A plane is a plane; the same things go wrong. Unless it just sits in the hangar all year round…
I agree certified versus non-certified makes little difference to reliability. Simplicity does help a lot. For example, on one of my planes the following items will never break: battery, wiring, starter, generator, avionics, lights and bulbs (all), fuel pumps, brake hydraulics, landing gear retraction mechanisms, nose gear oleo, flaps and flap motors, exhaust silencers, CS propeller, vacuum pump and hose etc. I could go on 
I’ll be flying that one tomorrow.
It also doesn’t have much paint!
Martin wrote:
Yes, a decent paint job certainly helps. For me, another thing are the seats. When I see a short back rest and no head rest, I’m out
The paint job thing I’ve seen it several times. Many times it is the buyer himself, more often the wifes. Sorry, don’t want to sound sexist, but I’d think conservatively 80% of buyers are male. The Arrow I pictured had exactly that effect on mine at the time as well as on the guy who eventually bought it. I did not buy it because the engine was run out, the cabin was one of those red “boudouir” type plush nightmares and the avionic was not really something I would want to build on. The eventual buyer got it because it “looked nice” and has since done a complete engine overhaul and avionic upgrade.
Seats… yes. I am wondering about mine, which are exactly the type you describe. Apparently there are after market headrests for them. But as mine are covered with original Swissair fabric and almost like new, I don’t really want to change them.
Martin wrote:
And just like Peter I don’t like aeroplanes with single door, especially when it’s on the wrong side (co-pilot). An emergency exit will do.
Well, most Pipers are like that. Mooneys do have the emergency exit in the baggage compartment. I agree, two doors is better. For me, I can live with the single door plus the emergency hatch.
Martin wrote:
I think the major problem would be owner has is finding the right people who can give him a good advice (at least good numbers).
That is exactly what I am trying to do for the people who ask me. Either myself or connect them to the right people who can. And I think it may well also be something others here who have experience like yourself can do.
Martin wrote:
But this way of thinking probably isn’t compatible with this price range (if you’re shopping in that range because of a budget).
It may or may not. Quite a few planes today have monitors. I helped sell a Mooney with one a few years back, C Model, older than mine but with Monroy tanks and AP. Had been to Oskosh and back from Germany :) It had all that and went for 30k.
Martin wrote:
When you buy locally. When you buy from abroad, a country where you don’t have contacts, have no experience with how things are done, etc., it’s quite a different story. I generally choose not to trust people (trust is earned, not given away).
Absolutely true. I do also prefer the local market if at all possible, certainly in Switzerland. It safes a lot of hassle, import, registration change, (which means no on condition in Switzerland) and the “instant flying” is much easier to accomplish. But it does limit the market. Interestingly, most people I coached bought locally. All of them are quite happy with their purchases. None of them had a hidden problem come up.
I agree with the run out engine thing. I bought my plane with 2400 TSOH. Overhauled at 2560. So 160 hours of “given” time.
Martin wrote:
In the 30k range, cash often doesn’t work.
Yes, that is what I was trying to say. Cash is an American thing these days.
Martin wrote:
Yeah, equipped doesn’t mean approved and there are number of things to be approved for under the “IFR” umbrella.
One of the biggest lies in the adds. And one which makes me immediately suspicious of the seller.
LeSving wrote:
Why should it? There is a reason for these low prices; they do not attract pilots! An old plane is a lot of work and lots of expenses, and there is no way out of those expenses. You purchase a 40-50 year old airplane for 20k€ and have to pay 10-20k each year just to keep it operative
Our aircraft is 70 years old, I don’t pay anything like 10-20k to keep it operative per year (more like < 2k most years). There’s an Archer syndicate at Andreas with an old straight wing PA-28-180 with basic IFR equipment, and they are not paying 10-20k a year either (I think they said they typically spend 4-5k on keeping it operative). I suspect the C42 (3 axis microlight) guys I know aren’t paying that much less than me.
I confirm Alioth’s normal maintenance budget for a vintage tube and fabric aircraft. However I would suggest that every 20 years you might need to recover and overhaul the engine, and a sinking fund of £1.5k might be appropriate? On top you have regulation imposing ridiculous changes, for example .833khz, ADSB?, and for some of us Mode S (if you are living near a mandatory transponder zone). Assume this regulatory drag (did I mention an official radio check?) adds on average another £500 a year. Finally my 65 years young Super Cub needs the odd TLC like tailwheel rebuilds, drum brake rebuilds, which add a few hundred pounds to the routine budget. So conservatively £3-4K may be also a fair estimate. Obviously permit aircraft achieve savings on this, but you need to live near your hangar and be keen with a spanner.
I have known simple but old planes (e.g. 35 year old C150) costing 10k+ a year but you need a plane with a history of abuse and poor maintenance, and currently operating in a regime of abuse and poor maintenance. This does happen sometimes. I know of a C150 which was GBP 7k for the Annual alone, every year. But it had 25 people flying it, in a very low cost syndicate.
Anyone finding this in their own private use would be crazy. OK… they would get a massive bill, maybe 10k-20k, for sorting out past abuse, upon buying it, but not after that.
mh wrote:
May I ask where you get those figures?
I’m an accountant at my club. At some point the the maintenance gets too expensive (you fix one snag, and the next week another snag pops up), then the planes are sold at 10-20k €. To fix them to a good enough standard requires 40-50k or more. It’s better to get a newer plane, 150k or so, because that plane isn’t old enough to have developed snags due to old age and (ab)use.
Of course, how much the aircraft is flown per year will be important. If it’s only flown 50 h or so, then a larger part of the maintenance is the usual yearly stuff, so 10-20k will probably be a bit much. But nonetheless a plane at that price (20k) is a wreck with 10k+ hours and will require 40-50k (or more) to restore it to good shape maintenance vise. You still have to pay 5-10k per year, and you cannot do anything with it yourself, like fixing it up to “new” condition. Our Cub from 1949 just keeps on going however with minimal costs as it should be brand new, it’s like a tank 
, but then again, Cubs aren’t sold for 20k today because they are worth much more.
So, what do you have (or expect to soon have) for sale?
Interesting thread this one, I’ve spent the last few years debating with myself and the wife on what to buy as our first aircraft. I owned a share in a 1979 Arrow III for 6 years and we only had one cash call for £500 each (7 members) during that time. That was on £100 per month plus £115 / hr wet. I suspect I was lucky (no engine needed during that time and no real engine fund to pay for it).
A mate had an old PA28 during the same period and although the engine was in life, it was never right and in the end he sold it on cheaply for a loss to escape the liability. The next owner ended up having to replace the engine.
When I went to buy a plane recently, I looked at old Dakotas (with a view of refreshing paint / interiors / avionics), but there is so much rubbish out there, I would not enter into buying one of those for £20-50k without deep pockets for mainentance / upgrades – too high risk.
In the end I bought a newer (2007) 182 and I budget £20k per year plus fuel to run it. We’ll see how that works out, but at the cheaper end of the scale to buy the plane, you may get lucky, or you may break the bank, personally I’d prefer more certainty on that.
I agree a good pre buy inspection is a must.
In the end I bought a newer (2007) 182 and I budget £20k per year plus fuel to run it
I would be astonished if you managed to spend 20k on maintenance alone, on a 2007 C182. More like 5-6k (GBP). That’s what my TB20 would cost me if I took it to some company for everything.
