Speed mods 172

frfly172

frfly172

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
16,676
Location
mass fla
Display Name
Display name:
ron keating
Had an older c 172 added flap gap seals and gas caps. Any pireps on speed mods ,or power flow exhaust on a 98 172.
 
I just put a powerflow on my 172M and really like it. Don't have any number yet, and I'm also in the middle of painting, but takeoff is shorter and climb rate is quite nice.
 
frfly172 said:
Had an older c 172 added flap gap seals and gas caps. Any pireps on speed mods ,or power flow exhaust on a 98 172.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is just my negativity, but it seems like the only really effective speed mod for a 172 would be sell entire plane buy something faster.
 
gov98 said:
Maybe this is just my negativity, but it seems like the only really effective speed mod for a 172 would be sell entire plane buy something faster.
Click to expand...

Ouch!

But, Yea, you might already be in one of the fastest 172s.

Good airplanes, but not known for speed. Good entry (which I don't have) and good ifr platform (I'm a bit pitch sensitive).

Enjoy the airplane or upgrade....
 
My '78 172N has the Air Plains 180 hp STC (fixed-pitch prop), long-stack Power-Flow, a fiberglass fairing where the stack exits the cowl, and flap gap seals. 75% cruise at 8,000' DA is a hair under 130 KTAS. I didn't fly the airplane much during the years that these mods were being done, so I can't say how much incremental difference each of them made. The Power Flow appears to increase fuel consumption by a little under 0.5 gph.
 
Pilawt said:
My '78 172N has the Air Plains 180 hp STC (fixed-pitch prop), long-stack Power-Flow, a fiberglass fairing where the stack exits the cowl, and flap gap seals. 75% cruise at 8,000' DA is a hair under 130 KTAS. I didn't fly the airplane much during the years that these mods were being done, so I can't say how much incremental difference each of them made. The Power Flow appears to increase fuel consumption by a little under 0.5 gph.
Click to expand...

Whatever you do to increase HP, you need a prop that can take the added power, or it won't translate into top end increased speed. Reducing drag will translate directly into top end speed.
 
Not worth the money in my opinion at all. Best case you add a few knots. No difference in real world block times are possible to be had and you will spend many a thousands trying.
 
Pilawt said:
My '78 172N has the Air Plains 180 hp STC (fixed-pitch prop), long-stack Power-Flow, a fiberglass fairing where the stack exits the cowl, and flap gap seals. 75% cruise at 8,000' DA is a hair under 130 KTAS. I didn't fly the airplane much during the years that these mods were being done, so I can't say how much incremental difference each of them made. The Power Flow appears to increase fuel consumption by a little under 0.5 gph.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the Hawk XP I used to fly, 195 HP, and constant speed prop wouldn't do 130 KTAS. So that's pretty damn impressive.

I think Cessna claimed 130 knots on the Hawk XP but I never saw that...it was a couple less.
 
The only speed mod I hear guys praising their decision is more power. All the others come with a drop of snake oil.

But that's on skywagons so I don't know what power will do on a 172.

The boys who upgrade to the 0-520's and 550's are generally very happy is all I know.
 
If you want a faster airplane sell the 172 and buy a faster airplane. You can get a nice 200mph Super Viking for 172 money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top