Cessna 172 long range tanks

DavidWhite

DavidWhite

Final Approach
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
7,132
Location
Olympic Peninsula
Display Name
Display name:
DW
Are there any options to add more fuel to the 172 without installed tip tanks or a baggage compartment tank? Is there a way to install larger wing tanks?
 
wing walking and a couple 5 gallon cans

you probably need to be more specific as to what model 172 to get some real answers :wink2:
 
I flew a 172N back in Dallas that had two 25-gallon tanks. I don't think they came standard with that.
 
I've flown 172s that came from the factory with long range tanks. I think it worked out to an extra 10 gallons, but my memory could be wrong. Not sure if anyone offers that as a STC.
 
172P's that we had at the FBO had factory 50 gallon tanks. it was really nice. not sure if that is an option on the G or if it can be installed after market.

in general i like to have as much fuel as possible on board
 
50 gallons on each side?

My dad's 172 RG was 62 useful IIRC it had stock wing tanks
 
tonycondon said:
in general i like to have as much fuel as possible on board
Click to expand...

In general, I like to have enough fuel onboard to complete the mission. :wink2:

One of my pet peeves is about people complaining about not having enough useful load with full fuel.
 
I think the only other options would be a set of wings off of a 172G (assuming they are even available) with long range tanks. If the IPC shows that as an option for your range of S/Ns it would be a (spendy) minor modification.
 
dell30rb said:
50 gallons on each side?

My dad's 172 RG was 62 useful IIRC it had stock wing tanks
Click to expand...

no. 50 gallons.

Greg Bockelman said:
In general, I like to have enough fuel onboard to complete the mission. :wink2:

One of my pet peeves is about people complaining about not having enough useful load with full fuel.
Click to expand...

agree. and if it was up to me the useful load with full fuel would be about 220 lbs. enough for me and my stuff. i could tank up and go long non-stop solo, or i could take passengers and more crap for a shorter trip, or have more stops.
 
tonycondon said:
agree. and if it was up to me the useful load with full fuel would be about 220 lbs. enough for me and my stuff. i could tank up and go long non-stop solo, or i could take passengers and more crap for a shorter trip, or have more stops.
Click to expand...
I agree also, I like the option to take "too much" fuel
 
Owners manual for the 172G says 39 gallons total, 38 usable in level flight, 36 usable "in all flight conditions." There's no mention of any other options.

cbmontgo said:
I flew a 172N back in Dallas that had two 25-gallon tanks. I don't think they came standard with that.
Click to expand...
That was optional. 40 gallons usable was standard on the 172N.

dell30rb said:
My dad's 172 RG was 62 useful IIRC it had stock wing tanks
Click to expand...
That was standard for the 172RG only (with only 180 hp that made it a sweet long-range airplane), and it was optional on the R172K Hawk XP.
 
Last edited:
Yes

I'm pretty sure they were 66 with 62 usable. No tip tank funny business.

The 172 RG's get alot of crap but his 15 year old plane (at the time) was pretty sweet :)

It cruised at 138 knots, had a 180 HP lycoming with constant speed prop. He owned it for several years and never had any problems with gear maintenance etc. Really was a great long range airplane.

He owned it for 5 years with a partner, and sold it for enough of a profit that in those 5 years he flew for free. Maintenance, tie down, insurance, fuel. All for free.

The story on that;

The airplane was a considerable distance away. After a pre-buy inspection, they agreed to purchase it. It was mid - high time but the motor checked out fine - and the price reflected that. The purchase had already been negotiated and signed. The previous owner was to deliver the airplane to NC. Before he even took off - Prop Strike!! There were tstms in the area and he got hit with a huge gust as he was taxiing and wrapped a hangar door around the prop. They were able to negotiate with the insurance company for a zero time prop and motor. :) Flew for a couple years and still sold it for thousands more than they paid for it.
 
Last edited:
cbmontgo said:
I flew a 172N back in Dallas that had two 25-gallon tanks. I don't think they came standard with that.
Click to expand...

Pilawt said:
Owners manual for the 172G says 39 gallons total, 38 usable in level flight, 36 usable "in all flight conditions." There's no mention of any other options.

That was optional. 40 gallons usable was standard on the 172N.

That was standard for the 127RG only (with only 180 hp that made it a sweet long-range airplane), and it was optional on the R172K Hawk XP.
Click to expand...

That's correct. 40 gallons useable was standard, 50 gallons for the optional long range tanks. Our club's 172N has the long range tanks and they last a lot longer than I do. Eats into the payload as we are required by club rules to put the planes away full. Good thing we have the Penn Yan 180 hp STC. Gets us a 250 pound bump on the max gross.
 
I've seen and heard of older 172's with 175 wings (or at least the tanks) which gives a total of 52 gallons of which 43 are useable in the 175. I don't know if the tanks will fit the 172 wing or not but I know the wings will swap. I don't know of any larger tanks in standard 172's. The 172RG uses the 175 type certificate if I recall correctly and may have larger tanks from the factory. I've got very little time in the RG and don't remember what it held.

Hope that helps

Frank
 
Ghery said:
Our club's 172N has the long range tanks and they last a lot longer than I do. Eats into the payload as we are required by club rules to put the planes away full. Good thing we have the Penn Yan 180 hp STC. Gets us a 250 pound bump on the max gross.
Click to expand...
Our Air Plains 172N/180 has the standard 40 gallon tanks -- which means it's no more than a three-hour cruiser.

But then, so am I. :redface:

We have the STC to limit the flaps to 30 and get the 250# bump, but we've never installed it yet. So it's just as well we don't have bigger tanks.
 
Pilawt said:
Our Air Plains 172N/180 has the standard 40 gallon tanks -- which means it's no more than a three-hour cruiser.

But then, so am I. :redface:
Click to expand...
Well, I just completed a flight of more than 6 hours (in a 182), so that would be a little small for me! :) Only took 69 gallons to fill it up afterwards, too, so I had about 18 gallons left!
 
The 172s with long range tanks have a different wing. The fuel tank bay is an odd shape.

Dan
 
Are there tip tanks available for that airplane? If so that is probably the best option.

Alternately if you have the 180 HP you can run it at a lower power setting - still put some decent cruise numbers up and really cut back on your fuel flow and increase range.
 
My 2001 model 172R has 56 gallons usable, with the IO360 engine. An easy 5 hours cruise with reserves, it's rather nice.
 
gprellwitz said:
Well, I just completed a flight of more than 6 hours (in a 182), so that would be a little small for me! :) Only took 69 gallons to fill it up afterwards, too, so I had about 18 gallons left!
Click to expand...
Been there, best speed mod is a big gas tank if you can stand to stay in your seat that long.
 
dell30rb said:
Are there tip tanks available for that airplane? If so that is probably the best option.

Alternately if you have the 180 HP you can run it at a lower power setting - still put some decent cruise numbers up and really cut back on your fuel flow and increase range.
Click to expand...
He already runs it at a lower power setting because he's really RPM limited by the fixed pitch prop. 180 HP 172s really just get you shorter takeoff and better climb there really isn't a difference in cruise speed.
 
I used to own a 172 M, it had long range tanks. 48 gallons usable.
 
jesse said:
He already runs it at a lower power setting because he's really RPM limited by the fixed pitch prop. 180 HP 172s really just get you shorter takeoff and better climb there really isn't a difference in cruise speed.
Click to expand...

The 180 hp 172S has a higher cruise because it has a prop with more pitch. The 150 hp 172M uses a 53 inch pitch, the 160 hp 172N uses 57 inch pitch, and the 180 hp 172S uses a 60 inch pitch. All redline at 2700 RPM.

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