Which Cessna 17X is right? another 'which plane'

D

docmirror

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
12,008
Display Name
Cowboy - yeehah!
OK, presume I know nothing about the venerable Cessna single engine four seat line - cause I don't. I've sat in a few 172s, and a 177, but not a 175.

Mission: 180-310NM trips in VFR day/night condition in the south and southwest. The occasional trip into the front range of CO, but not over the real high stuff unless conditions perfect. Two adults, total 340lbs, dog 70lbs, stuff 30lbs, for payload of under 450. Will be used to train two students as well.

Likes:More power, I have a serious aversion to underpowered planes. Simple, no more messing with retract, and maybe no C/S prop. Ultra safe, will be training and low time operators for 3-5 years. Mogas. Basic navcom, txp, I will supply modern GPS.

I've been fiddling with the 175 cause they have some get up and go. thinking about the 67/68 177 with the 180HP conv. Also thinking about the 172 with Lyc power 150/160HP.

Budget: No crap planes, already seen one. I guess out the door price of $40k, would really like to stay closer to 30k.

Is the fastback better than the 'omni-vision' with rear windows?
Is the GO-300 a deal killer?
Is the 177 worth the uptick in prices over the 172?
When will we achieve whirled peas? Seriously, I know squadoosh about the various models.
 
docmirror said:
Mission: 180-310NM trips in VFR day/night condition in the south and southwest. The occasional trip into the front range of CO, but not over the real high stuff unless conditions perfect. Two adults, total 340lbs, dog 70lbs, stuff 30lbs, for payload of under 450. Will be used to train two students as well.
Click to expand...

My 48 170 will haul your load, Hope you studi likes their conventional endorsement.

This will too
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_846035_Cessna+170A.html
 
Last edited:
The 175 (engine) and 177 (wings) have some maintenance differences that a new owner may want to do significant study on before attempting to purchase.

Some people love both types. Especially the 177. Thus the price difference.

Cessna Pilots Assn has excellent resources on what to look for on the maintenance issues.

172 is slower than the others, but also dog-simple to maintain.

Any reason you're not looking at older 182s?

Someone mentioned that you left out the 170.

And there were also 172RGs, but you don't really get much of a performance gain from sucking up the gear on those. Most of them nowadays are getting their butts kicked on rental lines as Commercial trainers to meet the totally outdated retract rules.
 
There are also 177RGs. With a 17000 service ceiling, that would be nice for the "occasional" Front Range trip.

I think you should do some density altitude calculations over some common passes in summer and compare that to the service ceilings, especially if you're averse to "underpowered" aircraft.

Shortly after finishing my certificate, I got a ride in a 177B at KCOS (and it's still on the line there if you want to try it). It took some 3500 feet of runway to take off on a warm day, and then climbed like a lame mule. Big eye opener for s freshly minted sea level pilot.
 
A 180hp 172 would work well. I have flown a 2005 172 with the 180hp and G1000. Very nice little plane. Not sure about the mogas possibilities on it tho.
 
MAKG1 said:
There are also 177RGs. With a 17000 service ceiling, that would be nice for the "occasional" Front Range trip.

I think you should do some density altitude calculations over some common passes in summer and compare that to the service ceilings, especially if you're averse to "underpowered" aircraft.

Shortly after finishing my certificate, I got a ride in a 177B at KCOS (and it's still on the line there if you want to try it). It took some 3500 feet of runway to take off on a warm day, and then climbed like a lame mule. Big eye opener for s freshly minted sea level pilot.
Click to expand...


Same thing here in a T41B out of KCOS.
 
DesertNomad said:
A 180hp 172 would work well. I have flown a 2005 172 with the 180hp and G1000. Very nice little plane. Not sure about the mogas possibilities on it tho.
Click to expand...

Let's keep the price in the realm of reality now. I"m looking for simple avionics, low cost to own, but I guess I could look at a 180HP 172. Didn't know they were avail.
 
None of the 177/177B are fantastic climbers. In the Denver area what will be?


Most of the 177B's and 177RG have the bendix dual mag. That may or may not be something you want to avoid. Some have been converted to seperate magnetos.


