Easiest Airplane to Resell

P

PTheLionH

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Messages
19
Display Name
Display name:
PTheLionH
I will soon be purchasing a (temporary) airplane. Expecting to keep it for 2 years before reselling. Will probably add 1k of hours on it, all VFR with max 2 people. Cruise above 115kts and service ceiling 10k are (slightly marginal but) acceptable.

I do not have any particular preferences for high/low-wing, nor is purchase price too important (let us say up to $200k).

Within these parameters, my biggest concern is the ability to quickly/easily resell the airplane with a value close to initial purchase price (less engine time, and up to, say $3/h on the airframe).

While I have considered a PA-28 180, Archer, M20J, DA20(C1), SR20 and RV6-9, all with really good value and probably airplanes I would buy if I was going to keep them long term, it seems the easiest to sell are (easiest first):

  1. 172M
  2. 172N
  3. 172P
  4. 172R or 172S from 1997 to ~2003
With the following constraints, these airplanes appear to sell within weeks of going on the market:

  • Well maintained/hangared airplane up to a few $k above Vref
  • From dry climate with little/no corrosion
  • <10k h airframe and never a trainer
  • Full logs
  • Few modifications where seller expects receiving close to new price for the add-ons: upgraded engine (eg 180HP), avionics, interior, exterior, etc
Is this a reasonably accurate understanding of the market? If not, which airplanes am I overlooking?
 
500 hours a year for two years...whew...

You may be overlooking a cherry 182...buy it right...they do not sit long...
 
That is a ton of hours...I flew an average of 200 hours a year for the first 6 years I had my PPC.

I owned a 2005 C172 SP and a 2007 C182T...both under warranty for 6-7 years. These were both essentially new aircraft (172 was not, 182 was) ...I sold them for 5K and 10K less than I paid for them...I put 300 hours on the 172 and 800ish on the 182.

Sold both within a week of deciding to sell them.
 
Kelvin said:
2005 C172 SP ... 2007 C182T. 300h/5k & 800h/10k.
Click to expand...
Great data, pretty much just engine/airframe depreciation.

My thinking has been evolving over the last month in this regard. I was not considering newer airplanes at all in the beginning, mainly thinking pricing was similar to that of a car with huge depreciations of new models.

But airplanes are more like vintage cars, and I am starting to lean towards just buying a newer 172.
 
If your average flight is two hours, I hope you realize you will be flying 250 days out of the year.

Unless you live in Arizona, you won't have 250 VFR days a year.

That being said, Cessna 180's don't sit around on the used car lot for very long.
 
Really any of the typical Cessnas and Pipers (172, PA28, ect) are always in demand. If you want to go fast, it is hard to beat a Mooney for efficient cross country flying, and they're popular enough resale still wouldn't be tough/

One other piece of advice, get an instrument rating. It'll make your life much easier if you're really traveling, especially when you need to get there in a somewhat timely manner
 
PTheLionH said:
it seems the easiest to sell are (easiest first):

  1. 172M
  2. 172N
  3. 172P
  4. 172R or 172S from 1997 to ~2003
With the following constraints, these airplanes appear to sell within weeks of going on the market:
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, why do you think M's sell faster/easier than N's?

I've flown all of the models you have listed and I 'd think Ns or Ps would go quicker. I never liked the flap switch on M.
 
PTheLionH said:
Commute (, biz & trips).


Good input, I have not paid much attention to the 182's, will definitely give them a second look.
Click to expand...

Super rare to put that much time in the logbook unless you're a pro. It's 10hrs/week avg. Most do that in a month. You planning on daily/weekly commutes?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Just out of curiosity, why do you think M's sell faster/easier than N's?

I've flown all of the models you have listed and I 'd think Ns or Ps would go quicker. I never liked the flap switch on M.
Click to expand...

