My 172 is for sale!

James331 said:
Ether way any one willing to spend six figures but unwilling to travel to checkout a plane has more money than..well.
Click to expand...
I hope you are not referring to me. I was the one that first posted the link to the plane in CA. But looking at a plane that appears to be a better value AND is closer doesn't indicate fear or misplaced priorities.
 
JOhnH said:
I hope you are not referring to me. I was the one that first posted the link to the plane in CA. But looking at a plane that appears to be a better value AND is closer doesn't indicate fear or misplaced priorities.
Click to expand...

You have to look at the airframe to determine if it is a better value, especially the gear saddles. A lot of these and the 182RGs are available cheap due to gear saddle issues.
 
Henning said:
You have to look at the airframe to determine if it is a better value, especially the gear saddles. A lot of these and the 182RGs are available cheap due to gear saddle issues.
Click to expand...

The pivots crack in 182RGs. Some are repairable others are not. Each pivot is somewhere between $8k-$20k new. The biggest issue is supply as few seem to be in stock and very very very long wait times to get them.

A few 182RG came with steel pivots, believed to be immune to the problem. Recently a CPA member reported a steel one cracked too.

I think the repair applies to cracks in the spline area, also $X,XXX just for that.

I would think this would be a good candidate for STC replacement parts to cure the problem and remove CessnaBeech (Textron Aviation) from monopoly pricing.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
The pivots crack in 182RGs. Some are repairable others are not. Each pivot is somewhere between $8k-$20k new. The biggest issue is supply as few seem to be in stock and very very very long wait times to get them.

A few 182RG came with steel pivots, believed to be immune to the problem. Recently a CPA member reported a steel one cracked too.

I think the repair applies to cracks in the spline area, also $X,XXX just for that.

I would think this would be a good candidate for STC replacement parts to cure the problem and remove CessnaBeech (Textron Aviation) from monopoly pricing.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should be looking at fixed gear 182s and give up the extra few knots. Or maybe a 210, but that might be more plane that I need. How many knots should I expect to give up with fixed gear?

edit to add: I appreciate all these comments. I admit I don't know as much as I would wish I did.
 
Last edited:
JOhnH said:
Perhaps I should be looking at fixed gear 182s and give up the extra few knots. Or maybe a 210, but that might be more plane that I need. How many knots should I expect to give up with fixed gear?

edit to add: I appreciate all these comments. I admit I don't know as much as I would wish I did.
Click to expand...

I still say a 177RG is viable for your mission. Do you need the load of a 182? I don't remember you mentioning that weight was a big operating limitation and neither of you is large. The 177RG is roomy, efficient, and has a great view.
 
Henning said:
I still say a 177RG is viable for your mission. Do you need the load of a 182? I don't remember you mentioning that weight was a big operating limitation and neither of you is large. The 177RG is roomy, efficient, and has a great view.
Click to expand...
Funny you should post that right now. I just posted a link to a 177RG that I might be interested. I suspect you may be responding to that, or looking into it as I type.

No, we don't REALLY need the capacity of a 182 very often. My 172 had about 850# capacity with full fuel (40 gal) and we only had to go light on fuel two or three times due to weight. But Leslie has had this crazy ambition to fly over the North Atlantic on a trip to Europe ever since we bought the 172. The thing that scares me is that her crazy dreams usually seem to come true eventually. Even a 182 might not be enough ship for that mission, but it would probably be better than a cardinal. But I do like the Cardinal and it would fit 90% of our missions.
 
182RG is significantly faster than a 177RG and climbs a lot better.
 
jesse said:
182RG is significantly faster than a 177RG and climbs a lot better.
Click to expand...
I agree that a 182 is nicer. But from what I have seen, the speed advantage is about 10kts but the cost is half again. Am I wrong?

Cost is not the only issue, but it is an issue. Otherwise, I would be looking at a Corvalis.
 
JOhnH said:
I agree that a 182 is nicer. But from what I have seen, the speed advantage is about 10kts but the cost is half again. Am I wrong?

Cost is not the only issue, but it is an issue. Otherwise, I would be looking at a Corvalis.
Click to expand...

