Cessna 177 -B

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Have discovered a 177-b that was in restoration when the owner A&P-IA Died, it has been setting for a few years.

Question is simple, what are they worth restored?
 
We insured ours for $42,000 this year. But it's got the original paint, interior and avionics. It's in pretty good shape, all things considered. It's always been hangar-ed. But still, original avionics, and worn interior and paint. I think $50,000 isn't out of the question for a really good one with good avionics. Maybe others will call me crazy.
 
Worth depends on a lot of things, but there are some ADs and SBs that need to be checked. There are some places that like to crack, and that spar carrythrough is very susceptible to corrosion. If it's bad enough it's an expensive fix--as much as the airplane might be worth. Cessna used CAT hose for the overhead vents, and it rots and the reinforcing wire contacts the spar as well as other stuff like the fuel vent crossover tubing, and they corrode. Moisture comes from condensation from the breath of the occupants. No primer was used in those ceilings or on the spar to protect the surfaces.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Worth depends on a lot of things, but there are some ADs and SBs that need to be checked. There are some places that like to crack, and that spar carrythrough is very susceptible to corrosion. If it's bad enough it's an expensive fix--as much as the airplane might be worth. Cessna used CAT hose for the overhead vents, and it rots and the reinforcing wire contacts the spar as well as other stuff like the fuel vent crossover tubing, and they corrode. Moisture comes from condensation from the breath of the occupants. No primer was used in those ceilings or on the spar to protect the surfaces.
Click to expand...
I inspected the Spar carry thru this morning. (it is clean as new) this aircraft is a 1975 has 1300 TT, a disassembled 0-360 180 horse (the original engine) was torn down all parts are there with yellow tags, but needs assembly. the prop is there, never overhauled, and no ADs apply. I've not see any of the other parts yet.
This aircraft is the 2500 gross weight and extended range fuel tanks.
(waiting for return call from the owners son)
What should I offer ??
 
I have a friend that owned a 177B, it was a really nice flying aircraft. I don't know what the market is for them, but it sounds like this example might be worth making an offer on.
 
Tom-D said:
I
What should I offer ??
Click to expand...

No idea Tom. You would have a better idea being your an A&P. Sounds like a nice project and if you can get it for the right price you'd probably make a nice little profit. Nice airplanes to fly, look good, and I always liked that big door.
 
this O-360 have the D2000/3000 magneto?

None of the 177/B/RG had optional factory extended range tanks, is that a baggage fuel tank?

I'd have a hard time paying anywhere near $50k unless it had a WAAS/LPV GPS navigator in it or a newer autopilot.
 
A lot of the better equipped ones are in the $70-$75k range. I'd buy it as long as it isn't a 68
 
Tom-D said:
Have discovered a 177-b that was in restoration when the owner A&P-IA Died, it has been setting for a few years.

Question is simple, what are they worth restored?
Click to expand...

Do you plan to paint it? Install a 21st century interior? Panel?

I considered C-177's once upon a time. Nice airplanes. The one you've found is low hours, so that's great. Put the engine together, give it an annual and it is worth $45k due to the airframe and engine hours. Fix the warts (paint, interior, panel), and it'll be worth $60-80k, I'd venture, depending on the panel.

Personally, I'd get the radios working, install a Garmin G5, maybe a cheap ADS-B system, and try to sell it for $55k.
 
Notes:
It can't be a -B and a 68.
It does have a old autopilot.
and new glass already installed.
I have no idea what radios come with it , if any.

What if it got new paint, interior and a single ValCom.2000 and the rest open for the new buyer.
Value ?
 
$80k+ for a 177B? Either it has $35k in radios in it or a guy is dreaming. 95% of tire kickers would end up with a 182 at that price.
 
kyleb said:
Do you plan to paint it? Install a 21st century interior? Panel?
Click to expand...

Yes on the paint, it has been scotch brited, thus is scratched beyond polished.

What would you call a 21st century panel?
 
bnt83 said:
$80k+ for a 177B? Either it has $35k in radios in it or a guy is dreaming. 95% of tire kickers would end up with a 182 at that price.
Click to expand...
That is the hazard of restoring. we get 100 grand tied up in a 50k aircraft.
 
bnt83 said:
this O-360 have the D2000/3000 magneto?

None of the 177/B/RG had optional factory extended range tanks, is that a baggage fuel tank?
Click to expand...

This is a -B not an RG
The "Standard catalog of Cessna Single Engine Aircraft" Revised edition states that the standard fuel is 50 gallons in two tanks, the optional extended fuel is 60 gallons in two tanks.

The dual mag is the standard. for 1975. IO-360-A1F6 "D"
 
Tom-D said:
Yes on the paint, it has been scotch brited, thus is scratched beyond polished.

