Reasonably Priced 172

murphey said:
6 cylinder Continental in a 172? Very strange.
Click to expand...

Not at all. All of the early 172's had the 6 cylinder Continental O-300. They switched to the 4 cylinder Lycoming with the I model in 1968.

John
 
O-300 isn't unusual, it's just old. Most 172s you see are newer and have O-320s or O-360s.

The O-300 is very underpowered and thus less desirable than the newer models. You could change it to an O-360 if you wanted.

If I were to buy a 172, that's not the one I'd want. Same for others, hence the low price.
 
that slut red interior reminds me of a 172 that sold really really cheap on ebay a few years ago in arkansas
 
jsstevens said:
Not at all. All of the early 172's had the 6 cylinder Continental O-300. They switched to the 4 cylinder Lycoming with the I model in 1968.

John
Click to expand...

Yup, discover that when I went looking for more info. Don't think I ever saw/flew one with the 6.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
O-300 isn't unusual, it's just old. Most 172s you see are newer and have O-320s or O-360s.

The O-300 is very underpowered and thus less desirable than the newer models. You could change it to an O-360 if you wanted.

If I were to buy a 172, that's not the one I'd want. Same for others, hence the low price.
Click to expand...

I just read a blog where the early 172's where lighter so the 0-300 works "about" the same as an O-320 in a newer 172. I have no idea, just what I read.

Just thought someone here would be interested in a low priced 172. Says OBO! :dunno:

What would be required to out an 0360 on it?


See! You guys converted me to certificated airplanes! :rofl:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
I just read a blog where the early 172's where lighter so the 0-300 works "about" the same as an O-320 in a newer 172. I have no idea, just what I read.

Just thought someone here would be interested in a low priced 172. Says OBO! :dunno:

What would be required to out an 0360 on it?


See! You guys converted me to certificated airplanes! :rofl:
Click to expand...

call my friend Rafael at Air Plains. www.airplains.com
 
Ted DuPuis said:
O-300 isn't unusual, it's just old. Most 172s you see are newer and have O-320s or O-360s.

The O-300 is very underpowered and thus less desirable than the newer models. You could change it to an O-360 if you wanted.

If I were to buy a 172, that's not the one I'd want. Same for others, hence the low price.
Click to expand...

5 hp underpowered :rofl:

Nothing wrong with O-300 powered 172. Whoever says there is a night & days difference between O300 powered and O320 powered must have been flying a very very tired O300 to be so bias.

I like the 6 cylinder easy starting smooth running O300. I also like the O320. They both have strong & weak points.

But I wouldn't ignore a 172 that has a O-300 provided it has the "D" model crank. The other cranks are almost impossible to find. This airplane should have the later O-300 crank.
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
Yup, discover that when I went looking for more info. Don't think I ever saw/flew one with the 6.
Click to expand...

I've been flying a "C" model for the last couple of years. The performance as compared to most of the M models I've flown is pretty close. It is a lighter plane with a lower GW (still has 40 degree flaps). One thing I really like about it is the manual johnson bar flaps. Just a personal preference thing. The biggest difference in the handling that I notice is a power off stall is very gentle in the C model as compared to the M and R models I've flown. I'm not sure why. One annoying thing for me is there is a prohibited RPM range between 2000 and 2200 which is right where I'd set it to slow fly when extending my downwind. It vibrates (not excessively, but it's not good).

The above observations are based solely on my experience with a single aircraft of the C model. Now everyone will show up to explain why am mistaken. :wink2:


John
 
jsstevens said:
I've been flying a "C" model for the last couple of years. The performance as compared to most of the M models I've flown is pretty close. It is a lighter plane with a lower GW (still has 40 degree flaps). One thing I really like about it is the manual johnson bar flaps. Just a personal preference thing. The biggest difference in the handling that I notice is a power off stall is very gentle in the C model as compared to the M and R models I've flown. I'm not sure why. One annoying thing for me is there is a prohibited RPM range between 2000 and 2200 which is right where I'd set it to slow fly when extending my downwind. It vibrates (not excessively, but it's not good).

