AOPA Reimagined 152

[ryoder]

I sat in this airplane and was pleasently surprised by the newness and space available. They will make decent trainers but cost 100k.

[GeorgePerry]

With the cost of "new" trainer aircraft, this price point makes refurbing a training fleet, starting a flying club or renting affordable (and smart).  Also as someone who refurbished a 74F, I think this is a great way to go.  There's a big difference in user experience when things look and smell new.  

 

Before I refurb'ed my 74F my wife hated flying.  The interior was ratty and smelled like it was 30+ years old (because it was!).  After I finished a full interior overhaul with new everything including windows, her comment to me is - "Wow this feels like a really nice luxury car!"  The plane was the same just refurb'ed in the places that matter.  After that flying became her preferred choice for travel.

 

Its the same for a new student.  Which you rather do?  Spend $130+ an hour on a beat up old aircraft that smells like fuel and body odor, or for about half that fly a "brand new" 152.  I vote solidly for the latter.  I'd be proud to fly this plane up to any FBO and show it off to friends and family.

[jetdriven]

You'd figure a hundred grand would get more than a 152 with a new panel, very minimal instrumentation and a new paint job.

[bonal]

From what I remember about the story they did quite a bit of rebuilding on the 152 that being said there are quite a number of pristine 150 and 152's that can be had for well under 30AMU's

[ArtVandelay]

You'd figure a hundred grand would get more than a 152 with a new panel, very minimal instrumentation and a new paint job.

I assume it comes with 0 time engine...$30k, paint job $8k, interior $8k, panel $15k, base airplane $14k...I'd expect a price of around $75k if my math is correct

[jetdriven]

From what I remember about the story they did quite a bit of rebuilding on the 152 that being said there are quite a number of pristine 150 and 152's that can be had for well under 30AMU's

Correction 112k-118k. That's a lycoming factory rebuilt engine on the high end.

http://aviataircraft.com/152ReImaginedAviatAOPAPacketFinal.pdf

But seriously that's 172R money and you couple probaby stick new paint and interior in one for that level.

[bonal]

Like I said under 30k I paid 18K for my 1966 150F it was real clean ran perfect and taught me how to fly. If they would make the 150 a light sport I think there would be a bunch of new people that might take the first step to flight. This is one of my pet peeves except for the gross weight it is a perfect fit for this category and the 1600 gross has nothing to do with anything. Saving a couple of grand on the rating matters not if the cheapest LS aircraft start above 50 grand.

[Sabremech]

I find it funny and a little upsetting that AOPA will offer financing on this new (still old ) airplane, yet when I tried to get financing I was denied because the airplane I wanted to purchase was older than 1975. This confirms even more of why I won't renew with AOPA.

David

[ryoder]

I sat in numerous light sports last Friday and the prices were all right around 130-180k.

[N601RX]

I don't think many will sell at this price, the panel is very basic. I'm surprised they didn't go ahead and make it ifr and adsb compliant. Many of the large flight schools are in or near class C airspace.  I've saw several very nice owner restored ones with 150hp conversion, gross weight increase and 430W advertised for less than 50K.  The regular really nice ones usually top out at under $30K.  Basic but in good condition is less than $20K.

[Parker_Woodruff]

I assume it comes with 0 time engine...$30k, paint job $8k, interior $8k, panel $15k, base airplane $14k...I'd expect a price of around $75k if my math is correct

 

Are they not allowed to try to make a profit?

[ArtVandelay]

Are they not allowed to try to make a profit?

Sure, but for same money you could have a J with full panel, let's see 152 basic panel vs 201 full IFR panel, I know which one I would pick.

[ryoder]

AOPA VREF on a 1980 152 with 2000TT 0SMOH new paint, new interior, and a GNS530W is 55k.

That means AOPA shouldn't loan a dime past 50K on this airplane since it doesn't have a GNS530W.

So why do they think it will sell? Wouldn't a flight school be better off putting a field overhaul in a low total time 152 and then painting it to match their school colors?

[BigTex]

The flight schools I've used seemed to care less what the planes looked like with a good percentage on leaseback.  The smaller schools when needing a new plane would bottom fish for a plane and let their mechanic keep it going.  The bigger schools might be interested in one but they'd want it repainted to school colors.  I'd bet that if one of these schools approached AOPA and said they want 10, AOPA would paint them purple with spots if it meant making a sale.

 

AOPA doesn't have a long attention span.  They tend to start initiatives like this and loose interest and move on to something else.  They'll sell a handfull of these refurbished 152's and that will be it.

