For Sale: Aircraft 1973 Cessna 172M Good One!

pigpenracing

pigpenracing

En-Route
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Messages
2,756
Location
Brenham Tx
Display Name
Display name:
pigpen
1973 CESSNA 172 M • $79,995 • AVAILABLE FOR SALE • Up for sale is my very nice 1973 Cessna 172M. This plane is a good one. It still has the original factory paint and windows. 2975 Total time and 335 SMOH! You do not find many in this condition. The plane has always been in a hangar and never a trainer. You can tell it has been well kept just by seeing how nice this 46 year old paint is. The panel has a MX-300 radio along with a Garmin 696. It is not ADSB equipped yet. The plane flies excellent and the engine is very strong. This is the M which is the most desirable model of the 172. Both windows open which is rare. • Contact Shawn R. Hendrickson located Brenham, TX USA • Telephone: 979-451-3251 • Posted May 21, 2019 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertiser • Save to Watchlist • Report This Ad • View Larger Pictures

1x1.gif


 
Surprising to see an M with that kinda TTAF. Very nice. I like original patina-ish stuff myself.
 
alfadog said:
I like original patina-ish stuff myself.
Click to expand...
Me too. I think airplanes of that vintage look best in their original schemes. Plus, it brings back memories of drooling over those 1970s magazine ads. My '78 (built October 1977) is still in its original factory paint.

DSC00084.jpg

Screen Shot 2019-05-29 at 8.07.21 PM.png
 
Ryanb said:
Curious - What makes the M the most desirable model?
Click to expand...
Because that’s the model he’s selling. :)

Seriously though, the M and N models make great platforms for 180 hp upgrades. With the lighter weight and available 250 lb gross weight increase, you get a very respectable useful load. This transforms the plane into a real 4 person aircraft.
 
Ryanb said:
Curious - What makes the M the most desirable model?
Click to expand...

Because the M is the first model with the new design wing and the reliable engine.
The N went to the engine that has all the problems eating up cams and lifters. I think the oil additives helped the N problem but they have a bad reputation. The L had the 0-300 and the N has the bad rap 320 so the M is the good one. Not many good ones left.
You will be pressed to find another one like mine. I searched really hard when I bought it back years ago.
I have a friend that was looking a couple of years ago. He burned more than $5,000 traveling and looking at junk. Lots of worn out and corroded planes covered up with fancy new paint!
 
pigpenracing said:
The L had the 0-300
Click to expand...
172L built in the US had the Lycoming O-320. The last year for the O-300 in US-built 172s was 1967 (172H).

Some confusion arises because the F172 series built by Cessna's licensee in France continued to use the Rolls-Royce Continental O-300 through the 1971 model year (F172L), even though they otherwise looked like the ones built here.
 
My hangar neighbor has a 172L and it has the O-300

EDIT:
Correction I looked up my buddies and it is a 172G.... Not sure why I thought it was a L
But anyway the M has a better wing than the L.....
 
pigpenracing said:
Because the M is the first model with the new design wing and the reliable engine.
The N went to the engine that has all the problems eating up cams and lifters. I think the oil additives helped the N problem but they have a bad reputation. The L had the 0-300 and the N has the bad rap 320 so the M is the good one. Not many good ones left.
Click to expand...
I just feel like that could be misleading to folks who don’t know better.

What’s wrong with the P, R or S models? 160-180hp is nice, despite a slight reduction in the useful load. I’ve flown a few different models, and I honestly couldn’t say that one is substantially better than the other. A 172, is a 172 in all reality. Nice looking bird nonetheless.

Good luck!
 
Ryanb said:
I just feel like that could be misleading to folks who don’t know better.

What’s wrong with the P, R or S models? 160-180hp is nice, despite a slight reduction in the useful load. I’ve flown a few different models, and I honestly couldn’t say that one is substantially better than the other. A 172, is a 172 in all reality. Nice looking bird nonetheless.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

Lets say the M is the most desirable for the price... A P, R or S are really hard to find and they are in a whole completely different price group. Unless they have extremely high airframe and engine hours, then you can find them reasonable
 
pigpenracing said:
Lets say the M is the most desirable for the price... A P, R or S are really hard to find and they are in a whole completely different price group. Unless they have extremely high airframe and engine hours, then you can find them reasonable
Click to expand...
I’d agree with that. For the price it’s a good model.

Thanks for clarifying that.
 
I heard another airplane of yours was described as a real peach.

