Refurb an old plane or buy new? Opinions welcome!

[StraightnLevel]

What's the collective view of PoA on the relative wisdom of putting significant $$$ into an older-but-solidly-airworthy plane, vs. biting the bullet and trading up to a new airframe with a warranty, a panel full of state-of-the-art tech and 0-time everything?

Background: I'm pricing out the upgrades I would like to pursue with my J35 Bonanza. The plane flies great, does everything right, and has no significant squawks. However, it's an older plane and it's overdue for some cosmetic work and updating.

Initial cosmetics would be paint and interior, including adding shoulder harnessess. I'm guessing around $45K for this. Then it needs a new panel, including addition of a GFC500 autopilot. Get rid of the VOR and vacuum system, update the 430W to something more like a 750 TXi, a set of GI 275s including EIS, ADS-B in, etc. $$$? Still working my numbers, but it's clearly not going to be inexpensive. I'm guessing $75-100K (but I could be way off).

Engine (IO-470C) runs strong and uses very little oil....but it's closing in on 1700 SMOH (1 OH since new) and I fly well over 100 hours/year (mostly long-ish cross-country). Even if it's a solid lump today, it isn't going to last forever so I need to assume that there's a $75-100K bill that's going to come due sometime in the next few years. Maybe upgrade to a 520 or 550? AFTT is a bit below 5,000 hours, no real issues.

All-in, this project plane is going to be well into the 6-digit range on top of what I already have in it...but then I'd have a no-excuses, fully updated V-tail Bonanza built exactly as I want it.

So, I've been starting the process and getting quotes to kick it off....

Then my wife mentions something about "It would be really cool if you had a plane with one of those parachutes...."

Great. That's not permission, it's a directive.

So, that leaves me wondering about a Cirrus...or going into a group deal to purchase something even faster w/the CAPS and Autoland (Epic?). I'd like the extra speed, but with an engine upgrade the Bo would already be about as fast as any single-engine cross-country piston.

Restate the Q: What's the collective view of PoA on the relative wisdom of putting significant $$$ into an older-but-solidly-airworthy plane, vs. biting the bullet and trading up to a new airframe with a warranty, a panel full of state-of-the-art tech and 0-time everything?

 

[Doc Holliday]

If you pour a bunch of money into an old airplane, you still have an old airplane but now you will never recoup any of that money.

The best buys are to find someone that sunk a ton of money into one only to find out it's not worth anymore. Their loss, your gain.

I'd go with something much newer. Old airplanes are money pits.

 

[RyanShort1]

The older plane will always take more time and money than you expect with rare exceptions. At the end of the day, it will still be an older airplane, but if you really love it or if it has good market value or is highly desirable that can weigh in it’s favor.

On the other hand, the newer plane could absolutely have just as serious problems and in my experience, newer doesn’t always mean better.

If its relatively simple or a proven design, newer is a better bet for being able to spend more time flying and less time fixin’.

 

[Daleandee]

Being experimental I built mine. So it was new when built except for the zero time experimental engine put into it. I've had very few minor squawks for >12 years of flying. So I'd vote for new with a warranty if you have the budget to do so.

There's just something about that new plane smell ...

 

[Lindberg]

Then it needs a new panel, including addition of a GFC500 autopilot. Get rid of the VOR and vacuum system, update the 430W to something more like a 750 TXi, a set of GI 275s including EIS, ADS-B in, etc. $$$? Still working my numbers, but it's clearly not going to be inexpensive. I'm guessing $75-100K (but I could be way off).

I don't really see what you're questioning. If you think a plane *needs* all this stuff, and your wife things it *needs* a parachute, then neither of you will ever be happy with an old plane. And I assume you wouldn't be asking this question unless you had the financial wherewithal to buy a new one, so go for it.

 

[Hang 4]

What "new" plane would you buy?
100K for avionics, maybe another 70k for an engine (that you don't need now). Can't see where the "new" plane wins, unless it's someone else's old plane with more updates.

 

[StraightnLevel]

I don't really see what you're questioning. If you think a plane *needs* all this stuff, and your wife things it *needs* a parachute, then neither of you will ever be happy with an old plane. And I assume you wouldn't be asking this question unless you had the financial wherewithal to buy a new one, so go for it.

You're not wrong. The question, of course, is whether the benefits are worth the extra cash (and I'm assuming insurance will be a good bit higher for a new plane).

