Buying an older airplane

An extended warranty is an insurance policy that you have already paid
for. The company knows almost exactly how much profit is involved in an
extended warranty. Almost all of it.


That would depend on the cost would it not? Perhaps you should research the
costs of extended warranties available on new planes and get back to us.

New engines have problems.

We all have the same engines so that is a nonfactor.


We don't all have new engines, and we don't all have warranties covering our
engines. Those would seem to be two factors more than zero.



Maybe you should try looking at the Cirrus owners group. They have a
free
area where they used to talk about their troubles, but now they hide
most of
the bad news in the members only section. I am not a member, but
apparently
the discussions are a bit scary.

Every plane has its problems unique to itself.


Exactly my point, it seems we are getting closer to agreement.



Maybe you should talk to some new 182 owners that had to have extensive
work
done on their planes which were not manufactured to spec. All the new
planes have bugaboos. That's life.

I have flown in and seen many new 182's. Don't want one. A new 206 I
would seriously consider. But it is a lot of money to spend to not get
much improvement.


Well, I appreciate your perspective on the value of a new Cessna, but the
point was that new planes often need lots of work. This was stated to
disagree with your point that new planes don't have much go wrong, and
therefore the value of the warranty was cheap.

Some factories, most, have not always been quick to rush in and correct
thngs that were obviously a manufacturers defect but were some how
questionable warranty repairs due to the type of fault, or the time at which
it became apparent. Thus the value of an extended warranty. Personally, if
the extended warranty were similar to extended car warranties in percentage
of cost and terms , I would run away from the manufacturer because he
obviously knew the plane was a dud.

Again, it gets back to condition of the aircraft and your flight
preferences. I have a 1969 cherokee and had no problems buying
an "older" aircraft. compared to corresponding 90's archers,
mine has a service ceiling 2000-3000 higher (very important
out here in the mountains), a bit more load (not as important)
and considerably cheaper than the $150-250K price tag!

Know what? All archers and warriors and cherokees fly pretty
much the same. Other than moving to a completely different style
of aircraft (e.g. husky, cirrus, cubi, pitts) it really doesn't
make that much difference to me.

I was willing to buy a '69 with no corrosion (ok, some damage but
that was back in the 70s). Upkeep is going to be just about the
same - hangar, fuel, insurance, annuals, etc. But what I saved
buying the older aircraft certainly covers 5-10 years of those
upkeep expenses!

Would you have been just as happy to buy a 1963 model? Could have saved
even more money. I just think that we all have an emotional level of how
far back we want to go. I am certainly willing to admit that it is not
always rational. I would rather have a low time, mint condition 63 than a
well worn 83, but if I were looking to buy I would not really be looking at
the ads on '63 models.

Would I possibly be over looking a better plane - yes. Do I think that
many, if not most plane buyers are like me - yes. I could be wrong, but I
do know that we don't exactly have a representative sample of average plane
buyers here. If we did, controller, trade a plane, and aso would be out of
business




"Blanche" wrote in message
...
Again, it gets back to condition of the aircraft and your flight
preferences. I have a 1969 cherokee and had no problems buying
an "older" aircraft. compared to corresponding 90's archers,
mine has a service ceiling 2000-3000 higher (very important
out here in the mountains), a bit more load (not as important)
and considerably cheaper than the $150-250K price tag!

Know what? All archers and warriors and cherokees fly pretty
much the same. Other than moving to a completely different style
of aircraft (e.g. husky, cirrus, cubi, pitts) it really doesn't
make that much difference to me.

I was willing to buy a '69 with no corrosion (ok, some damage but
that was back in the 70s). Upkeep is going to be just about the
same - hangar, fuel, insurance, annuals, etc. But what I saved
buying the older aircraft certainly covers 5-10 years of those
upkeep expenses!

Dude wrote:
Would you have been just as happy to buy a 1963 model? Could have saved
even more money.

"Blanche" wrote in message
Again, it gets back to condition of the aircraft and your flight
preferences. I have a 1969 cherokee and had no problems buying
an "older" aircraft.

The 1969 cherokee was local, discovered after 18 months of looking.
Given all the particulars, it was a logical decision. I never put
a use-by date on my search but I did have a few minimum conditions,
such as 180 hp (minimum), reasonably good shape. Didn't care about
the cosmetics.

I don't see many people out taking great care of their 30 plus year old
172's.


Well, you just aren't hanging around the right places, then.

My 67 Skyhawk gets the most meticulous care and pampering. There's nothing I
enjoy more (besides flying her) than spending a sunny afternoon washing and
polishing her. She's been detailed at annual, had new paint and glass, and
many, many new additions (beacon, strobes, transponder, Strikefinder, air
vents, Rosen sunshields, headrests, new yoke covers, on and on . . . )

Besides, I have no intention of selling her anyway--so that's not anything that
enters into any decision I make regarding her.


www.Rosspilot.com

Dude,

I sold it to upgrade - I bought a Piper Arrow. Faster and instument certified.
I am now working on my instrument rating.

The 172 was a great time builder and did a good job. It wasn't a maintenance
nightmare, just real reliable.

