C172 or a C182

[naremman]

Listen to Poteroo, he is one bloke well qualified to expound on the subject.

 

In my opinion: C172 is the baseline, and only when there are compelling reasons as to whether you consider a C 182 for you to choose to step up, unless you consider $$$$ are no consideration at all. For those of us who operate in the bush, look at a 200 litre drum of Avgas. Six hours in a C172, a bit over four hours in a C182, and the small speed advantage of the 182 ain't gonna put you in front.

 

Not too many years ago there was a well renown vet operating in the Kimberly area of WA area whose chosen stead was the C172. He reasoned that it was a far more reliable and economical unit operating into station strips than some of the more advanced Cessnas, remote from maintenance. He flew year round, and if you want turbulence there is no better starting point.

 

I have to declare a bias. I learnt to fly on a 172D, completed my Navs and NVFR on a C172M and have just concluded 32 years ownership in a 172M. Loved the wing and handling characteristics of the D, but the cruising ability of the M made it so much of a better proposition. Keeping weight out of an airframe as it evolves always seems to a challenge that is constantly lost. 900 lbs useful load in the M was always tidy, 600 lbs after full fuel. Full tanks was good for about 525 Nm, and after the few occasions that I used that capability the comfort factor had been compromised. I have enough C180/182 time logged to know how few the times are when the extra capability has really made a difference.

 

We used to flight plan our M at 105 Knots with a load at 32 lpm and were never short changed. With a bit of altitude and two up we could TAS at 110 or better. The 40 degrees flap extension had more benefits than downsides. The last ten degrees went down when you were confident that you had the approached nailed and a go around was not being anticipated. Great for getting into a 400 metre one way strip in front of my house.

 

Sadly my involvement in the good old Cessna came to an end when we looked at a 40 year old airframe, with SIDS looming, engine overhaul and the use by date of that horrible acrylic paint all coming together. The purchaser may well consider that he has a cheap aeroplane, I have a sneaking suspicion that he walked into an expensive proposition.

 

 

[poteroo]

Upon reflection, I need to add to my earlier comments about re-engining C172's. There was/is a conversion known as the Bush, (unrelated to that Texan family I believe), which included a CSU with the 180 HP Lycoming. There are a few flying around Aus, including on C175 seriues. (Many of you wouldn't have seen these but they were a Cessna attempt to put some life into the old Continental 0-300/ 145HP engine. It involved a geared propeller to an 0-300. Clearly, as its' production run was only 1958-9......it wasn't popular - hence the conversions.

 

Another interesting C172 development was the Reims Rocket. Cessna decided to sub-manufacture in Europe, and fitted a Continental IO-360 6cyl 210 HP engine plus CSU to the C172 frame. (same engine as in the C336/337 series, and also it was in the earliest Maule Rockets. There were quite a few Reims 172's about in Aust, (I think in the 70's), but maybe not now. They are quite a performer - saw one fitted with a STOL kit as well many years ago....it levitated! Saw one for sale in Europe recently for E65k = nearly A$90k, so they are not cheap.

 

Looking around the US market recently and I see that any low engine and airframe hours 180HP converted C172N's or P's are in the US$50-60k range.....to which you add at least A$15k to get it onto our register. Possibly worth it if you were able to take a 1/3rd share of a seatainer and so reduce those and the Customs and clearance costs. A Penn Yann C172N with low ETR sold recently in WA for around $50k - you'd want to be able to overhaul this and bear the fact that the aircraft won't increase in value at the same rate as your overhaul cost.

 

Another quite interesting possibility is with ECi company, (who produce quite a few non-certified Lycoming 'clones' for the RV market), who have resolved the weight issue of the 180HP upgrade by reboring a Lycoming 0-320, fitting longer stroke pistons, and increasing the power to around 176HP. No extra weight - but saddled with the unfortunate name of 'Titan 340 Stroker'. Approx cost of the upgrade is US$29k...... less than the Penn Yann and Air Plains versions using 180HP 0-360 engines. The ECi STC requires a FP propeller - but the non-certified derivative of this engine is a fuel injected 340 version capable of turning a CSU. You'd be saddled with avgas though but that's not everything. ECi have a good name in the US - so worth considering.

