172 180 Hp

Ron Levy said:
Actually, I've got over two inches of throttle left at 70% power at my normal cruise altitude of 7000-10000 feet. Flat out, I can get over 140 KTAS, but if I look at the tach, I've got to pull it back down below redline.
Click to expand...
Sorry, what I meant was maxing out the tachometer's normal operating range, not the physical throttle setting.
 
SoreHead said:
Thanks for the info and the welcome.
One more question. Isn't it a conversion? I figured it would be work carried out on your engine. You're saying they trade out. What sort of cost is involved there? The searches I've done are saying in and around 15-16k for a rebuild of a 180 engine. Is it more or the same for a swap do you think?

Also, is it worth renting the plane out to a school to cover some of the overheads or is that like letting a learner driver into your car repeatedly?
Click to expand...

To find out what today's cost is for the upgrade, phone or write to Penn Yan AND Air Planes to find out. Here is an article warning owners to get an estimate in writing. I think it has some good advice in it.
http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_62_whats_that_going_to_cost_198799-1.html
 
Ron Levy said:
Since I've never seen a 172RG go more than 130 KTAS, I'd have to say I think somebody's numbers are wrong somewhere. If you weren't on the other coast, I'd be wanting to do a side-by-side with your 172 and my Tiger to find out for sure.
Click to expand...

I just did a long x-country in our 172P penn yann conversion. 10 hours of flying 75% power @ 7500/8500 ft 115ktas/10 gph/2400 lbs pretty much what the 172Q POH says it will do. and this with a "cruise" prop


-Henri
 
What about a 177 as an alternative to a 172 with the 180 conversion?
I can't find anything inherently wrong with them from my research. They are rarer alright but other than cost there doesn't seem to be any reason they sold in small numbers.

They have good power and payload after 1969 (180) and even more later on.

It seems like the perfect alternative to a 182 for almost 172 money.
 
I did my private in a 172N with the Penn Yan 180 hp STC. In the winter, the thing is downright fun to fly, with an easy 1000 fpm climb (of course my airport is about 500 MSL, which helps). The 172 is reasonably roomy (not as much as a 182, but certainly moreso than a Cherokee), and it makes it a good 3 person aircraft, 4 people without luggage. We put three people in the 172 a number of times, and it never cared about the weight. A month or two back, my boss (who is a large guy) took a coworker (an even larger guy) and his fiancee (who is not large, but is a gym nut and so is mostly muscle) up flying. It not only still fit within the weight and balance, but apparently was getting a 700 fpm climb.

I would always flight plan for 10 gph, and always beat it, normally running right around 7.5 gph. I would fly it at 2400 RPM, and it was happy there, and very smooth.

I am not a fan of 172s in general (I prefer the way the Archer flies in that category of aircraft), but if you are looking at needing to haul 3-4 people around without the expense of a 182, I would say the 172 with the 180 hp conversion is a good choice.

EDIT: You also mentioned the 177 Cardinal. I flew a 177B briefly, test flying it for a friend. It not only looks cooler, but in my opinion flies nicer than the 172. If you can find one for an acceptable price, I would certainly consider it.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Since I've never seen a 172RG go more than 130 KTAS, I'd have to say I think somebody's numbers are wrong somewhere. If you weren't on the other coast, I'd be wanting to do a side-by-side with your 172 and my Tiger to find out for sure.
Click to expand...

The 172RG book says at 6000 23/23 70% power standard day should get 132 KTAS 9.3 GPH. Monday at 6500 feet 23/23 I calced my KTAS at 132.
 
RMCN172RG said:
The 172RG book says at 6000 23/23 70% power standard day should get 132 KTAS 9.3 GPH. Monday at 6500 feet 23/23 I calced my KTAS at 132.
Click to expand...
Gee -- almost as fast as my Tiger! BTW, were your ASI and tach calibrated and known accurate?
 
Ron Levy said:
Gee -- almost as fast as my Tiger! BTW, were your ASI and tach calibrated and known accurate?
Click to expand...

Tach at last, first annual since purchase. IFR certification was done March 07 by seller before I bought the plane so I do not have direct knowledge of it being done.
 
KennyFlys said:
That's pretty steep. What settings are you using?
Click to expand...

My 180Hp Scout and the Cherokee 180 If fly both use between 10 and 11 gallons and hour.
Somewere I read the that the best a normally aspirated engine will do is about 15HP per Gallon per hour. This seems to work out pretty well, it means at 10gph we are getting 150hp or 150/180=83% power at best. It is more likely we are getting less than 83% power, so probably works out to the 75% power I try to run at.
At 7gph you would be getting 105hp or 150/180=58% power at best.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
I am considering buying a 1977 172xp. I have been reading the post concerning the 180 conversion for Penn-yan... Which one would be better ie. speed, climb, weight???????????
 
