You need to get into a local network of Skywagon owners. Old guys are retiring from GA and they seem to be more interested in passing their planes to a good home than making money. Sadly some of those planes get bought just to get flipped at a profit. There are still some good deals out there being done quietly. I have a neighbor who’ll be selling a beautiful 180 soon. It’ll go for under the perceived market value. Last year my 180’s Vref was approx $200K but market price was 25-30% over that. I suspect that overage is correcting. Asking prices don’t accurately reflect sales prices. They never have. You need to decide what an airplane is worth to you and let that be your purchase offer.
Nice Plane- but did'n't fly much for ten years
- Thread starter Cardiff Kook
- Start date
peterdillon
SPONSOR
The most important thing when you are buying an airplane is the airframe. Corrosion and damage history can be terminal cancer. Paint, interior, engines and props are the easy fixes. While it takes money to overhaul the engine it also instantly increases the value of the plane so not such a big deal if you paid a reasonable price for the plane. TBO should be translated to "It might if your real lucky". Owned a lot of airplanes over the years and the only real memorable event was when I was sleeping on the switch on a low time 1979 185 that an older gentleman had. Had some wing repairs that were not done properly and took $65,000 to fix. A low time airframe with an all original no damage history airframe or corrosion is where my comfort zone is. A top overhaul or even a complete engine is a small percentage of the value of a lot of these more expensive planes.
WWhunter
FRIEND
Near the Headwaters of the Mighty Mississippi Rive
Neighbor had this in his basement for 60 years. I have restored cars in the past and definitely would have loved to own this, but it was way out of my budget. I think it got sold to a collector in California. An uncle, that recently passed, had restored very early Caddies. One he had done was for some guy in Great Britain. He knew a lot of people in the old car world. Not sure if he had done any work for Jay Leno, but they were acquaintances.
Back to the OT..
I haven't owned very many aircraft, but those that I have purchased that have sat and needed work, have almost always cost me more in the end. I always enjoyed working on stuff so have saved considerable amount of money in labor costs but when it comes to airplanes, parts costs can be high. Motorcycles, cars, boats, planes are all money pits. Life is short, take the plunge!
Having had to replace cylinders and pistons on the last 'sitting for several years' airplane, it's best to have another one that's flying. I'm still into the plane for less than it's value. The unfortunate part is that the 'sitting' plane was/is down for quite a while when waiting for parts/repairs. Something else to consider when making the purchase of a plane that has been sitting long term.
Attachments
hotrod180
FRIEND
Port Townsend, WA
I agree, a good solid airframe is the most important thing.
A bad engine an easy fix....just not cheap.
The Continental 470U redlines at 2400 rpm,
but still makes the same 230hp as the other 470's due to higher compression.
My understanding is that the 470-U/TS is a 470U turned up to 2600 rpm.
This is a slightly different approach but gives you about the same results as a Nordland carb'd IO-470.
I read somewhere that TS claims the much higher TBO (2500 hours vs 1500 or 1700 for Continental)
due to a different placement of the drain on the oil pan,
that allows you to drain all the dirty stuff out at oil change time.
And something I just googled up sez that Pponk clained a 2000 hour TBO for their 470-50
if it was fitted with an oil filter.
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
The drain location is a condition for the 2500 hour TBO, yes.
The engine does get turned up in RPM, as Jack Johnson explained to me it allowed the required torque at take off power to be lower, making the engine work less hard, so would not pull itself apart like the early U versions were said to do.
Power they claimed as 250 hp. I had the 2 blade 204 prop on mine. Coming off the line that prop in calm wind was not much better than the old 230 hp with the C66... until I got up some speed. BUT, if I had 7-10 wind on the nose it was a rocket.
My plane was a 57. I would accelerate to 60 with that TS engine and start pulling the yoke back, with two big guys and half fuel the plane would climb what seemed like vertical. It would accelerate in the climb unless you had the deck angle scary high.
That was a great combo, I would not hesitate to have another one.
Cardiff Kook
PATRON
Sisters, OR
How does 2600 rpm get you much? My understanding was these props at 2400 are supersonic and lose efficiency. Wouldnt an extra 200 rpm just be less efficient? Or am i thinking about this wrong because of the cs prop?
In any case- wouldn’t increasing the redline just increase the engine strain?
Havent bought it.
IO-520s have been spinning 86” props at 2850 for a long time. it works great. when somebody tells you 2700 works better? They’re repeating something they read. It isn’t true. There’s lots of BS on the internet.
