Thoughts on straight tail Cessna 172

Njonl

Njonl

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
22
Display Name
Display name:
Njonl
I came across a 1957 Cessna 172 for sale locally. It is a partnership of three and one partner is looking to get out. She says that one partner hasn't flown in years and the other is very infrequent. Here are some details about the plane:

TT- 2533
SMOH- 362
180 Conversion with constant speed prop
New paint and upholstery as of 2004
Garmin 430
IFR "ready" -- not sure if that means certified or able to be certified

The plane is at an airport south of me, which is not ideal because I'm looking to start my IFR training at a different airport. This partner is asking $19K for their share. What are your thoughts on these straight tail Cessnas? Does it sound like a decent platform for IFR training? Thanks for any input!
 

Attachments

  • Exterior.JPG
    Exterior.JPG
    32.5 KB · Views: 156
  • Panel GPS.JPG
    Panel GPS.JPG
    49.7 KB · Views: 150
  • Panel1.JPG
    Panel1.JPG
    45.6 KB · Views: 154
  • Panel3.jpg
    Panel3.jpg
    86.1 KB · Views: 158
It's not a $57,000 airplane, does that buy you into 1/3 ownership of a large pile of reserve cash?

Aside from the cost being unrealistic, unless there's reserve cash. My only hang up would be the shotgun panel (and this is a fine example of a shotgun panel)
 
Last edited:
Njonl said:
I came across a 1957 Cessna 172 for sale locally. It is a partnership of three and one partner is looking to get out. She says that one partner hasn't flown in years and the other is very infrequent. Here are some details about the plane:

TT- 2533
SMOH- 362
180 Conversion with constant speed prop
New paint and upholstery as of 2004
Garmin 430
IFR "ready" -- not sure if that means certified or able to be certified

The plane is at an airport south of me, which is not ideal because I'm looking to start my IFR training at a different airport. This partner is asking $19K for their share. What are your thoughts on these straight tail Cessnas? Does it sound like a decent platform for IFR training? Thanks for any input!
Click to expand...

Looks like a nice plane... but.. in my opinion it is at the upper edge of the price point @ 57,000 for a 50 year old plane.....

Still , it is something for you to look at... Especially if the other two partners are kool people..:yes:
 
I love the old straight tails. The panel is smaller much better forward visibility. The negative is less room for IFR thingys. Probably not ideal if IFR is your goal. And 19K for 1/3 share seems way high even with the new stuff, but I don't follow the market.
 
Plane looks very well kept but of course its hard to say from just photos. I agree with the others and think that the price is too high. Not only is at shot gun panel but the radios and navs are scattered about. It does look like a nice plane and I'm sure you could get used to it but the price would be a bit to dear for me.
 
Also, I'm not seeing an external annunciator and from the pictures, the GPS doesn't appear to be within the FAA specs for not requiring an annunciator. That could be a spendy enhancement to get /G out of the plane.

Some people's "IFR ready" is a COMM and an ADF with expired static certs. I wouldn't let the "IFR ready" convince me the GPS was installed in accordance with the IFR regs, peek at the logs to verify or you could be negotiating with the other owners to spend a $2-3K to wire in an external annunciator and another 2-3K to update to WAAS 'While you're in there"
 
As is, this aircraft is not IFR certifiable.

Check Part 91 requirements and how this aircraft is equipped.

I tried to do this on a C-170-B and it does not work.
 
That is not worth 57k. You can buy a newer 172 with comparable upgrades for that, and is already IFR certified.
 
bartmc said:
Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

One would require a careful examination of the aircraft and its paper work.

And you must understand what a IFR certification really is.
 
I really like the straight tails...an instructor at my flight school told me that they fly the best out of the lot of 172s. All the changes to the tail were apparently purely cosmetic. Never flown one myself, but I'd jump at the opportunity to fly one!
 
What happens if the first flight after you buy in the motor goes because of infrequent use and corrosion?