 

[StraightnLevel]

What "new" plane would you buy?
100K for avionics, maybe another 70k for an engine (that you don't need now). Can't see where the "new" plane wins, unless it's someone else's old plane with more updates.

Either SR22 or 1/4 share of an Epic.

The engine is $70K in the crate as delivered (per discussion with Continental at Oshkosh). Then you have to pay the A&P to install it and add all the ancillary stuff that always goes with a major job. I'm guessing it's more like $120-125K all-in. Someone tell me if I'm off-base on this...

I'm mentally thinking my all-in on the Bo will be close to $250 AMU, and then it's effectively a new plane (but insurance won't treat it as such). New options are 4x that, but with an assumably higher dispatch rate, better avionics, warranty, and a much higher WAF.

 

[Racerx]

Picking nits... It wouldn't be caps if it's not a cirrus. Cirrus just calls the BRS "CAPS". If you go to the BRS site you have a few more models with a chute.

I don't think warranties are worth the paper they're printed on.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Either SR22 or 1/4 share of an Epic.

The engine is $70K in the crate as delivered (per discussion with Continental at Oshkosh). Then you have to pay the A&P to install it and add all the ancillary stuff that always goes with a major job. I'm guessing it's more like $120-125K all-in. Someone tell me if I'm off-base on this...

I'm mentally thinking my all-in on the Bo will be close to $250 AMU, and then it's effectively a new plane (but insurance won't treat it as such). New options are 4x that, but with an assumably higher dispatch rate, better avionics, warranty, and a much higher WAF.

Those numbers will quickly escalate. What about the prop? Prop governor? Fuel lines? Oil lines? Oil Cooler? Engine baffling? Exhaust? Engine mounts?

What about the landing gear? Landing gear is typically an overlooked item. What about the retract mechanisms? How many decades have they not been looked at? Electric motors?

Fuel bladders? Fuel Lines? Etc, etc, etc

So once you do all of this, something happens and you must sell the Bonanza. Think you will find a buyer for over $250K? Neither do I. Your airplane is 67 years old and will have the value of a like model.

Sorry, that's just reality. Go with something much newer that already has what you want.

 

[kyleb]

If you pour a bunch of money into an old airplane, you still have an old airplane but now you will never recoup any of that money.

The best buys are to find someone that sunk a ton of money into one only to find out it's not worth anymore. Their loss, your gain.

I'd go with something much newer. Old airplanes are money pits.

Sorta this. Buy the airplane you want that the other guy just refurbed.

 

[StraightnLevel]

So once you do all of this, something happens and you must sell the Bonanza. Think you will find a buyer for over $250K? Neither do I. Your airplane is 67 years old and will have the value of a like model.

True enough. The question, though, is the comparison.

If I buy a new SR22 at $1M and have to sell in 5 years, how much will I lose? More or less than the loss on the Bo?

Old airplanes are money pits.

Another truism, but understood to be the case. That said, are old airplanes any more of a money pit than new airplanes? [Serious question.]

Does the annual and insurance on a new Cirrus run more or less than the annual on an older Bo that's been comprehensively updated?

That said, I'm already familiar with the old-plane dynamic of something needing attention about every 20-25 hours. The good news with the J35 is that parts are available and not any more overpriced than anything else in aviation.

Picking nits... It wouldn't be caps if it's not a cirrus. Cirrus just calls the BRS "CAPS". If you go to the BRS site you have a few more models with a chute.

True, but how many of them have the speed, range and load of the Bonanza? What do they sell for?

If I could go out and buy a new $500K plane that would out-perform the J35, it would be a no-brainer....but that plane doesn't exist.

 

[Roger Wilco]

In addition to the wise advice already given, it may be worth considering the downtime involved. You will likely be without an airplane for over a year and you'll experience more than a few unwelcome surprises a lot of frustration in the process.

If I recall, your early involvement here focused on selecting an airplane that could reliably fly from somewhere in Wisconsin to the Houston area, nonstop, IFR. Clearly the J35 is not a leading candidate for this mission no matter how much money you pour into updating her.

Given the above, I would favor buying the new airplane, or perhaps a gently used example.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Sorta this. Buy the airplane you want that the other guy just refurbed.

Yeah, but I already have the Bonanza. The cost of selling and then re-buying isn't worth it unless I'm making a really big change; if I buy another plane and it doesn't have a 'chute, SWMBO will not be happy. At least with this Bonanza I have a good understanding of it's state (and I've known the former owner for over a decade - there aren't many surprises or "forgot to tell you 'bout that").

