What is up with the prices of old spam cans?

Tantalum said:
For some reason Cessnas are just way over priced in general. You can buy so much more Mooney or Grumman for $100,000 then you can Cessna.
Click to expand...
Leaving Mooney aside, C152 offers a significantly better performance than any comparable airplane: Piper Tomahawk, Beech Skipper, or Ailon-made Ercoupe. I kinda can see where Grumman AA1 may compare on speed, but it loses in payload and short-field performance. The only competition really is Cherokee, but that airplane only has 1 door.
 
Morgan3820 said:
And yet with all of this, I have a friend with a O-470 repowered C-175. He can’t give it away. The thing get off the ground in 300 feet.
Click to expand...

Give me some info if he wants to sell it cheap! I listed my 175 last month and sold it in 5 minutes.... Mine had the GO-300
 
zaitcev said:
I have seeing it so much. Every time a nincompoop pilot bellies a Mooney, my insurance creeps up.
Click to expand...

I wonder what nincompoop/s crashed a Cherokee. Mine went up 15%.*


* yeah I know. I'm sure Pete and I both know it isn't type specific.
 
zaitcev said:
Oh you wish. The 175 fleet is all spoken for by people who fly backcountry. On average, they are more overpriced than Cardinals.
Click to expand...
I keep telling him he is doing something wrong. It would make a great floatplane.
 
Bell206 said:
It's not a great example, but imagine if all the major vehicle manufacturers stopped new vehicle production for ten years then when they cranked things back up they only offered a tenth of the models at prices 4x the ones from a decade ago? Imagine what the used vehicle market would have looked like.
Click to expand...
you could use Cuba as your sample case.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Yes. and so do Bonanzas and they are going cheap.:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
Old Bo's are cheap. I once looked a well-kept model that was based in Vegas since 1953. The asking price was $23k on an 800 hour E-225 with electric prop. It had a swamp cooler - a luxury item in the 50s! Unfortunately, I simply cannot fit into them. Weirdly enough, Mooney is smaller, but much roomier.
 
Tantalum said:
But these people either pony up and buy something like a Cirrus or get discouraged at the market offering, continue to rent and/or put their money towards cars and boats and other things
Click to expand...

Which is great because it keeps the market pressure down a bit and allows broader choice for those who are a bit more educated and committed. This is a big part of my attraction to aviation and airplane ownership today. The relative lack of monied fashionista dweebs is a big motivation for me (and my wallet).
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
It better be.... ":)

He should have spent the money on a C-180. and got some load carrying ability.
Click to expand...

That's one issue right there. The market seems to focus on a limited number of models that the consensus says is best, and naturally those models become expensive

Tantalum said:
This is exactly why general aviation is dying. Stuff that belongs in the recycling bin or the straight up trash is being offered for ridiculous prices.
Click to expand...

General aviation is not dying, it is slowly shrinking. The peak years for airplane production were the late 70's, and the last time the industry produced a reasonably large number of airplanes was the early 80s. The peak year for the number of private pilots was also around 1980, and it has been shrinking since. Despite there being more than 23,000 new private certs earned last year, the number of private pilots shrank by 2500. That's a combination of attrition and career pilot hopefuls graduating up. Airline transport is the only rating that has seen consistent growth over the last 10 years.

In the FAA airmen stats, there is a page where they break down the pilot population by age and rating. The age group with the most number of private ticket holders? 60 to 64, with 19,499, next largest is 55-59 with 17,630. The third largest group? 20-24, with 17,201. The smallest group that is over 20 and under 70 is 45-49 with 11,534. So you have an aging boomer group that will be replaced with a smaller population over the next 10-15 years.

There are two issues that will negatively affect GA over the next 20 years: the tendency for better paying jobs to be in a limited number of metropolitan areas, leading to high real estate prices and competition for space at a limited number of airports, and low aircraft production numbers that consist disproportionately of trainers and SR22s. It certainly doesn't help that Textron does not seem to have any interest in building owner operated airplanes

Tantalum said:
For some reason Cessnas are just way over priced in general. You can buy so much more Mooney or Grumman for $100,000 then you can Cessna

I wonder how many of these planes actually sell and how long it takes.

just because someone thinks something is worth something doesn't dictate its market value
Click to expand...

From what I've read on these pages with the difficulty people have buying airplanes, I have to think they are selling.
 
