Are there 172 models to avoid?

Primary ones to avoid are those with grass and reeds growing up thru the wheel pants and coming out of the tail cone or cowl
 
oldShar said:
Primary ones to avoid are those with grass and reeds growing up thru the wheel pants and coming out of the tail cone or cowl
Click to expand...
The cheapest ones will cost you more in the long run. You cant fix or update the avionics as cheap as you can buy one already done. If it has been sitting for a long time or for sale for a long time run away, good aircraft at a fair price sell, bad ones sit around forever looking for a sucker.
 
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...

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 HELL NO. :no: :nonod: :nono:
 
Henning said:
What does Eren think about a Citabria or RV? Both perfectly good airplanes that she can get her ticket in.
Click to expand...

I haven't flown in either, though I wouldn't be opposed to it.

Basically, we want something for short trips (fly to breakfast, go watch the sunset, etc.) and Bryan can go do some touch & gos whenever I will let him out of the house. The Cirrus is great, but (1) it belongs to his dad, (2) it likes fuel, so $$$, and (3) it's so fast that there really isn't a point in taking it up for a 5 minute flight to breakfast or to do some touch & gos. Now, to fly the kids down to Jay's place, it's great, but as a daily (weekly, Bryan, weekly!) driver, we need something more economical.
 
Mrs. SixPapaCharlie said:
OH HELL NO. :no: :nonod: :nono:
Click to expand...

Take a ride before you say no too fast. These are actually well built machines, Quicksilver name has been at the top of the industry in design and quality since it all began with ultralights in the 70s. Plus you can get get the BRS option.
 
Henning said:
Take a ride before you say no too fast. These are actually well built machines, Quicksilver name has been at the top of the industry in design and quality since it all began with ultralights in the 70s. Plus you can get get the BRS option.
Click to expand...

SOLD:rofl:
 
I would say depends more on the condition of the individual plane. 172s are extraordinary.
 
Henning said:
Then get something cool and fun to play in, not some old 172.
http://www.quicksilveraircraft.com/Watersports.php
Click to expand...

Henning, I'm disappointed in you. The 172 is a cool plane. Just people don't recognize it because they're ubiquitous. I have flown a 172M from Riga to south Germany and separately from Frankfurt to Rome multiple times, landing sometimes in very short fields and at others at international airports. You throttle back and get good fuel efficiency & can land pretty much anywhere any other plane can.

I confess, I don't own a 172 but a low wing 180HP Rallye which is one plane that can outdo a 172 in short field performance. But I still admire the 172s even though they aren't pretty. But they are cool.
 
Last edited:
WhiskeyPapa said:
Henning, I'm disappointed in you. The 172 is a cool plane. Just people don't recognize it because they're ubiquitous. I have flown a 172M from Riga to south Germany and separately from Frankfurt to Rome multiple times, landing sometimes in very short fields and at others at international airports. You throttle back and get good fuel efficiency & can land pretty much anywhere any other plane can.

I confess, I don't own a 172 but a low wing 180HP Rallye which is one plane that can outdo a 172 in short field performance. But I still admire the 172s even though they aren't pretty. But they are cool.
Click to expand...

He has an SR-22 available to him for that mission, the plane is in the family. The SR-22 will fly into anywhere he'll fly a 172.

If you're gonna add another plane to the family fleet, might as well have it fill a different cool roll, rather than do a less worth job of the same roll. Just seems like a better all around value for the total expense to me; but then WTF do I know?:dunno:

Where do you have the Ralleye, and can I rent it?
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I agree on the quicksilver. I don't trust those 2 stroke Rotax engines.

The Sky Arrow would be a different story. The 4 stroke Rotax engines(912, 914 etc) are reliable and run really nice. My dad's airplane is powered by one.
Click to expand...

The GT 500 uses a Rotax 912, but there is nothing wrong with the 582 Rotax 2 stroke. They are cheap as chips to rebuild, and most of the time even when you seize them a piston and ring set and clean up with a hone plus a few gaskets has you back in business in a few hours work. As far as 'learning' how to work on this stuff, it also holds a distinct advantage in mechanical simplicity. It's like learning how to work on lawn mowers, go-carts, and motorcycles, before you get into working on cars. The 582 is a good engine. As long as you have BRS, you are at less risk than in a GA plane. BTW, the BRS isn't about engine failure, they glide down soft.
 
Last edited:
This looks like a nice plane: http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/2161394.html

After flying in a 172 you will definitely notice the extra width of the cabin, and you will love the wide swinging doors, and the excellent view out of the cockpit due to the lack of side struts, and the rearward location of the wing.
 
PPC1052 said:
This looks like a nice plane: http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/2161394.html

After flying in a 172 you will definitely notice the extra width of the cabin, and you will love the wide swinging doors, and the excellent view out of the cockpit due to the lack of side struts, and the rearward location of the wing.
Click to expand...

Also double the cost of the 172 he posted an ad for.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Yep I am targeting sub 40k this first go round.
Click to expand...
If that's your goal, the other 4 seaters of similar performance are worth a look. My buddy bought a Grumman Traveller (160hp upgrade and cheetah tail) that has very similar numbers all the way around and gets some awesome ramp cred. The visibility is unreal compared to my Skyhawk and it flies so similarly.
 
mkosmo said:
If that's your goal, the other 4 seaters of similar performance are worth a look. My buddy bought a Grumman Traveller (160hp upgrade and cheetah tail) that has very similar numbers all the way around and gets some awesome ramp cred. The visibility is unreal compared to my Skyhawk and it flies so similarly.
Click to expand...


