172 180 Hp

[corjulo]

Ooh, that "other Shoe" thread was a hot one.. Back to serious stuff.

We have narrowed it down to the 182 or a 172 with a 180. In regards to the 172 with a 180HP. One mechanic told me the upgrades kits create too much vibration while a 172 with a 180 from the factory is a better choice. Does anyone have a opinion on this.

When you do get the upgrade who determines the new performance characteristics. Cessna?, the upgrade people?

 

[Skip Miller]

When you do get the upgrade who determines the new performance characteristics. Cessna?, the upgrade people?

The new performance should be set forth in the STC (or the paperwork accompanying it) so the answer to your question is: the person/company that originally obtained the STC.

-Skip

 

[poadeleted3]

Ooh, that "other Shoe" thread was a hot one.. Back to serious stuff.

We have narrowed it down to the 182 or a 172 with a 180. In regards to the 172 with a 180HP. One mechanic told me the upgrades kits create too much vibration while a 172 with a 180 from the factory is a better choice. Does anyone have a opinion on this.

When you do get the upgrade who determines the new performance characteristics. Cessna?, the upgrade people?

I didn't notice any unusual vibration issues with the older 180 hp Skyhawk I flew. The factory 180 Skyhawks, the SPs are different planes. They don't have anywhere near the noise and vibration the old Skyhawks do, but they also don't have the useful load. They spent a couple hundred pounds taming the noise and vibration! Still, even with the reduced payload, I'd say the new Skyhawks with 180 HP from the factory are better choices. Ya'll got $125 - $200K to spend?

 

[corjulo]

I didn't notice any unusual vibration issues with the older 180 hp Skyhawk I flew. The factory 180 Skyhawks, the SPs are different planes. They don't have anywhere near the noise and vibration the old Skyhawks do, but they also don't have the useful load. They spent a couple hundred pounds taming the noise and vibration! Still, even with the reduced payload, I'd say the new Skyhawks with 180 HP from the factory are better choices. Ya'll got $125 - $200K to spend?

We got 80 to 100K to spend. Looks like an upgrade and a little noice

 

[bbchien]

Dan, go with the straight legged 182. You'll never regret it. There is NO substitute for 230 hp. None. It's a FAR more capable aircraft.

 

[Len Lanetti]

Dan, go with the straight legged 182. You'll never regret it. There is NO substitute for 230 hp. None. It's a FAR more capable aircraft.

Not a Cessna guru by any streatch...I think I've been in exactly one 182 but isn't the 182 wider than the 172 like the Cherokee 6 is wider than a PA28?

Len

 

[charlie]

Best bang for the buck is a Penn Yan or Air Plaines converted 180 HP 172. 130 KTS on 10 GPH with a useful of somewhere between 1020 and close to 1100# depending on the airplane. M or later models are best. Try to find one with long range or Flint aux tanks! A similarly equipped and aged 182 will cost at least 20K lore to buy and a lot more to operate. I flew about 20 of these plus a couple of hundred hours in our demo when I was running Penn Yan. Cahrlie Melot Zephyr Aircraft Engines

 

[Ken Ibold]

Not a Cessna guru by any streatch...I think I've been in exactly one 182 but isn't the 182 wider than the 172 like the Cherokee 6 is wider than a PA28?

My files are packed away in anticipation of next week's move, but my recollection is that the 182 is 4 inches wider than the 172 and the Six is 8 inches wider than the Cherokee. The 182 is between the 172 and 206 for Cessna, whereas there really isn't a Piper between the basic Cherokee and the Cherokee Six. Yeah, you can add power to make it a Cherokee into an Archer or Dakota, but I'm talking fuselage size here.

 

[poadeleted20]

The Penn Yan 180HP STC is solid and reliable, with a lot of years and a lot of planes to prove it. Performance is not established in the STC other than to say it is at least as good as the unmodified aircraft. Your best source for reliable performance data (including cruise data) is the POH/AFM for the rare and briefly produced Cessna 172Q, which is essentially what the Penn Yan conversion duplicates.

