The best model C-172

[Beefitarian]

Ok people. Let's say we are going to buy a C-172 for our partnership. What year and model do we want?

I like the new injected ones with the updated interior door panels, retracting seat belts and fuel injection but the early non glass panels. Looks like I mean the "R" model.

[bigsky]

I had a 1975 "M" model. Mind you that was in 1979 and it only had 600 hrs on it.
Probably hard to find a low time "M" model now!

It was a good machine..cheap to run, easy to maintain.

[highlander]

The R model is nice but you will pay much more for the avionics, fuel injection and interior. The 172p models I believe are abundant out there so you might get a good price.

[CpnCrunch]

If you have the cash, definitely go for the R/S models. The sound-proofing, comfortable cabin, higher speed, autopilot, etc. make flying a lot more pleasurable (and that's why you're doing it, right?) Not to mention the fact that your aircraft will be less than 10 years old versus 30+ years old.

[oleo]

'77-'81 R172K Hawk XP.....constant speed 130 knot cruise....solid machine....195 hp

[costermonger]

Another vote for R/S. You pay for it, but they're just better across the board.

[SuperchargedRS]

Meh, 172 tis a 172.

What about the old $100hr ish N model. I've played with em all, XP on floats, SP with G1000, N with next to nothing, all fly about the same IMHO (just the CS on the XP)

[Beefitarian]

Even Wikipedia said the N has engine problems. I have enjoyed many hours in rental Ns but don't want a maintenance pig.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The best C 172 from a purely flying point of view are the early square tail fast backs (1956-59). They have the low cowl so you get great visibility, manual flaps and very nice light controls. But they have a low useful load, narrow cabin, and an expensive to maintain and overhaul Continental O300 engine and the accumulated problems of a 50 + year old airplane. From a purely practical point of view than a 1974 -76 M model is probably the best bet. It has a bullet proof Lycoming O320 E2D engine, roomy cabin, modern panel and Cessna made thousands every year so there are a ton to choose from. Quite decent ones are available in the low 40 K range...but the square tails are still my favorite because they are so nice to fly.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Even Wikipedia said the N has engine problems. I have enjoyed many hours in rental Ns but don't want a maintenance pig.

"N' model C 172 were originally fitted with the O320 H2AD engine. This engine has had a history of camshaft, accessory and case problems, however a lot of "N" models have been updated with the O320 D2J engine fitted to the "P" models. This engine has a very good reputation for reliable service with flying schools regularly running them 3000 hours between overhauls.

[Beefitarian]

But they have a low useful load, narrow cabin, and an expensive to maintain and overhaul Continental O300 engine and the accumulated problems of a 50 + year old airplane.

Yeah I lost some weight, I'm under 280lbs Summer time, I think. My wife is 6 feet tall and likes bacon on her pizza. The dog seems skinny to me but he's 50lbs. The kids are growing like weeds...
Other wise that one sounded ok.

[Diadem]

What year and model do we want?

Kate Upton, 1992.

[Colonel Sanders]

I'm under 280lbs Summer time, I think. My wife is 6 feet tall and likes bacon on her pizza. The dog seems skinny to me but he's 50lbs. The kids are growing like weeds

Run some W&B numbers. You need at least a 182, maybe a 206.

Back to the 172 ... try to find one with less than 10,000TT. Less than 5,000TT is better, that's never been crashed.

I am cheap and thus am partial to the 1973-1976 C172M.
Avoid the troublesome 1977-1980 C172N with bad O-320H2AD engine, unless it's been replaced.
1981-1986 C172P was good airplane.
Lawyers stopped production from 1987 to 1995.
1996+ 172's are expensive. I would get an older 182 instead, for the same money.

[trey kule]

I have to ask, why a 172?
Wife, 2 kids, and a dog....though I suppose if weight is an issue you can leave the wife at home

[Colonel Sanders]

why a 172?

You're right, a Grand Caravan would be a better choice:

[costermonger]

As built the P model was better than the N, but as others have said the H2AD was often replaced. A lot of N models also have an STC to limit the flap travel to 30°, so you effectively end up with a P model.

The single, larger landing/taxi light found in 81 and earlier 172s is a pain if you plan to fly at night a fair bit. Vibration is hard on bulbs and that bigger one seems to get the worst of it; over time our fleet of older 172s were modified to replace the single bulb with two smaller ones that are more reliable and easier & quicker to replace. It's pretty minor stuff obviously but if everything else is equal, I'd go for one with the mod or built in 82 or later when they moved them out to the wing.

[co-joe]

Personally I'd steer clear of anything that flight schools want because being spin certified seems to greatly inflate the demand and therefore the cost. Last I checked a beat to shit 172 was 60K when a similar size and performance Piper was 30K. Or for that same 60 K you could get an Arrow that's what? 40 kts faster? My choice would actually be a Cherokee 235. No disappearing legs to maintain but still a constant speed wind shovel to get you there at a good clip and a decent size cabin. But hey you might like doing a mile and a half a minute, and smelling 25 year old sun burnt puke when it gets hot out.

