GA_Pete wrote:
I’m only closely friendly with 3 IR pilots but they only fly 6pack.
I personally would (if I had it) would rather spend 35-50k on flying rather than upgrade to glass.
Your own plane is a different thing! Question is, if for IFR-training the majority of customers would chose a 180/hr plane with steam or an 199/hr one with at least an Aspen.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Depends extremely on the location of this plane. I would assume that over the next couple of years the market for steam gauge IFR-Trainers will become very limited: With the availability of comparatively cheap glass cockpits the willingness of customers to pay for steam planes will deteriorate quickly in Western Europe…
Good point, thank you.
Lot of seneca’s and Robinson R44s popping up on PC – considering the market for Senecas is 100% professional training schools there maybe some relative bargains but then again who outside of a training school wants a seneca, and given the uncertain outlook for airlines over the next 2 years I don’t think its a business to be investing in.
I don’t think planes are a good inflation bet right now – especially older avgas planes – highly illiquid asset of questionable value in danger of being legislated out of existence – oil may remain cheap for the next couple of year but if the EU has its way carbon taxes are only going to up which offsets any oil price decline.
By hook or by crook my next plane is going to be a diesel burner or a modern rotax – (preferably a diesel because I am wary of the rotax 915 – its expensive and when pouring on the coals not very efficient – bfsc is not far off a lycoming or continental once you get over 80% power)
Quote
who outside of a training school wants a seneca
I don’t understand? Please explain.
I’ve always thought it would be a great aircraft. Comfortable cabin class, good short field performance. Capable in wx. Capable of getting over lots of Wx. Security of a second engine for low IMC water crossings and Night flight. Reasonable fuel burn for all of the above benefits. What have I missed?
The Seneca is a very practical MEP but I suspect operating an MEP will become even more onerous over the short to medium term, with poor residual values.
If a bargain comes up why not? Be aware that even if you save €50-100k over a nice Beech 36 or Saratoga, you will soon (in 2-3 years) have equalised the investment due to the additional feeding and maintenance, but without the healthy residual values of the better IFR SEP.
Yes, airplanes will tumble in price in the next few years. It tends to follow the cycle of real estate, i.e., there’s a slowness in the market. Just like during the crash in 2008, real estate didn’t hit the true lows until 2009, 2010, about 12-18 months after the market crash. I would say the airplane market follows pretty closely to that. So in about a year or years time, it will really hit lows. I’m talking 50% off, my prediction. So hold on to cash.
As for aircraft being a good way to protect assets – no. They’re pits. They will always be pits. Only 3 planes are impervious and actually increase in value: Cubs, C182/185’s, PC-12’s. The rest – anvils dropped off of a cliff.
Thanks Adam.
Why is a C182+ vs a C172-?
Because the C182 is the Swiss Army Knife of piston GA. There really isn’t anything comparable out there wrt payload and wide mission capabilities. In our club we keep discussing selling ours – and then realize we can’t replace it.
PS: some people would of course say the C185 is even better, but taildraggers aren’t everyone’s cup o’ tea.
