value planes vs. premium planes

GeorgeC

GeorgeC

Administrator
Management Council Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
5,157
Display Name
Display name:
GeorgeC
A couple of recent threads reminded me of this topic. Some planes seem to command a premium, while others seem undervalued.

M20F vs. M20J
Traveler/Cheetah vs. Tiger
Comanche vs. Bo
Stinson vs. 170
??? vs. Cub
Viking vs. ???

Got any others?
 
MU2 vs other 12.5k lbs and under turboprops.

421B vs 421C
414 vs 414A
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Citabria vs cub
Click to expand...
Isn’t this an apple vs orange comparison? Never flew either, but I always thought of the cub as the quintessential bug smasher and the citabria a nimble, aerobatic, airplane... with some power under the hood.
 
Straight tail Piper Lance vs T tail Lance.


It’s about like arguing Coke or Pepsi. Both fly the same with the exception of slightly more take off and approach speeds on the T tail. People will pay 15% more for no appreciable difference. Exact reason why I bought a T tail. I got more for less.
 
Unit74 said:
Straight tail Piper Lance vs T tail Lance.


It’s about like arguing Coke or Pepsi. Both fly the same with the exception of slightly more take off and approach speeds on the T tail. People will pay 15% more for no appreciable difference. Exact reason why I bought a T tail. I got more for less.
Click to expand...

The turbos may carry that discount, but I haven't seen an appreciable discount for NA T-tails. Of course this is all for naught as current prices are in the stratosphere. We shall see what the summer looks like wrt inventory and asking prices.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
operating costs are operating costs....it doesn't matter, Unless you're toot'n around like Ted. :D
Click to expand...

Sure, and in most cases the operating costs for the value variants vs premium are about the same. Even still, much of the variety in what you as an owner will see depends on the specific aircraft you bought as some will be in better shape.

But the purchase cost can be very different, which is really the point. Some argue if you can’t afford the purchase for the premium one you can’t afford the plane. If I used that philosophy I would never have bought anything with wings, 10 years and 3,000ish hours in.
 
Piston twins vs high performance singles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Ted DuPuis said:
...Some argue if you can’t afford the purchase for the premium one you can’t afford the plane. If I used that philosophy I would never have bought anything with wings, 10 years and 3,000ish hours in.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one Ted!

I was aspiring to and searching for an A-36 Bo when I changed my mind and decided to buy a more capable piston twin of newer vintage for a LOT less money. Yes, it uses more fuel. But I get to pay for that over time, in installments without interest charges, instead of all at once up front. :cool:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
MU2 vs other 12.5k lbs and under turboprops.

421B vs 421C
414 vs 414A
Click to expand...

That last one seems counterintuitive. Isn't it the 414A that has the spar AD?
 
FlySince9 said:
Never flew either, but I always thought of the cub as the quintessential bug smasher and the citabria a nimble, aerobatic, airplane... with some power under the hood.
Click to expand...

There are many different versions of Cub and Citabria at various power levels, but the Citabria is far from a nimble airplane and it's a stretch to call it an aerobatic airplane even though it will do basic maneuvers. A Cessna 150 is more nimble than a Citabria.
 
RoscoeT said:
There are many different versions of Cub and Citabria at various power levels, but the Citabria is far from a nimble airplane and it's a stretch to call it an aerobatic airplane even though it will do basic maneuvers. A Cessna 150 is more nimble than a Citabria.
Click to expand...

Yea, like I said, never flew either... but that had been my perception...
 
RoscoeT said:
There are many different versions of Cub and Citabria at various power levels, but the Citabria is far from a nimble airplane and it's a stretch to call it an aerobatic airplane even though it will do basic maneuvers. A Cessna 150 is more nimble than a Citabria.
Click to expand...

Are people confusing it with a Decathalon?
 
Is George asking because he wants to buy, based on resale value?
(I keep airplanes too long to consider that when I'm buying.)
Just pondering if there is a practical reason to ask this question (and jus' wonderin' is perfectly fine too)
 
GRG55 said:
That last one seems counterintuitive. Isn't it the 414A that has the spar AD?
Click to expand...

Yes, but that’s at a pretty high time. The 414A has more resale because it’s newer, faster, has more baggage space, and more useful load. Rarely is an older version of a plane worth more on the market.

But the tip tank 414 represents a lot of value compared to a 414A if you can live with its limitations.
 
180 vs. Archer
235 vs. Dakota
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
operating costs are operating costs....it doesn't matter, Unless you're toot'n around like Ted. :D
Click to expand...

:yes:
2018 taught me that acquisition and operating expenses got nothin' on avionics upgrades and "unknown unknowns" mx...

Let'sgoflying! said:
Is George asking because he wants to buy, based on resale value?
(I keep airplanes too long to consider that when I'm buying.)
Just pondering if there is a practical reason to ask this question (and jus' wonderin' is perfectly fine too)
Click to expand...
Heck no, 1.1 airplanes is enough. Jus' wonderin'...
 
hindsight2020 said:
The turbos may carry that discount, but I haven't seen an appreciable discount for NA T-tails. Of course this is all for naught as current prices are in the stratosphere. We shall see what the summer looks like wrt inventory and asking prices.
Click to expand...

Mine is a Turbo, and it seems more of them are generally for sale. But it sure is nice cruising 14gph at 17k having a 5 k buffer between just about ever single aircraft in the sky. Two years ago when I bought it, the same plane in a straight tail was $20k more. Toga, more like $50k
 
Unit74 said:
Mine is a Turbo, and it seems more of them are generally for sale. But it sure is nice cruising 14gph at 17k having a 5 k buffer between just about ever single aircraft in the sky. Two years ago when I bought it, the same plane in a straight tail was $20k more. Toga, more like $50k
Click to expand...

Oh I know yours is a turbo, and that was my point: People discount your airplane because of the turbo, not the T-tail. And further to my point, they never made a PA-32R-300T, but they did make plenty of 32RT-300, which do not suffer the discount, having watched the Lance market closely for the last two or so years. I'm not saying the turbo performance to go with it isn't there, that really isn't in dispute. But there's enough NA T-tails and turbos alike to show where the discount stems from.

As to the market right now, yeah it's all FUBAR'd. I fully expect said discounts to re-appear to a greater degree in the latter half of 2019, when the market gets flooded with people shedding their financed toys. Your points about the retract Togas is spot on. Those airplanes are straight up out to lunch on the price to capability front. Hershey bar wings are not that much of an indignity.
 
GRG55 said:
Let's play "Spot the discount": :D

http://www.platinumfighters.com/fg1dn72nw

1944 Goodyear FG-1D "Corsair"
s/n 92436 N72NW
$4,100,000


http://www.platinumfighters.com/p-51d-n38227

1944 North American P-51D "Mustang"
S/N 44-77902 - N38227
USD$4,500,000
Click to expand...

That's not a fair comparison. The mustang is worth a small part of that price, the spares that go with it are what's setting that price. Even then, the time it's been on the market shows that price is not realistic.

They are both a bit out of my price range, just a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top