Ricko said:
I am considering buying a 1977 172xp. I have been reading the post concerning the 180 conversion for Penn-yan... Which one would be better ie. speed, climb, weight???????????
Click to expand...

Better is pretty subjective.

I like the 172xp personally, compared to the plain 172. I think the 2 extra cylinders make a difference in smoothness. But you have 2 extra cylinders, a fuel injection system and a CS prop to maintain. On the other hand, you can get a STC for the xp that bumps up the HP to 210, so it becomes a high-performance single, if that means anything to you. I don't remember the gross weight/useful load differences, but the difference between a 172 and 172xp isn't enough to add another passenger. The xp is a significantly better climber than a plain 172. Cruise, maybe 5 more knots, but you're going to burn more fuel to do it and I don't think it pays off there. If you want fast, buy a Mooney...if you need more useful load than a 172, buy a 182 or a Cherokee 235/Dakota.

Air Plains in KS has a 180 HP 172 conversion that is nice in that it has a FP prop, so long term maintenance is going to be the same as a 150 HP 172.


Trapper John
 
Ricko said:
I am considering buying a 1977 172xp. I have been reading the post concerning the 180 conversion for Penn-yan... Which one would be better ie. speed, climb, weight???????????
Click to expand...
15 more HP is 15 more HP -- more speed and more climb at the same weight. However, the XP has the same 2550 MGW as the Penn Yan 180 HP STC, with a heavier engine, so you'll lose a bit of payload -- but it will perform better at that MGW.
 
The 172 with the penn-yan conversion is really the way to go. It really makes the airplane what it always should have been. BTW what is the N# of the one that you are looking at?
 
dmccormack said:
The CAP 172N model I've flown has the 180HP conversion precisely so 3 adults can be carried aloft for SAR in around and over the mountains of West Virgina.

Solo or 2 up the thing climbs like a homesick angel.

There is no appreciable difference in TAS, though (and no, it does not have a climb prop). Fuel burn is 7 GPH no matter what you do.
Click to expand...

West Virgina has mountains? You need to come to Alaska and see real mountains. A 172 with the O-320 burns 8.5 GPH, so I think your memory is a little off. Ten sounds more like it. C-182 burns about 13 an hour and maintenance/parts will cost you more. Lose some wieght and your C172 will perform better. You will live longer too.
 
Ron Levy said:
15 more HP is 15 more HP -- more speed and more climb at the same weight. However, the XP has the same 2550 MGW as the Penn Yan 180 HP STC, with a heavier engine, so you'll lose a bit of payload -- but it will perform better at that MGW.
Click to expand...

Very minimal speed increase. Drag increases exponentially, so linear increases in power do not give linear increases in airspeed.

But acceleration and climb will improve..
 
martinlb44 said:
West Virgina has mountains? You need to come to Alaska and see real mountains. A 172 with the O-320 burns 8.5 GPH, so I think your memory is a little off. Ten sounds more like it. C-182 burns about 13 an hour and maintenance/parts will cost you more. Lose some wieght and your C172 will perform better. You will live longer too.
Click to expand...

Carbed engine, yeah I would believe that. My 172 with the IO-360 conversion and matched Gami-jectors burns 8.5 at 118-121 ktas (depending on OAT and load) between 6,000 and 8,000. To be fair, that's running 2500 rpm WOTLOP, but I'm still making the same 120ktas worth of power on 8.5gph.

Matched injection and LOP operations make a huge difference.
 
Last edited:
CESSNA 172M 180HP Variable pitch FOR SALE!!!:goofy:



Manufacturer – Cessna 172M

Model – 1975

Location – Israel

Condition – In use

Serial Number – 64914

Registration – 4X-CDD



Airframe

Total time – 12,157 Hours.

Painted in 2006. V.Good condition (8)



Engine

Lycoming – O 360 – AID 180 HP. TBO 2000. remaining time – 1,000 Hours.

Prop HARTZEL HCC2YK – IBF Variable Pitch - TBO 2000 or 6 years . Propeller due – year 2016.

Avionics

Audio – KING KMA 20TSO

KING – KX 155 / 155A

ADF – KING KR 86

GARMIN GNS 430 - COM / NAV moving map

Transponder – KING KT 76 A

DME – KN 62

ELT – ACK E-01



Additional Equipment

Strobe Lights

Camera window



Interior

All leather Good condition (8)





FRESH C of A October 2015

CESSNA SID accomplished 2015.


Price: 69,000 $ - Flying condition in Israel or Disassembled in USA.




Pictures are attached in DropBox:



https://www.dropbox.com/home#!/home/Photos/4X-CDD



username: gadi@tsi.co.il


password: ariadi123



Best regards,


Ari Reches
 
It would be fun to fly it at least to the UK or Gibralter before packing it up.
 
If you need 4 seats, and with your stated budget, skip the 172 airframe and get yourself a 182. You won't regret it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top