Buying a Plane -- Engine vs Avionics vs Price

M

Mr.T

Pre-Flight
Joined
Sep 7, 2018
Messages
65
Location
SE Kansas City Metro
Display Name
Display name:
Marty
So I'm thinking I might like to buy a plane sometime in the next year and starting to look around at what's on the market. My mission is cross-country flying, VFR and "light" IFR (no hard IMC and low approaches, at least not for a while...), as fast as possible, typically with only one or 2 passengers. I also need at least a Garmin 430W and really want a 2-axis, approach-coupled autopilot. I'm willing to deal with ADS-B as a separate issue, so it doesn't matter if the plane is already equipped for 2020 or not.

My price range is something under $75k (or probably less once the wife gets wind of my plans...) At the moment, I've been looking primarily at the Mooney M20, which seems to offer a lot of bang for the buck. But I'm not opposed to other platforms.

Looking at the market, I'm seeing lots of M20s with low to mid-time engines and "antique" avionics stacks, priced well below my price range (like in the $45-55k range), and others that are similarly priced, having a workable avionics stack, sometimes a good autopilot, but a ~1500 hour engine (or more). And of course, there are plenty at the top end of my budget that have either a good engine or good avionics but none seem to have both.

So how does one decide between engine and avionics? Is it cost prohibitive to buy a plane with a low-time engine and then rework the avionics stack and/or add an autopilot? It seems like I'd rather find the avionics I want and live with an engine that may only have 500 hours of life left than buy a plane that doesn't have the avionics and a/p I want and try to dig up the extra cash to re-fit it.
 
In my experience, dollars spent on avionics do not improve the value of the airplane as much as dollars spent overhauling the engine.

Everything else equal, I would buy the best avionics package I could get. However, the flip side is that if the engine needs overhaul that's big bucks you have to cough up all at once, whereas if you are upgrading avionics you can do it piecemeal. When you go down the avionics upgrade road, be advised you WILL spend more than you planned. Either way it's not for the faint of heart.

Keep looking, and the right combination of time/equipment will pop up. Be ready to pounce on it immediately, because the good ones don't last long, while the dogs will be sitting there staring at you while you eat for some time.
 
You could probably find a well equipped Tiger or Cheetah well within this price range, maybe with some budget left over for avionics upgrades. Fixed gear, cheaper insurance than a Mooney. If you look at Cheetahs or Travelers you should seek one with the HC STC and maybe the Sensenich prop. Plenty of useful load for two. I can cram an amazing amount of shopping at LL Bean and the two of us in the Traveler for a near max range flight home with reserves. Cruise is 117-135 kt depending on the AA5X model. These are nice planes for light IFR regional travel.
 
Grum.Man said:
I would rather deal with overhauling an engine than an instrument panel any day.
Click to expand...

Engine. Panel. About the same pain and price range. If I knew I was spending some serious change in the near future, I would spend it on the engine, too. You never really know what you have in a used engine. When you overhaul it, you know what you have and how it is treated.
 
chemgeek said:
Engine. Panel. About the same pain and price range. If I knew I was spending some serious change in the near future, I would spend it on the engine, too. You never really know what you have in a used engine. When you overhaul it, you know what you have and how it is treated.
Click to expand...

You can field overhaul an engine for the same or less cost of installing a GTN650. Just about any mechanic can do a field overhaul, you pretty much need an avionics shop for the GPS.
 
Conventional wisdom is to find a plane with the avionics you want. The problem is, there are very few planes with modern (e.g. GTN650/750) systems that come on the market. So while that's the best financial decision, you have to weigh that against possibly sitting on the sidelines for one or more years while you wait for a unicorn to show up on Trade-A-Plane.

Honestly I'd also be wary of planes advertising 0 (or <50 hours) SMOH. Why did someone overhaul the engine and then decide to sell? Or, did they think that an overhauled engine would pay for itself via higher price? If so, they may have gone for the cheapest possible overhaul.
 
chemgeek said:
You could probably find a well equipped Tiger or Cheetah well within this price range
Click to expand...

