Are there 172 models to avoid?

SixPapaCharlie

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
16,415
Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
Left home alone and started window shopping.
Looking at the 172s A, B, C, E, F...

Then I am on wikipedia learning the difference and growing confused.
I am looking for a 5 year plane that will be traded / upgraded after.

I like this one but I have no idea what makes a "G" different from any other
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...+Piston/1966/Cessna/172G+Skyhawk/2094754.html


Are there any models that are to be avoided?
Are there preferred models?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Left home alone and started window shopping.
Looking at the 172s A, B, C, E, F...

Then I am on wikipedia learning the difference and growing confused.
I am looking for a 5 year plane that will be traded / upgraded after.

I like this one but I have no idea what makes a "G" different from any other
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...+Piston/1966/Cessna/172G+Skyhawk/2094754.html


Are there any models that are to be avoided?
Are there preferred models?
Click to expand...

Avoid the ones with the H model motors...
 
That's the conti 6 banger, I'd look for one with the higher HP lyc 4 banger.
 
Some of the late 70 models had corrosion problems,also the models that had the H motor,most of those have been updated.
 
The O-300-D seems to be the most prolific.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
okay.
Just to understand you are not referring to 172H but O-300-H correct?
And why?
Click to expand...

No, the 'H engine' being referred to is a Lycoming O-320-H2AD. The O-300 is a 145hp Continental. Nothing particularly wrong with the O-300, and the 172G has a standard pattern panel.
 
no, they are taking about the lycoming 320-H2AD engine. was in the 79 or so 172. when they first came out there were Problems with it eating cams. due to a problem with the lubrication system design. the oil additives helped but a good solution was soon devised. since most have been overhauled by now the problem has pretty much been taken care of but the bad rep on that engine lives on.

the only big problem with it is I do believe some, if not all, used the single drive mag. (D2000 or D3000 or something like that) it is all but orphaned now and parts are hard to come by now I have heard.

bob
 
Can't say to avoid any models but I've flown the P, R and SP models. I'd fly the P and SP models any day! I would not hip back in an R if I have the option. The R with a 160hp engine just climbs so slowly and seems a bit underpowered. With a 180hp engine I'd hop in no problem but the lack of useful load would hinder any XC options especially with more than just 2 adults.
 
Why the heck would you go from a Cirrus to a Skyhawk?
 
This thread might help. Idk if you can view it without being a member but if you're looking at 172s this forum is a great resource. If fly a 1979 N model and a 1981 P model. Some people knock the N for the 320-H2AD but my club 172N has been nothing but reliable especially compared to the P model which had some engine issues earlier this year. YMMV but that's been my experience. The N also has the modest hp bump from the earlier models (160 up from 145/150 I believe) and has 40 degrees of flaps if that's something you think would come in handy.

Hope this helps

http://www.cessna172club.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=151371
 
N801BH said:
I will sell you a 4 place 801......

But the 400 HP will scare the siht out of ya...:yes::D
Click to expand...

I fly with 310 hp now. Is that a major difference?
Guaranteed to be beyond my financial reach though.
 
Henning said:
Then get a Citabria you can have some fun in.
Click to expand...

True that, Citabria is a good value airplane. That'd be a good contrast airplane to the Cirrus. I'm partial to the Super Cubs but you'll pay more for one of those, and you don't get the benefit of basic acro.
 
Agree with Henning. You've got a good family cruiser. I'd get something fun for your second "toy." Go get a 2 seat aerobatic plane or an EAB. I'd recommend a Long Eze or Glasair for the price of a C172.

On topic, have no clue what C172 models to avoid. Got about 3 hrs in Skyhawks and nothing really stood out other than it handled like a truck and had poor visibility.
 
I'm biased, but I'm partial to the 172M (1973-76), 172N (1977-80) and 172P (1981-86) with the 180 hp STC. They're lighter-weight airframes than the newer 180 hp 172S (1999-present); and they're carbureted, as opposed to the 172S' fuel injection. There are a lot of these conversions around now. Cessna built a few with the carbureted O-360-A4N in 1983-85 (started out as a special order for Embry-Riddle), and called it the 172Q "Cutlass".

unsafervguy said:
no, they are taking about the lycoming 320-H2AD engine. was in the 79 or so 172.
Click to expand...
O-320-H2AD was in the 172N model, built during the 1977-80 model years.
 
I have a G model and if I pull it back, can easily get 6.5 gph fuel burn. My panel is not standard 6 pack, but could be if I wanted to get rid of a barrel of cash. I'm not instrument rated, but have flown all over in my trusty steed. Pull the back seat out and there's room to sleep back there if you had to.

