Real TAS in a 180hp C-172

WDD said:
1) The 180 is the engine the Skyhawk always should have had. So much nicer than the standard 150 hp

2) I don't go that much / if any faster in the 180 hp version, but but benefit is that it increases the load so much I can actually carry 4 adults and luggage, and it climbs much better. For short field and/or grass, I much prefer the 180 version.

3) I'd recommend to anyone buying a Skyhawk that if they have the option to get a 180 version, take it.

4) I wasn't aware there was an option of putting a CS prop on a Skyhawk. Is that true?
Click to expand...
@DavidWhite old 172 has one on it now
 
The one disadvantage of the CSP in the Skyhawk is that the nose becomes fairly heavy, more like a 182 as far as landing, ie watch the firewall. I place as much weight in the back as I can, especially with the 62 gallons of fuel. For high and hot operations the CSP is worth it. I talked with the people in Wellington Ks, when they started taking over the 180 hp conversions, they did not think the extra weight and the need to rework the cowlings were worth the CSP. They felt the 180 without the CSP climbed well enough, I agree except when high or hot.
 
I owned a 1979 172N with the Avcon 180 hp constant speed prop conversion for about 10 years. No speed conversions but did have Flint tip tanks that increased fuel capacity from 40 to I believe about 65 useful. This was good because I typically burned about 10 GPH and I could fly longer legs with good reserves. Speed wasn't much faster than a regular 172, about 117 knots. The CSP planes had a modified cowling with the cowl openings much bigger than standard. I always surmised they caused more drag and kept the plane from going much faster.

The real benefits of the conversion were the climb as noted above and the ability to carry more. I didn't say increased useful load because the Avcon CSP conversion didn't have the UL upgrade available. This was only available in the fixed pitch prop versions like the Air Plains. It would definitely carry the greater weights though. The fixed pitch versions with the useful load increase limits the flaps to 30 degrees (no big deal). I also flew a fixed pitch 180 hp version and it was good. The 180 hp is the right size engine for the 172 airframe. Much better performance.

If I had to do it again, I would get the fixed pitch 180 hp version. There wasn't much benefit to the constant speed prop. Another option is to get the 150 HP and add a PowerFlow exhaust. I also flew one of those and the performance was close to the 180 conversions.

A cool thing would be to add a PowerFlow to the 180. I don't know if that's doable but would probably make for a great flying 172.

If you have any other questions, just ask.
 
Last edited:
Artimas said:
A cool thing would be to add a PowerFlow to the 180. I don't know if that's doable but would probably make for a great flying 172.
Click to expand...
Mine had Power Flow with the Air Plains 180 hp (fixed-pitch) conversion. Yes, it was a great-flying 172. With those mods plus flap gap seals and a Maple Leaf exhaust fairing, normal cruise was in the mid-120 KTAS range.
 
Let’s face it. Short of splicing on a turbine, a 172 is not a speedster. It’s a good four place, easy to fly, trainer, which is what it was designed to be. It meets its design goal well enough that it is probably the most widely sold single model in GA. If you want speed, it’s the wrong plane.
 
I prefer to call the 172 the most practical GA plane ever made with the 182 second. With the 180 hp, you make an already very practical plane more practical. Do I wish it had more speed, useful load, fuel efficient, cheaper to maintain? Yes, but the 180hp only adds to its value with little downside. Is it the favorite plane I’ve ever owned, no. Will it be the last plane I ever own, yep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top