Hi everyone. I have a dilemma.
I have been offered a 1957 Cessna 180A on floats (EDO 2960) with 1500hrs (so it is "on condition") on it for 50k. It does have strong compression numbers. It needs a paint job (paint is 1/10) and an interior. It also has very limited "avionics" for my liking and seems tighter inside than my cherokee 140! If I were to buy this plane, I would likely want it painted, a new interior and an upgrade to the dash. It seems that if I put around $20k for paint, $15k for avionics and (guessing) $5k for new seats, panels and flooring that I would end up with a very decent plane for $90k-$100k...but with the risk of an imminent $30k for a rebuilt of the C470 since it is on condition.
Here is my issue, I am also interested in a '68 182L on floats (EDO 2870) which has an upgraded interior, around 500hrs SMOH (0 prop), new paint and relatively updated avionics for $115k.
So I am seeking advice on these 2 options. I was not considering a "project plane" when the 180A came about, but it sound intriguing. The 180A seems to have a gross of 2820lbs and payload of 811lbs and the 182L a payload of 915 lbs. The extra 100lbs is a lot, but I have been told that there is an option for a gross up of the 180A...I believe this is the xwing which is a gross up to 2950 lbs but not sure what the cost is. Is it worth throwing an aspen G500 in a 180?
So thoughts, advice?
Thanks all.
My Mission: I intend to fly myself, my wife and 2 kids (maybe 2 adults) to CYTZ which is about 1.5 hrs from me and other destinations withing that distance for weekend trips.
1956 Cessna 180A vs 182
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
1956 Cessna 180A vs 182
Last edited by efestian on Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: 1956 Cessna 180A
Of those 2 options, the 182 is much cheaper.
There is no such thing as an on condition engine for private aircraft, and good compression doesn't mean much. Get a boroscope inspection and ideally a history of oil sampling.
There is no such thing as an on condition engine for private aircraft, and good compression doesn't mean much. Get a boroscope inspection and ideally a history of oil sampling.
-
tired of the ground
- Rank 5
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:38 pm
Re: 1956 Cessna 180A
There is nothing more expensive than a cheap airplane. What happens if they find corrosion/cracks during your total overhaul? What happens when that 15k for avionics becomes 20k or 30k. Always buy the best example of the airplane you want, that you can afford. It's the cheapest way to go.
Re: 1956 Cessna 180A
This is true, but I believe that the 180 had a factory float kit which actually had corrosion prevention steps included like stainless cables and internal coatings, etc. whereas the 182, not being a factory floatplane, was not as corrosion "resistant". For this reason, I could easily find corrosion buried on the 182 that I missed because I did not "get in the weeds" that kills me and my family. I could be wrong.
-
Schooner69A
- Rank 7
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
- Location: The Okanagan
Re: 1956 Cessna 180A vs 182
Cessna 182. Pre-buy inspection by competent AME.
Re: 1956 Cessna 180A vs 182
$15k won’t buy you any avionics. If you say what you want to fit someone here could give you a better estimate.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: 1956 Cessna 180A vs 182
No matter what engine you buy, you're taking the risk that something could be needed. I continue to have confidence in high time Continentals, if they are not making metal, not leaking, and making decent compression with no valve leaks. Of course detailed reports of the condition of the engine, and it's recent operating history should be considered, but operating hours along is only a part of the story of condition. I ran my O-200 to 3600 hours on condition, and when I finally opened it up, it was excellent in side, it would have gone much longer. Of course there were cylinder changes along the way, its a fact of life.
It is wise to determine whether or not you can manage a project plane. The plus is you'll get as close to what you want as possible, and you can do it progressively, rather than put all the money out at once, the minus is that it'll take time and cost more, and you'll have to "fly off" some of that value, as you won't get all of the investment back in resale. Depending upon which float kit os on the 182, the 180 float installation is a bit more robust. Early 182 float conversions had vulnerable lower center firewalls due to float loads going into the airframe where they were not intended by Cessna. Later float kits accounted for this. Careful inspection of lower firewall of a 182 floatplane. 180 floatplanes are rugged.
If you buy the 180, and choose to go back to wheels, are you comfortable flying a taildragger? They're great, but extra skill is required.
The 180A is 12 years older than the 182, age has some affect on airframes. Has the engine and cowl been changed on the 180 ever? originally, they had a different O-470 and cowl arrangement than newer 180s.
The electric flaps of the 182 disallow manipulation of flaps during takeoff for lift augmentation. Not an approved procedure, but there's something to it. I like manual flaps. Otherwise, there water operation is more or less the same. Consider a STOL kit, it does make a big safety difference on a floatplane.
Familiarize yourself with the proposed AD (Google: "FAA docket 2017-0049"). That AD will affect the 182, but not the 180. Understand how it may apply to the 182 you're considering, it'll be a costly and time consuming modification under the forward floor.
And finally, no matter which you select, wear your lifejacket!
It is wise to determine whether or not you can manage a project plane. The plus is you'll get as close to what you want as possible, and you can do it progressively, rather than put all the money out at once, the minus is that it'll take time and cost more, and you'll have to "fly off" some of that value, as you won't get all of the investment back in resale. Depending upon which float kit os on the 182, the 180 float installation is a bit more robust. Early 182 float conversions had vulnerable lower center firewalls due to float loads going into the airframe where they were not intended by Cessna. Later float kits accounted for this. Careful inspection of lower firewall of a 182 floatplane. 180 floatplanes are rugged.
If you buy the 180, and choose to go back to wheels, are you comfortable flying a taildragger? They're great, but extra skill is required.
The 180A is 12 years older than the 182, age has some affect on airframes. Has the engine and cowl been changed on the 180 ever? originally, they had a different O-470 and cowl arrangement than newer 180s.
The electric flaps of the 182 disallow manipulation of flaps during takeoff for lift augmentation. Not an approved procedure, but there's something to it. I like manual flaps. Otherwise, there water operation is more or less the same. Consider a STOL kit, it does make a big safety difference on a floatplane.
Familiarize yourself with the proposed AD (Google: "FAA docket 2017-0049"). That AD will affect the 182, but not the 180. Understand how it may apply to the 182 you're considering, it'll be a costly and time consuming modification under the forward floor.
And finally, no matter which you select, wear your lifejacket!
Re: 1956 Cessna 180A vs 182
If 4 adults is going to be the mission you are going to need / want a 185 or 206
