I’ve actually done that engine STC on a 175. However we used the 470-j from a 180 and built a custom exhaust that came out of the back of the cowling by the nose gear. We also added a Horton STOL kit to it at the same time. The performance on that plane was amazing. You had to work really hard to make it do power on stalls, it could practically hang on the prop.
I learned to fly in a 175 in the 70’s. Then I bought one several years ago. Good plane and never had any issues. I upgraded afterward but have a soft spot for it.
I had it pegged as a 175 as soon as I saw the nose, but the nose didn't stick up as much as I'm used to on a 175 and when you said it had a 470, I thought "182", but it didn't look quite right. I've owned a 182 and this looks even better with lighter weight and aluminum tanks. A real puzzler with the mods. Looks like a great airplane.
Knew it the moment the camera showed the full cowling......I owned one back in 70-72....loved it....flew it with a skydiving club, cause it had a "flight with door removed" placard.....sadly, it was totaled by a small tornado that touched down, hit it and a J-3 parked in front of the avionics repair shop.....I had just had the panel redone.....loved the way that plane handled....I used to land it on the beach at St. George Island prior to an airstrip being constructed.....had a pasture that was basically a 20 acre field that made a perfect place to operate from, as long as the cows were still pinned.....on take off, stand on brakes, full elevator back pressure, add full power....as soon as the aircraft moved 100 ft, pull 30 degree's flaps....it would pop off the ground....nose it level, speed to 50 kts and manually eeaassee the flaps up to 10 and she would climb like a hawk (this was was light, no more than 1/2 fuel and one passenger)....I had 60-70 foot pines all around.....cleared them with no problems, ever. RIP 23Mike!
I didn’t know the year, but literally at 0:16 I guessed a 175 from what you were saying. I flew in one once as a kid in the early ‘60’s with my father.
That was fun. Thanks for the great videos Mark. I got it around 2:30 when you showed the fuel tanks, 1959 C-175 Skylark. Having the engine changed out had me guessing in the beginning of the video. Looks like it has the same small trim wheel as a 1959 172 that I sometimes fly. I really enjoy your videos. Keep up the great work!
59 Cessna 175 but that is all a knew, engine and tail is what gave it to me before you told us. I preferred the straight tail and 40 degree flaps of these over the newer ones.
I could tell this was modified as the 'hump' in the cowl, behind the prop, was missing. My first 'ride' was in the right seat of a C-175. It was a '62/'63 swept tail with original engine. LOVED IT! Flew it many times after I got my 'Ticket' The manual flaps will build muscles in your right arm
I knew right away, I owned a 58 with the GO-300 just a few N #'s different, my dad owned 2 over the years, a 60 & a 61 with the swept tail and the hump in the hood for the gear box. All wonderful airplanes. I have a 60 182 now but sure miss the lighter 175's
The other reason GO-300 engines suck is the bearing in the gear box right behind the prop. If the airplane sits for a long time, that bearing will become dry and fail upon starting the engine. It's a big $ repair.
A friend had one of the rare P172D "Powermatic" versions. It was the geared engine with a constant speed prop and a tach that read prop rpm. Also had cowl flaps. Trying to rebrand it as a souped up 172 came too late in the game.
I almost got it but when I didn't see the raised lip behind the spinner I thought it must be a 180 conversion. Silly me! I owned a 175 with the 180 Lyc. and constant speed prop and it surely could get off the earth quickly. I had it in ground effect in 225 ft. with only 6 mph wind. I did have a STOL wing mod and wing gap seals. Only thing is it had a RPM restriction that kept me from getting more fuel economy in my mind. Enjoy your videos.
Hi Mark. I figured it out at 23hr mark🤷♂️. I saw a 1958 c-175 with O-470R conversion at Pancake fly-in July 4th weekend. You came close to the airport on your 53 180 ferry from Spokane to Kyle’s place
You gave it away at 1:06 with a quick view of the tail #. But I was thinking 175 anyway as we had one on the line when I became a flight instructor quite a few years ago.
