Loved the plane for years but this would be a first purchase, so would appreciate feedback.
Looking at a 1950 170A, 5400 TT, 1550 hrs on a factory reman 300-D out of a 172. Mid- to high 70s comp. Two-year-old Narco Mk 12D dig flipflops. KT76 with encoder. Loran. 4-place intercom. Horton STOL and no corrosion, no major DH. Int and ext good.
Most of the time was in the aircraft's early life flying pipeline. Texas, OK and Colorado based. Hangered and well cared for. Asking price: $32k.
My concern is the high airframe and engine time. I believe this is a 1600 hour engine. I would anticipate putting in 50-75 hrs a year pleasure flying. Given the high times, does this sound like a fair price? What to look for?
I know this site is home to a lot of experience and appreciate you accommodating a new guy!
J. Aitken
Another 170 newbie with purchase questions
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
If the engine has 1500+ hours on it, clearly you should plan on an overhaul soon ($13K). The equipment list is a personal preference thing, but if you like it,...then that's certainly OK.
What "specification lists" like these sort of questions can never do, is provide the very important and necessary information regarding corrosion, logbook data, etc. that is the most important information regarding airplane evaluation. Two airplanes with identical equipment and times can be vastly different with regard to value. One thats a "time builder" might be worth high $20's-low$30's, while one that's an award winner may be worth high $40's-to low $60's.
Pipeline patrol is hard work. It's all done at low altitude in all kinds of weather. Lot's of airframe stress and cracking occurs with airplanes who spend their entire lives down low due to turbulence, and most working airplanes have lots of time on them. Pipeline aircraft typically run 15-25K hours before the company ditches them for newer equipment. If they've been cared for and had a preventive mx program ongoing then it may be a great airplane. If it's been run hard and put away wet, it will likely need a total rebuild. Changing out all the cables, pulleys, bearings, etc. can get tedious and expensive, and is only part of what wears out. But if the airplane has rec'd tender loving care (unlikely unless it's an ex-Exxon or ex-Arco pipeliner) all it's life, it may be a nice candidate for a personal airplane, primarily because it'll likely have excellent records.
Otherwise, if all you have in front of you is an airplane with 20,000 hours of low level hard work and a worn out high-time engine,...then $32K doesn't sound too exciting to me.
What "specification lists" like these sort of questions can never do, is provide the very important and necessary information regarding corrosion, logbook data, etc. that is the most important information regarding airplane evaluation. Two airplanes with identical equipment and times can be vastly different with regard to value. One thats a "time builder" might be worth high $20's-low$30's, while one that's an award winner may be worth high $40's-to low $60's.
Pipeline patrol is hard work. It's all done at low altitude in all kinds of weather. Lot's of airframe stress and cracking occurs with airplanes who spend their entire lives down low due to turbulence, and most working airplanes have lots of time on them. Pipeline aircraft typically run 15-25K hours before the company ditches them for newer equipment. If they've been cared for and had a preventive mx program ongoing then it may be a great airplane. If it's been run hard and put away wet, it will likely need a total rebuild. Changing out all the cables, pulleys, bearings, etc. can get tedious and expensive, and is only part of what wears out. But if the airplane has rec'd tender loving care (unlikely unless it's an ex-Exxon or ex-Arco pipeliner) all it's life, it may be a nice candidate for a personal airplane, primarily because it'll likely have excellent records.
Otherwise, if all you have in front of you is an airplane with 20,000 hours of low level hard work and a worn out high-time engine,...then $32K doesn't sound too exciting to me.
