Need advice (topic: buying a plane)

O

onwards

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
1,998
Location
CA
Display Name
Display name:
onwards
I have been exploring this for several months, because I am in this odd position of having the money to spend on one in what can very much be described as a buyer's market.

I wanted to educate myself some, and figure out what makes sense to buy, and so on. I think I am finally more or less settled on the idea of getting a "power-optioned" 172 - that is, a 172 but with a 180HP engine plus powerflow exhaust (for another 10-15HP or so) and bigger tanks (I found at least one option to add 7 gallons to each wing). Seems like this will give a reliable, fun plane that has a decent payload, range and fuel consumption. And on the occasion that I want something more, I can fly my club's 182 fixed or RG.

Having settled on this idea, I am also leaning towards modifying the plane post-purchase, as opposed to looking for the perfect one.

But now, as much as I am trying to further understand how this works and what the best way is to go about it, I am lost. There just doesn't seem to be enough info around what I'm trying to do, or at least I don't know how to search for it.

I wonder if you can give me some pointers. My main concern right now is trying to understand the conversion point. To wit:

If I am to go this route, are these 180HP conversions (I think I even saw a 195HP one? is that true?) basically an engine replacement, or a modification of the existing one? if the former, then it seems like it makes sense to buy a plane with an engine that is at end-of-life (2000+ hours). Is that correct? if the latter, is the conversion also considered an overhaul? I am really not sure I understand how this works.

In other words, do I actively look for a nice LOOKING plane with an engine that is ready to be overhauled?

Is this conversion something any mechanic can do?

Can it be done to any 172, or only starting certain years? or is a matter of cost related to how old the original model is?

Are my questions even making sense?

Thank you thank you in advance, all you wise ones.
 
This isn't the all inclusive information you're probably looking for, but that's not going to stop me from sharing my own opinion :) If I were looking for a 172, I would just try to find one with a 180HP engine already in it, and then use any extra money to put a Powerflow exhaust, if I felt it needed it, but more likely to replace older avionics.

For what it's worth, I have about 20 hours in a G model 172 with a 180HP engine and Powerflow exhaust. The performance was very good and definitely noticeable on climb outs. The engine work on the one I flew was done by a company called Air Plains: http://www.airplains.com/index.php/parts/engine-conversion
 
The 195hp model is the 172 XP, but that's achieved with a 6 cylinder engine vs 4 cylinders in a regular 172.

I think most here would advise buying a plane with the options you're looking for already installed. That way the previous owner takes the depreciation hit, not you.
 
You should certainly figure on finding and buying a plane with the conversion already accomplished; there are plenty of them out there, and the cost of performing the conversion is likely to be much greater than the difference in price to buy one already converted.

There was indeed a 195 HP 172, the "Hawk XP," which also included a constant-speed prop. This was factory. In addition, Reims, which built Cessnas in France under license, even built a 210HP 172.
 
steingar said:
I'd get the 182 instead.
Click to expand...

The main reason I think of sticking with a 172 is the higher operating costs of the 182. It doesn't seem like the cost difference is truly justified, considering that a 180HP 172 with that exhaust can carry four adults legitimately, like the 182. Or is my thinking wrong here? I don't mind the complex or high performance stuff; I'll have those endorsements next month.
 
onwards said:
The main reason I think of sticking with a 172 is the higher operating costs of the 182. It doesn't seem like the cost difference is truly justified, considering that a 180HP 172 with that exhaust can carry four adults legitimately, like the 182. Or is my thinking wrong here? I don't mind the complex or high performance stuff; I'll have those endorsements next month.
Click to expand...

The op cost of the 182 is not that much more than the 172/180. you do have a 6 cylinder engine but that's not a big deal 4 more plugs at 500 hours. and a higher fuel burn, (about 2 gph) but the comfort and performance is much better in the 182.

I'd do the 182,
 
I have not run the numbers, but you may find that the actual fuel consumption per distance of a 182 is not more than that of a 172, once you learn how to efficiently use your power settings. You have much greater flexibility with the constant-speed prop.