That is the other plane on my list actually.
I have a good deal of time in a 172. Never been in a Grumman.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
That is the other plane on my list actually.
I have a good deal of time in a 172. Never been in a Grumman.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of my time has been in my Cessna other than a few hours in his Grumman. I recall hearing horror stories of Grummans from Grumman CFIs who said you need special type or you'll die... It's incredibly docile and I don't believe then for a second anymore. The only thing that took some getting used to was that the trim wheel was far more effective than I was used to lol. Tiny changes! The enormous white arc is nearly available at canopy open speeds, too!

If he reads this thread, he might even offer you a ride it you make it down this way. ;-)
 
A grumman Cheetah or a Tiger is a great choice, I flew a Cheetah for years and really enjoyed it. I can set you up a ride in my old plane its still at 52F.
 
tecprotb said:
A grumman Cheetah or a Tiger is a great choice, I flew a Cheetah for years and really enjoyed it.
Click to expand...
+1. I owned a Cheetah for five years. It is a barrel of fun to fly, with perfect control harmony and sporty feel. Visibility is unexcelled in its class, with huge windows all around and low glareshield and cowl ahead. Maintenance is stone simple, though there are some special techniques occasioned by the bonded airframe. Downside is that its short field performance is not as good as a similarly-powered C-172, and it's not really suited for unimproved fields. The high-compression "160 hp" conversion is recommended.

A later Traveler or Cheetah is marginally faster than a 172 or Cherokee. My '78 cruised at 122 KTAS on 7.6 gph.

Since you fly a Cirrus, you're already familiar with castering nosewheels!
 
I would not buy one before the M or N model year. The 172N are solid aircraft.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Wait what?????
Click to expand...

Bond-line separation in the early models.

The culprit turned out to be an improper bonding sealant, American Cyanimide FM-123, known as "purple passion" among production employees. The FM-123 was used in all Grumman American aircraft built between April 1974 and December, 1975 including Tigers up through about serial number 125. At least one severe delamination occurred in flight in a 1975 Tiger, but no accident resulted. At least two Tigers, serial numbers 15 and 19, were virtually rebuilt from scratch because of severe bonding problems. According to a former Grumman American production employee, 30 or 40 honeycomb fuselage test panels somehow found their way into production aircraft, possibly affecting Tigers with serial numbers below about 30. A 1976 AD required rivets along bondlines, and the problem has receded in recent years. But any buyer of a 1975 or early 1976 Tiger should be aware of the potential for problems. As for the Cheetah, since it came along a year later, only a tiny handful of the earliest Cheetahs used the purple stuff. (Incidentally, you can check for the defective glue by pulling off the wingtip and inspecting the bonded seam at the spar-to-rib or rib-to-skin joint. If there's a purple line, you may have a problem.
Click to expand...

.........
 
The N also (I believe) is the first model with the pre-selectable flap handle. In the M you have to hold the flap handle down until you reach the desired degrees. Lots of little differences like that between model years. A great book for prospective 172 owners/pilots is Cessna 172: A Pocket History.
 
oregonboy109 said:
The N also (I believe) is the first model with the pre-selectable flap handle. In the M you have to hold the flap handle down until you reach the desired degrees. Lots of little differences like that between model years. A great book for prospective 172 owners/pilots is Cessna 172: A Pocket History.
Click to expand...

That is correct. The N is the first with the pre-selectable flap.
 
I've been flying a '74 M model since June. Other than the fact that visibility isn't the greatest, in my extremely limited experience it's a great little plane.
 
timwinters said:
Bond-line separation in the early models. [snip]. If there's a purple line, you may have a problem.
Click to expand...
Old news. That's from an Aviation Consumer article almost 20 years ago. American Yankee Association, one of the best type clubs around, has thorough and up-to-date information on this issue. It's another reason to seek out a mechanic familiar with the breed. AYA can steer you to the knowledgeable ones.
 
Last edited:
Blueangel said:
I would not buy one before the M or N model year. The 172N are solid aircraft.
Click to expand...

: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.
 
Pilawt said:
Downside is that its short field performance is not as good as a similarly-powered C-172, and it's not really suited for unimproved fields. The high-compression "160 hp" conversion is recommended.
Click to expand...

I haven't noticed that with the Tiger AA5B I fly. If the takeoff roll is any longer than the 180hp 172 that I also fly then it's pretty darned close.

However Vx/Vy in a Tiger is 70/90KIAS while a 172-180 is 62/73KIAS so I think the climb gradient is shallower.

A later Traveler or Cheetah is marginally faster than a 172 or Cherokee. My '78 cruised at 122 KTAS on 7.6 gph.
Click to expand...

I get 135KTAS on around 9.8gph in the Tiger.
 
asicer said:
I get 135KTAS on around 9.8gph in the Tiger.
Click to expand...
Cheetah and Tiger are identical externally, but the aerodynamic plumbing inside the cowl is much cleaner on the Tiger (tip o' the cap to Roy LoPresti). Thus the Tiger has more of a speed advantage over other 180 hp fixed-gear singles, than does the Cheetah over its 150 hp counterparts.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Never been in a Grumman.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top