Best value in the market - Cessna 172 1956 thru 1959?

J

jimwomble

Pre-Flight
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
34
Display Name
Display name:
jimw
Some of the lowest prices on used planes in annual with remaining time on engine are early 172's. Can be bought for less that 20000. I know they are old, have a 6 cylinders, out of date panel and radios but still a lot of plane for the money. One on Barnstormers today - looks like it has been in a hangar with new annual. The older 172 have greater useful load than a new one. I know about watching the seat rails but what else comes to mind.
 
I may be spouting off bad info, but I've heard people say they didn't like the 6 cylinders. Not sure why.
 
Maybe just because there are more cylinders to maintain/replace/overhaul?
 
rbridges said:
I may be spouting off bad info, but I've heard people say they didn't like the 6 cylinders. Not sure why.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the O-300. It's a smoother running engine than the O-360 but the extra power is nice. There are those who like the square tail, I've not noticed any real difference between the swept tail and square tail personally.

Older 172s have a forward CG so ballast is needed if you have big dudes up front.
 
Not much to go wrong with an early 172. If the engine is sound, electrical wiring is in shape and there's no structural corrosion -- what's not to love? The engines installed in 172s built before 1961 (and a handful after 1961 as well) did not accommodate vacuum pumps, so gyro instruments had to be either electric or venturi-driven. That may be a consideration if you plan to use the airplane for IFR or night flying, unless the airplane has been retrofitted with an O-300-D engine.
 
Last edited:
They seem to de slop carb ice a little more readily
 
Best value is anything but a 172, they are inherently overvalued due to their popularity. If you want a better deal look at Pipers....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It also depends upon what value is for you. Are you looking purely at acquisition cost? Hourly costs? Cost per NM flown? IFR capability?

For instance, I'm currently looking hard at short body Mooneys, of which there are some relatively well-equipped examples under $50k with low time engines. Many 172s of the same vintage are in that price range. The older ones can be less expensive up front but if it doesn't suit your mission then there's little value in the plane.
 
I fly a C-172C (1963) owned by the chief instructor of the club I belong to. He gripes about the O-300 because 1) it makes ice easily (compared to the Lyc O-320s), 2) it's got 6 cylinders so spark plugs, cylinder rebuild/replacement etc. cost more, 3) shorter TBO (1800 vs. 2000). And it's hard to keep the cylinders cool apparently. But I suspect that may be baffle issues.

I like it because of Johnson bar flaps and it's lighter than the C-172N. And I don't (directly) pay the maintenance.

John

Edited to correct the TBO hours and the size of the Lyc.
 
Last edited:
labbadabba said:
For instance, I'm currently looking hard at short body Mooneys, of which there are some relatively well-equipped examples under $50k with low time engines. Many 172s of the same vintage are in that price range. The older ones can be less expensive up front but if it doesn't suit your mission then there's little value in the plane.
Click to expand...

Mooneys are really excellent value if they've been well maintained. Fastest certified four seaters per HP and per $



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the older, O-300 powered 172s. I am actually under the impression, that the O-300 powered swept tail 172s from the 60s are even cheaper than the earlier straight tails.
Only potential downside is the lack of power, what might or might not be an issue for you. I also feel that O-300s tend to leak oil, but I might be wrong. Other than that, the O-300 is a really nice, smooth, easy starting engine.

For two persons + luggage and mainly local flying, they are IMHO one of the best planes out there. If one regularly wants to fly longer distances or haul 3 persons + luggage + full tanks, a more powerful / faster plane might be a better choice. The same, if one plans to operate it out of shorter grass strips or at a higher altitude.

When it comes to planes with at least 160 hp, a Piper Warrior or a to 160 hp converted PA28 140 seem to provide the best bang for the buck. Assuming of course, that a single door and the wings attached to the underside of the plane are fine with you.
 
Yep ;)

screen%20shot%202016-03-23%20at%2010.53.20%20am.png
 
The recommended TBO on the O300 is 1800 for what it is worth. My mission is to fly and not concerned about total cost per mile per seat. Seems like most people on this forum consider airplanes as business tools but not me. Surprising early Cessna 172's sell for little more than a early Cessna 150. The 172 I believe has the best fatal safety record in GA aircraft followed by the 150 and then 182.
 
I fly a 59 with o-300a. Love it. Basic vfr sportsman cuff and 8.5 mains. Gets me and the wife and our crap in and out anywhere I have business going and does it on a little over 6 gph. Simple easy to work on no vacuum pump 50's tractor technology. We love our Echo!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My O-300 in my Swift was a known ice maker, like most small bore Continentals. They also tend to stick valves more than Lycomings in my experience. Still, good smooth running engine. My O-300 was very dry and used very little oil when I sold the plane at 400SMOH. My C-85 (same cylinders) is similar to O-300 with two less cylinders. It has over 1100 hours and uses a bit of oil, about 1 qt/7-8 hours and oozes a bit, but no real leak. It will blow out anything over 3.25 quarts though.

Both Lycomings and Continentals have their pros and cons. I wouldn't avoid any particular plane simply due to O-300 or O-320 in it.
 
I have a 56 0-300a and also LOVE it. Just a nice, comfortable, smooth aircraft! Easy to maintain, Did I say I LOVE it...oh yeah I did!
 
jimwomble said:
The recommended TBO on the O300 is 1800 for what it is worth. My mission is to fly and not concerned about total cost per mile per seat. Seems like most people on this forum consider airplanes as business tools but not me. Surprising early Cessna 172's sell for little more than a early Cessna 150. The 172 I believe has the best fatal safety record in GA aircraft followed by the 150 and then 182.
Click to expand...

