Aircraft pricing

It doesn't seem like it. It is a low time airframe with decent avionics, but it is still a 35 year old plane.
 
I don't think so. Not sure what kind of price you could do the overhaul for yourself. The 172 is just not worth what it used to be.
 
flyingmoose said:
Maybe it will, but just because it is for sale at that price, doesn't mean its worth that. I just don't think people are beating there door down to spend 60K on a 172.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what a "XP" is?
 
Tom-D said:
Do you understand what a "XP" is?
Click to expand...
Well I believe it is the Reims rocket? Bigger engine like 190-195hp. Not positive. I assume by your comment that this is what makes the plane worth the money. Ok well then you have already answered your own question.
 
The 172 XP is basically a 172 N with 195 horse power 6 cylinder Continental engine with a constant speed prop.

this one can be bought for less than a 180 horse up graded N and has a better useful load than the 180 upgraded 172.
 
Tom-D said:
I'm beginning to believe you don't understand what the XP means too.
Click to expand...

I understand quite well, question is, does the market want it? I think if you do the overhaul at minimum cost you come out okay. Question is how many people want it at $60k?
 
I've flown them on floats before, not a plane I would spend that kind on money on, it's just not the best bang for that kind of buck.

When you go to sell it, you will have the problem that you have just seen on this thread, its STILL is a old 172 (albeit a very nice and rare one).

Also why on earth would you buy a plane that has that many hours SMOH?


I'd keep lookin'
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Also why on earth would you buy a plane that has that many hours SMOH?
Click to expand...

Because I'm an A&P-IA that overhauls engines. and that is a first run engine that will not require buying a lot of new parts. Every part in that engine should pass inspection and be reworked and returned to service.

try that with an engine that is on its 3rd overhaul.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
I'd keep lookin'
Click to expand...

For what, show me a low airframe TT, with a load of av equipment equal to this and the new appliances, new interior, great paint and windows, that will haul 4 adults on or off airport, be as easy to work on as a 172, do 120k on 10GPH. under 50k
 
NineThreeKilo said:
A maule, hunt down some 182s, etc?
Click to expand...

A maule = puke ! load one heavy see if you can get the doors open or closed. and the price of 1930 build tactics yuck.

the 182 is on our list, but we seldom see the requirement to burn that much fuel for the load we carry.

172XP with the IO-360-KB will burn 9-11 GPH at cruise, the 182, it's 13-15 GPH. at todays fuel prices that's over 20 bucks an hour difference.
 
Not sure about your experience with Maules, but they have demonstrated to be very mission capable back-country aircraft, good construction, good cruse numbers, aircraft.

Honestly the XP proved itself to be a very lethargic float plane, even with light loads.

I've always looked at planes as something I should be able to flip, and a 50-60k old 172XP, if you buy it I have a feeling you will be a long term owner, unless you whore it out.
 
I always liked the XP, I would think it would be a nice plane.
I have heard that those engines are costly to overhaul, but if you
Are doing it yourself, couldn't be that much more.
Dave
P.S. who has the Fairchild salvage, might be time for a
New project.
 
What's the offsetting difference in cruise speed and load capacity between the two planes?

At our age any airplane must be viewed as a short-term hold. Which plane is more predictably salable with the lowest net ownership and operating costs and price depreciation during the next 3-5 years?



Tom-D said:
A maule = puke ! load one heavy see if you can get the doors open or closed. and the price of 1930 build tactics yuck.

the 182 is on our list, but we seldom see the requirement to burn that much fuel for the load we carry.

172XP with the IO-360-KB will burn 9-11 GPH at cruise, the 182, it's 13-15 GPH. at todays fuel prices that's over 20 bucks an hour difference.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
What's the offsetting difference in cruise speed and load capacity between the two planes?
Click to expand...

That's just a mater of how you run the aircraft. Using Cessna's numbers from "The Standard Catalog Of Cessna Single Engine Aircraft" The 182 for year 1977 Optimum cruse speed is 144Kt. range of 520 Nm, with an average use full load of 1233# and a max-gross weight of 2950#

The 1977 172XP has the optimum cruise speed of 130Kn, range of 480Nm, and an average use full load of 1001# with a max-gross weight of 2550#

To me, it's simply a smaller version of the 182, yes it is slower, smaller, but the equates to easier to handle on the ground, And yes, when you do the math of time over fuel usage, they will be pretty close to the same.
 
d.grimm said:
I have heard that those engines are costly to overhaul
Click to expand...