I started out in a 1975 AA5 for my first 250 hours or so and loved it, even though it had an anemic climb rate with the 150hp engine. I've got the Tiger on my list of planes to watch.
 
Mr.T said:
I started out in a 1975 AA5 for my first 250 hours or so and loved it, even though it had an anemic climb rate with the 150hp engine. I've got the Tiger on my list of planes to watch.
Click to expand...

The 150 hp engines are just a bit underpowered for this airframe. Many of these aircraft (AA5 and AA5A) have been converted to "160 hp" with a high compression piston STC that dramatically increases climb rate and maintains redline power at altitude. With the STC Sensenich prop, too, you get a pretty fast 8 gph aircraft. The Tiger of course is 180 hp and 10 gph with essentially the same airframe.
 
I have done it both ways, but try to find one that has everything you want or very close to it. Avionics are a known expense, you can check a few websites and get a pretty good idea of what it will cost you to add whatever you want. Adding autopilots gets expensive, you can easily spend $25K on the panel and not do a ton. One with all the avionics and a higher time engine will give you some time and you can buy it knowing to plan for an overhaul. It's all about value not price, cheap with a runout engine, bad paint and crappy avionics may not be a good deal! When buying used, there is no guarantee that the engine with 200 or 1500 hours will make it to the next oil change, they are all used engines. Find one that someone is currently flying and wants to move up, not one that has been sitting for years! Good luck and get a GOOD pre-buy!
 
I like the idea of a plane with about 150...200hrs since the most recent overhaul or new. By then most issues should have been found. It will also be priced accordingly. If that same plane has an high end panel then it will probably be out of your price range. If the panel is mediocre you can then update as you see fit and still fly it while you save/plan to update the panel.

If you buy a run out motor there is no guarantee of a certain price. After the rebuild there could be additional issues after it is initially ran. Maybe there is something wrong with valves in one cylinder. Maybe there is an issue during break-in (burning too much oil or metals are found). Then even more of your money. Maybe the exhaust work is more than you thought. Maybe mags need additional work. Maybe the mechanic recommends a new prop or governor overhaul, etc. And all that time you are not flying at all...just spending more money. I am not sure of engine rebuild times but it just seems like people get the motor pulled and its like 3 or months until it is flying again :(

If you reverse that and buy a low time motor with a solid pre-buy inspection and then need to add a certificated navigator I don't think it will spend 3 months in the avionics shop. Maybe 3 weeks. Plus you get to be pick on exactly which panel equipment you want and can coordinate all of it with the ADSB mandate.

I fly a 182. If I was shopping for a newer one and found two options (identical interiors, exteriors, identical total times):
  1. $100K: Low time motor (eg 150hrs) with vintage panel (no gps, no adsb)
  2. $100K: 1500hrs since overhaul (TBO) but with a nice navigator (650 or lower)
....I think I would opt for # 1. I can fly it VFR right away. I can come up with a plan to buy the avionics I need instead of getting what is in the plane. And perhaps that avionics upgrade can be broken into two steps instead of 1 big all-in, although doing all the work at once would be cheaper.
 
The main reason I would chose runout engine over old avionics is this. You can't really hurt avionics. If they work when you power them on then chances are you aren't going to have a problem with them. A recent over haul with 200 hours, well there can be a lot of damage done in 200 hours that may not show up right away. If I was going to shell out similar money for one or the other I would rather have an engine that I know the history on than avionics I know the history on.
 
mostly i have heard that buy a plane with everything you want in it. well, thats not easy and with the low cost avionics these days, that statement might not hold tru anymore. for example, i have seen a few planes here and there for sale with a G5 installed, but dont expect one to be installed in the one you are trying to buy. same with AP. they will come with something vintage, that will work most of the times, might or might not be reliable. but if you want a good modern AP, with all bells and whistles, plan on spending that money after you buy. i am on the motor camp, i want a reliable one that i can take past TBO if i can.

weather you put money in engine or avionics, you will end up losing money anyway, when you sell for one reason or another. this hobby is all about how to lose money in different ways :d
 