What I don't like about 177B, 177RG, 182RG is being stuck on 100LL. What's the cost of the replacement fuel going to be? Will it impact prices on those aircraft that must use it?

182 thru 182P can run plain ol' 87 octane ethanol-free gas.

Most 210 can run 91 octane with the anti-detonation injection STC.
 
The ADI STC is available for:

​
INPULSE is currently available for the Cessna 188, Cessna 210 and Beech Baron IO-470 and IO-520 engines. In the future Air Plains plans to pursue additional aircraft as the market demands a proven, effective solution for the high cost of and eventual phasing out of leaded fuel.


Which makes me wonder how many aircraft they will expand to.



 
JOhnH said:
I agree that a 182 is nicer. But from what I have seen, the speed advantage is about 10kts but the cost is half again. Am I wrong?

Cost is not the only issue, but it is an issue. Otherwise, I would be looking at a Corvalis.
Click to expand...

I'd put it more like 15 knots based on the real world experience I've had in both types. I recall the 182RG doing 155 knots true. I recall the 177RG doing about 140 knots true. I've only flown one 177RG so perhaps this one was slower than others.

15 knots can make a noticeable difference on a long trip, especially if you're fighting a headwind.

Let's say you need to go 500 miles and you're fighting a 25 knot headwind.

177RG (at 140 KTAS) 4 hours 20 minutes
182RG (at 155 KTAS) 3 hours 50 minutes

Makes for a 30 minute difference. You'd also be seriously considering a fuel stop in the 177RG whereas it would be a non issue in the 182RG. If you did stop for fuel you'd probably beat the 177RG with the 182RG by well over a hour. Bump it to 600 miles and you definitely need a fuel stop in the Cardinal whereas you'd still be plenty fine in the 182RG.

Someone will probably claim the 177RG goes faster or the 182RG goes slower. I'm just basing this off of what I've observed flying both although like I said I've only flown one 177RG.

Take the above into account with the 182RG having better climb performance and more overall capability...I'd be shopping for the 182RG personally, if I wanted a Cessna.

Of course if it were me I'd just buy a Bonanza. I'm also a bit of a Malibu fanboy these days but they're SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive to acquire, insure, and maintain.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Jesse. I appreciate the input.
I am still shopping for a 182 or 182RG, but I haven't found the right one yet.
At the moment, I am looking at the Deb linked to above, and a Dakota:
http://www.gardneraircraft.com/planeviewpic.php?id=327
Since it is listed with the guy that sold my 172 I can get this significantly under the listing price. (They own this one, they are not brokering it)

Any comments are welcome. (I already know the engine is near EOL).

jesse said:
I'd put it more like 15 knots based on the real world experience I've had in both types. I recall the 182RG doing 155 knots true. I recall the 177RG doing about 140 knots true. I've only flown one 177RG so perhaps this one was slower than others.

15 knots can make a noticeable difference on a long trip, especially if you're fighting a headwind.

Let's say you need to go 500 miles and you're fighting a 25 knot headwind.

177RG (at 140 KTAS) 4 hours 20 minutes
182RG (at 155 KTAS) 3 hours 50 minutes

Makes for a 30 minute difference. You'd also be seriously considering a fuel stop in the 177RG whereas it would be a non issue in the 182RG. If you did stop for fuel you'd probably beat the 177RG with the 182RG by well over a hour. Bump it to 600 miles and you definitely need a fuel stop in the Cardinal whereas you'd still be plenty fine in the 182RG.

Someone will probably claim the 177RG goes faster or the 182RG goes slower. I'm just basing this off of what I've observed flying both although like I said I've only flown one 177RG.

Take the above into account with the 182RG having better climb performance and more overall capability...I'd be shopping for the 182RG personally, if I wanted a Cessna.

Of course if it were me I'd just buy a Bonanza. I'm also a bit of a Malibu fanboy these days but they're SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive to acquire, insure, and maintain.
Click to expand...
 
JOhnH said:
Funny you should post that right now. I just posted a link to a 177RG that I might be interested. I suspect you may be responding to that, or looking into it as I type.

