Buying a new plane

ScottM

ScottM

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
42,529
Location
Variable, but somewhere on earth
Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
I have been thinking, err, rather dreaming of buying a new plane. Is it like cars that you get a better deal on your trade in if you sell it yourself or is it better to trade it in with the broker?
 
My guess is you get a better deal selling yourself. Broker has to eat.
 
Most aircraft sellers are not dealers and do not own the inventory. Rather, they are brokers who get a commission when it sells. In that case, a trade-in is rarely possible. Now, if you happen to find a dealer who owns an airplane you want, it is possible to get a good deal all the way around, particularly in today's slow market.

When I was selling my Citabria, I had a number of buyers who wanted me to knock 10 grand off the price for "damage history" because a wing had been replaced with a factory new wing. However, the dealer saw this as a smokescreen, and he happened to have an excellent Pitts that fit my wants perfectly. He gave me as much for my trade-in as I'd been asking retail, and the net price I paid for the Pitts was less than I sold it for retail the next year. Sample size of one, I know, but an illustration that sometimes it DOES work.
 
The bigger question, Scott, is what do you intend on getting to replace your bird?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The bigger question, Scott, is what do you intend on getting to replace your bird?
Click to expand...
I have been looking at 182's and pa28-235's or pa28-200 Arrows. Karen really likes the Pipers more than the Cessnas, it is a wash either way for me as I like them both. Mostly we are looking for a little bit more speed and load capacity. My Cherokee has a useful load of 801lbs (513 with full fuel) and it would be nice to have about 100lbs more so that we can carry a bit more luggage.
 
smigaldi said:
I have been looking at 182's and pa28-235's or pa28-200 Arrows. Karen really likes the Pipers more than the Cessnas, it is a wash either way for me as I like them both. Mostly we are looking for a little bit more speed and load capacity. My Cherokee has a useful load of 801lbs (513 with full fuel) and it would be nice to have about 100lbs more so that we can carry a bit more luggage.
Click to expand...
I can give you a great deal on one of the nicest Lances on the planet. But unfortunately I don't take trades.
 
smigaldi said:
I have been looking at 182's and pa28-235's or pa28-200 Arrows. Karen really likes the Pipers more than the Cessnas, it is a wash either way for me as I like them both. Mostly we are looking for a little bit more speed and load capacity. My Cherokee has a useful load of 801lbs (513 with full fuel) and it would be nice to have about 100lbs more so that we can carry a bit more luggage.
Click to expand...

The 182s are nice, but I am with Karen on liking Pipers more than Cessnas, despite the greater difficulty getting in and out of them. They feel more like "real planes" to me. The Piper/Cessna debate I'm sure will wage on as long as the Chevy/Ford one.

The PA-28-235/236 (Cherokee 235/Dakota) I love. I got my HP in a Dakota. I'm a big fan of the lever setup vs. knobs that the Dakota has. What I also liked about it was how much it moved when you pushed the throttle forward. The 182 felt like it was slower off the line and didn't take off or climb as fast, but that's probably bad memory on my part. Plus, I think in this case the Pipers tend to be cheaper than the Cessnas. 182s seem to fetch a ton of money. Although I've only been in a couple of 182s. I wish that Piper had made a PA-28R-235/236. To me, that would be about perfect.

Have you considered a Comanche? Also nice planes, and if you get a Comanche 250 or 260 you get a lot of plane for the money. Pretty fast, sleek, and good decent fuel burn. My instructor has a Comanche 180. My only problem with it is that its takeoff roll and climb aren't as good as, say, the Archer with the extra weight. The Comanche feels a bit smaller, though, I don't know for sure if it is.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The 182s are nice, but I am with Karen on liking Pipers more than Cessnas, despite the greater difficulty getting in and out of them. They feel more like "real planes" to me. The Piper/Cessna debate I'm sure will wage on as long as the Chevy/Ford one.

The PA-28-235/236 (Cherokee 235/Dakota) I love. I got my HP in a Dakota. I'm a big fan of the lever setup vs. knobs that the Dakota has. What I also liked about it was how much it moved when you pushed the throttle forward. The 182 felt like it was slower off the line and didn't take off or climb as fast, but that's probably bad memory on my part. Plus, I think in this case the Pipers tend to be cheaper than the Cessnas. 182s seem to fetch a ton of money. Although I've only been in a couple of 182s. I wish that Piper had made a PA-28R-235/236. To me, that would be about perfect.

