Was reading another thread where someone said something along the lines of "I looked and looked for a [insert plane here] for over two years and couldn't find one until..."

Something like that pops up all the time and it makes me wonder - why are you guys turning down planes? What do you find? Is it looking for a specific mod or feature, or is it... Something else?

There must be some war stories out there - let's hear 'em!

No war stories here. When looking for a 185, I searched for a clean, straight, sub 2000 hour machine with no damage. I looked for about 3 years before I found my baby. I'm glad I was patient.

I think most people set up parameters for what they want. Once you find one that fits, then you have to look it over and see if its what you want.

Its simple, but can end up taking a long time.

Took me almost a year to find my Super Cub (this was about 10 years ago). I had looked at quite a few, but was looking for one without damage history and I'm kinda picky. Finally found one at CubCrafters that they were just beginning the rebuild process. Nice thing was, I could specify pretty much what I wanted.

Most of the airplanes I looked at and turned down were because they didn't live up to either the pictures or the description that was given in the ad. An airplane can end up costing you a lot of money if you're not careful. Have a pre-buy inspection done by someone who knows the type of aircraft you're looking at. Take your time. The right airplane (kinda like the right woman) will be worth waiting for! Good luck with your search.

Lot of junk out there...

I'm not plane buying expert though....

Part of it for me was finding something fairly close by (I'm in CO, didn't want to fly something unfamiliar back from say FL at that time - low ish hours from just renting for a couple years... still wouldn't really be that excited about it in all honestly.) Some love that kind of thing.. I found one in Utah that fit the needs. Of course my needs (wants) have changed a little, next one will be a tailwheel!

Bought plane tickets to go look at another one, ended up cancelling that trip... the owner was up front, but not the builder of this particular kitfox 7 I was interested in... the original owner/builder had passed away/ not much info passed on.. but the serial numbers had been ground of the engine!... stuff like that makes you wonder what took place. Stolen perhaps? I installed a big bore high compression setup on the one I bought anyway, so I'm open to things that are different/modified... but it's nice to avoid obvious red flags when possible.

Best to take ones time, really hone in on what you want/need, sift through the crap, and do it right the first time hopefully!

I had adds for my Cessna 180 a couple years off and on.
You can't read people. Most people looking at mine never bought a plane or one this nice.
Planes are fun to tire kick and talk about like a neighborhood social. We pull up a chair and they don't want to leave.
I ran up 475 cell minutes a month talking planes with people who had no intention of looking at this.
We should cover the bases but like the old proverb..
A Child can ask more questions than 10 wise men can answer in a lifetime.
Here is the other extreme..Have you watched these classic car re builder shows or auctions on TV ?
They are mostly bondo queens of unidentifiable miss matched parts selling for big money with no paperwork. Isn't that weird ?

One experience that stands out for me. I had one cyl comp.62 or 64/80 while the others were 70/80.
Then we could hear a slight leak lately. A&P's said it meets Conti limits, leave it alone..That was a bad idea.
Last month I had the valve and guide replaced. I could have saved trouble from people about that.
Now they are all 70/80 and always low oil use. The valve was .003 under, guide .003 over, no burning with even valve color.
If you have a problem easy to fix, I suggest taking care of it. We miss float flying but our friends north aren't around.
Happy 4th of July

I hang out at the local shop a lot so I know what the cost of fixing aircraft is. When I was looking for my cub I found a lot of stuff that needed 10-30 grand of work and the base price was already high. One of the red flags I would see is cubs that set for several years without flying. The seller would say flown regularly but the logs told the true story. I think the major problem is people want to get all the money back that they spent on the plane. Most all planes today are like boats, You will be very lucky to get base price back and you will never see the money back for all the upgrades you did. Just fly it out of the plane. I have seen nice planes sit and rot to the point of needing major work because the owner refused to lower the price. Now they have a plane worth 1/3 of what it was.
DENNY

GravityKnight wrote:Lot of junk out there..

That .....

When I was looking I was not prepared for the number of sellers that mis-represented what they had. I still don't understand it as the buyer is going to find the issues at some point. I guess they hope the buyer finds the issues after the sale, not before.