There is a guy in the Colorado Springs area that has a 150 or 160hp 177 with the powerflow that absolutley loves his plane and has flown it at least a few hundred hours out of Meadow Lake (FLY).

One of the things I've noticed about the 177 series as a whole is the higher price to boot and typically much older radios than a similarly priced 172.

1968 are 150 horse with FP (what I fly in KLNK @ 1,200 field elevation)

1969 are 180 horse with FP

1970 and on are all 180 with CS I believe (I fly a 1977 B model on ocassion and maintain it)
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Let's keep the price in the realm of reality now. I"m looking for simple avionics, low cost to own, but I guess I could look at a 180HP 172. Didn't know they were avail.
Click to expand...


It would have to be an old 60's model converted to be in the price range your asking. I doubt you can find one that cheap.
 
docmirror said:
Let's keep the price in the realm of reality now. I"m looking for simple avionics, low cost to own, but I guess I could look at a 180HP 172. Didn't know they were avail.
Click to expand...

All 172SPs are 180 HP.

But there are at least two STCs for carbureted 180 HP engine swaps for 172 M and Ns. People do that sometimes when the 160 HPs need overhaul.

They are good for moderate mountains. Fine at Lake Tahoe even on a hot summer day (BTDT). But the service ceiling isn't any higher than an unmodified 172N, so I'd hesitate strongly taking one through the Colorado mountains.

Their useful load is unmatched for a light fixed gear trainer, when the flaps are limited to 30 deg. 2550 lb max gross, often more than 1000 lb useful load. Full fuel is still 240 lb.

You might consider a 172XP (which isn't really a 172 -- more like a 177 with some of its problems fixed). But your mission just screams "182."
 
MAKG1 said:
All 172SPs are 180 HP.

But there are at least two STCs for carbureted 180 HP engine swaps for 172 M and Ns. People do that sometimes when the 160 HPs need overhaul.

They are good for moderate mountains. Fine at Lake Tahoe even on a hot summer day (BTDT). But the service ceiling isn't any higher than an unmodified 172N, so I'd hesitate strongly taking one through the Colorado mountains.

Their useful load is unmatched for a light fixed gear trainer, when the flaps are limited to 30 deg. 2550 lb max gross, often more than 1000 lb useful load. Full fuel is still 240 lb.

You might consider a 172XP (which isn't really a 172 -- more like a 177 with some of its problems fixed). But your mission just screams "182."
Click to expand...

$30k to $40k on any of these? 172/180 conversion, 177/180, 182, 172XP?

:(
 
MAKG1 said:
You might consider a 172XP (which isn't really a 172 -- more like a 177 with some of its problems fixed). /QUOTE]


Please clarify. They both have the same firewall fuel valve, selector valve, fuel strainer, the XP is darn nose heavy, the XP has the 172 brand flimsy control columns.

The 172XP has a rudder trim that is just garbage. The 177B have a rudder trim like the 200 series cessnas do.
Click to expand...
 
docmirror said:
Is the fastback better than the 'omni-vision' with rear windows?
Is the GO-300 a deal killer?
Is the 177 worth the uptick in prices over the 172?
When will we achieve whirled peas? Seriously, I know squadoosh about the various models.
Click to expand...


I think all fastbacks lack a baggage door. All have manual flaps and O-300s.

No

Not Really

David White had a 196? 172 with the 180 horse conversion.
 
bnt83 said:
I think all fastbacks lack a baggage door.
Click to expand...
Not sure about that.

The early 172s I've flown (C models) had a baggage door. It is possible that it was an aftermarket add on, but looked original.

The 170s did not come with baggage doors from the factory.
 
bnt83 said:
I think all fastbacks lack a baggage door.
Click to expand...

Fearless Tower said:
The early 172s I've flown (C models) had a baggage door. It is possible that it was an aftermarket add on, but looked original.

The 170s did not come with baggage doors from the factory.
Click to expand...
Baggage doors first appeared as standard equipment on the 1961 172B and Skyhawk (s/n 17247747 and up). So there were baggage doors on the last two year-models of "fastback" 172s, 1961 and 1962.
 
175 is just a fastback 172 with a GO-300 engine.