So between, the Cherry, Bonana, and the peach, sounds like you got the whole fruit salad going on :p
 
I grew up flying in a 1972 Cessna 172M and I thought it was the prettiest plane I'd ever seen and I loved to say 'triple niner eight' on the radio. Unfortunately on a hot day, loaded with four people, two dogs, two sets of ski equipment, a guy crashed it taking off in Amarillo. I wouldn't mind owning one today, but not in the cards right now.

100dfe92c595c0a485567d487a660b4b1da26c3a
 
Lowflynjack said:
I grew up flying in a 1972 Cessna 172M and I thought it was the prettiest plane I'd ever seen and I loved to say 'triple niner eight' on the radio. Unfortunately on a hot day, loaded with four people, two dogs, two sets of ski equipment, a guy crashed it taking off in Amarillo. I wouldn't mind owning one today, but not in the cards right now.

100dfe92c595c0a485567d487a660b4b1da26c3a
Click to expand...
There’s something about an older 172 like that one, that wets my whistle. Probably because they were the predominant airplane on the ramp at the airport when I was kid and I always dreamed of flying one.
 
Ryanb said:
There’s something about an older 172 like that one, that wets my whistle. Probably because they were the predominant airplane on the ramp at the airport when I was kid and I always dreamed of flying one.
Click to expand...

I like the classic paint schemes, or at least the lines of them (some of the colors are questionable, like some of the tan-and-brown schemes of the late 70s/early 80s). I hate when someone repaints an old plane to look like a new one. The restart 172s had paint schemes designed to be as cheap as possible.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I grew up flying in a 1972 Cessna 172M and I thought it was the prettiest plane I'd ever seen and I loved to say 'triple niner eight' on the radio.

100dfe92c595c0a485567d487a660b4b1da26c3a
Click to expand...

According to the FAA website, N19998 (s/n 17260921), like the one in the OP, was built during calendar year 1972, but by serial number was in the 1973 model year. Jack's photo shows N19998 in the original 1973 Skyhawk factory paint scheme.

1973_172_01.jpg
 
Pilawt said:
According to the FAA website, N19998 (s/n 17260921), like the one in the OP, was built during calendar year 1972, but by serial number was in the 1973 model year. Jack's photo shows N19998 in the original 1973 Skyhawk factory paint scheme.

View attachment 74676
Click to expand...
The story behind triple niner eight was, they bought it as a club plane, brand new from the factory. However for some reason the paint was falling off. Cessna repainted it for free, with any paint scheme they wanted and by then the 1973 scheme was out. I still like that scheme, especially the stripes up the tail.
 
dmspilot said:
I hate when someone repaints an old plane to look like a new one. The restart 172s had paint schemes designed to be as cheap as possible.
Click to expand...
And that's why a lot of people do it. They like the newer look, but it's also about as cheap as you can get. Solid white paint, and call Cessna for a coupe of decals for stripes!

Sorry to keep adding to your post Shawn! I can tell people here, I've seen several of Shawn's planes in person... and this one is no slouch. I would be proud to own it.
 
dmspilot said:
(some of the colors are questionable, like some of the tan-and-brown schemes of the late 70s/early 80s).
Click to expand...

Ahem. <cough, cough>. Say what ... ? :confused:

DSC00084.jpg


I hate when someone repaints an old plane to look like a new one.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

The restart 172s had paint schemes designed to be as cheap as possible.
Click to expand...
Not only cheap, but designed to be applied with pre-cut stick-on graphics rather than paint.[/QUOTE]
 
dmspilot said:
I like the classic paint schemes, or at least the lines of them (some of the colors are questionable, like some of the tan-and-brown schemes of the late 70s/early 80s). I hate when someone repaints an old plane to look like a new one. The restart 172s had paint schemes designed to be as cheap as possible.
Click to expand...

I am the same way.. I like the old paint schemes on old airplanes. There is a V tail Bonanza that flies into our airport. It has a new Bonanza scheme and is the ugliest thing I have ever seen!
 
Lowflynjack said:
The story behind triple niner eight was, they bought it as a club plane, brand new from the factory. However for some reason the paint was falling off. Cessna repainted it for free, with any paint scheme they wanted and by then the 1973 scheme was out.
Click to expand...
Hm. The 1972 year-model Skyhawk was still 172L. FAA registration record says N19998 was a 172M, which starts with the 1973 model year. And its serial number (17260921) was within the range of the 1973 model year (17260759-17261898).