At first I thought it was a 182 A or B but then I saw that it was not trimmed on the rear stabilizer. When I saw the drawing behind the window of the bird I recognized that it was a 175 Skylark. I had the opportunity to work on the annual inspection of one here in Argentina that had exactly the same bird painted but on the tail, that plane did not have a straight tail, it was surely a more modern model. Very good plane.
Hey, Mark. I did not correctly identify the plane, but I probably should have. In August 2019, I got the bush flying bug when I was instructed by Jeff Fouche of Latitude Aviation in Coeur d' Alene, ID. Jeff has a nice 175 that was converted to a tail wheel with VGs, a sweet setup.
1959 Cessna 175 with an O-470. Had it at 1:04. I had a student pilot one of those many years ago when i was still flight instructing. The one I flew still had the geared engine in it.
:41 seconds approx. Cessna 175. Saw one in 1987 when I met a gentleman on his way to Alaska. Put him up in our home overnight to give him a break from sleeping under the wing. That was central Alberta, summer of 87.
The O470 threw me off to guess it early on. I owned a '58 for a lot of years. Wish I had it back. And the key to the GO-0300 is to let the engine turn up. Mine was 400 hrs past TBO and running great when I sold it. One of the dumbest things I ever did was selling her. I'm also an A&P.
@@stertsleper 3200 or better. If long cross country, leave it fire walled till you start your decent. Then retard throttle a little at a time, still keeping a lean mixture till on final. Dont run the engine slow till on down wind. Do cruise climbs for better engine cooling. And don't forget to lean the mixture. ALWAYS! Get Mike Busch's book on Engines. I started operating engines as he describes in the book in the '90s. IT WORKS. People thought i was nuts and would destroy my engine. I got the last laugh. I also flew a 421c and operated the same. Those engines were both over TBO and running like a top. The GO-300 is a great engine if operated as it was designed to be run. Imported point to remember, rpm does not destroy engines. Mismanagement does. Poor Maintaince, bad fuel, dirty oil, leaking cooling baffles, and so on. Read Mikes book. He's correct!
I have very little knowledge about aircraft, but I’m going to take a guess at 1:27 that this was the first Cessna aircraft to use the skywagon name, which I do know was the Cessna 180 1973. Just thought that would be very matching for the channel.
At 3:32 I paused the video. I'm guessing it's a late 50s C180. Unsure about the mods or other specs though. Love the unique control yoke. Never seen that before.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Yep, the first minute is classic Q. I'm waiting for the revue of Wonder Woman's invisible jet ( Ala the Aston Martin in " Die Another Day " )
My first guess was a 175... Have riden in a new version of the 175. They were great planes that I think Cessna could have done better marketing on to make it more successful.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 I have that impression, because I recently flew only IO540 C182s, but thinking back, a O470 is a lighter nose. Got that now. Thank you.
At 0:01 I guessed C175 at the first sight of the prop spinner’s higher centreline. The top of the cowling looks wrong as it should have a humped bit to streamline with the spinner. It looks like the cowling has been modified, or is from another aircraft, as there is no hump.
Not being a Cessna buff I had it pegged as a early 172 till you tossed out the O-470. I have seen a GO-300 with the gear case broken off the top of the case from low power resonance. Luckily the pilot was in the pattern at the time of the failure.
Low power resonance us what killed a lot of GO-300's. Pilot's thinking that they were being nice to the engine by running it below where it was designed to run. Still only a 1200 TBO on a good day though so the 3300 did wear them out.
Hey Mark I know where one is which is a 1960 Cessna Skylark with the Geared Prop and you have to keep the RPM above a 1000 during your approach to landing like you would in a 182
Hi Mark. Actually it’s NOT a Skylark. It’s just a 175 with no bump on the front of the cowl so it must be a 1958 model. The 1959 model started the Skylark name (175A) and a bump on the top cowl. That’s my guess sir
I thought 175 at 1:29 or so. When you said like straight tail 182 the only other thing I could think of was 175. I didn't know a lot about it though, like the geared 470 etc.