In addition, if you genuinely expect to carry four adults on anything close to a regular basis, the 182 is a no-brainer (at least, compared to the 172).
 
The fuel burn/hour vs. fuel burn/mile calculation is significant if the plane is used for travel. If you're just flying in circles or making weekly breakfast runs, the cost/hour is probably a more meaningful number, but in any case you should prepare an annual budget based on estimated usage so you'll understand the magnitude of the differences.

SCCutler said:
I have not run the numbers, but you may find that the actual fuel consumption per distance of a 182 is not more than that of a 172, once you learn how to efficiently use your power settings. You have much greater flexibility with the constant-speed prop.

In addition, if you genuinely expect to carry four adults on anything close to a regular basis, the 182 is a no-brainer (at least, compared to the 172).
Click to expand...
 
onwards said:
If I am to go this route, are these 180HP conversions (I think I even saw a 195HP one? is that true?) basically an engine replacement, or a modification of the existing one?
Click to expand...
Replacement of engine and prop -- the 150-160HP Lycoming O-320 is removed, and a 180HP O-360 is installed along with a slightly bigger prop with a deeper pitch to handle the extra power without overspeeding.

if the former, then it seems like it makes sense to buy a plane with an engine that is at end-of-life (2000+ hours). Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Either that, or one with the conversion already accomplished.

if the latter, is the conversion also considered an overhaul?
Click to expand...
Only if the new engine was just overhauled. I've seen folks do this replacement with a used engine, too, so that engine comes "as is" with whatever time since overhaul it has. Remember, the term "overhaul" refers to the disassembly, cleaning, inspection, repair, etc, of a used engine, not simply the replacement of one engine with another.

In other words, do I actively look for a nice LOOKING plane with an engine that is ready to be overhauled?
Click to expand...
That's a good way to do it, although you can probably find plenty of 172's with the 180HP STC already done, ahd that's probably going to be a cheaper route for you to do since aircraft upgrades rarely increase the value of the plane by more than half the retail cost of the upgrade.

Is this conversion something any mechanic can do?
Click to expand...
Basically, yes, with enough equipment in his/her shop (engine hoist, etc). Most will, but some "back of the truck" mechanics may not.

Can it be done to any 172, or only starting certain years? or is a matter of cost related to how old the original model is?
Click to expand...
You'd have to check with the STC holder for that. The two most popular are from Penn Yan and Air Plains...
http://www.pennyanaero.com/pages/superhawk
http://www.airplains.com/index.php/...ion/81-air-plains-180-hp-model-i-thru-m-and-p
...and both are available for the I-P models.
 
onwards said:
The main reason I think of sticking with a 172 is the higher operating costs of the 182. It doesn't seem like the cost difference is truly justified, considering that a 180HP 172 with that exhaust can carry four adults legitimately, like the 182. Or is my thinking wrong here? I don't mind the complex or high performance stuff; I'll have those endorsements next month.
Click to expand...

172 is really a two place plane
need a 182 for a four place
extra room and speed
better resale value as well
 
Ron Levy said:
Basically, yes, with enough equipment in his/her shop (engine hoist, etc). Most will, but some "freelanced" mechanics may not..
Click to expand...


Fixed that for ya..

I am a freelanced A&P. and I have completed several engine up grades and replacements. but you best have a hangar I don't work out in the cold or rain..
 
I'm willing to wager that by the time you buy any 172 and the engine to upgrade, overhaul it, buy the engineering (STC), pay the labor to convert from 150/160 horses to 180 horses. it would have been cheaper to buy a great 182 outright.

The
Lycoming core charge on a 180 horse 0-360-A1A is 15.200.
http://www.lycoming.com/utility/global-resources/2010-Aftermarket-Engine-Price-List.pdf

That alone is the difference between a 172 and a 182. want to overhaul it too add 36,008 to the price of the conversion.
 
