I have a local 81 185F on Wipaire amphibian floats that's been sitting for several years. I was able to contact the owner and he's open to possibly selling it. I was wondering what the going ballpark for it's value should be ?

I'm assuming it's had little modification, VFR panel, unknown hours at the moment and it's been sitting for a minimum 10-15 years, the engine could be an anchor at this point. Unknown if it has any hail damage. Unknown corrosion as well because I'm in the Mid-Atlantic with salt water.

What's a good ballpark for it ?

Appears to have a stol kit installed. This is one of those that could be a diamond in the rough or a real turd. You obviously need to take a real close look at it for corrosion/mice damage/engine condition/ etc... which will all vary the price pretty drastically. It's a shame to see it sit and rot away, hopefully you can save it before it's too late!

The obvious starting point is to get a knowledgeable mechanic to take a good look at it.
Pulling a middle jug I would think would be a must to see how much corrosion there is. My guess, based on where you are, is there will be plenty.

Keep us informed....

Tom

Thanks for the reply's, I'm curious lets say the engine needs overhaul and I have some corrosion under the tail cone which is repairable. What would be the minimum it's worth or a scenario close to that ?

Hard to say due to the unknowns being some of the main drivers for 180/185 value. Hours, corrosion, damage history, engine.

To "bracket" the values here's my shot at it and it's totally subjective so don't beat me up:

Scenario 1: higher time (~8000 plus), some damage history but well repaired, repairable minor corrosion, engine is airworthy, but will need an OH soon, prop is serviceable, radios are VFR (but functional and legal). light hail. This airplane on wheels is probably an ~75 to 80's kind of plane. Main driver to the value is that it's an '81 model 185. Floats....who knows.

Scenario2: Low time (2000-3000), no damage history, no corrosion, engine checks out as mid time and no corrosion, no hail. Assume the interior needs everything to be nice, but it's serviceable. Paint is serviceable but needs to painted to look great. On wheels that's probably a 120 to 130K airplane. Again...just a SWAG on my part. I'm no expert, but I've owned three of them.

being that it's known to be sitting outside, and probably salty....I'd start at Scenario one and move up from there as you and your mechanic inspect it.

59SC

I spoke with the owner today and got the following new info:

-Engine is high time but he isn't sure what it is
-No main gear or tailwheel
-Never been in Salt water, so he says
-Needs to find the logs, isn't sure where they are at the moment
-Floats are full of rain water
-Sitting in a semi wet area and can't get it pulled out or have anyone work on it
-Has a medical condition that's kept him from flying, he has since bought a place on the water and is restoring a house on it.
-Says it last ran and flew 5-ish years ago. (Passed an annual at that time.)
-He doesn't know what he wants for it so far (I asked and that's what I got).
-He isn't sure on the Total Time of airframe either
-He wouldn't mind selling it but seems he might have a price in mind he is looking for.

Made plans to go see it this Saturday morning and hopefully drag along a nitrogen tank to pump up the tires and a pump to drain the floats. I believe the floats are Whipline, would west marine have a hand pump that would work well to drain them ? I'll also try to take a ladder to check the wing out. I didn't really want to go crazy pulling cowlings etc, but I'll check in with him Friday about pulling a plug to check cylinder rust. The bladders might be due as well by this point.

Anything else specifically I should look for ?

Hopefully he can find the log books...if not that's a big hit on the value. I'm sure he can, want to stay positive!

As long as you've got the go ahead to open it up and look around:

1) Check for any obvious damage/wrinkles
2) look at any unusual/non factory rivets in the belly or around the attach points/gear boxes.
3) from the pics, the airplane has all the markings of a fully float kitted late model; just pull some inspection panels on the wings and look for corrosion in the in the bottom skins where they meet ribs. It should be all corrosion proofed (green)...but look for differing shades of green. Might indicated later repairs. Look at the cables...should be stainless.
4) pull some inspection covers in the belly and in the rear near the tail cone. That's a good first pass for corrosion; bring a mirror and a light.
6) look really closely at the cowl; make sure it's nice and straight and doesn't have any battle scars. Not the end of the world if it did, it's just expensive to make right. Lot of float planes have some dents and dings due to docking/fueling issues.
7) Look at the tach, it would be interesting to see but that's certainly not gospel
Look under and around the battery. I've seen a skywagon absolutely ruined by a battery that froze and leaked and was let sit.
9) Since it's a late model...it may or may not have bladders. Most had wet wings after 79, some float planes were optioned or modified with bladders.

