Hi,

First off thank all of you here that have helped with my numerous questions in my search for a C-180.

I am looking at one tomorrow that is a 1981 model with the Pponk 0-470-50 conversion.

My only concern is that it has about 6500TT on the airframe.

That time kinda runs into the Hi time catagory I am led to believe.

Just wondering in general terms how much this should effect the value.

Thanks in advance for any advice

T

Edit / Delete Edit Post Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message

+ Reply to Thread

As long as it's maintained well, rigged well, and fixed straight if bent....

Some of my old work Cessnas have 35-40K hours on the airframes now, and are still nice flyers.

Gump

TT has very little to do intrinsic value. But,...

Statically yes. The more exposure, the more likely something will bend, break and weaken.

In my experience with older Cessnas, if its good straight clean airframe total time isn't a very big deal. Ive seen some 8K hour plus 180's that were really clean compared to some 2-3K hour ones that had been neglected. I personally wouldn't worry at all about 6500TT.

He asked about value- not just airworthiness. Consider that high-time prejudices might work against you at resale time.

It would be useful to know what kind of hours those were, eg: pavement, float, ski, saltwater, etc

If you are an AOPA member, you can do a Vref appraisal on their website. If I remember correctly they depreciate it some small amount for hours beyond an average airframe time. My 180 has about 6300 TT, and it didn't affect the value significantly when I purchased it some years ago.

As far as physical airworthiness concerns, airframe time is not nearly as significant as some other matters of consideration on light GA airplanes. Metal fatigue is how high time in service would take its toll on an airframe, and fatigue is worse when the cyclic stress magnitudes are higher. The stresses are generally pretty low in the Cessna 180 and 182 airframes, and most light GA airplanes for that matter.

I woudn't sweat a 6500 hour Cessna, or an airframe with damage history, as long as the damage was properly repaired.

Is 6,500 hours high time on a 35 year old airframe? Probably not, it's less than 200 hours a year.

C180s are so weird when trying to figure values. Problems that would drive a comparable C182's value into the dirt seem to have no effect on a C180.

Gump

Bunches of people lie about their aircraft when it comes to selling. TT is a number that usually is wrong in many cases. I have seen so much BS in logs, it's almost a norm these days.

Value is more important. Ie. The condition. And future value of said "condition".

I'm sitting here with a current copy of Vref. Deduct $4.00 for each hour over 3672 hours for a 1981 C180.

Sorry to put it so bluntly, but if you try to use the position that 6500 hours is high time to negotiate a lower than asking purchase price and I were the seller you would be wasting both my time and yours to even look at the airplane. If it is a clean, straight, if damaged repaired correctly to the same level of quality as new, late model 180 it will sell to someone who is not concerned by a total time of 6500 hours without a reduction in selling price. That being said, I would pay a 10 percent premium for one with less than 2000 hours but only if with no damage history and immaculate records.

I think there are two types of age. First is calendar age, a 1981 airplane could have 34 year old paint, interior, fuel bladders, fuel lines, brake hoses, McCauley wheels and brakes no longer supported by the manufacture, you get the idea, things that deteriorate with age. Then there is flight hour age. Things like hinges, pulleys, cables, seat rollers, trim jack screws, you get the idea on these, things than wear out. You really have to look at each individual aircraft and the level of maintenance that the aircraft has received. If high dollar items have been recently maintained, either repaired or overhauled, then the 6500 hour air frame may be in better shape and less costly in the long run than a 3000 hours air frame and may even be a better value than one with 2000 hours.

I have a 69 180H project with a little over 4000 hours and it has been damaged extensively a few times but properly repaired each time. Recently a friend of mine told me about a 77 180K with less than 2000 hours, no damage but unfortunately the original 77 engine and prop, paint, interior and radios that he believes is for sale. I considered selling my project to get this clean low time airplane but by the time I had the engine overhauled, prop overhauled, new paint and interior, and updated radios all to the same level as my project I would be paying at least $50,000 to be able to say that I had a low time no damage history 180. It just wasn't worth it to me, I'll finish my project and be happy.