From an ownership standpoint I'd rather have a 180hp 172 as getting parts for the geared engine worries me long term.
 
MAKG1 said:
But there are at least two STCs for carbureted 180 HP engine swaps for 172 M and Ns. People do that sometimes when the 160 HPs need overhaul.

They are good for moderate mountains. Fine at Lake Tahoe even on a hot summer day (BTDT). But the service ceiling isn't any higher than an unmodified 172N, so I'd hesitate strongly taking one through the Colorado mountains.
Click to expand...
Not quite true. Since the performance is equal to or better than the original, the STC holders are not required to do the flight testing to determine the new numbers. That's why the only revised performance chart you get with the STC is landing distance, which is a little longer due to the increased weight and reduced flap travel.

Cessna built a handful of 172s with the carbureted 180-hp Lycoming (essentially the same as the STC'd 172M/N/P) in 1983-85, calling it the Model 172Q "Cutlass". Cessna quoted service ceiling of the 172Q as 17,000' at 2550 lb MGW, compared to 14,200' for the stock 172N at 2300 lb MGW. Fly an STC'd 180 hp 172N at the original 2300 lb and it'll go even higher.
 
docmirror said:
Budget: No crap planes, already seen one. I guess out the door price of $40k, would really like to stay closer to 30k.
Click to expand...

You're getting an older 172. The only thing that meets all your requirements well and stays in this budget. The 175 is in this budget, but given the student training, I would advise against it. Since you said no crap, 177s and 170s are outside this budget, particularly anything with folding gear.
 
I flew geared engines for many hundreds of hours on the GO-435's, so I wouldn't be afraid of the GO-300. They're great engines when you operate them correctly. They can run mogas straight out of the box and they have so much torque your plane will jump off the rwy. I'd look at a 175 for a lot of bang for the buck.
 
Pilawt said:
Cessna built a handful of 172s with the carbureted 180-hp Lycoming (essentially the same as the STC'd 172M/N/P) in 1983-85, calling it the Model 172Q "Cutlass".
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, the 172RG was called the Cutlass. Are you saying that Cessna gave the same name to two different airplanes?:confused:
 
stratobee said:
I flew geared engines for many hundreds of hours on the GO-435's, so I wouldn't be afraid of the GO-300. They're great engines when you operate them correctly. They can run mogas straight out of the box and they have so much torque your plane will jump off the rwy. I'd look at a 175 for a lot of bang for the buck.
Click to expand...

Remember the training students part?
 
Dav8or said:
Wait a minute, the 172RG was called the Cutlass. Are you saying that Cessna gave the same name to two different airplanes?:confused:
Click to expand...
Model 172RG "Cutlass RG", 1980-85
Model 172Q "Cutlass", 1983-85

Similar to "Cardinal" / "Cardinal RG", and "Skylane" / "Skylane RG", so there was precedent.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
Model 172RG "Cutlass RG", 1980-85
Model 172Q "Cutlass", 1983-85

Similar to "Cardinal" / "Cardinal RG", and "Skylane" / "Skylane RG", so there was precedent.
Click to expand...

Does the fixed gear Cutlass also have a CS prop?
 
For your operation and needs I'd be looking at a mid vintage 172 with a 180hp conversion.
 
Dav8or said:
Does the fixed gear Cutlass also have a CS prop?
Click to expand...
Nope, F/P prop, just like the Penn Yan and Air Plains STCs.

C152-172P-Q-RG_1994_04.jpg


C152-172P-Q-RG_1994_specs.jpg
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
Show me a decent 182 turn key for $30k to $40k
Click to expand...
About the only ones I've seen in that range are the late 50's straight tails. I used to want one....and then I developed a hole in my head and decided I needed a twin.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
Show me a decent 182 turn key for $30k to $40k
Click to expand...


The oldest ones are in that range. And if you hunt a bit there's absolutely nothing wrong with them for the stated mission. $50K adds a whole lot of airplanes to the roster.
 
DesertNomad said:
A 180hp 172 would work well. I have flown a 2005 172 with the 180hp and G1000. Very nice little plane. Not sure about the mogas possibilities on it tho.
Click to expand...