Ultimately (to me)....you are just looking for deal breakers. Anything more than minor surface corrosion and minor dents and dings and i'd walk away if you are looking for a nice plane to keep a long time. Some will disagree....and I totally understand. we all want different things out of our planes.

Good luck, wish I was closer to help lend a second set of eyes.

59SC

It's next to criminal to let a timeless (and increasingly rare) machine sit and rot....

The owner would do well to sell it to you, if he has any love for aircraft.

60-70 grand IF he can find the logbooks.
DENNY

Thanks for the replies,

I'll be armed with a camera Saturday so I can provide lots of pictures during my inspection.

Also, find out the make AND model of floats. The earlier Whip floats are worth a lot less than the later ones.

MTV

fiftynineSC wrote:...Since it's a late model...it may or may not have bladders. Most had wet wings after 79, some float planes were optioned or modified with bladders.....

I never knew this until a few days ago, when I researched later-model 180's.
I was surprised that see that 88 gallon wet wings were introduced on the 79 180K model s/n 53,001 and went on til the end in 1981 at s/n 53,203. My 185 info says 88 gallon wet wings on 1979 A185F s/n 3684 through the end in 1985 at s/n 194448.
My hangar neighbor has one of the last 180's produced, but it has been converted to bladders.

Are wet wings or bladders preferred ?

Speeddemon651 wrote:Are wet wings or bladders preferred ?

Wet wings hold more fuel but stopping any leaks can be difficult; bladders have finite lives but are easier to replace to stop any leaking. So it's kind of a Sophie's choice.

Cary

Speeddemon651 wrote:Are wet wings or bladders preferred ?

I think opinions vary...and probably for good reasons. First I'll give you hearsay; many people don't like the exposure to a wet wing leaking. I think this may stem from some rough environments. I'm hoping others will chime in with personal experience as this has just been relayed to me anecdotally. I was also told that the bladders were optioned or retrofitted to float operators wanting bladders.

For me personally...I'd want the wet wing for a couple of different reasons. First...capacity and useable fuel. Wet wing has 88 and 84 useable. My long range tanks, '75 model, are 84 but only '74 useable. It's placarded for that, but I'm not sure that there is actually 5 gallons a side unusable. Number two....no bladders to leak or age or collect water. Some may disagree that now the wing could leak, which they can. I've got direct experience though, with a friends late model that has 10,000 hours on a wet wing and it's still tight as a drum.

Bill

I've worked several Cessna with wet wing fuel tanks, on both floats and off airport on wheels and skis. I've also worked a few older ones with bladders. There is no way I'd consider trading a wet wing for bladders. Wet wings leak ? A couple of the planes I've flown had a lot of hours. If they were to leak, sealing hem is a hell of a lot easier than replacing or patching a bladder. With either, the hard part is finding the leak.

I've also never heard of Cessna offering bladders in one of the late model planes, though they may have. But I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to go there.

The wet wings hold more gas and they're pretty bomb proof. Personally, I despise bladders.

MTV

MTV,

I've seen (during pre-buys) a couple of '81's and '82's with bladders. Like I said though don't know if those particular airplanes were retrofitted...just can't remember. According the 180/185 model changes on the club site, bladders became optional again in 81 after being discontinued by the wet wing in '79. FWIW.

Bill

My 1980-185 has had bladders since new, I replaced both of them a few years ago as a precautionary measure when I could still write the expense off. Mike: I thought I remember you saying many-many moons ago (don't remember which forum, you are/were on several), that you did not like the wet wings on a float plane because of concerns of cracking? Am I dreaming, or did I take what you said out of context?

Steve

steve wrote:My 1980-185 has had bladders since new, I replaced both of them a few years ago as a precautionary measure when I could still write the expense off. Mike: I thought I remember you saying many-many moons ago (don't remember which forum, you are/were on several), that you did not like the wet wings on a float plane because of concerns of cracking? Am I dreaming, or did I take what you said out of context?

Steve

I don't know if you're dreaming, but I doubt I ever said anything bad about wet wings on a seaplane, or wheel plane for that matter.

I've been a fan of wet wings since I had a 185 amphib with bladders gain a bunch of water in the tanks. Next to impossible to get all that water out......which is partially why Cessna went to wet wings and new Cessna have over a dozen sump drains.....

MTV

I probably misunderstood, thank you for the reply.

Steve