Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Aztec price reduced from 75k down to 19k!

They are just not really feasible in Europe anymore.

Interesting that people make statements like this about piston twins, yet this one sold once the price was cut in just days. I also sold a 1400hr TT F337G in just days also, and it needed 10x its sale price spent one the aircraft with two TCM remans, two props, undercarriage off and strip, extensive de corroding work etc. There were two people fighting over it in the end. The guy who bought it could even make a decent % profit just reselling it. The considered view is that the utility value of these aircraft when restored completely is very favourable compared to buying a new aircraft. You can renew everything except the aircraft structure. There is probably less than 1000 euros worth of hardware even if you change every nut and bolt in it. If you strip it and do the SIDs you really could have a clean bill of health for it. If Cessna were making them new they would be more than 1m usd. I even know a flying school now that buys in project training aircraft and completely rebuilds them as they know they have long term value in them once they are “right”.

Used aircraft offer great utility value. A large number of us are flying aircraft we could never afford to buy new. That to me says we have a great privilege to be able to play with such fabulous toys for such little investment.

Buying, Selling, Flying
EISG, Ireland

William,

I think for many private pilots looking to upgrade, the 1999 kg limit (Eurocontrol) is a huge barrier which very few are willing to surpass. That basically renders a lot of valid and great types like the Baron or the Aztec very difficult to sell or operate in Europe. Most Seneca owners forego over 200 lb of payload to make this line too. I’d say, the statement boscomantico made refers mainly to that.

I don’t really know myself how expensive it really is to operate an Aztec IFR (that is how much the dreaded Eurocontrol taxes really are), which is probably why many shy away from even trying to find out. If it’s over two tons, doesn’t need to bother looking.

That is a great shame but it is again one of these roadblocks Europe has erected. Right now, people are trying hard to go below 1200 kg (ELA1) when buying cheap in order to escape national gold plating on TBO and other stuff, regardless that very soon ELA2 will also free airplanes above this limit from the same burdens.

The fact is that GA is in a downward spiral and outright depression in Europe due to the past EASA horrors as well as the generally hostile treatment it gets by the commercial cousins, airports and NAA’s. Many airports see light GA as some sort of cancer they’d love to once and for all get rid of. Even some would love to see GA exterminated like it is in many countries in Asia, it has become a pet hate for some very influential people. There is a very slight recovery now that EASA has come true with a lot of promises (ELA1, Part NCO were both milestones there) but we are far from back to normal.

Europe is also a lot more expensive when it comes to labour, fuel and parking cost than e.g. the US. Both are major hindering factors for going twin.

I would love to fly a twin, my preferred ones being the Turbo Twin Commanche or a Seneca II/III but I can simply not afford the increased cost over my SEP. And if there was Eurocontrol to charge me for every flight on top of what I already am paying now……

In that regard, i think Boscomantico is right. Airplanes heavier than 1999 kgs in Europe are feasible only for people who mostly will go for much higher value airplanes if given the choice.

I do agree on the viability of used airplanes however, bearing the 1999 kg limit in mind. It is outright mindboggling for what prices you can today buy what was out of reach not that many years ago. I’d never have expected to see planes like the one this thread is about for 20 k (which is given away basically) or even Mooney J and K models for 30-40k in flying conditions. But again, this is a consequence of the depression European GA is in. Some people will almost (or completely) give away their planes just to stop the cash drain of parking and upkeep. As long as that doesn’t change, I don’t see the market recovering here in Europe at all.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

…the 1999 kg limit (Eurocontrol) is a huge barrier which very few are willing to surpass.

I keep reading this phrase on the forums for years, but still fail to believe in it. It might be a kind of mental barrier but not more. Of all cost factors associated with operating a piston twin around here this is de-facto one the lesser ones. Especially for a non-pressurised twin like the Aztec of this thread which can be flown VFR on many occasions.