 

[StraightnLevel]

If I recall, your early involvement here focused on selecting an airplane that could reliably fly from somewhere in Wisconsin to the Houston area, nonstop, IFR. Clearly the J35 is not a leading candidate for this mission no matter how much money you pour into updating her.

Well, I've made that flight a few times already, as well as over to North Carolina. It's actually not too bad at this mission, though it would be nice to have something a bit faster. This particular J35 has a 94-gal usable capacity, and I can get in the range of 160 ktas at about 12 gph. A one-stop flight plan KETB-T41 is easy with way more reserve than necessary. Last time I stopped twice, just because I wanted it to count as my long XC for the commercial cert. T41-KHKY is a direct non-stop, as well. The only real issue is that I'm hand-flying 100% of the time since I don't have an autopilot. Reliability is the only real miss...and you're right that it can't really be fully addressed in a plane from the 1950s.

I generally fly Delta, so the J35 is actually a bit faster door-to-door than the commercial flight, as everything Delta stops in ATL or DTW.

Comparing the SR22, it's about 15-20 knots faster, but burning 4-5 gph more fuel. I'm guessing it's less efficient due to the fixed gear. From what I've seen if I put the STC IO-550B into the J35 the speed would be similar, with slightly lower fuel burn.

That said, something like the Epic would be a MUCH better fit for the mission then anything piston, but I'd have to get into shared ownership to go to that level.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Well, I've made that flight a few times already, as well as over to North Carolina. It's actually not too bad at this mission, though it would be nice to have something a bit faster. This particular J35 has a 94-gal usable capacity, and I can get in the range of 160 ktas at about 12 gph.

I have been a 1/2 owner of two Bonanzas, an H model and a F33. The H was basic IFR and a joy to fly, but my partner wanted fancy bells and whistles as he began to do a lot of single-pilot IFR. So we sold the H and bought a lovely F33 that the previous owner had already dumped a lot of money into, with upgraded avionics and autopilot, a recent reman, and Osborne 20gal tip tanks for 120gal total. I figured 1300NM w/comfy reserves running LOP.

Later he bought me out, sold the F33, and bought a new SR22. I flew the Cirrus with him many times and liked it quite a bit. I must admit that I found the CAPS system to be a welcome option, as much of the terrain we flew over was not exactly welcoming. If I remember, the SR22 had a 92 or 94 gallon fuel capacity, so range should be similar to your J35 if you throttle back to cruise at 160 TAS. Surely there are Cirrus owners here who can give you a much better picture, but I suspect that you've already done the homework.

That said, something like the Epic would be a MUCH better fit for the mission then anything piston, but I'd have to get into shared ownership to go to that level.

Yes, that airplane does look exciting. I don't recall, however, if you had considered the Piper M350, which would seem to bridge the gap between Cirrus and Epic, but of course, no parachute.

 

[WDD]

Is the current plane doing what you want it to do?

Will the plane fit what you'll be doing in a few years? (Have enough seats, etc.)

If the plane is solid, if it does what you need it to do, if you're going to keep it for a while, I'd spend the money and make it yours.

You'd have to spend multiples of the cost of refurbishing your current plane for a Cirrus. Yes, it's time for an engine overhaul, but any plane will have an engine overhaul cost. Install labor will be $10k on top of the engine cost. The avionics will be expensive, but you'll have what you want. And the ongoing parts and labor for upkeep will be less than a Cirrus.

Wild card - why did your wife mention the parachute?

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

If I buy a new SR22 at $1M and have to sell in 5 years, how much will I lose?

Just look at prices for 5 year old Cirrus to get a rough idea of depreciation. Yes, plane markets fluctuate as does the economy, but at least you’re using real data.

 

[Rick A]

It depends upon how long you're planning on keeping a plane, and how often you will realistically fly it.

A newer plane soon becomes an older plane the longer you fly it. New doesn't last long. An older plane can be retrofitted periodically as technology improves to suit your personal preferences.

Partnerships in newer higher cost sophisticated aircraft like an Epic are cool thoughts when you think about speed, capability and splitting the associated higher maintenance costs, but a real downer when you want to go somewhere and another partner already has it scheduled. Or change something and get outvoted. Or, damaged by another partner doing something stupid.

I'm in the camp of keeping a personal plane for a long time, and upgrade it as you can afford to satisfy your personal liking. My current airplane is the second Mooney owned outright, and earlier was partners in another Mooney and first a three-way partnership in a Cherokee 180. Haven't rented from 1985.