0:11 seconds… cessna 175. They make a great tailwheel when converted. Almost bought a 1959 to do a conversion but it wasn’t going to pencil out for me in the end.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Neat gotcha video. I flew the 175. Nice bird but as you said, folks couldn’t understand how to run it. I imagine the lightness of the airframe with the big Continental makes for nice back country performance. Is it nose heavy? Are the controls still balanced/adequate with the extra power? Any experience/contrast with the Lycoming conversions as far as performance and handling?
@@skywagonuniversity5023 It was a guess as I knew of the rarity ofthis aircraft while working at Cessna. Later production test pilot for short time. Cessna has an excellent library.
Just curious.... Does anyone else have a problem with Mark's video quality? The colors are messed up. I don't have any issues with other youtube videos.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Hi Mark. It could be on my end but it looks like your red color doesn't line up with the green and blue. I see a ghost image of everything just higher of the main images. Thanks for all your videos. I do enjoy them.
I got that it is a 175 but that was all. As you said, would make a decent back country aircraft. Didn’t you show a newer model with bigger tires etc. Some time ago? Anyway, I like it 👍🏼🎶💰💰
Flew a stock 175 to the Reno Air Races from CCR to RNO and back in 1968 with a prospective buyer. A cracked piston resulted in an incredible amount of oil consumption. It could have been much worse. OK airplane, bad engine.
I’ve actually done that engine STC on a 175. However we used the 470-j from a 180 and built a custom exhaust that came out of the back of the cowling by the nose gear. We also added a Horton STOL kit to it at the same time. The performance on that plane was amazing. You had to work really hard to make it do power on stalls, it could practically hang on the prop.
I learned to fly in a 175 in the 70’s. Then I bought one several years ago. Good plane and never had any issues. I upgraded afterward but have a soft spot for it.
I had it pegged as a 175 as soon as I saw the nose, but the nose didn't stick up as much as I'm used to on a 175 and when you said it had a 470, I thought "182", but it didn't look quite right. I've owned a 182 and this looks even better with lighter weight and aluminum tanks. A real puzzler with the mods. Looks like a great airplane.
She's a great old bird. Like a 182 now.
At 0:02 mark when I saw the prop and cowl I said ‘175’
The next fun game is to guess the plane as it flies over just based on the sound it makes…:-)
Juan. I wish we had good enough sound to do that.
There was that fly by both of you did recently did in the Beech Bonanza. Maybe for obscurity a fly by of a Beech Starship? Or SR-70 ?
Knew it the moment the camera showed the full cowling......I owned one back in 70-72....loved it....flew it with a skydiving club, cause it had a "flight with door removed" placard.....sadly, it was totaled by a small tornado that touched down, hit it and a J-3 parked in front of the avionics repair shop.....I had just had the panel
redone.....loved the way that plane handled....I used to land it on the beach at St. George Island prior to an airstrip being constructed.....had a pasture that was basically a 20 acre field that made a perfect place to operate from, as long as the cows were still pinned.....on take off, stand on brakes, full elevator back pressure, add full power....as soon as the aircraft moved 100 ft, pull 30 degree's flaps....it would pop off the ground....nose it level, speed to 50 kts and manually eeaassee the flaps up to 10 and she would climb like a hawk (this was was light, no more than 1/2 fuel and one passenger)....I had 60-70 foot pines all around.....cleared them with no problems, ever. RIP 23Mike!
Great story! Thanks for sharing, Jim!
❤THE SKYLARK anyone got any GO 0300'S Laying around?
Lovely plane Mark.
Thanks.
Thought a '58 Cessna 175, we had one and learned to fly in one in AZ in the 90's., but with the engine I'm stumped
I didn’t know the year, but literally at 0:16 I guessed a 175 from what you were saying. I flew in one once as a kid in the early ‘60’s with my father.
That is pretty quick.
That was fun. Thanks for the great videos Mark. I got it around 2:30 when you showed the fuel tanks, 1959 C-175 Skylark. Having the engine changed out had me guessing in the beginning of the video. Looks like it has the same small trim wheel as a 1959 172 that I sometimes fly. I really enjoy your videos. Keep up the great work!