I have been operating and/or flying piston twins commercially from 1992 to 2008 and still instruct on them to this day (last flight was yesterday, today’s flight just cancelled due to weather – the student needs VFR hours). Apart from training and some niche operations, commercial operations of piston twin in Europe were “killed” by three main factors:
1. (Non-) Availability of spares. A commercial operator cannot wait for weeks or months until a new batch of spares is made available for increasingly rare aircraft, engines and systems. Maintenance facilities have to bill more man-hours for researching and locating parts than for actually installing them. Aircraft spend indefinite amounts of time on the ground, off homebase in most cases, a sure recipe for quick bankruptancy of most commercial operators.
2. (Non-) Availability of AVGAS in certain parts of Europe. Commercial (and private!) operators of gas-guzzling twins will soon find out that they have to plan their missions around the filling stations. My last commercial assignment to piston twins was flying express freight around Europe. Often at night – and the majority of airports open 24 hours do not have AVGAS. The cost of extra fuel stops and the associated detours, landing fees etc. is a lot higher than those evil Eurocontrol fees!
3. Hourly maintenance costs are more or less the same for every class of aeroplane, be it piston, turboprop or jet. Considering the difference in traveling time, maintenance cost per distance covered is 3-4 times higher for a piston twin than for a light jet. This cost factor alone outweighs all other costs and can not be compensated by the low puchase price/capital cost.

For a private owner with low usage this may look somewhat different maybe, but the basic problems are the same.

EDDS - Stuttgart

Mooney_Driver wrote:

The fact is that GA is in a downward spiral and outright depression in Europe due to the past EASA horrors as well as the generally hostile treatment it gets by the commercial cousins, airports and NAA’s.

You always claim this, but I don’t see that happen. On the contrary, our flying club’s ground school classes is packed and we are at our limits for new pilots and around two per year become new owners, very much encouraged and advised by our club. (Of course we want our planes to be flown, but in our experience the owner-members are very active and work much more for the club than many renter-members, with notable exceptions on both kinds). Plus: New pilot’s don’t care about regulations of yesteryear and if people wouldn’t blame all the local NAA or even AeroClubs fallacies on EASA and the European rules, you would get a much more realistic picture of regulation and regulative necessities. Who cares if I had to have mandatory avionics for 50k minimum to fly IFR based on german rules, when NCO grants me to fly single handed light IFR with just a TY21, KLN90 and a KN53. Who cares if IFR in G was prohibited in Germany, when SERA clearly allows it?

And to be honest, I see a great divergence in estimation of air traffic if one calls for mandatory ADS-B in exchange of basic liberties or basic right due to increasing traffic and at the same time moan about decreasing traffic and interest.

Sure, it is hard to sell a new plane against a very strong and capable market, especially if there is negligible performance/handling gain for more often than not three times the initial investment even if the used aircraft has been brought up to mint condition (and in the fashion the new owner likes it!).

If I compare the clubs, schools and airfields in our vicinity, surely the more active groups are those, who are most welcoming to new members. Who offer solid education, reliable aircraft that have been treated well, nice instructors and an introduction into aviation beyond the curriculum.

In my experience, old EASA rules have no impact on current GA developments and I don’t see that they have had considerable impact in contrast to factors that we have in our hands. Most (especially young female) pilots are more put off by “old mens mourning”, chauvinism and outright malevolence towards them. That is much more important than the question if you need one or two altimeters to fly IFR or if an instructor needs to perform a proficiency check all 6 (gliders: 9) years.

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

If you strip it and do the SIDs you really could have a clean bill of health for it.

William the little devil is in your use of ‘could’. Some airframes need extensive TLC, sometimes beyond a multiple of the economic value of the aircraft. Some types of corrosion are not susceptible to local treatment, or more worryingly may be subject to cosmetic lipstick on a pig, and the airframe parts are no longer around. You then in effect have a write off.

There is also an interpretation on the Cessna SID for ageing airframes – some shops treat it very thoroughly, others perhaps more ‘pragmatically’. In the UK most owners are hoping not to have to do it.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Now here is a lovely twin… unfortunately out of my reach…

http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=33551

what_next wrote:

It might be a kind of mental barrier but not more.

Definitly. The thing is, nobody who doesn’t operate a plane like that knows what the costs really are. It might be a good idea to finally put some numbers to the rumour.

But as someone who has in recent years been helping to find airplanes for new owners, I can tell you that this barrier is quite real. It’s one of those things which won’t go away, so you have educate people about it. I never really bothered as these planes are out of my (and my “clients”) financial capabilities anyhow, but it would be nice to know just how this thing is calculated for e.g. a 2300 kg twin.