Tom-D said:
I'm willing to wager that by the time you buy any 172 and the engine to upgrade, overhaul it, buy the engineering (STC), pay the labor to convert from 150/160 horses to 180 horses. it would have been cheaper to buy a great 182 outright.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And you'll have a much more capable airplane. Flown at 172 speeds, fuel burn won't be much different, but the option to carry more and go faster is hard to beat.
 
Last edited:
LDJones said:
Agreed. And you'll have a much more capable airplane. Flown at 172 speeds, ful burn won't be much different, but the option to carry more and go faster is hard to beat.
Click to expand...

and you'll fly it home Today. .........right now............. no wait for all the sh-- to get done, all the OBTWs to get figured out, all the we need a _____ to get bought shipped. I've seen these projects drag out over a year.

Ever hear of "walking too close to the edge"? Try flying your 172 at or near the gross weight, see if you aren't walking too close to the edge of the safety zone.

If you want to do 2 folks all the time? there are better aircraft for the job than the C&P aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Operating cost? Buy a Vans RV6a for the same money and cut your operating expense and go 180+ MPH on 8 gph, and land at the same speed or slower than the 172. Plus you can burn auto fuel and save $20 per hour operation cost in fuel alone.

Why anyone would buy a certified plane is beyond me. :yesnod:

You only live once.
 
Geico266 said:
Operating cost? Buy a Vans RV6a for the same money and cut your operating expense and go 180+ MPH on 8 gph, and land at the same speed or slower than the 172. Plus you can burn auto fuel and save $20 per hour operation cost in fuel alone.
Click to expand...

Buy a what now?

Is this one of those planes I build myself? no thank you... while a project like that would be of interest to me, I have no time to dedicate to it. My business already takes all my available time as is - something has to pay bills quite nicely in order to put me in a position to buy a plane (even a cheap one!), ya know :D
 
Alright, you guys all made some pretty wonderful arguments in favor of getting a 182.

I have done most of my research on the 172's, so, um... any pointers about the 182 then? for example, I know to avoid the 172N because of the engine reliability issues on that one.

I can see a number of 182's from the mid 1970's with a few hundred hours SMOH in decent condition that are listing around $50K (plus or minus ten grand), which leads me to believe that $50K is a decent budget. Any obvious gotchas? yes, I'll start reading up on that plane :)

Also, any obvious alternatives? it doesn't have to be a Cessna... I just don't know what to even look for otherwise. I've flown Cherokees too, although I prefer the top wing because flying in the summer is way too hot with the Pipers.
 
onwards said:
Buy a what now?

Is this one of those planes I build myself? no thank you... while a project like that would be of interest to me, I have no time to dedicate to it. My business already takes all my available time as is - something has to pay bills quite nicely in order to put me in a position to buy a plane (even a cheap one!), ya know :D
Click to expand...

Someone built the 172.

Buy a flying RV. Go for a ride in one. You will throw rocks at your Cessna 172. You are a business man about to make a major purchase and you won't even consider an alternative? That is sad. Do you know you can deduct an experimental plane as a business expense also?
 
Geico266 said:
Someone built the 172.

Buy a flying RV. Go for a ride in one. You will throw rocks at your Cessna 172. You are a business man about to make a major purchase and you won't even consider an alternative? That is sad. Do you know you can deduct an experimental plane as a business expense also?
Click to expand...

I can deduct whatever plane I buy... since I do have a need to fly for business, I have spent a couple hours with our accountant and we can justify buying the plane for the company (which will be kinda funny, I admit, considering how small we are, but hey).

Never thought about buying somebody else's experimental plane (or AN experimental plane), so obviously I hadn't considered any of these issues. It sounds like there might be major safety issues with those? or am I wrong? how do I even find these kinds of planes? I tried looking up on aso.com and there isn't any "vans" category...

(talk about being thrown back to the drawing board)
 
onwards said:
Never thought about buying somebody else's experimental plane (or AN experimental plane), so obviously I hadn't considered any of these issues. It sounds like there might be major safety issues with those?
Click to expand...
That, sir, would seem to depend to a large degree on whom you ask.
 
