifespan. Cost (parts only): $ 8000.
In any case, @Mooney is correct. Complex SEPs are increasingly difficult to insure and the costs and requirements are becoming increasingly onerous. Interestingly that doesn’t seem to be the case for twins. I am about to start flying a Beech Baron BE55 and all the insurers want are 10 hours in make and model.
172driver wrote:
Complex SEPs
For the benefit of casual readers, I’d like to point out that “complex” according to FAA rules means something completely different from “complex” according to EASA rules.
FAA complex: has retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller.
EASA complex: MTOM over 5700 kg, or requires more than one pilot or has a jet engine or has more than one turboprop engine or is certified for more than 19 pax.
