Russ
I am a new guy on the block, so take my comments with a grain of salt. Thought about that 180, but it had two strikes against it for me..... No float kit and if I remember right an "A" model engine. Old saying " if its an A, just walk away". Don't know first hand but told that they crack cylinders pretty frequently. Might want to look closely at that.
Nathan
Heresy alert...looking at Cessna 180s
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
-
russfarris
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 2:25 am
Hi Nathan, thanks for the input. Yes, I know what Joe Stancil says, but I got him to admit that there is nothing really wrong with the O-470A. It's as reliable and supportable as any O-470. His main problem is that Continental will not accept an A for an exchange core. The O-470A owners I've talked to say it's been a good engine for them.
Well, TCM won't take my C-145 for a core either, for that matter. All the A parts - cylinders, crank and camshafts are still available new; I talked to TCM and Mattituck. The cylinder cracking was ALL O-470s, prior to the 727 series cylinder, which this engine has. I'm used to orphans - the C-145 on my 170, the Franklin on the Stinson I had, the two Studebakers I still own...I must be a glutton for punishment!
Most people looking for a 180 have a specific purpose in mind - bush flying, floats, skis you name it. You mentioned lack of a float kit...for my purposes, thats a plus. I need a nice, fairly fast cross-country airplane - something that it was originally designed for back in 1953. It's hard to find an original, un-modified 180 for the reason that it is in great demand as a workhorse. I'm the weird guy who likes the stock machine; it suits my purposes fine. Heck, factory paint schemes and big N numbers on the wing really turn me on!
Hope you find the 180 of your dreams - I appreciate your input and advice...keep 'em flying! Russ Farris
Well, TCM won't take my C-145 for a core either, for that matter. All the A parts - cylinders, crank and camshafts are still available new; I talked to TCM and Mattituck. The cylinder cracking was ALL O-470s, prior to the 727 series cylinder, which this engine has. I'm used to orphans - the C-145 on my 170, the Franklin on the Stinson I had, the two Studebakers I still own...I must be a glutton for punishment!
Most people looking for a 180 have a specific purpose in mind - bush flying, floats, skis you name it. You mentioned lack of a float kit...for my purposes, thats a plus. I need a nice, fairly fast cross-country airplane - something that it was originally designed for back in 1953. It's hard to find an original, un-modified 180 for the reason that it is in great demand as a workhorse. I'm the weird guy who likes the stock machine; it suits my purposes fine. Heck, factory paint schemes and big N numbers on the wing really turn me on!
Hope you find the 180 of your dreams - I appreciate your input and advice...keep 'em flying! Russ Farris
All glory is fleeting...
Russ,
Also look out for the O-470J. The "J" stands for junk. My brother had one in his '53 180 and it gave him his share of problems, low compressions, etc. As I understand it, new cylinders are not available for this model. (at least not from ECI or Superior). He switched to a factory new R model and the whole deal cost him close to $25K in the end. Continental did give him $6K for the core as I recall.
Bruce
Also look out for the O-470J. The "J" stands for junk. My brother had one in his '53 180 and it gave him his share of problems, low compressions, etc. As I understand it, new cylinders are not available for this model. (at least not from ECI or Superior). He switched to a factory new R model and the whole deal cost him close to $25K in the end. Continental did give him $6K for the core as I recall.
Bruce
-
Harold Holiman
- Posts: 579
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 pm
Russ/180
Russ,
This is in reply to the statements by Nathan and Bruce. In my opinion. Nathan stated and I have heard before, "If it's a A walk away". As far as I know and have read, after some early problems that were corrected, the only thing I know against the O-470-A is that Continental will not take it as a core and Continental and some other facilities will not rebuild it. This is the same situation as the C-125 and the C-145 which are still flying in many Swifts and 170's. The A was the original engine in tha 1953 180's and most 1954 180's. The engine in the plane you are considering is still airworthy after about 50 years of flying so it must be a decent engine. Bruce stated "J stands for Junk". The O-470-J was the original engine in late 1954 180's and all 1955 180's. It was also the engine of choice when the engine was upgraded in a 53 or 54 as it was listed on the type certificate. Most 55 180's and many 53 and 54 180's are still flying with this O-470-J engine so they must not be junk. I certainly hope mine is not. My engine is a 1956 J which joined my airframe in the 60's or 70's. (I don't have my log books here to look up the date) but it is still running strong about 47 years old, so it must not be junk. Maby in Alaska where they are always flying to the edge of performance they want a later model engine for the 5 extra horsepower and whatever other features, but for the kind of flying I believe most of us in the semi flat areas of the lower 48 do, IMHO a A or J in good shape will do just fine. (Speak up George).