OK now we are out to buy a better aircraft.....

You have stated you have a $50K budget.
What are your flight requirements leg length? time ? route? load?

This aircraft is a choice you probably never thought of. It couldn't even get a bid on E-Bay at $36K, they are fast and will haul a load, they have the same engine as the 182 except the injected 260 horse.

E-bay Item #140607532739

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1961...532739?pt=Motors_Aircraft&hash=item20bcdcaec3

There are 8 on T-A-P listed at or below $50K

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search...25&s-sort_key=price&s-sort_order=asc&s-page=1
 
You're right, I never thought of a 210... seems like they are less popular? is it due to higher operating cost?

Am I wrong to try and buy a newer plane? that is, to have a general preference for a 1970's plane over 1960's ones? just from the perspective of overall age of the frame. Or is this consideration bogus when it comes to planes?
 
onwards said:
Alright, you guys all made some pretty wonderful arguments in favor of getting a 182.
Click to expand...
Not having seen anything on your budgetary, payload, range, runway, or speed requirements, I can't make any fact-based arguments either way for 172 vs 182.

I have done most of my research on the 172's, so, um... any pointers about the 182 then? for example, I know to avoid the 172N because of the engine reliability issues on that one.
Click to expand...
Many if not most 172N's have been converted to the -D2J engine, which is about as reliable an engine as you can find. It's only the ones with the -H2AD engine you want to avoid.

Also, any obvious alternatives? it doesn't have to be a Cessna... I just don't know what to even look for otherwise. I've flown Cherokees too, although I prefer the top wing because flying in the summer is way too hot with the Pipers.
Click to expand...
Once you figure out what you need in the way of aircraft capability, it will be possible to suggests general classes of aircraft. However, comparable to the 172 you have the Piper PA28-150/160/151/161 (150/160 Cherokee and Warrior), the Grumman AA-5 Traveler and AA-5A Cheetah, and the Beech Model 19 Musketeer/Sport. Comparable to the 182 you have the Piper PA28-235/236 (235 Cherokee and Dakota). And in between you have the 180HP STC'd Cessna 172, Cessna 177 Cardinal, Grumman AA-5B Tiger, Piper PA28-180/181 (180 Cherokee and Archer), and Beech Model 23 Musketeer/Sundowner. And now that you've brought in the Cessna 210, the field now ranges from a simple, fixed-gear entry-level 4-seater to a complex, high performance 6-seater. Ain't no way a 172 will do if you need a 210, and if a 172 will do, a 210 is serious (and expensive) overkill.

Tell us more about what you need the plane to do (and also what you want it to do), and perhaps we can be more helpful.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Operating cost? Buy a Vans RV6a for the same money and cut your operating expense and go 180+ MPH on 8 gph, and land at the same speed or slower than the 172. Plus you can burn auto fuel and save $20 per hour operation cost in fuel alone.

Why anyone would buy a certified plane is beyond me. :yesnod:

You only live once.
Click to expand...
Seems like he wants to carry people plus stuff. A 182 does a really good job of that. To do that in the RV series you need a 10, and as you know, a good 10 costs some money.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes -- an FAA-certified aircraft production facility. A homebuilt RV? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd want to know the builder very well before I bought their RV. And, I have met people I'd be willing to buy a homebuilt from.

Back on topic. How much flying are you talking about here?

Also, there was a comment about the higher operating of the 182 being offset by the higher speed as compared to the 172. Do pay attention to the cost per mile, not the cost per hour. In fact if this is business travel the cost of your time should be included in that calculation.

For 50k you could get yourself into a Mooney and get muuuuuuuuuuch better economy, to the point where it will offset the extra cost of the gear mx (which isn't that much) and insurance (don't know what that's gonna cost). Mooney maintenance is probably comparable to a 172RG (i.e. 4 banger with retracts) assuming you don't go get a turbo or a 6 cylinder, or a turbo 6 cylinder.
 
