What is worng with this purchase logic?

[Skylane81E]

That's be nice. Does Texas Skyways still do that?

Seems like the PPonk conversion is better bang for the buck even if it won't keep up with the IO. Any thoughts on that?

All Texas skyways and Pponks are carbureted, airplanes has an IO550 (300hp) and IIRC Peterson has a IO470 (260hp) STC

62/80 is just peachy for an O-470 and the bottom end is very stout. If the price is right I wouldn't not hesitate to fly behind that engine.

Adding fuel injection requires airframe modifications as well while the carb engines bolt on

 

[denverpilot]

All Texas skyways and Pponks are carbureted, airplanes has an IO550 (300hp) and IIRC Peterson has a IO470 (260hp) STC

62/80 is just peachy for an O-470 and the bottom end is very stout. If the price is right I wouldn't not hesitate to fly behind that engine.

Adding fuel injection requires airframe modifications as well while the carb engines bolt on

I thought TS would still do a swap to an IO-540? Oh well. That conversion is too rich for my blood.

I knew the PPonk was carb'd of course. Was only commenting on dollar value for what you get. If money is no object, anything is fair game.

 

[Skylane81E]

Seems they do have a fuel injectced 550 for the S and T 182s

 

[bluerooster]

So it's an O-470 with about 2300 hours on it, has it ever been topped? (of course it has) How many hours on the top?

 

[ryoung99]

As a new owner here is what I would say, it if your money, your risk and your hide. Let it be your decision.

I purchased a 79 Tiger with 1475 TT A&E, the jugs were replaced 475 hours ago and the compressions were all 80/80 (saw it with my own eyes). The plane had been maintained by the best in the business. On top of all that, I paid a premium for the plane, why? Because engines can be replaced, as can avionics, airframes that is another story. I bought the best I could find and paid for it.

So far I have 20+ hours in her, she is beating book in cruise not bad for a '79. Based on age, my engine is just as "timed out" as the one you are considering. The only ones that told me not to get the plane where those trying to sell theirs with lower time engines with airframes with 3 times the hours.

Good luck, hope it works for you.

Rick

 

[docmirror]

OK, here's another guess.

A. Compressions are ok for that age and type of engine. I ran a Bo with numbers lower and it worked fine for a long time. You will burn a bit more oil prolly just cause the oil ring is a bit loose.

B. 500 hours plus TBO on a well run O-470 isn't a big problem.

C. Ask about a prev oil analysis. If none, get one so you have a baseline. Check for increases in metals along the way, take a sample with every oil change.

D. Plan for almost certainly putting a jug or two on over the next 3-500 hours. Don't top the whole thing, but treat jugs as accessories and replace on condition.

E. Hate to say this, but I would stay around 65% power most of the time in cruise and training flights. It's hard to have a catastrophic failure when the engine isn't worked too hard.

The big bore Conti is a workhorse. 230HP out of 470 cu in is a pretty low power. The same size goes up to 260HP in other versions. It's low C/R at 7:1, and I think the lower end will go well past TBO if treated right in that plane.

 

[EdLarkin]

Has it been sitting much? The compressions are low but that can happen if an engine has not been flown much and can even come up after running some. Still, I would have some money set aside for what appears to be the probable replacement of some jugs.

The compressions are not necessarily low.

OP, make sure your mechanic uses the right tools and SB03-3 from TCM in determining serviceability of the engine.

 

[Shawn]

Thanks all of the insight. Heading out tomorrow to actually lay eyes on this thing to decide if it is even worth moving forward with since my contacts in the area fell through...if it looks good, inpection is next step and hopefully get a clearer picture of what I could be getting into.

 

[wabower]

I lost track of this thread. Do you have your deal finalized and papered if it's as advertised? If not, why spend time/money to kick tires?

Thanks all of the insight. Heading out tomorrow to actually lay eyes on this thing to decide if it is even worth moving forward with since my contacts in the area fell through...if it looks good, inpection is next step and hopefully get a clearer picture of what I could be getting into.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I lost track of this thread. Do you have your deal finalized and papered if it's as advertised? If not, why spend time/money to kick tires?

Maybe because way too many airplanes are not as advertised. Sometimes an in-person look can tell you if the airplane is even worth pursuing.

 

[wabower]

Which is exactly why you shouldn't leave town without a signed deal. You won't know until you get there if you want the plane, but you will know if you have a deal if you want it, or have a basis for retrading the deal if you don't. Traveling with nothing in hand is a fool's errand.

Maybe because way too many airplanes are not as advertised. Sometimes an in-person look can tell you if the airplane is even worth pursuing.