Glad you enjoyed it
A homesick angel!!! Nice bird!
True.
Thank you Mark, I thought it might be a early 182 until you said no bladders. First time to see a 175, great reveal and review
I used to own N7504M with the continental GO 300. Its been 45 years since I last saw it. A great little airplane if you ran the engine.
2:39 58,59 Cessna 175. At first I was thinking early 182 due to the 470 engine
You are right. The engine confused things.
I paused it at 3:26. My best guess is a 1958 C175 Skylark that's had a O-470R installed. Now I'm going to watch the rest.
Almost perfect. 1959.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Ah ok, very cool video(and plane) though.
Knew right away... Had a '58 model - loved that airplane.
59 Cessna 175 but that is all a knew, engine and tail is what gave it to me before you told us. I preferred the straight tail and 40 degree flaps of these over the newer ones.
I could tell this was modified as the 'hump' in the cowl, behind the prop, was missing. My first 'ride' was in the right seat of a C-175. It was a '62/'63 swept tail with original engine. LOVED IT! Flew it many times after I got my 'Ticket' The manual flaps will build muscles in your right arm
Especially the 40 degree stage.
First swept tail 1960 172A as i remember ?
@@pauleyplay I have 59 175 swept tail.
Guessed 175 skylark fairly early, as soon as you showed the tail I knew it was a pre '60. The perfect Cessna imo.
I knew right away, I owned a 58 with the GO-300 just a few N #'s different, my dad owned 2 over the years, a 60 & a 61 with the swept tail and the hump in the hood for the gear box. All wonderful airplanes. I have a 60 182 now but sure miss the lighter 175's
Well spotted. 175 people know 175's.
The other reason GO-300 engines suck is the bearing in the gear box right behind the prop. If the airplane sits for a long time, that bearing will become dry and fail upon starting the engine. It's a big $ repair.
True
I like the Wyoming bucking horse on the tail
It's not the real, authentic Bucking Horse & Rider.
A friend had one of the rare P172D "Powermatic" versions. It was the geared engine with a constant speed prop and a tach that read prop rpm. Also had cowl flaps. Trying to rebrand it as a souped up 172 came too late in the game.
Juat a rebranded 175, Did not sell. Not one of Cessnas better ideas !
I almost got it but when I didn't see the raised lip behind the spinner I thought it must be a 180 conversion. Silly me! I owned a 175 with the 180 Lyc. and constant speed prop and it surely could get off the earth quickly. I had it in ground effect in 225 ft. with only 6 mph wind. I did have a STOL wing mod and wing gap seals. Only thing is it had a RPM restriction that kept me from getting more fuel economy in my mind. Enjoy your videos.
Imagine your plane with 50 More HP. Thanks.
I made the last landing in that plane when it had the GO-300 in Riverton Wy. Hence the bucking horse on the tail. That was some time back in the 90’s.
Since then it was in AZ. I picked it up in 118 degrees and got the hell out of there at 110 kts at 10,500 feet where it was only 90.
Hi Mark. I figured it out at 23hr mark🤷♂️. I saw a 1958 c-175 with O-470R conversion at Pancake fly-in July 4th weekend. You came close to the airport on your 53 180 ferry from Spokane to Kyle’s place
That was a fun flight in a beautiful plane.
You gave it away at 1:06 with a quick view of the tail #. But I was thinking 175 anyway as we had one on the line when I became a flight instructor quite a few years ago.
Hard to hide the number from everyone, yes a 175 with a 470.
At first I thought it was a 182 A or B but then I saw that it was not trimmed on the rear stabilizer. When I saw the drawing behind the window of the bird I recognized that it was a 175 Skylark.
I had the opportunity to work on the annual inspection of one here in Argentina that had exactly the same bird painted but on the tail, that plane did not have a straight tail, it was surely a more modern model. Very good plane.
The 60 and 61 Skylarks had swept tails like the 172's and 182's of the era.
175 from the very beginning. What a wonderful airplane!
A Classic with upgrades.
Nice video as usual - I need a re-sit!
You and me both!
I had a 67 182 and loved it.. This looks like a fun aircraft !! Thanks for the video
You are welcome.