Harold H
This is in reply to the statements by Nathan and Bruce. In my opinion. Nathan stated and I have heard before, "If it's a A walk away". As far as I know and have read, after some early problems that were corrected, the only thing I know against the O-470-A is that Continental will not take it as a core and Continental and some other facilities will not rebuild it. This is the same situation as the C-125 and the C-145 which are still flying in many Swifts and 170's. The A was the original engine in tha 1953 180's and most 1954 180's. The engine in the plane you are considering is still airworthy after about 50 years of flying so it must be a decent engine. Bruce stated "J stands for Junk". The O-470-J was the original engine in late 1954 180's and all 1955 180's. It was also the engine of choice when the engine was upgraded in a 53 or 54 as it was listed on the type certificate. Most 55 180's and many 53 and 54 180's are still flying with this O-470-J engine so they must not be junk. I certainly hope mine is not. My engine is a 1956 J which joined my airframe in the 60's or 70's. (I don't have my log books here to look up the date) but it is still running strong about 47 years old, so it must not be junk. Maby in Alaska where they are always flying to the edge of performance they want a later model engine for the 5 extra horsepower and whatever other features, but for the kind of flying I believe most of us in the semi flat areas of the lower 48 do, IMHO a A or J in good shape will do just fine. (Speak up George).
Harold H
Harold,
I am glad your O-470J is giving you good service. My brother did a major OH on his "J" with the cylinder work by El-Reno. After dropping 12-14K for the OH the thing gave him constant cylinder problems, low compressions, cracking etc. Every annual he was fixing one or more cyls., all within 400 hours from OH. The "J" for junk was something that I heard frequently from him and his A&P's. Don't know if this is a widespread term. The general feeling was that overhauling a "J" isn't worth the money. Can you buy a new cylinder (not OH) for a J anywhere, even from Continental? As I recall he couldn't find one and was constantly looking for serviceable cyls. What is your overhaul history and compressions running at? As for his new R engine, he is quite certain that it is stronger than the old J (stronger than the 5 hp increase suggests) and can really tell on floats.
Independant of this, the IA mech. that maintains my airplane has a 180 with a J in it also. He told me when it runs out he is switching to an R also. He didn't use the term junk, but draw your own conclusions.
I havn't owned a 180 so these are all second hand experiences, but I know I wouldn't buy a 180 with a "J" unless it was priced accordingly. Maybe Kelly could enlighten us with his experience?
Bruce
I am glad your O-470J is giving you good service. My brother did a major OH on his "J" with the cylinder work by El-Reno. After dropping 12-14K for the OH the thing gave him constant cylinder problems, low compressions, cracking etc. Every annual he was fixing one or more cyls., all within 400 hours from OH. The "J" for junk was something that I heard frequently from him and his A&P's. Don't know if this is a widespread term. The general feeling was that overhauling a "J" isn't worth the money. Can you buy a new cylinder (not OH) for a J anywhere, even from Continental? As I recall he couldn't find one and was constantly looking for serviceable cyls. What is your overhaul history and compressions running at? As for his new R engine, he is quite certain that it is stronger than the old J (stronger than the 5 hp increase suggests) and can really tell on floats.
Independant of this, the IA mech. that maintains my airplane has a 180 with a J in it also. He told me when it runs out he is switching to an R also. He didn't use the term junk, but draw your own conclusions.
I havn't owned a 180 so these are all second hand experiences, but I know I wouldn't buy a 180 with a "J" unless it was priced accordingly. Maybe Kelly could enlighten us with his experience?
Bruce
Another thing to consider, is if you do get your hands on a good
running J, it's around 35+ pounds lighter than a K or R. If you're
into keeping an airplane as light as possible, a good J might be
the way to go.