[mike_elliott]

With the cost of "new" trainer aircraft, this price point makes refurbing a training fleet, starting a flying club or renting affordable (and smart).  Also as someone who refurbished a 74F, I think this is a great way to go.  There's a big difference in user experience when things look and smell new.  

 

Before I refurb'ed my 74F my wife hated flying.  The interior was ratty and smelled like it was 30+ years old (because it was!).  After I finished a full interior overhaul with new everything including windows, her comment to me is - "Wow this feels like a really nice luxury car!"  The plane was the same just refurb'ed in the places that matter.  After that flying became her preferred choice for travel.

 

Its the same for a new student.  Which you rather do?  Spend $130+ an hour on a beat up old aircraft that smells like fuel and body odor, or for about half that fly a "brand new" 152.  I vote solidly for the latter.  I'd be proud to fly this plane up to any FBO and show it off to friends and family.

 

I have often said to my wife "Alice, I wouldn't want you to fly in anything that is (ratty, looks bad, unsafe, unbecoming of you ..... insert appropriate comment here). You deserve the best." She has never objected to me spending AMU's for avionics, engine work, new interior etc. She also loves to fly!

[StinkBug]

$100k is a lot of money for a 152, and I've never heard of a flight school that is rolling in extra cash. The fact is if a flight school wanted all their planes to have that fresh new plane smell they could all have the interiors redone and a fresh coat of paint for a whole lot less money. AOPA seems to be trying to sell a new old plane, at newish prices to an industry that already has a ton of old planes, that could be made into new old planes a hell of a lot cheaper. The second problem is that most people learning to fly are looking for a bargain, and aren't willing to pay an extra $20-30 per hour for a cleaner newer plane. Makes paying for all that refurb kinda difficult from a business perspective.

[N601RX]

I was told several years ago that large flight schools that had new planes didn't buy them, they just leased and paid for hrs used.

[StinkBug]

I've never seen these "large flight schools with new planes" you speak of. Everyone around here seems to have old planes.

[GeorgePerry]

I've followed the posts about this with great interest.  Here are my thoughts.  Yep 100K is ALOT of money to pay for a refurbished aircraft.  But consider what Cessna would charge if they were building the 152 again and selling it new.  A lot more than 100K.  Also there's also a common misperception that AOPA is in business to sell these airplanes and this is a for profit endeavor.  I can assure you neither is the case.  AOPA is not "selling" airplanes nor is AOPA making any money as a result of this program…not a dime.  

 

The 152 Re-Imagined program is just that.  A program funded by a private individual and aviation enthusiast who has a passion for flying, General Aviation, and wants to help support and revitalize an industry that's taken it on the chin lately.  Additionally not 1 penny of AOPA member dues is being spent to support this program.  So please discuss the merits of the endeavor, but please do not imply (or incorrectly state as "fact") that AOPA is doing this for any other reason than showing folks there is a lower cost option if they want to fly something nice and new.  

 

Notably - Others are also doing this.  Sporty's and Redbird both have a refurbished 172 programs and there are many aircraft refurbishment businesses flourishing.  Whether or not you agree or disagree with the costs associated, please understand that parts, labor, and the skill needed to make a plane better than new has nothing in common with a shade tree, low-cost restoration effort.   Its also important to keep in mind that cost is part of the discussion but not the only part.  I for one am happy to see AOPA taking the lead, doing SOMETHING to help revitalize GA, and get people excited about flying again.    

 

If there are other/better ideas please share them.  Its easy to bird-dog others ideas, but it would be more helpful to work collectively towards making a positive impact.  Be an airport network volunteer, host a safety seminar at your local airport with free ASI content, invite the local chamber of commerce to your airport so they see the positive effects having GA can make on local economies.  These are just a few examples, but there are lots of positive things that everyone of us can do to help support flying and the industry we love.  

[ryoder]

The aopa strikes me as an inefficient government style bureaucracy more each day. Did they do any market research? The guy representing the airplane and I talked for 20 minutes and he said it was designed for flying clubs not schools. Now what flying club caters solely to people going for their private pilot? Most have a twin, a retract, a six seater, and a IFR 172. Not a 152.

[carusoam]

Ryoder,

You are hearing the scoop right from the horses mouth.

It might not be the "official" word from the organization.

But, it comes from a pretty reliable source near the top...

