A project.

$39K for that is cheap? Wow...I would have guessed $10K in the condition that plane is in. The panel needs work, engine needs an overhaul and by the time you're done, you'll have $39K into the plane at a minimum.
 
Caramon13 said:
$39K for that is cheap? Wow...I would have guessed $10K in the condition that plane is in. The panel needs work, engine needs an overhaul and by the time you're done, you'll have $39K into the plane at a minimum.
Click to expand...

Why does the panel need work? It looks like it has a needle, ball, and airspeed. Is there something else that it needs?


That will get snapped up.

1953's have all sorts of built in benefits. They are light and can be made into all sorts of amazing back country planes.

If I was looking for a project, that would be on the short list of things to consider.
 
It was a damn good looking plane in 1965....
117751.jpg
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Hmm. No logbooks. Wonder what it would be worth with the logbooks.
Click to expand...

I bet I know where the logbooks are......

00v0v_gWEM51MDveA_600x450.jpg

In one of the boxes under the wing.....

1953 Cessna 180. Cont 0470 , 1498 smoh, 3500 tt , no log books . $39,000 or highest bid by May


Not sure exactly what the log books would add on a 63 year old plane??? I would think you would check all the AD's for compliance anyway, an extensive annual, then decide what you do with the engine.

It is definitely a "barn find", somebody will grab it and have a heckuva plane.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Why does the panel need work? It looks like it has a needle, ball, and airspeed. Is there something else that it needs? That will get snapped up. 1953's have all sorts of built in benefits. They are light and can be made into all sorts of amazing back country planes.
If I was looking for a project, that would be on the short list of things to consider.
Click to expand...

Ok, if you say so. $39K for that plane is a bit overpriced IMO...more than a bit. Oh and thanks @Greg Bockelman for also seeing that :) No logbooks basically means you have what..63 years worth of ADs to check and document?

Overhaul is 20K for the engine, and you'll probably need one with 1498 on the engine and only 3500 tt and no documentation on when the last one was done.
Panel needs some updated avionics to do anything other than VFR only basic flying. With that transponder I'd be dubious it could make it through a class C.

If you have 60K lying around to bring this thing back into currency, awesome. But you'll never get that back, especially with the logbooks gone.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Hmm. No logbooks. Wonder what it would be worth with the logbooks.
Click to expand...

Who gives a crap ? when you restore it you will re-work every thing, and start your own logs. then keep the aircraft. for re-sale that might be better than any aircraft with a long gap in the maintenance records.
 
This is an aircraft that has a re-sale price that leaves a profit out the back side, IO-520's are in abundance in the salvage yards at prices lower than a 0-470- overhaul.
 
Caramon13 said:
$39K for that is cheap? Wow...I would have guessed $10K in the condition that plane is in. The panel needs work, engine needs an overhaul and by the time you're done, you'll have $39K into the plane at a minimum.
Click to expand...
Look on the bright side, they sell for around 100k, think you can restore it for less than that?
 
I'm wondering how they know the Time numbers with out logs?
 
Tom-D said:
Look on the bright side, they sell for around 100k, think you can restore it for less than that?
Click to expand...

Me? No chance. Someone skilled, sure why not? I've got no problem with the plane itself, airframe is nice and all. Interior looks "OK" from the one seat that was in the picture. I'm just saying, $39K is at least $20-29K too much for this airplane without knowing anything about it whatsoever due to missing logbooks.

Tom-D said:
I'm wondering how they know the Time numbers with out logs?
Click to expand...

Someone probably has something handwritten, but you really only need the tach time to know TTAF (unless that got replaced) engine time, yeah who knows?
 
Caramon13 said:
Me? No chance. Someone skilled, sure why not? I've got no problem with the plane itself, airframe is nice and all. Interior looks "OK" from the one seat that was in the picture. I'm just saying, $39K is at least $20-29K too much for this airplane without knowing anything about it whatsoever due to missing logbooks.



Someone probably has something handwritten, but you really only need the tach time to know TTAF (unless that got replaced) engine time, yeah who knows?
Click to expand...
 
Out of curiosity, what is your background? What is the basis for your opinion?
 
Caramon13 said:
Ok, if you say so. $39K for that plane is a bit overpriced IMO...more than a bit. Oh and thanks @Greg Bockelman for also seeing that :) No logbooks basically means you have what..63 years worth of ADs to check and document?