Have you considered a Comanche? Also nice planes, and if you get a Comanche 250 or 260 you get a lot of plane for the money. Pretty fast, sleek, and good decent fuel burn. My instructor has a Comanche 180. My only problem with it is that its takeoff roll and climb aren't as good as, say, the Archer with the extra weight. The Comanche feels a bit smaller, though, I don't know for sure if it is.
Click to expand...

I've "heard" (though that's been it) that Comanche parts are hard to locate and the few that are available are expensive, thus the very low prices on what look like nice airplanes.

The same is supposed to be true of the Rockwell Commander 112/114 series, but again, only based hangar talk with the local IA.

Can anybody confirm or deny this?
 
dmccormack said:
I've "heard" (though that's been it) that Comanche parts are hard to locate and the few that are available are expensive, thus the very low prices on what look like nice airplanes.

The same is supposed to be true of the Rockwell Commander 112/114 series, but again, only based hangar talk with the local IA.

Can anybody confirm or deny this?
Click to expand...
I have heard the same thing but cannot confirm it.
 
Prices on 182s are in a tailspin right now due to sheer volume of units on the market. Don't know about the Pipers. Regardless, they are not commanding the premium price of yesteryear.

The problem people like Scott (and me) who are thinking of upgrading are running into: unless you have a niche plane that is holding its value, any price savings on a new-to-you plane in the current market will be offset by being hosed on the price for your old one :(
 
dmccormack said:
I've "heard" (though that's been it) that Comanche parts are hard to locate and the few that are available are expensive, thus the very low prices on what look like nice airplanes.

The same is supposed to be true of the Rockwell Commander 112/114 series, but again, only based hangar talk with the local IA.

Can anybody confirm or deny this?
Click to expand...

The Comanche people I read still sing the praises of that bird and discount the rumor. Tony Scarpelli posts about his quite regularly on the red board.
 
As one who flies both the 182 and the Arrow (and isn't height challenged), here are my plusses and minuses of the two.

1. Payload - advantage Arrow. With full tanks (74 gal useful in the 182, 48 gal useful in the Arrow), the Arrow has about a 50 pound advantage over the 182. About 650 pounds in the cabin of the 182 (182P), just over 700 pounds in the Arrow (1969 PA-28R-200).

2. Range - advantage 182. 26 gallons more fuel, offset a bit by a higher fuel burn.

3. Speed - toss-up. The 182 is a few knots faster than the Arrow.

4. Comfort - 182. In spades. No contest. Not even close. 3 hours in the Arrow and my knees are shot. It's all I can do to crawl out of it. 182? No problem.

5. Fuel economy - advantage Arrow. With folding gear and a smaller engine it burns less gas to go about the same speed.

If folding gear lights your fire, the Arrow's system is dirt simple and reliable. Emergency extention system is simplicity itself - push the lever to blow pressure in the hydraulics and the gears falls into place. If you don't care, down and welded is pretty simple. :D

I have 54.3 hours in the 182 and 64.1 hours in the Arrow. I haven't flown the Arrow in almost a year and and doing my IR work in the 182. The only other planes I've flown are a 150 and a number of 172s. Limited sample, but if I were in the market for my own plane, the C-182 of some vintage would be my first choice. A very comfortable cross country cruising machine.
 
I know where you may be able to get a Bellanca. More than likely get a trade in also. It is in Texas I should be bringing it back soon.

If you come up to the pancake breakfast I will give you a ride in my Bellanca.

If your trading up it is not that hard to trade for planes right now. Most pilots are looking to downsize. Advertize trade up at barnstormers and TAP.

I also know of a 182.

Dan
 
Ghery said:
1. Payload - advantage Arrow. With full tanks (74 gal useful in the 182, 48 gal useful in the Arrow), the Arrow has about a 50 pound advantage over the 182. About 650 pounds in the cabin of the 182 (182P), just over 700 pounds in the Arrow (1969 PA-28R-200).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you figure the Arrow as winning with payload. The 182 is carrying over 50% more fuel. It doesn't burn 50% more fuel. Dump some of that fuel and you'll have the same range as the Arrow with more payload.