The question of which airplane to buy (C172-180 vs C-182) is one of desired capability. The 182 carries more, faster -- but it also costs significantly more to feed and maintain. Between extra fuel, maintenance on the prop, and the lower TBO and higher overhaul cost of its engine, figure $10/hour more for the 182. Also figure in the higher purchase price and insurance premiums. Then choose based on your personal needs. If it's worth the extra money for another 100-150 lb payload and 15 knots, do it. If not, save your money and spend it on avgas and recurrent training.

 

[poadeleted3]

My files are packed away in anticipation of next week's move, but my recollection is that the 182 is 4 inches wider than the 172 and the Six is 8 inches wider than the Cherokee. The 182 is between the 172 and 206 for Cessna, whereas there really isn't a Piper between the basic Cherokee and the Cherokee Six. Yeah, you can add power to make it a Cherokee into an Archer or Dakota, but I'm talking fuselage size here.

The Skyhawk cabin is 39 1/2 inches wide, the Skylane's 42, and the 206's 44. The Skylane is noticeably bigger and more comfortable inside, especially in the back seat.

 

[Ghery]

Our club charges $20/hr more for our 182 than for our 180 hp 172, if that helps.

 

[SCCutler]

I have flown quite a bit in an Air Plains STC'd 172/180, noticed no hint of extra vibration over the 160hp 172. Nice package.

But if I were buying the airplane, I agree with Bruce, the 182 is the way to go. It is the closest thing, in my mind, to the universal airplane, rock-solid, simple, flies nicely, just a nice ship. Andthe difference in speed is enough- just enough- to make the difference between feeling as if you are hovering and watching the ground go by.

 

[Paul Allen]

I had a 98 172 with a factory reman and Air Planes 180 STC. Picked up about 4 kts and 100 pounds. It also climbed better, 200-300 fpm. I did not notice any increase in vibration or noise. If I remember right the 180 STC was about $7000.00 plus the labor to install.

 

[fgcason]

In regards to the 172 with a 180HP. One mechanic told me the upgrades kits create too much vibration while a 172 with a 180 from the factory is a better choice. Does anyone have a opinion on this.

At least from a piloting point of view while renting and being excessively paranoid about planes falling apart on me: From my experience the aftermarket 180hp upgrade plane I flew regularly was actually much much smoother than the factory 160hp models. I'm not sure where the engine came from or any specifics beyond what a renter can find out, but the factory 160hp models even with lower TIS we corregated roads by comparison. Maybe I just flew the only 180hp STC in existence that was excellent, or maybe it's typical. I don't know since I have only the one 180hp data point to go by. (two data points actually if you take into account the new 180hp engine they put in the plane after a bazillion hours on the old one)

I think it's more about the engine mechanically and having the installation done right than it is about factory vs aftermarket. There's also the general mindset difference of factory stamp-em-out profit first assembly lines vs mom and pop pride in what they do and get it right the first time every time...

 

[Tom-D]

Best bang for the buck is a Penn Yan or Air Plaines converted 180 HP 172. 130 KTS on 10 GPH with a useful of somewhere between 1020 and close to 1100# depending on the airplane. M or later models are best. Try to find one with long range or Flint aux tanks! A similarly equipped and aged 182 will cost at least 20K lore to buy and a lot more to operate. I flew about 20 of these plus a couple of hundred hours in our demo when I was running Penn Yan. Cahrlie Melot Zephyr Aircraft Engines

Charlie, You need to catch a ride in a Tom Anderson modded 172/170

At 195 horse power and 6 cylinders it makes that 4 banger feel like a rattle trap.

IO-360- Continental NON turboed off the front of a 172XP

http://www.xpmods.com/

 

[SoreHead]

Does the conversion make the 172 a true 4 people craft or am I just clutching at straws? (no luggage just the people)

I was hoping to get a 4 seater without the added expense of the 182.
Also, does it reduce the life of the engine?