The 1982 model J Mooney was purchased in 1989 and I considered it relatively new. It's on the second interior, second round of paint, and lots of improvements throughout the years, done when business was good. Flew it plenty when business was bad, with no up to date improvements, but it got me there just the same. It came with VOR's, a Loran, a terrible unreliable (and unfixable) autopilot, then a new autopilot and Garmin 430, and now three Garmin 275's.

My feeling is ownership and flying is expensive, regardless of what you fly. If your Bonanza is an acceptable platform and a solid engine and airframe, then fly the hell out of it. And improve it as you want to, in the manner and priorities you determine to be worth it. But only if you're putting on the hours, and getting enjoyment to justify the expenditures.

 

[AA5Bman]

IME experience, both paths are expensive, it just depends on when you spend the money. It’s also not a question of old versus new, it’s usually more like well equipped vs. not well equipped.

If you go well equipped and cherry, then you pay all the money up front. If you go old and refurbish, you pay less money up front - often by a long shot - and then more money over time.

A couple thoughts: even when you go well-equipped and cherry, the plane is almost never exactly equipped how you want it. Often you have to compromise on various pieces of equipment, engine times, autopilots, etc., and if you want to get that plane exactly how you want it, you’ll have to spend more money anyway to make it so. If you go older and less well equipped, assuming you see the project through to the end which is it’s own question, you do end up with a plane that is more exact to your wants and specifications. A benefit there is you can usually fly the plane, sometime for years, along the way.

In the end, I think both paths are pretty valid. It’s more brain damage and similar overall cost to get a project plane up to snuff and it takes longer, whereas the same amount of money is ultimately spent on a better equipped plane it’s just a bit faster and more front-loaded.

I’ve generally gone the project route. That’s mostly because I can’t stomach going all-in on someone else’s very nice plane, even if I could afford it, and end up chipping away at it over time. Not sure if it’s is worth the hassle, but I have a really hard time plunking down top dollar right up front, especially when they are never truly equipped how I want them!

 

[dans2992]

The sweet spot is a plane that’s a few years old, IMO. (Ie, 3-5)

 

[MooneyDriver78]

If you pour a bunch of money into an old airplane, you still have an old airplane but now you will never recoup any of that money.

The best buys are to find someone that sunk a ton of money into one only to find out it's not worth anymore. Their loss, your gain.

I'd go with something much newer. Old airplanes are money pits.

So are new ones, depreciation is pretty bad the first 10 years.

 

[TCABM]

True enough. The question, though, is the comparison.

If I buy a new SR22 at $1M and have to sell in 5 years, how much will I lose? More or less than the loss on the Bo?
….

Look at Controller or TAP or call a Cirrus Sales Center and you’ll find the answer. At the wave top level, 2018 SR-22s asking prices seem to be seven or eight bills and halfway to re-pack.

….Another truism, but understood to be the case. That said, are old airplanes any more of a money pit than new airplanes? [Serious question.]

Depends on how you value money. Money never sleeps and paying the vig isn’t optional.

…Does the annual and insurance on a new Cirrus run more or less than the annual on an older Bo that's been comprehensively updated?

Setting aside fixing discrepancies, there will be more hours to and more things to inspect inspect on a Cirrus, and to maintain your warranty, that has to be done by an authorized shop that may or may not charge a premium. It’s not unusual for Cirrus owners to have their plane on a management program as a subscription service.

…That said, I'm already familiar with the old-plane dynamic of something needing attention about every 20-25 hours. The good news with the J35 is that parts are available and not any more overpriced than anything else in aviation.

No different with Cirrus. And with an under warranty Cirrus, you need a convenient, authorized maintenance provider.

If autoland is truly a need, then you’re stuck with a ‘25 or newer SR-22. A GFC500/Smart Glide GTN & PFD gets you 90% of the way there at a fraction of the cost.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I’m not an owner. My grain of salt is from teaching in a bunch of different airplanes with different glass.

This might not matter to you, but if you are looking at “new” as something with Gx000, I’d also be looking at the airframe manufacturer’s history of updates and upgrades. With a GX000 your ability to update is at the whim of the airframe manufacturer, and some are better than others. With a retrofit, you get the same (or better) functionality, and the ability to update is only subject to your pocketbook.