 

[Shawn]

No deal other than a verbal price agreement...I thought about just sending it for inspection but for this size purchase I would prefer to get eyes on it before investing any capitol into is as I would want to put it on for a FULL annual inspection. There is only so much pictures can tell you on an early 70's plane plus I am always cautious in taking the sellers word as Gospel...or always questioning what they may be leaving out of the conversation.

I don't have a problem spending some time and money for my due diligence as an additional insurance policy.

 

[wabower]

Why not just formalize the verbal agreement with a written agreement that includes the details as you envision them? You're going to need one anyway, why not get it done when it can do the most good?

No deal other than a verbal price agreement...I thought about just sending it for inspection but for this size purchase I would prefer to get eyes on it before investing any capitol into is as I would want to put it on for a FULL annual inspection. There is only so much pictures can tell you on an early 70's plane plus I am always cautious in taking the sellers word as Gospel...or always questioning what they may be leaving out of the conversation.

I don't have a problem spending some time and money for my due diligence as an additional insurance policy.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Which is exactly why you shouldn't leave town without a signed deal. You won't know until you get there if you want the plane, but you will know if you have a deal if you want it, or have a basis for retrading the deal if you don't. Traveling with nothing in hand is a fool's errand.

I guess it depends on how far 'out of town' you go and what it costs you.

The airplane deals that I have been involved in were all either within an hour or two away from me or in the same town with someone I trusted to take a quick look and let me know if the airplane in question was worth looking at.

I imagine most of the deals you have been involved in Wayne involved much greater separation between the prospective buyer and aircraft in question.

 

[Shawn]

It is literally on the other side of the country. I am in CA, plane is in FL. My local person fell through for the initial kick the tires visit so off I go.

We are putting a purchase agreement in place spelling out all of the terms then I am headed out. Fortunately I have a ton of points to cover the flight and hotel...otherwise I wouldn't be so quick to just jump on a plane. I don't mind spending the time.

 

[Fearless Tower]

It is literally on the other side of the country. I am in CA, plane is in FL. My local person fell through for the initial kick the tires visit so off I go.

We are putting a purchase agreement in place spelling out all of the terms then I am headed out. Fortunately I have a ton of points to cover the flight and hotel...otherwise I wouldn't be so quick to just jump on a plane. I don't mind spending the time.

In that case I'd recommend Wayne's approach.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Engine is 0-470-R in an early 70's C182. I figure $25K overhaul costs. Anyone have actual figures for an overhaul or factory reman assuming no surprises?

Here's a data point...

Our 1971 182N's overhaul in 2009 cost $26K to the engine shop alone - That was the normal price for an overhaul, not including R&R. The shop was Poplar Grove Airmotive, and they did a really fabulous job - They had done the previous overhaul as well, and we went 951 hours past TBO on that one so it was a no-brainer to send it back there. They didn't disappoint - We only burned 1 quart in the first 50 hours. Due to their on-site test cell, the initial break-in is already done when you get the engine back. It worked like a champ for another several hundred hours until the plane was destroyed.

However, the $26K is only part of the equation. Removal, reinstallation, new pucks, accessories, etc. should also be done. We also had a prop blade that was worn beyond serviceable limits but the particular prop model we had was no longer supported, so we had to buy a whole new prop and spinner ($7K and change).

As I recall, the only truly elective piece of the equation for us was the installation of a JPI engine analyzer for $3K and change, and the total bill came to $44K and change. So, I think your expectation of $25K in overhaul costs is wildly optimistic.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In this market find a engine no more then half TBO with good numbers.

Only if you don't want a good deal.

I would take a TBO-or-greater engine any day of the week if it's still strong. You're not required to replace an engine at TBO, and since most "conventional wisdom" dictates what 93K says above, there are very few buyers for the higher-time engined airplanes and thus they can be had for a sum that more than allows for an overhaul to be done when it's actually needed. In the meantime, you're essentially getting "free" engine time. Plus, YOU choose where and how to do the overhaul.

Any how the HECK do your prop strike a trike 182???

It's quite common, actually. Heavy nose, newbie pilot used to a 172 touches nose first, porpoises, and tries to save it rather than go around. You might hit the prop on the second touch, you WILL hit the prop on the third touch.

Our club's 182 had a prop strike before I joined the club by a member who was checked out but hadn't flown it in a long time, and the other club on the field that used to have a 182 had a prop strike as well.

They're pretty long props, not much clearance and if you hit the nose hard enough to bottom out the strut you'll probably smack the prop.

I've heard of DA40's having prop strikes as well, and they have more clearance than the 182 does. I know that in at least one case, the checkout CFI's were teaching new DA40 pilots to fly final at 90 knots with only 1 notch of flaps, which is a TERRIBLE technique - Recommendation is 67 knots at full flaps which will result in an easy greaser.