Well this is only one mans opinion. I have owned two 170s and to me it is more important the quality of the airframe than the number of hours it has. I would pay particular attention to the gear boxes and the wings. How much corrosion it might have and what about hail damage? As far as the engine is concerned I have heard this talk of good compression on high time engines from others, usually from the person trying to sale. It is true that wih most Continental engines the problems show up on the top end so good compression is important but it is still a fact that the manufacturer says this is a 1700 hour TBO engine so at least make sure you purchase it as if it has an almost run out engine on it. Then if you get several years without having to overhaul it that is good but if you do have to overhaul it the week after you buy it then you will be where you should be. Bottom line $32,000 is not so much with a mid time engine but seems a little high if it is going to need to be overhauled. Minimum cost to overhaul doing a lot yourselve would be about $10,000 more than likely going to be closer to $15,000. So ask yourselve is this airplane worth $47,000, some of them are but they are usually cherries. I hope I am not putting a damper on this airplane, I REALLY love 170s and hope you get a good one an join us in NC next summer. Let me know if I can help at all. I am close to the Atlanta area and there are a couple around her for sale.
Ken Nesbitt
Ken Nesbitt
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
5400 airframe hours doesn't seem all THAT high,certainly not the 20,000 hours George referenced. What's up with that,George?
My 170 has about 4250 TTAF. I wouldn't sweat the airframe hours if it is corrosion free,and in good shape.
Engine time is a little high,but still 250 hours below TBO. If it makes TBO (car gas and Mystery Oil,enuff said....),that's 2 or 3 years flying for a lot of people. Better count on about $15K for a major,including new cylinders,accessories,removal/reinstallation,and misc extras tha always seem to be needed.
Price is a little high at $32K,if the airplane is nice I'd think 26 or 27-ish is more like it,but that's what dickering is all about.
There's a nice ragwing for sale in the last Flypaper (owned by a friend of mine) for $29K, here in western Washington. Eamil him at mrcessna170@cs.com
for details.
Good luck in your search.
Eric
My 170 has about 4250 TTAF. I wouldn't sweat the airframe hours if it is corrosion free,and in good shape.
Engine time is a little high,but still 250 hours below TBO. If it makes TBO (car gas and Mystery Oil,enuff said....),that's 2 or 3 years flying for a lot of people. Better count on about $15K for a major,including new cylinders,accessories,removal/reinstallation,and misc extras tha always seem to be needed.
Price is a little high at $32K,if the airplane is nice I'd think 26 or 27-ish is more like it,but that's what dickering is all about.
There's a nice ragwing for sale in the last Flypaper (owned by a friend of mine) for $29K, here in western Washington. Eamil him at mrcessna170@cs.com
for details.
Good luck in your search.
Eric
Eric wrote: "5400 airframe hours doesn't seem all THAT high,certainly not the 20,000 hours George referenced. What's up with that,George? "
I agree that's not a lot of time. My other comments were intended about typical pipeline work. If it truly only has 5400 hours, then it wasn't used for pipeline work very long. (I suspect perhaps a typo? or error in the original msg or in the logbook interpretation, etc., now that you bring it up. I wouldn't be surprised if the logs actually said 15,400. I flew pipeline back in the early '70's, and associated with many other pipeline pilots for our company as well as competitors. We all flew our airplanes 120-140 hours a month, with a 1500 hour year being typical. Our airplanes would usually get a new engine at annual. (Avoided all that hassle about trying to nurse an engine to TBO with cylinder changes.) Most of our airplanes were Cessna 140/150's with an occasional 172. (Mobil favored 182's, and they only flew their own trunk lines which were'nt all that extensive. Most of the time-consuming gathering systems and lateral systems were handled by sub-contractors such as my employer. We flew mostly Gulf (now Chevron), Texaco (Texas Pipeline), Florida Gas, Amoco, and Shell pipelines, along with several smaller pipeline owners such as Sun, United, Norco, etc..)
But you are correct. If the airplane truly has only 5400 hours...then that's nothing.