The other thing with the A and J is the two-bolt flange exhaust.
They tend to warp (the flanges are very thin) and then hot
exhaust gasses tend to erode the cylinder head exhaust ports.
The R, K (L, etc.) went to a superior 4-bolt exhaust flange design,
and there are a number of exhaust rebuilders that will weld a thicker
than stock flange on (they'll weld a thicker two-bolt flange on as well).
The '53 180 I'm eyeballing has a good running J on it, but it
does leak a good amount of oil.....
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
running J, it's around 35+ pounds lighter than a K or R. If you're
into keeping an airplane as light as possible, a good J might be
the way to go.
The other thing with the A and J is the two-bolt flange exhaust.
They tend to warp (the flanges are very thin) and then hot
exhaust gasses tend to erode the cylinder head exhaust ports.
The R, K (L, etc.) went to a superior 4-bolt exhaust flange design,
and there are a number of exhaust rebuilders that will weld a thicker
than stock flange on (they'll weld a thicker two-bolt flange on as well).
The '53 180 I'm eyeballing has a good running J on it, but it
does leak a good amount of oil.....
Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP
-
russfarris
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 2:25 am
I'm starting to overload from all this airplane buying stuff, but here's what I've found.
You CAN buy new cylinders for the O-470A and J (parallel valve, instead of angled valve as used in the other O-470s) but only TCM makes them.
Mattituck, G & N and Lycon will major these engines. All parts are available, either from TCM or aftermarket. I suspect the reason TCM won't take an A for a core is the small market for them out there.
I'm beginning to understand a pattern here. Sometimes, for reasons not always fair, a product will get a bad rep. The Edsel, which has attained the legendary staus of the worlds biggest failure, was actually a good car,
and better than most of it's contempories. The hideous styling is what did it in. Same with Studebakers - I've driven over 100,000 miles in them since 1988, and was left stranded just once.
I haven't seen any hard evidence that the O-470A or J is any less reliable than the other, later models. Anecdotal evidence is interesting, sure - i.e my friend had a J or K or whatever that was absolute junk - but without knowing the whole story, it doesn't really mean that much.
There are no ADs against the A model I could find that don't affect all O-470s. And Light Plane Maintenance magazine, about as picky as any bunch out there, has done an entire article about all of the O-470s, including the A and the background of problems with these engines. Nothing was singled out about the A (they did talk at length about the R.)
I'm feeling more comfortable all the time about getting this airplane, which for 49 years and 3,700 hours has happily soldiered along on it's original engine - the venerable O-470A. Russ Farris
You CAN buy new cylinders for the O-470A and J (parallel valve, instead of angled valve as used in the other O-470s) but only TCM makes them.
Mattituck, G & N and Lycon will major these engines. All parts are available, either from TCM or aftermarket. I suspect the reason TCM won't take an A for a core is the small market for them out there.
I'm beginning to understand a pattern here. Sometimes, for reasons not always fair, a product will get a bad rep. The Edsel, which has attained the legendary staus of the worlds biggest failure, was actually a good car,
and better than most of it's contempories. The hideous styling is what did it in. Same with Studebakers - I've driven over 100,000 miles in them since 1988, and was left stranded just once.
I haven't seen any hard evidence that the O-470A or J is any less reliable than the other, later models. Anecdotal evidence is interesting, sure - i.e my friend had a J or K or whatever that was absolute junk - but without knowing the whole story, it doesn't really mean that much.
There are no ADs against the A model I could find that don't affect all O-470s. And Light Plane Maintenance magazine, about as picky as any bunch out there, has done an entire article about all of the O-470s, including the A and the background of problems with these engines. Nothing was singled out about the A (they did talk at length about the R.)
I'm feeling more comfortable all the time about getting this airplane, which for 49 years and 3,700 hours has happily soldiered along on it's original engine - the venerable O-470A. Russ Farris
All glory is fleeting...
