Are there 172 models to avoid?

Meh, the H2AD had some issues certainly, but we've got one with a couple thousand hours on it that we've had no engine issues with.
 
I have a 1956, straight tail. Its been mine for 3 years, and I love it. The 0-300 is smooth, the plane is very comfortable, has great visibility and just fun to fly..
 
TK211X said:
You are so lucky to be rich:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Totally. 1960's 172s are only for the elite.
Nothing wrong with wanting my own plane.
If I can make it happen... That is the goal.

If I were rich I would already have it:rolleyes2:
 
A Champ will be cheaper than a Cub. Fly just as well.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Totally. 1960's 172s are only for the elite.
Nothing wrong with wanting my own plane.
If I can make it happen... That is the goal.

If I were rich I would already have it:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Then get something cool and fun to play in, not some old 172. Your dad would appreciate if you keep using his plane to fly his grandkids in I'm quite certain, it was probably a large factor in his choice. If you want a cool flying toy of your own that won't break the bank, there are plenty of really cool choices out there.

You can hardly have more fun flying than one of these:
http://www.quicksilveraircraft.com/Watersports.php
 
Henning said:
I don't think Bryan is a 'maintain your own plane' guy. He's probably better off with something off an assembly line, or an RV with a large support following.
Click to expand...

I do want to maintain my own plane.

My current situation doesn't really allow for it. I have far less equity and thus far less say in how we do things which is fine.

The red carpet at U.S. Aviation is nice but I want my own hanger w/ my own tools where I can tinker, and hopefully nobody towing other planes into my plane :no:
 
Henning said:
Then get something cool and fun to play in, not some old 172. Your dad would appreciate if you keep using his plane to fly his grandkids in I'm quite certain, it was probably a large factor in his choice. If you want a cool flying toy of your own that won't break the bank, there are plenty of really cool choices out there.

You can hardly have more fun flying than one of these:
http://www.quicksilveraircraft.com/Watersports.php
Click to expand...


HAHAHAH I would love that. That is exactly what I want.
I am not single though. There is another party that has to be willing to get in it

Edit: eddie's sky arrow on the other hand. She might get on board with that:D
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I knew that the 180 hp models had the flap reduction and GW increase, but I didn't know that you had to mechanically reduce the flap travel if doing the 180 HP upgrade.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I do want to maintain my own plane.

My current situation doesn't really allow for it. I have far less equity and thus far less say in how we do things which is fine.

The red carpet at U.S. Aviation is nice but I want my own hanger w/ my own tools where I can tinker, and hopefully nobody towing other planes into my plane :no:
Click to expand...

Then get an RV-4 or 6 and a hangar and have fun. Just not an old 172...:lol:
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
HAHAHAH I would love that. That is exactly what I want.
I am not single though. There is another party that has to be willing to get in it

Edit: eddie's sky arrow on the other hand. She might get on board with that:D
Click to expand...

What does Eren think about a Citabria or RV? Both perfectly good airplanes that she can get her ticket in.
 
Bryan, post your FB profile picture on here so everyone can see how you like to fly, and then convince everyone that a 172 is the right plane for you. :)
Come over and let me take you up in a RV6a, you can pick up a 6 or a 4 for the same price of a 172.
 
tecprotb said:
Bryan, post your FB profile picture on here so everyone can see how you like to fly, and then convince everyone that a 172 is the right plane for you. :)
Come over and let me take you up in a RV6a, you can pick up a 6 or a 4 for the same price of a 172.
Click to expand...

That's why I said Sonex :hairraise:
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
HAHAHAH I would love that. That is exactly what I want.
I am not single though. There is another party that has to be willing to get in it

Edit: eddie's sky arrow on the other hand. She might get on board with that:D
Click to expand...

Oh, Eipper also has a GT-500 tandem with a windshield and Rotax 912, not sure if it goes on amphibs.
 
jesse said:
Meh, the H2AD had some issues certainly, but we've got one with a couple thousand hours on it that we've had no engine issues with.
Click to expand...

The only thing wrong with the H now is the cost of parts v/s any other Lycoming. price a cylinder see what I mean.
 
tecprotb said:
Bryan, post your FB profile picture on here so everyone can see how you like to fly, and then convince everyone that a 172 is the right plane for you. :)
Come over and let me take you up in a RV6a, you can pick up a 6 or a 4 for the same price of a 172.
Click to expand...

Yes. Take me up in a 6.
What are you doing right now? I can be at your field in 20 min :D



12321487_10208232032625428_1443791675046022745_n.jpg
 
I would avoid this model 172. Not a lot of interior room and doesn't run on 100LL.

minicraft-models-1-48-cessna-172-civil-air-patrol.jpg
 
Sorry to be directly opposite subject, but I can help with models not to avoid: I love mine. '76 M.
 
About all Cessna 172's are good. They all fly about the same. Have couple m's and couple n's. Have had the older ones. A model. It was probably cheapest, slowest and had the highest useful load. Pretty much anyone you buy, will be easy to sell, when you get tired of it. Most fun one I ever had was the r172k which is the hawk XP. Those are fun and pretty fast. Wouldn't mind having another one of those.
 
mkosmo said:
Sorry to be directly opposite subject, but I can help with models not to avoid: I love mine. '76 M.
Click to expand...

