175 magnum wrote:In 1962 Cessna moved the tachometer drive from the motor to the prop drive to compensate for smarter than normal pilots. They also installed a constant speed prop and cowl flaps. This turned the plane into a great performer and corrected the earlier mistakes but it was too late as the plane already had a bad reputation. Some years ago there was a fellow doing mods to these engines to take the engines with the constant speed prop system up to 230 hp. and getting 2000+ hrs out of them. These were for experiment aircraft only.

Interesting.

MTV

To answer the original question, 175s and P172Ds are on a different type certificate from straight 172s. It's the same type certificate used on the Hawk XP and the T-41. During the first few years I have owned my P172D, I did some research. All of the 175s had geared Continentals. It wasn't until the P172Ds were made in 1962-63 that they had geared and CS props. The experiment, calling the P172Ds "172 Powermatics" failed because of the pre-existing reputation of the Continental engine, which admittedly had a very low TBO (1200 hours I think--might have been more), and the gearing was extremely fragile and expensive to repair when ham-handed by pilots who didn't understand it. Most of the P172Ds have been converted to Lycomings with CS props. There were only 58 P172Ds made, as far as I can determine, although different resources quote different numbers.

The airframe itself isn't much different from the 172 of the same era--slightly larger tail feathers in both width and chord, but same wing. The fuselage is the same width as 172s of that era but narrower by about an inch than later 172s. According to my IA, all of the Cessna airplanes of that era had slightly thicker skins than newer models.

Manual flaps were standard through all of the 175s and P172Ds, and on 172s through the 1964 E model--electric after that starting with the F model in 1965.

Cary

Cary wrote:It wasn't until the P172Ds were made in 1962-63 that they had geared and CS props.

Cary

The 175C came stock with both the CS prop and the cowl flaps. Only difference between it and the P172D is the omnivision rear window.

bushpilot490 wrote:

Cary wrote:It wasn't until the P172Ds were made in 1962-63 that they had geared and CS props.

Cary

The 175C came stock with both the CS prop and the cowl flaps. Only difference between it and the P172D is the omnivision rear window.

I'll add that to my font of research. Thanks.

Cary

There was a tail dragger/180 hp conversion floating around 50R for a while that was for sale; about $58K is what I recall. Last I heard it was still for sale.

I know a guy that has an early 175 tail converted with an O470. Very heavy nose. I met a guy from Wyoming that has an early 175 tail with an O360. He got it listed as experimental. Moved the engine back 4 inches and increased the size of horizontal stabilizer and elevator and he says it is pretty light on the controls. Seems like to much work.

Seems like way too much work to try to get your land-o-matic to perform like a 180.

Tim

Does anyone know why an O470 in a 175 makes it nose heavy and does not make a 180 nose heavy?Same frame and wings.

175 magnum wrote:Does anyone know why an O470 in a 175 makes it nose heavy and does not make a 180 nose heavy?Same frame and wings.

The tail. The 180 has a trimmable horizontal stabilizer. The 175 has a fixed horizontal stabilizer and a trim tab on the elevator. The angle of incidence of the 175s horizontal stabilizer is set up for a lighter engine on the front end.

I think the primary reason is that the 175 doesn't have the moving horizontal stabilizer that the 180/182 has--thus less area for trim adjustment. I want to say the horizontal tailplane span isn't as great as those on the 180/182, so less area again--but I wouldn't swear by that statement. Ron Smith's "pocket history of the 172" says that the tailplane span of the 172 was increased by 8 inches in 1963.

I think the law of supply and demand in non-airline general aviation is at work. Demand for new airplanes is low compared to overpriced pickups and off road toys. I think the few airplane manufacturers left are reluctant to go through the expensive certification process for lots of different models with different engines and certificates.

After WWII when not every GI wanted to be a pilot, survivors became very conservative. This and the corrective AI/AD system makes airplanes very safe vehicles.

My decision to pursue a 175 was because with a 180-210hp engine it would make a decent 4 place airplane without going to the extra expenses of a 180. In the two place configuration it would haul all the gear I would really need for camping plus have long range tanks which can be pretty handy here in Alaska.

I also wanted to custom build my own backcountry cessna tail wheel and it seemed much cheaper to start of with a 175 than a 180 and also not have quite the operating expenses of the 180 for boring holes through the sky. It seems to fill a small niche between the 175 and 180/182.

