Backcountry Pilot • Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

A general forum for anything related to flying the backcountry. Please check first if your new topic fits better into a more specific forum before posting.
21 postsPage 1 of 21, 2

Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

I've been perusing Barnstormer these recent days and found a couple of '50s model C-172s that are priced lower than I expected. The two I've seen have low or moderate times, decent equipment, and are priced in the Taylorcraft, Luscombe range.

Has there been a re-ocurring AD or something else issued that has pushed these prices down or is it the older pilot LSA trend that has made them a hard sell?

I dunno. In 1990 I paid $23000 for a nice '67 Mooney M20C. Now I can buy a runout Luscombe 8 for that, so a $23000 '57 C-172 is maybe still over priced but seems relatively to be a bargain.

Ideas?
Mister701 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2134
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:13 pm
Location: Sparks
Aircraft: Rans S7LS

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

EB,
My OPINION, it is because so many of the guys that own these planes have gotten to the point they just can't afford them anymore and the market is so saturated with planes, also that number is increasing daily while the number of buyers is dwindling. Fuel prices have gotten most of the flyers I know to 'throw in the towel' per se. A lot of these guys are also fed up with the fact that regulations are getting rediculously complex for the weekend flyer to keep up with to avoid trouble. Mnay of these same guys used to travel to Canada frequently and the hassles of border crossings and the "militant mentality' of some of the customs/border patrol have al but stopped them from flying across the border.

I spoke with a friend today that may be the owner of one of those 172's you are posing questions about...the response I wrote is similar to what his broker told him. I asked if he had any interested buyers and he said, "no" not a single interested party. He is asking around $20K if I remember correctly.

I own an early model 172 and have had it for nearly 25 years, personally I think it is one of best airplanes a person can use for all around use and still be able to own and fly. It is economical, reliable and has taken me all over the country. Granted I do have it for sale (although have not advertised it)but that is only because the kids are all grown, I no longer need more than 1 or two seats, and my flying now is mostly local flights. My Champ on floats and newly acquired Rans S-7 are all I need.

Keith
WWhunter offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: Minnesota
Aircraft: RANS S-7
Murphy Rebel
VANS RV-8

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

I think it's LSA that's killing the price of the 172. It used to be one of the most popular choices for people learning to fly, and now LSA has supplanted that. So, now there's a glut of the old birds. It's cost prohibitive to restore the older models, so there are quite a few for sale with perfect airframes, tattered interiors, and faded paint.

I have a 1959 172. It burns around 7 gph of auto fuel. I insure for liability plus $25K hull coverage for "ground, not in motion", and this year's premium was $377. I'm not aware of a cheaper certified plane to own and operate that can match the 172 for performance. =D>
kevbert offline
Posts: 948
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:10 am
Location: Idaho

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

I had one in the late '90s with the Franklin 220 conversion and an 80" McCauley on it. The best part was I had it in partnership with 4 doctors who never flew the thing. Braggin' rights I guess. Anyway, they paid for 4/5 of the annual fees and the hangar rental and I flew the thing. Too bad I moved away. I sold my share for roughly double what I paid for it. Still only about $7.5K. Even with the 220 it was cheap aviating. We never did get the prop governor completely squared away so you had to add power slowly to keep from over reving until the prop took a big bite, then it was hold on Nelly!

With these prices on straight tail 172s I might have to re-asses my reluctance to brave another class III. My AME retired and disappeared dangit, otherwise it would not be an issue.

So, good to know it's not some nonsense about complete disassembly of the aircraft at annual to look for ants or something.
Mister701 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2134
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:13 pm
Location: Sparks
Aircraft: Rans S7LS

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

This phenomenon doesn't just affect the 172. Consider the cost to do almost ANYthing to one of those airplanes: Like, engine overhaul....would cost as much as the value of the airplane, or close. Paint...half the value of the thing. Avionics....same. Etc.

Take a look at the price of light twins right now for another example.

Also, the early 172s are very old airplanes at this point, and many have not had the best care.

The only "relatively new" AD I can think of is the revised seat track/seat AD, which is going to cost many of us some $$ to comply with in the near future.

MTV
mtv offline
Knowledge Base Author
User avatar
Posts: 10515
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
Location: Bozeman

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

With the pice of fuel and maintenance going up every day planes seem like the first toys to go. Like MTV said twins are about worthless right now. You can scrap them out for more than you can sell them for.
Baron Thomas has a Cessna 337 on there right now for $18,000.

