Yes; much better to buy a plane with a “finished” or “suspect corroded” engine and discounted by the OH cost, than to risk an engine freshly overhauled by a dodgy shop. I know of a shop, mainland Europe, whose “overhaul” is just new cylinders and a freshly painted crankcase 
But, reportedly, it is quite cheap. EASA145 of course so the job is perfect…..
My choice in a 182 would of be one of the very first, with the narrow fast back fuselage
Up until the 182D they had 180/185 fuselages with stabilator trim. The 182A and 182B are the preferred early types as they lowered the landing gear slightly in the A and added a baggage door, these types have the straight tail fin with improved spin recovery over the swept tail which was introduced with the C. The C has the reputation of being the fastest.
The A and B have a relatively well trodden STC path to convert them to tailwheel.
Upgrading an A or B with a 206 nose fork and a 520 engine is de rigeur amongst the 182 cognoscenti. You then get a 150 KTAS STOL with retro looks.
@RobertL18C, thanks for those details. The 182A in addition to lowering the height of the landing gear etc. also increased the gross weight by 100 lbs.
Any pre-Omni Vision (before 1962) would work for me, not coverted back to tailwheel as I don’t fly into many unpaved runways. Same as with Tri Pacers, for most flying I think they’re better the way they came.
It is possible to operate the aircraft above the manufacturer’s TBO times.
You need to submit a request to AustroControl along with the specified maintenance plan that ensure it will continue to safely operate.
The same is true for engines beyond age TBO as well.
It should just be a formality that costs time, fees and ultimately, probably a switch from 100 hour maintenance inspections to 50 hour mx inspections.
For all fans of fastback Cessnas WF of this parish has a nice example on sale.
Thanks for the plug Robert :-)
N4242C is a fine retro classic to fly, I know the last 4 owners and they all loved it. The previous owner of the 172C bought a Cessna 175B. He reckons the 175B is much better performance wise with the 175hp engine vs 145hp. I’m looking forward to getting a spin in it and it’s also for sale. I get alot of pushback on 60’s airplanes especially Pipers with plunger throttles and no toe brakes. Old Cessna’s too seem to be lost on people who learned to fly in the 1970’s & 80’s airplanes in most flight schools. I’ll happily fly airplanes with the old style instrument panels, but lots of people are not taken with them. I see my 1946 airplane being as reliable as a 2006 one!
Continuing from MedEwok’s kit aeroplane, we have recently acquired a modern plastic aircraft. It is used for delivering food supplies, but many flights have problems with unloading and accidental jettisoning. It is twin engine to allow nose-mounted cargo, and whilst the pilot is not rated multi-engine, the flights are short and often one way, the return involving recovery by ground. There is a high risk of hijack, usually resulting in a crash, but the aircraft’s flat bottom means it can escape at very low level using ground effect; on smooth flat surfaces its performance is remarkable, and when considering its limited service ceiling (little higher than the pilot), it may actually be an ekranoplan. Whilst inverted flight is inadvisable when carrying the external load, it is normally fully aerobatic. For environmental reasons, jettisoned cargo may require a time-consuming clean-up operation.
I dare you to call out on short final.. “HERE comes the airplane!!” :)
I see the RWY-lighting is as sophisticated as this modern plastic twin
Why does the picture remind me of the film King Kong? 