Overhaul is 20K for the engine, and you'll probably need one with 1498 on the engine and only 3500 tt and no documentation on when the last one was done.
Panel needs some updated avionics to do anything other than VFR only basic flying. With that transponder I'd be dubious it could make it through a class C.

If you have 60K lying around to bring this thing back into currency, awesome. But you'll never get that back, especially with the logbooks gone.
Click to expand...


Here is a 1953 for $95k on Trade a plane....

display-asset


Similar panel....
display-asset


Detailed Description

1953 C-180 2450TT, 300HP Eng 24hrTTSN, 3-Bld Prop 5hrTTSN, KX155 Nav/Com with GS, King 170B, Intcm, KMA-24 Audio/Marker.
Avionics / Equipment

KX155 Nav/Com with G/S, KX170B G/S, Intercom, KMA-24 Audio/Marker, Narco/AT50 Transponder,TCI Encoder

Tanis engine heater, Alpha Systems Angle of Attack Indicator. New B.A.S. Inc TSO Shoulder Harness and Seat belt kit. Rosen Sunvisor system.,
Airframe

2450 TT, Log books lost from 1953 to 1955, 485 Hr logged between 53 and 55.
Aircraft just repaired by Beegles Aircraft Services after ground loop accident.
This aircraft does not have a float kit
Annual Due, April 2017
Engines / Mods / Prop

IO-520-D Conversion by Airplanes Service Corp, Wellington KS. 24 Hr SNEW, 5HR Since prop strike inspection and repair.

IO-520-D, 300 HP Engine, 3 Blade Prop, Wing tip tanks, One piece windshield, Whelen LED tail strobe, Whelen belly strob
Interior / Exterior

Upholstery is Fair to good, Carpet not aviation.

Right wing, fuselage, right flap and aileron repainted after repair, good match to rest of the A/C
Remarks

This aircraft is equipped with 800X6 tires on Cleveland wheels and brakes using stainless steel brake lines.
Pilot Secondary Seat Stop, New seat rails, seat bushings and rollers.
Click to expand...



Think you can bring the "project" up to the $90k's for less than $50k?
 
JoseCuervo said:
Here is a 1953 for $95k on Trade a plane...
Think you can bring the "project" up to the $90k's for less than $50k?
Click to expand...

Without the logbooks, no. That's always going to be a huge hit on value. Doesn't matter how much effort you put into it. It's still going to be worth less than a plane in similar condition WITH the logbooks. Even with similar equipment. Buy it if you wanna own it, sure. But if you wanna resell it? I'd stay away.
 
Caramon13 said:
Me? No chance. Someone skilled, sure why not? I've got no problem with the plane itself, airframe is nice and all. Interior looks "OK" from the one seat that was in the picture. I'm just saying, $39K is at least $20-29K too much for this airplane without knowing anything about it whatsoever due to missing logbooks.
Click to expand...
I 'm thinking you are not up to speed on the selling prices of the early 180s. these are the narrow fuselage all flying tail 180. they are fast. and highly sought after 180. simply because they will out run a 185 at gross for each aircraft.
Completely stripped, polished, re-wired, with panel up grade, GPS, new interior, new glass with bubble side windows, IO-520, three blade prop, sea plane fittings installed, new logs with ADlog in compliance, is a $200,000 aircraft.
And you will not find one in this condition in any online for sale web page. they will be sold by word of mouth probably prior to finishing the project.
I've watched this market for many years hoping to find a project like this for my own, but now that it is too late One pops up. (my shop is too small to work it)
 
Caramon13 said:
Without the logbooks, no. That's always going to be a huge hit on value. .
Click to expand...
contrary to public opinion not in this market. Buyers that know these aircraft want them they don't care about nickel and dime sh--. they know they will have it until the estate sale.
 
Well, I will of course defer to you then @Tom-D though it seems contrary to my logic :). You have done more restoration work than I, no question.
 
Tom-D said:
contrary to public opinion not in this market. Buyers that know these aircraft want them they don't care about nickel and dime sh--. they know they will have it until the estate sale.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

The person that would buy this aircraft is interested in how it works and flies today, not what happened thirty or forty years ago. If it's in good basic condition with no major issues (which is not difficult to determine), the aircraft could be a workhorse that would provide many more years of service.
 
What would it take to get this in just basic flying condition?

I'm a bit tempted...
 
Mtns2Skies said:
What would it take to get this in just basic flying condition?