Good for you. I will put you on the list with the other 2 I know. Thats
three out of about 150.

The really good news for you is that you may still have a nice plane in ten
years, many of your peers planes will be facing a financially undesirable
restoration.



"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...

I don't see many people out taking great care of their 30 plus year old
172's.


Well, you just aren't hanging around the right places, then.

My 67 Skyhawk gets the most meticulous care and pampering. There's
nothing I
enjoy more (besides flying her) than spending a sunny afternoon washing
and
polishing her. She's been detailed at annual, had new paint and glass,
and
many, many new additions (beacon, strobes, transponder, Strikefinder, air
vents, Rosen sunshields, headrests, new yoke covers, on and on . . . )

Besides, I have no intention of selling her anyway--so that's not anything
that
enters into any decision I make regarding her.


www.Rosspilot.com

This is my point exactly. Common wisdom on this group is to buy a plane
locally, where you can get a decent chance of real history on the plane.

Another board favorite seems to be, "the best plane deals are never
advertised."

We are not the norm if the ads are any indication.


"Blanche Cohen" wrote in message
...
Dude wrote:
Would you have been just as happy to buy a 1963 model? Could have saved
even more money.

"Blanche" wrote in message
Again, it gets back to condition of the aircraft and your flight
preferences. I have a 1969 cherokee and had no problems buying
an "older" aircraft.

The 1969 cherokee was local, discovered after 18 months of looking.
Given all the particulars, it was a logical decision. I never put
a use-by date on my search but I did have a few minimum conditions,
such as 180 hp (minimum), reasonably good shape. Didn't care about
the cosmetics.

Dude wrote:
: Personally, I would not want to own a plane over 30 years old. Not that
: they are unsafe, just that I wouldn't want to have to sell it.

: I think they get harder to sell when they get a certain age. Also, it seems
: to go with decades. At this point, a sixties vintage bird just sounds OLD.
: It conjures up thoughts of antiques rather than used planes.

If you're referring to a "common" airplane, age seems to less important
then condition (as you state in a later post). The airport that I fly out
of has a large group of owners who take very good care of their aircraft,
not one of which is newer than 1975 - and many are much older. Only one I
would consider collectable, and that's a Swift. We have ramp queens, too,
but I would say about 1/2 the airplanes fly regularly and look good.
When I have shown some new pilots my airplane, thay cannot believe that
it is 36 years old (they have been flying reliable, but ugly, rentals -
all from the late 1980s, by the way). I don't think I have a collectable
airplane, but it is a desirable personal transportation airplane - despite
being older than I am. If I manage to maintain it in its present condition,
I will have no trouble selling it should I decide to. The only real
difference between my airplane and the 2004 model is in avionics. I could
have the same avionics installed into my airplane for a fraction of the
cost of changing airplanes. I am considering just this, perhaps next year
after the weather datalink settles out a bit and Chelton STC's their
autopilot for PA-28.

One other thing that I have not yet seen mentioned in this thread:
The supply of *certified* airplanes is not like that of autos. There is
a continuous reduction in the number of airplanes that are in existance.
The total yearly production does not appear to offset the number of
airplanes that are wrecked or scrapped - at least by my reading of the
NTSB data. Unless the supply of pilots decreases as well, one would think
that demand would increase.

: Having said all this, acquisition costs are not the sort of thing that bug
: me. If you are less concerned about the upkeep than the price tag or hangar
: hours, then you may enjoy the older bird more.

I don't entirely agree with your second sentence. There just aren't that many
components to break in a "common" fixed-gear airplane. Now, if the problem
cannot be diagnosed the airplane could be out of service for a long time.
I think that the diagnosis problem is unrelated to the age of the plane,
though, and newer airplanes may well be more difficult to diagnose.

I fly my airplane about 200 hours a year - probably 75 to 80 flights with
150 individual legs. I've had it for just over 3 years. I have *NEVER* had
the airplane not operate when I wanted it to. Certainly I have had items
break, and I have replaced other items that seemed to be on their last
legs. I think this policy is the key to dispatch reliability. On the other
hand, many folks seem to save up all their maintenance for annual time,
with the result of large annual bills and less than stellar reliability.

About your first sentence: Don't get me wrong. I applaud anyone who will
buy a new airplane. This ensures that the supply of airplanes will decrease
more slowly than otherwise. I personally don't see the additional value
over a used airplane in good condition, but that is my opinion, and you
know what they say about opinions...

--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

I have a very clean 69 Arrow with 2200 hours, though some gear
collapse history. I recently considered whether to upgrade the Arrow
with STEC 30 and stormscope or purchase a new Cirrus and decided to
upgrade the Arrow.

A well equipped Cirrus will run around $350K. Interest alone on this
is over $2K per month. 10% depreciation runs another $3K per month.
Although it's faster than the Arrow, it accomplishes this with a fuel
burn that's 50% greater and an engine that won't run any better (most
PA28R users can run the Lyc IO360 LOP without GAMIs).

My maintenance bills are high since there are always things to do, but
the Arrow is still the better buy, which is why there will be a market
for a long time.