I’m thinking about buying a 1959 Cessna 172

[Nico_490]

Hello everyone,


In my search for a new VFR plane, I’ve come across a 1959 Cessna 172.


Here are some key details:
• Aircraft total time: 5,745 hours
• Engine: Rolls-Royce Continental O-300-D, 1,537 hours since major overhaul (overhauls in 1996 and 2006, with new camshaft and cam followers, compressions are good)
• Propeller: 197 hours since overhaul
• Basic VFR equipment
• 8.33 kHz Trig COM
• Sold with a new ARC
• No corrosion, always hangared
• Vacuum pump and venturi
• Fitted with a generator
• 4-place intercom


Here’s the listing with Pictures:
https://www.winglist.aero/listings/r5rDBrNd/1959-cessna-172-skyhawk


We’ve agreed on a price of around $31,000.

What do you think of the aircraft at first glance? Does this seem like a fair deal? I’d really appreciate your opinions, especially since the plane is about a 5-hour flight away from my home base.

My plan is to gradually upgrade the aircraft with a Garmin G5 and possibly a new transponder.

I would really appreciate your help on this!

 

[Jim K]

I don't really follow the Skyhawk market, much less in Sweden, but in the US I think that would be a really good deal. Looks nice; Good Luck!

 

[Nico_490]

It’s just as wild as yours in the US, I guess.

At first, I was uncertain about the straight tail with manual flaps, but after doing some research, I think they’re actually pretty cool.


Thank you!

 

[Jim K]

It’s just as wild as yours in the US, I guess.

At first, I was uncertain about the straight tail with manual flaps, but after doing some research, I think they’re actually pretty cool.


Thank you!

Personally, I love the looks of the straight tail, and much prefer manual flaps over electric.

 

[luvflyin]

Hello everyone,


In my search for a new VFR plane, I’ve come across a 1959 Cessna 172.


Here are some key details:
• Aircraft total time: 5,745 hours
• Engine: Rolls-Royce Continental O-300-D, 1,537 hours since major overhaul (overhauls in 1996 and 2006, with new camshaft and cam followers, compressions are good)
• Propeller: 197 hours since overhaul
• Basic VFR equipment
• 8.33 kHz Trig COM
• Sold with a new ARC
• No corrosion, always hangared
• Vacuum pump and venturi
• Fitted with a generator
• 4-place intercom


Here’s the listing with Pictures:
https://www.winglist.aero/listings/r5rDBrNd/1959-cessna-172-skyhawk


We’ve agreed on a price of around $31,000.

What do you think of the aircraft at first glance? Does this seem like a fair deal? I’d really appreciate your opinions, especially since the plane is about a 5-hour flight away from my home base.

My plan is to gradually upgrade the aircraft with a Garmin G5 and possibly a new transponder.

I would really appreciate your help on this!

Airworthiness until 1/12/2023 ?? Why does the AD say Rolls Royce, RR300?

 

[William Pete Hodges]

How many hours since last major overhaul? If they were done at 2000 and 4000 hours, then that would be 1745 SMOH. That leaves only 255 hrs until the next overhaul would be due. I realize you can go farther than that but that number represents how much utility is left before a major expense would be expected. I think you should consider it.

Addition: I fly 30-60 hours per year. Over multiple years that is about 45 per year. In ten years that means 450 hours. If you sell that plane in ten years with 6200 hours on it, most potential buyers will either low ball you or back away, unless you had the overhaul done on your watch. If it was me I'd be looking for an airplane with a more recent overhaul.

 

[Lowflynjack]

How many hours since last major overhaul? If they were done at 2000 and 4000 hours, then that would be 1745 SMOH. That leaves only 255 hrs until the next overhaul would be due. I realize you can go farther than that but that number represents how much utility is left before a major expense would be expected. I think you should consider it.

He mentioned 1,537 hours since major overhaul (overhauls in 1996 and 2006).

TBO on this engine is 1800 hours or 12 years, so 263 left based on hours, or 6 years over based on the 12 year recommendation.

 

[Nico_490]

Airworthiness until 1/12/2023 ?? Why does the AD say Rolls Royce, RR300?

The Ad is quite wrong. It's just for the pictures.
Its a O-300-D. The plane comes with a fresh ARC.

@William:
Its about 1500h SMOH. My last 172 had an O-300 and it had over 2000h when I sold it. So, I’m quite optimistic that this engine will go beyond TBO on condition.

Sure, it's always a gamble. But if I'm the sole owner of this plane, I think I'll be good for 2-3 years. And with a fresh overhaul it should be worth somewhat more, right?