What would you call a 21st century panel?
Click to expand...

For resale? Probably something that says Garmin on it, but King isn't so out of the mix as to be undesirable. Narco? Bwahaa.

But I said "21st century interior". Which means beige, grey, or black. Not orange, blue, maroon, or candystripe.
 
A thing is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. PERIOD.
It's a plane, when COMPLETE.

Now, what is it going to cost you to get it there.
This is just my own worthless opinion...
Subtract that from what a complete 177 is worth TO YOU, then offer (half?) that.
It all comes down to what YOU consider a good deal on it to be, when everything is done. If it were complete, and to your specs, what would you buy a plane like that, RIGHT NOW?
If your number, and the seller's numbers are close, you might have a deal. If not, there is always another. At this point, it sounds like scrap value unless someone like you comes along.

Another MAJOR point. Be sure to stress to them that you DO NOT intend to part it out, but to put it back together, and get it into the air again, just like the dad wanted to.
Offer to take him for a ride in it when you get it done, however far down the road that may be, in exchange for a good deal, and that you will send them pics of it as the build progresses. If there is any emotion attached for them, you might just walk away with the deal of a lifetime.
 
bnt83 said:
None of the 177/B/RG had optional factory extended range tanks, is that a baggage fuel tank?
Click to expand...
Are you sure? My POH for my 76 lists that as an option.
 
Last edited:
I stand corrected, there was optional 60 gallons on a lot of B models.

I can't see a 75 it being worth much more than $50k without:

1 Decent radio either WAAS/LPV navigator or a decent autopilot. Too many cardinals are stacked to the brim with ARCs and an autopilot that has been inop for 20 years.
2 Two separate magnetos. Gonna cost big bucks to get rid of the D2000/3000 mags.
3 Decent paint & interior.

I'm not sure when they started building them with a full instrument panel but is seems like that was on the 1976 models, so there's only around 250 total that have them. That would be worth a little more IMHO.

All of them are gonna need fuel tank sealant repairs someday. Right now that is basically impossible due to the extremely poor access. The only way IMHO is to add new access panels to the fuel tanks. I haven't seen anyone even entertaining the idea yet.
 
bnt83 said:
All of them are gonna need fuel tank sealant repairs someday. Right now that is basically impossible due to the extremely poor access. The only way IMHO is to add new access panels to the fuel tanks. I haven't seen anyone even entertaining the idea yet.
Click to expand...
Talk to me about fuel tanks ,, are they a bag? or integral ? or a tank?
 
If you are serious about buying this aircraft, spend the money to get a membership to Cardinal Flyers Online. They have a page called "Pre-Purchase Check List" that tells you about the trouble areas, what to look for, and in some cases the potential costs if things go south. There is a ton of great information there that will help you out. I don't want to post too much because it is a paid service, and I think they are entitled to get some remuneration for their great work. It isn't too expensive to get the membership-$34.00 per year. I myself hired Keith to come look at my plane before I proceeded with my purchase. I can understand why you would not want to hire Keith given your experience, education, and the purpose of taking this project on. But, at $34.00, the membership alone offers a lot of good information that will help you decide whether to take on this project, it will help with your work on the project, and it will help with future Cardinals you may have cause to work on.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Talk to me about fuel tanks ,, are they a bag? or integral ? or a tank?
Click to expand...

All 177s are integral, hence "sealant repairs".

I don't see a future for aftermarket bags like Mooney, I don't think there would be enough demand for such a conversion. Then of course increase in weight which no 177 needs.

Now a simple fuel tank access improvement kit, that would be worth the effort.
 
bnt83 said:
All 177s are integral, hence "sealant repairs".

I don't see a future for aftermarket bags like Mooney, I don't think there would be enough demand for such a conversion. Then of course increase in weight which no 177 needs.

Now a simple fuel tank access improvement kit, that would be worth the effort.
Click to expand...

Wings are off, why not a sloshing sealer?
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
Why would you do that when the original widely used even today poly-sulfide sealants nearly 50 years?

My tanks are 48 years old and no leaks. Not ever going to slosh them. How can they be clean enough to even use such a product and guarantee adhesion with the increadibkt poor access into a 177 tank? I think you'd just make a bigger mess. http://generalaviationnews.com/2011/03/07/sealant-contributes-to-fatal-accident/
Click to expand...
I've read a little on old tank sealers and found there are those that are compatible with auto fuels and there are those that aren't
 
Tom-D said:
I've read a little on old tank sealers and found there are those that are compatible with auto fuels and there are those that aren't
Click to expand...

My 68 with plain old 150 horse has been running plain 87 octane ethanol-free gas for about 5 years via Peterson STC.