I just saw 3, J3's going for 55K, 75K and 85K.
Nice planes, actually spectacularly nice planes, but at the end of the day they are still cramped, uncomfortable, and totally lacking legs (but fun, always fun). And forget your dignity getting in and out.
Aeroncas 7s are going from 30K to 47K. whew! Some Chiefs are going for less, but most of them are heavy and at 65 hp, under-powered. JMHO.
Lots of Luscombes with 12 gallon tanks. Again, not great legs. If you don't have hours, your insurance could be high because of a bad reputation on the ground. Fun to fly, and really, not as bad as it's reputation, but you do have to fly it until it's parked. Flew an 8A this past weekend. Sweet!
Ercoupes. No rudder pedals, but if you fly a Cessna you probably don't use them anyway. Kidding, a little bit. A little work needed to get in and out of one without ruining the windshield. You ever notice the Ercoupe guy never shows himself getting in and out? Maybe he has. I've never seen a video of that. If you can find one with 100 hp, and nothing hideous about it, grab it. I think the pedal kit goes for $1,500.00.
Taylorcrafts. There are some great TCarts out there. I've looked at/flown a few this past year. With 85hp and wing tanks they are a real option. But if you are over 5 foot tall, even harder to get in and out of than a Cub. Maybe it's because I'm getting old. JMHO. Also a great flying airplane. Top of my list.
Swifts. The ultimate, go to hell machine. The most modified aircraft of all time, can have every bad feature mentioned above and balky retracts. With an engine upgrade it will go like the hammers of Hell, aerobatic, decent legs, great curb appeal, and will bite you in the butt on the ground if you let it. But they are $$$$$$ for the good ones.
 
High performance fixed gear singles are going for a premium... Some retracts are going for a premium.

Twins are cheap, A majority of the retracts are cheap like Vikings, Comanche's, Arrows seem to be dropping in price. The insurance and cost of operation for high performance singles is just right for most people... these prices are reflecting the actual affordability of these planes beyond the acquisition cost. Acquisition cost is such a tiny fraction of plane ownership, but there are still plenty of affordable models out there off the beaten path.
 
Shepherd said:
Lots of Luscombes with 12 gallon tanks. Again, not great legs. If you don't have hours, your insurance could be high because of a bad reputation on the ground. Fun to fly, and really, not as bad as it's reputation, but you do have to fly it until it's parked. Flew an 8A this past weekend. Sweet!
Click to expand...

You do have to fly it until it’s parked, and it’s not for everybody, but mine was a great learning experience for me. I learned how to fly in my 8A and never paid a lot for insurance even when pre-solo and just post-PPL. I am by the way very tall, and it was fine with original style seat cushions, not the overstuffed type that people have often installed since.

Mine had 25 gallons fuel capacity making for 6 hrs endurance. The longest I ever flew in it was 3.25 hrs, and that was enough. It won Best of Show and People’s Choice one year at the national type fly-in, and was sold in even better condition in 2019 for $20K. I originally bought it for slightly more in 2003 but had two planes and finally decided that I needed one, without a lot of delay.

This is really the golden age of aircraft affordability and availability. if you want a capable but inexpensive four-seater, look at Tri-Pacers, or alternately a two seat Colt for $15K or whatever. Pocket change. You don’t have to fly what everybody else is flying, and it’s really more fun not to do so.
 
Last edited:
FormerHangie said:
That's one issue right there. The market seems to focus on a limited number of models that the consensus says is best, and naturally those models become expensive



General aviation is not dying, it is slowly shrinking. The peak years for airplane production were the late 70's, and the last time the industry produced a reasonably large number of airplanes was the early 80s. The peak year for the number of private pilots was also around 1980, and it has been shrinking since. Despite there being more than 23,000 new private certs earned last year, the number of private pilots shrank by 2500. That's a combination of attrition and career pilot hopefuls graduating up. Airline transport is the only rating that has seen consistent growth over the last 10 years.

In the FAA airmen stats, there is a page where they break down the pilot population by age and rating. The age group with the most number of private ticket holders? 60 to 64, with 19,499, next largest is 55-59 with 17,630. The third largest group? 20-24, with 17,201. The smallest group that is over 20 and under 70 is 45-49 with 11,534. So you have an aging boomer group that will be replaced with a smaller population over the next 10-15 years.

There are two issues that will negatively affect GA over the next 20 years: the tendency for better paying jobs to be in a limited number of metropolitan areas, leading to high real estate prices and competition for space at a limited number of airports, and low aircraft production numbers that consist disproportionately of trainers and SR22s. It certainly doesn't help that Textron does not seem to have any interest in building owner operated airplanes



From what I've read on these pages with the difficulty people have buying airplanes, I have to think they are selling.
Click to expand...
Well written post, thanks. I was unaware that the FAA breaks down those age stats.. interesting

At least Piper still gives a strong non Cirrus market offering. Textron on the other hand abhors us. The Malibu is an under appreciated frame. The older PA32 (Lance, etc) are great.. the useful loads died in the later and current Saratoga unfortunately but the early PA32 are a great platform
 
I’m not sure it’s been mentioned but holding costs are key to plane price It seems. I just lost my Grumman Tiger to a hail storm. I can’t come close to buying another Tiger with the funds I bought the Tiger for in 2017.