No, we don't REALLY need the capacity of a 182 very often. My 172 had about 850# capacity with full fuel (40 gal) and we only had to go light on fuel two or three times due to weight. But Leslie has had this crazy ambition to fly over the North Atlantic on a trip to Europe ever since we bought the 172. The thing that scares me is that her crazy dreams usually seem to come true eventually. Even a 182 might not be enough ship for that mission, but it would probably be better than a cardinal. But I do like the Cardinal and it would fit 90% of our missions.
Click to expand...

A Cardinal with a Ferry tank can make the Atlantic no worries, just pick your weather windows. Tell Leslie to give me a call if she wants a right seater, I'll go.
 
JOhnH said:
My A&P and a local flight school owner both advised me that even though Beech is nice, they are overpriced and maintenance costs will be much higher.
That said, I asked the guy that sold my 172 to look into the Deb you posted about.
Thanks
Click to expand...

Nah, that's not particularly true. The cost differences are all close enough that luck and a good pre purchase inspection is what will distinguish which is the cheapest in end of life ownership with regards to maint costs.

Thing about the 33/35 Beech series is that they have multiple tip tank and reserve tank options that give TransAtlantic range without resorting to more hazardous ferry tanks. If she wants to have fun on some long range adventures, the Bonanza is a pretty good platform to start with. The Continental also has an overwater advantage especially with a single engine as the Fuel Injection system has a 'limp home' mode on the High circuit of the boost pump switch. If the primary pump fails, this pump will keep the engine making power and the plane flying. (If you turn it on while flying AOK, you'll kill the engine by flooding it.)

If Leslie really wants to make these flights in the next decade, you may want to consider a Bonanza now so you can slowly outfit it and get it ready to go in the most financially efficient as well as safest manner.
 
jesse said:
I'd put it more like 15 knots based on the real world experience I've had in both types. I recall the 182RG doing 155 knots true. I recall the 177RG doing about 140 knots true. I've only flown one 177RG so perhaps this one was slower than others.

15 knots can make a noticeable difference on a long trip, especially if you're fighting a headwind.

Let's say you need to go 500 miles and you're fighting a 25 knot headwind.

177RG (at 140 KTAS) 4 hours 20 minutes
182RG (at 155 KTAS) 3 hours 50 minutes

Makes for a 30 minute difference. You'd also be seriously considering a fuel stop in the 177RG whereas it would be a non issue in the 182RG. If you did stop for fuel you'd probably beat the 177RG with the 182RG by well over a hour. Bump it to 600 miles and you definitely need a fuel stop in the Cardinal whereas you'd still be plenty fine in the 182RG.

Someone will probably claim the 177RG goes faster or the 182RG goes slower. I'm just basing this off of what I've observed flying both although like I said I've only flown one 177RG.

Take the above into account with the 182RG having better climb performance and more overall capability...I'd be shopping for the 182RG personally, if I wanted a Cessna.

Of course if it were me I'd just buy a Bonanza. I'm also a bit of a Malibu fanboy these days but they're SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive to acquire, insure, and maintain.
Click to expand...

Yep, the Bonanza makes more sense because for the mission for the same extra costs (or less) than the 182RG, you get even more performance, not to mention much better landing gear.
 
It took longer than expected to get the funds transferred for my 172, but they came in Friday. So I am now more actively looking.

cdahl said:
John...Beechcraft fan here.....go fly a Deb.

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...AIR/1967-BEECHCRAFT-C33A-DEBONAIR/1341223.htm
Click to expand...

I finally got a response to my inquiry about this plane. It is under contract but contingent on financing. They'll let me know if it becomes available again.

So far, every plane I was interested in sold before I could move on it. But without the money from my sale I couldn't really move fast.

Any opinions on this one?
http://www.gardneraircraft.com/planeviewpic.php?id=379
Its on the highest end of my price range, so I would hope I could get them down.
 
JOhnH said:
It took longer than expected to get the funds transferred for my 172, but they came in Friday. So I am now more actively looking.



I finally got a response to my inquiry about this plane. It is under contract but contingent on financing. They'll let me know if it becomes available again.

So far, every plane I was interested in sold before I could move on it. But without the money from my sale I couldn't really move fast.