I don't believe any of the 177Bs are STC for autogas, even tho the O-360-A1F6 (and D) can run 91 <I think>
 
bnt83 said:
My 68 with plain old 150 horse has been running plain 87 octane ethanol-free gas for about 5 years via Peterson STC.

I don't believe any of the 177Bs are STC for autogas, even tho the O-360-A1F6 (and D) can run 91 <I think>
Click to expand...
My statement above was interference to the accident mentioned, You really must know which sealant to use for the fuel you will run.
 
Tom-D said:
My statement above was interference to the accident mentioned, You really must know which sealant to use for the fuel you will run.
Click to expand...

How do you prep it so it WONT peel?

Sloshing over old sealant sounds like shooting yourself in the foot too. How well is going to stick to the old sealant? How much prep does the bare aluminum tank walls need?

Proseal has adhesion promoters available, applied before the sealant is.
 
bnt83 said:
How do you prep it so it WONT peel?

Sloshing over old sealant sounds like shooting yourself in the foot too. How well is going to stick to the old sealant? How much prep does the bare aluminum tank walls need?

Proseal has adhesion promoters available, applied before the sealant is.
Click to expand...
When I worked theTC-4C crew at NAS we would defuel, calk the lines then, then open the tanks and spray in the old red top coat using a garden sprayer with a long wand. that was the only thing that finally stopped the leaks.
The red top coat from pro-seal works in the moonies why would it not work in a Cessna wing? this stuff
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/cs/fueltanksealants/bunan.php
 
Tom-D said:
When I worked theTC-4C crew at NAS we would defuel, calk the lines then, then open the tanks and spray in the old red top coat using a garden sprayer with a long wand. that was the only thing that finally stopped the leaks.
The red top coat from pro-seal works in the moonies why would it not work in a Cessna wing? this stuff
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/cs/fueltanksealants/bunan.php
Click to expand...

I wouldn't do it nor would I buy a plane with tanks that were. Its gonna be huge PITA to clean that stuff out when it fails.

Mooneys aren't a shining example of it working IMHO.
 
Now days, there's a lot better leak detection methods. Dassault Falcons pressurize the fuel tanks with a nitrogen hydrogen gas mixture and run a detector over all seems and fasteners mapping the leaks, gain access and fix the loose sealant found near the plotted map drawings.
 
bnt83 said:
Just drain the tanks at annual and vacuum out what peeled off every year. (sarcasm)
Click to expand...
might work actually, except when you collapse the wing
 
Tom-D said:
might work actually, except when you collapse the wing
Click to expand...

You have to take fuel tank filler adapter off to do much in there, and that's the only hole you can get your hand in. 60 gallon tanks might have an additional hole, IDK.
 
They use the same skin doubler twice on the 60 gallon tanks, that doubler is where the filler adapter is screwed on.

I don't see why a guy couldn't get approval to install additional holes in the same manner, one inboard and outboard of the filler adapter on standard range tanks, just one hole inboard of the filler on long range tanks. Maybe the ribs are too close together in the other bays for that doubler.

 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
They use the same skin doubler twice on the 60 gallon tanks, that doubler is where the filler adapter is screwed on.

I don't see why a guy couldn't get approval to install additional holes in the same manner, one inboard and outboard of the filler adapter on standard range tanks, just one hole inboard of the filler on long range tanks. Maybe the ribs are too close together in the other bays for that doubler.

Click to expand...

What would you use as a reference to gain field approval ? this is a stressed skin on a cantilever wing. I don't believe the FSDO would ever give their blessing, so the local DAR would have to bless it.
 
Tom-D said:
What would you use as a reference to gain field approval ? this is a stressed skin on a cantilever wing. I don't believe the FSDO would ever give their blessing, so the local DAR would have to bless it.
Click to expand...

DAR does mostly issuing of airworthiness certificates like imports type work, you mean DER?

Simple, I'd starting contacting part 23 structural DERs on the FAA's list, with a brief description of the proposal with pictures, or ask the mothership first, Cessna.

There's no reason these have to be the most miserable (or nearly the most) fuel tanks to repair on a SEP airplane.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
DAR does mostly issuing of airworthiness certificates like imports type work, you mean DER?

Simple, I'd starting contacting part 23 structural DERs on the FAA's list, with a brief description of the proposal with pictures, or ask the mothership first, Cessna.

There's no reason these have to be the most miserable (or nearly the most) fuel tanks to repair on a SEP airplane.
Click to expand...

Yep - DER
That is how it starts, Some one must provide the engineering, Cessna has been very reluctant to do this.
 
Tom-D said:
Yep - DER
That is how it starts, Some one must provide the engineering, Cessna has been very reluctant to do this.
Click to expand...

I don't see why a type club couldn't put up $ to pay for a DER. Survey the members and ask for assistance in exchange for the data. It will help maintain or improve fleet prices in the long run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top