Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Newbie stupid questions about restoring a vintage tail dragger

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Omaha, AR
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Berson View Post
    A Vintage Cessna 175 with a geared engine and 90" prop will lift off in about 300 feet solo.
    About the cheapest to buy also. Parts and maintenance are a bit more than a Vintage C-172. More fuel also.
    The C-170 has a tailwheel but will cost double and won't match a C-175 for climb and takeoff.

    Did not realize older Cessna's were so inexpensive. I'll add the 175 to my research.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by bbutler455 View Post
    Did not realize older Cessna's were so inexpensive. I'll add the 175 to my research.
    If you buy one, buy the best example you can find because once you start investing in restoration or upgrades, you'll never see a return of more than 40 cents on the dollar .

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    898
    I always bought the cheapest I could find for restoration. An out of annual airplane usually sells for about half.
    With slight damage maybe about 1/4 of the flyable average Trade-A-Plane prices. The idea is to have fun in the restoration and in a year or two of flying it then get bored and sell it and look for another project. Should get back all the cash spent but nothing for labor.
    I like complete aircraft. Hate scrounging for parts.

  4. #14
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    688
    Maybe it won't be as "historically significant", but consider that a used experimental will always be more bang for the buck than any standard certificated aircraft. No A&P needed except for the condition inspection, no requirement for original/TSO/STC'd parts, change anything you want, etc...

    IIRC the C-175 has the geared engine which has its own set of issues...

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Omaha, AR
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Berson View Post
    I always bought the cheapest I could find for restoration. An out of annual airplane usually sells for about half.
    With slight damage maybe about 1/4 of the flyable average Trade-A-Plane prices. The idea is to have fun in the restoration and in a year or two of flying it then get bored and sell it and look for another project. Should get back all the cash spent but nothing for labor.
    I like complete aircraft. Hate scrounging for parts.

    Bill, that's sound like my experience with sports cars and motorcycles. Started when I was a kid buying clapped out Austin Healeys and XKEs. Couldn't afford the nice ones but I made them reliable and enjoyed them. I have time which most people don't.
    Last edited by bbutler455; 12-26-2017 at 06:25 PM.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Omaha, AR
    Posts
    14
    Dana,
    I am leaning towards ELSA. I just want to play around with a cool used plane with the minimum of hassle. Solo is how I ride motorcycles, why not planes?

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    9G3
    Posts
    33
    I’d say there are a few “historically significant” expiremental airplanes out there. The Stits Playboy comes to mind with its ties to the Vans RV.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    Maybe it won't be as "historically significant", but consider that a used experimental will always be more bang for the buck than any standard certificated aircraft. No A&P needed except for the condition inspection, no requirement for original/TSO/STC'd parts, change anything you want, etc...

    IIRC the C-175 has the geared engine which has its own set of issues...

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,569
    Quote Originally Posted by bbutler455 View Post
    Dana,
    I am leaning towards ELSA. I just want to play around with a cool used plane with the minimum of hassle. Solo is how I ride motorcycles, why not planes?
    I have a few friends who fly two seat airplanes on the SP ticket. I asked them how often do they fly with someone in the other seat. They all told me maybe 1% of the time. If you look over into that seat it is usually empty. The people I know who got the SP certificate did this to be legal to fly their ultralight style airplane. It may be two seat but it is basically an ultralight. This is what the SP ticket was aimed at anyway IMHO. Those whom just wanted to fly to be flying. But we have those whom believe this ticket is a means to transverse this nation in an airplane. I myself do not see it as such. That should be left to a PP. IMHO. SP is for the sport of flying. How I see it.

  9. #19
    Sam Buchanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    KDCU
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    I have a few friends who fly two seat airplanes on the SP ticket. I asked them how often do they fly with someone in the other seat. They all told me maybe 1% of the time. If you look over into that seat it is usually empty. The people I know who got the SP certificate did this to be legal to fly their ultralight style airplane. It may be two seat but it is basically an ultralight. This is what the SP ticket was aimed at anyway IMHO. Those whom just wanted to fly to be flying. But we have those whom believe this ticket is a means to transverse this nation in an airplane. I myself do not see it as such. That should be left to a PP. IMHO. SP is for the sport of flying. How I see it.
    That is a very narrow view of the Sport Pilot privileges and one that is not grounded in FARs or reality. Tell the many RV-12 (and similar aircraft) pilots who fly their planes all over the country that they are only supposed to be flying around their local airport (the FAA certainly won't tell them that...). Traversing this nation with a Sport Pilot license is a fantastic way to use the certificate and enables many who could no longer gain a Class Three certificate to continue using an aircraft for transportation (often with a a passenger) to far-flung destinations.

    An RV-12 is faster than a Cessna 172 and with its glass panel is better equipped than most and is completely Light Sport compliant.
    Last edited by Sam Buchanan; 12-28-2017 at 08:00 AM.
    Sam Buchanan
    EAA Technical Counselor
    The RV Journal RV-6 build log
    Fokker D.VII semi-replica build log
    YouTube Channel

  10. #20
    DaleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    KMLE
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    I have a few friends who fly two seat airplanes on the SP ticket. I asked them how often do they fly with someone in the other seat. They all told me maybe 1% of the time. If you look over into that seat it is usually empty. The people I know who got the SP certificate did this to be legal to fly their ultralight style airplane. It may be two seat but it is basically an ultralight. This is what the SP ticket was aimed at anyway IMHO. Those whom just wanted to fly to be flying. But we have those whom believe this ticket is a means to transverse this nation in an airplane. I myself do not see it as such. That should be left to a PP. IMHO. SP is for the sport of flying. How I see it.
    In my humble opinion, your humble opinion is simply wrong. I have the right seat occupied for well over half my flights. Family members, Young Eagles and friends. My wife and I use it to go places. My new co-owner plans to do the same once he passes his checkride and has his Sport Pilot certificate. Neither of us would try to tell others how they should use their airplanes.
    Measure twice, cut once...
    scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •