They may be corroded.
The overhaul (at Barrett Precision, Oklahoma) of an IO540 is currently about $33k. No idea what the core value of a totally unknown engine is but I have seen $8k in the past. They are building an exchange engine for me right now, for the same figure as the OH.
There appears to be a 1999 kg STC for the Aztec E? Granted, it would be a shame to slash 300 kgs of payload but then again, I just found one which has done this. For someone who only flies it with 2 people and mid range, it still could be attractive. With a EW of around 1400 kgs it might stil be interesting.
The dealer involved here does not have the reputation of a scrap merchant anyway. I doubt he would take on a plane which he can’t sell in good faith and is probably simply doing what his client tells him, who most probably simply wants to stop the cash drain and get rid of the plane no matter what. Such panik sales are very bad for the whole marketplace, as they do not reflect reality at all and are actually contraproductive for the seller.
This thread and the questions asked are typical for this kind of thing. Unrealistic prices are bad in both ways, up and down. This one, if it is what the add sais, is massively under value and was massively over value. In both cases it may not sell because of this. I reckon, looking at others, that it should be valued at around 30k. Under valuating a sale will promt exactly the reactions here: Something (major) must be wrong, followed by a string of assumptions what may be wrong. Looking at the original add on the dealer’s website, I doubt that there is anything major wrong other than possibly an overdue annual. I am trying to find out at the moment.
It’s a real pity that planes like that, which have a huge utility value with it’s payload and speed, have been effectively killed off by Eurocontrol taxes and reputation. From what I read on the net, the Aztec has a much better rep than the Seneca re payload and re stability. I’d be tempted if I had the money to operate one.
AdamFrisch wrote:
But there are also singles suffering from the same fate. Cessna 175 anyone? AA Grummans? Cardinals, Bellanca’s etc.
AA Grummans are well sought after airplanes, at least in Europe. And rightly so.
The AA5A Cheetah is very attractive as it has just about everything a light traveller needs. I was looking for one but could not find one I could afford in 2009. 120kts, 5-6 GPH, very decent range and a good payload for a 150 hp machine kind of make it a “poor man’s Cirrus”. The AA5B is even better, 140 kts TAS with fixed gear and prop and equally a good range, it comes very close to a C model Mooney in terms of range and performance but without the retracable gear and variable prop. The only one I’d be wary about is the original Traveller, as it has a very short range and is about 10 kts slower.
The current lot on planechek of the AA5’s are pretty representative of the market. A reasonable Cheetah can easily go for 30-40k today, whereas the average on the Tiger is around 50k. Cheetah’s become rare comodities almost. Travellers are usually less expensive (even though there is one which is at a very optimistic price), I saw several at 15-25k which sold almost immediately.
For someone who wants a reasonably fast and capable VFR or Light IFR airplane, the AA5’s are a very valid bet.
Cardinals are quite popular too, apart from the fact that all Cessnas have suffered of the SID scare in recent years. Even tough most of that is gone now with ELA 1 and will be with ELA2, many prospective buyers have simply scratched Cessna off their vocabulary. Unjustified but fact unfortunately. SID Done is the big thing there, anyone wanting to sell in europe for reasonable money should consider taking the plunge and get the paperwork done….
Bellancas have the disadvantage (some of them) of fabric covered wings and tail. That makes them expensive to keep, at least in Europe, where hangar space is almost non existant.
Grumman Tigers/Cheetahs and Cardinal RGs are popular aircraft in the US too because they have good performance and good looks with practical four cylinder engines.
Cessna 175s are an oddball variant but good insofar as they can be converted to O-360 power, which makes a nice plane. Bellancas are a specialty item, always have been. I’d like one!
Peter wrote:
@Timothy might know something about this.
Yes I was hoping he’d jump in. Maybe on his way to France already :)
I don’t have any particular insight into this, but it looks very nice.
As Robert says, the Aztec E was the best of the lot – best speed, best load, best reliability.
I owned my E for 25 years. Capital value was irrelevant, as I spent approximately its value every year. Anyway I was planning to keep mine until I lost my licence.
Things turned out differently, as some on here know, and I got an extremely good settlement from the insurers (they gave me £60k, I bought it back for £5k, kept all the avionics and then gave the airframe and engines to someone who broke it all down and made a reasonable return for his effort.)
My personal view is that if you were to look carefully at the finances of aircraft ownership, you would take public transport. We have our aircraft for utility and fun.
The Aztec is quite a lot of fun (in that it will operate out of grass strips and fly sensibly of airways) but where it really scores is utility. You can sensibly plan on full fuel and six people, and if you then lose an engine you still climb not much worse than a PA28. I used to get better than Robert’s fuel burn. 80lph was my goal and I could get 74lph if I was prepared to do 140kts. Also, I rarely paid Eurocontrol fees as you can fly ‘VFR’ most places most of the time.
But if it is the price that is attracting you, you need to think again. The difference between €19k and €60k will soon be a memory. You need to consider if you can afford to run it. If you can, I would recommend it highly.
…. and it’s gone.
Arne wrote:
…. and it’s gone.
I hope someone from this community bought it and keeps us informed 
What I find hard to believe is the 80l/h claim. Once I co-owned a Pa44 with 2×180hp engines doing ca. 140KT TAS. It never consumed less than 80 litres. We even installed an expensive fuel flow meter / totaliser to improve thinks, but it didn’t help. How can a heavier and less streamlined aircraft consume less?
I can’t speak for the speed but I have a similar 250HP IO540 and it burns 11.5USG/hr at low level, peak EGT 140TAS, or 8.5USG/hr at FL170, peak EGT 140TAS.
So 80 litres at peak EGT is entirely feasible.