I'm a bit tempted...
Click to expand...
Simply a good annual, start new logs showing that it was AD compliant and in annual. run the engine see if it will make the numbers it should, change the oil, fuel. test fly.
 
The only thing I would worry about is mice getting into the airframe/wings and starting corrosion. They could have made nests on top of the instruments and their fluids get into every nook and cranny of every instrument and piece of structure. Labor for corrosion repair can get out of hand quick if you are not doing the work your self.
 
Caramon13 said:
$39K for that is cheap? Wow...I would have guessed $10K in the condition that plane is in. The panel needs work, engine needs an overhaul and by the time you're done, you'll have $39K into the plane at a minimum.
Click to expand...

It's a skywagon, 39k is more then fair, they go for 100k plus. And skywagons have a cult following like the PA18s
 
If it isnt flyable, you're going to have to take the wings off it and truck it to your airport to rebuild. THATs gonna cost a pretty penny. How much would it cost to get it cherry? Nobody knows.
 
edessa said:
The only thing I would worry about is mice getting into the airframe/wings and starting corrosion. They could have made nests on top of the instruments and their fluids get into every nook and cranny of every instrument and piece of structure. Labor for corrosion repair can get out of hand quick if you are not doing the work your self.
Click to expand...

Do you think a good annual will discover this? A restoration to new condition will cure all :)
 
coloradobluesky said:
If it isnt flyable, you're going to have to take the wings off it and truck it to your airport to rebuild. THATs gonna cost a pretty penny. How much would it cost to get it cherry? Nobody knows.
Click to expand...

Why not make it flyable where it is? Do we know what ferry permits are for?
 
Tom-D said:
Do you think a good annual will discover this? A restoration to new condition will cure all :)
Click to expand...

A standard annual should cover this. I agree that a restoration will cure the corrosion but what would be the extent of the damage and what would be the cost. I have heard that some shops charge up to $100/hr for corrosion repairs. Crazy.
 
edessa said:
A standard annual should cover this. I agree that a restoration will cure the corrosion but what would be the extent of the damage and what would be the cost. I have heard that some shops charge up to $100/hr for corrosion repairs. Crazy.
Click to expand...

Where is the corrosion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JoseCuervo said:
Where is the corrosion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No one knows there is any. every one is guessing and tire kicking looking for some thing wrong -- like always.
Wenatchee is a very dry place.
 
Tom-D said:
I 'm thinking you are not up to speed on the selling prices of the early 180s. these are the narrow fuselage all flying tail 180. they are fast. and highly sought after 180. simply because they will out run a 185 at gross for each aircraft.
Click to expand...

I have some flying time in a '53 180. Serial #4, supposedly the oldest one still flying at the time. It was lighter than our 172Ms.

I often work on 180s and 185s. There are some places that can cost serious money. The stabilizer mounting stuff--the rear hinges and the trim jacks--are prime trouble spots. The hinges are often not properly installed, with the mechanic leaving the bolt and nut a bit loose, thinking that it pivots on the bolt. It doesn't; it pivots on the spacer, which is supposed to be clamped tightly between the outer angle and inner bracket. If it's left loose, the bolt wallows out its holes and the only fix is new parts. Those angles are several thousand bucks each.

The jackscrews are accessible only be removing the rudder, fin, elevators and stabilizer, unless the Cessna access panel service kit has been installed (or an illegal round hole cut in the skin under them). So they get ignored. The dust boots age and crack and dirt and water get in and corrosion does expensive things in there. I recently found one with a ball bearing about to fail totally, which would have jammed the whole trim system. Try aborting a landing after having trimmed for glide and see how much pressure it takes to hold the nose down. It's no fun. Jackscrew parts, even aftermarket, aren't cheap and the time to fix is anything but quick. Rigging the system takes some time, too.

Control system cables go through some fairleads and across several rub strips (like the one in the aft fuselage on a bulkhead) and three small pulleys in the cabin ceiling, above the headliner where few folks ever look. The cables are often worn far past AC43.13 limits, and much of the wear is simply due to the wind wiggling the controls with the airplane tied down. Found worn-out cables in an 1100-hour, 40-year-old airframe. Nothing like external gustlocks to save cables.

The rearmost fuselage bulkhead can crack at the holes that the rudder cables pass through. The fin spars are prone to cracking.

Old airplanes are fun.
 
