mit wrote:Tailwind Farm wrote:This is kind of a meaningless post. For starters a 170A won't fetch as much as a B. Then there are the multitudes of STC's, that can raise the value of a plane rather quickly, not to mention paint, avionics, TT, on an on. Bottom line, it's with what someone will pay or what it would cost you to duplicate YOUR plane.
No Kidding hence my question. What have they been sold for and with what times and equipment?

Meaningless Post? A “Post” is an individual comment (such as Tailwind Farm’s comment).
A “Thread” is the discussion train made of many posts.
The Tailwind farm post is not meaningless at all because it points out the problem when attempting to evaluate a group of airplanes.... which would be their “Average” value. However INDIVIDUAL aircraft must have it’s
specific condition and equipment taken into consideration ... and THEN a buyer must be found willing to pay that price.
So Yes... it’s a very
Subjective matter. But not meaningless.
If the basic airplane (as addressed by the obsolete “Blue Book” publication) is a
mid-time engine on a 6-month old “Annual Inspection” **...(that annual inspection Itself a subjective value depending upon what work was actually accomplished upon a dubious quality airframe).... but, if the “basic airplane” is worth $30K (my own opinion for an airworthy base example) .... then a Zero since Ovhl engine adds
$10,800 ($12/hr times 900 hrs) and the worn out engine subtracts $10,800.
The “Average” avionics is a working Nav/Com and Txdr ...say an old KX170B and KT76 or similar. THOSE were included in the “base” price. Any addt’l or newer avionics increase the value in the eye of the beholder (or decrease it if they need to be removed such as inoperative equipment.).
Paint and Interior adds nothing if 20 years old like most are.... and decreases value if older/worn-out.....and adds to the value if fresh AND attractive. (I’m thinking now of the 170 I once saw with a brand new exotic/
horrible Christen[/color]-
Eagle SUNBURST paint-scheme of which the owner was so-proud but made me want to
retch...).
(Then there’s the fresh-paint that covers the deep-hail damage and corrosion inside the wing... but of-course that’s merely an attempt to hide the condition of the base airplane. And I still have bad dreams of the yellow with bubbles in it that one of our first charter-member/founder applied with what looked like a roller using Sears paint.)
So, Yes, each airplane must be evaluated on it’s
Individual Merits.. And that is always subjective.
But that makes this topic of discussion meaningful, not meaningless.
** The problem with 6-mo old annual inspections is partly the actual “quality” of that inspection as it relates to the rest of the aircraft condition. This is a Major Reason I continue to “harp” on the need for a Full Annual Inspection of the intended purchase in lieu of the so-called near-worthless “pre-buy” inspection. A 6-mo-0ld inspection, in my view, is a near-expired airworthiness issue. It will let you get the thing home where you will then have to do all kinds of work on the thing to make it truly airworthy. It will be a rare 60-yr-old plane indeed that can get to the next inspection and need only a cleanup and a lube-job.
(Well... Rusty Morris’ airplane might, but I doubt it’s for-sale for anywhere near the prices we’re discussing, and Steve Jacobsens airplane is already sold and although RED...it was an A-model!)
(The A-model is NOT worth less than a B-model in similar condition, IMO. The minor improvement in performance of the B-model Flaps will 99.99% go un-useable, the “stability” of the dihedral is undetectable if the airplane is properly-rigged, and the “balanced” elevator is of no advantage in-flight to anyone but the purest test-pilot. That last .01% of value the B-model possesses is in the small number of parts availability scavenged from the 50,000 mfr’d 172’s. If you’re buying a170 because of it’s near-antique “classic” design...the purest version is probably the straight 170 with it’s fabric wing. The major advantage of the all-metal versions were their reduced susceptibility to outdoor-storage issues and
none of these airplanes should be continuously stored outdoors.. (Pls note: I wrote “should”.)
But all that is...again... subjective. It’s in the “eye of the beholder”>
Bottom Line (IMO) ... ANY airworthy model 170 still insured based upon pre-2000 values (where the “Blue Book” still lives regardless of publication-date).... is an UNDER-insured airplane.