Gitmo stole the other one, so what do you think of this?

From where I sit, she looks sweet! Good, honest, simple, fun.
 
CTLSi said:
It's ancient.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is known as an airplane as opposed to a plastic toy.

Straight tail, 6 cyl engine, manual flaps, that is the way a 172 is supposed to be made. The later ones are a set of unfortunate compromises.
 
Only downside to these old Cessnas is they are apparently s-l-o-w. For ~ same HP, the 75 Grumman AA5 goes about 20Kts faster, and hauls basically the same weight. That's a 19% penalty for owning a vintage plane. Although the Grumman is no spring chicken either.
 
I am currently enamored with manual flaps after transitioning to Piper products. OP: real nice plane as far as I can see. I'd take it in a heartbeat if I had the ability and it checked out in person.
 
docmirror said:
Only downside to these old Cessnas is they are apparently s-l-o-w. For ~ same HP, the 75 Grumman AA5 goes about 20Kts faster, and hauls basically the same weight. That's a 19% penalty for owning a vintage plane. Although the Grumman is no spring chicken either.
Click to expand...

Speed/runway performance per HP is the compromise you have to determine which is more important to you.
 
WHAT??? That's virtually identical to the one I bought. Some minor changes in paint scheme and panel, but total airframe time is virtually the same.

I dont understand how that works... amazing.

Well, if I felt I could talk my wife into it, I'd buy this one in a heartbeat too. So far I LOVE mine. I like it better than flying the newer model. I think mine has a bit more "character" than this one (in the form of knicks, dings, etc), but I have a hunch you're not looking for character.

If you're considering it, I say do it.
 
Last edited:
JHW said:
Yes, that is known as an airplane as opposed to a plastic toy.

Straight tail, 6 cyl engine, manual flaps, that is the way a 172 is supposed to be made. The later ones are a set of unfortunate compromises.
Click to expand...


Amen, love the manual flaps, I curse that dang switch every time.
 
She's a beauty. The perfect machine for visiting weekend fly-ins. It won't be available for long at that price.
 
I'm actually kinda envious. This one is in way better cosmetic shape. Has some nice upgrades on the panel, newer instruments, side pockets, etc (stuff I'm plotting to handle over time).
 
Wish I still had my '57 C172...they weren't even Skyhawks yet!

It was a GREAT airplane, smooooooooth and 105 kts all day long everyday. Fun flyer. She treated me well (I bought it and learned how to fly in it).

Hope you get it and have FUN with it!

Here's a few photos of mine:

attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • N7933B02.jpg
    N7933B02.jpg
    52.8 KB · Views: 670
  • N7933B-3.JPG
    N7933B-3.JPG
    59.9 KB · Views: 261
  • N7933b-5.jpg
    N7933b-5.jpg
    57.7 KB · Views: 213
  • N7933b-6.jpg
    N7933b-6.jpg
    49 KB · Views: 267
Last edited:
gitmo234 said:
WHAT??? That's virtually identical to the one I bought. Some minor changes in paint scheme and panel, but total airframe time is virtually the same.

I dont understand how that works... amazing.

Well, if I felt I could talk my wife into it, I'd buy this one in a heartbeat too. So far I LOVE mine. I like it better than flying the newer model. I think mine has a bit more "character" than this one (in the form of knicks, dings, etc), but I have a hunch you're not looking for character.

If you're considering it, I say do it.
Click to expand...

So, you've done a bunch of XC already, what are you getting for cruise speed and fuel burn?
 
It remains perplexing how some of the old timers on these aviation boards get defensive about the old planes. And how they presume that new tech is suspiciously more a toy than a new and better way to get it done.

A 1940 Dodge Sedan is NOT better, nor even reasonable to drive as compared to a 2014 'plastic' Lexus R350. It's like comparing an F22 to a Grumman Bearcat.
 