I travelled all over the country to find planes with mis-matched wings, massive oil leaks, bent door frames, weird little tabs attached to the ailerons, bubbly corrosion over 90% of an airframe, missing logbooks, and more. Damn, just tell me on the phone and allow me to decide if it is something I can live with. Better yet, put it in the ad! Perhaps neither of us will waste our time.

And, like Denny said, sellers that can't bring themselves to adjust their price to reflect the condition of their airplane. It's real easy to find airplanes that need 30k worth of work.

"Buyer beware" is an expensive rule to ignore.

I'll also add the point of view from the other side. (Disclaimer-This may piss a few folks- off-reality check time) You won't believe the amount of shoppers that call with the mind set that they're buying a one owner garage kept Lexas from a little old lady from Pasadena that only drove to church. Ya right. I hear of people saying they only will buy a low time no damage history airplane rather than a well maintained airframe. They are rather clueless, because there is a good chance somewhere in the future, their all original Skywagon airframe is going to need a gearbox rebuild do to intergranular corosion of the gear box extrusions. It's an issue that can rear it's ugly head with little warning. One annual there is no sign and the next the telling signs start to show. Alot of people expect every mod and newest glass cockpit gadget for nothing. Folks need to take a look at what Cessna parts cost these days. I watch the market on a regular basis and most of the good airplanes never see the open market. I know that several of my fellow owner friends have significant investments in their airplanes and aren't willing to give them away. Alot are already paid for and depreciated, so it costs little or nothing to keep and never sell. They would rather leave them in the hanger and use at will or leave to the kids, even if they go downhill. Why bother with the hassle of nit picky buyers that expect you to do backflips for them and bust your balls at every turn? My Wagon is one of the younger ones and will be 40 next year. Binders of STCs and mods with pretty regular maintenance and tons of new parts thrown at it over the years. I bet that an awful lot of tire kickers would stick their noses up at it because it has had it's gearbox rebuilt. Nevermind that the rebuild was with all the good trick Pponk parts. Samething with the Stab being reskinned due to rock damage. Again improved with thicker skins. The list goes on and on. If you could even buy a new one today, most people couldn't afford it. Just price a new 206. There's your price reference right there.-Rant over

I haven't tried to sell an airplane in many, many years, but just looking at Controller and Barnstormer, there are a lot of unrealistic sellers--and I'm sure there are some pretty unrealistic buyers as well. It's unrealistic for a nice but "ordinary" 40-50 year old airplane to be listed for more than the market will bear at this time, especially when it's equipped with OEM or otherwise dated avionics, a high time engine, and 7/10 paint and interior. But I see it all the time, and I suspect others here do, also.

If I were to decide to sell my airplane (no, it's not for sale for the foreseeable future), sure, I'd try to get as much out of it as I could. That makes sense. But realistically, it sure wouldn't sell for all that I have in it. It is well maintained, kept up to date, and has some very fine upgrades and avionics, but I know that they wouldn't begin to add their cost to what it's worth. Unlike some home improvements that increase a home's value by 60-80% of the cost of the improvements, most upgrades to airplanes make them easier to sell, and maybe pad the selling price a little, but they don't bring back near what they cost.

Especially newbies (i.e., those who've never owned) are shocked at the cost of upgrades. The whole idea that it costs $5000 to make a certified airplane ABS-B Out compliant has created a lot of hubbub in this and other forums. Adding a single panel mounted WAAS GPS, certified for approaches, and finding that the cost will exceed $15,000 is a real shocker--and yet, if an airplane will be used in the IFR system these days, both are going to be highly desirable if not actually "needed". So even an airplane that can be bought for a somewhat bargain price isn't much of a bargain, if it needs the upgrades to be able to be used to its full capabilities. Whammo--there's 20 AMUs, just to be able to go everywhere in the US.

So if I were to be seeking another airplane to buy, I wouldn't expect it to be either perfect or have the latest and greatest, but I'd quickly turn down one that I couldn't use to the extent I want to be able to use it. The cost of making it the way I want it would be the deciding factor. For instance, I looked at a gorgeous 69 Skylane that was for sale. Although I wasn't in the market at all, I still analyzed it as if I was a buyer. It had a 300hp engine--very good. It had a 9/10 interior and a 10/10 exterior (paint was only a year old). But it had old King avionics: a pair of KX155s, a KR87 ADF, a basic Mode C transponder, and stock Cessna autopilot and engine gauges. I ticked off at least $30,000 that would have to be spent, just to make it acceptable to me. The owner wanted $85,000 for it, and amazingly he got it--the buyer was mostly impressed with the power and the airplane's appearance, and it was also his first airplane purchase.

