So after much deliberating and discussion, I've decided to purchase a C180. I know I want an early one, because they are the lightest and happen to be the most affordable. I know the A and the J O-470's are the least desirable, however I've read zero major complaints about them and they are the two engines in the two of the three aircraft that I'm currently looking at. I will be flying around Idaho into short and soft fields with high da's. My max budget is 70k. Here's the rundown and thus my dilemma.

A/C 1: 1953 w/ O-470-A. 2500 TT Horton Stol/185 Gear legs. Fresh Overhaul. No significant damage history.

A/C 2: 1953 w/ O-470-J. 6000 TT 1100 SMOH. Wing and nose damaged. Repaired and wing replaced. 31" bushwheels.

A/C 3: 1955 w/ O-470-R 18000 TT. Fresh overhaul. Lived on Saltwater most its life, sank it salt water at one point. Apparently no corrosion :/

As you can see there seem to be pros and cons for each of these aircraft. In your opinion, which would be the most worthwhile to have a look at, or should I wait for one to come along that checks the more desirable boxes?

Of course price comes into play... But just from the specs you’ve posted, which isn’t much to go off of, #1 looks like the best by far. Was 18000 (eighteen thousand) TT a typo on #3? Whatever you get take it to a reputable shop that knows 180s and have them go through the whole airplane spinner to tail for a pre-buy inspection, then have them sign it off as an annual if you are going to buy it. Don’t be afraid to pay for this, even if you have to walk away.... it can save you a lot of money...

Yes #1 was the one I was leaning towards as well. Didn't mention any other details because they are all in essence the same in every other way. Ok radios, ok panels, seem to be pretty clean and all around the same price. And no that was not a typo. 18000 hr airframe on the 3rd one. I've been told not to walk away from that one, but to run! However to be honest, as an a&p as well, I'm not too afraid of hightime airframes. Some of the nicest aircraft I've seen have had super high TT. Its all a matter of how well it was taken care of, but at the the same time that's a lot of red flags when it comes to purchasing an airplane. I guess I'm hopeful to get all of the perks of a late 50's Cessna 180, i.e. K, L, Or R engine, 230hp, better door latches, better vent placement. Just don't know if that's worth all the hype.

heli_adams wrote:So after much deliberating and discussion, I've decided to purchase a C180. I know I want an early one, because they are the lightest and happen to be the most affordable. I know the A and the J O-470's are the least desirable, however I've read zero major complaints about them and they are the two engines in the two of the three aircraft that I'm currently looking at. I will be flying around Idaho into short and soft fields with high da's. My max budget is 70k. Here's the rundown and thus my dilemma.

A/C 1: 1953 w/ O-470-A. 2500 TT Horton Stol/185 Gear legs. Fresh Overhaul. No significant damage history.

A/C 2: 1953 w/ O-470-J. 6000 TT 1100 SMOH. Wing and nose damaged. Repaired and wing replaced. 31" bushwheels.

A/C 3: 1955 w/ O-470-R 18000 TT. Fresh overhaul. Lived on Saltwater most its life, sank it salt water at one point. Apparently no corrosion :/

As you can see there seem to be pros and cons for each of these aircraft. In your opinion, which would be the most worthwhile to have a look at, or should I wait for one to come along that checks the more desirable boxes?

I would run away from an aluminum airplane that has been submerged in saltwater.

It's wise to avoid letting goodies like bushwheels, STOL kits, avionics, shiny paint or pretty upholstery from significantly influencing your decision. These things can be distractions from features that are more important and these improvements can be made over time if you really want them.

Damage history can be a curse or a blessing. A pair of wings, tail surfaces or fuselages that were properly rebuilt ten years ago can certainly be better than beat up old parts that have been worked, dented, filled with bondo, stop drilled, patched or neglected for 65 years, while maintaining spotless airframe log books. My plane flies like an absolute dream with three major repairs in the books.