CTLSi said:
It remains perplexing how some of the old timers on these aviation boards get defensive about the old planes. And how they presume that new tech is suspiciously more a toy than a new and better way to get it done.

A 1940 Dodge Sedan is NOT better, nor even reasonable to drive as compared to a 2014 'plastic' Lexus R350. It's like comparing an F22 to a Grumman Bearcat.
Click to expand...

Apples/oranges.

I'm not an old timer but I'd far rather fly an older plane and not simply because of the economics of doing so. They were built better...by a long shot.

I seriously doubt that any of today's "plastic planes" will be flying 60...70...80 years down the road. And, not just flying, but in pristine condition like many of the older "spam cans" are (like mine).

And if some are still airworthy in 70 years then I'm confident that it'll be in far less percentages. Every time I sit in one (a brand new one) at a expo, the first thing that comes to my mind is "cheap junk." I'm not referring to a Cirrus, a Cirrus doesn't scream "junk" to me, they're nice aircraft. But rather I'm talking about all the LSA stuff out there that I've seen in person. Give me an old Champ or T-Craft to fly LSA any day.

Besides, some of us just like the "grass roots" heritage of aviation and believe that it's worth preserving. Not to mention it is far more enjoyable flying for us...young or old.

Just another one of those "to each his/her own" debates. Some people like the new plastic LSA stuff and that's fine. Personally, I don't.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Another one popped up.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_810997_1960+CESSNA+172.html

no shoulder harnesses, and not quite as clean but has the swept tail. Wonder what makes the 172B model 5 knots faster than this A model?
Click to expand...

The marketing department!

fast back, swept tails just ain't right IMO...but that's yet another "to each his/her own" topic.

here's a doc that includes the year-to-year model changes:

http://www.redskyventures.org/doc/c...2-Model-History_RSV-Training-Manuals_2011.pdf
 
Straight tails give you more rudder authority in a stall/spin situation (at least that's what I've always been told, along with "Mr. Mooney was the only one who properly installs a rudder").
 
CTLSi said:
It remains perplexing how some of the old timers on these aviation boards get defensive about the old planes. And how they presume that new tech is suspiciously more a toy than a new and better way to get it done.

A 1940 Dodge Sedan is NOT better, nor even reasonable to drive as compared to a 2014 'plastic' Lexus R350. It's like comparing an F22 to a Grumman Bearcat.
Click to expand...

Hell Id love to fly both an F-22 and a bearcat.

Not a question of better in my mind just different
 
From that PDF it kinda looks like the B and C versions are the hot setup. No 'omni-vision' rear window, but revised cowl, cooling, windscreen, instruments revised. I think I'll go look at this A model later.
 
Nice specimen! If it has no significant corrosion, I'd say go for it (assuming a good pre-buy). That is a solid airplane for less than the price of a car (ehem).

A bit newer, but I owned a 1966 172G back in the mid-1990s, with the 145 HP 6-cyl Continental O-300. I loved the sound of that engine. It just sounded better than the Lycoming 4-cyls of similar size. Anyway, it served me well when I lived in Texas, but I sold it in 2003 before moving to Colorado.

On mine, I spent money installing a 60-amp alternator to replace the 35-amp generator (which was overloaded with the setup I had) and I put in a vernier-style mixture controller instead of the old one with the inverted metal V-tab that was sticky and hard to fine-tune. Someone already did the mixture control on the one you're looking at - nice.

Mine was not a straight tail, but I got 110 MPH out of mine with wheel pants and other typical fairings but *very* rough paint. It's not a speed demon, but it's still waaaay faster than a car. :D
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
So, you've done a bunch of XC already, what are you getting for cruise speed and fuel burn?
Click to expand...

I flew it home (5 hour flight with a stop for fuel in between), 3 hours to Ocean City and a couple of flights to lunch in southern maryland, totaling about 12 hours this week.

So far she wants to cruise at 105-110 mph with 115 easy too, she just seems to settle at 110 usually. I seem to be getting the textbook 7 gallons per hour and I often see it cruising at 2500 rpm.

