Overpriced 172?

Looks nice so I kinda doubt he'd get more than $140K for it. If that. But what do I know?
 
My default browser wouldn't allow me to blow the pic up, but I looked again using Chrome. I'm not so sure it's fake, but it looks retouched at a minimum.
 
190K for a 1976 Skyhawk... Nice avionics, but I'd pass on that. 130K maybe. But who knows. With fuel so damn cheap someone will get excited and buy it.
 
iflyvfr said:
WTF, that shot of the panel is fake! :eek:
Click to expand...

Looks fine to me.

img.axd
 
We saw that C172 when we were searching for a C172. That was in March 2015 and the price for this plane was about the same... While she looks nice, I think it is a little over the top for a C172.
 
Skywalker said:
We saw that C172 when we were searching for a C172. That was in March 2015 and the price for this plane was about the same... While she looks nice, I think it is a little over the top for a C172.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it seems a bit of "what the hell were they thinking?"
 
I'd rather buy a newer G1000 with more hours for the same price.
 
alfadog said:
Yeah, it seems a bit of "what the hell were they thinking?"
Click to expand...

they were thinking that they were J.A Aircenter, at the time a large avionics retailer and avionics shop. I am willing to bet they built it as a demo of their wares and shop skills.

bob
 
unsafervguy said:
they were thinking that they were J.A Aircenter, at the time a large avionics retailer and avionics shop. I am willing to bet they built it as a demo of their wares and shop skills.

bob
Click to expand...

That occurred to me also. And a lot of that "over $220k invested" would probably be shop labor at shop rate and they can afford to take a significant hit on that.
 
I've seen some previous discussion on this airplane and a possible scenario presented was that the owner didn't actually want to sell it, hence the price. Something about tax write offs or to that effect. I don't think there's anything fake about the panel, but it sure is overkill for that airplane. I have a friend with a 182RG that has a similar setup minus the G650(has a 430W instead), backup aspen and engine monitor. It's pretty awesome.
 
Not sure if it's overpriced but it's defiantly over equipped for a 172. Makes sense it was a Demo plane with the 750/650 stack, couple that with the rest of the glass and that SAM unit you can blaze through IMC at 110 knots.
 
unsafervguy said:
they were thinking that they were J.A Aircenter, at the time a large avionics retailer and avionics shop. I am willing to bet they built it as a demo of their wares and shop skills.

bob
Click to expand...

Well that raises the question why a 172 airframe? Even if they had done all this on a good 182 airframe they would accomplish the same demo showcase and have an airplane more likely to find a market.

Methinks the logical market for this thing is a flight school that wants a spin certified glass panel trainer for commercial students.
 
That's insane.

G500 with a slice of Aspen and an $8k Mid-Continent backup set with a GTN750/650?
 
I have a hard time understanding why anyone invests the money into upgrading to these glass cockpit setups. I get that it's really cool and you are getting more information shown to you in a better way but when the avionics cost more than the airframe and powerplant they're riding on... IDK... I can't see the point.

Fly steam and put in an ipad mount and you've got almost the same thing for hundreds of dollars vs tens of thousands....
 
Wow!

Yeah that's a little crazy price wise, it's like winning the special Olympics, even if you win you're still.... well you know.
 
If I was going to spend that much on a plane it wouldn't be a 172.
 
Smaller planes are more fun! 172 is a great airplane. If it weren't so ubiquitous, it would be a collectors item.
 
I think to say it's overpriced is the understatement of the year!
 
I just don't understand the need for it. So many pieces of glass which can show much of the same data. I understand the dual GPS setup for redundancy, or having something akin to a G1000. Having such a hodgepodge of screens and brands seems like a hassle to learn and possibly information overload, not to mention extremely expensive and all reliant on electricity (despite the battery backups).
 
If they really restored the airframe then its worth it. You get a new Skyhawk for about half the asking price for a new Skyhawk.

I agree that it is a bit over equipped for its mission.
 
They had to of weighed the airplane at the end, what's the useful load?

Probably a secret
 
Not the first plane someone listened to his friends and ended up with something like this. I know of a twin seabee that again has everything in the panel and has not flown in the past 7 years. Classic case of over kill.
 
Something that slow doesn't need anything more than a GTN 650 with an HSI to be safe and capable to LPV minimums. All this extra stuff is, to me, is overkill. GTN 750's and autopilots are great for planes that are fast and need quick programming, not needed in a slow plane like this. More of a hazard than its function is worth. Plane is worth what the parts are worth. $40k for the plane. $70k in used avionics. I'd want to buy it at $.80 on the dollar for my time and hassle of taking the thing.
Seller, if you are reading this, I'll get you a cashier's check right now for 88k if you bring the plane to me!
 
The reason it looks photo-shopped is that they ran it through an HDR filter.
 
Nice looking very well equipped aircraft,not going to have a great re sale value now that the market ,has used Cessna 172 s with the g1000 package and 180 hp motor.
 
BrianNC said:
If I was going to spend that much on a plane it wouldn't be a 172.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

This is where I think they're in trouble. Someone who has this kind of money to spend doesn't want a lowly 172, even the absolute best, most whiz bang one out there. No matter how you slice it, it's still a 172. You can get a real nice 182 for the same price, why would you choose a lesser machine?
 
Maybe it's not as prevalent in aircraft sales, but when I see things that are way overpriced I tend to think the owner is really upside down on it financially and HAS to sell it high to cover commissions and get out of the loan.
:dunno:
 
You can get a lot more airplane for that money though.
 
$50 saddle on a $10 horse? It's a big(ger) airplane panel in a more "fun" oriented airframe. . . perhaps more appropriate for a "boat", like a 182 or bigger - a doctor's airplane for straight and level, x-ctry.

I could see maybe a new Garmin, and an autopilot; increase the utility quite a bit. But not all glass; just not that superior to a six-pack to justify all that labor, hardware, downtime. . .
 
tuwood said:
Maybe it's not as prevalent in aircraft sales, but when I see things that are way overpriced I tend to think the owner is really upside down on it financially and HAS to sell it high to cover commissions and get out of the loan.
:dunno:
Click to expand...

Has to do with people believing more that the money they put into something has a 1 to 1 ratio on the value. When it comes to vehicles you might spend $60K restoring a 1967 Camero to end up with a car worth $35K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top