The 182 will also have a shorter takeoff roll and will be better at short fiel.d

As far as the comfort--you can actually fit four people in a 182 (even 172 if you have the payload) comfortably. My experience with Piper is that they expect your rear passengers to not have legs. The room in the back is generally a complete joke IMO. Cessna? More room then anyone will ever need.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
I'm not sure how you figure the Arrow as winning with payload. The 182 is carrying over 50% more fuel. It doesn't burn 50% more fuel. Dump some of that fuel and you'll have the same range as the Arrow with more payload.

The 182 will also have a shorter takeoff roll and will be better at short fiel.d

As far as the comfort--you can actually fit four people in a 182 (even 172 if you have the payload) comfortably. My experience with Piper is that they expect your rear passengers to not have legs. The room in the back is generally a complete joke IMO. Cessna? More room then anyone will ever need.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but those high wings.and struts...

Like riding with training wheels.

;-)
 
For short/rough field or high-altitude operations, advantage C-182.

For strengthening and toning of shoulder and arm muscles, advantage C-182 :yes: (later models can be very heavy in pitch, especially with forward CG).

For visibility, advantage Arrow, big time. Neck muscles of C-182 pilots get a workout too, because you have to stretch up to see over the instrument panel, then crane your neck down to look under the wing root out to the side.

Many C-182s have had firewall damage due to nosewheel-first landings. Remember that the only purpose of a C-182 nosewheel is to keep the prop off the ground while taxiing. ;)
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
I'm not sure how you figure the Arrow as winning with payload. The 182 is carrying over 50% more fuel. It doesn't burn 50% more fuel. Dump some of that fuel and you'll have the same range as the Arrow with more payload.

The 182 will also have a shorter takeoff roll and will be better at short fiel.d

As far as the comfort--you can actually fit four people in a 182 (even 172 if you have the payload) comfortably. My experience with Piper is that they expect your rear passengers to not have legs. The room in the back is generally a complete joke IMO. Cessna? More room then anyone will ever need.
Click to expand...

All true. However, our club rules require putting the planes away with full tanks, so all my W&B calculations assume that to be the case. You just further my case for the 182. It may not be the best airplane for any given criteria, but when you add them together, Cessna got it right with that bird. I'm 6'2" and have ridden in the back seat of that thing a couple of times - very comfortable. I can't say I've ever put anything in the back seat of the Arrow except a flight bag and cargo. Legroom and the back seat of a 1969 PA-28R-200 are mutually exclusive.
 
Screw 'em all and get a Bo. If I were going to go through that much hassle, a Bo's what I would want.
 
I may be partial but You really need a Malibu. I can keep it flying and you can help educate my kids. Sounds like a winner.

Kevin
 
dmccormack said:
Yeah, but those high wings.and struts...
Click to expand...
are absolutely wonderful:
- when it's raining and you're trying to unload,
- when you're camping,
- when you're sitting in the only shade around under your wing,
- when you're landing on a back country strip with low brush around,
- when you're taxiing past those big snow piles at the corners of the taxiway.
- when you're trying to take a picture of something on the ground, not of a cloud.
- when you don't have to think about switching fuel tanks because gravity is actually helping you with something
- sumping is easier (which you really appreciate in the newer 172's with 13 sumps:hairraise:)
:goofy:
Want to lose the struts, get a 210 or some of the other models (177?).
I really like having two doors!

That's alright, I'm sure that low wings have some good points too.
- when you stand on them you're able to see further
- fueling and checking the fuel level is easier
- you won't hit your head on them (watch the knees, though:goofy:)
 
Pilawt said:
For strengthening and toning of shoulder and arm muscles, advantage C-182 :yes: (later models can be very heavy in pitch, especially with forward CG).
Click to expand...
Trim is REALLY your friend landing a C182!:yes:

I think we had a similar thread a while back and it was generally (though certainly not unanimously) agreed (well, t least by me:rofl:) that the C182 is just about the best all-around 4-place piston aircraft out there. Without question there are others that are vastly superior in some areas, but the 182 seems to have found the sweet spot. That's why they've always been in high demand, though the current fuel prices and market may certainly be having an effect on that. Not more than other planes, though!
 
Everyone I know who owns a Comanche, loves it.

Comanche 250s are dirt-cheap, and there are some nice ones.

Comanche 260s (1965) are rare.

Comanche 260B models (1966-1968) are all over the map, but they do have more room and windows. Also, usually pretty reasonable.


Comanche C models (1969-1972), if they are nice, hold their value very well, and they don't change hands much. There must be something to 'em.

Bonanza? What could possibly be wrong with that?


Bellanca... you cannot possibly get more plane for your money, today, plus you ride in ultimate style.