Caveat to that is that im also still figuring out exactly how she handles best. For example the marking for take off trim level is WAY nose up. I want to play with that a bit because it seems like its pulling back too quick on take off and I have to push forward.

Rudder is very strong. Engine sound is complete different. Once I get this trim straightened out I'll be set. I am enjoying this more than flying the S model
 
gitmo234 said:
I flew it home (5 hour flight with a stop for fuel in between), 3 hours to Ocean City and a couple of flights to lunch in southern maryland, totaling about 12 hours this week.

So far she wants to cruise at 105-110 mph with 115 easy too, she just seems to settle at 110 usually. I seem to be getting the textbook 7 gallons per hour and I often see it cruising at 2500 rpm.

Caveat to that is that im also still figuring out exactly how she handles best. For example the marking for take off trim level is WAY nose up. I want to play with that a bit because it seems like its pulling back too quick on take off and I have to push forward.

Rudder is very strong. Engine sound is complete different. Once I get this trim straightened out I'll be set. I am enjoying this more than flying the S model
Click to expand...

See, I would like one of the early Cessnas, but that seems to be whats killing me. The other contender is the Grumman AA5 and my experience with those is about 125MPH at the similar fuel burn. They won't carry quite as much as the early Cessna, but payload really isn't a concern here. We're also operating out of mostly paved 3500' strips so take off and landing distances aren't an issue either. 15MPH with the same fuel burn is a factor.
 
I'm sure I'll end up with 6 gallons an hour once I get the ins and outs, but I have a bit more concern for payload. End goal for me is weekend trips to the beach with the wife and dog, and occasionally hauling some friends around for a weekend.

Ideally I'd have one of each (I looked at grummans), but Ideally I'd also have 100 million in the savings account too
 
CTLSi said:
It remains perplexing how some of the old timers on these aviation boards get defensive about the old planes. And how they presume that new tech is suspiciously more a toy than a new and better way to get it done.

A 1940 Dodge Sedan is NOT better, nor even reasonable to drive as compared to a 2014 'plastic' Lexus R350. It's like comparing an F22 to a Grumman Bearcat.
Click to expand...
apples and oranges. An old straight tail 172 IS a better ride than a new 172 and is a far better ride than any new age LSA
 
petrolero said:
Nice specimen! If it has no significant corrosion, I'd say go for it (assuming a good pre-buy). That is a solid airplane for less than the price of a car (ehem).

A bit newer, but I owned a 1966 172G back in the mid-1990s, with the 145 HP 6-cyl Continental O-300. I loved the sound of that engine. It just sounded better than the Lycoming 4-cyls of similar size. Anyway, it served me well when I lived in Texas, but I sold it in 2003 before moving to Colorado.

On mine, I spent money installing a 60-amp alternator to replace the 35-amp generator (which was overloaded with the setup I had) and I put in a vernier-style mixture controller instead of the old one with the inverted metal V-tab that was sticky and hard to fine-tune. Someone already did the mixture control on the one you're looking at - nice.

Mine was not a straight tail, but I got 110 MPH out of mine with wheel pants and other typical fairings but *very* rough paint. It's not a speed demon, but it's still waaaay faster than a car. :D
Click to expand...
Yep! I own a '66G now. Within 30 mins of climbing on board, my "smooth sixie" puts my wife to sleep. She can turn a 5 1/2 hr flight into 2 hrs by sleeping through most of it.

I too have the vernier mixture, love it and put in a new starter and 60 amp alternator conversion. Mine is significantly slower overall than yours was but even so, I could reach Triple Tree next weekend in 3 hrs. I wish it was faster, but it is what it is, & it will always beat driving a car!

My thought was, fly this plane before buying it. Fly it fast, slow, and in between. Flaps up & down. Get your feet off the rudders and yoke each time and see how she responds. If she is as true as she is pretty, put earnest money on it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top