Dan Thomas said:
I have some flying time in a '53 180. Serial #4, supposedly the oldest one still flying at the time. It was lighter than our 172Ms.

I often work on 180s and 185s. There are some places that can cost serious money. The stabilizer mounting stuff--the rear hinges and the trim jacks--are prime trouble spots. The hinges are often not properly installed, with the mechanic leaving the bolt and nut a bit loose, thinking that it pivots on the bolt. It doesn't; it pivots on the spacer, which is supposed to be clamped tightly between the outer angle and inner bracket. If it's left loose, the bolt wallows out its holes and the only fix is new parts. Those angles are several thousand bucks each.

The jackscrews are accessible only be removing the rudder, fin, elevators and stabilizer, unless the Cessna access panel service kit has been installed (or an illegal round hole cut in the skin under them). So they get ignored. The dust boots age and crack and dirt and water get in and corrosion does expensive things in there. I recently found one with a ball bearing about to fail totally, which would have jammed the whole trim system. Try aborting a landing after having trimmed for glide and see how much pressure it takes to hold the nose down. It's no fun. Jackscrew parts, even aftermarket, aren't cheap and the time to fix is anything but quick. Rigging the system takes some time, too.

Control system cables go through some fairleads and across several rub strips (like the one in the aft fuselage on a bulkhead) and three small pulleys in the cabin ceiling, above the headliner where few folks ever look. The cables are often worn far past AC43.13 limits, and much of the wear is simply due to the wind wiggling the controls with the airplane tied down. Found worn-out cables in an 1100-hour, 40-year-old airframe. Nothing like external gustlocks to save cables.

The rearmost fuselage bulkhead can crack at the holes that the rudder cables pass through. The fin spars are prone to cracking.

Old airplanes are fun.
Click to expand...
This 180 only has 3500TT I'd not expect any of the trim system to be worn out yet. and with the advent of bore scopes they can be inspected pretty easy.

Upgrades and SBs can be complied with as they need to be.
 
Tom-D said:
This 180 only has 3500TT I'd not expect any of the trim system to be worn out yet. and with the advent of bore scopes they can be inspected pretty easy.

Upgrades and SBs can be complied with as they need to be.
Click to expand...


I've found those trim jacks worn out and/or corroded on airplanes with less than 3500 hours. Age gets them, as I said, with the boots failing and letting all sorts of contaminants in. The grease in them also hardens into useless crud. Nobody should expect grease to last 30 or 40 or 50 years. Cessna specifies a 3-year service interval.

Those old 180s had no trim wheel detents and no springs in the trim jacks. They would creep toward nose-up in flight, sometimes rapidly. Cessna issued an SB on it way back in the '50s to allow the installation of springs in the jacks, but even then some pilots had to use some sort of device to jam the wheel to keep it still.

Those old stabilizers also did not have the triangular stiffeners in the stab above the rear hinge brackets, and the hinges would flex the skin and cause trouble. An SB on that, too.
 
Dan Thomas said:
I've found those trim jacks worn out and/or corroded on airplanes with less than 3500 hours. Age gets them, as I said, with the boots failing and letting all sorts of contaminants in. The grease in them also hardens into useless crud. Nobody should expect grease to last 30 or 40 or 50 years. Cessna specifies a 3-year service interval.

Those old 180s had no trim wheel detents and no springs in the trim jacks. They would creep toward nose-up in flight, sometimes rapidly. Cessna issued an SB on it way back in the '50s to allow the installation of springs in the jacks, but even then some pilots had to use some sort of device to jam the wheel to keep it still.

Those old stabilizers also did not have the triangular stiffeners in the stab above the rear hinge brackets, and the hinges would flex the skin and cause trouble. An SB on that, too.
Click to expand...
Any aircraft will have its troubles, and there are a lot of early 180 the were well taken care of and served well for many thousands of hours. How do we know which this one is?
 
Tom-D said:
No one knows there is any. every one is guessing and tire kicking looking for some thing wrong -- like always.
Wenatchee is a very dry place.
Click to expand...


POA --------- Preventing Ownership of Aircraft
 
Tom-D said:
Any aircraft will have its troubles, and there are a lot of early 180 the were well taken care of and served well for many thousands of hours. How do we know which this one is?
Click to expand...

This one was annual'd as recently as 2009. 56 year period of annuals/repairs before it got placed inside of a hangar. Lots of time for maintenance and service bulletins to have been followed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top