Almost all true, but don't forget the venerable Reims F172, which are just C172 built in France and they are all anti-corrosion treated (in contrast to the US built, where that was a paid option).

One thing surprises me - if you compare say a 1966/1967 F172, G or H, with a brand new C172SP, what do you get?

• It is 180hp 4-cyl. IO360 vs. 145hp 6-cyl. O300 - the old one definitley runs a lot smoother.
• It is 108kts cruise vy 98kts cruise - 10 kts advantage for the new one.
• It is 35LPH vs. 27LPH - 8LPH, or 2GPH for only 10kts faster.
• It is Avgas mandatory vs. Mogas possibility - advantage the old one.
• It is G1000 vs clocks - is the blingbling world really an advantage?
• It is about 100kg carry load less on the new one.
• It is 270k real money vs 30k if you go for a GNS430 equipped old.

Is there enough benefit in a new one to justify + a quarter of a million? This is about the equivalent of the Total Costs of Ownership for a whole one TBO for a O-300D.

Any C172SP 180 I've flown cruised at 115Kts at 8usg/hour low level.

M,N and P models I've flown struggle to manage 100KTS at 8 imperial GPH so there is a substantial difference. Of course most of the older ones are only 140-160BHP.

There must be other differences because I have some time in the Cutlass which can only manage 120kts. It is a C172 180 with retracts and constant speed prop. It used nearly 10 USG/Hr.

Fuel injection definitely improves economy. On the C182 I've been flying recently it is worth 2 Imperial GPH. This will be partly due to being able to lean it more aggressively without it shaking itself to pieces!

D.O.
Edited to add:- The C172SP's I've flown all had around 850lbs useful load. 6 hours and 515lbs for bodies or cargo.

I don't know the newer M,N,P Lycosaurus and their 160hp conversion.

I was referring to the older Continentals O300 compared to the SP. I just digged out the real numbers - usually fly my F172H 145hp Continental at 2.450 rpm (climb prop) with 6.8GPH Mogas at about 95-98KTS. I also frequently fly our C172SP 180HP Lyco at 2.200 rpm (cruise prop) with 8GPH Avgas and at about 108-110KTS. Both settings give about 65% power according to POH. Never saw 115 with 8GPH on the SP's our club have, that would be more like 9-9.5GPH for 115 - one is 2003, the other 2009 (heavy, due to G1000).

So my personal experience is, that spending 200k EUR more give me a 10KTS advantage, but 94kg less load (the 6-cyl is the far better lever for W&B) and about 5 EUR higher fuel costs per hour (roughly 1.2GPH less with 1 EUR/L cheaper Mogas) - ok, I admit also a much louder plane, but isn't the old roaring 6-cyl sexier compared to the rattling 4 ... ?

Find a good condition F172H with run out engine. Fit a replacement 0-360A4M using the Air Plains mod bought from USA. You get 180hp and still have 40 degree flaps - get in and out of anywhere, cruise comfortably at 110 knots, with flat out speed of 130 knots. Lift more than the new 172. Been there, done that (and still enjoying it)

OK, can't beat a 0-360A4M in a 172H - THAT is something! But it's a rare bird.

Or look for a T-41B Mescalero, or a French 172 Rocket, both with the same 210HP IO-360 H, or go even further with the 400HP conversion V8 Corvette engine from Quietaviation (C172 India N46240, does anybody know how many Experimental V8's are out there? Price was very reasonable.) - even runs on AutoFuel ... These will all be more like a little shrunk 182 and less 172ish.

Another plus with the Air Plains conversion is that everything firewall forward is brand new, so all is TBO'd to 2000 hours, and if you worry about Cessna SIDs that's a lot of the work done. There are more of these in UK recently, because there aren't any new Continentals available and it costs near same to zero - time. I've no interest in promoting Air Plains, but they are just really nice people and helped me turn my aircraft into exactly what I wanted. EASA mod is easy.

DONT OVERFILLThat's a significant difference, over 20%, a lot in anyone's book. Do you really believe fuel injection will make such a big difference?

I have flown several aircraft with fuel injected and carburetted versions of the same engine (all Lycomings) and I have never seen a measurable difference between either induction method.

I don't doubt you've seen a difference however I suspect it's more to do with the relative positions of the black and blue knobs. I've seen some manifold pressure and RPM readings that don't match the real world. A pilot thinks they have X amount of power set by the readings on the gauges when in fact he/she has Y amount of power set, which of course reflects in the fuel burn.