The above observations are based solely on my experience with a single aircraft of the C model. Now everyone will show up to explain why am mistaken. :wink2:


John
Click to expand...

Unaware of the RPM limitation you mention. Is that specific to the C model?:dunno: The "B" I fly has no such limitation.

Just to be clear, the 172 the OP posted has electric flaps.
 
jsstevens said:
I've been flying a "C" model for the last couple of years. The performance as compared to most of the M models I've flown is pretty close. It is a lighter plane with a lower GW (still has 40 degree flaps). One thing I really like about it is the manual johnson bar flaps. Just a personal preference thing. The biggest difference in the handling that I notice is a power off stall is very gentle in the C model as compared to the M and R models I've flown. I'm not sure why. One annoying thing for me is there is a prohibited RPM range between 2000 and 2200 which is right where I'd set it to slow fly when extending my downwind. It vibrates (not excessively, but it's not good).

The above observations are based solely on my experience with a single aircraft of the C model. Now everyone will show up to explain why am mistaken. :wink2:


John
Click to expand...


But you are right. I fly a very low time (1,200 hrs) "P" model also, yes it performs slightly better. Certainly not $10,000 worth.
 
If you read the ad carefully, it says the airframe and engine both have 2558 hours. The engine had a top overhaul, but not a major overhaul. That means the bottom end is original (46 years old). From a valuation standpoint, most buyers will look at this airplane as needing an overhaul. In my opinion, it is still priced too high.

For example, I just yesterday bought a 1977 Cessna 172N with a runout, but still strong engine, nice paint and interior and digital radios for $21,500. We'll spend $16k overhauling the engine and have a plane worth $50k. There are some great deals out there if you shop around, but I wouldn't consider this one of them. It's an ok deal, but not a great one.
 
craigvince said:
If you read the ad carefully, it says the airframe and engine both have 2558 hours. The engine had a top overhaul, but not a major overhaul. That means the bottom end is original (46 years old). From a valuation standpoint, most buyers will look at this airplane as needing an overhaul. In my opinion, it is still priced too high.

For example, I just yesterday bought a 1977 Cessna 172N with a runout, but still strong engine, nice paint and interior and digital radios for $21,500. We'll spend $16k overhauling the engine and have a plane worth $50k. There are some great deals out there if you shop around, but I wouldn't consider this one of them. It's an ok deal, but not a great one.
Click to expand...


Cleaver advertising.
 
Thread title makes me think of Top Gear UK.

"And now it's time to put a Star in a reasonably priced Cessna 172..."
 
craigvince said:
If you read the ad carefully, it says the airframe and engine both have 2558 hours. The engine had a top overhaul, but not a major overhaul. That means the bottom end is original (46 years old). From a valuation standpoint, most buyers will look at this airplane as needing an overhaul. In my opinion, it is still priced too high.
Click to expand...
That. As a builder I am sure you can appreciate how different components wear. This guy is bragging on his cylinder times, but there's a lot more to an engine than cylinders.

If you have an O-360 just laying around this would be a candidate for a swap out. But even so, the interior looks like the aftermath of a horror film.

Not my cup of tea, even if I wanted a plane as small as a 172.
 
bnt83 said:
Unaware of the RPM limitation you mention. Is that specific to the C model?:dunno: The "B" I fly has no such limitation.

Just to be clear, the 172 the OP posted has electric flaps.
Click to expand...

It's imposed by the aircraft owner. I don't know the origin of the vibration but it does vibrate in those ranges and he's asked me to not use them. I thought it was a C model idiosyncrasy but perhaps not. The owner also has asked me to not lean at all below 3000 feet. Since it's his airplane, I'm not arguing.

John
 
Geico266 said:
The conversion adds another 250 pounds in useful load. Nice.
Click to expand...


Again, read carefully. The engine conversion does NOT include the gross weight increase but is required to install the gross weight increase STC, the way I read it.

So $XX,000 for 180 hp covertion and then $???? for the gross weight increase.


41 gallons useable seems kinda small for 180hp
 
I would defy any one on this page to tell the difference between two identical 172s that have a 5 horse power difference.