FWIW, the slower turning 470-U was approved with a 90” prop. 2” longer than the other 470s. They had to make up the reduced thrust from lower RPM.
Last edited:
Rob
MEMBER
AZ06
There is way too much black magic in propellors to make any broad stroked comments. That black magic moves exponentially when you include a multitude of airframe / engine combinations to that mix.
First ask anyone who recited the supersonic rhetoric where they learned this and 99.9% of the time the answer is well, just look at so and so's prop size / speed calculator... So and so... you know, the guy who sells prop STC's... How many prop STC's do you think will get approved when said props are snarling sonic booms? They don't want you making noise and making their lives harder at producing props (income).
Secondly, what are you looking for when you push that go knob forward? I'll be completely transparent, I'm looking for a kick in the @$$ launch, I don't give 2 rips what my fuel meter says (and I actually pay for gas) why would I care if my prop is working less efficient (just like my engine at that moment) but making more over all thrust. Motivation, that's all I care about at that moment, I understand that there are folks that enjoy getting outstanding MPG, but they're paying for that fuel, outstanding prop efficiency? I don't know anyone paying for the air they move.... waste some.
200 RPM harder on what? not on an engine designed to run there. More first time tractor owners kill their tractors because they are afraid to turn it at an RPM spec'd for the task, your not 'babying' anything running at less than rated rpm, your lugging it.
Having said all that, I've ran in to probably as many prop engine combinations that pull harder pulled back on the tach as I have ones that pulled harder spooled up more. How an airplanes pulls harder when it's producing less horsepower? I have no idea :???: Gues that's the black magic part.
Pull tests? Na. I never fly with the tail tied down, those tests give me a baseline, but not much else. Seen too many that pulled less tied down only to grunt a better load than the static king.
Noise charts? Na... too many (but certainly not all) pull better snarling.
My money is on how well it gets me off the ground x the time to climb. If I was looking to race, I would probably have a whole different criteria.
Take care, Rob
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
Excellent question.
As to propellers, there seemed to be very little advancement in propeller efficiency and thrust for decades, followed in the last thirty or so years of quite a few significant improvements in props. Today’s propellers pull harder, often at lower rpm, that the older props that Cessna equipped their airplanes with for decades.
Thats a good thing. I agree with Rob that “static thrust” tests only provide part of the story. How that prop performs during acceleration is really what most of us want to know. And, yes, propeller performance seems to involve a good dose of black magic.
MTV
Rob is correct! Efficient is a useful term only when you state exactly what you are trying to do. Efficient at what?? Making power/improving fuel burn/top end speed/making noise/making less noise/longevity/climb power/producing thrust. Not all engines are created equal!! The reason they put letters behind the 0470 is because they have made changes to the engine, some small, some large. Compression/Crankshaft/piston/counterweights/cam and lifters/cylinders/intake/carb/injected/turbo/exhaust. all come into play. Then you get to add in all the STC changes. Once you get finally start to understand how all of the changes help or hurt your final pick then we get into props. Metal/wood/carbon/blended/blade shape/blade length/number of blades/fixed/constant speed/ect. Wait the prop I want won't fit the engine I want. No problem just figure out the best compromise then that is what you get UNLESS it won't fit the plane you want!! The good thing is you really only get so many choices on a Certified plane. Don't get hung up on a single factor. At the end of the day it is the pilot, much more than the plane that makes the difference!! Pretty much any plane can make you a good pilot if you let it.
DENNY
DENNY
180 props aren’t a mystery. In essence you’ll find planes with 82” and 88” props. The former is referred to as a wheel plane prop and the latter a seaplane prop. STOL guys prefer the seaplane props for improved short field performance but give up a little speed at top end. 88” seaplane props are approved with tires on 180s. You can get all sorts of pireps on variations on the theme, but most of those pireps will be on 520 engine upgrades. The old rule applies. There’s no replacement for displacement. That’s an important factor for props. FWIW, while a 470 redlines at 2600, a Pponk 520 redlines at 2700, the same continuous rpm limit prescribed for the IO-520. Most of these props are fully capable of turning 2850 for takeoff and work quite well at that.
It’s ironic how buyers look for low time airplanes and then get scared of infrequent use. 99.9% of GA airplanes see infrequent use. The variable is the definition of infrequent.
It’s ironic how buyers look for low time airplanes and then get scared of infrequent use. 99.9% of GA airplanes see infrequent use. The variable is the definition of infrequent.
Last edited:
