RyanShort1
Final Approach
I'll call them, tomorrow!
Older Cessna 172s
- Thread starter RyanShort1
- Start date
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
It's the French version of the C-172-XP with the IO-360-K I believe.
Last edited:
There you go, that may be your deal. I always loved the color palates in the 70s.
mmmmm...avocado.....
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
There you go, that may be your deal. I always loved the color palates in the 70s.
When you are looking for cheap, you can't be choosy.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
I call it,,,, mold
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
The one in the ad is a US-built R172K "Hawk XP" (whoever wrote the ad got the model number and name wrong).
R172K was the Americanized version of the French-built 210-hp FR172 "Reims Rocket", which in turn was a civilianized T-41B (R172E). The US-built Hawk XP did have the IO-360-K, de-rated to 195 hp/2600 rpm for noise abatement, though an available STC restores it to 210 hp/2800 rpm.
There is only one French-built Reims Rocket on the FAA register, and it may be operating overseas.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
It appears pretty paint even fools A&Ps when it comes to value.
With the times on that plane, the bare basics for instruments etc, no 180hp conversions or other cool add ons, how is this a nice plane aside from the glossy paint?
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Ryan wants cheap, you can't believe every aircraft doesn't have to be in new condition to fly?
That is tire kicker tactics.
and what is wrong with 1300 hours from overhaul on a 0-300-D
Last edited:
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Um, I wouldn't go that far to describe me, Tom... I paid good money for a pre-buy down in San Antonio this weekend for a prebuy that failed. I just don't think a 1956-59 aircraft with a mid-time engine and non-IFR panel is worth what a 1978 M or N model is worth. I'm hoping to find a more "realistic" priced bird. I have my own reasons for wanting one of the older straight tail birds. I missed a couple of what I suspect were better aircraft offered for sale in the last three weeks. The fact that someone else got them before I could tells me that they were priced right and in decent shape. There are a few of the birds that appeal to me right now, but either have hideous paint schemes, high-time engines, or have serious panel deficiencies for what I'm looking for. I'd rather have a solid airframe and mid-time engine that I could fix up the way I imagine, and if I'm paying bigger bucks, would rather have a good panel than an ugly-to-me newer paint job.
I think they're pretty decent. It's a nice smooth engine in the application nicer than the Lycomings, plus you get Continental FI.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
I know this is going to sound crazy, but because I do aerial photography, I really prefer the older 172s landing gear geometry.
Cardinal RG hands down for photo work, plus you can add instrument and commercial students. If you shoot oblique, there is no better platform.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
My response was to James331, not meant to call you "Cheap" but you did quote a very low budget.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
That is our primary aircraft already. Looking for a backup that I can use with students and family trips. Our plane is currently down for an engine swap.
Last edited:
RyanShort1
Final Approach
I can get a 1956-8 straight tail with 250 SMOH for about $27-28K with an ok panel from what I can see right now. If that is market for a lot of engine time left, why are the 1100 hour engine planes only $3k less? Makes me want to come up with $3-4K more. Realistically, one with a run out engine is probably only worth $15K in good shape unless you want to spend more restoring it than you paid for it. A lot of those are on the market and waaay overpriced.
Last edited:
dentonf250
Filing Flight Plan
The O-300's have a very robust bottom end. Ours has 2600 on it and is doing just fine. Many out there with way more than ours too. I wouldn't be to worried with a higher time engine if it has been flying. Ours is a 63D model 172.
Joe
Joe
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Then why haven't you bought?
read post #1.
Buying any aircraft, you will pay now or later, which would you prefer?
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Because closing the gap between post #1 and that is too much of a stretch for me right now. I want to make sure I have a bit of cushion so I can comfortably operate it and have room in the budget for later upgrades I want to make. If I pay later, I make the upgrades, paint schemes, etc... of my choice.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
That they do, but you allow it to fail by running to failure, you will have a hard time finding another crank, and timing gears.
90% of the crank shafts that are flying today have been re-ground already, many are flying at the .010" under condition, with a STC from Superior you can grind them one more time at -.020"
The salvage yards simply do not have any more.
