Anyone who has owned multiple car projects at one time understands how easy it is to grab a few parts cars, maybe a decent donor car, and crates full of parts for a deserving restoration candidate without thinking about it. We perceive there to be tremendous value in having our own parts car to raid, HOA be damned! Well, aircraft enthusiasts suffer from the same affliction and the seller of this 1974 Cessna Skyhawk notes that they bought this for an “STC project” that never materialized. They already own a Beechcraft and have no need for this one, so it’s up for sale here on eBay with an asking price of $109K.
The words “STC project” were new to me, but it essentially seems to be a way to describe modifying or converting an airplane for a new purpose, not entirely unlike how Singer takes 964-chassis 911s and makes them into entirely new cars. I cannot claim to have the sort of expertise necessary to understand what good a plane like this is as the basis for converting into something else. Heck, I would find a far rattier example to disassemble and modify in order to preserve what looks like a survivor aircraft. The seller does note that while the paint may look decent, it evidently gets pretty tired, pretty quickly, the closer you get. It is original paint, however, which is a bit of a testament to whoever owned this Cessna previously for attempting to preserve as much of the plane’s originality as possible.
“Low hours” has the same connotation in the plane world as “low miles” does in the car world. Except that when it comes to airplanes, it’s far harder to fake limited use given the checks and balances the FAA requires of every owner. In fact, that may help explain why you would choose to cut up a perfectly good aircraft: you can’t get there with a basketcase in the plane world like you can with a car. A car you can fix the rust, refresh the engine and suspension, and as long as you and your mechanic are comfortable with the end result, drive it off into the sunset. You can’t just take a rough donor aircraft, complete your conversion, and then take to the skies. If you’re going to build an airplane to your own specifications, you need to be prepared for the FAA to be evaluating your work on an ongoing basis.
Some of the best news about this particular plane is that it comes with its original logbooks, all the way back to when it was delivered new. It also recently just finished its annual inspection report, with the compression test confirming an even 70 degrees across all cylinders. It will come with wheel pants, in case you were wondering, Overall, this seems like a very sound aircraft that will hopefully return to the skies as a complete machine and not the basis for a conversion project – unless, of course, Singer is getting into private pleasurecraft.
I’ve heard of a fly in, drive home…
If someone attempts the opposite, I hope they leave the Go-Pro at home….
Two things.
First, realizing that I haven’t been in the market for a while, but $109k seems rich for a ’74 Cessna 172M.
Second, STC stands for Supplemental Type Certificate. Any modification to a certificated type aircraft (Cessna, Piper, etc) requires an STC. Examples on my Piper Cherokee. When we upgraded the engine – STC. When we swapped out the stock wingtips for Hoerner wingtips – STC. When we installed the Garmin GPS/Radio, you guessed it – STC. Some things arguably should not require STC’s, but IMO, the manufacturer of the modified part does not want to wrestle with the FAA, so they take the time/effort to get an STC. Want to avoid to whole STC mess? Either leave your plane dead stock or build your own airplane (reference the EAA).
“the manufacturer of the modified part does not want to wrestle with the FAA”? The manufactures do, in fact, “wrestle” with the FAA to get the part approved for particular airframes to obtain the STC. Then the aircraft owner just fills out form 337 showing the part was installed correctly and have the log book entry signed off. People can’t just bolt unapproved parts on their airplanes unless they want to register it in the experimental category. Meanwhile, this is just another used airplane for sale with outdated instruments and radios.
I really wish you wouldn’t post listings like this, it gets me all excited and I start thinking and fantasizing about how this would be perfect for me. I started flying in the late 60’s flew allot of Cessna’s , I could get current, what better than a B/F Airplane. Then reality sinks in and I think what are you smoking you couldn’t do that. But, thanks any way I get to spend a little nostalgia, in my what if world.
Joe, if you started flying in the late 60’s your not that much older than me. If you really would like to go back to flying, there are options.
If you’re fit overall, but have concerns about passing a FAA Medical Exam, two options. First, look into BasicMed. Second, think about going the Sport Pilot route.
Access to an airplane without swallowing the whole nut financially, look into a flying club.
Good luck to you.
This thing having its books dating back to new gives it its higher value.
I learned to drive a 10 speed dump truck by just jumping into it and figuring it out, I wonder if I can use that same idea here to get it home, because it will work until it doesn’t.
Virtually all airplanes have the log books since new. They don’t add value, but missing logbooks will decrease value because reconstructing them can be difficult or impossible. There isn’t nearly enough information in the ad to justify the price.
I got my Pilot’s License in a 172 at Otis AFB back in the late 60’s. These are nice planes to learn in. Jumping into a venture like this can be costly. I’m a licensed FAA, A&P mechanic and have been down this road before with a friends 150. Nothing is inexpensive when it comes to aircraft.
I can’t make sense of a compression test revealing 70 degrees across all cylinders.
Can’t tell you how many hours I have in that model. In fact, while it was rolling off the assembly line in Wichita, I was beginning my flight training.
STC means Supplemental Type Certificate. The owner of this plane probably wanted a larger engine. Unlike cars, you can’t just stuff the biggest engine that’ll fit into the engine compartment.
