Twins are not my speciality but I have been hearing for some years now that the value of most of the light pistons twins, once past about 20 years old, is basically the value of the engines.
I think there are two markets for planes, with a fairly wide gulf between them.
The common GA types don't sell except at silly low prices if they look even slightly neglected.
A lot of the piston twins were used in commercial service. That is deader than dead now. Most twins are not attractive, the Seneca II is a good example. There are a few that are attractive and the price reflects that. Best example is the Turbo Twin Comanche, even though built in the 50s/60s, they yield high prices in the market because they combine great efficiency with excellent range.
I would have thought that most piston twins would be ex FTO planes, used in CPL/IR training.
Those I have seen from that use were usually in an appalling condition.
Peter,
I have been hearing for some years now that the value of most of the light pistons twins, once past about 20 years old, is basically the value of the engines.
Also true for a lot of singles these days but the system works the other way around. The value of new or overhauled engines exceeds the value of the complete airframe.
An overhaul of a O360 to get a full new 2000 hours TBO costs, including all work around the actual overhaul, around 40k Euros, larger engines cost up to 50k Euros. Few planes today fetch that much, no matter in what conditions they are in.
For a twin that is double that. The Seneca II I pointed to would probably fetch around 60 k with new engines, but the cost to replace the two of them is in excess of 80 k Euros. So basically, the airframe, good as it may be, is a commercial hull loss.
Personally, I'd prefer a Seneca II to a III or IV as the payload is larger usually. If it is equipped with 123 USG, it can do quite good range too, is spacy and nice to fly. Family truck, like the Saratoga, which is basically the single engine Seneca. The Twin Com is a lot nicer for the owner/pilot but has a couple of special features (such as the fuel system) which can bite, whereas the Seneca is dead easy to operate. I know a couple who operate their Seneca II for more than 15 years by now and it has served them very well indeed.
The common GA types don't sell except at silly low prices if they look even slightly neglected.
Depends what you consider common GA. The market for "budgt" aircraft like the M20C, the PA28 series (before the Warrior/Archer Types), mostly today have hull values which don't reach the engine replacement cost.
Add to that the horrific cost of mods these days. The spectre of .833 is hanging over all of us, the one of ADS-B, e.t.c. There is basically no airplane which "has it all" unless it's got a G1000 cockpit or double GNS430 or 530/430 combos. Again, the cost to make my plane IFR would easily surpass the hull value if done here. (about half that in the US). You loose that money in value the moment you pay the bill.
One guy I has a lovely Cheetah, LR tanks, 200 hrs SOH engine and prop. In order to maintain it on EASA IFR, he added a GNS530/430 combo plus an Aspen PFD and a TT31 Transponder maybe 5 or 6 years ago. He then considered shopping for a Twin Com, found one he liked for 60k and tried to sell his Cheetah for that amount (given away imho in the condition it is). He got offers in the region of 15 to 20k. He still has it and sais he'll fly it to the end of his flying days as he can't sell it for a fraction of what it's worth.
An overhaul of a O360 to get a full new 2000 hours TBO costs, including all work around the actual overhaul, around 40k Euros, larger engines cost up to 50k Euros
But, that's a huge ripoff - about 2x - compared to what you pay in the USA, even by an EASA approved outfit like Pen Yan which can issue a dual release 8130-3 (whose reputation is OK but not as good as some really good non EASA approved shops who can issue only a straight 8130-3 and can be used only for an N-reg). Why do people pay this sort of money? Ignorance? Unwillingness to get involved in the maintenance management of their aircraft?
8.33 is not much if you go for one of the "cheap" radios. Replacing a KX155A with a KX165A is about $4k which is quite a bit but these are high quality radios. Mode S is c. €3k (GTX330) but anybody who flies around Europe to any significant degree, or flies IFR, already has Mode S. Most people spend a lot more on an Annual...
More to the point, most people could reduce their Annual cost by more than what it costs to install 8.33 and Mode S, by adopting good maintenance practices.
Ultimately, all aircraft values will fall to the point where they approach the value of the essential parts. That is how aviation works. There is a continuous, and considerable, expenditure on what is fashionably called "continued airworthiness" and this props things up at a certain level. It's the same with a car but the actual numbers are a lot lower.
Avionics don't add value anywhere near what their installation cost is. You have to like the plane and want to keep it long-term.