I’m looking at Bonanzas which, as said, are a bit lower. Yes lower purchase price but the insurance, Mx, etc are going to be substantially higher. I’m moving on but a quick plane with fixed gear and prop, like the Tiger, are popular for their holding costs too.
 
And yet we hear airplanes are not an investment...oh yeah!!
;-)
 
Huh. I wonder if I should sell my 172m in this market...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mtns2Skies said:
A majority of the retracts are cheap like Vikings, Comanche's, Arrows seem to be dropping in price
Click to expand...

I have seen a bit of the opposite with the Arrows. Even the late 60's early 70's, high AF, high engine time, vintage panel Arrows seem to be > $50k or so. But maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
 
Tantalum said:
. Textron on the other hand abhors us.
Click to expand...
No. They make more profit from one Citation than from all the singles they build in a year. That's what I was told while working for a Cessna dealer. And what manufacturer should be expected to provide new parts for 50-year-old airplanes? Car manufacturers sure don't. Cessna still sells a lot of those parts but they have to have them built in very small numbers, so the prices are crazy.

As Bell206 said, if liabilities were limited (capped) the price of airplanes would come down a lot. The threat of lawsuits is far too high for the singles market. Citations are flown by professionals, for the most part, and aren't regularly killing or maiming people.

And, to repeat what I've beefed about before, the training has been dumbed down and it's too easy to get a PPL without understanding a lot of basic stuff. And the maintenance on far too many airplanes is slack, based on the usual and ongoing posts about alternator failures, vacuum pump failures and magneto troubles. There's almost no excuse for that other than cheaping out on the inspections, and Cessna gets sued every time someone crashes due to loss of power or instruments. Their inspection sheets reflect the weaknesses that lead to lawsuits.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The threat of lawsuits is far too high for the singles market. Citations are flown by professionals, for the most part, and aren't regularly killing or maiming people.
Click to expand...

Our legal system is highly broken. Just look at the lawsuit a few years ago from the family of the man that flew his Cessna into a mountain IMC. They sued Cessna and Lycoming trying to say the engine caused the plane to crash in what was clearly CFIT. Even if they lose their case, the manufacturers have to pay their lawyers to fight it.
 
Deelee said:
I have seen a bit of the opposite with the Arrows. Even the late 60's early 70's, high AF, high engine time, vintage panel Arrows seem to be > $50k or so. But maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
Click to expand...
They aren’t a Bonanza, obviously but show me another 4 seater with 950-1000 u/l. That burns 9-10 gph at 125 knots And is simple to maintain with good parts availability. I think that they are a great value. For the money, I don’t see a better option.
 
Dan Thomas said:
They make more profit from one Citation than from all the singles they build in a year
Click to expand...
They still abhor us. They "sold out" so to speak. I'm not doubting they make more money selling private jets than they do Skyhawks. My point is, while Piper and others have continued to offer a venerable line of entry level and step up piston planes Cessna gave us the finger 30 years ago. They let the TTx die and are letting the bonanza and baron slowly die on the vine too. When they eventually close those lines they'll blame the market instead of their own unwillingness to innovate in that arena

Oh well. I've never flown a Cessna product I've enjoyed (172,182,210)
 
samiamPA said:
I'm blown away seeing prices in the $30-40 range for an average condition 150.
Click to expand...
Asking price and selling price are two different things. To me mid time SMOH C-150 is worth maybe $20K at the most
 
Deelee said:
I have seen a bit of the opposite with the Arrows. Even the late 60's early 70's, high AF, high engine time, vintage panel Arrows seem to be > $50k or so. But maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

I think the Arrow market got flooded with old flight school planes once the complex requirement for the CPL went away. Not to mention the wing spar inspection AD discussion.
 
Cessna doesn't "abhor" GA. They just aren't interested as much. They're in the business to make profit. They choose a business model / focus that gives them more ROI - business jets. I'm / we're not entitled to Cessna or any company making things for us, and if they don't it's not because they hate us. They just don't want to. Now, yes, I wish they did.

I have to look at the uncomfortable truth that - despite what I want - there aren't nice planes like a 182 with nice usable instruments that I can afford / cost what I want it to. So I'll just make the best of things however I can.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I think the Arrow market got flooded with old flight school planes once the complex requirement for the CPL went away. Not to mention the wing spar inspection AD discussion.
Click to expand...
Good point. Yeah, I guess there are more on the market than before. Still.. even the ones with high-ish TT and mid to high-time engines are expensive. How about this one https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...odel=ARROW&listing_id=2383242&s-type=aircraft nice interior and paint and some ok avionics, but for $95,000? Good lord.
 
