Cessna 172XP II

They're popular around here for density altitude issues. Folks take the XPs to the mountains if a club has one, over the standard Skyhawks.
 
I have about 250 hours in the military variant ( T-41 ). They were not really fast but had great useful load and were very good short field planes.
 
Research the IO360 hanging on it to make sure you want to own it and/or rebuild it. IIRC some are better off being replaced instead of rebuilt. I know a guy who owns one, the care and feeding of the engine is his only complaint.The one in the ad is already 335 hrs past TBO if that means anything to to. Appears to be the original engine, never OHed. Do your homework on the engine, you might be trading it out with continental instead of building it yourself.
 
Last edited:
Near-182 complexity and performance, for somewhat less $. TCM IO-360, basically the same as in each end of a Skymaster.

Euro (FR172 Reims Rocket) and military versions listed as 210 hp for takeoff; US-built civil version (R172K Hawk XP) de-rated to 195 hp for noise reasons. That's why Cessna lists normal cruise at 80% power (80% of 195 hp is just about the same as 75% of 210). There is an STC to restore the full 210 hp.
 
My TSIO-360's have 225HP...I bet you could up it to that and have Skylane performance or better.
 
bartmc said:
Research the IO360 hanging on it to make sure you want to own it and/or rebuild it. IIRC some are better off being replaced instead of rebuilt. I know a guy who owns one, the care and feeding of the engine is his only complaint.The one in the ad is already 335 hrs past TBO if that means anything to to. Appears to be the original engine, never OHed. Do your homework on the engine, you might be trading it out with continental instead of building it yourself.
Click to expand...

the IO version is not a problem, the TSIO is.
 
Did an IR course with someone who owns one recently. It's basically a 172 with a big engine (195HP stock, with a 210HP STC available). If a 172 would suit you but you need better takeoff/climb performance than the 180HP STC offers (short/obstructed field, high DA, etc), it's a great choice. More payload than a 172, but the cabin is no bigger, so there may not be room for the extra stuff/larger people. Speed increase isn't much, thanks to the cube root ratio of extra speed to extra extra power -- 125-130 knots TAS in my client's 210HP version at lower altitudes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top