Airplane ownership as an investment??

[N2124v]

I am fairly new to this forum where I have seen several members mention owning an airplane as an investment. I guess I have always looked at airplane ownership like owning my car. Buy and use it, then sell it and move on. Or, as a piece of equipment for the business. Well, it got me thinking, what airplane would you buy today as speculation that it would be worth more in 20 years?

My opinion would be an original piper cub or similar airframe. I think they will always have an appeal for the non urban flyer and the cost to hold could be minimal.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Wayne got it right. I really don't care which - both can fail.

If the objective is to minimize risk, always choose the option with the lowest probability of failure. The observation that an engine can fail at any number of hours isn't useful if the probability of failure varies with time.

If the objective is to profess a fatalistic view of life, buy the cheapest crap you can find because you believe the universe is out to get you and its going to kill you anyway, or cost you a lot money (if it lets you live.)

 

[Jim Logajan]

And as I recall your highest probability of engine failure was in the first couple hundred hours, then it dropped off and stayed pretty much level after that. Perhaps someone else has the graph available that shows the statistics.

From these articles:
http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_45_how_risky_is_going_past_tbo_195241-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyavia...ered_maintenance_part_2_195969-1.html?type=pf

But statistics don't help if you're flying the plane that's an outlier - a 1% chance of death doesn't mean you're only 1% dead.

It only makes sense to make the above point if the reading audience is believed to have no sense of the meaning of probability. Otherwise it does nothing other than undermine any attempt to minimize risk by appeals to fatalism. Repetition of bad reasoning doesn't improve it.

SMOH is only one of many factors that impacts whether or not the engine you are flying is likely to fail on you. Far more than that would have to do with the quality of components and of most recent overhaul. Who did the overhaul? Was it a quality shop or could my dog do better work? I've seen overhauls that have all the logbook entries to be legal, but that I wouldn't put in my lawn mower.

Next, how's the maintenance been on the engine? Did the owner put oil in and just run it, or did they actually do oil changes at recommended intervals (or sooner)? I know people who've done 200-hour oil changes, and people who do 25-hour oil changes. While I think 25 is a bit excessive (unless you've got one of the engines that only has oil screens), the 200-hour oil change is definitely well past due. Were the plugs ever cleaned? Did the operator run the engine at 25 ROP and peak CHT, or at some better mixture setting that kept the cylinders at a happier temperature?

There are many pieces to the puzzle that are missed by simply looking at hours...

These are all reasonable points, and to the extent that answers can be had, they should be obtained and weighted. But it would be better to examine the engine and make objective measurements.