Let it fail, see how much the upgrade is.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Buy the R172K, it is a much better airframe to do up grades later, it has the modern instrument panel, better engine, and center stacked radios. the early ones are much more difficult to modernize than the later versions, simply because they have more room on the panel, and the yokes are the "Y" type. The engine is a much better engine than the 0-300, in as much as they have better parts support, and power. the 0-360-K is the carry on engine from the 0-300, the big difference is the angle valve cylinders and 60 more cubic inches. the non turboed 0-360 is a bullet proof engine. TSIO not so much.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Looking at two aircraft now, but still looking for aircraft. The pre-buy I did two Saturdays ago found stuff like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxMguiw09SkHeVJNZHlYYy0yU3dWcWJWQkRpb3RHMkFiZVNZ/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxMguiw09SkHeVJNZHlYYy0yU3dWcWJWQkRpb3RHMkFiZVNZ/view?usp=sharing
Not unusual at all from what I have been seeing in bottom of the market planes, and even some that are pretending to be be more. I went and looked a 172 here for a distant board member and saw stuff like that just doing a thorough preflight.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
This wasn't even bottom of the market - and the owner made a big deal about having a "mechanically sound" aircraft even if the cosmetics weren't as good! He wanted about $23K for his 172.
$23k for a 172 is bottom of the market to me, any 172 under $27k is bottom of the market.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Not the older ones with the O-300. I've been watching it for 3 months now and it looks to me like the ones with low time engines in the $27-35 range aren't moving, and neither are the ones with run-out engines for $18K.
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...e+Piston/1956/Cessna/172+Skyhawk/2049209.html
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...e+Piston/1956/Cessna/172+Skyhawk/1782438.html
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...e+Piston/1956/Cessna/172+Skyhawk/1781159.html
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...e+Piston/1957/Cessna/172+Skyhawk/2053259.html
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...e+Piston/1958/Cessna/172+Skyhawk/1763104.html
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_972321_1958+Cessna+172+NEW+PAINT.html
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_979544_Cessna+172+1957.html
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_975236_C-172.html
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_984930_Cessna+172+1959.html
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_980652_1959+Cessna+172A+Skyhawk.html
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_815810_1959+CESSNA+172.html
There's a lot of disparity there, but unless you know what the plane actually sells for, it's hard to tell how much they are actually worth.
I called a mechanics up on one of the planes listed above (one of the lower end birds) and he said he wouldn't pay more than $15K for it... and he said he wouldn't do the pre-buy on it because he didn't want his name in the logbook.
kgruber
Final Approach
There is no reason he has to put his name in the logbooks for a pre buy.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
I'm aware of that, but I couldn't convince him to do it for me.
The market for a 172 runs from $12k to $364,000 for a new one. With a $352k spread, that puts $23k at the bottom 6.5% of the market. If you have a 172 old enough to have an O-300 in it and nothing of value in the panel, that plane by definition is at the bottom of the 172 market. The problem you've is that many JUNK planes are being misrepresented as bottom of the market, because all the good ones got bought a few years back when the initial price drop happened.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
And most likely the best 172 the company made.
BTW, what makes you believe those planes are in better condition? Always remember, pictures lie.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Oh, I don't, Henning. I'm just saying that one can look at indicators such as when the last SMOH time was on the engine, the engine total time, general condition, etc... and come to some conclusions. The low-time engines are generally in the $25-30K range and the run-out engines are $19-23K range. That price difference isn't very realistic considering the cost of an overhaul / new engine, and a lot of those older birds have even more disparity in panels / etc...
Probably, but even you commented the other day about time and age value issues and you devalue for them; so does everybody else, therefore people aren't going to do $10,000 of repairs on a plane no one will give more than $25k for.
If you want a good one, you'll have to pay for it sooner or later. If you want a good old one at this point, you have to make it into one. The problem Ryan faces with that is this is not a project personal hobby plane, he needs it to generate revenue, which means he needs it to fly now, and continue flying, because loss of revenue is what kills a business, not foreseeable maint costs or payments.
From what I see on the market he needs to up to about $40k. I would be looking at this one for what he mostly wants the plane for: http://aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd...l=True&pagingNo=1&searchId=16294874&dealerid= but he is sold on the narrow gear for photography. If the primary function of the plane is as a rental, you need to provide something people want to rent. If the primary function is photography, then gt the one that suits that misson best. The thing we have to remember is the plane needs to make money.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
The K model is probably the best of both worlds - but I'm not sure I can do the price. It has the narrow gear and I think the Lycoming... we had one at 5C1 that was a wonderful airplane.
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...+Piston/1970/Cessna/172K+Skyhawk/1762318.html
I called about this bird: http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_973645_1969+Cessna+172K+Lycoming+O320.html
But I think it's sold. The guy said he'd call me back if it didn't sell.
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...+Piston/1970/Cessna/172K+Skyhawk/1762318.html
I called about this bird: http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_973645_1969+Cessna+172K+Lycoming+O320.html
But I think it's sold. The guy said he'd call me back if it didn't sell.
Last edited: