FS: 1955 Cessna 310

Status
Not open for further replies.
flyingcheesehead said:
It's all in the terms... You can either charge a high rate to attempt to cover those eventualities, or simply go with a lower hourly rate and stipulate that the lessee is responsible for all wear-related maintenance, or a lower rate yet and state they're responsible for ALL maintenance. Everything is negotiable. ;)
Click to expand...

Well that's not going to work.

fch: "Hey Ted sorry dude your plane broke and I can't fix it"

Ted: "What do you mean you can't fix it?"

fch: "Too expensive you can keep the deposit"

Ted: "If you're not going to fix it, I'm going to take it back!"

fch: "Well like I said you can come get it. Sorry"

Or would you put your house up as collateral?
 
wsuffa said:
We are there now when you do the math on some of the MX. I put a significant fraction of the value of my plane above scrap value (Full value - scrap value) into an annual a couple of years ago because someone in the past used the wrong sealant in the fuel tanks and it took many hours to scrape it out, flush the fuel lines and filters, and replace a couple of drains and fill-flappers (along with a couple of other pricey MX items). When the MX costs are averaged out over a few years, it's not so bad, but on a one-time hit it's pretty pricy.

Heck, engine reman with labor to pull and install (plus accessories) alone is enough to consider scrapping. Turbocharged single.

Before the overhead break guys hop in here, yes, a pretty big portion of that cost could have been saved with an E-AB.
Click to expand...

Well, this points out the fallacy of market valuation on aircraft. The true value of an aircraft is the value we get from the use, not the resale value. A plane is worth the cost of what it will do for you. For $150,000, you can take an old 182 and give it all the capability and useability of a $350,000 new one and make every bit as pretty and new smelling. This is always espoused as "economically foolish", but it's not in the least in foolish on the scale of practicality and functional efficiency.
 
sixpacker said:
Well that's not going to work.

fch: "Hey Ted sorry dude your plane broke and I can't fix it"

Ted: "What do you mean you can't fix it?"

fch: "Too expensive you can keep the deposit"

Ted: "If you're not going to fix it, I'm going to take it back!"

fch: "Well like I said you can come get it. Sorry"

Or would you put your house up as collateral?
Click to expand...

Well, if the contract was well written, everything you own is up for grabs in the court settlement, including all the legal costs. Sure, bankruptcy will help you some, but even OJ sold his stuff, and that's what ended up sending him to prison to get back.
 
Henning said:
Well, this points out the fallacy of market valuation on aircraft. The true value of an aircraft is the value we get from the use, not the resale value. A plane is worth the cost of what it will do for you. For $150,000, you can take an old 182 and give it all the capability and useability of a $350,000 new one and make every bit as pretty and new smelling. This is always espoused as "economically foolish", but it's not in the least in foolish on the scale of practicality and functional efficiency.
Click to expand...

There's the personal/business economic value of the aircraft and there's the market value of the aircraft. The business economic value is *usually* higher, but if used solely for recreation/pleasure the economic value is rarely higher than the market value.

Obviously the market value is what someone is willing to pay for the asset.
 
sixpacker said:
Well that's not going to work.

fch: "Hey Ted sorry dude your plane broke and I can't fix it"

Ted: "What do you mean you can't fix it?"

fch: "Too expensive you can keep the deposit"

Ted: "If you're not going to fix it, I'm going to take it back!"

fch: "Well like I said you can come get it. Sorry"

Or would you put your house up as collateral?
Click to expand...

Well, if you're the lessor, you do your best to ensure that you're leasing to someone who's financially stable and not a lying jerk... And then if they turn out to be, well, the lawsuit will take care of it. I'm sure not advocating that anyone do such a thing without a good agreement in writing. :dunno:
 
wsuffa said:
There's the personal/business economic value of the aircraft and there's the market value of the aircraft. The business economic value is *usually* higher, but if used solely for recreation/pleasure the economic value is rarely higher than the market value.

Obviously the market value is what someone is willing to pay for the asset.
Click to expand...

So, money is the most valuable thing in life?
 
What's wrong with a "you break it you buy it" contract, with 20-30k in escrow for the duration of the lease?
 
