An owner will quite naturally have a high opinion of his airplane’s value while a buyer will have a very critical eye on that matter. They will virtually ALWAYS disagree and commentary on valuation from those of us not directly involved in the inspection/transaction are probably not fully availed of its condition. Keeping in mind that the
present owner may also be a participant in these Forums.... I’d not want the Forums to become an arena of injured feelings over opinions of value. The PM feature of these Forums might be a better avenue of communication on that matter.
The most recent Bluebook of values I have indicate the typical 170 with a TCM 145 hp engine is worth between $22K and $45K. (IMO, the $22K borders on un-airworthy/out-of-license and $45K is a solid airworthy and pretty airplane.) The value of engine hours is $12/hr. The evaluation ASSUMES a mid-life engine of 900 hours. This means that if the engine has something OTHER THAN 900 hours.... $12 should be added or detracted from the value for each hour.
<Edit>: Some of these airplanes are highly-modified with increased H.P. Engines such as Lyc 180 and TCM IO-360 (195-210 hp) and some even have constant speed props. These conversions can add $25K-$50K to the value of the airplane. Just as easily, the AD notes and inspection requirements on some of those conversions can add considerably to the cost of on-going maintenance. These conversions do not usually increase the gross weight and therefore reduce the legal useful load. STOL kits and some other “performance” mods add/detract value in the eyes of the beholder. They add very little to increased speed but are remarkable as for T.O./Climb and field-length performance. Just FYI.
The evaluation also assumes 6-months/mid-cycle on annual inspections. This is worthless because the Bluebook ASSUMES the new owner will not perform a fresh annual upon purchase. MY ADVICE is ALWAYS perform a FULL ANNUAL INSPECTION as a “pre-buy inspection”. I’ve promoted that many times/many places here in the Forums. (If you only want to purchase an airplane that is airworthy, then the only valid inspection that seeks that assurance is the Annual Inspection. There is no standard or legality to a “pre-buy” inspection which has no legal definition. The difference in the cost of inspection-only... is small but the cost of missed airworthiness items can be huge.)
When the inspection is satisfactory and the purchase completed, the annual can be “signed off” for buyer and buyer can pay for repairs desired or needed, and if the inspection is unsatisfactory and the sale is not consummated, the airplane is returned UN-repaired to the owner with the logs recording the inspection and a list of discrepancies issued.
Either way, the buyer pays the inspector up-front for the inspection-only and the inspector is working for the
buyer.
Installed equipment and condition makes up the rest of the consideration. Installed equipment may have cost the seller considerable money, but may have little value to the buyer. Avionics-age and intended useage of the airplane has great bearing. A Narco digital full panel installed 15 years ago may be worth $25K to the seller. It would likely carry little or no addt’l value to the buyer because Narco is out of business and cannot support the (now old) equipment. The buyer may only want basic VFR. C-170s were typically always basic VFR and Narco’s that work will meet that requirement...but add not addt’l value to the airplane. However, If the buyer wants advanced avionics ...Narco of ANY vintage would be candidates for complete removal. This means they detract....not add...value to the deal. But that is not the seller’s conviction or consideration as he will view the intended use of the buyer to be the buyer’s own decisons. (BTW, I’m not picking on Narco...there are lots of obsolete radios in these airplanes...many of them still perform good service. I have Narco in my own airplanes. But as a selling-point...they are a question-mark
as to value.
The main point about basic com/nav avionics is that if older than ten years they are of no addt’l value....and if they are new/advanced they may/may-not carry much value to a buyer as to a seller due to personal preferences and planned use. A seller is unwise to install avionics or overhaul engines thinking it adds recoverable-value to the sale.
ADS-B is a recent issue that Bluebook does not adequately address. If buyer intends to have an airplane that can operate into most controlled airports or wishes to have the advantages of simple flight following services of Air Traffic Control...he will need ADS-B. That can cost anywhere from $2500-$25K and the exact equipment installed can be a major part of a C-170 price-evaluation. IMO, it adds or subtracts $2K from Bluebook.