Rest of your post, I fully agree with all of it. Spares can be a huge problem (a Seneca here in ZRH was grounded for 2 years trying to locate a fuel tank), fuel availability is not yet so much a problem for private ops but it is for commercial no question. Interesting remark about the maintenance cost. Of course it also means 2 engines and props to overhaul e.t.c.

mh wrote:

You always claim this, but I don’t see that happen.

In terms of prices and incertainties, which is what causes these depressions, there is indeed a small rebounce. I saw prices bottom a few years back, since then they have risen a tad. Still, in the field I am watching it is noticable that many airplanes will not come close to blue book values in Europe, while reaching them in the US. I see the same thing in the Mooney estimations by Jimmy Garrison (which are taken quite literal in the US, especcially if done not via the form but by him) and prices in the US are higher for a similar model than here. But you are right, the EASA GA roadmap IS having an effect. And not a moment too soon.

mh wrote:

New pilot’s don’t care about regulations of yesteryear and if people wouldn’t blame all the local NAA or even AeroClubs fallacies on EASA and the European rules, you would get a much more realistic picture of regulation and regulative necessities. Who cares if I had to have mandatory avionics for 50k minimum to fly IFR based on german rules, when NCO grants me to fly single handed light IFR with just a TY21, KLN90 and a KN53. Who cares if IFR in G was prohibited in Germany, when SERA clearly allows it?

Absolutely. In particular Part NCO and ELA 1 have done a lot. It still remains to convince and educate people that there is really a new wind blowing, particularly if some NAA’s still are fighting the new developments. Still, we do get a lot of gold plating, such as continuously new requirements for yet more avionic changes (8.33, ADS-B?) which keeps owners insecure. And it does help to fuel the grapevine rumours about ownership which have been hindering it since ever I started flying. Only that some of them now are quite true.

mh wrote:

In my experience, old EASA rules have no impact on current GA developments and I don’t see that they have had considerable impact in contrast to factors that we have in our hands. Most (especially young female) pilots are more put off by “old mens mourning”, chauvinism and outright malevolence towards them. That is much more important than the question if you need one or two altimeters to fly IFR or if an instructor needs to perform a proficiency check all 6 (gliders: 9) years.

EASA’s original rules have put a lot of owners out of business. That is a fact. The new rules are very different and much better, that is also a fact and we should move on and not look back. But I agree fully with your other statements. A lot of airport experts these days are people who have been disgruntled and angry for many reasons. And they are not good for us at all.

There is one other thing. I must say, it came a bit as a shock to me when I got it really. EASA has been blamed on a lot of rulemaking which was not for GA and damaging. BUT: The national authorities have exploited that quite badly for a while and blamed EASA on things that never were EASA but their private little grudges. In so far, this is something which compares to other such stuff in EU law, where local authorities BLAME the EU for stuff they thought up themselfs. Like small kids arguing that daddy said you have to when he didn’t. On the large scale, we got Brexit out of this. I wonder what happens when all these people find out.

EASA has to a large extent made good on what they did cause and they are slapping wrists where NAA’s still try to gold plate. That makes me optimistic. And optimism is needed in this field as it is what you fight depressions with.

In terms of sales, I’ll say we are out of depression once prices will go roughly around blue book again and you don’t regularly see nice and good airframes given away like this Aztek.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

The thing is, nobody who doesn’t operate a plane like that knows what the costs really are. It might be a good idea to finally put some numbers to the rumour.

I would rephrase that to “nobody who operates a plane like that knows what the costs really are.”.

If you buy a new(ish) Mustang with engine and maintenance programs, you can calculate your hourly cost to the last 10 Euros – provided you know exactly how many hours you fly per year. With a old(ish) piston twin, one single (forseen or unforseen) maintenance event can double hour hourly cost with respect to that of the last year, even if all other factors and the number of hours flown remain unchanged. If your unforseen maintenance event means 6 months downtime, you will fly only half as many hours than the year before, doubling the hourly cost once again. It is now already four times that of last year! During my piston twin commercial flying all four operators I flew for eventually had to declare bankruptancy. One of the main reasons were those totally uncalculable costs which made the whole operation a big gamble. And that was, when the aircraft involved were 8 (2008) to 25 (1991) years younger than they are now…

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Now here is a lovely twin…

Not really.

