Are there 172 models to avoid?

warthog1984 said:
:confused: Have you ever flown one of the early ones? The only thing that flies sweeter than a O-300 straight tail 172 is a 140 or 170. Not barn burners by any means, but great planes with a proper Johnson bar for the flaps.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

<LTD agrees completely!>
 
Bryan- Tom hates Grummans. He and Cap'n Ron used to go at it "back in the good ole days". Especially over that old glue issue.

And throw Timmy in that mix of Grumman h8ters too
 
Jaybird180 said:
Bryan- Tom hates Grummans. He and Cap'n Ron used to go at it "back in the good ole days". Especially over that old glue issue.

And throw Timmy in that mix of Grumman h8ters too
Click to expand...

I don't hate grummans at all. I think theyre pretty sweet little rides (with emphasis on little...but if little suits your mission...). I was simply making him aware of known issues. You don't think that's important?
 
And to reiterate, this was not a what plane is best for me thread so much as a "If I had determined that a 172 fits 80% of my mission already, are there things to know about them?"

Like "Holy crap dude. Avoid the G model it was made from a combination of Kryptonite, asbestos, and herpes!!"
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
And to reiterate, this was not a what plane is best for me thread so much as a "If I had determined that a 172 fits 80% of my mission already, are there things to know about them?"
Click to expand...
There are no real stinkers, other than that some folks are wary of the O-320-H2AD engine (172N, 1977-80). But a lot of 172Ns out there have had engine swap STCs done anyway.

Otherwise the choices are basically chocolate/vanilla:

6-cylinder Continental engine? 172H (1967) or earlier. 4-banger Lycoming? 172I (1968) or later.
Manual flaps? 172E (1964) or earlier. Electric? 172F (1965) or later.
14-volt electrics? 1977 or earlier. 28-volt? 1978 or later.
Flat spring steel main gear? 172K (1970) or earlier. Tubular MLG? 172L (1971) or later.

Most everything else is just cosmetic.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
And to reiterate, this was not a what plane is best for me thread so much as a "If I had determined that a 172 fits 80% of my mission already, are there things to know about them?"

Like "Holy crap dude. Avoid the G model it was made from a combination of Kryptonite, asbestos, and herpes!!"
Click to expand...

Since when do you get to determine how the threads play out???:lol:
 
Blueangel said:
I would not buy one before the M or N model year. The 172N are solid aircraft.
Click to expand...

I love my little 172N. It's a 180 HP conversion, with the flaps limited to 30 degrees so has a useful load of 1024 lbs... Now fully loaded it flys like a bus, but it works.
 
Pilawt said:
Most everything else is just cosmetic.
Click to expand...

I think that's a pretty good summary but I'm not a 172 aficionado.

The only thing I'd add is avoid a re-start 172 unless you enjoy sumping. :goofy:
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
And to reiterate, this was not a what plane is best for me thread so much as a "If I had determined that a 172 fits 80% of my mission already, are there things to know about them?"
Click to expand...

tecprotb said:
Since when do you get to determine how the threads play out???:lol:
Click to expand...

Nor do you know what plane is best for you. Just sit back and let POA figger all this out fer ya.:lol: We'll let cha know what's best fer yer money.
 
timwinters said:
I don't hate grummans at all. I think theyre pretty sweet little rides (with emphasis on little...but if little suits your mission...). I was simply making him aware of known issues. You don't think that's important?
Click to expand...

A known issue? Are there any of those remaining in the fleet that haven't been repaired? Might he happen to buy the ONE plane that hasn't had the AD done? And if he did, wouldn't that be found during the prebuy (because we know that Bryan is smart enough to get a Grumman specific A&P to do the prebuy)...assuming that Mrs. 6PC approves of the type.
 
Pilawt said:
There are no real stinkers, other than that some folks are wary of the O-320-H2AD engine (172N, 1977-80). But a lot of 172Ns out there have had engine swap STCs done anyway.