[straightpilot]

My choice would actually be a Cherokee 235

Yes, but what about the 50 hour dual insurance checkout requirement from a current flight instructor with at least 10 hours on the exact type?

Just kidding! If you're flying off pavement, a hershey-bar wing Cherokee gives a lot of bang for the buck. Can't say they are the greatest short field performer, though. I know a guy that tried to take off his PA-28 with a full load from a short grass strip, he literally crashed and it burned all day. Really messed the back up, of one of his passengers - crushed discs, broken vertebrae. Took years for him to mostly recover, he's still not the same.

[Beefitarian]

Yes I want an aircraft carrier, a P-51, some mansions, a C-130, a fleet of 60s muscle cars, a grumman goose, a private island, some F-35s, a Cessna bird dog and a harem of sports illustrated swimsuit models.

For now we are pretending to buy a 172. Presume 8-12 partners so we can spend $130k on purchase. (though I like to discuss being cheap just because spending extra money on getting it places sounds better to me, so the less expensive ones have much merit)

Just to add some babbling.
Prices are all over the place. I spotted an ad for a P model with a new engine but nearly 18000 hours on the airframe, $60k. A 1956 for $30k. The S models are mostly over $90k. Some Planes sound inexpensive but "there's no bargains in aviation." Unless an older one is really nice and rebuilt or something I would think one from 1996 would be somewhat a better deal for 16 thousand dollars or so more than one from 1955 - 1980. Then again there might be four times as much use on a newer one. Wear is the same even if it happened over less time, right?

Then again maintained the same there's more steel strength in a 1955 Chevrolet than a 1996 and no computer chips to fail.
Strange how I can appreciate a simple car easier than a simple aircraft. Partially I think I like the new stuff because like someone said, "Meh, they're all 172s."

Carry on.

[Airtids]

Just bought a nice 172P under 10,000TT, low-time engine, good paint, decent interior, basic (read "archaic") panel for 55k. Just sold a great 172M 12,000TT, high time engine, nice interior, decent panel for 40K. The "M" is my favorite in terms of capability, cabin size, reliable engine (ran our last E2D to 2500hrs, and only OH'd it to be safe- not a doubt it would've gone anothe 1000hrs without a burble), ease of maintenance, and something not mentioned yet- 40 degrees of flap. Loved that little rainbow plane...

The Cherokee 235 is indeed a great plane too. Also known as the Dakota, that thing is a pickup truck. Goes fast, hauls lots. For your purposes, though, I think you should look at a C182, preferably one on floats and a set of gear, with a Pponk 275hp conversion and a 3bladed Hartzell prop...


Tids

[iflyforpie]

Then again maintained the same there's more steel strength in a 1955 Chevrolet than a 1996...

You sure about that Beef?



To relate to the aircraft, take a look at the postcard-thick flap roller tangs on 1960s and earlier unmodified 172s vs the 1970s and later ones that are much thicker and have a reinforcing bend in them. I've seen these fail before on older 172s that haven't been modified per Cessna SB.

To me, the best balance is the 172M. It has most of the comforts of the newer models and the simplicity of the old ones. Their prices have come down considerably because of the flood of restart used models.

The straight tails do have the advantage of better visibility (at the expense of higher risk of prop strike and a high maintenance engine), and simple airframe systems (venturis instead of vacuum pumps, manual flaps, mechanical fuel gauges). Avoid the ones with those Goodyear floating-disc brakes.... those things should be banned.

[Beefitarian]

Here's what "I" need. http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 206921.htm?
It can handle me, wife, kids, dog, my dad and a decent picnic basket! I need tpus gage my truck in many more positive revenue tasks first.

This is the, "Let's debate about 172s for a fictional partnership" thread. I'd like to see a piper thread later maybe.

[Beefitarian]

Then again maintained the same there's more steel strength in a 1955 Chevrolet than a 1996...

You sure about that Beef?

One of the things I notice again these days and this is probably a good thing. I'm not sure about anything anymore. I'm learning and re-learning more often though.

The crash test dummies didn't have a chance after they disabled the daytime running lights.

[Deltawidget]

On the question of this topic for Pipers, for some reason (lack of flight school demand? inability to use floats/skis?) Piper aircraft with equivalent performance to Cessnas sell for 25-30% less than Cessnas. Ocassionally, performance is better in some Piper Aircraft (other than shortfield performance..but are you operating out of the bush?)

I'm not sure why this continues to be the case..guess people stick with the type they are familiar with?

[RFlyer]

If cost is your main concern, stick with the C-172. just checked at ZBB and full service avgas is 1.95/litre. For an ~8GPH C-172 you're looking at $60/hr, or about $7.60/hour/gallon. The bigger machines suggested so far on this thread will burn between 10 and maybe 14 gph for an hourly burn of between $76 and $106. A lot higher operating cost and one that never goes away as long as you are flying.

And, with a C-172 and a 150 HP engine you are eligible for the Mogas STC, but not for the 160HP RAM conversions, (and higher HP).