Because nobody wants the H2AD variant of the O-320 on the N models. After my experiences with them, I'm not really too keen on them either. They supposedly have some major reliability issues. The ones I've been behind just seemed aneimic as well. I flew an M and an N very regularly for a good while. The M had a climb prop, and the N had a cruise prop. Could be a lot of things, but I know our M was definitely quicker.
 
txflyer said:
... you will be flying 250 days out of the year.
Click to expand...
Well aware, but thanks for the warning ;) I am at a place with a decent number of VFR days, and will actually be including flights to Arizona. I may not quite get to 500h/year from my daily commute because of weather, but I expect to make up some of it with longer trips. Perhaps it all ends up with 'only' 400h/year, who knows ;)
txflyer said:
Cessna 180's don't sit around ... very long
Click to expand...
I was also discarding taildraggers, perhaps I should not. Rough & shorter airfields are not high on my mission list.

Though, I need to read up on the 180's. How well do they behave taxi'ing and in crosswinds? Tendency to groundloop?
 
It's a little slower than your target speed, but Cessna 150/2 are a quick buy and quick sell all day long.
 
There's no way you'll get close to 500 hours.

I was a freshly minted PPL. Work from home, make awesome money, can call off whenever I want. Every *second* it was VFR I was up in the air. And I only got 250 hours in the first 12 fiscal months.
 
PTheLionH said:
Though, I need to read up on the 180's. How well do they behave taxi'ing and in crosswinds? Tendency to groundloop?
Click to expand...



They taxi well since they're a little heavier than your average GA taildragger. Visibility is good over the nose. You don't have to do S turns unless you're up on 29" tundras or bigger.

They handle cross winds as well as any GA single. You just have to know your personal limits on that and that only comes with experience. All taildraggers have a tendency to ground loop.

The macho factor is off the charts and chick's dig 'em. :wink2:

 
dlsmith said:
advice ... get an instrument rating ...
Click to expand...
There is definitely an IR waiting in my near future. But I don't like to rush into it, first building some solid VFR experience.

dlsmith said:
... Mooney ... they're popular enough resale still wouldn't be tough
Click to expand...
I first focused on Mooney M20J's, they are much closer to my final mission. But I noticed no less than 6 M20J's for sale just in California in mid-December, generally offered for ~$5k below Vref, some of them for sale for quite some time; all looked reasonably decent on paper. I did not get a warm and fuzzy feeling about them being easy to sell. At the same time not a single 172M was available in CA, and those across the US were typically priced $5-$10k above Vref.

What is your guess for how long it would take to resell a nice M20J?
 
Someone on here had his mooney for sale well over a year. I also disagree on the 172 m and n models. I fly both quite often. Out of two m models and 2 n models they all fly different speeds. However one of the n models is fastest. There is 15 kts difference between them all. I have flown them all on at least 500kt trips. 3 of them I flew from coast to Midwest. Most of them have had the engine problem fixed long ago.
 
I've seen nice M20Js sell within a few weeks, but almost all start out above vref, I bought mine for over 20% less than asking price, some look nice in ads but closer look reveals they are not so nice.
 
I've only purchased one plane, never sold one, so take my comment with a grain of salt.

IMO you will have a larger market with a less expensive plane. I know it only takes one person to purchase a plane, but I would think your odds are better to unload a plane when you have a larger pool of potential buyers.

With that being said, I would think a cherokee or 172 would be easiest to sell later. Most people get their PPL learning to fly one of these (150/152 too but this doesn't meet OP's needs).
 
I think you are on the right track with your mission description and a 172 or 182. Your budget is very 182, I think.
 
Mooneys are all over the board. Well, most planes are. 80/20 rule. 20% of them will sell within the first week because they are excellent finds, priced right, and overall fantastic planes. 80% of them will sit on the market and ultimately be sold out cheap because of an impending skeleton (high time, crap paint job, crap interior, dated avionics, hidden mx issue).

For your 200k price range, you can swing a top-of-the-line M20J. That's a whole different market and those planes will all sell pretty quickly.

