Jujupilote, thank you for mentioning Europa. Yes, it is a very capable plane, certainly delivers more than a 125 cm³ motorcycle :-)
@Ultranomad, if you’d like to get a taste of how Europa flies, let me know. With me at LKKL we are neighbors.
Peter wrote:
It is high because it is a pile of junk, with decades of neglect, and because regulatory politics drive the owner to a maintenance company instead of DIY. But if you cannot do DIY then all similar planes will cost similarly because the required maintenance actions will be similar.
It doesn’t matter if it is a pile of junk or not, but that you are in the regulatory situation that you need a maintenance shop. Having a good one which won’t fleece you and where you can trust the people is essential.
Snoopy wrote:
this thing is junk metal.
Have you actually seen it and what it is? This is a Reims built Cessna 172K Reims Rocket or rather, by the year, a Hawk XP. They are highly desirable and difficult to find. They have a 190 hp IO360 with 190 hp (Hawk) and therefore are very capable on short runways and do about 125 KTAS at 5000 ft. It also has a MT 3 blade prop. And it is Reims built, which means it has full corrosion protection. If any airplane can hack years of service in the North Sea, then it is a Reims Cessna.
It is indeed an airplane which has been there and done that. Here is what it used to do: Fly movies to the islands. and here: I bring culture to the Islands
Yes, it’s got a lot of hours (the article sais 12000 hours in 2006) but it has for the last 20 years or so not been a trainer. It’s been repainted at some stage and it’s avionics are updated. It looks as it has been cared for. The only thing that looks worn on the pics is the LH Yoke. If that is all that needs a bit of TLC in terms of looks, that is easy.
Yes, it has loads of hours and landings and yes it has open items but actually, that is pretty much what the OP said he was looking for. A 10k airplane which has some maintenance needs. Well, this one is 30 k, which is a lot less than most C172’s and particularly Reims Rockets, which usually go for well over 100-150k these days and are actually 10-15 years OLDER. It would have to be found out what the needs of this plane are. Personally, I’d give it the benefit of doubt and if I was looking for a Reims Rocket/Hawk then I’d definitly give it a chance of a 2nd look and if figures are right a PBI. Only after a good inspection will one know if it is junk or not. I’ve seen planes with half those hours which looked and were a lot worse.
Well, that add sure was gone in a hurry. Seems someone had a different opinion and snapped it up very fast and got himself a new to him Rocket.
I add a local PDF copy to planecheck ads, when I have time.
Details of how to do it yourself. A great facility provided by @dimme.
Otherwise posts become half worthless because the advert they discuss is gone 
It doesn’t matter if it is a pile of junk or not, but that you are in the regulatory situation that you need a maintenance shop.
One doesn’t “need” one, in Part-NCO (private flying). One is forced to one because of local politics. That in turn depends on, ahem, local politics.
Even some Annex 1 owners also can’t maintain a plane so they have to either wangle somebody to do it (that’s what a syndicate is for 
) or they have to hand it over to a company (and lose most of the cost advantages).
Somebody will now jump in to say what under Part-ML etc etc etc you can use a freelance EASA66 mechanic, and then I jump in (I used to; don’t bother anymore) explaining that most people can’t do that due to airfield politics etc, and then a bunch jump at me saying they do all their stuff with an EASA66 freelance mechanic, and how their very special country (where EASA66 freelance mechanics are a special protected species in the country’s constitution, and are provided with taxpayer-funded air-conditioned hangars to work from) allows this everywhere, even if there is a maint shop right next door that shop absolutely loves you for depriving them of revenue
I have known of C150 types which cost 10-20k a year in repairs (obviously mostly unscheduled stuff) but this is all basically the end result of long term neglect. A simple plane like that, assuming no neglect, should cost 1-2k a year with a freelancer, or 3-4k a year to have the same work done by a company. That is what my TB20 costs me, plus being N-reg I can use a freelance mechanic more easily (and now a bunch of people on certain domestic GA sites, and private whatsapp/FB sites, will post that EuroGA is “anti European” because it promotes N-reg ).
So why do simple planes sometimes (quite often) cost so much to maintain? Because they have been shagged for decades.
There is no free lunch. Either the owner looks after it, or he pays, and the next owner pays as well.
You can buy something old and it will cost you – unless you can work on it yourself, including airframe part creation and that pretty well means Annex 1 and not under the UK LAA
Or you can buy something new and if it is simple it will be cheap to run and will give you many years of a very high despatch rate. With the exception of wx, my TB20 despatch rate is about 99.9%.
Peter wrote:
Otherwise posts become half worthless because the advert they discuss is gone
I know. Sorry about that. But after all the expert opinion, who’d have thought….
Or you can buy something new and if it is simple it will be cheap to run and will give you many years of a very high despatch rate.
What aircraft type is available factory built and new, while being simple and durable to the extent that resale value is preserved? I can think of a few, but they are not what you term “touring” aircraft, they are LSA Cubs and the like – modern versions of old designs.
A friend has a (thankfully Lycoming powered and never overhauled) Diamond DA-40 that he bought in 2004, with dual G1000 panel. What is he going to do when that panel becomes unsupported? What he plans to do is sell the plane, he’s an older guy and would have zero interest in redoing the entire panel and avionics to that degree. Will anybody else?
The reason I generally prefer older aircraft other than the savings in capital cost is that some older stuff is beneficially simpler, particularly with regard to avionics that I don’t need anyway, durably built and easier/cheaper to maintain. Also unconstrained by maintenance manual limitations designed for revenue enhancement. Established infrastructure to maintain older types doesn’t hurt either.
Unless I missed something, the OP is not after doing long distances.
Otherwise, that would be a compromise hard to achieve.
Indeed, so with the possibility to fly long distances removed, $200K can buy a new, durable Cub type plane that might be easier to maintain than a carefully selected older plane.
My used plane compromise cost $35K, gets me around well enough and at present has about 1100 hrs total time. I wonder whether I could fly the engine another 20 years, at which point I’ll myself reach TBO and it too would have about 2000 hrs since being assembled new, 71 years beforehand at that point
Zero risk US T-bills are currently paying 4.7%. $200K invested in them would effectively pay both my hangar and aircraft fuel bill every month.
