Another ownership question

Duane MacInnis wrote:
Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
actually *appreciate* in value.


I would like to see some hard data to support this claim. While this
was true of certain aircraft in the late '80s and early '90s, once
Cessna restarted production and Cirrus and Diamond are now delivering
in significant numbers, I seriously doubt this still holds true.

"Ross Oliver" wrote in message
...
Duane MacInnis wrote:
Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
actually *appreciate* in value.


I would like to see some hard data to support this claim. While this
was true of certain aircraft in the late '80s and early '90s, once
Cessna restarted production and Cirrus and Diamond are now delivering
in significant numbers, I seriously doubt this still holds true.


I don't think anything Cessna, Cirrus or any of the others are doing is
affecting the value of my 56 year old airplane. I suspect that holds true
for 99.5 percent of the fleet.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Wendy wrote:

If I bought a 1977-ish Cessna 172 that is IFR
equipped with a low time engine for, say, around $45,000, can I beat the
rental cost ($77/hr) over the course of a year flying 150-200 hrs a
year?

If you ignore the potential income from the money you used to buy the
plane,
yes, you can. I recommend this, since the "potential income" on my
investments
ran about negative 60% over the last few years.

Yeah those Xians are a moral bunch alright. Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swargard,
Jim & Tammy Baker, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, Hitler! VBG

JT


George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a
gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful
that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon,
and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of
Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no
longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian
marriages.

(Ross Oliver) wrote:

Duane MacInnis wrote:
Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
actually *appreciate* in value.

I would like to see some hard data to support this claim. While this
was true of certain aircraft in the late '80s and early '90s, once
Cessna restarted production and Cirrus and Diamond are now delivering
in significant numbers, I seriously doubt this still holds true.

I paid $32.5K for my 1972 Skyhawk in 1992. Book value is now around
$40K, including the additional hours put on the plane in the last 11
years. Not lots of appreciation in value but clearly greater than
zero.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

I fly about 75 - 100 hours a year. I own a '65 Skyhawk/IFR/180HP. I
agree, the hours do not meet the financial requirements on owning, but
there is something to be said that MY plane is in the hangar with I want
to fly, and I do not have to try and schedule a plane after a week of
bad weather, only to have everybody else trying the same thing.

Partnership would be an alternative, maybe.

markjen wrote:

There are a lot of variables, but it usually works out that the "break even"
point between owning and renting is around 150-200 hours/yr. But if you can
fly 100 hours or more, the costs are close enough that the overwhelming
benefits of ownership (predictability, scheduling, flexibility, pride, etc.)
make it a great way to go, provided you want and have the extra time to
spend managing the ownership aspects (maintenance, keeping it clean,
paperwork, etc.).

Below 100-hours, ownership really doesn't make economic sense so I advise
people flying the typical 50 or 75 hours per year to try and find a 2- or
3-way partnership.

- Mark

On 17-Nov-2003, (Ross Oliver) wrote:

Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
actually *appreciate* in value.


I would like to see some hard data to support this claim. While this
was true of certain aircraft in the late '80s and early '90s, once
Cessna restarted production and Cirrus and Diamond are now delivering
in significant numbers, I seriously doubt this still holds true.


The '79 Arrow IV we bought in 1996 for $48K is worth at LEAST $80K today,
assuming similar engine SMOH. That corresponds to an average aggregate
annual value increase of more than 7.5%. Not a bad investment at all!

Due to the Bush-whacked economy over the past 2 years (and NOT because of
production of new models) used airplane prices have been very soft, but then
so have values of other types of investments.
--
-Elliott Drucker

Long-term (over the past 50 years or so), airplanes have generally
appreciated at the overall inflation rate. So they aren't great investments
per se, but they don't dramatically lose value like cars, motorcycles,
boats, etc. like most depreciating assets. This assumes you put some money
back into the airplane for capital improvements (paint, avionics,
upholstery, etc.). Include this and it doesn't look so good. They're about
halfway between a car and a house.

As with all things, you have to ride out the downs to get to the ups. My
aircraft increased in value about 65% between purchase in 1991 and 2001
(about a 5% annual appreciation rate), but has lost $20K in the last two
years. So overall, it has averaged 3%/year. I consider this a little high
since the runup in the late-90's was unprecedented. So 2-2.5% is probably a
good long-term average to expect. And that's about the inflation rate over
the period.

- Mark

ks_av8r wrote:


Another one, is if after a year or so, if it isn't getting the flying time
for break even, you can always consider a co-ownership at that time and
sell
1/2 of it.

Another factor to consider, beyond hours flying, is the hours spent with the
aircraft sitting away from home. Renting, this costs. Owning, it's free.

That's a "column" that pushed me heavily towards club membership (something
like ownership with training wheels {8^).

- Andrew

You've all given me some good informationa and confirmed what I already
suspected; thanks loads! I bought Iowa University Press' "Buying And Owning
Your Own Airplane" today; I'll get back to you on any questions that
publication may raise. I'm still at the "what kind of airplane do I want?"
stage, with the C-172 being the most practical and a 150hp Citabria being
the most interesting (and fun) airplanes in my price and range. The vast
majority of my flying will be by myself, so the power limitations of these
two airplanes aren't really a factor, and they'll both suit me well for
weekend jaunts as well as XC flying. The Citabria will require a hangar,
and that may be an issue as they are not the easiest things to find here (I
want to base the plane at KCXO). Then there's tailwheel insurance... Ok, I
am getting an idea of what this involves, and I realize I am just dealing
with the tip of the iceberg!

Wendy

On 18-Nov-2003, "Wendy" wrote:

I'm still at the "what kind of airplane do I want?" stage, with the C-172
being the most practical and a 150hp Citabria being the most interesting
(and fun) airplanes in my price and range. The vast majority of my flying
will be by myself, so the power limitations of these two airplanes aren't
really a factor, and they'll both suit me well for weekend jaunts as well
as XC flying.



As a compromise between these two you might consider a Grumman Cheetah. Or,
since you will be alone most of the time, a Cherokee 140 will provide
similar performance to a C-172 at a significantly lower purchase price.
Another advantage of the Cherokee is its much larger fuel tanks, which give
it very good range when the cabin load is light.

--
-Elliott Drucker