 

[WDD]

Important point right there. With a newer plane you might be welded to a specific panel that is part of the type certificate, no matter how old or obsolete it is. Hence, you can’t replace that non WASS G1000 with a much better and far less expensive G3X and GTN xi whatnot.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Important point right there. With a newer plane you might be welded to a specific panel that is part of the type certificate, no matter how old or obsolete it is. Hence, you can’t replace that non WASS G1000 with a much better and far less expensive G3X and GTN xi whatnot.

I know the inability to update has been a big deal in the Diamond, Mooney, and Beech communities. I don't know about the Cessna and Cirrus communities.

The interesting version of this is that unlike the others, the G1000 in the Diamonds is not part of the type certificate so, at least in theory, you could replace the whole thing. But you can't get a GFC500 or 600 autopilot. Which, @StraightnLevel, is another other thing to consider in the OEM/retrofit consideration - can you put in what you want.

 

[Whiskey Sierra]

"What's the collective view of PoA on the relative wisdom of putting significant $$$ into an older-but-solidly-airworthy plane, vs. biting the bullet and trading up to a new airframe with a warranty, a panel full of state-of-the-art tech and 0-time everything?"

So what is 'collective wisdom'? In this case there is no single answer in my view. There are key variables that would drive a decision, some of which are mentioned above: Mission, Budget/Costs, Time (yours), Performance, 'Fit', Availability/Maintainability, Wife and probably a few others.

Recently went through a similar decision as I wanted a faster aircraft (and the 6 variables above are more or less in their priority order for my decision). Went the old aircraft route that needed a new panel and some other work purchased at a price reflecting that. It is a second aircraft (also a factor), and am keeping my first that was 4 years old at time of purchase (different mission).

Have no idea what your variable priorities are, but the thoughts above are all sound for a given set of priorities (which vary for different folks). From my search, I'd take a look at RV10's or an already refitted newer Bo or similar as a best value (bang for $). If you have the budget, a new or newer airplane probably minimizes the availability factor. Good luck with your decision!

 

[StraightnLevel]

... you can’t replace that non WASS G1000 with a much better and far less expensive G3X and GTN xi whatnot.

Who is shipping new planes with a non-WAAS panel?

 

[Bell206]

What's the collective view of PoA on the relative wisdom of putting significant $$$ into an older-but-solidly-airworthy plane, vs. biting the bullet and trading up to a new airframe with a warranty, a panel full of state-of-the-art tech and 0-time everything?

The only time I've seen the financials "work out" is if the aircraft has a personal or historical significance to it. Short of that, the investment usually doesn't add up in the long run.

 

[StraightnLevel]

at least in theory, you could replace the whole thing. But you can't get a GFC500 or 600 autopilot. Which, @StraightnLevel, is another other thing to consider in the OEM/retrofit consideration - can you put in what you want.

Well, perhaps, but I would expect that a new plane comes with a panel that would meet reasonable cross-country flight needs for at least a decade.

 

[Rick A]

Who is shipping new planes with a non-WAAS panel?

Don't know about "new", but "newer" can possibly be a minefield. A friend purchased a "newer" non-WAAS 2004 all glass Mooney Ovation around 2009, and it cost him over 20K to upgrade it to WAAS a few years later.

 

[Half Fast]

Then my wife mentions something about "It would be really cool if you had a plane with one of those parachutes...."

Great. That's not permission, it's a directive.

It would be much less expensive to get a parachute for your wife instead of for the entire airplane.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Don't know about "new", but "newer" can possibly be a minefield. A friend purchased a "newer" non-WAAS 2004 all glass Mooney Ovation around 2009, and it cost him over 20K to upgrade it to WAAS a few years later.

Yeah, I'm not considering "newer". The options (for the moment) are either refurb of my existing plane or buying factory-new. That's part of the reason - the features that would help appease SWMBO are new enough that I'd rather just go with the "latest and greatest" so there are no "why didn't you...?" questions after the fact.

 

[robin ardoin]

If a new plane has the utility to accomplish the majority of your flights and the additional costs is of no concern, buy a new plane and take comfort in the warranty. Short of a turboprop, which is out of the budget by a long shot, no new prop plane would accommodate my needs thus I bought an older plane. I will have probably $150K in a plane I bought for $295K to bring it up to my desires and it will be worth about $300K...probably, maybe less. But, I will have a plane that accomplishes my needs rather well.