Also, elimination of damage history documentation in logs is not all that uncommon. Most of these old girls have been around a time or two. One that claims "I have never" should raise an eyebrow.

I've heard that Continental will not support an A-model 470. Not sure if it's true, but they definitely have a markedly compromised reputation.

The details of any "fresh overhaul" should also be considered.

There are few perfect examples, which is evident in the sample that you present. My advice is to find a mechanic who knows skywagons to do a thorough prebuy inspection. If any of these planes are real nice, and inexpensive, go for it. If not, be patient, you will end up finding a good example for a decent price.

I personally, like the 55 and 56 models the best out of the early planes, but I prefer the mid to late 60s models because of the higher gross weight and beefier airframes.

Excellent advice ^^ from Scolopax.

Keep looking, do not write off a latter model. If you ever decide to come North big fuel is king!! Fresh rebuild can be great or just a bag of crap depending on who and how they did the rebuild. Being a A&P you can find and fix that ramp rat that everyone writes off. It takes a pretty good pilot to notice a 100 LB weight difference in a 180.
DENNY

Fantastic advice, and thank you. I really try to not let some of the "extras" influence too much of my decision. We're all guilty of it but best not to lust for an airplane that looks good.

The first aircraft seems to be the best deal. Most certainly will have a good pre-buy done. I've heard like you said that continental does not support them, however the overhaul that was just done received new crank, cam, and cylinders from Continental. There are a number of third party companies that overhaul all of the major components as well. So I guess its not as big an issue as some say.

Its a fine line between quality and affordable. (For a poor helicopter guy like me). In either case, patience is key.

DENNY wrote:Keep looking, do not write off a latter model. If you ever decide to come North big fuel is king!! Fresh rebuild can be great or just a bag of crap depending on who and how they did the rebuild. Being a A&P you can find and fix that ramp rat that everyone writes off. It takes a pretty good pilot to notice a 100 LB weight difference in a 180.
DENNY

You're absolutely right Denny. I'd be happy with something that wasn't pretty but mechanically solid. Not totally writing off a later model but in the 2-3 years I've been looking I haven't seen one that fits my budget. Does the increase in gross weight marry up with the beefier airframe? I guess the question would be, does the useful load increase?

This may be of interest:

http://www.allboutaircraft.com/skywagon.html

A float kit is what really adds real meat that counts to the plane. If you want to lift a load wing size and HP matter. If you plan to stay light and short trips all the more better stuff is not worth it. It all depends on the mission.
DENNY

Jeff, Justin's is a real nice light 180. Reliable and well known amongst most of us out here. You won't be disappointed



AKT

Definitely stay far away from any airplane that’s been submerged in salt water, and maybe even one that’s been submerged in fresh water... But salt water WILL cause corrosion eventually.

MTV

aktahoe1 wrote:Jeff, Justin's is a real nice light 180. Reliable and well known amongst most of us out here. You won't be disappointed

7095EE7B-9087-4089-AA19-82871CAB2178.JPG

IMG_7645.JPG

AKT

Yes! I spoke with him yesterday. More details to come on that one. Thanks for the hook up Kevin!

mtv wrote:Definitely stay far away from any airplane that’s been submerged in salt water, and maybe even one that’s been submerged in fresh water... But salt water WILL cause corrosion eventually.

MTV

Yes I've decided to remove that one from the table. Too high risk.

Don't be too much of a hurry to cross off a "J " motor. Especially if the rest of the deal is right. I know of several folks running "J" motors for long hrs of reliable service. Don't believe all the OWT. Know of a friend that just tore down a 2000hr "J" motor that was still running ok. He just wanted to go through it while he had the cash before retirement. Treat them right with good maintenace and they will last. As others have said, "Good airframe bones are what counts".

denalipilot wrote:This may be of interest:

http://www.allboutaircraft.com/skywagon.html

We have our own version of the model distinctions here:

https://backcountrypilot.org/knowledge- ... stinctions

RockHopper wrote:Don't be too much of a hurry to cross off a "J " motor. Especially if the rest of the deal is right. I know of several folks running "J" motors for long hrs of reliable service. Don't believe all the OWT. Know of a friend that just tore down a 2000hr "J" motor that was still running ok. He just wanted to go through it while he had the cash before retirement. Treat them right with good maintenace and they will last. As others have said, "Good airframe bones are what counts".