There are many modifiers in the aviation world who will take a look at some airframe or other, then the projected market for the change they want to make, then go about performing the change to the airframe under the watchful eye of the FAA.
Depending on the change, it may take 100’s of hours of very specific tasks performed in the air and on the ground, in order to satisfy the FAA that this airframe, with the modifications, is as airworthy as the original plane.
Once all of the requirements are satisfied, the aircraft as modified is awarded its STC. At that point, the certificate holder is free to attempt to market that STC to those who might want a similar modification to their own airframe, without having to spend the (usually) massive amount of time, money and engineering talent to do it themselves. Often an STC is used to increase the engine displacement or horsepower. A plane to be used to tow gliders or banners will almost always have such an engine upgrade.
Often, there are aerodynamic upgrades to the airframe that are desired in order to reduce drag, shorten takeoff and or landing distances, etc.
There are also range extending devices like wing tanks, aesthetic and safety related upgrades such as one-piece windshields and additional windows, and even the ability to legally use cheaper automotive fuel instead of avgas.
The number and type of STC’s available are myriad, and apply to the lightest of the certificated 2 seaters, to the largest commercial jets.
The author of this piece on the 172 approached it from the angle that STC’s are bad things and that one shouldn’t want to “cut up” a stock airplane, much like putting an LS engine into a 1940 Lincoln. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ideal candidate for an STC modification is the best example of the airplane that can be found; therefore, the subject of this article is a fine candidate – depending on the mods desired.
Pilots tend to be a practical lot. Anything that makes their aircraft better is seen as a step up. Modifications to aircraft are limited more by the capacity of one’s wallet and projected mission, than by some nebulous desire to maintain “stockness”.
Also; aircraft are in all ways superior to automobiles within the realm of their intended respective uses. Airworthy aircraft must be subject to annual inspections at the very least. Nearly all systems are reviewed and repaired / upgraded as needed by an A&P certified mechanic, whose basic education takes between 18 and 30 months to complete, plus experience. If in-service aircraft are discovered to have some sort of safety / functionality issue, the FAA may require immediate repair through an “Airworthiness Directive” / AD.
In order to become a Toyota mechanic, you need at least enough tools to do the job and a method of getting people to let you work on their cars.
50-year-old cars are seldom seen, unless they have undergone an off-frame complete restoration (I’m doing that for my 1968 Olds 442 Convertible, now). 50 year old aircraft are very common. It’s because of the nearly continuous modification, maintenance and upgrading they undergo.
While completely unmodified show planes are certainly desirable in their own way, there is rarely any prejudicial penalty paid for those who want better performance from theirs, the exception being some “Warbirds” or military collectibles. As an example: if I could substantially reduce the stall speed of my aircraft’s wing and its stall characteristics, thus increasing controlability and safety, why wouldn’t I?
…this is just one person’s opinion, though.
Having log books back to when new makes this aircraft worth no more – it is expected to have all the logbooks. Anyone interested in this should look carefully at the registration, is it has been reclassified as EXPERIMENTAL for airworthiness.
I wouldn’t pay half this amount for a 172M, and the AW Class makes it worth even less to me. The pictures speak much less than 1,000 words to me, and those words likely are all 4-letter.
For 109K, I want to see pristine paint, no gaping holes in the instrument panel, and compression readings at 75 or above. Those numbers of “even 70s” (warm, or cold?) don’t entice me at all. Put another 25 hours on that hangar queen, and they are likely a lot lower.
The Experimental Class and Approved Operations Codes, Research and Development make this an undesirable aircraft for me. Anyone wanting to bid had better know what they are getting them selves into, because they are basically roped into a 2 seat, 4 place airplane. Once reclassified, you cannot go back to the previous category.
Absolutely no offense intended, but I see no evidence that this aircraft has been reclassified into an EXPERIMENTAL category…
https://www.regosearch.com/aircraft/us/759S
Actually, there are 9 different experimental categories, some of which were designed for Market Research, Research and Development, and Exhibition. Each has differing paths back to certificated status.
BTW – I’m not this knowledgeable. I called the EAA in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, where a representative was kind enough to fill in a few of the gaps.
https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-building/intro-to-aircraft-building/frequently-asked-questions/type-certificated-aircraft-components-in-homebuilt-aircraft
No disrespect intended.
This should be on Hanger Finds.
Nice aircraft… That’s what I began lessons in at Charlie Brown Airport , Atlanta, years ago. Will there be a cold start and a ‘driving’ video ? Asking for a friend.
One of my biggest regrets in life, is not learning to fly. I did the diesel rig thing with all my buddies ( and had a blast, I might add) instead and after millions of miles on the ground I am so burnt out on the crap of driving, flying is truly the best option today, small plane, all the better. Top wing, much better for view, I know nothing of the regs, and I’m sure will make a novice’ head spin, sounds like a PITA, as usual, can’t have any ding-a-ling flying a plane. Even though, they have the highest crash numbers, besides helicopters, they rarely kill anyone but the plane occupants in a crash. Kudos to the folks that went for it, flying in a small plane is the best. And don’t say “it’s not too late”,,,trust me, it’s too late, and that’s okay. I don’t want to go anywhere the Jeep won’t take me anyway, and that’s not very far.