If you want load-hauling, and good speed with it, I know this guy, has a sweet Lance for sale...
 
As the partial owner of a 1975 Arrow II, I think there are differences between the Arrow and Arrow II even though both have a Hershey wing. The Arrow III went for tapered wing. Our useful load is 685 with full fuel.

I know I've said this a hundred times before but if you truly want 4 person + luggage capability go for the Cherokee 6. A little slower but its the aviation equivalent of a station wagon.
 
You didn't ask but, 182 over the Piper any day. I have about 100hrs in Archers, about 200 in 182s (Turbo RG and T182T). Comfort - no comparison. Capabilities - ditto. Only plus for the Archer/Arrow is (I think) ease of loading bags. Pax? No way!!

But, you asked about trades. Depends on the dealer. Certainly, many will take one if you step up to a new. If you're swapping used for used, it depends on whether the broker/dealer is active in that market, or knows a buyer for your a/c type. I brokered my Sundowner and was happy, because the diff in price was worth saving me the aggro of selling.

It never hurts to ask, but I'd say, used for used, you're likely to hear what Ken said, "I'll broker it for you, but I won't take it as a trade."
 
kmead said:
I may be partial but You really need a Malibu. I can keep it flying and you can help educate my kids. Sounds like a winner.

Kevin
Click to expand...
I'm in your camp, Kevin. As soon as I can move my Lance, I'll get the oldest rattiest 'Bu I can find and let you do your stuff!

OK, maybe not. But I'd take a Malibu in a heartbeat.
 
Make that a sample of two. When I bought my Baron I used a broker to find the plane and he also found me a buyer for the Bonanza. I was able to purchase the B55 slightly below market value because the seller was "extremely motivated" and he was looking for a cash buyer. My Bonanza sold (to the co-founder of ABS!) at a good price netting me pretty much what I had invested. But the best part was I never had to look at any misrepresented junk nor did I ever deal with any tire kickers on the Bo.

-lance

Ken Ibold said:
When I was selling my Citabria, I had a number of buyers who wanted me to knock 10 grand off the price for "damage history" because a wing had been replaced with a factory new wing. However, the dealer saw this as a smokescreen, and he happened to have an excellent Pitts that fit my wants perfectly. He gave me as much for my trade-in as I'd been asking retail, and the net price I paid for the Pitts was less than I sold it for retail the next year. Sample size of one, I know, but an illustration that sometimes it DOES work.
Click to expand...
 
When comparing payload and range it's important to equalize one or the other. Full fuel payload comparisons are meaningless if the range is significantly different. Assuming for the moment that the Arrow and the 182 in your example get about the same mpg (I expect the 182 is slightly worse at the same speed) the 182 could carry 100 morepounds in the cabin when fueled with the Arrow's 48 gallon limit. The extra fuel capacity of the 182 simply offers the option of longer legs when the load is light.

Also not all 182s are the same, IIRC the 1981 model my parents had allowed over 800 lbs payload when the 80 gallon fuel capacity was filled.

Personally I think the Arrow's primary usefulness is as an inexpensive to operate complex trainer. There are several of airplanes that are more efficient and faster carrying the same payload over the same leg length. The M20J and beyond Mooneys, various years of Bonanzas, and the Bellanca Viking/SuperViking come to mind.

Ghery said:
As one who flies both the 182 and the Arrow (and isn't height challenged), here are my plusses and minuses of the two.

1. Payload - advantage Arrow. With full tanks (74 gal useful in the 182, 48 gal useful in the Arrow), the Arrow has about a 50 pound advantage over the 182. About 650 pounds in the cabin of the 182 (182P), just over 700 pounds in the Arrow (1969 PA-28R-200).

2. Range - advantage 182. 26 gallons more fuel, offset a bit by a higher fuel burn.

3. Speed - toss-up. The 182 is a few knots faster than the Arrow.

4. Comfort - 182. In spades. No contest. Not even close. 3 hours in the Arrow and my knees are shot. It's all I can do to crawl out of it. 182? No problem.

