MISC QUESTIONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME ABOUT PLANE.... FYI
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------
>Has it ever been on floats?
 
..my plane has never been on floats (to my knowledge). The logs are only available from 1986 to present. (The plane was stored from 1979 to 1986.)
 
 
--------------
>I Am Interested in your 175. I Just came across this airplane
>Yesterday. My Only concern with a 175 is the engine works much harder I
>am told, thus the lower tbo. Have you had any problems with it .
 
You are correct with the tbo; it's 1200, compared to 2000 (or is it 1600?) for an 0-300. I figure, though, that I'm getting about 25% more horsepower (175 compared to 140) with better performance, so that makes up for some of the difference in tbo. Also, I can burn auto gas in this engine, so fuel savings pays for most of the major (1200hrs * ~9 gal/hr * ~$1/gal savings = ~$10800). I haven't had any problems with the engine, John. Starts and runs perfectly. Of course, you have to run it at the proper rpm. I've heard that the problems some people have had come when they try to run it like a 172 engine, at about 2400 rpm cruise... that's a big no no. You run it at about 2700 to 3000 cruise, depending on altitude. It's turning a much bigger prop (about 82"). The red line is 3200.
 
--------------
>What was the performance for your plane?
 
...the manual shows 140 miles per hour IAS at 65% power and 10000 feet, and that's consistent with what I've experienced in actual flight. Range under no-wind conditions is 620 miles using 42 gallons of fuel. Tanks hold 52 gallons, 47 of which is usable under all flight configurations, so that gives you (47 minus 42) 5 gallons reserve - about 30 minutes (70 miles) additional.
 
--------------
>Was the major overhaul done while you owned the plane? Do you have the
>work orders? Reason I ask is that these engines normally are very costly to
>overhaul and I've never run across one that was truly majored?
>
 
I just got the logs from the plane last week. The airframe log is complete back to date of manufacture. The original engine log was lost and new log started in 1986. I'll try to transcribe both logs and place them on the website at a later date. For now, the simple answer to your questions are:
 
1. Major overhaul was not done while I owned plane. Last major 312 hours ago was performed by "Charles Stangel A&P/IA (A&P #1726316) dated Jan 15, 1986.
 
2. I do not have work orders for the MOH (only the entries in engine log).
 
3. I agree with your statement about cost of major overhaul. I have another (older) C-175 that I *did* have majored shortly after I purchased it. Thought I was getting a good deal, because the price was low, and the smoh was high. Spent about $20,000 for major before I was done. Of course, that included some other features like a horton stol kit and misc items that I wanted just right, besides the engine. But, majors are expensive, no doubt about it. That's why it's good that you are checking on the quality of the major and when it was last performed. There's quite a bit of other documentation for other work peformed since I purchased the plane, which *does* include work orders.
 
--------------
>Hi..I like your plane, but I have some questions:
>
>Any damage history? ===> No
 
>cruising speed?
>gallons burned per hour? ===> manual shows 140 miles per hour IAS at 65% power and 10000 feet, and that's consistent with what I've experienced in actual flight. Range under no-wind conditions is 620 miles using 42 gallons of fuel. Tanks hold 52 gallons, 47 of which is usable under all flight configurations, so that gives you (47 minus 42) 5 gallons reserve - about 30 minutes (70 miles) additional. Under these cruise conditions I calculate 10.6 gal/hour (burns automotive fuel).
 
>how many hours have you put on it? ===> Had about 2600 hours when I bought it (right after an annual inspection in March 1996). Now the plane has 2682 (not flown, yet, since annual inspection in December 1997). So I've put ~82 hours on it.
 
>what major repairs or overhauls have you made? ===> No major repairs or overhauls. Minor work included: installed alternator conversion kit (previously had generator), installed noise suppressor; replaced altimeter and VSI; tested transponder-encoder; prop overhaul (0 smoh); regular oil changes, filter services. All work (except some oil changes) performed by A&Ps.
 
>how long have you owned it? ===> ~2 years
 
>what is REALLY wrong with it, IE needs repair soon, or need repair in
>the future? ===> Nothing. It's a good plane. If you want IFR, though, you will have to update the avionics. If you have plenty of money, there's always things you can do to your plane to make it better. I guess if I had nothing else to spend money on, I'd recover the panel, as there's some aluminum that's not painted, yet, left over from installation of radios and other upgrades. I'd probably repaint the plane, if I wanted to show it at air shows. Maybe I'd put in some new leather upholstery, while I was at it. But the paint and interior are actually in pretty good shape - I'm just trying to think of what I might do, if I wanted to make it look like new. I try to get "squawks" taken care of as they occur. Who knows, next time I fly it (probably within the next week or so), I may discover something that I'm not aware of right now, that needs to be addressed. If so, I'll address it. Bottom line is there's nothing wrong with the plane, as far as I know. If there were something wrong, I'd fix it.
 
>Is it dinged up from rocks from dirt strips? ===> No - I haven't landed on any gravel strips, yet - my strip here at the ranch is grass/dirt - probably a better place to land than the hard surfaces of most runways.
 