So...

Let's see. He wants to dry lease it while he tries to raise the cash to buy it for $28k. As part of the dry lease he will put down $30k into escrow while raising the $28k.

That's workable.

:rofl:
 
sixpacker said:
So...

Let's see. He wants to dry lease it while he tries to raise the cash to buy it for $28k. As part of the dry lease he will put down $30k into escrow while raising the $28k.

That's workable.

:rofl:
Click to expand...

Perhaps that option would have raised interest within people who do have $30k but do not want/need to own a straight-tail 310 outright.
 
mtuomi said:
Perhaps that option would have raised interest within people who do have $30k but do not want/need to own a straight-tail 310 outright.
Click to expand...

Makes no sense. What would the hourly lease rate be? It would likely be better to just buy it, then sell it for $20k or scrap it at the end.
 
I'm also sorry to see these fine old planes getting scrapped. But I understand the decision. It is tough to be the one holding it at the end when there is so little interest any more for some of these older birds.
 
I am pretty sure it is still in one piece if one of you wants to save it. Just step on up with the cash. Waiting, waiting, didn't think so.
 
It just becomes too much with some of these old planes in the end.

My first plane was a 1954 Commander 520. They had the unsupported GO-435 engines. Low TBO, costly overhaul (because there was only one place sitting on all the gearbox parts) etc - a scavenge hunt every time something broke down, etc, etc. I loved the plane and I'd like to save all 520's (only about 5-10 still flying), but at some point you just have enough. Why am I the only one who has to pay for our legacy and carry the charitable bill?

If the resale values were there, like they are for some other vintage planes, then it wouldn't be so bad. You could justify it. But these old twins are stuck in that no-mans land of not being old enough to be vintage, not warbirds and not worth the upgrade. It's sad, but at least it means that the remaining ones will perhaps have a greater chance of survival.

And on a personal positive note: a bunch of crazy Russians came and bought mine and flew it to Siberia (a story in itself). They love geared engines over there because they're certified for Mogas. Avgas is really hard to find in Russia and very expensive. She soldiers on there in the Siberian tundra, poor girl (in her old age). But Secretly I think she's happy someone new loves her and flies her.

She was a good friend and almost never let me down.

:sad:
 

Attachments

  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    69.3 KB · Views: 30
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    54.2 KB · Views: 32
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    104.3 KB · Views: 33
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    103 KB · Views: 29
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    162.8 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
It's all in the terms... You can either charge a high rate to attempt to cover those eventualities, or simply go with a lower hourly rate and stipulate that the lessee is responsible for all wear-related maintenance, or a lower rate yet and state they're responsible for ALL maintenance. Everything is negotiable. ;)
Click to expand...

YGBSM. Someone who can't afford $30k for a plane somehow has $30k for when he grenades an engine?
 
Henning said:
So, money is the most valuable thing in life?
Click to expand...

I said economic value. There is personal value which is not necessarily economic. Boring holes in the sky for fun does not carry economic value in my book. Traveling with the plane to get somewhere faster may very well have economic value, especially when the cost - including time - to go by car is higher.
 
wsuffa said:
I said economic value. There is personal value which is not necessarily economic. Boring holes in the sky for fun does not carry economic value in my book. Traveling with the plane to get somewhere faster may very well have economic value, especially when the cost - including time - to go by car is higher.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean when I say market value is not a good judge of true value when applied to personal use objects. Money is really the least valuable thing in our lives.
 
wsuffa said:
I said economic value. There is personal value which is not necessarily economic. Boring holes in the sky for fun does not carry economic value in my book. Traveling with the plane to get somewhere faster may very well have economic value, especially when the cost - including time - to go by car is higher.
Click to expand...

This is why twins are faring worse than singles. A very, very few people are willing to spend what it takes to fly a twin just to bore holes in the sky and that is what a very large portion of the GA fleet is used for now.

Bottom line is, there are more planes than there are pilots wanting to fly them. GA is shrinking and there is a market correction going on. The same thing happened at the end of WWII.