Cary

or he didn't want to fly it IFR to the big city and so had no need for $30M of WAAS GPS and ADSB.

Tim

winger wrote:...Planes are fun to tire kick and talk about like a neighborhood social. We pull up a chair and they don't want to leave.
I ran up 475 cell minutes a month talking planes with people who had no intention of looking at this.....

When I first got into flying about 20 years ago, I remember seeing an ad in Trade-A-Plane that included the comment "no BS phone buddies please". At the time I thought it was funny, now after having sold three different airplanes I understand what he meant. There are people who call up to ask who have no idea of actually buying the airplane, they just want to talk about it. Fortunately not so many now since these internet discussion forums came along.

When I bought the M4, there were two for sale on Barnstormers for the same asking price. One "next door" in Idaho, the other in Michigan. I didn't even call about the one in Idaho because the engine overhaul was suspect (in my mind)- something like 350 SMOH, 125 STOH The one in Michigan also had a newer model prop. I had a friend that I trusted that was close enough to the Michigan plane to take a look at it, and I ended up buying it.

bat443 wrote:or he didn't want to fly it IFR to the big city and so had no need for $30M of WAAS GPS and ADSB.

Tim

The buyer lived in the Denver area, so he'll need the ADS-B Out (less than 30 months away, now ). I don't know if he was IR or not, but anyone who owns such a good cross country machine who isn't IR should learn--it opens up so many cross country possibilities that are often either closed entirely or at least necessary to postpone because of relatively benign IMC. It also makes most people better pilots, more precise, more capable, safer. Being able to comfortably use "the system" is a real convenience "plus" for cross country flying, even VFR.

I know that there are many very good VFR only pilots, but they're the ones who have to sit on the ground because there's a thousand foot thick layer above the airport, when those with their IR, who are current, and fly an instrument capable airplane can get a clearance to pop on through the layer into the sunshine. I can think of plenty of times that I was the one who could go when they couldn't, yet my airplane was no more capable than theirs.

I'll also grant that the decision making process for instrument flight is different from VFR flight, and that it's easy to get oneself into trouble by not recognizing the differences. But on the whole, I believe that everyone who flies a good cross country machine should take the time and effort to obtain their IR.

Cary

Cary at fthe risk of major thread drift I'll explain. I will agree that an instrument rating with currency makes for a safer pilot. I am instrument rated, and for 27 years earned my living flying airplanes on instruments, the last 18 years in a four engine jet (DC8-73) so it is not the skill set that I lack, now retired. I have a 180 project I hope to finish this winter and one of the things that I spend much time in consideration of is how to equip it with radios (none now). One day its a Garmin GTN650 for about $4000 more and the next it is a 796 and a good nav/com. I will equip it for ADSB but if it had a transponder and encoder I would be willing to wait till close to the dead line. The thing that keeps me thinking about what to do is not the purchase price but the update cost. It is hard to justify $400 to $600 per year for 2 or 3 approaches a year. One other factor for me is that the airplane will be based on a grass strip at my house so the majority of my flights will either begin, end or both at an airport that will not support IFR operations (I know I could depart into the system with a phone call but does not appeal to me with no option of a return). There are several ADSB options for $5000 or less installed so for me personally I would not turn an airplane down for not being equipped for it. I guess the real point is each individual needs to evaluate his own realistic mission profile and then either find or equip an airplane to meet the goal. For example I would pass on a Sportsman STOL and Bushwheels because I don't feel they are required for my mission and I am unwilling to pay extra for them. Same for a pPonk for a 180 though I paid extra for a 180 hp conversion on the 170B I am now flying when I bought it. Sorry for the drift.