5. Fuel economy - advantage Arrow. With folding gear and a smaller engine it burns less gas to go about the same speed.

If folding gear lights your fire, the Arrow's system is dirt simple and reliable. Emergency extention system is simplicity itself - push the lever to blow pressure in the hydraulics and the gears falls into place. If you don't care, down and welded is pretty simple. :D

I have 54.3 hours in the 182 and 64.1 hours in the Arrow. I haven't flown the Arrow in almost a year and and doing my IR work in the 182. The only other planes I've flown are a 150 and a number of 172s. Limited sample, but if I were in the market for my own plane, the C-182 of some vintage would be my first choice. A very comfortable cross country cruising machine.
Click to expand...
 
lancefisher said:
When comparing payload and range it's important to equalize one or the other. Full fuel payload comparisons are meaningless if the range is significantly different. Assuming for the moment that the Arrow and the 182 in your example get about the same mpg (I expect the 182 is slightly worse at the same speed) the 182 could carry 100 morepounds in the cabin when fueled with the Arrow's 48 gallon limit. The extra fuel capacity of the 182 simply offers the option of longer legs when the load is light.

Also not all 182s are the same, IIRC the 1981 model my parents had allowed over 800 lbs payload when the 80 gallon fuel capacity was filled.

Personally I think the Arrow's primary usefulness is as an inexpensive to operate complex trainer. There are several of airplanes that are more efficient and faster carrying the same payload over the same leg length. The M20J and beyond Mooneys, various years of Bonanzas, and the Bellanca Viking/SuperViking come to mind.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. But, see my comment in #18. Club rules (which wouldn't apply to an owner) require filling the tanks at the end of your use of the plane. So I don't have that option. But, put 48 gallons in the C-182P, rather than filling the long range tanks (74 gal useful) and you pick up 156 pounds in the cabin and can finally carry more than our 180 hp C-172N with full long range (50 gal) tanks. :D
 
gprellwitz said:
are absolutely wonderful:
- when it's raining and you're trying to unload,
- when you're camping,
- when you're sitting in the only shade around under your wing,
- when you're landing on a back country strip with low brush around,
- when you're taxiing past those big snow piles at the corners of the taxiway.
- when you're trying to take a picture of something on the ground, not of a cloud.
- when you don't have to think about switching fuel tanks because gravity is actually helping you with something
- sumping is easier (which you really appreciate in the newer 172's with 13 sumps:hairraise:)
:goofy:
Want to lose the struts, get a 210 or some of the other models (177?).
I really like having two doors!

That's alright, I'm sure that low wings have some good points too.
- when you stand on them you're able to see further
- fueling and checking the fuel level is easier
- you won't hit your head on them (watch the knees, though:goofy:)
Click to expand...

I know, I know....

It really is the Rational vs. the Affective Domain....
 
F
Ghery said:
Agree completely. But, see my comment in #18. Club rules (which wouldn't apply to an owner) require filling the tanks at the end of your use of the plane. So I don't have that option. But, put 48 gallons in the C-182P, rather than filling the long range tanks (74 gal useful) and you pick up 156 pounds in the cabin and can finally carry more than our 180 hp C-172N with full long range (50 gal) tanks. :D
Click to expand...

Filling the tanks when returning the plane was also SOP in the club I once belonged to, but it wasn't very difficult to connect with the pilot ahead of me on the schedule and ask that they fuel the plane to the level I needed on my trip. Of course this club had wet rates so there wasn't any issue about who paid for the fuel left out by the other pilot. Dry rates would make it a tiny bit more complicated.
 
smigaldi said:
I have been looking at 182's and pa28-235's or pa28-200 Arrows. Karen really likes the Pipers more than the Cessnas, it is a wash either way for me as I like them both. Mostly we are looking for a little bit more speed and load capacity. My Cherokee has a useful load of 801lbs (513 with full fuel) and it would be nice to have about 100lbs more so that we can carry a bit more luggage.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you want to fly 216JA again:yes::D
 
smigaldi said:
I have been looking at 182's and pa28-235's or pa28-200 Arrows. Karen really likes the Pipers more than the Cessnas, it is a wash either way for me as I like them both. Mostly we are looking for a little bit more speed and load capacity. My Cherokee has a useful load of 801lbs (513 with full fuel) and it would be nice to have about 100lbs more so that we can carry a bit more luggage.
Click to expand...

I know a PA28-235 that wants to be flown more and the owner wants a partner. ;)
 
smigaldi said:
You and I may have flown the same planes that the 9/11 hijackers did some training in!!

I flew in several of Jones planes. There was only the 152s and Diamond that I did not fly at one time or another.
Click to expand...

I'm glad the Jones people found them untrainable.

I wonder if that adds value to plane:dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top