172xp?

Bill

Bill

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
15,133
Location
Southeast Tennessee
Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
Some questions on the Skyhawk XP of the mid-70's. I don't think this was a geared motor, but want to verify. And, Cessna claimed 130kt cruise, anyone flown one and know that the real world 75% power cruise is?
 
ive only got a couple hours in one last summer, its not geared, 200 hp. 120-130 kts is probably about right, i cant remember exactly what i got in it.
 
The folks who own the XP's on the Cessna Pilots Association board rave about their XP's. Totally love them. The engines are not geared, they are six cylinder Continental IO-360K engine's derated to 195 HP from the 210HP in military configuration (trainer).

Listed cruise is 131 knots.

The CPA has a 172 buyers guide for sale for $40 that also covers the XP if you are interested.
 
My company has one for the pilots to play with. I only see about 122kts ish depending on what is going on that day. Of course our engine is ran out and due for overhaul in November. Other than that, it's a normal Skyhawk. The climb preformace is better. Those are really the only two differences.
 
I've flown both the 195 HP and the un-derated 210 HP. (The difference is primarily higher rpm available for takeoff - you probably already know it has a constant-speed prop).

Cruise has been about 120 kts at 65%, but the airplane is very nose-heavy leading to level flight at a relatively high AoA. Extra weight in the tends to lead to an airspeed increase.

You probably don't care much about this in Tennessee, but takeoff performance at mountain airports in Colorado is something wonderful to behold.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You probably don't care much about this in Tennessee, but takeoff performance at mountain airports in Colorado is something wonderful to behold.
Click to expand...

I'd guess so, not only having the extra HP, but having a climb prop via CS.
 
I have a handful of hours in one (195) the extra hp made it feel, at 7000'da, like a normal 172 at sea level. It was 'fine', but last I checked the price differential made you want to look at a 182 etc.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Cruise has been about 120 kts at 65%, but the airplane is very nose-heavy leading to level flight at a relatively high AoA. Extra weight in the tends to lead to an airspeed increase.
Click to expand...

Extra weight in the... Tail.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I've flown both the 195 HP and the un-derated 210 HP. (The difference is primarily higher rpm available for takeoff - you probably already know it has a constant-speed prop).
Click to expand...

OK, this sparked to the forefront of my cluttered mind a question I've always wanted to ask:

What, technically or mechanically, do manufacturers "do" to an engine to limit its horsepower or RPM range? As stated above, you may have the same PHYSICAL engine other than a change in the final -A1B-type model designation code, yet one will produce 195HP at 2500 RPM, and the other one can be "ran up" to 2700 RPM and give you 2100HP.

What makes the difference? Throttle travel limitation? Different pitch prop?
 
Troy Whistman said:
OK, this sparked to the forefront of my cluttered mind a question I've always wanted to ask:

What, technically or mechanically, do manufacturers "do" to an engine to limit its horsepower or RPM range? As stated above, you may have the same PHYSICAL engine other than a change in the final -A1B-type model designation code, yet one will produce 195HP at 2500 RPM, and the other one can be "ran up" to 2700 RPM and give you 2100HP.

What makes the difference? Throttle travel limitation? Different pitch prop?
Click to expand...

My guess is that its just like any other engine. You develop more HP at the higher RPM. Limit the max speed of the engine and you only get xxx HP out of it.

Dial the prop back to 2500 RPM on the 210 HP model and you'd get 195 HP.

I'll let the other A&P folks chime in on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top