Ron Levy said:
Tell us more about what you need the plane to do (and also what you want it to do), and perhaps we can be more helpful.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Fly short-to-medium distances (say up to 800m - enough for me to get from SF to Seattle, Salt Lake City, maybe Denver at a stretch, but more typically San Diego, Las Vegas, Portland OR and so on) without having to spend an entire day doing it. Rarely fly longer for fun, but still be able to complete a flight between coasts without considering it torture.

Fly with four adults on board. Bonus if I can carry a couple kids extra (so a 182 with one or two child seats in the back is an excellent option). A 172 won't do this, but having now spent some time looking into the 182 following some responses here, I have really warmed up to some of the extras.

Fly IFR (I also intend to do my IFR training on it).

Not sure what else to think about.
 
An Archer/Challenger/Cherokee 180 would be the Piper equivalent to a 180hp C172, though the old ones which used the Cherokee 140 have a tiny back seat.

"I know to avoid the 172N because of the engine reliability issues on that one."

If you were planning on putting a different engine on it anyway why would you care? :confused:

Would you consider a retractable? Is a constant speed prop okay?

What would be your average trip distance?
 
onwards said:
Fair enough.

Fly short-to-medium distances (say up to 800m - enough for me to get from SF to Seattle, Salt Lake City, maybe Denver at a stretch, but more typically San Diego, Las Vegas, Portland OR and so on) without having to spend an entire day doing it. Rarely fly longer for fun, but still be able to complete a flight between coasts without considering it torture.

Fly with four adults on board. Bonus if I can carry a couple kids extra (so a 182 with one or two child seats in the back is an excellent option). A 172 won't do this, but having now spent some time looking into the 182 following some responses here, I have really warmed up to some of the extras.

Fly IFR (I also intend to do my IFR training on it).

Not sure what else to think about.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about four adults plus two kids and trips up to 800nm, you won't be very satisfied with a 182. Anything less than a 6-seat cabin and retractable gear will be an uncomfortable solution even if you can load it that way legally. We're talking Cessna 210, Beech 36 Bonanza, and Piper PA32 Lance/Saratoga RG, and you won't find those for $50K, nor with affordable insurance until you get a lot more experience and your IR.

Maybe you should consider something which can't do quite as much, but is more suitable for initial instrument training and time-building, in which case a 182 or Piper 235 Cherokee/Dakota might be a good interim step. You can find older examples of those within your budget, and they'll haul four adults and some baggage (but not four adults and two kids safely) over ranges of 500nm or so on one tank of gas. You might also think about turbocharging if you're going to be operating across the Rockies, which would mean a Turbo 182, although I'm not sure about the availability of a decent T182 in your $50K price range.
 
onwards said:
Fair enough.

Fly short-to-medium distances (say up to 800m - enough for me to get from SF to Seattle, Salt Lake City, maybe Denver at a stretch, but more typically San Diego, Las Vegas, Portland OR and so on) without having to spend an entire day doing it. Rarely fly longer for fun, but still be able to complete a flight between coasts without considering it torture.

Fly with four adults on board. Bonus if I can carry a couple kids extra (so a 182 with one or two child seats in the back is an excellent option). A 172 won't do this, but having now spent some time looking into the 182 following some responses here, I have really warmed up to some of the extras.

Fly IFR (I also intend to do my IFR training on it).

Not sure what else to think about.
Click to expand...

Think about what your load will be, add the combined weight of the 4 adults, add the combined weight of the kids, and the total weight of the baggage..

Typically you will find that you really need a Azrec 250. with well over 2000 useful load.

If you reduce the load requirement to around 4 seats and the 210 will do your required flights very well.

You may also look at one of these

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1375393.html
 
Ron Levy said:
If you're talking about four adults plus two kids and trips up to 800nm, you won't be very satisfied with a 182. Anything less than a 6-seat cabin and retractable gear will be an uncomfortable solution even if you can load it that way legally. We're talking Cessna 210, Beech 36 Bonanza, and Piper PA32 Lance/Saratoga RG, and you won't find those for $50K, nor with affordable insurance until you get a lot more experience and your IR.