Morgan3820 said:
They aren’t a Bonanza, obviously but show me another 4 seater with 950-1000 u/l. That burns 9-10 gph at 125 knots And is simple to maintain with good parts availability. I think that they are a great value. For the money, I don’t see a better option.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. That's why we picked one up. Spend a ton of time looking and finally found one that matched what we wanted in terms of price, avionics, airframe and engine time, etc. Great plane. We got a '69 so the back is a little cramped, but for me and my kid or hopefully one day my wife and my kid and me... it's perfect.
 
WDD said:
Cessna doesn't "abhor" GA. They just aren't interested as much. They're in the business to make profit. They choose a business model / focus that gives them more ROI - business jets. I'm / we're not entitled to Cessna or any company making things for us, and if they don't it's not because they hate us.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but if no one makes training aircraft there'll be no one to fly those shiny jets.
 
One item on my bucket list in addition to getting a ppl is to own a plane. Given the new realities of the costs I’m not sure I’ll do that. I could - but I’d have to trade off other things I don’t want to. Maybe when I retire in a few years ............. Maybe.
 
steingar said:
Perhaps, but if no one makes training aircraft there'll be no one to fly those shiny jets.
Click to expand...

True. They do sell a few hundred or so to the big flight schools. But not for ultra long term planning. Just short term profits using a long ago paid for tooling and development.
 
frfly172 said:
Supply and demand ,the pool of well maintained used aircraft is dwindling. Even aircraft with run out engines are selling at a high premium.
Click to expand...

yep, just emailed a guy about a 1968 C182. Nothing special in terms of avionics and it needs paint. The engine is at 1000 hrs, but has only flown 5 hrs in the last 3 years. That engine is toast and the guy is asking 60k. Might be worth about 35K plus 30K for a new engine.
 
Rcmutz said:
yep, just emailed a guy about a 1968 C182. Nothing special in terms of avionics and it needs paint. The engine is at 1000 hrs, but has only flown 5 hrs in the last 3 years. That engine is toast and the guy is asking 60k. Might be worth about 35K plus 30K for a new engine.
Click to expand...
Then why'd you e-mail him? You two are clearly never going to align on price so did you just e-mail him to be "so kind" to inform him about his plane isn't worth anything?
 
Morgan3820 said:
They aren’t a Bonanza, obviously but show me another 4 seater with 950-1000 u/l. That burns 9-10 gph at 125 knots And is simple to maintain with good parts availability. I think that they are a great value. For the money, I don’t see a better option.
Click to expand...

Mooney...oh wait, they go 150 knots....too fast. :)
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Mooney...oh wait, they go 150 knots....too fast. :)
Click to expand...

Looked at one or two. Never found one that was either comfortable to sit in or was in good enough shape for the money. Came close on one, but it just needed too much work to get it to where it needed to be. Nice aircraft, just not the right fit for me. And our Arrow will true out at 145 knots at cruise. Not the fastest, but not slow either.
 
Tantalum said:
For some reason Cessnas are just way over priced in general. You can buy so much more Mooney or Grumman for $100,000 then you can Cessna

I wonder how many of these planes actually sell and how long it takes.

just because someone thinks something is worth something doesn't dictate its market value
Click to expand...

Consider cost of maintenance in the acquisition price. 100 Series Cessna's are among the least expensive certified planes to maintain due to abundance of used and new PMA parts with experienced mechanics. The other side of the equation are Complex & twin's with much lower acquisition cost relative to their performance, but higher maintenance & operating costs.

Last year flying across the US with an overnight stop, I found small amount of fuel staining near the front strut. Turns out the gascolator decided to fail in Casper Wy. Between 2 FBO's on the field all the parts were available and resolved that morning.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
My point is, while Piper and others have continued to offer a venerable line of entry level and step up piston planes Cessna gave us the finger 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
Then why hasn’t Piper tripled or quadrupled their production of single engine aircraft to cover the shortage of new aircraft caused by Cessna flipping everyone off and exiting the market?

The reason is there was/is no market. And considering most markets are consumer driven the only side to have truly abandoned the new aircraft market are the consumers. For example, have you bought a new aircraft in the last 20 years? Or how many people on PoA have bought a new TC’d aircraft in the last 20 years?

Or, why did Piper let Cub Crafters and the others take over that portion of the market when they could have simply started producing the actual Super Cub and dominated that side of the market? One of the reasons is Piper is basically financially insolvent and has been for years. The only thing keeping them afloat over the past several years has been 2 large bulk training aircraft contracts for over 300 aircraft. And with the current decline in the airline industry, I’ll bet a nickel Piper will be knocking on the CH11 door again.

While you’re not a fan of Cessna, every legacy manufacturer is guilty of the same thing, survival in a very tight consumer market. So if you don’t want to see more aircraft production lines die on the vine, perhaps get more people to buy new aircraft instead of discussing the old ones on PoA?

PS: And if you’re looking for innovation you need to define that market first in a way that will motivate the manufacturer. Just like FEDEX did with Cessna and the clean sheet design Sky Courier was born.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top