150's are the same way. A guy on ebay bought a bunch of flying 150's from a Flight school that was going under and selling them as parts. Great time to buy and it will get better once everyone figures out that there are 30 sellers for every buyer right now.
Jaerl offline
User avatar
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:59 am
Location: Utah
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... Q0xkBgMvPi

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

If there is one area where government over regulation has dramatically affected it in a most negative way, General Aviation is it! :(
TomKatz offline
User avatar
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:45 am
Location: Kingsville, MD
Tom Katzenberger

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

Remember... the vast majority of these airplanes were all originally designed and certified when gas was 15 or 20 cents a gallon. Efficiency and cost were not exactly on the top of the list. So an average working guy could have a 182, Bonanza, etc. and be able to fly it reasonably frequently on a working man's salary. Although salaries have gone up over the last 60 years, I'm afraid airplane gas has gone up a lot more. So now an average working guy can finally afford to buy a Beech 18 or Skymaster or Baron (for $24.57), but he can't afford to put gas in it.
EZFlap offline
User avatar
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:21 am
.

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

When I began flying in the early 80's, 80 octane and 100LL were $1.90 and $2.25 respectively in western Colorado. With the average gross 3.5% inflation rate the US has had since then, one could reasonably expect the price of gas to be around $5.50 on that basis alone for 100LL. At the moment, my field has 100LL for $5.

-Car shop rates have gone up accordingly.

-GA A&P rates have gone down relative to inflation considerably.

Airplanes have gone *way* down in real prices in that time period. Basic instruments, parts, etc., have gone way down in price in real dollars.

Personally, I don't think cost of GA in the used market has skyrocketed- but affordability has two contributors. I think even as costs have stagnated or gone down in real terms, income in general for most folks has gone steadily down in relative terms. A similar 182 to the one I have now would have been around $35K in 1985 is only worth around $50k now. Not the same plane, but the same age/hours/etc. The 172 has indeed been the value leader for may years now, and I would have one were it not for the loads I haul at the altitudes I fly.

I dislike ridiculous regs with an impenetrable bureaucracy. But I think it's only fair to point out the obvious- the vast majority of incomes in the US have steadily declined. That means folks have a lot less discretionary income today. When a guy can spare 5% of his gross to spend on flying, and incomes under- perform against inflation by a half a point or so for a couple decades, something major has to give eventually for most folks. This isn't about to change.
lesuther offline
Posts: 1429
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:26 pm
Location: CO

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

Purchasing power.....

....began a steady decline in the early 1980's. It continues unabated today. When I first entered the airline industry in 1972 a senior captain could pay cash for a new Buick with one month's pay. Today that senior captain might be able to buy a decent Kia with a month's pay. A similiar although less dramatic decline is seen in most professions including Law and Medicine.

We no longer produce "value added", manufactured products as a significant portion of our economy. Even the service sector jobs are being outsourced. 70% of the economy is consumerism....folks buying stuff that they don't need. Someone is getting a small commission for handling the product. That's it. Even then....you must have a job in order to buy the stuff you don't need. Doesn't compare to paying someone for digging iron ore out of the ground, someone to haul it to Pittsburg, somebody else turns it into steel, ship it to a Detroit stamping plant, pay a kid to press it into a Chevy fender, haul it over to G.M., some other guy gets paid to bolt it on, send the Chevy to your town and have some local gal who works at the Cessna factory buy her shiny, new, red, Chevy convertible from the dealer. Round and round the money goes. Value Added!

Instead American workers are asked to be competitive with the Chinese steel workers who built that new $6,000,000,000.00 bay bridge being erected in San Francisco. Built it and shipped it to California on Chinese ships. Those Chinese workers who built the bridge, by the way, just got a raise recently. Current pay .76 cents per hour....16 hour daily shifts!!! And when I sell you a Widget made in China........

Manufacturing jobs, at good wages with benefits, used to be available to the masses in this nation. Today those jobs are gone. WalMart and McDonalds are typical of the employment available to the unskilled, high school graduate of today. And....education isn't the answer for the masses either. Only for the most ambitious few. Hell....if everyone in the U.S. had a PhD....there would still be 9% unemployment and PhD's would be flipping burgers.

The 400 wealthies Americans have more wealth than the 150,000,000 poorest. If I woke up from a 20 year sleep and you gave me that statistic ....I'd swear that you were talking about Czarist Russia.

We are a poorer nation today than yesteday but not as poor as we will be tomorrow. It's a permanent decline and we are far from the bottom. :cry:

Enjoy while you can.

bob
z3skybolt offline
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:23 pm
Location: Warrenton, Missouri
Living the Dream

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

I don't think fuel cost is that big of an issue. I think AOPA had some figures one time showing the average owner flys less than 50 hours per year. If its $2 gallon or $5 a gallon, we're only talking a few hundred dollars difference during the course of a year on a 172 with those kind of hours. Personally I think there are way more people getting out of flying compared to getting in. We don't have the youngsters, and we got lots of oldsters. Sucks to be an airplane seller right now.
Rhyppa offline
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:50 pm
Location: Cook, Minnesota

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

Yes it does suck to be selling a plane right now. It's kind of like selling a timeshare, you pretty much have to give them away.