>List everything on the panel ===> Please see "detail" webpage on my airplane website and "photos". It has basic instrumentation plus additional shown on "details". I'll try to compile an extensive list for you and others in response to this question and place it on the website, later.
>
>I am a cash buyer, but only buy good values. What do you REALLY want
>for an immediate sale? ===> ===> Joe, cash is what I really need at the moment. However, the plane is good quality from my perspective, well maintained, it's a good basic 4-place bird. It also has a lot of hours left on both the airframe and the engine. So $28,500 is a fair asking price. I'd come down $500 for "immediate sale", if "immediate" meant before the end of March or I'd consider some trade for good quality items.
 
 
--------------
>I am a student pilot, about to take my FAA checkride. I need a good
>quality, affordable 4 seater that I can fix up slightly and resell in a
>year to two after I get my high performance checkout. I want to fly my
>own plane but also want something I can resell without a loss
>(hopefully).
>
>I have not seen a 175 on any of the Cessna lists..do you know any
>sources of information on them?
>
>My goal is to buy something around $20K within the month. If
>interested, let me know.
>
>Thanks for the info.
 
Joe, sounds like a good plan. Trade-A-Plane lists other C-175's for sale. Basically, a C-175 is a C-172 with more power. It was made between about 1958 and 1962. I chose the C-175, because of the increased performance and relatively lower cost (compared to a newer C-172 with the bigger engine - the Super Hawk). All my flight training was in 150s and 172s, so I was familiar with this type of machine.
 
You might also do a search on the world wide web for "C-175 Skylark" and see what you find. Try www.webcrawler.com.
 
If you want to spend $20K, my gut feeling is that you should be able to find a fair quality C-175 with just a little more time SMOH (maybe around 800) for that price. Since you want to do some fix up, that should be consistent with your goals.
 
Keep in mind that your plane will be worth less as you put more hours on it. So, you will have to buy your plane significantly under its true value if you do not want to lose money, especially after cost of doing some fix up.
 
I think there are some of those deals around, but be very careful. I bought my other C-175 (an older one that I'm keeping, because I can't get what it's worth) for $14,500. It was due for a major overhaul and needed some other work (like the Horton STOL kit, new starter clutch assembly, etc., etc.). By the time I had the SMOH and all the other stuff done that I wanted to do to get it into the shape I wanted, I'd spent *another $20,000!. And I've spent even more since then. Now I have a plane that's worth about $25,000. You can see that I'd need to get $35,000 or more for that plane just to break even. Just an example for you to consider. Be careful - and good luck in your search.
 
 
--------------
>Your airplane looks great and looks like it has a lot of extras. I
>currently own a Cessna-150 and would like to move up to a bigger
>airplane. The C-175 seems like a good option. Several mechanics have
>commented about the geared O-300 engine. Have you had any problems
>obtaining parts? Do you have additional sources for information on the
>O-300G engine?
 
 
I'm glad you like the pictures of the plane. Regarding the GO-300 engine, I haven't had problems obtaining parts for the engine, but it took quite a bit of looking to find one bearing for the prop gearbox on another C-175 (older model) that I own. Finally, the mechanic just made one out of the type of bearing used for the engine gear train - was field approved by FAA - he did a good job. Other than that part, we didn't have any other problems (it was a complete overhaul). Haven't had to do any major engine work on N7098E (the one you saw). It only had about 230 SMOH, when I bought it, and it runs great. Parts have not been a problem so far.
 
There's a fellow over at the Lebanon, Oregon airport (S30), who works on C-175s all the time (that's his specialty). I've never used him, but I thought I would next overhaul. You might want to give him a call (my Flight Guide shows "Jack's Aircraft Services, 541-258-2574). He should be able to answer any question you have about the C-175 engine and airframe. I landed there one time, during a weather wait enroute back from Corvallis to Burns, and he and his wife were very hospitable - he notice I was flying a C-175 right away.
 
Other than Jack, I wouldn't know of anyone else except my own FBO at Burns (BNO) - Walt Sitz - he just did the annual in December, and you could ask him some questions. He works on all types of planes, so he could give you some general perspective about my plane and all the others. He's at Eagle Wings Aviation 541-573-6139.
 
Also, you could go to one of the search engines (www.webcrawler.com, for example) and do a search on "Cessna 175 Skylark GO-300" - might bring up some websites you could browse.
 
 
--------------
A: >1) How do you like its flying characteristics? Does it fly like a 172?
 
R: Flys *just* like a 172; I learned to fly in 150s and 172s, and I wanted a plane like a 172, but with a bit more performance, so I could fly over mountains and take off from high elevation fields. I got what I wanted - I like it.
 
>
A: >2) What is the TBO on that particular motor? Does it not cruise at close to 3,200 RPM's due to gear reduction? I was wondering if running the motor at
>that higher RPM (as compared to other similar O300's like in the 170 or early
>172's) shortens the TBO?
 
R: I cruise at about 2800 - 2900 RPM with a bit more for take-off. You are right - higher RPMs translates to a shorter TBO (presently at 1200 on the GO-300 engine). However, since you are going faster with better performance, you get nearly the same number of miles (and more power for density altitude considerations) as you'd end up with in a non-geared engine. At least that's how I figured it.
 