P.S.
This is my first post on here so hello to all.

 

[poadeleted20]

Does the conversion make the 172 a true 4 people craft or am I just clutching at straws? (no luggage just the people)

More or less, depending on the size of the people and how much useful load you had going in. Your MGW goes up to 2550 with the Penn Yan conversion (an extra 150 lb in most cases), and only a little of that is eaten by the extra engine/prop weight. I'm guessing the average 160 HP C-172 has a useful load of 850 lb (assuming 30-degree flaps and 2400 lb MGW). Subtract 240 lb usable fuel, and that leaves 610 lb cabin load -- a bit thin for four adults. Kick that up to around 740 lb, and you're more in the 4-adults/no bags range. Note that the Penn Yan conversion includes the 30-degree flap limiter for those 172N's and prior with 40-degree flaps, so those planes get a 250 lb useful load increase over their old 2300 lb MGW.

I was hoping to get a 4 seater without the added expense of the 182.

Depends how you define "4 seater," and who you want to put in those seats, but it is certainly not the 3-seater (or 2+2 -- adults + kids) that a stock 172 is.

Also, does it reduce the life of the engine?

No -- different engine -- you trade out the 150/160HP O-320 for a 180HP O-360, and that O-360 will run at least as long before overhaul as an O-320 operated and maintained the same way.

This is my first post on here so hello to all.

Welcome aboard!

 

[dmccormack]

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.

 

[Bob Noel]

The only 180hp 172 I've flown burns 10gph very dependably. And it flies
considerably faster than the stock 172.

 

[KennyFlys]

The only 180hp 172 I've flown burns 10gph very dependably. And it flies
considerably faster than the stock 172.

That's pretty steep. What settings are you using?

 

[Bob Noel]

er, it's been a while since I've flown it, so all I can say is 75% cruise.

But why would 10 gph surprise you? That's the 75% power fuel burn for an O-360, isn't it? My 160hp O-320 will burn around 8.5 gph at 75%... it was a little less before
I upgraded it to 160hp.

 

[kgruber]

Charlie, You need to catch a ride in a Tom Anderson modded 172/170

At 195 horse power and 6 cylinders it makes that 4 banger feel like a rattle trap.

IO-360- Continental NON turboed off the front of a 172XP

http://www.xpmods.com/

Unfortunately, from what I've heard, Tom is out of business and all his assets are being sold. Divorce!

I Hope I'm wrong. I have his titanium landing gear on my overweight pig 185.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm with Bob -- 10 gph is about right for 75% power with a 180 HP O-320. My Tiger's 180HP O-360-A4K (essentially the same engine) burns 9.3 gph at 70% when leaned to around peak EGT (a bit less than best power, a bit more than best economy). Of course, I'm also going a lot faster than the like-engined 172-180, but that's Roy LoPresti's drag reduction work for ya!

 

[Pilawt]

Note that the Penn Yan conversion includes the 30-degree flap limiter for those 172N's and prior with 40-degree flaps, so those planes get a 250 lb useful load increase over their old 2300 lb MGW.

My dad's '78 C-172N has the Air Plains 180hp STC. He opted to leave MGW at 2300 and keep all 40 degrees of flap.

I have flown quite a bit in an Air Plains STC'd 172/180, noticed no hint of extra vibration over the 160hp 172. Nice package.

I think O-360s by their nature feel slightly "rougher" than O-320s. But the O-360-modified 172's are certainly no worse than an Archer, Tiger, etc. Maybe even a little smoother.

the 182 is the way to go. [snip] And the difference in speed is enough- just enough- to make the difference between feeling as if you are hovering and watching the ground go by.

In addition to the O-360 STC, my dad's C-172N has Power-Flow exhaust (long stack), Lasar ignition, exhaust stack fairing and gap seals. At 75% power it cruises 135 KTAS at 7,500'.