[bonal]

In defense of the AOPA 152 and other "rebuilds" they have done while I agree 100k is way expensive I had just 2 annuals that equaled 1/5 the total price of that completely rebuilt Cessna. And correct me if I'm mistaken every one of the airplanes they do they end up giving away for just being a member or something simple like that. I remember following the progress of the Debonair and when they found out there were issues with the airframe and power plant they spaired no expense in making it 100% before they presented it to the lucky winner. I know there are those of you that don't like the AOPA (plenty of posts for that) I happen to like what they do for GA I know they are not perfect but I really am glad to be associated with them. And if you don't like them then don't be with them.

[GeorgePerry]

The aopa strikes me as an inefficient government style bureaucracy more each day. Did they do any market research? The guy representing the airplane and I talked for 20 minutes and he said it was designed for flying clubs not schools. Now what flying club caters solely to people going for their private pilot? Most have a twin, a retract, a six seater, and a IFR 172. Not a 152.

ryoder

 

It hurts to hear you say that.  I can tell you the folks at AOPA live and breath aviation and everyone there hates governmental bureaucracies that impede progress and inject unnecessary policy driven costs.   I sense the frustration from AOPA's members, I share many of the same frustrations.  What AOPA hasn't done a good job of is communicating what we are trying to show.  The 152 program is designed to convey an idea - not be a single source solution.  Don't limit your imagination to what you see…imagine what could be.  That's what the 152 re imagined program is trying to get across.  Indulge me and read on...

 

The idea is - If you're interested in learning to fly or flying a plane that doesn't look worn out, then a refurb might be a good option.  It doesn't have to be a 152.  Pick the plane and fill in the blank.  An old mooney is a great refurb candidate.  Imagine how cool it would be to get a few pilot friends together who could each afford a mooney individually, but they decide to pool their resources and refurb a Mooney in order to make it a show piece that they'll enjoy flying for years.  That's the idea.  Keep the fun in, take as much of the costs out as possible and hopefully expand the base where possible.

 

The idea is to make what's old new again and keep interest levels high.  The idea is to show people who've never flown before that planes can be cool, not smelly rattle traps.  Also the idea addresses the economic reality that 99% of the working world can't afford a new $750K airplane.   Tell me you wouldn't love to fly something with a that "new" plane smell, with the glass, and interior to go along with it. Until the FAA gets Part 23 done and the manufacturers can figure out a way to make a profit without charging prices that only a select few can afford, the refurb idea is the next best thing.

 

So to answer your questions, yes there was market research.  Start with the best trainer in the world and build up from there.  Keep the faith and know that the folks at AOPA have our members interests at heart and work hard every day protecting our freedom to fly and making the dream of flight a reality to everyone with an interest.  

[ryoder]

I agree that the airplane looks awesome I just think there is no market for it or at least not a strong one.

A gentleman and his wife were asking the aopa rep about the airplane and he said it's designed for clubs not individual ownership. He asked how to start a club and was told to talk to people. That is sound advice but I think if the aopa wants this 152 to work they need to consider getting more involved in the club formation process and offer a simple signup process which requires 2000 down and 200 a month or something.

The local flight school has a club concept which costs 150 down and 15 a month. For those dues you can rent a 162 for $98 per hour wet.

The reason I compared aopa to the government is that only the government spends money that any private company which has to consider the market value of what they are doing would consider wasteful and calls it an investment.

I have trouble getting my friends with kids to commit to spending a couple of hundred dollars on aviation so it would be very difficult to ask five friends to put 20k into a two seater they can't use to take their family on trips. Maybe this should have been a 172M with a 160HP engine.

[aviatoreb]

My previous airplane was a 2003 Diamond DA40 - that is a steam guage version.  It is N805ER - so it was a former Embry Riddle airplaen.  It was in super shape when I put it up for sale.  It had a 350 hr Penn Yan engine which I had put in new MOH. The paint and interior were not in new condition, but looked good since after all it was only an 8 year old airplane by the time I sold it, and the airplane looked, smelled and felt thoroughly modern in its upkeep, and styling.  It had a GNS530/430 (not waas) and GTX330 and digital engine monitor.   When I sold it 4 years ago, it was purchased by a flight school in LA, where it continues to fly today.  I think it is a superb flight school OR club plane since it is forgiving enough to be a primary trainer and it is used like that for many.  Plus it is stylish enough that anyone would feel new age in it.  Plus its fast enough that a more experienced pilot would not worry it was crazy slow - an honest 150TAS cruiser - it was good both at flying slow or fast.