Otherwise the choices are basically chocolate/vanilla:

6-cylinder Continental engine? 172H (1967) or earlier. 4-banger Lycoming? 172I (1968) or later.
Manual flaps? 172E (1964) or earlier. Electric? 172F (1965) or later.
14-volt electrics? 1977 or earlier. 28-volt? 1978 or later.
Flat spring steel main gear? 172K (1970) or earlier. Tubular MLG? 172L (1971) or later.

Most everything else is just cosmetic.
Click to expand...

160hp from the 100LL engines starting with the 172N (1977?) is somewhat significant.

And although cosmetic, i do find the tailcone baggage shelf handy starting with the 172M (1974?).
 
asicer said:
160hp from the 100LL engines starting with the 172N (1977?) is somewhat significant.

And although cosmetic, i do find the tailcone baggage shelf handy starting with the 172M (1974?).
Click to expand...

You can also put a chute on the > 1974 models right?
:popcorn:
 
How about a 175 with a 180 engine conversion? There were some nice ones for sale over the summer.
 
Tom-D said:
You haven't missed much. a twitchy little aircraft that loves long runways. The only aircraft that I know that you must own a hat. You can't operate in the rain with out getting every thing wet.

Ant the list goes on.. Grumman lovers, you just got fragged.
Click to expand...

Twitchy? I'd argue otherwise. And I've only seen them love long runways if you're afraid of flying final on speed...
 
Here are some 172s on TAP in your price range. The first and second ones are P and N models and the last two are older. Third has a 180hp conversion. I prefer N and P models but you can get more for your money with some pre 1970 models....


http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...+Piston/1985/Cessna/172P+Skyhawk/1761488.html

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...+Piston/1977/Cessna/172N+Skyhawk/2163575.html

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...e+Piston/1967/Cessna/172+Skyhawk/2160815.html

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...+Piston/1966/Cessna/172G+Skyhawk/2094754.html
 
mkosmo said:
Twitchy? I'd argue otherwise. And I've only seen them love long runways if you're afraid of flying final on speed...
Click to expand...

One day I was practicing landings in the Tiger and I kept making the first turn-off despite mild winds. A couple of times I actually had to add power to get off the runway. Then I remembered the ASI is in MPH and not KIAS :D
 
Not what you want to hear, but I'm in the "get a Citabria" camp as well. Just about the perfect "fly and look at the cows" plane as you can get and you can learn some mild aerobatics as well.
 
There is a 172b on the 172 forum that someone is selling. Has 430 and nice panel. Should have close to 1000 useful. My 172a did. No back window to mess up the looks and in the old ones it feels like driving a van. You can see the ground about 15 ft in front. Don't know how tall your wife is, but, she could see well over panel. He says it does 105kts on 8 gal. Mine had Mogas. Sure you could get that on this one if it doesn't have yet. Cheap flying.would also have manual flaps.
 
Last edited:
This isn't another "Hey, you don't want a crappy 172, you want THIS!" thing, because I actually like Cessnas. Maybe I'm too new, maybe it's because I prefer driving a truck ... I don't know, I just like Cessnas.

Normally, though, one locks in on a 172 vs. a Cherokee because they are a dyed in the wool high-wing person. Clearly, you have done mostly low wings, so I was curious what the thought process was to lock in on the 172, and not also consider the Cherokee?
 
Frogs97 said:
This isn't another "Hey, you don't want a crappy 172, you want THIS!" thing, because I actually like Cessnas. Maybe I'm too new, maybe it's because I prefer driving a truck ... I don't know, I just like Cessnas.

Normally, though, one locks in on a 172 vs. a Cherokee because they are a dyed in the wool high-wing person. Clearly, you have done mostly low wings, so I was curious what the thought process was to lock in on the 172, and not also consider the Cherokee?
Click to expand...


