Cessna 170 selling prices (split topic)

[mit]

I would be interested to know what 170's are actually selling for now? I may need to up my insurance!

[GAHorn]

I carry $70K on my hull insurance. I only paid $43K when I bought it in 2000, ... but find another item that sold for $43K in 2000 and see what it sells for nowdays and you’ll find that 25% increase is not that far-off over that 20-year period. Kelly Blue Book studies show that the average new car in 2000 sold for $21,900 and today (2020) sells for $37,950. (However, the average depreciation over the next 5 years finds that vehicle worth only about $12K...while the airplane purchased in 2000 for $43K is now insured (and the insurance co...Falcon... agreed...) is reasonably insured for $70K.

[mit]

I think I have it insured for 55 floats, wheels and skis.... I almost can't afford the insurance now. Bought it for 22 or so in 1990.

[Richgj3]

In January of 2020 I paid $45K for my 52 170B and insured it for $50K. HOWEVER, I then spent another $25 on avionics and install. Clearly, the avionics don’t add the entire amount to potential selling price, but I do intend to up my insurance somewhat this year.

I have been offered $65 for it but I’m not selling and I wasn’t looking to sell. I simply told the person what I had in it and he offered me that. He has been looking for a nice 170B for a while.

[Tailwind Farm]

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.

[c170b53]

yeah...no. I like to hear what others are thinking. I was under insured once. I don’t recommend it.

[IA DPE]

I'm in the similar situation as Rich G. By Christmas I will have as much in avionics as I paid for the airplane three years ago. I wouldn't be able to sell it for what I'll have in it, but I'm ok with that.

My insurance is renewing right now, and I upped my hull value to $60k. While I doubt I'd be able to get that out of it, I wouldn't be able to build another one similarly equipped for that either. I finally decided that if it were wrecked, being underinsured was worse than being overinsured.

As to the original question, were it for sale, it wouldn't be for less than $60.

[mit]

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?

[c170b53]

My new Hartzell propeller (ah how time flies, its now 4 years old) cost as much as I paid for my plane in 1995 (24K Canadian). Two new digital radios were 6k (they’re two years old), fortunately I could installed them myself. Some stuff has gotten stupid expensive. Nor is there much to be found or useable in the bargain bin for planes. For a time wreckers were taking apart high time serviceable planes because they were worth more in pieces. High time is a bit higher now, with fewer planes there’s fewer wreckers which means stuff is harder to find and again more expensive.
About the A vs B , I have a “B” but my buddies “A” is light and its pretty fast, so I think the “A” gets a bad rap.
So yes it comes down to each planes attributes, but whether its a wreck, an originality’s nut dream, a bushmaster or a hangar queen, its likely gone up in value.

[GAHorn]

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.

[mit]

???? Are you replying to me George? I didn't write the "Meaningless Post" comment. ???

[GAHorn]

???? Are you replying to me George? I didn't write the "Meaningless Post" comment. ???

Hi, Tim! Not really... except in the sense that your comment of “No kidding...” appeared to agree with the claim the “post” was meaningless. In that sense, only the comments I made pertaining to idea of “meaningless” involved you. Sorry if it appears contradictory... the written internet word, ya’ know...

BTW... back to the “Blue Book” : Does anyone still find that thing useful when evaluating our airplanes?
The “Blue Book of Aircraft Values” is supposedly based upon “Reported Sales”. I.E.- the value of any model is adjusted by the average sales of those reports, with “sub-categories” of Condition such as <edit> “Loan”, “Whlsl”, and ‘Retail”... (those categories themselves a Hedge of subjectivity).

The Blue Book was originally published and sold exclusively to Aircraft Brokers and Dealers and unless one had proof of being legitimately in that business one could not obtain a current subscription to the publication. Then the Blue Book publisher marketed to banks and other financial institutions, and also to gov’t agencies who tax airplanes. Only since around 1980’s did Blue Book sell to private individuals (while still keeping the appearance of exclusivity by requiring “Application Approval” for purchasers.

Very, very VERY few Cessna 170 aircraft are ever sold thru a dealer/broker and I’ll venture that it’s likely NONE ever get reported to the Blue Book publisher. (I used to keep a Blue Book subscription and not once was I queried about my “aircraft sales records”.)
Most of the sales for the last several decades are private cash sales not reported by brokers, dealers, and not financed thru institutions which report to BB.

So, How does one confidently rely upon that “Blue Book”...which probably has zero reports of recent-sales of 170 aircraft? I’m not the least convinced the values of 170s are accurately portrayed there.

[mit]

Got you George Thanks

[thejetjerk]

FYI,

Barnstormers has only two flyable 170's listed both over 90K. Tradeaplane has two one for 95K and one for 54K. Not sure what to think about my plan to fly my 1955 B model as is, then sell it and buy another 170 with the Mods I want later. Normally this would be cheaper, since an 180HP mod can cost 55K. Hmmmm

Cheers,
Todd

[KFS1998]

The “Black one” on trade a plane is an A model with a STOL kit that was installed under the STC, which is incorrect as the STC is only for the B models as already explained on another forum.

Interestingly enough, that airplane ( with its previous tail number ) comes up on one of our forums on here prior to the STOL kit install. The “gossip” says that for years it had an incorrect airworthiness certificate showing it was a B model when the serial number clearly shows its an A model by production line.

I looked at it and when i saw this mistake, i immediately walked away.