It may also be partly due the the make of engine. The Continental induction tubes are on the top of the engine in the cold cooling air and suffer from poorer fuel air ratio distribution especially for the longer tubes (Carby versions only) as the fuel doesn't stay in suspended in the airflow due to the atomised fuel condensing out. You may not be able to lean as much before you encounter roughness.

The Lycoming induction system comes from a warm plenum area below the sump and the induction tubes run nearby the exhaust system keeping them relatively warmer compared to the Continental. Therefore a carby Lycoming will not see as much variance in air fuel ratio between cylinders.

CURLY TIPSAre you saying that most of the SIDS involves the firewall forward? If so I'd have to disagree, most of the work is from the firewall back.

I agree the Airplanes conversion is a good one.

There may be more working hours on a C172 backwards the firewall, BUT one major cost driver is that bloody expensive engine mount inspection, if applicable. So yes, more labor aft firewall, but often more bucks in front.

Anybody an idea what Air Plains conversion would cost for a D-E reg? A friends O300 is reaching TBO and he was quoted an incredible price for OH.

Try Home for the basic kit info. Your engineer will need to quote for the work, but probably around 2k Euro or less? I had it done at same time as annual was due - always helps to combine work. Remember your future costs will be less because everything is new (just coming up to my 500 hour magneto servicing). EASA mod 300 Euro. But once you do it, aircraft thinks it is a 182, so budget for a 182 paint scheme :).

Don't forget that what you take off the aircraft has value. I sold all my old stuff - engine, prop, engine mount etc. And the 5k went towards my costs. So overall cost was less than 0-300 zero timing - or close - but now have confidence of everything new and bulletproof A4M keeps turning.

I sometimes rent one of the 1998 C172S's from my local FBO. They have fuel injected O-360's, 180 HP and round dial cockpits. They are great airplanes and I think if you don't mind the price, can't see how you could go wrong buying a new one.

I have flown 160 HP warriors and skyhawks, I have flown 180 HP Arrows and skyhawks. The skyhawk sure climbs better. Though I have a lot more piper time I prefer Cessna.

Bryan

I quite support the idea of upgrading an older 172, which is in good shape. It does take planning, skill and contractor oversight, but you'll get every bit as good a plane (better in some ways) an probably for lots less that brand new. The brand new 172's are very nice, but at 5 to 7 times to price of a decent legacy one, you've really got to want new to spend the extra!

I've just finished completely redoing a 182, and it's magnificent. It ended up a bit more than a brand new one, but it is a glass cockpit amphibian with a reversing prop, and exactly what the owner wanted.

There's the numbers.
Fuel flow is the gauge middle left and proved accurate.

http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/a...84181a7dfb.jpg

If I had the dosh I would buy a 182 with the new diesel donk.

So one can turn "dosh" into "donk"? I am going to have to learn English one day.... ;)

Donk=donkey=engine. Keep up at the back Smith.

Personally, I prefer the Pipers. (No numbers or science behind it, just the feeling). I did a few hundred hours in a relatively new Archer last year which was lovely to fly- but the air conditioning unit meant its useful load was 0.

But the Skyhawk has some definite advantages:

I always feel that the 172 has much better takeoff performance.

Two doors is certainly better- no need to unload a passenger or climb over someone when you've forgotten the chocks.

The 172 seems easier to get in and out of than a low wing aircraft, particularly when your knees and hips have started to go.

The C172S that I fly has built in cup holders. Enough said.


Something to be wary of though, all the aircraft I've flown that are fitted with G1000 have a much lower payload due to the weight of the avionics. And when something goes wrong, you'd better hope that someone nearby is qualified/ knowledgable in how to fix it.

Strange that, I feel the same. If I'm going into a tight grass strip I will always take the 172. I have roughly the same time on both types and on paper there's not a lot in a 28-161 and a 172 with the 160 donk, but I always feel that the 172 is accelerating faster. Maybe it's due to the seating position, the fact that the 172 has a deeper windshield and also your peripheral vision is picking up the grass flashing past instead of wing.

I had the joy to test an Experimental JT-A (new 182 with SMA Diesel) in Kansas a while ago and yes, it is a remarkable plane. BUT, if you look at that price ... ;(

The Euromillions Lotto here in UK for tomorrow night is currently standing at
£143,000,000...around 230 million US. I shall have one for weekdays and one for weekends. Or better still, one on floats as well.