FAA registration records don't reflect the manufacturer's model year, just the calendar year in which the airworthiness certificate was issued. Like my brown-and-orange :eek: '78 Skyhawk, which was built in October 1977.
 
Pilawt said:
Hm. The 1972 year-model Skyhawk was still 172L. FAA registration record says N19998 was a 172M, which starts with the 1973 model year. And its serial number (17260921) was within the range of the 1973 model year (17260759-17261898).

FAA registration records don't reflect the manufacturer's model year, just the calendar year in which the airworthiness certificate was issued. Like my brown-and-orange :eek: '78 Skyhawk, which was built in October 1977.
Click to expand...
Strange. Maybe it was a 1973 with a bad paint job and they got it repainted! I just remember the story of it getting new paint and my uncle got to pick the colors. I've seen quite a few with the same scheme, but only a few these lighter colors of blue. Often they were darker.
001422079.jpg
 
One other thing the "M" has going for it is a 12V electrical system. I like the "N" because it has a standard 6-pack instrument panel. I think the "sweet" spot is an early "N" model because of the panel and 12V system.

Nice looking aircraft, good luck with the sale!
 
idahoflier said:
One other thing the "M" has going for it is a 12V electrical system. I like the "N" because it has a standard 6-pack instrument panel. I think the "sweet" spot is an early "N" model because of the panel and 12V system.

Nice looking aircraft, good luck with the sale!
Click to expand...
Why do you like the 12V system better?

All of the fight instructors I’ve used have liked the M better.
 
jsstevens said:
Why do you like the 12V system better?

All of the fight instructors I’ve used have liked the M better.
Click to expand...

Batteries and pretty much any other electrical parts are cheaper
You can jump your plane with your car
You can use car cigarette lighter adapters for miscellaneous gizmos
 
Lowflynjack said:
Strange. Maybe it was a 1973 with a bad paint job and they got it repainted! I just remember the story of it getting new paint and my uncle got to pick the colors. I've seen quite a few with the same scheme, but only a few these lighter colors of blue. Often they were darker.
001422079.jpg
Click to expand...

Here's the 1973 factory color chart. Back then "Skyhawk" was still just the name of a deluxe option package. You could buy a base "172" with white and only one trim color, but mostly bare aluminum. Overall white was optional. But most buyers chose the "Skyhawk" version with overall white base paint, two trim colors and a bunch of other goodies.

Screen Shot 2019-06-06 at 4.03.00 PM.png

idahoflier said:
One other thing the "M" has going for it is a 12V electrical system. I like the "N" because it has a standard 6-pack instrument panel. I think the "sweet" spot is an early "N" model because of the panel and 12V system.
Click to expand...
1977 was the only year of the 172N with 14-volt electrics. Cessna went to 28-volt on everything from the 152 on up for 1978.
 
jsstevens said:
Why do you like the 12V system better?

All of the fight instructors I’ve used have liked the M better.
Click to expand...

I like 12V systems better because:
  • 12V batteries are half the cost of 28V batteries.
  • If you're stuck somewhere with a dead battery you can always get a jump/charge from practically any other vehicle.
  • Practically every portable electronic device will accommodate a 12V system in an easy manner.
  • 12V battery chargers are plentiful and cheap, whereas 28V, not so much.
  • You can get small and lightweight 12V NiMH battery boosters.

One other thing I forgot about the "M" that I like is the paddle flap switch vs flap selector present in the "N" and beyond...
 
I believe the main gear legs are different on the M model as well. Slightly wider.
 
Price lowered! It has been on Barnstormers for 30 days and lots of calls but no buyer. Price lowered to $72,500
 
Ryanb said:
What’s wrong with the P, R or S models?
Click to expand...

I personally don't like the newer S model because I find it much more complicated than it 'needs' to be....I mean a sump in each wing seemed to work fine for decades. I don't usually have half a day to sump the tanks!

Probably 1/3 or so of my relatively small amount of total time has been in various 172 variants...the vast majority N models
Sadly I only have about 5 hours in the M and don't remember how it differs.
I liked the N because it has a more "modern" round dial layout than the older models, but has more basic systems than the newer models. I think the M was similar in those regards
 
Brad W said:
Probably 1/3 or so of my relatively small amount of total time has been in various 172 variants...the vast majority N models
Sadly I only have about 5 hours in the M and don't remember how it differs.
Click to expand...
Taller panel and toggle flap switch instead of preset. Also, 150hp stock as the N and later were designed for 100LL in addition to slightly bigger tanks to go with the added HP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top