There are 6 cylinders to care for/replace, and without the push rod upgrade kits mine will leak. I lean aggressively and have never experienced morning sickness or fouled plugs. On anything but a cool day, the oil temp sits right up close to redline. Once while climbing to get over the Big Horn mountains the probe kept bumping redline, so I step climbed.

People always comment on how smooth my engine is, the O300s are known for that. My wife normally falls asleep as soon as I reach cruise. As for handling characteristics, there is nothing noteworthy except I find her exceptionally easy to land. The 40* barn doors are nice when you want to get down: https://youtu.be/Jd3BlLeELz0?t=23
 
James331 said:
That's the conti 6 banger, I'd look for one with the higher HP lyc 4 banger.
Click to expand...

There is only 5 horse power difference and you loose that smooth operating 6 .
the H2AD has 160 horse, but the later models are heavier and they do not preform as well as the early models.
 
Pilawt said:
I'm biased, but I'm partial to the 172M
Click to expand...

they were good aircraft, light weight, with good IFR equipment. 150 horse and good to go auto fuel.

But the 66/67 had a much smoother feel, and as good performance.
 
Pilawt said:
I'm biased, but I'm partial to the 172M (1973-76)
Click to expand...

I've flown the L and M, and prefer the M. Pretty sure the only difference is the droop tips, but it seems like I have better landings in it lol
 
I have a friend with a Mooney, he's got a Cub for low and slow. I've flown a Cub and a Citabria, both would make good low and slow airplanes.

If you're stuck on the 172, I like the 79 N model with a 180hp conversion. Flap extension speed is 110 for the first notch and 40 degrees of flaps make it a really good short field performer.
 
Last edited:
In the book "Wings For The World" by William Thompson, the longest running test pilot for Cessna, he says the 1963 Powermatic P172- was the best made, quietest cabin in the entire run of all the 172s.

I've flown one, he's right. Manual Flaps, 175 horse power, light weight fuselage, baggage door.
 
Last edited:
fiveoboy01 said:
I have a friend with a Mooney, he's got a Cub for low and slow. I've flown a Cub and a Citabria, both would make good low and slow airplanes.

If you're stuck on the 172, I like the 79 N model with a 180hp conversion. Flap extension speed is 110 for the first notch and 40 degrees of flaps make it a really good short field performer.
Click to expand...

Much more bang for buck in the Citabria, just my opinion.


I would second the notion towards something other than a 172. I don't know, I just don't think they are fun to fly. Solid airplanes, but they are about as exciting as a Toyota Camry.
 
ktup-flyer said:
I've flown the L and M, and prefer the M. Pretty sure the only difference is the droop tips, but it seems like I have better landings in it lol
Click to expand...
Major difference is that the 172L (1971-72) has the original NACA 2412 airfoil; 172M (1973) and later have the cuffed leading edge. Drooped wingtips appeared with the 1970 172K.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Much more bang for buck in the Citabria, just my opinion.


I would second the notion towards something other than a 172. I don't know, I just don't think they are fun to fly. Solid airplanes, but they are about as exciting as a Toyota Camry.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that. 172s are definitely boring.

Cubs are pretty expensive for what they are, the Citabria is a great airplane. My friend has one and they put skis on it for winter. Very versatile bird.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I agree with all of that. 172s are definitely boring.

That is what makes them a great aircraft.

the Citabria is a great airplane.
Click to expand...

Try putting 4 pax in one.
 
They are a great airplane, so is the PA28 but I'd be lying if I said my airplane was exciting.

OP said nothing about the mission other than low and slow, and I'm guessing it would be his personal fun airplane, not the family hauler.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
If you're stuck on the 172, I like the 79 N model with a 180hp conversion. Flap extension speed is 110 for the first notch and 40 degrees of flaps make it a really good short field performer.
Click to expand...
If you want the 250 pound gross weight increase with the 180 hp conversion, you have to install a stopnut in the flap linkage to limit extension to 30 degrees.

I like short fields and I have no friends, so I kept the 40 degrees of flap and the original 2300 lb gross weight. Useful load as is, is 767 lb. Install the flap limiter and it would be 1017 lb., of which 777 lb. would be cabin payload with full 40 gallons of fuel.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
They are a great airplane, so is the PA28 but I'd be lying if I said my airplane was exciting.

OP said nothing about the mission other than low and slow, and I'm guessing it would be his personal fun airplane, not the family hauler.
Click to expand...

The 170 would do that better
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top