There were thousands of perfectly serviceable war birds but no one to use them. Some of them survive today only because people are sentimental about the heroic deeds in combat in the course of a monumental war. The best thing a Cessna 310 can point to is an old TV show that almost no one remembers.

On the bright side, the 310 in this thread got more life out of it than the designers and builders of it ever dreamed of.
 
Dav8or said:
The best thing a Cessna 310 can point to is an old TV show that almost no one remembers.
Click to expand...

Blasphemhy!

"Out of the clear blue of the western sky comes...

SKYYYYYYYY KIIIIIING!

(brought to you by Nabisco - national biscuit company)"
 
Henning said:
Well, this points out the fallacy of market valuation on aircraft. The true value of an aircraft is the value we get from the use, not the resale value. A plane is worth the cost of what it will do for you. For $150,000, you can take an old 182 and give it all the capability and useability of a $350,000 new one and make every bit as pretty and new smelling. This is always espoused as "economically foolish", but it's not in the least in foolish on the scale of practicality and functional efficiency.
Click to expand...

True, and if you had the money and wanted a new-ish aircraft, that would be a reasonable course of action to pursue. There are two downsides, of course. The first is if you went to sell it you'd never recover your investment. Then again, I have to believe that a new aircraft undergoes quite a bit of depreciation once you start flying it, so that might even out. The second is you may not be able to insure it for everything you have in it.
 
Henning said:
After a while when things are slow and stocks high, you pull out the multicutter blade and start cutting clean aluminum from between the rivet lines and start making piles of aluminum to sell to the recycler. Clean panels free of rivets bring the most money. Whole airframes are often turned away.:dunno:
Click to expand...

Wonder why have the rivets holes decrease the value?

Oh... is it the rivet themselves that devalue the metal?
 
SinkorSwim said:
Wonder why have the rivets holes decrease the value?

Oh... is it the rivet themselves that devalue the metal?
Click to expand...

In my experience, the rivets should make no difference as long as they are aluminum too.

There are four rates for aluminum scrap. The highest is for beer and soda cans, that's because they are subsidized and the value is in the label on the can. Next is clean, unfinished aluminum. Typically this is scrap waste from machine shops, so no paint, or anodizing. Third is painted, used aluminum like an airplane fuselage but it needs to be all aluminum and nothing else. Last is mixed. It's aluminum that is combined with other metals, or materials. So an aluminum cylinder that has a steel liner in it, is mixed.

I wonder if there is a way one could use a wood chipper to shred up aluminum? You can cut aluminum on a table saw, or with a circular saw, so maybe a wood chipper could handle it fine?
 
so what's the airplane worth in scrap value - the cost to take it apart?
 
Henning said:
:idea:Perhaps the pictures don't do it justice.:rofl:
Click to expand...

Easy win for the Flybaby
uHdO1OR.jpg


0tZzTqZ.jpg
 
Anthony said:
The top of that plane fell off! :dunno:




:D
Click to expand...

Actually, that did happen once. Lost the canopy at about 300 AGL after takeoff. Haven't build another canopy because I think it's safer and more fun open cockpit.
 
jesse said:
Actually, that did happen once. Lost the canopy at about 300 AGL after takeoff. Haven't build another canopy because I think it's safer and more fun open cockpit.
Click to expand...

Not quite as much fun in December.
 
The 310 may be pretty on the outside but the Flybaby is by far prettier on the inside. Beautiful hand crafted wood.
 
steingar said:
Not quite as much fun in December.
Click to expand...

True but it wasn't much fun in December even with the canopy. A lot of air leaks you had to tape up each flight. Also prop starting it and climbing in with the prop blast hitting you wasn't fun either. I really didn't fly it much in the winter even with the canopy.
 
Dav8or said:
Here's the question though, is the Flybaby worth more assembled, or as parts?
Click to expand...
Well it'd probably depend on what sort of engine you had on it.

With mine, no doubt it's worth more assembled, airworthy, and flying.

Engine is an A75 that wouldn't have the paperwork to be legal on a certified most likely. Some of the parts might have value to cub owners but not really.

The FlyBaby is "built to fit" so the wings from my Flybaby aren't going to just bolt onto a different Flybaby, etc.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top