Last Edited by what_next at 25 Nov 12:51
EDDS - Stuttgart

Mooney_Driver wrote:

it would be nice to know just how this thing is calculated for e.g. a 2300 kg twin.

The basic calculation is quite trivial. The issue is that the underlying rate (what Eurocontrol calls unit rate) differs between places (AFAIK it’s not necessarily limited to countries) and they’re supposed to set them up to cover their costs. You pay for the distance you fly in their airspace (it’s not the actual distance you fly, but great circle distance between the entry and exit points; if you approve any changes by ATC to the planned route, it’s taken into account). You get an allowance of 20 km per take off/ landing. The weight factor is square root of weight in tonnes divided by 50 (sqrt(w/50) to be clear). Meaning an aeroplane weighing 50 tonnes has weight factor of 1.

For the latest unit rates.

For example, in November, Switzerland has a unit rate €104.63. So a 50 tonne plane pays that rate per 100 km of GC distance within Switzerland. A 5 tonne plane would pay about €33 per 100 km. 2 tonne (just a hair above the limit) about €21 (1/5 the unit rate). If you fly at 200 knots, multiply that by 3,7 to get hourly cost. Mind you, Switzerland has the highest rate so it’s the worst case scenario.

You can also use the autorouter to get some idea.

PS: I remembered you asked for 2.3 tonnes. I’m sure you could calculate it yourself but for the sake of completeness the weight factor is 0.21 meaning the rate is €22 (for Switzerland during 11/2016). Weight factor is rounded to two decimal places (weight has one, don’t know about rounding).

And another PS: Do note that the exemption for VFR flights is not universal at Eurocontrol level (like the under two tonne exemption), but at state level. Meaning a country can decide to charge for VFR flights as well. Also, if you switch from VFR to IFR in flight, such exemption shouldn’t apply (in the charging zone where you did the switch). States can also decide to exempt training flights (not leaving the zone) or A-A flights.

And yet another: There is also the question of VAT. Some states (not all) do charge VAT on route charges. I’m not sure VAT is included in the unit rates.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

EASA’s original rules have put a lot of owners out of business.

To which rules are you referring? I’m aware of Part-M. That was about 2003. I’m not that familiar with regulations before roughly 2012 but I thought JAA did a significant part of the regulatory damage.

Last Edited by Martin at 25 Nov 15:29

WilliamF wrote:

Used aircraft offer great utility value. A large number of us are flying aircraft we could never afford to buy new. That to me says we have a great privilege to be able to play with such fabulous toys for such little investment

@WilliamF, I couldn’t agree with you more.

My first boss in engineering had an ‘Az-Truck’ like this one, what a great plane. Like (almost) everybody in the US, he was heavily involved in maintenance. He had enough cash so if something came up it wouldn’t kill him, but with a lot of his attention I don’t recall his costs being too extreme. After he’d built up some time in the Aztec he sold it with mid-time engines, got his money back, and bought a Cessna 320 that he had for another 5 years or more.

Why anybody would choose a giant heavy lifter is certainly another question. In his case one reason was because his wife wouldn’t fly in a single, but he understood that a twin can be at least as dangerous so he wanted one that was relatively forgiving. Their use was to fly 140 nm each way to visit family every couple of weeks, with rarely more than two POB Mainly I think he just liked the fun of owning and flying it. Even in Europe I think if you could get an Aztec cheaply and make a time commitment to it on N-registration maintenance, it could be manageable.

The way I see it. you only live once and a certain part of your life should be dedicated to pursuing your personal goals and interests, rational or not, no excuses only smiles. You can also share the fun with others, as the boss did with me. He eventually died of cancer, but had a really great and accomplished life.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 25 Nov 15:10

The Aztec indeed has excellent corrosion proofing, and John of Diamondaire in Montana is a reliable source for parts, but as Tim explained be ready to spend close to hull value every year on maintenance. Lots of items on cycles, and while it is nearly ten years I operated one in anger, I expect inflation will have taken its toll.

With pretty good utilisation, 250-350 hours p.a., I would budget for EUR 400 an hour including sinking funds. Alternatively buy one cheap and throw away when the first major item is due for overhaul, or major AD.

A TBM/PC12 might budget at EUR 2000 an hour. Taking w_n point on jets, these might be around EUR 3000 for a mid size. You then have handling on top.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top