>
A: >3) I would imagine this plane, due to the constant speed prop and extra
>horsepower performs much like a 182, would you agree? Any thoughts you have
>on its performance would be great.
 
R: No, Alan. It's not like a 182. It does *not* have a constant speed prop. It has a big prop (82"), but not constant speed. Also, a 182 has about 270 horses, doesn't it? The 175 has 175 hp. (I think most 172s have about 140 hp). No, the 182 is a bigger and more powerful bird (also much more expensive to buy and maintain).
 
 
--------------
>I have another question if you have the time: Have all the ADs been
>corrected? I don't even know if this plane has many (any) AD's- the only one
>that might apply is the seat rail, is that correct? I understand most Cessnas
>have had an AD for that.
>
 
Alan, all ADs (to my knowledge) are checked at every annual inspection. I think that's pretty commonplace nowadays. The last annual on N7098E was done in December, and all ADs were complied with at that time. I don't have the checklist handy that the AP/IA gave me after the annual, but there were several ADs (including the seat rail) addressed as I recall, many of which had "N/A" next to them for my plane.
 
 
--------------
>Hi Rick,
>Great web site.What is the empty weight of your airplane and the GTOW? I
>don't know a whole lot about 175s except that my Dad had one when I was a
>kid. Is the reason they didn't attain the popularity of the 172 because of
>the high revving engine? I'm in the market for a light plane, but haven't
>come to the final determination as far as what type Vs price, etc. Useful
>load of course is a consideration.
 
Ed, the empty wt (no passengers, baggage, fuel, oil) as equipped is 1475 lbs. The maximum weight (if you stay within the CG envelope by proper loading) is 2300 lbs. NOTE: The plane should be weighed and new CG determined, if you are going to operate at gross a lot of the time.
 
 
--------------
>I just bought a'60 175A last month!!
>I enjoyed reading about yours. If you get a chance fill me in on good
>things-bad things about the model. This is my 5th aircraft. Thanks so
>much....
 
Jim, thanks for the feedback on my website and congrats on your purchase of the 1960 c-175A.
 
Really, I've got nothing but good to say about my plane. The '60 in particular has been a real workhorse for me. I own two, actually - the 1960 plus a 1959 (square tale). They're relatively inexpensive to own, handle well in mountains and land just fine on my grass strips here at the ranch. I wouldn't be selling the '60, except for the fact that I need money to continue an unfunded campaign to advocate telecommuting.
 
I guess the only drawback (and I've asked BRS, Inc to address this): no "ballistic recovery system" available, yet, for this size plane. Regardless of what I'm flying, I'd feel better (especially over mountains and populated areas) if I could get such a "plane chute" system installed. Presently, they're only available for planes up to c-150s in size.
 
 
--------------
>I'm not in the market for a C-175 but I ran across your web page and
>'have a couple of suggestions. First, I
>have over 400 hr in a C-175, so I've flown them quite a bit.
>
>(1) you may want to specify whether your aircraft has the climb prop
>(lower pitch) or the speed prop (slightly higher pitch) installed,
SPEED PROP
>
>(2) you are right on about having to run the engine near 3000 rpm.
>Failure to do this usually results in a very early top overhaul. For
>this reason, I was VERY particular who flew my airplane when I owned it,
I'M VERY PARTICULAR, TOO, SO *NO ONE* ELSE, YET, HAS FLOWN IT
>
>(3) you might want to list your avionics, too. A buyer will want to know
>in any case,
I'VE LISTED ALL THE AVIONICS IN THE "DETAILS PAGE" - THERE ISN'T MUCH -
IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE AN IFR BIRD
>
>(4) in-common with the C-172s of the era, C-175s have 40 deg flaps.
>These are very nice if used properly. Unfortunately, many pilots try to
>slip at low altitude and low speed with full flaps. This can (on rare
>occasion, I think) block airflow over the horizontal stabilizer and
>causes a nasty bucking with the uncoordinated controls. Try it at
>altitude--it'll enter a spin very easily so be ready. I suspect this is
>responsible for the high accident rate in the aircraft, and it is
>totally avoidable--don't slip with full flaps. Cessna later reduced flap
>travel to 30 deg in the C-172, by the way, and
AGREE: PEOPLE MUST *NEVER* SLIP WITH FULL FLAPS.
>
>(5) the C-175 is the most carburetor icing-prone aircraft I've ever
>flown. It used to happen to me all the time (I live in the somewhat more
>moist San Francisco Bay Area), to the point where I'd pull the heat at
>the slightest engine roughness. Great training, I suppose, but do
>caution the buyer.
THIS PLANE HAS A CARBURETOR TEMP GAUGE, WHICH SAVES A LOT OF THE
GUESS WORK AND ALLOWS YOU TO RUN WITH PARTIAL CARB HEAT, THEREBY
INCREASING POWER DURING CARB-ICE CONDITIONS.
 

-----------------------

Return to Rick Johnson's Cessna-175 HOME page