Grum.Man said:
The main reason I would chose runout engine over old avionics is this. You can't really hurt avionics. If they work when you power them on then chances are you aren't going to have a problem with them. A recent over haul with 200 hours, well there can be a lot of damage done in 200 hours that may not show up right away. If I was going to shell out similar money for one or the other I would rather have an engine that I know the history on than avionics I know the history on.
Click to expand...
I do agree but there is some irony too. If you have the motor rebuilt you will start by spending a known 'X'. During those months other items will add in, say another 5% or maybe even 10% again of 'X'. And then there is the possibility of something nasty during the break-in or right afterwards and now what you thought was a fixed cost (like avionics) is no longer fixed and creeping up and its your money. And you are not flying it.

So there is probably some SMOH hour count sweet spot (statistically) after the overhaul where the big risk is over. And buying a plane at that sweet spot of course all hinges on a very good pre-buy to be sure.

Now, if there was G1000 based airframe with a runout motor and a respectable price then I would reverse my thinking as that avionics package is at another level financially.

I don't see a generally better answer here - depends on too many things to call a clear winner.
 
I think the worst value is a midtime engine.
In either case engine or avionics you are looking at a 45k spend.
I would therefore focus on getting a good airframe, the avionics I want, with a high time engine.
Buying an unknown engine is always a crapshoot, less so on the avionics. Therefore the engine is better to be overhauled, and treated the way you want it.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
I wanted an updated avionics and low time engine. I raised my budget by about $25k and waited for the deal to pop up. Some unlucky soul found out he was going to be a daddy for the 3rd time and needed a bigger plane. Just 2 months after dropping $75k on new avionics. Engine had 400 SMOH and airframe TT 2002. That low engine and airframe on the plane in the condition it was maintained with all logs was easily $70k. I picked the plane up for $90k. Was well worth it.
 
Get the avionics you want and ignore the engine time, which rarely reflects the health of the engine. A 2000-hr engine with frequent oil changes, oil analysis, frequent boroscopic inspections, proper leaning technique, etc... can go to 3000 hours or more. Of course when you buy a used plane, you have no idea how the engine has been run—unless the plane has engine data logs like Cirruses—so it’s a crapshoot. Don’t value a 500-hr engine more than a 2000-hr one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
chemgeek said:
The 150 hp engines are just a bit underpowered for this airframe. Many of these aircraft (AA5 and AA5A) have been converted to "160 hp" with a high compression piston STC that dramatically increases climb rate and maintains redline power at altitude. With the STC Sensenich prop, too, you get a pretty fast 8 gph aircraft. The Tiger of course is 180 hp and 10 gph with essentially the same airframe.
Click to expand...

A 1975 Travler with the HC STC and Sensinich prop is a 130Kts true airplane. It has the nose bowl of the cheetah but the smaller tail, so less drag. A Tiger is 135Kts true, so pretty close. You do give up a little in GW at 2200 versus 2400, but payload not so much due to the heavier 180 HP engine of the Tiger. That said, Tiger has 52 gal, and the Travler and some Cheetahs only 38 gals. I owned a Cheetah that I put in the HC STC. What a difference in climb, really amazing. I could get 1000 from by meals, full fuel, on a cold day. Sold it thinking I wanted a Bonanza, but given my max 500 mike XCs, and familiarity with the Grumman, went out and bought a nice 79 Tiger.

I went with something that had a 430W, and basic AP, 1400 SMOH. My pre-buy included a boroscope of cylinders to look at the valves and cylinders. The engine is original, but has not had any issues. I valued the plane with 0 SMOH, and subtracted 18k for the overhaul, and made my offer. Sellers took it. Money is back for a potential overhaul or cylinder replacement. I won’t crack the case unless I have to. No oil leaks anywhere, burn about 1 qrt in 8 hours, filters always clean, compressions mid 70’s, and boroscope at annual looks good. So far, life is good!