In any case I have not been able to find the time to dedicate to the project in order to find out. I did get lucky, IMO, to buy a 175 with the 180hp conversion in ramp mummy stage for $7500, which I just could't pass up.

SkyLarkin wrote:My decision to pursue a 175 was because with a 180-210hp engine it would make a decent 4 place airplane without going to the extra expenses of a 180. In the two place configuration it would haul all the gear I would really need for camping plus have long range tanks which can be pretty handy here in Alaska.

I also wanted to custom build my own backcountry cessna tail wheel and it seemed much cheaper to start of with a 175 than a 180 and also not have quite the operating expenses of the 180 for boring holes through the sky. It seems to fill a small niche between the 175 and 180/182.

In any case I have not been able to find the time to dedicate to the project in order to find out. I did get lucky, IMO, to buy a 175 with the 180hp conversion in ramp mummy stage for $7500, which I just could't pass up.

You'd save a whole lot of time, if you'd just restore the 175 to flyable, airworthy condition, rather than convert it to a tailwheel. The mystic of a tailwheel wouldn't be there, but for many purposes, the utility wouldn't be compromised. Sure, no big rocks, but trikes can still go a lot of places, especially with bigger tires. And your airplane would be less likely to become a statistic.

There are some 172s here and there on this forum. Look for Jared's--it's about as nice a looking one as any.

Don't kid yourself, though. A 175 is only a 4 place airplane with partial tanks--that bigger engine doesn't give it more useful load. Otherwise, like any 172, it's an OK 3 person airplane. In fact, on my P172D, the gross weight in the manual of 2500# is reduced to 2350# by the Avcon STC'd engine conversion.

Cary

Not sure if it has already been mentioned re the 182 changes, but :

1965 - 182H
1.Sharp point propeller spinner increased length 1 inch.
2. Horizontal stabilizer and elevator span increased 10inches to 11feet 8inches.
3.Thicker onepiece windshield without centerpost.
Total Built - 840
Serial Numbers 18255845 thru 18256684
Base Price Skylane - $17,995.00

Link: http://www.seaplaneswest.com/documents/182hist.pdf

I've read that the larger horizontal stab change was significant. It lessened the need to pull way back when landing to prevent abusing the nose wheel/firewall. I guess if you are loaded right re the CG it may not matter.

Cary wrote:

SkyLarkin wrote:My decision to pursue a 175 was because with a 180-210hp engine it would make a decent 4 place airplane without going to the extra expenses of a 180. In the two place configuration it would haul all the gear I would really need for camping plus have long range tanks which can be pretty handy here in Alaska.

I also wanted to custom build my own backcountry cessna tail wheel and it seemed much cheaper to start of with a 175 than a 180 and also not have quite the operating expenses of the 180 for boring holes through the sky. It seems to fill a small niche between the 175 and 180/182.

In any case I have not been able to find the time to dedicate to the project in order to find out. I did get lucky, IMO, to buy a 175 with the 180hp conversion in ramp mummy stage for $7500, which I just could't pass up.

You'd save a whole lot of time, if you'd just restore the 175 to flyable, airworthy condition, rather than convert it to a tailwheel. The mystic of a tailwheel wouldn't be there, but for many purposes, the utility wouldn't be compromised. Sure, no big rocks, but trikes can still go a lot of places, especially with bigger tires. And your airplane would be less likely to become a statistic.

There are some 172s here and there on this forum. Look for Jared's--it's about as nice a looking one as any.

Don't kid yourself, though. A 175 is only a 4 place airplane with partial tanks--that bigger engine doesn't give it more useful load. Otherwise, like any 172, it's an OK 3 person airplane. In fact, on my P172D, the gross weight in the manual of 2500# is reduced to 2350# by the Avcon STC'd engine conversion.

Cary

Great advice and post, top to bottom. The "cool factor, Chuck Yeager, Super Hero" aspect of TW flying wouldn't mean jack to me if that kept me on the ground instead of out in the backcountry for even one season.

Bill

fiftynineSC wrote:

Cary wrote:

SkyLarkin wrote:My decision to pursue a 175 was because with a 180-210hp engine it would make a decent 4 place airplane without going to the extra expenses of a 180. In the two place configuration it would haul all the gear I would really need for camping plus have long range tanks which can be pretty handy here in Alaska.

I also wanted to custom build my own backcountry cessna tail wheel and it seemed much cheaper to start of with a 175 than a 180 and also not have quite the operating expenses of the 180 for boring holes through the sky. It seems to fill a small niche between the 175 and 180/182.