 

happy days,

 

 

 

 

[poteroo]

Whoops...those grins weren't meant to go there !!

 

 

[facthunter]

I have flown a C-175 with the geared 0-300. It was a big performance improvement on the base engine, but you were aware of giving the engine a harder time with the extra revs, so would expect more costs there. Mike Valentine had one, otherwise I have seen no other. I thought it would make a good private aircraft but not a good one to put on line. (Like a 210). Nev

 

 

[stevron]

I just spent 3 hours in a 172 o dear are they slow or what, 90 kts av, they are certainly not a performer.

 

 

[greybeard]

I just spent 3 hours in a 172 o dear are they slow or what, 90 kts av, they are certainly not a performer.

Hmmm, I've spent ~100hrs in a 172 and have always trimmed out around 105kts. Not sure what model or conditions you'd only avg 95kts.

I'm talking about IAS though.

 

 

[stevron]

I know this started as a difference between a c172 or c182 but there seems to be a greater model range with the piper aircraft.

 

Has any one got anything to say about Piper arrows etc

 

 

[IanR]

Hmmm, I've spent ~100hrs in a 172 and have always trimmed out around 105kts. Not sure what model or conditions you'd only avg 95kts.I'm talking about IAS though.

The 172s I fly we flight plan at 115 knots and they do it easily !! The previous versions we used 110 knots with no problem.

 

 

[cooperplace]

Go for a C182 better performance and throttle back to C172 speed for similar fuel burn. Just a little more expensive in maintenance. Or you could try a 4 seat jab with turbo rotax for better performance than a C172 at 17lt/hr!Tom

and never a corrosion problem in a jab airframe. how much does a turbo rotax cost, fitted?

 

 

[Oscar]

For the purchase money, performance and cost/hour combination, a Jab. 430 just has to be a better choice of aircraft than a 172. Since with the Rotax 914 conversion it'd have to be placed under an Experimental certificate, if 'twere me, I'd have a 430 with the recently-announced CAMit improved 3300 engine ( see: http://camitaeroengines.myshopify.com/pages/engine-rebuilds ) in it which would require it to be also Experimental certificate - with way, way less installation problems (it just bolts right in there - no new mounts, cowling conversion etc.)!. Add a Patroney prop. out the front and you'd have a very sweet thing indeed, with none of the on-going maintenance headaches of an old 172 waiting to ambush your wallet. I've seen the new CAMit engines in both 2200 and 3300 forms being built, and the detail improvements over a standard Jab. engine are balm to the heart of those who are concerned about Jab. engine reliability.

 

What's not to like about better performance, significantly lower fuel and maintenance costs, and full Australian back-up for every part in your aircraft?

 

 

[David Isaac]

The only problem I have with the J430 suggestion with the Rotax 914 is it only has 115HP and you are suggesting 4 bums, plus fuel ... I just don't see that as performance let alone safe???

 

 

[kaz3g]

The 172s I fly we flight plan at 115 knots and they do it easily !! The previous versions we used 110 knots with no problem.

Hi Ian

 

How is the Auster running? Any more exciting trips since Leeton?

 

What model C172 are you slumming in?

 

Cheers

 

Kaz

 

 

[frank marriott]

David

 

Without going anyway near the Rotax/Jabiru engine BS, I guess the answer lies in the 700kg MTOW. With only about 300kg to be divided between 4 pax AND fuel it is fairly restrictive. Except in high DHs the 5 hp less would be manageable, I suspect.

 

 

[facthunter]

With the available AUW limit obviously it is not really a 4 seater. The geared engine and better prop would account for more than the horsepower difference would indicate. Nev

 

 

[IanR]

Hi IanHow is the Auster running? Any more exciting trips since Leeton?

 

What model C172 are you slumming in?

 

Cheers

 

Kaz

Hi Kaz, ABA has been out of the air since early October - hopefully back this week. The mechanical fuel pump failed - and as the O-290-3 is the only engine to ever use that type of pump it has been a pain.

I do most of my other flying in Neil's C180 you have seen which I love - and we use C172R and S models with the Scouts - they are really quite good machines but the weight carrying capability has been eroded significantly since the earlier models.