Btw- new avionics are worth 50-60% after about 3-5 years, paint the same, interior the same. Engine time is worth about $10-15 per hour depending on the OH costs. I have watched the market for 10 years. You can tell the guys who think they should recoup EVERY dollar they put into the airplane. Maybe if the right fool comes along. Finally, I would NOT by a plane with an engine less than around 200-250 hours, infant mortality issues.
 
Last edited:
Count me among those who would take a 1500 hour engine (if priced appropriately) over a fresh engine and antique avionics. Engines are pretty straight forward. Decide when you want to do it, who you want to do it and cut a check. Avionics? You can plan it and price it out. But when it comes to putting modern radios in older airframes, you don't really know what kind of can of worms you've got until they rip the panel open. Oh looks like somebody must of tried to cram a CB radio or something in here at some point and they cut three of the panel supports to make it fit, we'll have to fabricate and replace those and we'll have to take more of the panel out to do it so tack on an extra $4k.

Obviously there can be gotchas with engine overhauls too. But IME there is less opportunity for stupid owner tricks to rear their ugly heads when it comes to engine overhauls than when it comes to ripping the panel open. You're not likely to get a call that someone used liquid nails to hold the alternator bracket on. But liquid nails to make a radio tray stick in place and now it won't come out without destroying stuff? I bet that's not unheard of.
 
Wow, lots of good information here. Thanks for the replies so far.

I think I'm coming down on the side of "get the avionics you want and, if necessary, budget for an overhaul shortly after purchase"...

How does one determine a "fair" price for an aircraft? Is the AOPA vRef tool useful/accurate? Other tools?
 
Mr.T said:
How does one determine a "fair" price for an aircraft? Is the AOPA vRef tool useful/accurate? Other tools?
Click to expand...
I would strongly urge against VRef. It tends to lag... quite badly. The best thing you can do is watch trade-a-plane, controller and barnstormers and see what planes are listed for and which ones disappear. There are also type-specific facebook pages that are chock-full of information.
 
Yeah, I'm also of the mind that if you find something that has the WAAS GPS and the autopilot and an engine in the 1,500 hour range, I would go with that. Provided that the engine has good compressions, has been flying regularly, and passes your pre-buy.
 
I would go opposite. Buy a mechanically sound plane and budget for avionics (you are never going to fine what you want already installed). If you want an autopilot, you will want that already in the plane, though. A poorly maintained plane will nickel and dime you to death getting it caught up. I have had three planes fall out of pre-buy and the first plane I bought, I had the wrong guy do the pre-buy and I ended up spending as much as did on the plane getting it caught up (and that was without having to OH the engine). There are a lot of gotchas in plane ownership, not just avionics and engine. I looked at Mooney's for a while and many / most of the older vintage had issues (leaking gas tanks, prop issues, etc.). In most cases, you just need to spend an hour or so with the logs to get what you need to know. I found one where the broker mis-stated the total time (the tach had been swapped). He never fixed the ad, either, after I pointed it out. Lots of planes, where they had been sitting for a significant amount of time and the broker dusted it off and got an IA to sign off an annual (without any details in the log). Buy a safe, well maintained plane first and then add the goodies.
 
I am definitely not talking about a poorly maintained airplane, just one that's getting up in hours on the engine.
 
Mr.T said:
This AA5A Cheetah is close to home and checks most of my boxes... https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1407248_1976+GRUMMAN+FULL+IFR+CHEETAH+.html

Opinions? Not clear whether it has the 160HP STC or not; I've reached out to the seller.
Click to expand...

Nice...that does check the boxes!
And if everything checks out, that doesn't look like a horrible price. Gives you almost 25K for any squawks...


I have no owner experience yet....but it just seems:

A low/mid-time engine (or even higher), as mentioned, may be okay, so you may not be forced to spend that money. At least it's seemingly optional.
Installation/purchase costs of Auto Pilot and Certified Avionics are guaranteed expenses. If they are in place and working properly, you're almost guaranteed to save that money. (provided the price is correct)

When I look around, I look mostly for the avionics, AP, paint/interior that is good (enough), and plan to OH the engine. Most any of those won't just take a dump and need to be totally replaced like the engine could....and most of those things are easy enough to see that they are working properly during pre-buy.
I'm guessing the AP may need a part replaced, or even if the 430w needs repair, the wiring is there already.