Any opinions on this one?
http://www.gardneraircraft.com/planeviewpic.php?id=379
Its on the highest end of my price range, so I would hope I could get them down.
Click to expand...


It's a nice looking V-35, inspect it well, pictures lie. I'd hold out for an S with tip tanks though.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
It's a nice looking V-35, inspect it well, pictures lie. I'd hold out for an S with tip tanks though.
Click to expand...

Why would you hold out for an S? $$$?
It was only one variation prior to the V. Did the screw something up with the V35?

What do you think about the N35 Bo? The main diff between the N and the S is the 470 vs the 520 engine.
 
JOhnH said:
Why would you hold out for an S? $$$?
It was only one variation prior to the V. Did the screw something up with the V35?

What do you think about the N35 Bo? The main diff between the N and the S is the 470 vs the 520 engine.
Click to expand...

For you I would go with an N in a heartbeat and get the IO-470, find one with tip tanks. The V got heavy.
 
JOhnH said:
It took longer than expected to get the funds transferred for my 172, but they came in Friday. So I am now more actively looking.



I finally got a response to my inquiry about this plane. It is under contract but contingent on financing. They'll let me know if it becomes available again.

So far, every plane I was interested in sold before I could move on it. But without the money from my sale I couldn't really move fast.

Any opinions on this one?
http://www.gardneraircraft.com/planeviewpic.php?id=379
Its on the highest end of my price range, so I would hope I could get them down.
Click to expand...


John, I've never owned a plane, so my question comes without any experience, but why would you sign a bill of sale and hand over your plane without having cash or a cashiers check in hand?
 
nddons said:
John, I've never owned a plane, so my question comes without any experience, but why would you sign a bill of sale and hand over your plane without having cash or a cashiers check in hand?
Click to expand...
The plane wasn't handed over. It was held in the broker's hangar and the signed paper work was held until the funds cleared.

BTW, did you receive my PMs?
 
JOhnH said:
The plane wasn't handed over. It was held in the broker's hangar and the signed paper work was held until the funds cleared.

BTW, did you receive my PMs?
Click to expand...


I did. Sorry for the delay. I just sent you another PM.
 
Henning said:
For you I would go with an N in a heartbeat and get the IO-470, find one with tip tanks. The V got heavy.
Click to expand...

Why the tip tanks? My N has 2 40 gallon tanks and that will take you as far as you want to go on one bladder. You can get a paperwork only STC to bump the gross weight up without the tip tanks. Put the main weight issue is the aft CG with the Bo, and the GW increase doesn't solve that. Plus, tip tanks are ugly and increase the likelihood of spar cracks and don't simplify fuel management.
 
bartmc said:
Why the tip tanks? My N has 2 40 gallon tanks and that will take you as far as you want to go on one bladder. You can get a paperwork only STC to bump the gross weight up without the tip tanks. Put the main weight issue is the aft CG with the Bo, and the GW increase doesn't solve that. Plus, tip tanks are ugly and increase the likelihood of spar cracks and don't simplify fuel management.
Click to expand...

She wants to fly the Atlantic, tip tanks come in handy.
 
JOhnH said:
My A&P and a local flight school owner both advised me that even though Beech is nice, they are overpriced and maintenance costs will be much higher.
That said, I asked the guy that sold my 172 to look into the Deb you posted about.
Thanks
Click to expand...

He's probably never owned a beech. My expenses aren't much more than on my Cherokee. 1st annual (owner assisted) was $2500, 2nd was $1300. Maybe $500/yr more than the Cherokee. Insurance went up $800/yr over the Cherokee but the hull value was triple. Fuel is a bit more per hour, but I mostly use it for travel, so the extra speed washes that out a bit on both fuel and time on the plane.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
I met a couple rounding the earth in a 210. I'd want a bit more plane than an old Bo with tip tanks for that mission. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

That's the thing about planes, an N-35 is a modern airframe, you can equip it for what ever mission and have a perfectly capable plane. The engine I would want is an IO-470 unless I can get a Diesel. The IO-470 is a low cost of ownership engine that makes plenty of power for the airframe. It's also quite reliable. It would be nice to TN the engine.

Unless you go twin or turbine, you aren't really going to do better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top