A couple more points to keep in mind also that a Mooney is about 40-50% faster than a 172, so your projected hours will be greatly affected by the speed of the plane, as well. Being a VFR-only pilot really limits your capabilities... I saw you addressed that, but keep in mind the added goodies in a top-line plane are really geared for IFR. So, an expensive M20J may have glass, GTN-650/750, FIKI, etc., which is all virtually unusable for VFR. The upside, however, is that those goodies are great for resale and will sell the plane quickly.

Another point to ponder is insurance costs. A VFR-only pilot will get eaten alive on insurance if the plane is a complex/high-performance plane (Mooney/Bonanza/Arrow). A fixed gear 172 would be much less expensive.
 
dlsmith said:
Because nobody wants the H2AD variant of the O-320 on the N models. After my experiences with them, I'm not really too keen on them either. They supposedly have some major reliability issues. The ones I've been behind just seemed aneimic as well. I flew an M and an N very regularly for a good while. The M had a climb prop, and the N had a cruise prop. Could be a lot of things, but I know our M was definitely quicker.
Click to expand...

The club plane I fly most is an N model with the H2AD and my experience has been different. First, our N has had much less reliability issues than our other 172, a P model, and our 182R. I've never had even the slightest hint of trouble with the N while the others seem to have much more reliability issues and one even needed a new engine earlier this year. Also the school I got my ppl at had several N models and they didn't experience anymore down time than other models, mainly M and P. The N also got rid of the annoying flap selector on the M. In terms of performance I haven't seen any difference between our N and P models but the HP increase from M to N would likely give the N better performance with the same load and prop type.

Just my experience YMMV.
 
oregonboy109 said:
The club plane I fly most is an N model with the H2AD and my experience has been different.

...

Just my experience YMMV.
Click to expand...

Nice, but it's perception that drives resale. Reality has little to do with it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
... M's sell faster/easier than N's ...
Click to expand...
I don't think there is solid data available to indicate differences between time-to-sell of 172MNP models. So, order 1-3 in any way you like, I should just have bundled them together as 172MNP.

However, since you asked, let me show you where I found the minor variations in 172 sales. First had to estimate the number of 172 M, N & P airplanes produced. Somehow I could not easily find solid data online. But the serial #'s give some indication (the 172M number is different from 7306 often quoted, but I suspect the difference may come from yearly sales or production year vs serial #, the latter being the most accurate; but if someone has better production numbers, please share):

  • 172M: 17260759 to 17267584: 6826 produced
  • 172N: 17267585 to 17274009: 6425 produced
  • 172P: 17274010 to 17276654: 2645 produced
Then the biggest selection of 172MNP airplanes available for sale online was from trade-a-plane late 2015 with 30 (compared to 24 @ Controller and 15 @ Barnstomers):

  • 172M: 9 for sale
  • 172N: 15 for sale
  • 172P: 6 for sale
If you take the #-for-sale to #-produced ratio as a proxy of the time-to-sell, you conclude that 172M's have the fastest turnaround time. I ran this a couple of times in December, 172M kept (perhaps by chance) coming up on top, 172N & 172P shifted back and forth between 2nd & 3rd.

Of course, this is just a rough estimate, and you can get slightly different numbers/order by using other online marketplaces. There are also assumptions about Cessna having sold the same number of 172MNP models in US as abroad, same percentage of airplanes still operational, no difference between how often each model is put on the market, system at steady-state, etc etc.

As said, I think more data is needed to really make a strong claim that time-to-sell is different between 172MNP models.
 
In rethinking this...the answer is one that is priced correctly against other similar planes.
 
asicer said:
Nice, but it's perception that drives resale. Reality has little to do with it.
Click to expand...

It's well known that most N models have had the engine "problem" fixed long ago by overhaul or 180hp upgrade. Certainly someone in the market will be informed enough to know this.
 
I bought and sold a Mooney m20J model fairly easily.
 
ahkahn said:
... 80/20 rule
Click to expand...
Kelvin said:
...the answer is one that is priced correctly against other similar planes.
Click to expand...
Good insights. You should be able to price any airplane to sell at the same rate.