A set of new cylinders for the IO-360KB are $8500.

Price a set of cylinders for any Lycoming 6 cylinder engine.

the 0-540 style cylinder is 1117.00 so we have a difference of just under 2k for a set of 6.

The IO-360-KB cylinders are of the same design as the TSIO-360, when run with out turbo boosting they are nearly bullet proof. and when run LOP they will go to TBO most every time.
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
And submit an article to the local paper "One relic buys another."
Click to expand...

If I were to go for that type of aircraft, I will be looking for a 180, early 182s are a nice old aircraft, the key word there is OLD.
 
To me, it's simply a smaller version of the 182, yes it is slower, smaller, but the equates to easier to handle on the ground, And yes, when you do the math of time over fuel usage, they will be pretty close to the same .
Click to expand...



I dont really see the big deal or difficulty in "ground handling" any sort of small plane on the ground. What difference does it makes? I wouldnt even pay a premium because x is easier to handle/taxi than y. subjective.
:dunno::dunno::dunno:
 
I still say the best flying is float flying and you're in one of the best parts of the world for it.
 
cirrusmx said:
I dont really see the big deal or difficulty in "ground handling" any sort of small plane on the ground. What difference does it makes? I wouldnt even pay a premium because x is easier to handle/taxi than y. subjective.
:dunno::dunno::dunno:
Click to expand...
Have you ever tried to push a 182/180/185 on turf? BTDT and it isn't easy. Isn't some thing this old skinny guy wants to do again.
 
It was never a 172. The 172XP is actually a 175, and built on the 175's tupe certificate.
 
Henning said:
I still say the best flying is float flying and you're in one of the best parts of the world for it.
Click to expand...

True, but as soon as you place it up for sale, the buyer will ask "has it been in salt" and that is about all we have.

Yes we have fresh water lakes in Puget Sound, but every inch of their beaches have a huge mansion on it and they frown on you camping in their back yards.
 
kgruber said:
It was never a 172. The 172XP is actually a 175, and built on the 175's tupe certificate.
Click to expand...

Yep, thus the 2550 gross weight.

The best aircraft I've flown for the back country was Mark's 175 converted to 180 horse. it will haul more and get off quicker than the maule M5-235.
 

Attachments

  • what is it -4.JPG
    what is it -4.JPG
    63.5 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Have you ever tried to push a 182/180/185 on turf? BTDT and it isn't easy. Isn't some thing this old skinny guy wants to do again.
Click to expand...

I guess an ultra light or lsa would be easier to push around. I once had to push an b55 for about a hundred yards across a platform. not easy but a good work out.
 
cirrusmx said:
I guess an ultra light or lsa would be easier to push around. I once had to push an b55 for about a hundred yards across a platform. not easy but a good work out.
Click to expand...
It is a matter of weight/friction/and effort

I once tried to move a Long EZ in soft ground, those little wheels acted more like sub-soilers than wheels.
 
An extra 10 psi in each main makes it easier, but still no picnic. Did it Saturday. Even downhill is tougher than it should be.

Tom-D said:
Have you ever tried to push a 182/180/185 on turf? BTDT and it isn't easy. Isn't some thing this old skinny guy wants to do again.
Click to expand...
 
The 172 is just enough easier to push that I can put one away by myself. I always need help pushing the 182 back over the tracks for the hangar door. That would be a consideration for me.

A 180 hp C-172N with full long range tanks has a better payload than a C-182P with full long range tanks, by about 100 pounds. In our club we are supposed to put the plane away with full tanks, so we don't have the option of leaving some fuel behind to bump the cabin load. 755 pounds in the cabin of the C-172N with the Penn Yan conversion. Sounds similar to that C-172XP. Same max gross.

The 182 is more comfortable than the 172 (at least, to me it is), but when I need to carry a load and stay legal, guess which one gets reserved?

Have fun, Tom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top