Riverrogue
New Member
Do any of you know what if any impact the PA-28 and 32 wing spar concerns are having with regard to the price/availability of other single engine aircraft?
PA-28 Wing Spar
- Thread starter Riverrogue
- Start date
I’ve not detected any changes that I can directly attribute to wing spar concerns. In the PA-28 and 32 category of plane (i.e., C-172, C-182, C-206) there are a whole lot of planes for sale at any given time, and if the prices of those planes have gone up or their availability went down over the last few years it’s been a subtle change.
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
I've perceived an increase in the used airplane prices over the last couple of years, but I will confess to having no actual data to back it up. Anecdotally, the prices on used 172s have gone up considerably lately, and it's now driving into the PA-28 market as people realize that $75,000 for a tired 172 is a tough pill to swallow.
Nark
Macho Superpilot
To slightly hijack the thread, the value of my 182 (according to Vref) is about $20k more than I bought it. The resale value of my 180 is significantly higher than what I paid for it, conversely, I’ve put a lot of $$$ in to it as well to upgrade it. I could still sell it for a profit.
it’s a great time to be a seller...
it’s a great time to be a seller...
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Hard to tell with the small PA28s. After talking to a dude up here who has been working on Cherokees since the 80s, I wouldn’t buy a PA32 unless it had had a full inspection of t he stub spars done (not just the bolt holes). The PA28s (other than the Arrow) don’t seem to have the record of cracking.
mrivc211
Well-Known Member
C172 prices keep creeping up.
2015: $30k
2017: $60k
2020: $75K
You can still find them for $50k or less but you must have cash and be ready to move within 24 hours of listing.
mrivc211
Well-Known Member
I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on a C182. What year is yours? All my experience is with 172's so I'm trying to gather some knowledge of what years to stay away from.
Nark
Macho Superpilot
Mine’s a 1966 K model. I don’t know enough about them to say definitively to say this is good and this is bad...
I want to say there is 3 or 4 family/generation ranges. First generation 50's, the second (somewhere between 1963-1975ish, and then to the 80’s. And of course, current generation. I might be off a few years, but that’s the gist of it.
They're what the 172's aren't: a true 4 place.
I budget/flightplan about 12 gph. which is pretty darn accurate behind an 0-470. There are endless STC's and mods, and spare parts are a plenty.
If you need a hand moving one from the midwest, I'd be happy to help.
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
I've done a lot of research and in terms of bang for the buck and operational cost, it's really, really hard to beat a 182. There are faster airplanes, sexier airplanes, and more complex airplanes, but the tradeoffs seem to magnify with those. The balance vs. cost vs. performance on a 182 is really impressive.
z987k
Well-Known Member
I wish they're we more with float kits on them. I wish cessna had the foresight to put a single float kit on a 182.
racemey
Well-Known Member
Ours is a 1963 F model. Here is a great Avweb article summarizing the various improvements over the years: Cessna 182 Skylane. If I were buying again, I would err toward the later 70s models up until they suspended production in 1986 due to higher gross weight and the tubular landing gear (our A&P has suggested that at some point we will get cracks in the outboard landing gear castings due to flexing of the spring steel gear which will be $$$ to replace). Ive never seen any service bulletins or advisories about the spring steel gear however. An 80s fixed gear turbo 182 with the lycoming would be a great plane if you can find one!
BigZ
Well-Known Member
Anything newer than mid 60s is going to have a more or less same look (rear window became a wraparound after 1967 iirc or 64 - there somewhere)
Pre 1978 us bladders, wet tanks after that
0-470-R engines (up to 1979 I think) can eat mogas, 0-470-U are higher compression and lower rpm, don't think there's an STC for that
Yeah, it's a cool little plane
Pre 1978 us bladders, wet tanks after that
0-470-R engines (up to 1979 I think) can eat mogas, 0-470-U are higher compression and lower rpm, don't think there's an STC for that
Yeah, it's a cool little plane
mrivc211
Well-Known Member
Thanks. the one I'm looking at is down in San Diego. You're welcome to fly it back to SNA with me for probably a total of .7 on the hobbs. lol.
I found out today that the first generation ones were narrower than the second, and the third generation ones were wider than the second. It's got decent paint and 1150 hours on the engine. I'm trying to figure out if its a 1500 TBO or 2000. I'll be using for commercial ops so I can't go past tbo. I'll post some pics up on here if I pull the trigger in a couple of weeks. I'm gonna head down and take a look at it next week to see if its worth the trouble of a bringing my mechanic down to help me do a pre buy.
What I like about this plane is I can use it for work and pleasure to take weekend trips to airports I won't go to in a C172, even with 2 people in the plane.
Nark
Macho Superpilot
@mrivc211 I want to say there is a publication that extends the O-470 to 1700 TBO, if flown more than 40hr/year. Something along those lines.
Lots of good info found here: Cessna 182 Pre-Buy Check
If it’s the one at KSEE, I think I know the advertisement. Looks like a sharp bird.
Lots of good info found here: Cessna 182 Pre-Buy Check
If it’s the one at KSEE, I think I know the advertisement. Looks like a sharp bird.