175 , The better conversion was the tail dragger conversion and 180 Lyc and constant speed prop.
That then looks just like a smaller 180. They are very good.
Ah! The professor gives a pop quiz!!! I knew I should have paid more attention in class.
Hah ha did you get it.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Unfortunately I failed the exam. looks like I'll have to retake the class.
Hey, Mark. I did not correctly identify the plane, but I probably should have.
In August 2019, I got the bush flying bug when I was instructed by Jeff Fouche of Latitude Aviation in Coeur d' Alene, ID. Jeff has a nice 175 that was converted to a tail wheel with VGs, a sweet setup.
They are little known but are great planes.
Many have armchaired that 175 doesn't have enough trim for this STC. Mark your professional input would be highly regarded and appreciated.
1959 Cessna 175 with an O-470. Had it at 1:04. I had a student pilot one of those many years ago when i was still flight instructing. The one I flew still had the geared engine in it.
I had a chance to fly one for a quick $150.. hamburger in 1969 to Redbird Airport in Dallas
Informative, Thanks. That Bird is a beast!
Thanks.
I love my stock 182P but my dream build would be a 1958 175 TD with the O-470 and 3 blade CS prop. One day.
:41 seconds approx. Cessna 175. Saw one in 1987 when I met a gentleman on his way to Alaska. Put him up in our home overnight to give him a break from sleeping under the wing. That was central Alberta, summer of 87.
These old planes have already been around for generations and will be for further generations. We are not owners, we are custodians.
Good stuff, Mark. Thx!
Glad you liked it!
Didnt know what it is buts it’s a beautiful airplane
Cool.
The O470 threw me off to guess it early on. I owned a '58 for a lot of years. Wish I had it back. And the key to the GO-0300 is to let the engine turn up. Mine was 400 hrs past TBO and running great when I sold it. One of the dumbest things I ever did was selling her. I'm also an A&P.
Run the GO-300 right and they will last.
Hi ,so at what rpm should it be flown, restoring one at the moment...
@@stertsleper 3200 or better. If long cross country, leave it fire walled till you start your decent. Then retard throttle a little at a time, still keeping a lean mixture till on final. Dont run the engine slow till on down wind. Do cruise climbs for better engine cooling. And don't forget to lean the mixture. ALWAYS!
Get Mike Busch's book on Engines. I started operating engines as he describes in the book in the '90s. IT WORKS. People thought i was nuts and would destroy my engine. I got the last laugh. I also flew a 421c and operated the same. Those engines were both over TBO and running like a top. The GO-300 is a great engine if operated as it was designed to be run. Imported point to remember, rpm does not destroy engines. Mismanagement does. Poor Maintaince, bad fuel, dirty oil, leaking cooling baffles, and so on.
Read Mikes book. He's correct!
BTW nice example of a 175. Makes flying look fun and easy.
I have very little knowledge about aircraft, but I’m going to take a guess at 1:27 that this was the first Cessna aircraft to use the skywagon name, which I do know was the Cessna 180 1973. Just thought that would be very matching for the channel.
Nope, I was wrong 😢
It was a bit of a trick question.
I feel ashamed. I was at 2:41 when I figured it was a 175 with a nega big engine.
This was fun! Thanks!
Got there in the end. ;-)
At 3:32 I paused the video. I'm guessing it's a late 50s C180. Unsure about the mods or other specs though. Love the unique control yoke. Never seen that before.
Correct year range but remember that 180's are taildraggers. This is a 1959 175.
Very cool. I did not do well at the guessing game. Looking at the slope of the cowling I thought 170 but that got ruled out early
aha, no tailwheel. fun.
Since I stalk Trade-A-Plane ads too much I knew it was the 175 I've been eyeing, haha
So essentially the thumbnail for me. 😆
Ha, you already knew it.
My first thoughts are a Cessna 175, I suppose you could call it the original Cessna Hawk XP
Yup!
That was my first guess! A 175.
Got it.
This vid has the feel of Q showing James Bond his latest gadget.