I edited my post to say,

T I did not mean to offed you if I did. While the vref values are of interest, the value of individual airplanes is what someone is willing to pay and what the seller is willing to sell for. I would not consider 6500 hours as high time but it is above the average number of hours for a 81 180 according to vref.

Tim

Thank you all for the replies.

My main concern in the TT was to know what effect it would have on its value. Truthfully I don't know what it really worth at this time. I can only compare it to the many others I have seen. TT is not something you can generally see and evaluate but does measure into the worth of an aircraft. I was just trying to figure out how much it might effected the worth. It seems not too much from the posts so far.

My mechanic is going to have the better part of a day to look it over with me tomorrow.

One thing that everyone is saying is to look for a "straight" bird. How does one determine that? I would think to fly it and see where the ball rides and if it tracks straight hands off. The other is rigging. Is there much adjustment on rigging? I don't recall from my 58 180 I had years ago but I believe the struts are fixed as it the tail in terms of rigging adjustment.

a3holerman wrote:Thank you all for the replies.

My main concern in the TT was to know what effect it would have on its value. Truthfully I don't know what it really worth at this time. I can only compare it to the many others I have seen. TT is not something you can generally see and evaluate but does measure into the worth of an aircraft. I was just trying to figure out how much it might effected the worth. It seems not too much from the posts so far.

My mechanic is going to have the better part of a day to look it over with me tomorrow.

One thing that everyone is saying is to look for a "straight" bird. How does one determine that? I would think to fly it and see where the ball rides and if it tracks straight hands off. The other is rigging. Is there much adjustment on rigging? I don't recall from my 58 180 I had years ago but I believe the struts are fixed as it the tail in terms of rigging adjustment.

The rear wing attach bolts insert through eccentric bushings. You can twist the bushing witch in turn moves the rear of the wing up or down. There is enough adjustment to make a pretty big change. Usually a pretty tinny amount of adjustment can fix a crooked flyer.

I'll clarify a little. By clean I actually mean corrosion free or limited surface corrosion, being from the Great Lakes area most Cessnas here do show a slight dulling of the shine inside the wings and fuselage. Of course the aircraft with seaplane kits are zinc primer on the inside, note the skins are painted but the rivet tails are not, this will tell you if it has been repainted inside. By straight I am not talking about how it flys which can be corrected by rigging but if it sets one wing low (max allowed is 3 inches I believe), are the horizontal and vertical stabilizer square to the fuselage and the wings, are the reveals (gaps) around the doors even all the way around and do the doors actually close without forcing them, are the laps in the fuselage, wing and tail skins smooth or are there gaps where they lay one over the other? Looking from behind do things look symmetrical on both sides? After rolling the aircraft back and forth a few times does the tail wheel and tail wheel spring line up straight with the center line of the aircraft? Does the cowl look right or does it look like the engine is sagging? And finally do the skin panels look straight? Any oil canning? Look at the top of the wings, any little diamond patches where cracks were repaired?

Thanks again,

That does clarify things a lot. I will be looking closely at the items mentioned.

Pinecone wrote:I'm sitting here with a current copy of Vref. Deduct $4.00 for each hour over 3672 hours for a 1981 C180.

I think Vref is full of shit. Maybe they know their stuff on King-Airs & such, but some of the price estimates I've seen for our kind of GA aircraft is way out of whack. That four bucks an hour deduct comes out to over $11K for the airplane cited by the OP. Engine time and calendar time SMOH is much more important as is airframe condition. A moderate amount of hours (below 8000 or so maybe) is a push-- not a deduct and not an add. My 53 180 has about 5800 hours on it which IMHO is retty low time for a 60 year old airplane.

"Straight"-- IMHO this is not necessarily whether it flies straight or not. A straight airplane can fly crooked, and a beat-up airplane can fly straight. Looks at the general condition of the airplane-- are there wrinkles under the belly near the gear legs? Do the doors shut tightly and easily and evenly? Is there a bunch of hail damage or rock dings? Is the paint job falling off it? Corrosion (or zinc-chromate touch-ups) showing?
There's a lot of little things that you can't really see in photos, no matter how many close-ups you have the seller take. And the "it's an 8 out of 10" from the seller quote often turns out to be a 6 out of 10 to the buyer.