It is very common to top a 0-300 at 2000 hours and run it well into 3500 or more, I would not overhaul this engine until it told me that it has a problem.

That 172 came from the factory with a 0-300-D, the "D" means it has a Dynamic balanced crankshaft with two balance weights to remove the 6th order vibration, when Continental did that every thing on the aircraft will last longer, because of the smoother engine.

KX 175 radios are the TSOed version of the KX170B ad are brick solid radios of the 1960 era If they work use them, if they don't replace them.

At 2500+ hours on the airframe, the condition of the structure will be equal to a later version with 1000 hours of use behind a 0-320.

They are great old aircraft pilots have flown millions of hours in them and this one has a lot of useful life in it.
 
jsstevens said:
It's imposed by the aircraft owner. I don't know the origin of the vibration but it does vibrate in those ranges and he's asked me to not use them. I thought it was a C model idiosyncrasy but perhaps not. The owner also has asked me to not lean at all below 3000 feet. Since it's his airplane, I'm not arguing.

John
Click to expand...

It's a prop issue not an engine issue. read the type certificate.
 
jsstevens said:
It's imposed by the aircraft owner. I don't know the origin of the vibration but it does vibrate in those ranges and he's asked me to not use them. I thought it was a C model idiosyncrasy but perhaps not. The owner also has asked me to not lean at all below 3000 feet. Since it's his airplane, I'm not arguing.

John
Click to expand...

The owner is a believer in the POH, it says not to. and to run on one tank above 5k

both of those issues have been debunked over the years.

do you lean at idle, to stop plug fouling?
 
Yeah what's your point?


There is no "transient only" RPM limitations in either the props, engine or airframe TCDS.

Tom-D said:
It's a prop issue not an engine issue. read the type certificate.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
the "D" means it has a Dynamic balanced crankshaft with two balance weights to remove the 6th order vibration, when Continental did that every thing on the aircraft will last longer, because of the smoother engine.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

The "D" means that it incorporates changes that the "C" does not have.

According to note 5 all O-300 have dampers.

C145 series engines equipped with dampered crankshafts are identified by suffix letter "D" following the engine serial number which denotes one each 5th and 6th order dampers. O-300 series engines are also equipped with crankshaft incorporating one each 5th and 6th order dampers.​


Note 6:​

O-300-A is similar to C145-2 except parts material and ignition component substitutions. O-300-B is similar to O-300-A except incorporates crankcase and crankshaft provisions for use of a hydraulically controllable propeller from the engine oil pressure. O-300-C is identical to O-300-A except for propeller flange provision as indicated. O-300-D is similar to O-300-C except for provisions for Continental right angle automatic engagement starter drive which incorporates a vacuum pump drive. O-300-E is similar to O-300-D except for incorporation of governor drive pad and crankshaft provisions to supply governor oil to propeller​


And Note 7:

C145-2, -2H, -2HP; O-300-A, -B: SAE-AS127 No. 3 flange O-300 C, -D, -E: ARP502 Type I flange 4-7/8 in. o.d. by .31 in. thick with six ½ bolt holes in 4 in. diameter circle. O-300-E has provisions for transfer of governor oil to propeller.​
 
Last edited:
craigvince said:
If you read the ad carefully, it says the airframe and engine both have 2558 hours. The engine had a top overhaul, but not a major overhaul. That means the bottom end is original (46 years old). From a valuation standpoint, most buyers will look at this airplane as needing an overhaul. In my opinion, it is still priced too high.

For example, I just yesterday bought a 1977 Cessna 172N with a runout, but still strong engine, nice paint and interior and digital radios for $21,500. We'll spend $16k overhauling the engine and have a plane worth $50k. There are some great deals out there if you shop around, but I wouldn't consider this one of them. It's an ok deal, but not a great one.
Click to expand...

50K? Maybe if you were upgrading to 180HP otherwise you're about 10K too high in this market...

Unless you got a Garmin stack in there most buyers will scoff at the panel and your magic wand 50K self-valuation. I have a full King panel on my airplane plus IFR GPS and I've already had offers to rip it out after the sale... For a panel most people could comfortably get their IR on, which is also a non-economic valuation. The other thing is that people will go and nit pick your overhaul, particularly if it was a field overhaul.

