Can’t go wrong with an 182. But that engine will be $30K minimum before all is said and done.
Peter wrote:
Can’t one go past 2k hrs in Germany? If the engine has good compressions and good oil analysis etc, and has no obvious suspect dormant periods, it is normal to do that.
Yes you can go above TBO here as a private owner, AFAIK.
Somebody I know has made an offer on that C182 which he tells me has been accepted.
The Q is one of the better models especially if Reims built as they had zinc chromating.
A run out engine 182 would not command more than £35k in the UK, typically.
The Q is not mogas approved (which the earlier models are), which is a sizable cost advantage where mogas is common (Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Czech, Italy).
The advantage of the Q if operated mostly in Germany (as opposed to earler models) is that it satisfies the highest German noise standards, so you get cheap landing fees.
The 182 in general is a lovely family plane. Large cabin, good payload and benign flight characteristics would have made it interesting for you I suppose.
In general a run out engine is not the great show stopper I´d run away from as the cost for an overhaul / replacement are fairly well known and can be calculated into the budget. I´d expect that this one if well cared for could do a few hundred “free” hours still and then an O470 is not the most expensive engine to have overhauled.
Incidently, here is a Turbo Arrow which has come up for sale in Austria, what I hear as the club owning it does not have the money to have the engine overhauled.
http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=38229
This is pretty much a fly away airplane in private ops. It has everything it needs in terms of avionics and can run for some more time before the engine needs to be done. Once this does happen, that plane will imho gain a bit of value. I´d say that the current price tag is optimistic and it could maybe be bought for a similar amoun than the Cessna in the add.
Friend of mine runs the sistership of OE-KNN (OE-DSN) which he bought under similar conditions. He has upgraded it massively since then but has not yet had to do the engine. And he is quite happy with it as a family ship.
Looks like a real option for you. As people have said, you might get a few hundred more hours out of the engine. Nice autopilot. I would take a look and find out how flexible they are on price.
With an older 182, however, i would prefer Mogas capable (up to 1975, I believe).
A 182 is the obvious choice for somebody who would like to carry people and… almost anything else. Many discussions on the subject of selecting a plane seems to eventually gravitate towards the 182 as the rational choice. The real only problem with a 182 is that like driving an SUV on the roads, you pay in fuel burn on every flight for huge load capacity that you use on only a fraction of those flights.
My choice in a 182 would of be one of the very first, with the narrow fast back fuselage, on the basis of weight and performance. Many prefer later 182s for different reasons – like a more modern instrument panel.
BTW I agree with @Mooney_driver that a run out engine is not a show stopper if priced right. The cost of OH is known, unlike the cost in labor of chasing myriad other squawks. I would take a run out with updated avionics and clean airframe over a new engine in a bad plane any day.
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
I would take a run out with updated avionics and clean airframe over a new engine in a bad plane any day.
Even for the engine alone, I would be much more confident to have the engine overhauled and broken in myself, rather than buying a plane with just the essential first 30-50 hours flown after an overhaul.