Who pays to get it IFR certified, do the other partners want to do that?

Legal structure, insurance limits, reserve escrow?

Lot's of gotchas. I wouldn't even take the time to mess with it. I'd rather find a nice rental and try to get the price down by buying block time.
 
Tom-D said:
One would require a careful examination of the aircraft and its paper work.

And you must understand what a IFR certification really is.
Click to expand...
True, but first off, for airplanes, there really is no such thing as 'IFR certification'. No one single thing makes the airplane IFR certified.

In part 91, no one comes down and omini domini pronounces an airplane 'certified for IFR'.

Not sure why you couldn't get a 170B legal for IFR. My '48 with a venturi vacuum system is legal for IFR.

As for the airplane in question....not sure how you can make the determination based on the info provided. Need to look at the logs to make that determination.
 
bartmc said:
It's not a $57,000 airplane, does that buy you into 1/3 ownership of a large pile of reserve cash?
Click to expand...
EXACTLY....if that airplane really does have an IFR certified GPS, then it might be worth around $19k for a half share in the current market.
 
Fearless Tower said:
True, but first off, for airplanes, there really is no such thing as 'IFR certification'. No one single thing makes the airplane IFR certified.

In part 91, no one comes down and omini domini pronounces an airplane 'certified for IFR'.

Not sure why you couldn't get a 170B legal for IFR. My '48 with a venturi vacuum system is legal for IFR.

As for the airplane in question....not sure how you can make the determination based on the info provided. Need to look at the logs to make that determination.
Click to expand...

Airframes are certified for IFR, for instance a DA20 is not. Which, I understand is due to it not having some sort of wire mesh in the composite material like the DA40 does for lightning issues or something like th at.

I'm not aware of any 172 airframe that isn't certified for IFR, which is why I have asked Tom to clarify twice because I have no idea what he's talking about, and "See Part 91" and "You need to understand" seems a little broad for an explanation.

The only other thing is the 2 year static tests. Other than that, you just need the necessary instruments for the flight.
 
The 180HP engine and the constant speed prop do increase the value somewhat but with non modified planes selling in the $15-25K range I don't think the $57K price is right either. As others noted there are better IFR planes out there for that kind of money.
On the other hand the straight tail 172's are great planes to fly because they are light, have 40deg flaps that are controlled by a manual lever and they have great visibility. I don't know if I'd want to do IFR flying in one though. Because of the lighter weight they bounce a bit more than a heavier wing loaded plane. That makes it more work to handle.....


Frank
 
I bought a '57 172 and learned how to fly in it. Fantastic airplane. But as others have said. This one is WAY overpriced unless your getting about $7,000 in engine reserve for that price.
 
Fearless Tower said:
True, but first off, for airplanes, there really is no such thing as 'IFR certification'. No one single thing makes the airplane IFR certified.

In part 91, no one comes down and omini domini pronounces an airplane 'certified for IFR'.

Not sure why you couldn't get a 170B legal for IFR. My '48 with a venturi vacuum system is legal for IFR.

As for the airplane in question....not sure how you can make the determination based on the info provided. Need to look at the logs to make that determination.
Click to expand...
This is true, but what vac pump is on the 180 horse conversion, is it certified to be flown in IFR conditions?
 
Fearless Tower said:
True, but first off, for airplanes, there really is no such thing as 'IFR certification'. No one single thing makes the airplane IFR certified.

In part 91, no one comes down and omini domini pronounces an airplane 'certified for IFR'.
Click to expand...

Oh Really????

What is 91.411 all about?

What / Who signs off that inspection, and what does the proper verbiage say?
 
Last edited:
"IFR certification" used to mean specifically what 91.411 says but nowadays when someone says "IFR certified" they're usually talking about the GPS. Whole different ballgame there.
 
Tom-D said:
Oh Really????

What is 91.411 all about?