X2

I flew many hours behind the J engine and took it 200 past TBO. Found some pitting on a lifter and went for the rebuild. Loved the J and never found it lacking. We would still be flying behind it but the company doing our engine work had a fresh rebuilt R that he made us a deal on so he could PPonk another airplane. The R has been great too! Good luck on your search.

CW

DENNY wrote:A float kit is what really adds real meat that counts to the plane. If you want to lift a load wing size and HP matter. If you plan to stay light and short trips all the more better stuff is not worth it. It all depends on the mission.
DENNY

Ah yes, most definitely. I do plan to stay light, and Will mostly be doing short backcountry trips. The occasional long trip will have long runways also.

So you say wing size and HP matter for lifting a load. How does that relate to an airplanes useful load? In my experience on the helicopter side of things, the useful load seems to have more to do with ramp weight than it does with its performance.

In my shopping around I came across a straight tail 172 tailwheel, with a 180HP Franklin. It has a useful load of almost 1000 lbs! Originally I was stoked for it. A downsized 180, what the 170C would have been with 180HP. Then I started to think that the useful load may not necessarily mean performance. I don't know for sure but my instinct said that if it were maxed out at gross weight, it would still not out perform a 180 at max gross. Even if they had the same useful load. Does anyone have experience with this?

heli_adams wrote:

DENNY wrote:A float kit is what really adds real meat that counts to the plane. If you want to lift a load wing size and HP matter. If you plan to stay light and short trips all the more better stuff is not worth it. It all depends on the mission.
DENNY

Ah yes, most definitely. I do plan to stay light, and Will mostly be doing short backcountry trips. The occasional long trip will have long runways also.

So you say wing size and HP matter for lifting a load. How does that relate to an airplanes useful load? In my experience on the helicopter side of things, the useful load seems to have more to do with ramp weight than it does with its performance.

In my shopping around I came across a straight tail 172 tailwheel, with a 180HP Franklin. It has a useful load of almost 1000 lbs! Originally I was stoked for it. A downsized 180, what the 170C would have been with 180HP. Then I started to think that the useful load may not necessarily mean performance. I don't know for sure but my instinct said that if it were maxed out at gross weight, it would still not out perform a 180 at max gross. Even if they had the same useful load. Does anyone have experience with this?

You are bang on. My 172 had more useful load then my 180, but the 180 would haul waaayyyy more out of a shorter place. At least that's what I heard...

In general three things help a plane fly Wing, Prop, and Power. If you want to land short a big extended wing with drooped ailerons and front cuff will let you fly slower, land and stop a lot shorter. It will also lift the same weight off sooner (given proper AOA). The right prop will give you a lot of grunt getting into the air and more HP will let you climb hard.

USEFUL LOAD;
What does it mean to you? My 1951 piper pa18A can carry 2,070 in utility category with a 125hp motor. Take the hopper out and booms off now we can fly standard category at 1500 lbs. If you look some of the V speeds change but all are within a 82/43 borer with a 160 hp lower performance range. In the country of ALASKA the FAA says 121 or part 135 operators can fly certain planes at 115% of max weight. On a -30 degree January day my it is hard to for women not to want to have the baby of a cub driver. Go to Fairbanks on a 100 degree july day and you might need to bring some good booze and a promise for a trip to Vegas, for a woman to say hi.

LEGAL LOAD;
What the paperwork says.

If you are landing on smooth stuff a properly set up 182 will have a better AOA than a 180, performance will follow AOA.

No right or wrong just things to think about.
DENNY