Tim

I did ask for my deposit back on a Aeronca 7DC project that had a data plate from WAG-AERO as a replacement for the original.

bat443 wrote:Cary at fthe risk of major thread drift I'll explain. I will agree that an instrument rating with currency makes for a safer pilot. I am instrument rated, and for 27 years earned my living flying airplanes on instruments, the last 18 years in a four engine jet (DC8-73) so it is not the skill set that I lack, now retired. I have a 180 project I hope to finish this winter and one of the things that I spend much time in consideration of is how to equip it with radios (none now). One day its a Garmin GTN650 for about $4000 more and the next it is a 796 and a good nav/com. I will equip it for ADSB but if it had a transponder and encoder I would be willing to wait till close to the dead line. The thing that keeps me thinking about what to do is not the purchase price but the update cost. It is hard to justify $400 to $600 per year for 2 or 3 approaches a year. One other factor for me is that the airplane will be based on a grass strip at my house so the majority of my flights will either begin, end or both at an airport that will not support IFR operations (I know I could depart into the system with a phone call but does not appeal to me with no option of a return). There are several ADSB options for $5000 or less installed so for me personally I would not turn an airplane down for not being equipped for it. I guess the real point is each individual needs to evaluate his own realistic mission profile and then either find or equip an airplane to meet the goal. For example I would pass on a Sportsman STOL and Bushwheels because I don't feel they are required for my mission and I am unwilling to pay extra for them. Same for a pPonk for a 180 though I paid extra for a 180 hp conversion on the 170B I am now flying when I bought it. Sorry for the drift.

Tim

I did ask for my deposit back on a Aeronca 7DC project that had a data plate from WAG-AERO as a replacement for the original.

It's all about mission, right? Back when I used to fly into a ranch strip near Sundance, WY, the owner had a pristine 53 180 with the original, factory installed Narco Superhomer, all of 9 channels (I think) to transmit and a coffee grinder knob to tune the receiver. He only used one of the channels, for the CTAF at Spearfish, SD, where he took it once a year for its annual. Of course, the FCC says that his radio would be illegal today.

Otherwise, he didn't go anywhere, just flitted around Crook County, looking at his vast holdings (I think he owned half the county), counting his cows, just enjoying being a pilot. Once in awhile, he'd take someone with him, just to have them enjoy sightseeing. His mission wasn't mine, but it was good enough for him, and his sparsely equipped 180 was perfect for him. He'd be shocked to see that I've equipped my simple little airplane with a full IFR panel; he used to make fun of me flying in there with the various "milk stools" I flew, his term for any tricycle gear.

In your case, where you live, I guess I'd want IFR capabilities. My limited knowledge of Michigan weather tells me that, but perhaps I'm mistaken. I will say this, I haven't in the least been sorry for having a 430W installed in my airplane, and I'm from the old school that for years distrusted GPS as a fad. It's the thing, now, especially with so many airports acquiring GPS approaches and the FAA gradually phasing out many VORs and most of the NDBs. It's not perfect, and all the interference testing hasn't helped, but it's definitely the way now.

I agree, the update costs are more than a bit annoying, but now that Garmin is selling the nav updates for their products, it's less expensive than the Jepp updates, and they're all inclusive (nav, obstacle, terrain) for one price. It's also entirely possible not to update them with a subscription, and just do it once a year or even less often--completely legal, even IFR, as long as you've checked to make sure that there aren't any changes that you need to use. I'm paying about $400/year for full North America (including Canada) coverage for my 430W. I think full US coverage is $100 less--too lazy to look it up right now.

I'm also happy with my ADS-B Out solution, a BK KT74 tied to my 430W as a position source. It's a pretty nice transponder, and as it turned out, my old Narco AT165, which I thought was working OK because it had passed its last biennial transponder check, wouldn't have passed the next one without some repairs, which are hard to get for Narco boxes and not inexpensive when they can be fixed. So I came out well by going for ADS-B Out sooner than later, and I must say, I like getting more and more of the traffic from other ADS-B Out equipped airplanes, which I get with ADS-B In on a Stratus 2 on an iPad Mini 4.

If you don't mind used, Bennett Avionics is a good source for used radios--honest, fair prices. Not the least expensive, but fair. Sometimes your local avionics shop will have stuff that is available because someone else wanted the latest and greatest, but I haven't had much luck with that.

Good luck on your project--and on deciding what you want in our panel.

Cary

One other problem with IFR in Michigan (northwest lower peninsula for me) is icing in the fall and spring and sometimes in the winter. In my younger years I shot a few approaches where do to icing a miss was probably not possible, to old for that now. I am planing to use new, latest generation avionics in my project as I am 63 and feel that I will probably not have to replace them in my life time that way. I'm kind of like the old rancher, maybe one or two trips over 100 miles in a year, just like to fly around and do a few landings. Mostly I fly to fly not to go somewhere. Lots of us out there.