For a year once I flew an old Humble Oil and Refining C140A that had 22,000+ on it and if I could find it today I'd buy it because it had such good records and flew so sweetly. (It also would true 120 mph burning 5 gph because it had an O-200 with a 54" pitch prop and 42 gallon patroller tanks (actually they were 170A fuel tanks. 7+ hours and and hour's reserve!--phew!), and a message drop tube! (Located exactly at the front edge and about two inches below the front edge of your seat, right between your legs. All you had to do to get emergency relief or send a special message was........
I agree that's not a lot of time. My other comments were intended about typical pipeline work. If it truly only has 5400 hours, then it wasn't used for pipeline work very long. (I suspect perhaps a typo? or error in the original msg or in the logbook interpretation, etc., now that you bring it up. I wouldn't be surprised if the logs actually said 15,400. I flew pipeline back in the early '70's, and associated with many other pipeline pilots for our company as well as competitors. We all flew our airplanes 120-140 hours a month, with a 1500 hour year being typical. Our airplanes would usually get a new engine at annual. (Avoided all that hassle about trying to nurse an engine to TBO with cylinder changes.) Most of our airplanes were Cessna 140/150's with an occasional 172. (Mobil favored 182's, and they only flew their own trunk lines which were'nt all that extensive. Most of the time-consuming gathering systems and lateral systems were handled by sub-contractors such as my employer. We flew mostly Gulf (now Chevron), Texaco (Texas Pipeline), Florida Gas, Amoco, and Shell pipelines, along with several smaller pipeline owners such as Sun, United, Norco, etc..)
But you are correct. If the airplane truly has only 5400 hours...then that's nothing.
For a year once I flew an old Humble Oil and Refining C140A that had 22,000+ on it and if I could find it today I'd buy it because it had such good records and flew so sweetly. (It also would true 120 mph burning 5 gph because it had an O-200 with a 54" pitch prop and 42 gallon patroller tanks (actually they were 170A fuel tanks. 7+ hours and and hour's reserve!--phew!), and a message drop tube! (Located exactly at the front edge and about two inches below the front edge of your seat, right between your legs. All you had to do to get emergency relief or send a special message was........
-
Dave Clark
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 6:25 pm
An answer to the engine replacement cost that would be more economical than overhaul would be to buy a good low time engine. I'm the guy that just bought the Lycoming O-360 FWF from Tom Schulke in Wisconsin and will be selling my VERY NICE 590 SMOH (1993) C-145 as soon as I can figure out what price to put on it. I'm thinking around $10k with oil filter and all accessories including mags, carb with airbox, starter, alternator, all of which have been overhauled at or after the major. It seems to me that a person could sell off their old core and be in it $6 to 8 thousand net which is a bargain if you look at it as 2/3rds the engine life left. Most engines fail due to lack of use anyway so why pay for zero time when the calendar and rust will probably determine the overhaul anyway?
Dave
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
"Most engines fail due to lack of use anyway so why pay for zero time when the calendar and rust will probably determine the overhaul anyway?"
An equally good argument for overhauling your own could be made by saying, "Why buy someone else's years of rust? It'll probably never make TBO!"
(Sorry, I don't mean to disparage your particular engine, or your attempt to sell your engine. Please put it in the TradeMart section by contacting webmaster@cessna170.org with your free classified.)
An equally good argument for overhauling your own could be made by saying, "Why buy someone else's years of rust? It'll probably never make TBO!"
(Sorry, I don't mean to disparage your particular engine, or your attempt to sell your engine. Please put it in the TradeMart section by contacting webmaster@cessna170.org with your free classified.)
-
Dave Clark
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 6:25 pm
Hello, Dave!
I hope you don't think I was "bad-mouthing" your engine! I was only discussing the concept within your comment regarding rust and how it affects engine TBO. I thought that your sales-pitch has an equally valid counter-argument and therefore would negate most of it's (the argument's) validity. Don't you agree that if an engine will develop internal rust/corrosion as it goes on down the calendar from overhaul, ...that in purchasing such an engine that one is also purchasing all the potential rust/corrosion that engine has develped (if any)?