And the accent helps suppose. ;-)
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Yep, the first minute is classic Q. I'm waiting for the revue of Wonder Woman's invisible jet ( Ala the Aston Martin in " Die Another Day " )
Maybe I should do more of that. I am easily amused after all.
The high mounted prop was an instant giveaway.
Remember that it is high mounted, but it is not geared.
My first guess was a 175... Have riden in a new version of the 175. They were great planes that I think Cessna could have done better marketing on to make it more successful.
The spinner sites higher because it is a Geared Prop!
Only geared on the 0-300. This 470 is direct drive.
Got it at 2:30 when you said metal fuel tanks, I’m going with C-175 late fifties.
Bam, yes, 1959 175 with 470.
C175, with an O470R, direct drive. Not a GO470. Took some time, though. It should be a heavy nose to land and nearer of a firewall bend.
It's pretty much a 59 182 now. Not very nosewheel heavy.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Understood, thank you.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 I have that impression, because I recently flew only IO540 C182s, but thinking back, a O470 is a lighter nose. Got that now. Thank you.
love the souped up 175, great vid..
Hotrod now.
At 0:01 I guessed C175 at the first sight of the prop spinner’s higher centreline. The top of the cowling looks wrong as it should have a humped bit to streamline with the spinner. It looks like the cowling has been modified, or is from another aircraft, as there is no hump.
True. No -hump, but it is not geared.
Not being a Cessna buff I had it pegged as a early 172 till you tossed out the O-470.
I have seen a GO-300 with the gear case broken off the top of the case from low power resonance. Luckily the pilot was in the pattern at the time of the failure.
Low power resonance us what killed a lot of GO-300's. Pilot's thinking that they were being nice to the engine by running it below where it was designed to run. Still only a 1200 TBO on a good day though so the 3300 did wear them out.
Hey Mark I know where one is which is a 1960 Cessna Skylark with the Geared Prop and you have to keep the RPM above a 1000 during your approach to landing like you would in a 182
Yes, you do. True.
My tinnitus came from years of not wearing headsets in the 60s - and 70s.
What?
Me too, and shooting.
@@davidbeattie1366 sorry ?
Tinnitus joke. I have it too.
Hi Mark. Actually it’s NOT a Skylark. It’s just a 175 with no bump on the front of the cowl so it must be a 1958 model. The 1959 model started the Skylark name (175A) and a bump on the top cowl. That’s my guess sir
Yes, it is a 175.
I thought 175, but I gave up when I saw the tail
Close enough.
Early Cessna 175 (straight tail , no hump on cowl )with o 470 , n bigger gear mod . 1 min 37
Ps. 3:4 prop red ratio so max eng 3200 n prop 2400
Exactly.
I knew right away it was a Cessna 175 Skylane. But I have only heard of of the Lyc. 180 mod. I like the O-470 mod very much!
Sorry Skylark.
The 175 make a great bush plane
Imagine trying to tach up a 470 to 3200 like the geared engine 175....... there goes your TBO, like NOW.......
I'm out of my depth! Love it!
It was a combo of years and mods and upgrades meant to confuse, but a lot of people jumped right in and got it quickly.
I said 175 at around .5 seconds after the question was initiated. Fish spotter friend had a 175. Mitch
Somewhere like a 58'-59' Skylark 175. there is one where I fly out of at YSCN - Camden NSW Australia
Yes, 59.
I thought 175 at 1:29 or so. When you said like straight tail 182 the only other thing I could think of was 175. I didn't know a lot about it though, like the geared 470 etc.
The joy of the 470 conversion is that it is NOT geared.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 I just keep learning. Thx for posting.
0:03 My neighbor had a Skylark. Even got a ride in it.
0:11 seconds… cessna 175. They make a great tailwheel when converted. Almost bought a 1959 to do a conversion but it wasn’t going to pencil out for me in the end.
Awesome!!! I was right!!!
What??? Never heard of the 175 before.
Made to fill the gap between the 172 and 182 for five years.
1974 Cessna 195
Way off, but a cool plane. (1974???? Ha ha ha )
1959 Cessna 175 Skylark with O-470
Perfect. Exactly.
