Flynn 2012-02-16 03:06:12
Sold the Tiger today. Interest was very high so it was priced well.
Dan luke 2012-02-16 03:06:26
What!?!? You sold that over-aged “joke” for the asking price?
C172RG at BFM
David megginso 2012-02-16 03:06:28
And I was going to offer to haul it away to my home airfield for free,
as a favour, of course, to save the expense of a wrecker.
All the best,
Flynn 2012-02-16 03:06:30
Proof-positive that God still works miracles!!! 😉
Captainwubba 2012-02-16 03:06:32
I couldn’t tell if you were trolling or just stunningly misinformed
and inexperienced. Seeing in another post that you have 110 hours, I’m
going to assume the latter. Your statement abot ‘newer is better –
period’ is just plain silly. I can show you a late 60s Cessna 182 at
my home airport that will put any new 182 to shame. 100 hour engine,
beautiful paint, great avionics, stunning leather interior. All for
less than 1/2 the cost of a similarly equipped ‘new’ 182. The owner
bought a ‘normal’ 182 (with shaky P&I) and had it fixed up *exactly*
the way he wanted it. Since he paid a fraction of the cost of new, he
could afford to have it done his way. Ask any A&P (or even any pilot
with more than 110 hours) and ask them how important airframe age is.
They’ll tell you ‘not very’. A properly maintained non-pressurized
small plane can fly indefinitely…go do some research in the NTSB
database, you will find *very* few accidents relating to airframe age.
I’d take this ‘old’ Cessna over a new 182 any day. What exactly can
you do with a new 182 that I couldn’t do with this older one, that
cost less than 1/2 the price? Hull insurance is lower, so I save money
on an ongoing basis. On a common, simple plane like a 182 (or even a
not-so common plane like my 1963 Beech Musketeer) maintenence and
parts are not significantly greater in cost than for a much newer
plane. Bournelli’s law applies equally to 1963 and 2003 airplanes, so
they both can get the job of flying done. So what? What *exactly*
makes the 2003 plane better?
Satellite 2012-02-16 03:06:37
$49500 is not the original asking price of $76000.
Flynn 2012-02-16 03:06:45
Uh….who said anything about selling it for $49,500? Go back to sleep.
Juan e jimene 2012-02-16 03:06:50
Satellite 2012-02-16 03:06:57
Well, there are more idiots than I thought.
David megginso 2012-02-16 03:07:10
Formosa’s Law suggests that we should let this thread rest and move on
to something else.
All the best,
Juan e jimene 2012-02-16 03:07:12
No, Formosa’s Law is the proof for the equation that says that a Filipino
contortionist is really nothing more than a Manila folder… I think you
mean The Usenet Karma Law — Dead horse threads not allowed to die always
come back to hoof your behind. 🙂
Tom s. 2012-02-17 06:40:00
Better yet, PLONK “Satellite”.
Tom s. 2012-02-17 06:40:02
I had a friend who was into b*********, sadism and necrophilia, but he
discovered he was just beating a dead horse.
Dan luke 2012-02-17 06:40:06
You need to start counting when you get out of bed.
Flynn 2012-02-17 06:40:24
Flynn 2012-02-17 06:40:26
Thanks Juan! While the market may not reward with the appreciation of
previous years, for well-priced aircraft in good shape there’s still a
market. And that’s good for all of us……
Roger tracy 2012-02-17 06:40:58
Glad you got it sold. Good Tigers still go fairly quick. I didn’t figure
yours would be on the market long.