Again, I'm not disparaging your engine. Only making an observation.
Best regards,
George
I hope you don't think I was "bad-mouthing" your engine! I was only discussing the concept within your comment regarding rust and how it affects engine TBO. I thought that your sales-pitch has an equally valid counter-argument and therefore would negate most of it's (the argument's) validity. Don't you agree that if an engine will develop internal rust/corrosion as it goes on down the calendar from overhaul, ...that in purchasing such an engine that one is also purchasing all the potential rust/corrosion that engine has develped (if any)?
Again, I'm not disparaging your engine. Only making an observation.
Best regards,
George
-
Dave Clark
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 6:25 pm
George
I agree with your premise. A prospective buyer of any engine (including the one on the airplane he is contemplating buying) should be very wary of internal rust. I have several disasterous personal experiences in that regard over the last thirty years. When I bought 18A three years ago the engine was the second most important item (behind airframe) as I had just bought a Franklin 220 on a Stinson 108 that I had to overhaul due this exact problem. I was lied to. Corrosion is also not linear or absolute. One needs to look at several factors to get a good feel for what the prospective engine is all about. This includes service limits vs. new limits, date of overhaul, who did the overhaul etc. In my case a quality overhaul using new cylinder assemblies in 1993 and a history of consistant use and good care made me suspect it was a good one. This was only verified through the last three years and 200 hours. If I didn't require the horsepower for high hot country I would never consider selling it. I will guarantee this engine to be free of rust internally. It just seems to me that whoever buys it will be into it far less than an overhaul and will still probably have it die due to lack of use ie. calandar time long before the TBO.
I agree with your premise. A prospective buyer of any engine (including the one on the airplane he is contemplating buying) should be very wary of internal rust. I have several disasterous personal experiences in that regard over the last thirty years. When I bought 18A three years ago the engine was the second most important item (behind airframe) as I had just bought a Franklin 220 on a Stinson 108 that I had to overhaul due this exact problem. I was lied to. Corrosion is also not linear or absolute. One needs to look at several factors to get a good feel for what the prospective engine is all about. This includes service limits vs. new limits, date of overhaul, who did the overhaul etc. In my case a quality overhaul using new cylinder assemblies in 1993 and a history of consistant use and good care made me suspect it was a good one. This was only verified through the last three years and 200 hours. If I didn't require the horsepower for high hot country I would never consider selling it. I will guarantee this engine to be free of rust internally. It just seems to me that whoever buys it will be into it far less than an overhaul and will still probably have it die due to lack of use ie. calandar time long before the TBO.
Dave
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
So my O-300 with 900 SMOH is at TBO because it was overhauled in 1974 
I saw a letter to this effect from Lycoming, but not Continental. I think as long as the oil analysis is good and the compression and oil pressures hold up, I will continue to run. A TOH was done about 400 hours ago...so when the top end takes a dive, I might think about a complete overhaul at that time. 
I saw a letter to this effect from Lycoming, but not Continental. I think as long as the oil analysis is good and the compression and oil pressures hold up, I will continue to run. A TOH was done about 400 hours ago...so when the top end takes a dive, I might think about a complete overhaul at that time. John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV
Appreciate the responses from everybody! Nobody's a better source for what to look for than folks who have been there. This is invaluable in helping me with the decision-making process and a great site. I'll continue to look for additional thoughts, comments, suggestions, advice ... but for those who have already pitched in, many thanks.
ja
ja
-
russfarris
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 2:25 am
wa4jr wrote:So my O-300 with 900 SMOH is at TBO because it was overhauled in 1974
Well, Continental sez 12 years or TBO, which if followed to the letter would ground at least half of the 170s out there!
I ran this question by on one of the old sites...who has the oldest overhaul out there? The winner was 1958! My airplane was last majored in 1974, like yours. For reasons I'll go into on a another post, I've decided it's time for a re-build...stay tuned!
All glory is fleeting...