Mid 70's 172 with > 20,000 TT... What would you look for?

Or kick the fat guy out and keep the 150:lol:
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
This is exactly what we're looking at actually. We cannot afford a $25,000 - $35,000 aircraft. This is to finish out our primary training, and give us something to fly around for weekend travel and dinner flights. We're not expecting to resell it and get back what we paid.




I should have been more specific. Survey use over open water. Not over land, pipelines, etc. So I would imagine remarkably less bumping and thumping? Not saying that means it doesn't warrant inspection though.
Click to expand...

Somewhat less, however if you are going out fish spotting or pollution checking on a daily basis, you're still going to be out there in some bumpy conditions. Even if it was smooth I would still be checking the attach bolts and fittings at 20,000 hrs, it's not a particularly difficult or expensive thing to do, dye penetrant kits are cheap.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
This is exactly what we're looking at actually. We cannot afford a $25,000 - $35,000 aircraft. This is to finish out our primary training, and give us something to fly around for weekend travel and dinner flights. We're not expecting to resell it and get back what we paid.




I should have been more specific. Survey use over open water. Not over land, pipelines, etc. So I would imagine remarkably less bumping and thumping? Not saying that means it doesn't warrant inspection though.




I'm sure there is some. As there would be on any aircraft. Excessive and unreasonable would be what I'm looking. I get the impression from speaking with the owner that there will actually be less than usual. Also, I don't think total time would be a corrosion factor. It doesn't corrode faster because you fly more. If anything, that should reduce corrosion since it is constantly blown out?




Yes, there are lots of 172's out there. And all outside our price range. Those within our price range are MX disasters that will cost us anything we save. This appears so far to be an immaculately maintained aircraft, which if not for the high total time, would be a $28-30k purchase. If we can do our diligence on the MX, verify the airframe is solid, we're winning.

The Grumman we were looking at a few weeks ago as a trade didn't work out. And upon deeper thought, we decided that it wouldn't be a good move. We have minimal useful load on our 150. Barely enough fuel to loop the pattern a few times for the heavier of us three. And that gives us minimal practical use after primary training. Swapping it for a Yankee wouldn't change any of that. The only thing that Yankee trade would have given us is a lower time engine with a fresh annual.

We talked about it for a long time. What do we need now, what do we want later, and define "later". We decided if we're going to change planes, we want it to be in a similar type, with better performance and better useful load. We want a plane that we can keep and use practically for the next 3-7 or more years. Our 150 or a Yankee flying around teetering over the edge of gross weight with 1.5 people in it is not that plane. A 172 fits the bill perfectly and we all have experience in one already now.

And we decided that the only way it will be practical is if we can take it home for < $20,000. That greatly limits the the field of available 172s. The ones that are in that price range are often have questionable or objectionable MX issues. What we have here is a 172 in the price range, well equipped, with what appears to be immaculate MX. If we can verify it is in good airworthy condition, and not about to fold in half, we win.
Click to expand...

If the surveys were done over the ocean and if the plane was based near saltwater that could aid in corrosion. Just a thought
 
Henning said:
Somewhat less, however if you are going out fish spotting or pollution checking on a daily basis, you're still going to be out there in some bumpy conditions. Even if it was smooth I would still be checking the attach bolts and fittings at 20,000 hrs, it's not a particularly difficult or expensive thing to do, dye penetrant kits are cheap.
Click to expand...

Understood. I've asked him to detail what inspections have been done to date for this. Are the spar/fuselage/strut attach points all accessible by inspection panel? We can bring a borescope with us too.

oregonboy109 said:
If the surveys were done over the ocean and if the plane was based near saltwater that could aid in corrosion. Just a thought
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
oregonboy109 said:
If the surveys were done over the ocean and if the plane was based near saltwater that could aid in corrosion. Just a thought
Click to expand...

Most people near the coast treat their planes with ACR or CorrosionX. Most guys with a work plane will take these steps to protect the tool that makes their living as fixing corrosion is a much more expensive process (especially when you look at it from a loss of revenue perspective and add that to the repair bill) than preventing it. It cost $150 to do mine at the last annual.
 
^ And that is exactly what this plane has had done to it forever. Always treated for corrosion, flown regularly, and always hangared. All bodes well. We'll see what reality looks like.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Understood. I've asked him to detail what inspections have been done to date for this. Are the spar/fuselage/strut attach points all accessible by inspection panel? We can bring a borescope with us too.


Indeed.
Click to expand...

The pictures start on 110 of 226. Start reading, its more than you ever knew about structures. Even describes modifications via service bulletins, minimum thickness requirements for corrosion removal in certain areas.


https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37396
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I would look for a different airplane. The cessna company did not build it to last 20,000 hours. It's worn out, done!
Click to expand...
Provide data source of your assertion. I know from reading Cessna technical data, from Cessna, you're wrong.
 