Not going to find that for the $40K limit in the OP.
 
docmirror said:
I have no problem with the 170, but I can't for the life of me figure out why it's 5-10kts slower with the same engine and basic airframe? Either the 170 is under-rated in cruise, or the early 172 is over-rated, or some of both.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe it is slower?

My 170-B would fly 125 MPH @ 2450 RPM, My 48 170 would fly 131 MPH at 2450 RPM.

The 170-A that I fly now will fly 119 MPH at 2450 RPM.

they will out run a 172 with the 0-300-D simply because they are a cleaner design with out the nose wheel sticking out in the wind.
The trick to a fast 170 is not to load it up with equipment it was never meant to carry.
The "B"s are the slowest of the type, because they are the heaviest, and have more drag from the fouler flaps.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
All 172SPs are 180 HP.

But there are at least two STCs for carbureted 180 HP engine swaps for 172 M and Ns. People do that sometimes when the 160 HPs need overhaul.

They are good for moderate mountains. Fine at Lake Tahoe even on a hot summer day (BTDT). But the service ceiling isn't any higher than an unmodified 172N, so I'd hesitate strongly taking one through the Colorado mountains.

Their useful load is unmatched for a light fixed gear trainer, when the flaps are limited to 30 deg. 2550 lb max gross, often more than 1000 lb useful load. Full fuel is still 240 lb.
Click to expand...

The 172SP's useful load is smaller than the older 172s. Its empty weight is well over 1700 pounds. Ours weighed 300 pounds more than our 172M's and the gross was only 250 pounds more, for a net loss of 50 pounds. Since it carries more fuel to feed the 180 horses, you lose even more payload.

Dan
 
Tom-D said:
Why do you believe it is slower?

My 170-B would fly 125 MPH @ 2450 RPM, My 48 170 would fly 131 MPH at 2450 RPM.

The 170-A that I fly now will fly 119 MPH at 2450 RPM.

they will out run a 172 with the 0-300-D simply because they are a cleaner design with out the nose wheel sticking out in the wind.
The trick to a fast 170 is not to load it up with equipment it was never meant to carry.
The "B"s are the slowest of the type, because they are the heaviest, and have more drag from the fouler flaps.
Click to expand...

Because the POH says so. Remember, I have no knowledge of the two in flight, but I can look things up just fine.
 
Well, I just came back from looking at a fixer 175. Another rolling wreck I'm afraid. Asking 17k with only 300 hours on the engine OH. But, it needed just about everything else done. Paint was crap, int marginal, no wheelpants, no nav radio, headliner was grungy(may be corrosion in there), panel was fair, but showed plenty of age, hangar rash on the stab in back, flaps were pretty loose in the track, oil leaks from front and rear, door seals shot, etc.

Pretty sad. I think by the time I got it sorted well I'd have $16-20k in upgrades, and then I have a $25k plane with $40k invested.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The 172SP's useful load is smaller than the older 172s. Its empty weight is well over 1700 pounds. Ours weighed 300 pounds more than our 172M's and the gross was only 250 pounds more, for a net loss of 50 pounds. Since it carries more fuel to feed the 180 horses, you lose even more payload.

Dan
Click to expand...

Holy crap! I just weighed a 177B, 180 horse with constant speed, dual arc 300 nav coms, arc200 autopilot, arc adf tray wire and antennas, marker beacon, ps engineering audio panel, electroluminescent switch panels, headrests on each seat, RG battery, skytech starter, thicker windshield, new foam backed insulation throughout the cabin, all new upholstry, the aft bench seat is as high as full backed bucket seats, shoulder harnesses and came out to 1650

I figure the S and SPs were heavy but wow.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
Holy crap! I just weighed a 177B, 180 horse with constant speed, dual arc 300 nav coms, arc200 autopilot, arc adf tray wire and antennas, marker beacon, ps engineering audio panel, electroluminescent switch panels, headrests on each seat, RG battery, skytech starter, thicker windshield, new foam backed insulation throughout the cabin, all new upholstry, the aft bench seat is as high as full backed bucket seats, shoulder harnesses and came out to 1650

I figure the S and SPs were heavy but wow.
Click to expand...

Considering my 182 comes in at 1850 empty...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top