Difficulty is of course finding that airplane in the first place, and buyer/seller may not be driven by the same factors. I may want an airplane that can later sell quickly, seller may accept leaving their airplane on the market for a longer period of time in the hope of getting a higher price. These are probably rather imperfect markets and it seems clear that time-to-sell are very different for different types of airplanes, at least at the established prices.

But I am all with you that it is the nice, well maintained airplanes, priced above average but still within range of providing good value, that sell.

ahkahn said:
... an expensive M20J may have glass ... upside ... great for resale
Click to expand...
I am somewhat leery of this argument. You first need to find a seller who is ready to take a big hit on the expensive equipment installed, and then bet on that the already-outdated equipment will not drop further a couple of years down the line.

So, no, I would want good stats before trying to make the case that installation of soon-to-be-outdated avionics at no-loss prices will improve time-to-sell.

ahkahn said:
... insurance costs ...
Click to expand...
Really good point I did not think much about. Not sure it bothers me too much in the big scheme of things, but I have definitely have my concerns whether a complex airplane is a good choice for new pilot.
 
I don't know what your flight experience is. If you are a newly minted private pilot you will likely find it difficult to get insurance on a high performance complex retract airplane. Some insurance companies would not insure you under those circumstances. There are retracts that are considered entry level retracts that would be easier to insure. I would think the Mooney M20J is not in that entry level category. If the cost of insurance is not a concern for you then it may not be a big problem. That being said, if your goal is to build time then there is no need to go fast.

I spent my first 20 training hours in a 152 and then transitioned to a 172. My training took place in 1984 so the planes were older models by today's standards. My first airplane was a 182 and that would be my best suggestion given what you have said thus far. 182s in good condition tend to sell quickly. A 182 is, in my opinion, a better and much more versatile airplane than a 172. They are more comfortable as well and that could mean a lot if you are going to be flying as much as you have said.

If you will be doing any instrument training in this airplane, a 182 is a very good and stable instrument platform. My 182 had some undisclosed maintenance / damage issues that were discovered after I had purchased it. I learned a valuable lesson about pre-purchase inspections and the need to have one done by someone not affiliated with the seller. In spite of that I sold the airplane rather easily for more than I had paid for it but less than I had into it when you consider the cost of repairs that I had put into it. By the way I did not in anyway try to hide any of that from the buyer when I sold it. In fact I made it clear to the buyer that he know everything about it's history before I would agree to sell it to him.

After selling the 182 I bought a Cardinal RG because I wanted a retract. Since I had very little retract time the Cardinal was an airplane I could easily insure without a very high cost. Some of the other retracts like a Bonanza were airplanes I could not easily insure until I had at least 200 hours of retract time.

All in all my best recommendation would be a nicely equipped 182. Given your budget I don't think that would be a problem at all. Whatever you decide to buy make sure you get a pre-purchase inspection done by someone who is highly qualified and has a good deal of knowledge on the specific aircraft you are buying. Make sure that person has no affiliation with the seller and that your best interest is being served.

Good luck!
 
I bought a 260 commanche at about 15 hrs in as a student and I got insurance easily. Was about little over double what I paid on a 172 I owned at same time. After flying commanche the 172 was much easier to fly seemed like. I liked the commanche pretty well though.
 
oregonboy109 said:
... most N models have had the engine "problem" fixed ... someone in the market will be informed enough to know this.
Click to expand...
I am completely with you that the H2AD engine problems should now mostly be history, either by the recommended camshaft/tappet-bodies upgrades, or by upgrade of the entire engine. But perception persists, take this small data point:

  • Vref 1976 172M: $49k (0SMOH, default AFTT)
  • Vref 1977 172N: $48k (0SMOH, default AFTT)
Unfair, probably, some hidden value here for the well informed, probably.
 