And, if the engine does need work, I'd much rather dump $35k into the engine than the panel. I know which one I'd rather see quit working first.

Also, don't OH engines come with a warranty? I mean damn, if I'm paying for a $35k overhaul, I want some insurance it works right for a while.
 
Last edited:
See if they will scan the logs for you. At least the last few years. How much time since the reman (not hours but chronological time)? How many hours flown between annuals? Does it look like work is being done year to year or are they just getting the annual signed off (obscure logs are a red flag)? Are they doing oil analysis? Can you see the results? Can you speak to the mechanic who has been maintaining it? These types of questions will save you a lot of pain.
 
You have to open up the engine to do the HC upgrade, so you'd want to wait until it's overhaul time. Another option is the PowerFlow Exhaust. It's a tuned exhaust system, and is supposed to either increase the available power by 30%, reduce fuel consumption by 30%, or some combination of the two. A big advantage is you don't have to open up the engine. I have no relationship whatsoever with PowerFlow Exhaust, just think it looks like a great way to get more power, more efficiency, or some combination of the two. Just internet search for PowerFlow Exhaust.
 
You may have to overhaul any engine. Even a fresh overhaul can have issues. Recentlty Some new parts were found defective causing many freshly overhauled engines to get torn down again. There are no guarantees.

You should expect to have to put money into ANY engine. It’s a matter of when, not if, and a 2000 hour engine might last longer than a 200 hour engine.

I’d get good avionics, immediately start saving for engine work, and cross my fingers.
 
Avionics will eclipse an overhaul all day long........ a GTN 650 installed gets you a O360 OH. So a plane with a good panel and run out engine is a better buy that a crappy stack and new OH.
 
jspilot said:
I saw this plane myself the other day and, if I had more money in the budget for an airplane for myself right now,
I’d be all over this one. Seems like a real good buy!
Click to expand...

I’ve talked myself out of this one. Having flown a 150hp AA5 in the heat of summer, I know what this AA5A will perform like and I don’t want to buy one and immediately have to spend money on either an exhaust or 160hp STC. I’m looking at a couple of Tigers and an M20C that are similarly priced and equipped.
 
Mr.T said:
I’ve talked myself out of this one. Having flown a 150hp AA5 in the heat of summer, I know what this AA5A will perform like and I don’t want to buy one and immediately have to spend money on either an exhaust or 160hp STC. I’m looking at a couple of Tigers and an M20C that are similarly priced and equipped.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I’ve never flow a AA5 or any Grumman( I really want to.). Do they not climb well in the summer or are they just really hot inside because of the canopy? I’ve always thought of them as ideal single engine planes since they go fast, are fixed gear, and burn little gas.
 
jspilot said:
Interesting. I’ve never flow a AA5 or any Grumman( I really want to.). Do they not climb well in the summer or are they just really hot inside because of the canopy? I’ve always thought of them as ideal single engine planes since they go fast, are fixed gear, and burn little gas.
Click to expand...

I feel like this statement is thrown around a lot without much clarification. I have owned a Grumman Yankee and have flown in an AA5A. I can say they "climb" as good as any other airplane in it's HP class when you talk FPM. My yankee climbed at the same rate as a Cessna 150. The difference is the climb angle, in the grumman I am climbing at 85 ktas where as the Cessna is climbing at 65 or so. The illusion is you aren't climbing as fast, the fact is you aren't climbing as steep.

If a 150 hp 172 and a 150 hp AA5A took off at the same time I would put money on them arriving at the same altitude within seconds of each other. The AA5 will just be 5 miles further away from the airport. So yes, shorter runways are an issue for a Grumman compared to a Cessna, but time to altitude is not. I could load my Grumman to gross weight on a summer day and still see 400 fpm. I doubt you would see any more in a 152. I just needed a 500 ft longer runway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top