 

[poadeleted20]

In addition to the O-360 STC, my dad's C-172N has Power-Flow exhaust (long stack), Lasar ignition, exhaust stack fairing and gap seals. At 75% power it cruises 135 KTAS at 7,500'.

You sure your tach is accurate? And have a MP gauge so you know what power you're really pulling? Or are you just comparing RPM reading with the tables in a C-172Q manual?

 

[Pilawt]

You sure your tach is accurate? And have a MP gauge so you know what power you're really pulling? Or are you just comparing RPM reading with the tables in a C-172Q manual?

Yes, despite the FP prop he put in a MP gauge, for that very purpose. Tach is regularly checked against an optical scanner. The 135 KTAS is at the lower 2300 MGW, however; it would likely be less at 2550. It's a nice 172; with all the speed mods it gives up very little to a 172RG.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Ooh, that "other Shoe" thread was a hot one.. Back to serious stuff.

We have narrowed it down to the 182 or a 172 with a 180. In regards to the 172 with a 180HP. One mechanic told me the upgrades kits create too much vibration while a 172 with a 180 from the factory is a better choice. Does anyone have a opinion on this.

When you do get the upgrade who determines the new performance characteristics. Cessna?, the upgrade people?

We've owned a C-172M with 180 HP Air Planes conversion. It is just as smooth as the 160 HP 172s we trained in. But on a hot summer day at 5,000 ft elevation, we can take off just fine with the two of us in it. We cruise at about 7-1/2 to 8 gal/hour at 75%.

Does the conversion make the 172 a true 4 people craft or am I just clutching at straws? (no luggage just the people)

I was hoping to get a 4 seater without the added expense of the 182.
Also, does it reduce the life of the engine?

P.S.
This is my first post on here so hello to all.

We took four adults for lunch to Atlantic City a few years back and we had no trouble. If I were to lose a few pounds, it would be more confortable inside, but four standard FAA adults fit in quite nicely.

We took the engine to just about 2000 hours before getting an overhaul, and now it is coming back around to nearly 2000 again without burning oil or showing signs of wear.

PS: Welcome to POA.

 

[SoreHead]

No -- different engine -- you trade out the 150/160HP O-320 for a 180HP O-360, and that O-360 will run at least as long before overhaul as an O-320 operated and maintained the same way.
Welcome aboard!

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?

 

[SkyHog]

That's pretty steep. What settings are you using?

That's what I used to flight plan for as a student, and I was usually right on.

You get less than that, Kenny?

 

[SoreHead]

Ok then. Suppose you've decided on the 172 with the 180 conversion (note the clever sticking the the original thread while still sneaking in my own selfish question ) would you:

a) pay low money (20-30k) for a high hour plane in need of a rebuild and pay the 15-20k (searches on web so far) for the rebuild/upgrade thereby ending up with the 180 with 0 hours for 40-50k (ish)

b) buy an already upgraded 172 with low to middle hours for the same money?

 

[Bob Noel]

given the premise... I would pay low money and upgrade, but only if
it was owner-assisted. I loved working on my cherokee when we
did an overhaul/upgrade.

 

[AuntPeggy]

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?

You buy an engine (plus some other stuff) - it could be a reman - and you get a credit for the core. You can expect total cost to be in the neighborhood of $25,000 plus labor of around $5,000. Then you know (possibly) that you run the engine with mineral oil and change oil every 25 hours until the engine is broken in. During that time, you should only take long, hot flights with the minimum of slow flight - only takeoff and landing. Flight training during the break-in period is a nono.

Ok then. Suppose you've decided on the 172 with the 180 conversion (note the clever sticking the the original thread while still sneaking in my own selfish question ) would you:

a) pay low money (20-30k) for a high hour plane in need of a rebuild and pay the 15-20k (searches on web so far) for the rebuild/upgrade thereby ending up with the 180 with 0 hours for 40-50k (ish)

b) buy an already upgraded 172 with low to middle hours for the same money?