Styling is not what did Studebaker in! (Remember the Starlight Coupe and the Avanti?) It was cut-throat competition similar to what the Big-3 did to Taylor. Studebaker engineering was superior. Ford paid Studebaker for their 3-speed, overdrive automatic transmisison (which used ordinary engine oil) on the agreement they'd sell 20% of all they made to Studebaker. When the deal was signed and the tooling delivered to Ford, Henry's boys put all the tooling in the furnace and locked the patents away in a drawer. They wanted to produce their own 2-speed "Fordamatic" and didn't want to stand the competition from Studebaker who was just out-foxed.
Studebaker went on to make tens of thousands of P&W 1830's for airplanes and earned the Presidential "E" award for quality control and reliability. After the war the public went for cheap an no longer would by Studebakers and Packards (another Studebaker product line.)
But I'm singin' to the choir, so I'll just shut up now.
I traded my Aeronca for a '51 bullet-nosed Studebaker Starlight Coupe. What a great car. Anybody but Russ know what "hill holder" was? The coupe had it.
Studebaker went on to make tens of thousands of P&W 1830's for airplanes and earned the Presidential "E" award for quality control and reliability. After the war the public went for cheap an no longer would by Studebakers and Packards (another Studebaker product line.)
But I'm singin' to the choir, so I'll just shut up now.
I traded my Aeronca for a '51 bullet-nosed Studebaker Starlight Coupe. What a great car. Anybody but Russ know what "hill holder" was? The coupe had it.
Russ,russfarris wrote: I haven't seen any hard evidence that the O-470A or J is any less reliable than the other, later models. Anecdotal evidence is interesting, sure - i.e my friend had a J or K or whatever that was absolute junk - but without knowing the whole story, it doesn't really mean that much.
Well ya git what ya pay for here and it maybe tain't worth much. So why don't you pose the "A" and "J" series performance and service question to the Skywagon.org group message board. Hopefully you will get a more qualified response. Or maybe call 2 or 3 of the busier A&P's who are annualing/fixing a dozen or more 180's a year and see what they say. It should go without saying that the "A just walk away" and "J is junk" are just clever slogans and generalities and that not every engine is a nightmare of maintenance. Good luck with your "A" engine if you buy this airframe youv'e been lusting after.
My anecdote and I'm sticking to it, Bruce
Hill Holder
If memory serves me correctly, the hill holder was when you came up to a stop light, pushed the clutch pedal all the way to the floor it engaged the parking brake (emergency brake) so you didn't have to burn your clutch. Is that about right? Don't recall how it (the brake) released when you let out on the clutch though.
Seems that I also remember some models had the starter button on the floor board and you pushed the clutch pedal to the floor to engage the starter, thus preventing the starter from causing the car to move forward or reverse while starting the engine.
Seems that I also remember some models had the starter button on the floor board and you pushed the clutch pedal to the floor to engage the starter, thus preventing the starter from causing the car to move forward or reverse while starting the engine.
Pretty close, Frank!
There was a check-ball type valve in the brake lines below the floorboards. When you came to a stop using the brake and pressed the clutch in, the check ball (if you were pointed up the hill) would roll to the rear of it's valve-body and capture the existing brake fluid pressure in the system. That way you could release the brake and the car would remain stationary. When the light turned green, and you revved the engine and let the clutch out, the clutch mechanism unseated that check ball and release the brake pressure to allow you to begin movement.
It only worked pointed uphill, and was simple and troublefree. Subaru bought the patent and offered it as an option in the late '70's/early 80's but no one knew anything about it, never ordered it, and so they quit offering it. Pity. Another great Studebaker innovation (along with automatic transmissions, electric windshield wipers (until Studebaker they were all vacuum driven and would stop wiping when accelerating), selectable overdrive, and exhaust-driven turbo-chargers.
There was a check-ball type valve in the brake lines below the floorboards. When you came to a stop using the brake and pressed the clutch in, the check ball (if you were pointed up the hill) would roll to the rear of it's valve-body and capture the existing brake fluid pressure in the system. That way you could release the brake and the car would remain stationary. When the light turned green, and you revved the engine and let the clutch out, the clutch mechanism unseated that check ball and release the brake pressure to allow you to begin movement.