It is a "2 doors" thing

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77225&highlight=recording
 
Pilawt said:
My dad, a private pilot for 40 years, suffered from claustrophobia, bad. He had to have a door next to him. Not that he would use it in flight, of course; it just had to be there.

He was fine in the 172 he owned for 20 years (which I inherited and still fly). But a low-wing with the door on the wrong side, wasn't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Same here. I feel trapped.
I know it is psychological and silly to some extent.
And that ATC recording Troy posted reinforces it a bit.
 
My 69k with 180hp airplains conversion is a bit lighter than the later models and has aluminum dry wing tanks. Fewer sump issues.

The gage setup is not the standard 6 pack but iPad and fore flight or wingx pro pretty much makes VFR flying a non issue for that setup. IFR .. Perhaps a more standard 6 pack would be important.


Spring gear is a bit narrower but it is still so docile who cares.


The seats on the later models are nicer and you do not have the seat rail AD issue to be concerned about.. But if the rails have been replaced it is probably a non issue. (Unless there are gobs of hours post replacement).




In my opinion the early models with fewer fancy features are cheaper to maintain as Cessna is raping us on factory parts. Lamar electrical will not be your wallet's friend.


I work on N and M models with 16,000 hours and they are Finally getting tired, but a reasonably maintained 4,000 to 8,000 hour airframe can be totally useful for your objective IMO. The 180 conversion or 160 with power flow exhaust would warrant a second look.


I just crawled out of a citabria ..no way would my wife be happy in one.


Define your mission then decide. (Oh on a warm or Rainy day two doors and high wings are nice ... popcorn time :) )

Patrick
 
A very enjoyable thread to have totally read. I'm biased because I have no desire to move up or over. More than a few CFI -- not necessarily mine -- have commented, "This is the smoothest running/flying 172 I've ever taught in."
It's always had meticulous maintenance.
1971 Skyhawk C-172L. 0320-E2D(with Power-Flow Tuned Exhaust since 2005). Original cylinders were replaced after 42 years. IR certified(430-W). May not be fast, but flat-out reliable. Prior to my ownership it's seen Labrador a couple times. A friend of mine took it as far west as Winslow, Arizona about 10 years ago. One of my pilot friends got his Instrument Rating in her; is scheduled Dec. 04 for his Commercial check ride.
Why is it the best? For me, because I own it and the hangar it's in; a good feeling. And it's a good photo platform(though a Cardinal would be better).

HR
Oh; I have three of the old cylinders with hairline crack in each, if anyone could use them as Credits for a change; and one cylinder which passed Annual but was replaced with the other new three. Each is stored/packed in the boxes the new jugs came in. Also have muffler and carb heat box which passed Annual before the Power Flow system was installed. Pictures are available.
 

Attachments

  • N7872G Avatar.jpg
    N7872G Avatar.jpg
    33.8 KB · Views: 25
  • N7872G Greenville_1.jpg
    N7872G Greenville_1.jpg
    2.6 MB · Views: 23
  • N7872G Top-job_1.JPG
    N7872G Top-job_1.JPG
    439.9 KB · Views: 24
  • N7872G St. Paddy's_4.JPG
    N7872G St. Paddy's_4.JPG
    356.6 KB · Views: 25
As partially defined above: contents = old cylinders.
 

Attachments

  • N7872G ECI Cylinders.JPG
    N7872G ECI Cylinders.JPG
    549.2 KB · Views: 32
asicer said:
If you ever find yourself in that situation, some planes have an inner release mechanism for the baggage door so that you can use it as an emergency exit in a pinch.
Click to expand...

There's about zero chance of me fitting through the baggage door opening. My shoulders would make it a no go, much less getting the back seat folded down to get back there in the first place. I'd have better luck breaking a window or keeping a cordless sawz-all on board, lol!
 
Whst a 1980 c 172 rg cutlass like to keep training towards my ppl and maybe commercial. I have 30 hours logged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top