 

[William Pete Hodges]

The Ad is quite wrong. It's just for the pictures.
Its a O-300-D. The plane comes with a fresh ARC.

@William:
Its about 1500h SMOH. My last 172 had an O-300 and it had over 2000h when I sold it. So, I’m quite optimistic that this engine will go beyond TBO on condition.

Sure, it's always a gamble. But if I'm the sole owner of this plane, I think I'll be good for 2-3 years. And with a fresh overhaul it should be worth somewhat more, right?

You are correct in your analysis. Only you can decide if this is right for you.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

My first airplane was a 1957 straight tail 172. I loved the manual flaps and its low-speed performance. But today I am told parts for the O-300 are hard to find.

 

[Bell206]

I’d really appreciate your opinions, especially since the plane is about a 5-hour flight away from my home base.

Is this your first aircraft to own?
Will the aircraft remain in Sweden?

 

[Nico_490]

Is this your first aircraft to own?
Will the aircraft remain in Sweden?

No, I was part-owner in an 65 172G before that.

And no, I live in germany.

 

[Lowflynjack]

The Ad is quite wrong. It's just for the pictures.
Its a O-300-D. The plane comes with a fresh ARC.

@William:
Its about 1500h SMOH. My last 172 had an O-300 and it had over 2000h when I sold it. So, I’m quite optimistic that this engine will go beyond TBO on condition.

Sure, it's always a gamble. But if I'm the sole owner of this plane, I think I'll be good for 2-3 years. And with a fresh overhaul it should be worth somewhat more, right?

A good 172 will keep it's value, but I assume you're getting it at a discount because of the higher time engine. Never count on an overhaul adding a lot of value though. It will help, but it'll cost way more than you'll get back. I always try to buy planes with low time and sell them at about half of TBO. Let other people pay for the expensive stuff!

That being said, you're not paying a ton of money for this plane. I would buy it and enjoy it. Sounds like a pretty good deal.

 

[Old97]

It’s just as wild as yours in the US, I guess.

At first, I was uncertain about the straight tail with manual flaps, but after doing some research, I think they’re actually pretty cool.


Thank you!

Flaps 40! Johnson bar flaps are way better than waiting on a slow actuator. And it may have mechanical wing root fuel gauges which work better. I flew in a 58 quite a bit and liked it. You sit up higher i think than in the later models. Square tail arguably looks better and more effective.

 

[Bell206]

And no, I live in germany.

I don't follow the EASA rules as much now, but even though you are getting a "fresh" ARC you may want to ensure the aircraft will meet all the requirements to be registered in Germany. Perhaps talk with the maintenance shop or mechanic you plan use to take care of this aircraft once purchased. Have seen/heard that not all EU nations are full EASA compliant which can lead to local differences in the requirements between different nations.

 

[Lowflynjack]

Flaps 40! Johnson bar flaps are way better than waiting on a slow actuator. And it may have mechanical wing root fuel gauges which work better. I flew in a 58 quite a bit and liked it. You sit up higher i think than in the later models. Square tail arguably looks better and more effective.

I have a straight-tail 182. The manual flaps are awesome. I rarely use 40 degrees, but if I do, I'm ready to add power. It comes down like a helicopter!

I miss the wing root gauges. Dumbest thing Cessna ever did was getting rid of those. Stupid simple and very accurate.

And yes, straight tails rock!

 

[Dana]

Why does the AD say Rolls Royce, RR300?

Rolls-Royce built some Continental engines under license for the European market. Same engine AFAIK, but the valve covers were stamped "Rolls-Royce" instead of "Continental".

The old straight tail Cessnas were great airplanes.

 

[Lowflynjack]

And for anyone who doesn't think a straight-tail 172 is pretty, I provide evidence that they are!

 

[Jim K]

And for anyone who doesn't think a straight-tail 172 is pretty, I provide evidence that they are!

Yeah, but you make every airplane look good

 

[Lowflynjack]

Yeah, but you make every airplane look good

LOL, not sure about that, but thanks!

 

[luvflyin]

Rolls-Royce built some Continental engines under license for the European market. Same engine AFAIK, but the valve covers were stamped "Rolls-Royce" instead of "Continental".

The old straight tail Cessnas were great airplanes.

Yeah. Thing is tho, the RR300 is a turbine engine.

 

[Palmpilot]

Make sure there's no fuel leakage after the tanks are topped off.

Fuel Leak After Topping Off

About half an hour after having the tanks filled on an older 172 I discovered fuel dripping out of the right wing root. There was also a fuel smell inside the airplane with the door closed. I wrote up a squawk and switched airplanes. The next day the maintenance department closed my squawk and...

www.pilotsofamerica.com