How to buy a plane

[Neal Howard]

A 2005 needs $13k worth of work? Let me guess. Hoses? Accessories (prop, mags, etc)
passed the OEM recommended TBO? Bad Battrey(ies)?

Mechanic who cannot discern between "airworthy" and "like new" on any parts he looks at (or else he wants to buy himself a new bass boat and needs a victim to help pay for it) ?

 

[bnt83]

Mechanic who cannot discern between "airworthy" and "like new" on any parts he looks at (or else he wants to buy himself a new bass boat and needs a victim to help pay for it) ?

flying is expensive enough...

Well ya know. A 2005 is already 8 years into the what? 12 year calendar TBO on the engine? So the engine is over half dead....

 

[bnt83]

Pretty much the only good things about the 68 & 69 is the thin wings. The 180 conversions use the same stupid airbox and duct design.

I forgot the 1968 C177s with the O-320 (150HP) engines can burn auto fuel too, with a "paperwork STC". No modifications to the fuel system or engine needed.

 

[simtech]

Pretty much the only good things about the 68 & 69 is the thin wings. The 180 conversions use the same stupid airbox and duct design.

How dramatic is the stalls with those wings? I've read they were not desirable due to the wing and the stall characteristics and that is why in 70 they changed the wing.

 

[bnt83]

How dramatic is the stalls with those wings? I've read they were not desirable due to the wing and the stall characteristics and that is why in 70 they changed the wing.

Its not a big deal. The biggest difference I see between the two (fat wing vs thin wing) is the climb angle, thin wing is very shallow. Stalls (thin wing) aren't that much different depending on how the airplane is loaded. Two people and full fuel it stalls similar to a 172. Loaded heavy are a bit sharper. Landings are still crazy easy.

The drag induced by increasing angle of attack on the thin wing makes it feel like climbing out of a mud hole on hot days, where the fat wings are more 172/182 like.

That all being said, I really enjoy the crisp light feel of the 68. This 77 in my hangar now seems a bit watered down, with the fat wing, rudder/aileron interconnect bungee (even tho its very weak) and the old ARC autopilot cables attached to the aileron control cables.

The 68 lnding gear is like driving on a sponge. You don't feel cracks in the pavement. The 77 gear is stiff like a flat spring gear on a 172/182/205. Altho some of that could be the tires. Flight custom II's on the 77 are harder than the soft cheapo's on the 68

 

[bnt83]

You can see in the picture above of this 1977 that airfilter box is mounted to the baffle and a big pipe feeds filtered air down to the carb heat box that is mounted directly to the carburetor. The only dumb thing they did with the cowling on this airplane was put the landing & taxi lights in it. But that's not such a big deal either with LED's being much more durable and able to withstand being mounted there.

 

[bnt83]

Quoting the owner of the 1977, a retired airline captain, "the Cessna 177 is a timeless design." It looked as modern 45 years ago as many other production airplanes today.

This is the 68 that our family has.

 

[denverpilot]

2005 Cessna 206H. It is a pretty long list, but mainly was items that should have been replaced over a year ago and slipped passed the last annual. I'm gonna let them keep the plane if they don't step up and cover it.

These guys probably also haven't seen Cessna's pricing on parts go through the roof, nor the article about why in the CPA magazine a month or so ago.

Basically Cessna raised prices on parts to match the price to build an entire new aircraft at today's new aircraft prices after a recent change in upper management to former GE execs.

No more losing money on engineering development in the parts department allowed. ALL parts production costs will be rolled into the parts for the smaller aircraft which former execs considered a loss-leader to help the aviation training industry along, assuming those being trained in Cessnas might have some brand loyalty when it came time to buy new someday, whether prop-singles or jets.

New management is about the numbers. Examples given in the CPA article showed 1000's of percent increases on certain parts In the last few years. The trend is expected to continue.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[bnt83]

These guys probably also haven't seen Cessna's pricing on parts go through the roof, nor the article about why in the CPA magazine a month or so ago.

Basically Cessna raised prices on parts to match the price to build an entire new aircraft at today's new aircraft prices after a recent change in upper management to former GE execs.

No more losing money on engineering development in the parts department allowed. ALL parts production costs will be rolled into the parts for the smaller aircraft which former execs considered a loss-leader to help the aviation training industry along, assuming those being trained in Cessnas might have some brand loyalty when it came time to buy new someday, whether prop-singles or jets.

New management is about the numbers. Examples given in the CPA article showed 1000's of percent increases on certain parts In the last few years. The trend is expected to continue.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Which is even MORE REASON NOT TO OWN A NEWER airplane. There are aftermarket parts everywhere for the older ones at 1/10 the price.


Despite Cessna's best attempt to recover money on parts, there will just be more field approvals, STC's, substitutions and salvaged parts to circumvent Cessna's pricing, or aiplanes parked in long term storage without much thought.