My suggestion is to get the low to middle hours for the 172 with the upgrade (assuming you've decided on the 172 instead of the 182) because the engine is already broken in and you know the engine is ok. Be sure you get an oil sample and have a compression check during the pre-buy inspection no matter what plane you buy.

 

[SoreHead]

over the years I've love helping out on my cars and bikes but I'm not sure I'd want to be in the air in something I had a hand in

breaking down at the side of the road is a pain.

breaking up at 5000ft would be a PAIN

 

[SoreHead]

Thanks peggy. There are costs there that aren't mentioned online during my searches. I figure the low hours is definitely the way to go for my needs (completely new to it all).

Incidentally. What are the 15k quotes I've been getting for? A rebuild or just refurb?

The 172 is definitely getting very attractive in price now with the whole world downturn. I was originally looking 152 but in the time I've been looking the 172 has dropped and dropped.

Part of that is probably due to the fact that I'm moving from Ireland to Canada so the exchange means I get $1.5 for ever €1 and you're prices are already way lower even taking $ for €. It really does mean that things that seem expensive to you living over there seem really really cheap to us. Just imagine if you were suddenly told everything you wanted to buy is now 60-70% cheaper. Thats how it is for me. I plan on making the most of it now while I have the opportunity. After a year or 2 I figure it'll all seem just as expensive to me so I have to do it now before common sense kicks in.

P.S.
This is the first resource I've found that actually gives me the information I need to make decisions. Most excellent. Thanks to you all. If you see me in the skys over your area....... DUCK

 

[cessna182b]

Ooh, that "other Shoe" thread was a hot one.. Back to serious stuff.

We have narrowed it down to the 182 or a 172 with a 180. In regards to the 172 with a 180HP. One mechanic told me the upgrades kits create too much vibration while a 172 with a 180 from the factory is a better choice. Does anyone have a opinion on this.

When you do get the upgrade who determines the new performance characteristics. Cessna?, the upgrade people?

I flew a rental converted 172 a few times, and recall that the tach had a red (prohibited) zone. It did shake quite a bit at certain rpm settings, but otherwise seemed to perform well. I don't remember what conversion it was, but it had a CS prop.

OTOH I have been flying a 182 for 30 years - and consider it hard to beat.
I burn about 11 GPH and pay $700-$800/ year for insurance.

Dave

 

[KennyFlys]

I'm with Bob -- 10 gph is about right for 75% power with a 180 HP O-320. My Tiger's 180HP O-360-A4K (essentially the same engine) burns 9.3 gph at 70% when leaned to around peak EGT (a bit less than best power, a bit more than best economy). Of course, I'm also going a lot faster than the like-engined 172-180, but that's Roy LoPresti's drag reduction work for ya!

Okay, you folks are nearly maxing the throttle. I tend to pull back a bit more to settings giving me around 55-60% just for the endurance.

For training, we also come way back since we don't need the speed during maneuvers. Rarely will we go over 2200 RPM except to abide by those magic words... "Best forward speed."

 

[KennyFlys]

That's what I used to flight plan for as a student, and I was usually right on.

You get less than that, Kenny?

In cruise around 2200-2300, we'll be around 7.5 GPH. During local flight for maneuvers, it's down to 6.7-7.0.

 

[poadeleted20]

Okay, you folks are nearly maxing the throttle.

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.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, despite the FP prop he put in a MP gauge, for that very purpose. Tach is regularly checked against an optical scanner. The 135 KTAS is at the lower 2300 MGW, however; it would likely be less at 2550. It's a nice 172; with all the speed mods it gives up very little to a 172RG.

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.

 

[dmccormack]

The CAP C172N (180HP conversion) model I've flown about 150+ hours burns 7 GPH No Matter What -- every day, all day. I've never flown it in cruise below 65% power, though, as there really is no reason to (it's a SAR airplane, not a long range XC mile muncher)