C-182. The 175 had the geared O-300 Continental with no CS prop.
This has a conversion to the 182 engine and prop but it is a 175.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Neat gotcha video. I flew the 175. Nice bird but as you said, folks couldn’t understand how to run it. I imagine the lightness of the airframe with the big Continental makes for nice back country performance. Is it nose heavy? Are the controls still balanced/adequate with the extra power? Any experience/contrast with the Lycoming conversions as far as performance and handling?
@@stephenwalton7079 If you did not know it and you flew it you'd think you were in a 59 182 in 99% of the behavior and performance.
Looks like somebody landed on a road....
It's an access road to the hangar area at Placerville that have not been built. No need to fly to it. I just taxi to it because it is scenic.
1959 cessna 175B
Yes you got it.
IT'S A RED PLANE.
That is correct.
0:59 is a 175 with a o-470 conversion
I used to have 2 with a lycoming O-360 180hp
This is a 1960 Cessna Skylark with the IO-470 180 HP
Yes, 0, not IO. 230.
I got it, before the video started, from it still.
Damn, really, and the 470 engine :-)
@@skywagonuniversity5023 I was a lineboy for years in high school and college. Am now working pilot.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 It was a guess as I knew of the rarity ofthis aircraft while working at Cessna. Later production test pilot for short time. Cessna has an excellent library.
I just knew it was a 182 until the non trimable tail. Totally missed it lol
The tail is the giveaway.
That cowl says "175" . wear your hearing protection!
Well spotted.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Thx!
3:00 1955 Cessna 175
Close. 1959.
Cessna 175 Skyhawk 1959 with O-470 R conversion w/ constant speed propeller @ 1:11
Skylark, I meant to say.
Exactly.
Just curious.... Does anyone else have a problem with Mark's video quality? The colors are messed up. I don't have any issues with other youtube videos.
Do you mean the red in and out of the shadows. I saw that or is it more than that.?
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Hi Mark. It could be on my end but it looks like your red color doesn't line up with the green and blue. I see a ghost image of everything just higher of the main images.
Thanks for all your videos. I do enjoy them.
Thanks.
As soon as you started saying it’s unique and not common I knew it was a Skylark
Hmmmm. I'll have to be more cunning in the future.
Great game
Fun. Maybe more in the future if we get a weird one in.
I knew it was a 175 at 0:44 seconds but not the year. Once I saw the tail I knew it was circa 1960 plus or minus a year.
Yes, 1958 or 1959.
A cheap almost 182!/ 175. 20sec in. I liked these when you could buy a 175 for 15k.
I think you still can with a tired old GO-300 in them.
It is a Cessna 175. Does not have the tailcone of the 182, it has the rudder of a 172. Definitely 175.
Yes it is. Big engine conversion.
I got that it is a 175 but that was all. As you said, would make a decent back country aircraft. Didn’t you show a newer model with bigger tires etc. Some time ago? Anyway, I like it 👍🏼🎶💰💰
Yes, a 175. The newer one was a 67 182 with a lot of "bush" mods on it.
175 @ 110
Well I watched this one. 175 with the O-470. 1959 flavor.
Good. You got it.
Maybe a 172xp cutlass rg probably about 1969 to 1971 - guesses at about 56 seconds based on struts, front windshield and 460 series engine etc
ha ha ha, there is a not lot right in that sentence. You knew right? 175 with 470?
I think we're looking at a late 1950's 182. Same year as I was born, 1957, just to throw out a year. Time stamp 2:40
Very close. 1959 175 with 470 engine upgrade.
Flew a stock 175 to the Reno Air Races from CCR to RNO and back in 1968 with a prospective buyer. A cracked piston resulted in an incredible amount of oil consumption. It could have been much worse. OK airplane, bad engine.
True. Hence this 470 upgrade.
0:24 1960 C-175 with STC 470.
Almost, 1959
3:25 Skunk Works fighter bomber?
Stealth.
Cessna 175 my boss owns one a later model one since there’s no gear box hump on the cowl got it in .1 seconds
fast.