It only worked pointed uphill, and was simple and troublefree. Subaru bought the patent and offered it as an option in the late '70's/early 80's but no one knew anything about it, never ordered it, and so they quit offering it. Pity. Another great Studebaker innovation (along with automatic transmissions, electric windshield wipers (until Studebaker they were all vacuum driven and would stop wiping when accelerating), selectable overdrive, and exhaust-driven turbo-chargers.
IA & AP
I have a friend in Chicago who is very good. The name of the Co. is E&H Aviation Inc. The persons name is Hans Heidinger, good Irishman huh? When you call you will most likely receive his answer machine. Leave a message and he will return shortly. 773 528-4477. He is not cheap but GOOD. See if you can make a deal? Also tell him that Fred Hauser from "Welcome Field in KY recommended him.
-
Harold Holiman
- Posts: 579
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 pm
180
Russ,
Did you buy the "overgrown 170 with the funny tail" (180) this weekend? If you did I know you will enjoy it. My annual was finally completed and I flew mine for the first time yesterday since I got home from Wilmington. I flew down to the strip south of us where the other plane I was telling you about is getting the rebuilt engine mount. It is a sharp looking 1953 with; J engine, recent paint, wheel pants, leather interior, Flint tanks, auto pilot, and even has built in oxygen. He just bought it about a month ago and this was the first time I had seen it. Good luck with your new plane.
Harold H
Mbr # 893
Did you buy the "overgrown 170 with the funny tail" (180) this weekend? If you did I know you will enjoy it. My annual was finally completed and I flew mine for the first time yesterday since I got home from Wilmington. I flew down to the strip south of us where the other plane I was telling you about is getting the rebuilt engine mount. It is a sharp looking 1953 with; J engine, recent paint, wheel pants, leather interior, Flint tanks, auto pilot, and even has built in oxygen. He just bought it about a month ago and this was the first time I had seen it. Good luck with your new plane.
Harold H
Mbr # 893
-
Harold Holiman
- Posts: 579
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 pm
Hi George,
When you put your "magic touch" on my voltage regulator connection you apparantly cured my problem. As I had mentioned it had quit charging twice before but had "fixed itself" before I could find what the problem was. Thanks again. We plan on going to the 04 convention. We have been planning on flying ourselves but may reconsider this. I figure N92CP will burn about $350.00 worth of fuel each way plus one night in a motel each way. I checked Travelocity today and we can fly the big bird from ATL to LAX for $258.00 each round trip. Since we plan on renting a car anyway when we get there, we may decide to do this and drive from LAX. Oh well, we still have close to a year to decide how to go. Any comments from anybody are appreciated.
You may already be planning on it, but if not, why don't you suggest to Miles that you have your maintenance forum at the airport on airport day rather than at the motel so that you can use features on various airplanes as examples.
The Cessna 180/185 Club just reworked their web site and included the membership directory in the members only section. It will search by; 1. last name, 2. N number, or 3. state/provence/country listing. I e-mailed Velvet and suggested that she might want to consider adding our membership directory to our club site. Any ideas on this?
Just kind of rambling. Keep it out of those trees.
Harold H
Mbr #893
When you put your "magic touch" on my voltage regulator connection you apparantly cured my problem. As I had mentioned it had quit charging twice before but had "fixed itself" before I could find what the problem was. Thanks again. We plan on going to the 04 convention. We have been planning on flying ourselves but may reconsider this. I figure N92CP will burn about $350.00 worth of fuel each way plus one night in a motel each way. I checked Travelocity today and we can fly the big bird from ATL to LAX for $258.00 each round trip. Since we plan on renting a car anyway when we get there, we may decide to do this and drive from LAX. Oh well, we still have close to a year to decide how to go. Any comments from anybody are appreciated.
You may already be planning on it, but if not, why don't you suggest to Miles that you have your maintenance forum at the airport on airport day rather than at the motel so that you can use features on various airplanes as examples.
The Cessna 180/185 Club just reworked their web site and included the membership directory in the members only section. It will search by; 1. last name, 2. N number, or 3. state/provence/country listing. I e-mailed Velvet and suggested that she might want to consider adding our membership directory to our club site. Any ideas on this?
Just kind of rambling. Keep it out of those trees.
Harold H
Mbr #893