Last edited:
pilot_dude said:
Provide data source of your assertion. I know from reading Cessna technical data, from Cessna, you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Just read the SID. According to Cessna, even after complying with the crazy 150< pages of inspections, service bulletins and parts replacements in it, they "recommend retiring the airplane at 30k hours"
 
bnt83 said:
Just read the SID. According to Cessna, even after complying with the crazy 150< pages of inspections, service bulletins and parts replacements in it, they "recommend retiring the airplane at 30k hours"
Click to expand...
Exactly. The assertion from Jimmy stated 20k was the limit. He is known to opine without facts to back up his assertion.
 
docmirror said:
Your mission makes sense. However, lets be real about the loading. There is no way any of the GA light 4 seat planes will take on the loads of three big guys and full fuel.

Anyway, here's what you want:

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_941812_1959+Tri+Pacer+PA22+150.html

Hauls as much or more than a 172, goes faster, uses auto fuel, and has a GPS too.
Click to expand...

We're aware of the loading. At approx 900lbs useful load, it can meet and exceed any of our foreseeable needs for local and XC flight. Quite perfectly actually. The 475lb useful load of our 150... :no:
 
docmirror said:
Your mission makes sense. However, lets be real about the loading. There is no way any of the GA light 4 seat planes will take on the loads of three big guys and full fuel.

Anyway, here's what you want:

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_941812_1959+Tri+Pacer+PA22+150.html

Hauls as much or more than a 172, goes faster, uses auto fuel, and has a GPS too.
Click to expand...

O-320 powered? That may not be a bad option. Asking a bit much for it tho.

The engine lifting eye & engine parting flange bolts are bright red = corroded, makes me wonder what the rest looks like?. Might be worth only about $5k :D

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=941812&ZOOM=e9478431c2c48bfafa4b49926b8c0086
 
Last edited:
Pedals2Paddles said:
Understood. I've asked him to detail what inspections have been done to date for this. Are the spar/fuselage/strut attach points all accessible by inspection panel? We can bring a borescope with us too.


Indeed.
Click to expand...

All the bolts and fittings are easily accessible by pulling the fairings that are a normal process in any annual.
 
pilot_dude said:
Exactly. The assertion from Jimmy stated 20k was the limit. He is known to opine without facts to back up his assertion.
Click to expand...

I did not say that. I simply stated that cessna, nor any other light aircraft manufacturer expected anyone to fly them 20,000 hours. I've flown a bonanza and a shrike, both with over 14000 hours and they were in rough shape, lots of pulled rivets, some dents etc. who knows what else?,If it were " rare" it would be worth looking at and possibly rebuilding it. Not only is it not " rare". It's a run of the mill, run out , probably best left at an outside tie down or melted down for beer cans. However.....if the fellow is determined to buy it, by all means go for it, ......or wait until he can afford something decent. Please, let us hear about YOUR knowledge big boy.
 
Ask the question,you may not buy it,but how many would refuse to fly it. It's not an investment,but it will give you a good ,easy ride.
 
docmirror said:
Your mission makes sense. However, lets be real about the loading. There is no way any of the GA light 4 seat planes will take on the loads of three big guys and full fuel.

Anyway, here's what you want:

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_941812_1959+Tri+Pacer+PA22+150.html

Hauls as much or more than a 172, goes faster, uses auto fuel, and has a GPS too.
Click to expand...

A 1976 C-172N with the Penn Yan 180 hp STC that I'm quite familiar with can carry 755 pounds in the cabin with FULL long range (50 gal) tanks. How big are your big guys? That's 3 250 pound people with 5 pounds to spare.
 
Ghery said:
A 1976 C-172N with the Penn Yan 180 hp STC that I'm quite familiar with can carry 755 pounds in the cabin with FULL long range (50 gal) tanks. How big are your big guys? That's 3 250 pound people with 5 pounds to spare.
Click to expand...

Yes that would be wonderful. Find me a one for <$20k in good condition and less than 2200smoh and I will buy it tomorrow :yes:

Guys, I'm acutely aware that there are a million 172s out there with less time. And I'm aware there are variants with a higher payload. Our budget is $20k or less. If we had the money for a $40,000 plane, we wouldn't be looking at super high time 172.
 
I think some folks are misunderstanding that you don't need the useful load to carry all the owners at the same time, just enough useful load for each of you and a CFI. Virtually any 172 will pull that off (unless its had something hideous installed or you find a titanic CFI).

Given the budget constraints you have, I would ask if you are making allowances for possible unexpected issues? Of course, it is possible you won't have any surprises, but anytime you are dealing with an airplane, especially one that has been worked hard, you want to be prepared.

Of course, if you see metal in your oil filter you are going to have a hard choice to make anyway; put a significant amount of money into the plane you won't get back, or scrap the airframe.

Here's hoping you won't have to deal with that stuff, but it is best to be prepared!
 
Id get a low time tripacer for your mission and budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top