Trying to evaluate a plane and found VREF's helpful list of STEC autopilot values

STEC 20 $7,000
STEC 30 $10,900
STEC 40 $3,000
STEC 50 $4,000
STEC 55 $8,000
STEC 55X $17,900
STEC 60-2 $5,000

What a ridiculous list. The STEC 20 is worth more than an identical STEC 40 and also more than a full featured two-axis 60-2. Riiiiiiiight.

Same with the STEC 30 versus a 60-2. Can't recall at any time where I was able to have the STEC-30 do a full approach for me in my previous Mooney. No vertical speed either, which I love on the 60-2 among other things.

I think it's stuck in the early 2000's. Have they even updated it for things like G500/600, Aspens, GTN's, Avidyne, etc.

Brian

I think you have to pay for the real info. Or data mine Facebook.

STEC-30 will not track a glideslope.

Charles- Are you using VREF through AOPA? Isn't the AOPA VREF service a watered down version of the paid VREF service? I wonder if the paid version is more accurate.

AOPA.

But this data is ridiculous. The 20/40 and 30/50 are the same units

STEC-30 will not track a glideslope.

And here I thought you were talking of a landing speed and I was going to learn something new....

Vref is useful as a checkbox for a loan officer.

VREF is great !

I got an “Aircraft Rendition” doc from a local taxing authority a few days ago - they demand to know the value of my AC for some no doubt nefarious reason.

I’m OK citing the VREF value of 39K, as equipped

I once had a guy tell me he had Aircraft Blue Book, I replied do you have it with you? He said yes, I said do you have a trash can?

VREF is better than Blue Book... but that's about it.

Both publications are useless if the objective is to determine an aircraft's Market Value. Keep in mind that both publications clearly state that they are GENERAL GUIDES ONLY and cannot take all attributes into account. They should not be used for appraising a specific aircraft BUT evaluators do it every day - and they normally use one book/website or the other incorrectly.

I use one of the publications in my reporting not to lend any credence to the publication but to provide another datapoint in the analysis. The number of errors introduced by the publications is too many to address here but I will bring up two. One is the condition of the AIRFRAME (NOT the paint). For example, it is not possible to properly assess an airframe with dents, dings, deformations, poor repairs from damage history, etc. using a publication alone (think of a good paint job on a bad airframe or a bad paint job on a great airframe). The other area involves avionics - as referenced in the original post. Most evaluators want to add all of the equipment installed over the years but no one wants to make the effort to mathematically REMOVE the equipment that was replaced. The result is usually double counting equipment thereby overvaluing the aircraft.

Remember that publications are in the PUBLISHING business NOT the aircraft appraisal business. They generate their revenues from subscribers and advertisers. They do not support the data they publish other than to state that this is what was provided to them. Use their information with caution.

Good luck.

They are also all backward looking. And slow to catch trends. Given that the aircraft markets are very thin in many places it is hard to have a really accurate number from that format. It does give you a high level look though.

And I would say they are useless even as a GENERAL GUIDE when they value identical avionics differently

And I would say they are useless even as a GENERAL GUIDE when they value identical avionics differently