Back to the OP question, a few years ago I turned down a 170A that had light surface corrosion starting to show up on the inside of the wings and the aft spars, Not enough to make the airplane unairworthy but more than a dulling (frosting) of the skin surface, large areas of white deposits that would brush off with a wipe of your hand. I passed not because I was afraid to fly the airplane but because I planned to keep it only a few years and felt that it would be hard to sell.

I initially passed on the 180 hp 170B I am now flying because it had a landing gear box repair where they used structural screws instead of driven rivets to attach the outer rap around skin for the outboard foot or so. It was a legal repair but looked bad and really is not how it
should be done. I got over it when he dropped the listed price $5000 the next week.

Tim

bat443 wrote:One other problem with IFR in Michigan (northwest lower peninsula for me) is icing in the fall and spring and sometimes in the winter. In my younger years I shot a few approaches where do to icing a miss was probably not possible, to old for that now. I am planing to use new, latest generation avionics in my project as I am 63 and feel that I will probably not have to replace them in my life time that way. I'm kind of like the old rancher, maybe one or two trips over 100 miles in a year, just like to fly around and do a few landings. Mostly I fly to fly not to go somewhere. Lots of us out there.

Back to the OP question, a few years ago I turned down a 170A that had light surface corrosion starting to show up on the inside of the wings and the aft spars, Not enough to make the airplane unairworthy but more than a dulling (frosting) of the skin surface, large areas of white deposits that would brush off with a wipe of your hand. I passed not because I was afraid to fly the airplane but because I planned to keep it only a few years and felt that it would be hard to sell.

I initially passed on the 180 hp 170B I am now flying because it had a landing gear box repair where they used structural screws instead of driven rivets to attach the outer rap around skin for the outboard foot or so. It was a legal repair but looked bad and really is not how it
should be done. I got over it when he dropped the listed price $5000 the next week.

Tim

That's me, too--mostly fly around semi-locally, occasionally go visit my Sis in Durango (a slightly more than 3 hour flight), attend a few fly-ins that don't require much long distance planning, the annual flight to OSH for a week's stay, plus IPCs, BFRs, and occasionally other training.

Can't help this "pun"--for $5000, I'd be willing to get a few screwings, too. Sorry about that!

Cary

Cary's post about the newly painted 182 reminds me of the saying a friend uses: "Lipstick sells."

There is definitely a subset of buyers who are drawn to bright, shiny planes. I know of a broker who had a good deal of success moving imperfect or oddball or orphan planes by giving them cheap paint jobs and detailing the interiors. From what I could tell, most of his customers were more drawn to the cosmetics of the planes than anything else.

Cary wrote:.... It also makes most people better pilots, more precise, more capable, safer. Being able to comfortably use "the system" is a real convenience "plus" for cross country flying, even VFR.
I know that there are many very good VFR only pilots, but they're the ones who have to sit on the ground because there's a thousand foot thick layer above the airport, when those with their IR, who are current, and fly an instrument capable airplane can get a clearance to pop on through the layer into the sunshine....

I question the "makes them a better pilot", at least in the long run, unless they stay current and proficient (not necessarily the same thing) by flying IFR regularly. A pilot can strive for precision when flying VFR-- nailing your climb speed, nailing your altitude & heading, nailing your approach speed & your landing spot.

I agree with Bat443 about not wanting to take off into IMC if there's not a good return-to-land option. Plus a lot of the more fun places to go do not have instrument approaches. Like Bat's area, the pacific northwest is also subject to icing conditions during the seasons when an instrument rating would be most useful.

There's also the cost $$ in obtaining the rating, as well as the cost $$$$ of equipping your airplane for real life IFR use.
Unless you have the need, and are able, to fly IFR pretty regularly, the return on investment $$$ just is not there.
And personally I don't wanna fly in the clouds for fun- a lot of the joy of flying is visual.

I know a lot of people who hold an instrument ticket, but only a few of them fly IFR on a regular basis (or at all).
They may stay "current" (legally), but not proficient, so IMHO having that instrument rating in their pocket "just in case" is false security-- kinda like carrying an unloaded gun.