What / Who signs off that inspection, and what does the proper verbiage say?
Click to expand...

Yes, really. Have you actually read 91.411?

It is the certification of the altimeter and static SYSTEM. Which I just one of the requirements for an airplane to be legal for IFR.

Nowhere in that check does an A&P look at and sign off on any of the other required items for IFR.

An airplane could have a current check per 91.411 and still not be good to go for IFR.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Tom-D said:
Some one would just argue with it, so go look it up your self.
Click to expand...

I've read and discussed 91.411 numerous times, I'm not seeing anything. Could you use your A&P decoder ring to tell us why this plane cannot be certified for instrument flight?
 
bartmc said:
I've read and discussed 91.411 numerous times, I'm not seeing anything. Could you use your A&P decoder ring to tell us why this plane cannot be certified for instrument flight?
Click to expand...

You are reading the wrong place, FAR 23

(5) For certification for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations, have an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an independent secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and attitude instrument or an electronic display parameters for the altitude, airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the airplane's primary electrical power system. These secondary instruments may be installed in panel positions that are displaced from the primary positions specified by § 23.1321(d), but must be located where they meet the pilot's visibility requirements of § 23.1321(a).


So we just jump in her and go, right? no one must sign any thing. You can dump enough money into any aircraft to make it IFR certifiable, but as I said, I don't believe "as is " this 170 complies.
 
Tom-D said:
You are reading the wrong place, FAR 23

(5) For certification for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations, have an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an independent secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and attitude instrument or an electronic display parameters for the altitude, airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the airplane's primary electrical power system. These secondary instruments may be installed in panel positions that are displaced from the primary positions specified by § 23.1321(d), but must be located where they meet the pilot's visibility requirements of § 23.1321(a).


So we just jump in her and go, right? no one must sign any thing. You can dump enough money into any aircraft to make it IFR certifiable, but as I said, I don't believe "as is " this 170 complies.
Click to expand...

What about that paragraph cannot be met?

I dunno much about 170's but the airplane in question is a 172 if that makes any difference.

And you'd have to dump a new airframe around a DA20 to make it IFR certified.

What part of this plane leads you to believe that it cannot comply with the regulations. I still don't see nothin'. And aside from the Avionics shop puttin' that little sticker in the log book every two years, no signature need that I know of to legally enter a cloud.
 
bartmc said:
What about that paragraph cannot be met?

I dunno much about 170's but the airplane in question is a 172 if that makes any difference.

And you'd have to dump a new airframe around a DA20 to make it IFR certified.

What part of this plane leads you to believe that it cannot comply with the regulations. I still don't see nothin'. And aside from the Avionics shop puttin' that little sticker in the log book every two years, no signature need that I know of to legally enter a cloud.
Click to expand...

The question wasn't "can not" it was "was it met" I don't think so.

What's the difference between the early 172 and a 170? (system wise)
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
The question wasn't "can not" it was "was it met" I don't think so.

What's the difference between the early 172 and a 170? (system wise)
Click to expand...

What is not met?

Tom, I swear if I knew what you were talking about, I wouldn't be asking.

I don't think I've ever even SEEN a Cessna 170, and I've only flown a 172 once.
I have no idea.

I'm a dyed in the wool low wing guy, I know the various differences in every PA28 and BE35/36 made, Cessna? Not so much.

I fly a similar vintage BE35 around in the clouds, and used to do the same in a similar vintage PA28 with a shotgun panel. So I'm wonderin' what I'm missing here.

Something along the lines of "The compass correction card is missing and it's not worth manufacturing a new one".
 
Last edited:
It's the typical mole-hill BS. If anybody really wants to know, alls they gots to do is look in the logbook. If the 411-413 sticker is there, the question is answered.

bartmc said:
What is not met?

Tom, I swear if I knew what you were talking about, I wouldn't be asking.

I don't think I've ever even SEEN a Cessna 170, and I've only flown a 172 once.
I have no idea.

