Hey guys, I sold my 170 a couple weeks ago, have cash in
hand and am looking for a '53 - '56 C-180 (may consider
'57 - '59 model years as well).

If y'all know of one for sale (or know of someone who
might be talked into parting with their 180), give me
a holler.

TIA,

A 180 is a reel sweet plane. I think that the 59 was the first to have rudder trim. I have a 182B which is also a 59. Exact as the 59 180 except for the gear.

I have a question for you. Instead of moving up to a 180, why did you not just upgrade your engine to 180 HP. I have a couple of friends with 170 that have made that engine upgrade. Really good plane.

Tim

Hello Tim,

I looked into doing a Lyc 180 conversion (and also the XP Mods
210hp Continental conversion), but by the time you pay market
value for a decent 170B, then buy all the schtuff (tm) required to
turn it into a 210hp (or Lyc 180hp for that matter) airplane, you'd
easily have as much or more dinero into the re-engined 170 as
you would an equivalent 180, and you wouldn't be able to increase
the gross weight of the re-engined 170 any.... I've always thought
that if someone gave me a decent C-170B airframe for free, I'd do
the 210hp Continental conversion on it.

It's a trade-off to be sure (love the 170 looks, with the round tail
and all that).

For what it's worth, when the price of Avgas hits $7/gallon, I'll
probably be back on here shopping for a stock-engined 170
again...

You are absolutely correct on the cost of an engine upgrade. A friend recently did a Belaire 180 hp mod to his 170, and he estimated it cost him at least $50 K for the conversion alone. He's an A & P so did at least some of the work himself, so that figure is probably light.

There are two advantages of the 180: Speed and load capability. You'll never get a 170 to go anywhere near as fast as a 180, mostly due to the stabilizer design.

Run a good 180 at reasonable weights, and you'll be travelling at around 140 to 150 on small tires. That should take about 12 gallons an hour.

Do the math--less mpg than your stock 170, I'd bet. And MPG is the deal, not GPH.

The only issue with the early 180's is they all have small tanks, so you'll be looking for fuel a lot. The slightly later airplanes often have the larger tanks, which is a better deal. I'd look for a 57 to 64 model, my ownself. They are a little heavier than the very early ones, but a lot of that is structure.

The good engines are generally the K's and the best is the R in the early planes.

MTV

Isn't the '59 the first year they had cowl flaps on the 180/182 also? I agree with the cost to do the engine conversion... had a "friend" (yeah right ) that had me do an O-470 in a 175 airframe... brought me the WORST 175 airframe I've ever seen (I replaced everything from the doorposts forward.... one day as I'm working on it, a guy walks in the shop and says "hey, I know that airplane..I flew it into a tree one time!!") and then cried and whined (and still bad mouth's me to this day) because it's got no payload and cost a fortune to do... in spite of what I tried to tell him... ohwell..
JH

Don't know much about 182s, but cowl flaps were on 180s starting in 1953.

My math says:

200nm trip

C-170; 100 knots @ 8gph = 16 gallons (@ $4.12/gallon = $65.92) for 2 hours of flight, nmpg = 12.5 nmpg (14 smpg)

C-180; 130 knots @ 12gph = 18.46 gallons (@ $4.12/gallon = $76.06) for 1.54 hours of flight = 10.83 nmpg (12.13 smpg)

I've had a friend fly along side me (me in the 170, him in a '53 180)
across Washington state with him throttle back to stay in formation.
We both left with full tanks, and we both put in the same amount of
fuel (within a 1/2 a gallon) when we filled up at our destination.
So if you want to, you can drive a 180 around @ 8 or 9 gallons an
hour and sip fuel just like a 170.

It's hard to beat the efficiency of the C-170/172 series (maybe that's
why Cessna built / sold so many of them!). The 170 is a little slow,
and somewhat limited in payload, but it is very efficient for an old GA
airplane, and it is dirt cheap to fly!

The joke on my airport is that when "my" 170 breaks, usually, a C-note
gets it going again. When my neighbors / buddies 180s break, it usually
takes 5 or so C-notes to get theirs going again.

Be that as it may, I put 688+ hours on my 170 in the last 4 years
and spent a significant amount of that time wishing there was more
horsepower up front... The 170 is a joy to fly (light on the controls
and she is easy on the eyes with that pretty round tail) but it is kind of
an un-balanced airplane in that you can put it on the ground virtually
anywhere you want but chances are the only way you'll ever get it back
out is on the back of a flat-bed truck / trailer! (mine had a Sportsman
STOL kit on it and in calm winds, you could approach at 45mph).

Not bad-mouthing the 170 mind you... I had a blast with mine, and will
likely own another one down the road some day.

Much difference in insurance?

I'm expecting to pay about double for 180 insurance
(was paying $980/year for "full" coverage on the 170).

Where was it I saw (on the net) some kind of report that
listed how much insurance companies had to pay out for
every $100 they take in? What sticks out in my mind is
that for every $100 dollars they took in covering a 170, they
had to pay out $9 dollars (that's right, $9.00!!!).

For the 180, for every $100 they took in, they had to pay
out $95.

I'm sure those figures move around over the years (some
years it's just a bad year for a particular type of aircraft...).

Bela,

I'd be pretty surprised if an early 180 cost that much more to insure. Keep us posted, though. I'd be curious to know my own self.

At present, I'm getting by pretty cheap, but I have a stated value of $65 K, which is not all that far from what a 180 is worth.

Mike

Just got a quote back from Travers.

$1698/year for an early C-180 with $75K hull coverage.
That's for $100K per seat and $1 Million liability coverage.
AIG would be the underwriter.

That's not too bad I guess, and is in line with the 2% - 3% of
the hull value "rule of thumb" calculation that seems to work
well when trying to estimate what insurance coverage will
be on a given aircraft of a certain value.

I was paying $980/year for the 170 (same coverage with
$40K hull).

How long you gonna keep that signature, Bela? Perhaps you can hang onto it as an homage to that old 170. You got any parts laying around you wanna part with now?

Bela,

Give Avemco a call as well. You won't get a quote from another broker now that you've gone to the well, so to speak, but AVEMCO is an independant, so they'll give you a quote also. It'll be a good perspective.

They offer 5 % discount for taking the King School's Practical Risk Management course, which is a no brainer, and another 5 % for a Wings deal.

MTV

Thanks, I did give them a call.

Avemco quoted $2288 for the same coverage ($100K/seat,
$1 Mill liability, $75K hull).

Even if you go to those classes (@ 5% discount each), it would
come in at $2,059.20/year which is $361.20 higher than the
Travers quote. If y'all have any other ideas, let me know
(notwithstanding the fact that I've already had my broker
"lock me up" insofar as quotes go!!! I hate that....).

zane wrote:How long you gonna keep that signature, Bela? Perhaps you can hang onto it as an homage to that old 170. You got any parts laying around you wanna part with now?

Well, the 170 is still in my hangar (the guy who bought it paid me for
it in full but hasn't come to get it yet!), so I'll keep the sig until the
airplane leaves.

I do have some 170 spares, and I'll likely post them for sale on the
170 association site (or maybe eBay, or here...???) after the 170 is
gone.