 

[Kitch]

Just remember no matter the paint job on the Cirrus it will NEVER look as cool sitting on the ramp as a V tail BO. Those thing are so bad a$$ looking

 

[Half Fast]

What price do you expect you could get for the Bo after all your desired upgrades?

Personal thoughts:
- If you think whichever path you choose will result in your "forever" airplane (like you'll have it for at least the next twenty years), buy new.
- For the mission profile you've stated, a partnership probably won't work very well and might be hard to unload if you're not happy with it.
- Give some thought to how and when your mission might change. Are you 5 years from retirement or 20? The plane that satisfies your commuting needs today might be excessive (and costly) when that's no longer necessary. If you're on the glide path to retirement, it might make sense to hang onto the Bo and then later get something that better suits your retirement lifestyle.

 

[StraightnLevel]

The only time I've seen the financials "work out" is if the aircraft has a personal or historical significance to it. Short of that, the investment usually doesn't add up in the long run.

Here's the rub:

It's a given that nobody makes money by buying an airplane. The real question is which approach loses less, and what are the benefits derived from putting the larger capital chunk into a new plane.

Option 1: Assume I have $50K in my current plane. Add $250K for paint/panel/interior/engine. That's $300K. If street value is $150K, I'm out $150K. 10 years later, that won't really change very much, right?

Option 2: Assume I buy a new SR22T or DA50RG for $1.3M. Street value the day after I buy it is $1.0M, so I'm out $300K....but I have a nice, shiny, new plane with all the latest toys, a much higher WAF, and presumably a much higher dispatch rate. So, my net is $150K worse, but the benefits are clearly there in return for the larger cost.

Then there is the operating cost. My guess is that the new plane is going to cost more than the old Bo for the "warranty required" maintenance at their certified service shop, vs. the shop(s) that I use today. Offsetting that is the fact that the old plane is going to have more unplanned repair items, even having been completely overhauled.

 

[jbarrass]

The only time I've seen the financials "work out" is if the aircraft has a personal or historical significance to it. Short of that, the investment usually doesn't add up in the long run.

This is very true, but I'd add a third factor. I'll Call it the "Tinker Factor" which might support upgrading your current plane....maybe.

Almost every plane I've owned has been a project. I buy sick or abandoned planes and make them mine. I really enjoy having a plane that exactly fits me. Financially it's worked out well by allowing me to sell the now really nice plane and buy another project. I've worked my way up from a 50% of 10K hour derelict Cherokee to my now very nice Seneca. The thing that makes it work for me (...and some others -- but maybe not for most) is that I enjoy the Tinkering and do most of the work myself. If you're hiring some to do all the work you won't get your money back. For me, I don't really consider planes an investment. Of course, you'll have your perfect plane in the meantime. There is a lot of personal satisfaction in a recovery/rehab/upgrade that I enjoy.

That said, you might be overthinking it. If your wife wants a parachute, you will absolutely love flying your Cirrus. They're great planes.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Just remember no matter the paint job on the Cirrus it will NEVER look as cool sitting on the ramp as a V tail BO. Those thing are so bad a$$ looking

You're not wrong...and a completely restored V-Tail is a no-excuses ride just about anywhere you show up. This decision (for me, at least) really isn't about ramp appeal or bragging rights - the "cool factor" isn't a differentiator.

 

[Half Fast]

Here's the rub:

It's a given that nobody makes money by buying an airplane. The real question is which approach loses less, and what are the benefits derived from putting the larger capital chunk into a new plane.

Option 1: Assume I have $50K in my current plane. Add $250K for paint/panel/interior/engine. That's $300K. If street value is $150K, I'm out $150K. 10 years later, that won't really change very much, right?

Option 2: Assume I buy a new SR22T or DA50RG for $1.3M. Street value the day after I buy it is $1.0M, so I'm out $300K....but I have a nice, shiny, new plane with all the latest toys, a much higher WAF, and presumably a much higher dispatch rate. So, my net is $150K worse, but the benefits are clearly there in return for the larger cost.

Then there is the operating cost. My guess is that the new plane is going to cost more than the old Bo for the "warranty required" maintenance at their certified service shop, vs. the shop(s) that I use today. Offsetting that is the fact that the old plane is going to have more unplanned repair items, even having been completely overhauled.

I've mentioned this in other threads, so forgive the repetition, but for an individual, buying a plane seldom makes any more financial sense than buying a puppy or choosing a spouse. We do those things for other reasons. Ultimately, what will make you happy, bearing in mind that if SWMBO ain't happy, ain't nobody happy?