It's not just the overhaul... I would say that is about 20-25 k for an O360 IF all goes well and crankshaft and case are useable. But it also involves work time for uninstalling/installing the engine and prop, transport e.t.c. In my case, I paid something like 35 k, including an annual and the whole expenses of it. The actual overhaul was about 20k, then 3500 for a new crankcase and the rest for the annual and de-install/install. I drove the engine there myself. Sending it to the US was much more expensive and I was told it takes much longer (took 1 month as it was, downtime to send it to the US and back was quoted with 4-6 months.) And yes, I got several quotes. Almost all engines here go to that shop because they are actually cheaper than several others, if you consider all the factors.
That is a simple O360. I checked for replacement engines or overhaul for that Seneca (IO360) and got quoted $40 k per side as the most economical offer. Add to that the overhaul of the two props, shipping, install/uninstall e.t.c. and you end up with $ 100k + as well as a down time of 4 months plus.
This is EASA land we are talking about. What is valid for N-Reg is of no concern of mine, as neither do I have the license or will to do it (now that I need the EASA papers anyhow) nor are the planes in question n-reg.
Overhauls are much more expensive than what you claim Peter. In your case, you overhauled an engine in an airframe that was a few hours old. In most cases, the overhaul drags a whole lot of other things with it, because "while we're at it" and "now is the ideal time".
In my case I would expect 15-20k in additional costs due to that. Send the exhaust for overhaul, replace all exhaust couplings, easily 5k. Test the engine mount for cracks, paint it, 1k. Install new shockmounts, 1k, etc.
Achim,
In my case I would expect 15-20k in additional costs due to that. Send the exhaust for overhaul, replace all exhaust couplings, easily 5k. Test the engine mount for cracks, paint it, 1k. Install new shockmounts, 1k, etc.
I agree and all this was done in my case as well.
And by the looks of it, the next thing which will happen is that the 12 year limit will be enforced too for private ops, as there was one accident where someone crashed with a 32 year old engine which had 1000 hrs since new....
Peter,
Avionics don't add value anywhere near what their installation cost is. You have to like the plane and want to keep it long-term.
Absolutely. Otherwise sell and buy a plane which has what you need. However, that will be difficult now that the requirements change on almost a daily basis. There will be a HUGE problem coming up for the current IFR Fleet once the 8.33 requirement comes in force and for VFR a few years later. Especcially if one 8.33 radio is not enough but both of them need to be modified.
Transponder, there are cheaper ways. I got a Trig TT31, which is fully ADSB capable (and is operating today with the GNS430) for a lot less than the Garmin set.
Add to that the cost for the EASA paperwork. The last quote I had for the installation of an S-Tec AP and an Aspen in my setup to satisfy the 2 altimeter, HSI and 2 axis AP requirement for IFR included paperwork worth more than the purchase price of the Aspen! With the actual installation work, the price easily doubled the price of the whole avionic.
I will get some more offers once this becomes halfways realistic, but all in all, to get my aircraft (which by n-reg standard is fully IFR now) EASA IFR approved as it stands, it is just not viable. there are fully IFR certified airplanes available for less money than this upgrade would cost me.
In your case, you overhauled an engine in an airframe that was a few hours old. In most cases, the overhaul drags a whole lot of other things with it, because "while we're at it" and "now is the ideal time".
My engine was never overhauled.
I did the crank swap in 2008, followed by a total rebuild to new limits, and that was $14k plus shipping which was £500 there (air freight; supposedly 1 week) and about £1500 back (Fedex; would be 2x that now). Details here.
Engine removal and replacement is 2 days total - about £1500.
Sure one discovers "other stuff" but that is part of the general maintenance cost, I think. Many people get shocks because their plane doesn't get looked at properly at regular intervals and then there is a massive suprise when somebody new pokes their nose into places which nobody had poked their nose into before.
You should not need crankcase work, or new crankcases, unless
If you are on EASA-reg then you can use US shops but you have to use ones which are EASA approved.
There used to be a process whereby a DAR could sign an Export CofA (8130-4) and an engine done by a non EASA shop could go into an EASA-reg. The DAR charge used to be c. $300. This was applicable to engines and props. I don't know the status of this because the FAA stopped the Export CofA process 1-2 years ago so the Euro CAAs had to accept components without an Export CofA, or maybe not...
I agree that using a US shop is a hassle and takes longer, but the job is generally much better.