Physical Condition of everything else is the rest of the issue and can be very subjective in the minds of sellers and buyers. These airplanes are 60-70 years old and likely half of them have spent long periods in outside storage. Poor paint and interior and light corrosion are common. New paint and interior can cost $15K and up, but may raise unique questions. Why was it recently painted? (To hide Hail damage or corrosion?). Few owners put new paint/interior on airplanes they intend to immediately sell. This is usually a broker’s action to boost selling price. A recent paint/interior may have COST $15K but that does NOT add $15K to the value, IMO. I’d rather have an older paint/interior that has been well cared-for than new paint/interior I did not personally design or complete.
Corrosion is like Cancer. It never gets better without cutting it out and replacing it. And that can get expensive.
Damage History: Most of these airplanes have it. Not all of them have it recorded.
If it’s recorded, it’s more likely properly repaired and, if properly repaired, has no effect on value, IMO.
An airplane should have ALL it’s logs from Day ONE. It is a serious matter if any logs are missing. The only instance in which I’d personally make exception would be if the airplane had been completely, professionally restored to the condition of virtually-zero-time. An example would be my own airplane, an exported airplane when new, returned to the U.S. without logs, and then a total wreck that was professionally restored and won the Restoration Award at Oshkosh. Any Oshkosh-judged airplane is likely a great airplane that needs only to be inspected/evaluated for purchase price.
(We subsequently hit the jackpot on the missing logs 15 years after I bought it. While teaching recurrent at SimuFlite I had a client who was the Presidential Pilot for the president of El Salvador. When I told him my personal airplane began life in El Salvador but lost its logs he informed me that the CAA down there retains microfiche copies of every exported airplane’s records, and when he returned he sent me copies. Reading technical Spanish from microfiche is a challenge but, who says political connections can’t be useful?)
Otherwise, missing logs are a HUGE RED FLAG in my opinion, sufficiently serious to run, not walk, away. There’s only ONE reason logs are “missing”. Someone in the history of the airplane wanted something hidden. It may not be the current owner. The airplane may have subsequently been completely restored. But someone, somewhere, sometime was hiding something. That’s my personal conviction and experience in over 50 years of dealing in these matters. (I’m primarily thinking here of airframe logs. Engine logs are another matter. If an engine log is missing it could be sitting lost in an overhaul facility. As long as the existing logs are complete since the last overhaul or rebuild I am comfortable.)
On the other hand, unreported/unrecorded damage is a definite detraction, and is commensurate with the costs of discovery/repair. (IE, if I came to buy an airplane that claimed “no damage history” and I found hidden damage that was repaired but not recorded... in my opinion my earnest money deposit should be refunded if I don’t complete the purchase.) THIS STATEMENT SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT MADE PRIOR TO INSPECTION.
While on that subject, anyone contemplating buying or selling an airplane should, when verbal agreement to inspect-for-purchase is made, create and trade copies of a “Letter of Intent” which will help prevent controversy as the sale progresses. This letter should state WHO is selling and buying, at WHAT PRICE, and under what conditions...such as “upon inspection for airworthiness using FAA Annual Inspection guidelines” at such-and-such facility, the expense of which will be paid for by buyer and to be completed by such-and-such date. At the end of that inspection the buyer will pay seller the agreed price or, in the event of newly discovered airworthiness items and at buyer’s discretion, a newly renegotiated price. If any airworthiness issues are found in the inspection, the seller will correct the discrepancy within ten days or refund the earnest money deposit. The letter should include any other conditions to which the parties stipulate and should document an earnest money deposit. I recommend 10% non-refundable unless airworthiness issues arise which seller cannot/will not resolve to buyers satisfaction, in which case the earnest money is immediately refunded. If buyer changes his mind for anything other than airworthiness issues discovered during inspection, then seller has sole discretion regarding earnest money.
A final note: Buyers should obtain a TITLE SEARCH when the inspection is underway. A buyer should INSIST that the seller be EXACTLY the same individual as the TITLE search reveals. If the Title indicates the airplane is owned by Acme Company... then John Doe who claims to own Acme cannot sign a Bill of Sale unless he can provide PROOF he is one and the same. If Acme is a corporation he must be the CEO or provide proof of authorization to sell that airplane. If the Title says it’s John Doe and Mary Doe... they BOTH must sign. I recommend you do this in front of a notary such as down in the bank where the payment changes hands.