BL, it's unlikely you'll be able to flip a 172 in this market by JUST doing an engine overhaul. In this economy I would only overhaul an engine with the express intent on flying the pants off it. Otherwise just sell it at the core value and move on. You don't want to go too high on these aircraft refurbishments for what still is a 40 year old 100-110knot spam can with an airliner bathroom for a cabin width.....
 
It's at least 10k over priced. Needs a minimum of 20k worth of work to make it a 30k plane. I wouldn't buy it for 10k.

Plus, it's certified!!! Think of how expensive the MX costs would be.
 
Larry I think the price should actually be a bit lower. I think its low for a few reasons:

1) High time engine even though he lists cylinder times ( I've never seen that done before) they vary

2) Older interior and panel

3) and probably the biggest factor is the 0-300 engine ( 145hp IIRC) is not a lot of power. That said I've flown in a 172H with an O-300 and it was one of the smoothest and quietest engines I've flown behind but man did that thing dog it in climb out. Today people just want bigger faster.
 
I have seen some very nice 1968 Cessna 177/180 hp conversions (with mid time engines) for not much more than this 172 asking price.


177 Sportier handling + better visabily = more fun
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
The owner is a believer in the POH, it says not to. and to run on one tank above 5k

both of those issues have been debunked over the years.

do you lean at idle, to stop plug fouling?
Click to expand...

I do lean at idle. And I've never had this particular plane above 5000. I usually plan for 9 gal/hour and typically see 8 or so. But I'm not doing any long cross countries in it either. I usually fly for between an hour and two just because I'm only tooling around sight-seeing in central Florida right now. And a lot of landing practice.

John
 
Geico266 said:
What would an over haul cost?
Click to expand...
With a core exchange, around $15,000. Without an exchange (or crank is no good) it will run you $18-20k for the overhaul not including install.

That is just the engine....doesn't include removal/reinstall, hoses...etc
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
With a core exchange, around $15,000. Without an exchange (or crank is no good) it will run you $18-20k for the overhaul not including install.

That is just the engine....doesn't include removal/reinstall, hoses...etc
Click to expand...

Price out the overhaul, it will require 12 tappet bodies to be reworked, plus 12 hydraulic units, as well as a crank and cam re-grind, a set of main bearings, a set of rod bearings and 6 rods reworked, and the overhaul gasket kit and 6 new ECI cylinders at 780.05 each. and the case must be reworked Chuck Ney charges about 750.00 for that, every other money is the shops labor charge.

do the math and see what the big shops make on each engine.

once again the self employed A&P is your best value.

http://www.aircraft-specialties.com/machining-services-1/
 
That plane is a twin to my 1967h model 172. I fly one other 172 that has a 0320 and speed is nearly the same, I do feel the newer plane gets to speed faster on the runway but not a big differance otherwise. I have flown my plane a lot as I bought it to get my ticket, build time and now using it for my ifr training. My plane has been great for this purpose. I did have oil leaks on my 3-300d engine, I did the real gasket stc pushrods tubes and then found the alternator shaft seal was leaking, with those fixed it is dry now. I didn't complain about the cost of fixing the leaks, I consider it regular maintance on a older bird.
 
Fearless Tower said:
With a core exchange, around $15,000. Without an exchange (or crank is no good) it will run you $18-20k for the overhaul not including install.

That is just the engine....doesn't include removal/reinstall, hoses...etc
Click to expand...

Tom-D said:
Price out the overhaul, it will require 12 tappet bodies to be reworked, plus 12 hydraulic units, as well as a crank and cam re-grind, a set of main bearings, a set of rod bearings and 6 rods reworked, and the overhaul gasket kit and 6 new ECI cylinders at 780.05 each. and the case must be reworked Chuck Ney charges about 750.00 for that, every other money is the shops labor charge.

do the math and see what the big shops make on each engine.

once again the self employed A&P is your best value.

http://www.aircraft-specialties.com/machining-services-1/
Click to expand...

Okay.

Buy the plane for $21k
Overhaul engine $20k

Is the plane worth $50k when done? :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top