In my case fuel cost is a huge reason for not flying as much. My income right now is what I get from selling my stuff. Plus, with the ethanol now in Mogas, I have to pay about 2.38 more per gallon for avgas and $120 per tankful. In the 175 that is $19.04 more per hour and raises my fuel costs up to about $50/hr. to fly. That is actually a lot of money for me right now. Especially when 5 gallons of Mogas in the 150 was around $17/hr. Time to start drilling!
Jaerl offline
User avatar
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:59 am
Location: Utah
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... Q0xkBgMvPi

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

I'm bummed that I'm not a buyer right now. I could've been, but just closed on my house in Colorado Friday and I had to write out a check to get out of it after all the darned commissions, closings costs, and fees. So my airplane money is pretty much gone for the time being. Need to save up for a down payment on the next house whenever that happens. I don't think the airplane market is going to change much over the next or so at least, and I'll be a buyer again before it turns most likely.
Tadpole offline
User avatar
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:10 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

Hey Bob, I take it you're not an enthusiast of trickle down economics? :D The interesting added statistic to the equation you've just drawn is that in the '30s-'50s about 30%-40% of workers were unionized. Today it's under 10%.

I wish we were all professional economists, then we'd be rich and we'd all agree on everything. I'm with Rhyppa on the fuel cost thing. I don't think it's a big factor.

The fascination with flying has gone away amongst our young. The aviation consumer, which is us, is disappearing fast. Here's my rant, so now they've let we geezers fly without a third class physical. Cool, I always thought it was bullony anyway. I'm just guessing but I think aviation safety is improved zero percent by the third class physical. Take a look at a guys driving record if you want to find out about his character. The class III (at least) was in the pockets of the last few zanies who ran aircraft into buildings or killed anybody on the ground. I spent most of my flying time up until now in Mooneys and a souped up 172. I've got a tiny little bit of Pitts time. It was a blast. So now I'm restricted to 1320lbs gross. What the @#%$%#? Now I'm restricted to 138 mph. Same question? The bulk of my time is in complex aircraft that stall in the high 50 mph to low 60 mph range. Now I can fly fixed gear and prop airplanes with a silly 51.8 stall speed day only. Where did my skill set go? Can't we find out if I can fly the equipment I prefer with a flight review?

There's a '67 Mooney Executive, M20F out there for under $30K that has a larger useful load than an early C-182, sips gas at about 9 gph doing roughly 165 mph, and looks terrific. The '67 has the flush rivets on both the top and bottom of the wings. The 1968 lost the flush rivets on the bottom skins. I'm telling you I would be all over that thing if I could. And I'm responsible for making the decision as to wether I can fly the thing or not. Can I sue the FAA if I have an accident that turns out to be medically related and I have the certificate that ensures that I'm flight worthy? Right.

Solution, if you're not flying people for money, you ought to be able to fly the equipment you are used to based on your flight review performance and a personal letter of assurance that you won't fly impaired. Hell, we've all been doing that for our whole lives. 12 hours bottle to throttle. So if you have a degenerating spine like me, and take 2 meds that are forbidden. And take them only AS NEEDED!!!, you get to fly, provided you take a little discomfort. I'm willing to do that. The law now says I can take those meds ANYTIME and still fly the puddle jumpers and drive a 40,000 pound motor home at 70 mph down the highway. Makes no sense. End of rant.
Anyway, God bless us each and every one.
Mister701 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2134
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:13 pm
Location: Sparks
Aircraft: Rans S7LS

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

z3skybolt wrote:....We are a poorer nation today than yesteday but not as poor as we will be tomorrow. It's a permanent decline and we are far from the bottom. :cry: .....


I make more money per hour than I did 10 or 20 years ago, doing the same job. And yes, I am a union worker. Esp in the summertime, I see all sorts of new and newish SUV's, crew-cab pickups,motorhomes, Harleys, speedboats (on trailers of course) going down the highway. Very few jalopies. People are jetting off to mexico, Hawaii, Europe, Africa, etc like they never used to do 20 years ago. And it isn't just the 400 richest people in the country, unless some of the people I know who do that are keeping their net worth a big secret.
Yeah, buying power of the dollar is dwn. And the high price of gas sucks, as does the double-dip-inflation economy picture & the lack of good jobs. But that's cyclic-- things will get better, hopefully sooner rather than later. Remember, the stock market was kicked ass for quite a while until just a few years ago. I'm not gonna throw in my cards & admit (or prophesize) defeat just yet.
hotrod180 offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 10535
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Cessna Skywagon -- accept no substitute!