I'm a dyed in the wool low wing guy, I know the various differences in every PA28 and BE35/36 made, Cessna? Not so much.

I fly a similar vintage BE35 around in the clouds, and used to do the same in a similar vintage PA28 with a shotgun panel. So I'm wonderin' what I'm missing here.

Something along the lines of "The compass correction card is missing and it's not worth manufacturing a new one".
Click to expand...
 
bartmc said:
What is not met?

Tom, I swear if I knew what you were talking about, I wouldn't be asking.

I don't think I've ever even SEEN a Cessna 170, and I've only flown a 172 once.
I have no idea.

I'm a dyed in the wool low wing guy, I know the various differences in every PA28 and BE35/36 made, Cessna? Not so much.

I fly a similar vintage BE35 around in the clouds, and used to do the same in a similar vintage PA28 with a shotgun panel. So I'm wonderin' what I'm missing here.

Something along the lines of "The compass correction card is missing and it's not worth manufacturing a new one".
Click to expand...

To start with, the 170-B and the early 172, are the same fuselage and systems, the 170 has a round tail and conventional gear, the 172 has trike gear and a big square tail that is the only difference.

secondly, 99% of these old aircraft that are said to be IFR certified aren't. To be compliant to IFR equipment rules you must comply with part 23 requirements. the early 170/172 were never designed to do that.

my humble opinion.
 
Tom-D said:
To start with, the 170-B and the early 172, are the same fuselage and systems, the 170 has a round tail and conventional gear, the 172 has trike gear and a big square tail that is the only difference.

secondly, 99% of these old aircraft that are said to be IFR certified aren't. To be compliant to IFR equipment rules you must comply with part 23 requirements. the early 170/172 were never designed to do that.

my humble opinion.
Click to expand...


What is your suspicion that prevents this plane from legally complying with IFR certification requirements? What would need to happen to make it compliant?

i.e. If I walked into your shop and handed you a blank check and said "Make it IFR legal" what would you do to make it so?
 
Tom-D said:
You are reading the wrong place, FAR 23

(5) For certification for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations, have an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an independent secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and attitude instrument or an electronic display parameters for the altitude, airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the airplane's primary electrical power system. These secondary instruments may be installed in panel positions that are displaced from the primary positions specified by § 23.1321(d), but must be located where they meet the pilot's visibility requirements of § 23.1321(a).


So we just jump in her and go, right? no one must sign any thing. You can dump enough money into any aircraft to make it IFR certifiable, but as I said, I don't believe "as is " this 170 complies.
Click to expand...


14 CFR Part 23 does not apply to an airplane certified under CAR3, which the Cessna 170 and 172 were.

CAR3

TYPES OF OPERATION
§ 3.750 Types of operation. The type of operation to which the airplane is limited shall be established by the category in which it has been found eligible for certification and by the equipment installed. (See the appropriate operating parts of the Civil Air Regulations.)