No that is fine too.
I just got to reading about them and there are so many variations.
With other planes I have seen posters say "yeah but avoid this model out that one"

Got to thinking this might apply to this varied line of aircraft as well.

Preferred model is good to know as well for sure
 
Best 172's are the 180 horse ones with fixed pitch prop and 40 degrees of flaps.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
No that is fine too.
I just got to reading about them and there are so many variations.
With other planes I have seen posters say "yeah but avoid this model out that one"

Got to thinking this might apply to this varied line of aircraft as well.

Preferred model is good to know as well for sure
Click to expand...
To add on what others have said, I love the barn door 40 deg flaps. I do kinda wish I had 180hp hanging off the front, though. The 150hp O-320-E2D gets a bit anemic at altitude, but it's never been a problem other than giving me a stronger right leg ;-)
 
I own a 1967 172H model with the 0-300D. She flys great, I have had her to 10,500 several times. It's not the fastest plane but it will get you there. I do want a bit more power but it is what it is. Hell, when I fly the 182 I want more power, it looks like it's never enough.
 
Luvrv8 said:
I own a 1967 172H model with the 0-300D. She flys great, I have had her to 10,500 several times. It's not the fastest plane but it will get you there. I do want a bit more power but it is what it is. Hell, when I fly the 182 I want more power, it looks like it's never enough.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've had mine to 12, but my rate of climb was only a couple hundred feet per minute. Probably could have milked some more, but I was only up there for fun.
 
mkosmo said:
Yeah, I've had mine to 12, but my rate of climb was only a couple hundred feet per minute. Probably could have milked some more, but I was only up there for fun.
Click to expand...

Opposite again - T-41s are a bit more unique; 210 HP, light weight, climb great, good short field and grass field airplane. Doesn't handle any better than other 172s, though - standard Cessna glacial roll rate, etc.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Thanks for the info. I knew that the 180 hp models had the flap reduction and GW increase, but I didn't know that you had to mechanically reduce the flap travel if doing the 180 HP upgrade.
Click to expand...

Yep. See Air Plains STC # SA2196CE. The STC was purchased for this airplane and I have the part in my desk. Maybe someday I'll have it put in ... but not yet. :)

The same flap-limit STC can be used with a 160 hp C-172N to increase the MGW by 100 lb., to 2400, making it the functional equivalent of a stock 172P.

Flap_limit_parts_e.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
Yep. See Air Plains STC # SA2196CE. The STC was purchased for this airplane and I have the part in my desk. Maybe someday I'll have it put in ... but not yet. :)

The same flap-limit STC can be used with a 160 hp C-172N to increase the MGW by 100 lb., to 2400, making it the functional equivalent of a stock 172P.

Flap_limit_parts_e.jpg
Click to expand...
Isn't there an STC to do the same even in older 150hp models? I thought I saw one for mine at one point. I just wish they'd trust us to self restrict when exercising the abilities of the MGW increase. I like 40. From my understanding, the limit is for Go-Around performance only.
 
Sam D said:
Well that one looks downright roomy. But you'd need a flight suit and a call sign.
Click to expand...

The airplane gets the call sign, not the pilot.

CAP 172s are fat pigs, especially with G1000. I wouldn't suggest that. They DO surplus them every once in a while.
 
mkosmo said:
Isn't there an STC to do the same even in older 150hp models?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how Penn Yan handles their STCs, but the Air Plains STC permits installation of the 180 hp engine in models 172B (1961) up through 172P (1986). That STC alone does not change the gross weight.

Per the Air Plains website:
Air Plains currently offers a gross weight increase in the Cessna 172 models D thru R [that have been modified with the 180 hp STC]. Cessna 172 models D thru L receive a 200 pounds increase and Cessna 172 models M thru P receive a 250 pounds increase. Air Plains also offers a 100 pounds increase for the Cessna 172N without the 180 HP engine upgrade.

Depending on the model being installed the GWI will require the installation of stringers in the tail-cone of the aircraft. Flaps are limited to 30º to comply with minimum climb-rate requirements at full gross-weight. Airspeed gauge will be remarked to reflect new airspeed ranges.
​
Gross weight increase is not available for 172B and 172C (1961-62) even with 180 hp.

It appears that 172D through 172K are the ones that require the stringer modification.
 
Last edited:
Bryan, to hell with all this airplane talk. You need a freakin' hot air balloon! They're the best way to travel, especially in an easterly direction.

What's wrong with you boy? Why can't you see that? My opinion of what you need is far more valid than your opinion of what you need.
 
timwinters said:
Bryan, to hell with all this airplane talk. You need a freakin' hot air balloon! They're the best way to travel, especially in an easterly direction.

What's wrong with you boy? Why can't you see that? My opinion of what you need is far more valid than your opinion of what you need.
Click to expand...

Nah. I've already decided the biggest difference between the 172s is I should get a blimp.

Now which one...
 
OK, if you get a blimp or a hot air balloon I get to skydive out of it!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top