Maybe you should consider something which can't do quite as much, but is more suitable for initial instrument training and time-building, in which case a 182 or Piper 235 Cherokee/Dakota might be a good interim step. You can find older examples of those within your budget, and they'll haul four adults and some baggage (but not four adults and two kids safely) over ranges of 500nm or so on one tank of gas. You might also think about turbocharging if you're going to be operating across the Rockies, which would mean a Turbo 182, although I'm not sure about the availability of a decent T182 in your $50K price range.
Click to expand...


This would do the job, but like you said it is above his budget,,
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/Single+Engine+Piston/1966/Cessna/T210F/1369798.html
 
The two kids is a bonus. It's not important enough to justify a major cost increase. I only mention it because having started to look at 182's, I see some with child seats in the back.

I'm a little confused though. The 182's have 1100-1200lbs payload - more if I then do a couple basic mods - so even with full fuel, seems like I can carry four adults for 800 miles (that's statute) without trouble. Not EVERY adult in the world weighs 200lbs, ya know :)

What am I missing here?

The constant-speed prop and RG doesn't bother me - I will be gaining these endorsements in the coming month (on a 182RG).

EDIT: as far as prices go, I don't care about listing prices... I'm looking at what is actually selling, and it seems like for $50K (or so) I can afford a 182P in decent shape. It's a real buyer's market right now. I wouldn't be looking to buy a plane otherwise... but the fact that there are so few buyers right now with cash on hand gives me an edge for the next year or so (I'm guessing) that might not repeat for a long while. Hence the consideration.
 
Last edited:
Baggage. A 182 is a true four-place but take a week trip with two couples and all their *stuff* and you're leaving fuel lower.

It's a screaming good two place plus real travel baggage plus camping gear airplane though.

You're also looking at 135 knots groundspeed, typically. Not fast, not slow. Being that Denver is somewhat "surrounded by nothing" a little faster would be nice. But all pilots always want to go faster.

If you like driving a big fat SUV and watching the view go by, the 182 is a great machine.

It's a great "jack of all trades, master of none" aircraft.

Backcounty? Sure... But it'll beat up the nosegear hardware. IFR? Stable as heck but not getting away from ice. Travel? Sure but not super-fast. It'll take the better part of a day to go "somewhere"? Bounce around the pattern? Sure, but it'll give a bit of an upper body workout. Aerobatics? No. Definitely no. ;)
 
The 182s I've flown tend to true at 120 - 130 kts... about the same as my Cardinal RG. With a 182RG you can get an extra 10 kts or so.

As someone said, if you really want the capability to go coast to coast then you probably should think seriously about turbo. Unfortunately most good performing turbocharged models seem to be above your budget. I was looking seriously at one or two nice turbo 182RGs being sold in CA before I settled for my current airplane. Partly I realized that the 182RG would be living above my means, but also probably the only use I'd have for the turbocharging would be in flying it home to MI. I just didn't envision doing much flying in the Rockies.
 
onwards said:
I thought it was 150?
Click to expand...

I see 120-135 knot groundspeeds depending on winds. Usually 130-135. Are you thinking Miles/Hour?

Typical cruise for me is 10,500' or 9,500 depending on direction of flight.

Lower will be faster but significantly higher fuel burn. Same thing for the turbo models.

At roughly 6000' MSL on the ground here, we've averaged 11.2 gallons/hour for the last three years. I conservatively flight plan for 13.

One half-day spent at 3500' MSL all morning under clouds back East, 15 g/Hr.

If you like just reading someone's story of owning and flying their bird, Google for "The Skylane Companion".

It's a bit dated, but it's available online as a free PDF book and gives a pretty good feel for Skylane ownership other than the outdated "I just call the FBO and they handle all my maintenance like an airline" stuff that doesn't work anymore at today's prices on a 30+ year old airframe. Everyone's a lot more involved in maintenance these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top