Wings For Christ, an aviation ministry in Waco, TX is selling our 1959
Cessna 175 so we can move up to a larger aircraft to meet our mission
transport needs. You can see the aircraft at www.wings-for-christ.org.
Please contact me if you're interested.

If you or your company would like to help our ministry or are just looking
for a nice tax deduction, we would be interested in a C206, Cherokee 6, or
similar aircraft, even if they need some work.

Mike
remove the Zs in the email to reply

> selling our 1959 Cessna 175 >>

I've lost track of the 175 series numbering system, but the one (175C?) we
owned had a constant speed prop and was a fine airplane. Early versions (which
this one may be) had a fixed pitch prop and was not a particularly 'popular'
model.

But that 175 hp (geared GO-300 at 3200 rpm, I believe) and the constant speed
prop we owned provided everything the 172 is famous for, plus added
performance. I believe their asking price is just under $30K, and may be a
bargain for what could be a nice, low time (2100TT airframe, 190 smoh)airplane.

CVBreard wrote:

>>selling our 1959 Cessna 175 >>
>
> I've lost track of the 175 series numbering system, but the one (175C?) we
> owned had a constant speed prop and was a fine airplane. Early versions (which
> this one may be) had a fixed pitch prop and was not a particularly 'popular'
> model.
>
> But that 175 hp (geared GO-300 at 3200 rpm, I believe) and the constant speed
> prop we owned provided everything the 172 is famous for, plus added
> performance. I believe their asking price is just under $30K, and may be a
> bargain for what could be a nice, low time (2100TT airframe, 190 smoh)airplane.

It looks fixed pitch to me. There are issues in regards to parts
availability for the gearbox. One listed on Barnstormers, includes 2
engines... There are STC's to replace the entire firewall forward with
more commonly available equipment... But 175hp has got to be alot better
than 145...

>It looks fixed pitch to me. There are issues in regards to parts
>availability for the gearbox. One listed on Barnstormers, includes 2
>engines... There are STC's to replace the entire firewall forward with
>more commonly available equipment... But 175hp has got to be alot better
>than 145...

Agree.

Too bad the owner didn't consider the STC to a different engine "190 hours" ago
(smoh).

And yep, the 175 hp (with constant speed prop) wasn't that much faster in
cruise (10K?) but accelerated and got off the ground quicker/less runway and
faster ROC. In the 172s, 145 hp was 'adequate', the extra 30 hp was a delight.