I'm with you, Jim. These days our airplane is just for fun flying. If I didn't just hate to spend the money, I would swap it for a Super Decathlon or a Cessna Aerobat.
 
Any old aluminum airplane is subject to corrosion, and the full range of airframes from pristine to rotted-out hulks are out there.

The flat spring steel main gear legs also have a corrosion problem. Cessna has issued SBs and SIDs on it, addressing the need to blend out damage and measure the remaining thickness to determine if it's salvageable and if it needs re-heat treating and shot peening. Corrosion pits represent stress risers that can lead to sudden gear breakage. The area under the entry step is a particularly bad spot. Those legs are rare and expensive.

june11_GearCorrosion2.jpg


The aluminum castings that hold that leg in the fuselage are also subject to corrosion and breakage.

The small Continentals are famous for leaking oil from the pushrod tubes. The rubber collars at the inboard ends age and crack and sometimes slip off, and there's no solution besides pulling the cylinders off and fixing it. The tubes are swaged into the head at the outboard ends, and mishandling those cylinders when they're off the engine can loosen the tubes, leading to more difficult-to-stop oil leaks. Aging of the cylinder base seals also lets oil out, but that isn't limited to small Continentals.

Get a GOOD prebuy.
 
How do early 172 prices compare with Viking prices?
 
O 300 , no new cranks, no new camshaft
O 320, new cranks, new camshaft. TBO 2000+
 
"momma always said, airplanes are like a box of chocolates. You just never know what you are going to get."
 
Morgan3820 said:
O 300 , no new cranks, no new camshaft
O 320, new cranks, new camshaft. TBO 2000+
Click to expand...

So buy a plane with lower time on it. How many hours do most owners put on their planes over the lifetime of ownership? 300? 400? 500 hours?
 
So you have a 18K VFR plane. Fly it for 5-10 years, sell it. Get another.
 
UngaWunga said:
So buy a plane with lower time on it. How many hours do most owners put on their planes over the lifetime of ownership? 300? 400? 500 hours?
Click to expand...

That is fine! But go into it knowing that there are some issues that there is have a potential of being a major issue. A friend is going through this right now with his run out 1964 C-172. Triad quoted him $30K for a rebuild which to me is a 'we don't want to do it but if you are stupid enough to pay that much, then OK'. Except for cylinders, it is an obsolete engine.
 
gsengle said:
Best value is anything but a 172, they are inherently overvalued due to their popularity. If you want a better deal look at Pipers....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Let's say you currently own a Piper, but find it increasingly difficult (due to # of candles on B-day cake) to get in, and out, of. But in the 172, just sit, and swing in.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Any old aluminum airplane is subject to corrosion, and the full range of airframes from pristine to rotted-out hulks are out there.

The flat spring steel main gear legs also have a corrosion problem. Cessna has issued SBs and SIDs on it, addressing the need to blend out damage and measure the remaining thickness to determine if it's salvageable and if it needs re-heat treating and shot peening. Corrosion pits represent stress risers that can lead to sudden gear breakage. The area under the entry step is a particularly bad spot. Those legs are rare and expensive.

june11_GearCorrosion2.jpg


The aluminum castings that hold that leg in the fuselage are also subject to corrosion and breakage.

The small Continentals are famous for leaking oil from the pushrod tubes. The rubber collars at the inboard ends age and crack and sometimes slip off, and there's no solution besides pulling the cylinders off and fixing it. The tubes are swaged into the head at the outboard ends, and mishandling those cylinders when they're off the engine can loosen the tubes, leading to more difficult-to-stop oil leaks. Aging of the cylinder base seals also lets oil out, but that isn't limited to small Continentals.

Get a GOOD prebuy.
Click to expand...
Agreed, my O-300 leaks every chance it gets and I've chased them for years. If it's not the PRTs, its' the valve covers, or the magneto seal, or the tach cable, on and on. However, there IS a fix for the leaky push rod tubes, and it's not swaging the ends. There's a kit that upgrades them with the seals and springs similar to larger engines. Runs $100/cylinder from Real Gaskets. I did the left side on mine and not so much of a drip for the past couple years. From their site: "A-65, A-75, C-75/85/90/125/145, O-200, O-300 and GO-300. The kit is designed for easy installation, does not require removal of the cylinder, and converts it to an "independently serviceable" spring loaded pushrod tube system, similar to IO-470, IO-520, and IO-550 continental engines."
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
That is fine! But go into it knowing that there are some issues that there is have a potential of being a major issue. A friend is going through this right now with his run out 1964 C-172. Triad quoted him $30K for a rebuild which to me is a 'we don't want to do it but if you are stupid enough to pay that much, then OK'. Except for cylinders, it is an obsolete engine.
Click to expand...
 
Yes for the older airplanes you are really buying the engine and getting the attached airplane. What does a new 172 cost - I believe its pushing $400,000. Airplanes like many things in life you make your purchase and take your chances. Just can not see paying as much for an Cessna 150 almost as old.
 
Don't forget character.

You get character and hopefully a little style with a vintage machine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have a 61 172B built in Oct 1960. Fastback and swept tail. Love the plane. O300 is very smooth. Not a lot of power on a hot day, but for the price of a nice 150, i have a lot more room and can bring two passengers without worrying about weight.

I have a 300D with vacuum pump and have a ifr panel with a standard six pack. I plan an honest 95 knots and a conservative 7gph.
 
On Barnstormers there are 2 Cherokees 140's for under 20000 - one a 69 which was the year the throttle became a lever plus other upgrades. Point is there are a lot of interesting buys out there - just get the pre buy inspection.
 
labbadabba said:
I don't mind the O-300. It's a smoother running engine than the O-360 but the extra power is nice.
Click to expand...
Yep, you get 5 full horses in the 0-320 over the 0-300.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top