INSTRUMENTS; INSTALLATION
GENERAL
§ 3.661 Arrangement and visibility of instrument installations.
(a) Flight, navigation, and power-plant instruments for use by each pilot shall be easily visible to him.
(b) On multiengine airplanes, identical power-plant instruments for the several engines shall be so located as to, prevent any confusion as to the engines to which they relate.
§ 3.662 Instrument panel vibration characteristics. Vibration characteristics of the instrument panel shall not be such as to impair the accuracy of the instruments or to cause damage to them.
FLIGHT AND NAVIGATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
§ 3.663 Air-speed indicating system. This system shall be so installed that the air-speed indicator shall indicate true air speed at sea level under standard conditions to within an allowable installational error of not more than plus or minus 3 percent of the calibrated air speed or 5 miles per hour, whichever is greater, throughout the operating range of the airplane with flaps up from Vc to 1.3 Vs1 and with flaps at 1.3 Vs1. The calibration shall be made in flight.
§ 3.664 Air-speed indicator-marking. The air-speed indicator shall be marked as specified in § 3.757.
§ 3.665 Static air vent system. All instruments provided with static air case connections shall be so vented that the influence of airplane speed, the opening and closing of windows, air-flow variation, moisture, or other foreign matter will not seriously affect their accuracy.
§ 3.666 Magnetic direction indicator. The magnetic direction indicator shall be so installed that its accuracy shall not be excessively affected by the airplane’s vibration or magnetic fields. After the direction indicator has been compensated, the installation shall be such that the deviation in level flight does not exceed 10 degrees on any heading. A suitable calibration placard shall be provided as specified in § 3.758.
§ 3.667 Automatic pilot system. If an automatic pilot system is installed:
(a) The system shall be designed so that the automatic pilot can either:
(1) Be quickly and positively disengaged by the human pilot(s) to prevent it from interferring with his control of the airplane, or
(2) Be sufficiently overpowered by one human pilot to enable him to control the airplane.
(b) A satisfactory means shall be provided to indicate readily to the pilot the alignment of the actuating device in relation to the control system which it operates, except when automatic synchronization is provided.
(c) The manually operated control(s) for the system’s operation shall be readily accessible to the pilot.
(d) The automatic pilot system shall be designed so that, within the range of adjustment available to the human pilot, it cannot produce hazardous loads on the airplane or create hazardous deviations in the flight path under any conditions of flight appropriate to its use either during normal operation or in the event of malfunctioning, assuming
that corrective action is initiated within a reasonable period of time.
§ 3.667 Automatic pilot system. If an automatic pilot system is installed:
(a) The system shall be designed so that the automatic pilot can either:
(1) Be quickly and positively disengaged by the human pilot(s) to prevent it from interferring with his control of the airplane, or
(2) Be sufficiently overpowered by one human pilot to enable him to control the airplane.
(b) A satisfactory means shall be provided to indicate readily to the pilot the alignment of the actuating device in relation to the control system which it operates, except when automatic synchronization is provided.
(c) The manually operated control(s) for the system’s operation shall be readily accessible to the pilot.
(d) The automatic pilot system shall be designed so that, within the range of adjustment available to the human pilot, it cannot produce hazardous loads on the airplane or create hazardous deviations in the flight path under any conditions of flight appropriate to its use either during normal operation or in the event of malfunctioning, assuming
that corrective action is initiated within a reasonable period of time.

From the Cessna 172 TCDS:

Certification Basis Models 172 through 172P
Part 3 of the Civil Air Regulations effective November 1, 1949, as amended
by 3-1 through 3-12. In addition, effective S/N 17271035 and on, FAR 23.1559
effective March 1, 1978. FAR 36 dated December 1, 1969, plus Amendments 36-1
through 36-5 for Model 172N; FAR 36 dated December 1, 1969, plus
Amendments 36-1 through 36-12 for Model 172P through 172Q. In addition,
effective S/N 17276260 and on, FAR 23.1545(a), Amendment 23-23 dated
December 1, 1978.
Equivalent Safety Items 17261445, 17261578, 17265685
Airspeed Indicator CAR 3.757 (see Note 4 on use of CAS)
(17261445, 17261578, 17265685 through 17276259)
Operating Limitations CAR 3.778(a)
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
To start with, the 170-B and the early 172, are the same fuselage and systems, the 170 has a round tail and conventional gear, the 172 has trike gear and a big square tail that is the only difference.

secondly, 99% of these old aircraft that are said to be IFR certified aren't. To be compliant to IFR equipment rules you must comply with part 23 requirements. the early 170/172 were never designed to do that.

my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

You cannot apply 14 CFR Part 23 to a CAR 3 certified aircraft.
 
I loved flying a straight tail 172. The low panel and sloping nose made it like you were sitting in front of a picture window. The price for 1/3 of this one seems very high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top