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

Hang in there Hotrod,

Glad that you are doing well. How is your hourly wage corrected for inflation? Are you doing the same job or got a promotion? If you are beating inflation and doing the same job then you are truely fortunate. I started my career at 1/30th of my final annual income; which included many promotions. But my purchasing power didn't increase by a factor of 30 over those 36 years. And I was union also. Like you...one of the lucky guys.

In 2010 it took $515.00 to purchase what $100.00 bought in 1972. Inflation has been mild the last 20 years. However it took $164.00 in 2010 to have the purchasing power of $100.00 in 1991.

I have five children aged from 38 to 24.....I pray for their future as well.

Best Wishes,

bob
z3skybolt offline
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:23 pm
Location: Warrenton, Missouri
Living the Dream

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

What the &%&$#%@! Hey, just for the heck of it I just went over the list of approved medications for the airman's physical. Boy have they changed. I ain't got no problems. I'm easily good for a Class III. I'm a bit puzzled about the hearing vs auditory requirements. They seem to be at cross purposes but I'll do more research. I may get that real airplane after all.

Yeeee Hawww
Mister701 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2134
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:13 pm
Location: Sparks
Aircraft: Rans S7LS

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

onceAndFutr_alaskaflyer offline
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Keweenaw Peninsula, Michigan and Carson Valley, Nevada

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

Here is nice little straight tail 172 for dirt cheap if your signed in on the red board. They really are a bargain.

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?p ... ost1414660
SixTwoLeemer offline
User avatar
Posts: 1285
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:53 am
Location: Wasatch Front
Altitude is Time…. Airspeed is Life!

Re: Has the early C-172 suffered technocrat attack?

Thread HIJACK
Purchasing power.....

....began a steady decline in the early 1980's. It continues unabated today. When I first entered the airline industry in 1972 a senior captain could pay cash for a new Buick with one month's pay. Today that senior captain might be able to buy a decent Kia with a month's pay. A similiar although less dramatic decline is seen in most professions including Law and Medicine.

We no longer produce "value added", manufactured products as a significant portion of our economy. Even the service sector jobs are being outsourced. 70% of the economy is consumerism....folks buying stuff that they don't need. Someone is getting a small commission for handling the product. That's it. Even then....you must have a job in order to buy the stuff you don't need. Doesn't compare to paying someone for digging iron ore out of the ground, someone to haul it to Pittsburg, somebody else turns it into steel, ship it to a Detroit stamping plant, pay a kid to press it into a Chevy fender, haul it over to G.M., some other guy gets paid to bolt it on, send the Chevy to your town and have some local gal who works at the Cessna factory buy her shiny, new, red, Chevy convertible from the dealer. Round and round the money goes. Value Added!

Instead American workers are asked to be competitive with the Chinese steel workers who built that new $6,000,000,000.00 bay bridge being erected in San Francisco. Built it and shipped it to California on Chinese ships. Those Chinese workers who built the bridge, by the way, just got a raise recently. Current pay .76 cents per hour....16 hour daily shifts!!! And when I sell you a Widget made in China........

Manufacturing jobs, at good wages with benefits, used to be available to the masses in this nation. Today those jobs are gone. WalMart and McDonalds are typical of the employment available to the unskilled, high school graduate of today. And....education isn't the answer for the masses either. Only for the most ambitious few. Hell....if everyone in the U.S. had a PhD....there would still be 9% unemployment and PhD's would be flipping burgers.

The 400 wealthies Americans have more wealth than the 150,000,000 poorest. If I woke up from a 20 year sleep and you gave me that statistic ....I'd swear that you were talking about Czarist Russia.

We are a poorer nation today than yesteday but not as poor as we will be tomorrow. It's a permanent decline and we are far from the bottom.

Enjoy while you can.

bob


I am on a job that both requires ARRA products(usa made) and the cheapest quote.
6" cad plated carriage bolt with washered nut. Imported cost $.89/ Us made $4.04 each,
What happened??
OK back to 172's
GT
M6RV6 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:52 pm
Location: Rice Wa. 82WN Magee Creek AERODROME
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... sWKXuhKlg2
Have as much Fun as is Safe, and Keep SMILIN! GT,

DISPLAY OPTIONS

Next
21 postsPage 1 of 21, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Latest Features

Latest Knowledge Base