PTheLionH said:
I am somewhat leery of this argument. You first need to find a seller who is ready to take a big hit on the expensive equipment installed, and then bet on that the already-outdated equipment will not drop further a couple of years down the line.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing my point. It is a given that newly-installed avionics equipment take a value hit the minute they roll out of the installation shop. The seller that has put the plane up for sale has already determined that they are willing to take that financial hit, assuming the aircraft is priced at a fair market price and not above. Any seller that is priced above market, for whatever reason, is unrealistic on the value of their aircraft, and will likely be sitting on the plane for quite some time.

My point is that glass and modern avionics help move the plane to sell faster. Much like a remodeled custom kitchen helps move a house. It won't necessarily increase the value, and especially won't increase it cost accordingly, but it will sure help it sell faster than the competition in the market.

And also, you don't need to find the seller....... the burden is on the seller to find a buyer!
 
ahkahn said:
... assuming the aircraft is priced at a fair market price and not above ... glass and modern avionics help move the plane to sell faster
Click to expand...
Fair enough and useful input, I was not appreciating the value avionics could bring.

My skepticism is probably mostly caused by sellers who are NOT pricing their upgrades at fair market value. There seems to be a lot of them, and fairly so, it is quite a (painful) hit you take when selling an airplane with avionics you got installed yourself.

I will do some more research on the avionics options when I see an airplane with significant upgrades to find where there is value.
 
PTheLionH said:
Fair enough and useful input, I was not appreciating the value avionics could bring.

My skepticism is probably mostly caused by sellers who are NOT pricing their upgrades at fair market value. There seems to be a lot of them, and fairly so, it is quite a (painful) hit you take when selling an airplane with avionics you got installed yourself.

I will do some more research on the avionics options when I see an airplane with significant upgrades to find where there is value.
Click to expand...

Yep. What I did when I settled on an actual make/model, I created a spreadsheet. Made columns for year, engine time, prop time, airframe time, special upgrades, etc. Came up with a solid market idea (keep in mind these are asking prices), and then narrowed down from there. When I settled on my plane, I composed an offer based on that data and the seller had no reason to dispute any of it. A seller that really wants to sell cannot dispute facts. It also lets you shake out the "my wife wants me to list it" type of sellers.
 
I didn't plan on buying a plane my Neighbor lost his medical 72 years old, flew this plane 10-20 hrs a year, I didn't plan on getting my PPL until he told me he needed to sell it was a 1979 172N 320 SMOH! I bought it last year I have 150 hrs in just got it IFR Certified. I do plan on selling it when I get my IFR hopefully by May. I'm glad I did it is nice to grab your plane and go anytime you want! it's been a good plane so far
20150902_142955_resized
 
Maverick said:
... 182 and that would be my best suggestion
Click to expand...
Very much appreciated, opening my eyes to the 182's, and confirming my original thinking around 172, was very much what I hoped to get out of this thread!

Maverick said:
...difficult to get insurance on a high performance complex retract airplane.
Click to expand...
Theboys said:
... 260 commanche ... as a student ... got insurance easily
Click to expand...
Different experiences are helpful, I will definitely do some checking on insurance if I get dissatisfied with the 172/182 markets before I look seriously at M20J's.
 
ahkahn said:
... when I settled on an actual make/model, I created a spreadsheet...
Click to expand...
Just curious, once you got the hard facts nailed down, what was the rough percentage of the final purchase price that came from more subjective matters such as the condition of the airplane, plus or minus?

By the way, saw the operating costs writeup for your Lance, very useful!
 
teethdoc said:
I bought and sold a Mooney m20J model fairly easily.
Click to expand...
Any information you feel you can share about time-to-sell, year, price relative to Vref, equipment, condition etc would be very helpful!
 
Just an observation...

A fellow plans to fly 4-500hrs a year and hasn't considered a 182 (most would call the plane a commodity)... then sell in two years. That budget sure seems rather large for a 172/pa-28 as well.

It looks as though someone is having a good laugh. I'm chuckling a little just watching the bait get swallowed. :yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top