In any case I have not been able to find the time to dedicate to the project in order to find out. I did get lucky, IMO, to buy a 175 with the 180hp conversion in ramp mummy stage for $7500, which I just could't pass up.

You'd save a whole lot of time, if you'd just restore the 175 to flyable, airworthy condition, rather than convert it to a tailwheel. The mystic of a tailwheel wouldn't be there, but for many purposes, the utility wouldn't be compromised. Sure, no big rocks, but trikes can still go a lot of places, especially with bigger tires. And your airplane would be less likely to become a statistic.

There are some 172s here and there on this forum. Look for Jared's--it's about as nice a looking one as any.

Don't kid yourself, though. A 175 is only a 4 place airplane with partial tanks--that bigger engine doesn't give it more useful load. Otherwise, like any 172, it's an OK 3 person airplane. In fact, on my P172D, the gross weight in the manual of 2500# is reduced to 2350# by the Avcon STC'd engine conversion.

Cary

Great advice and post, top to bottom. The "cool factor, Chuck Yeager, Super Hero" aspect of TW flying wouldn't mean jack to me if that kept me on the ground instead of out in the backcountry for even one season.

Bill

Yes, but....seems like there's always a "but": He's in Alaska. Which means a high likelihood of gravel bar ops and SKI ops. While ski ops CAN be done in a 175 on tri gear, it makes a lot more sense in tailwheel configuration.

I know of an IA in Fairbanks who was getting the Avcon converted 172/175s re-upped to 2500 gross. He's long gone now, but there are several of those planes in FAI still I'll bet, so maybe some field approval paperwork.

But, otherwise, a true four place airplane???? Not really. And maybe not even at 2500, depending on how light the plane is.

MTV

Cary wrote:
You'd save a whole lot of time, if you'd just restore the 175 to flyable, airworthy condition, rather than convert it to a tailwheel. The mystic of a tailwheel wouldn't be there, but for many purposes, the utility wouldn't be compromised. Sure, no big rocks, but trikes can still go a lot of places, especially with bigger tires. And your airplane would be less likely to become a statistic.

There are some 172s here and there on this forum. Look for Jared's--it's about as nice a looking one as any.

Don't kid yourself, though. A 175 is only a 4 place airplane with partial tanks--that bigger engine doesn't give it more useful load. Otherwise, like any 172, it's an OK 3 person airplane. In fact, on my P172D, the gross weight in the manual of 2500# is reduced to 2350# by the Avcon STC'd engine conversion.

Cary

LOL, I'm not not really shooting for the mystic or cool factor and really don't care much what people think of me wasting my time(or money). Yes I've seen plenty of real nice 172s, 182s, 175s etc and don't really subscribe to the whole tailwheel vs nose wheel debate. I like them both. Never said anything about 4 place and full tanks either

Believe me I have heard or read about all the arguments and angles that this site has presented on more hp, bigger tires, tailwheels, Maules, flap setting, density altitude and on and on. My 175 dream is something I was pursuing long before I joined up here and while I thank you for the advice, I think I'll keep marching to the beat of my own drum.

SkyLarkin,

Good on you! My 175TW is certainly not the perfect airplane. As with most planes, it is a compromise. As MTV correctly states, it's not a true four place plane either. But, with the 0-360 (and I have the Top Prop, electronic ignition, PowerFlow exhaust, STOL, VG's), it is a GREAT two place plane and much more economical than the 0-470's out there. I've had many a husky or cub driver tell me they wish they had the room I have--and the cruise speed. I can regularly get off or on with no wind in about 250-300 feet (unless I'm in Leadville or it's 90 degrees out). Keep your focus, it is a fun project.

SkyLarkin wrote:

Cary wrote:
You'd save a whole lot of time, if you'd just restore the 175 to flyable, airworthy condition, rather than convert it to a tailwheel. The mystic of a tailwheel wouldn't be there, but for many purposes, the utility wouldn't be compromised. Sure, no big rocks, but trikes can still go a lot of places, especially with bigger tires. And your airplane would be less likely to become a statistic.

There are some 172s here and there on this forum. Look for Jared's--it's about as nice a looking one as any.

Don't kid yourself, though. A 175 is only a 4 place airplane with partial tanks--that bigger engine doesn't give it more useful load. Otherwise, like any 172, it's an OK 3 person airplane. In fact, on my P172D, the gross weight in the manual of 2500# is reduced to 2350# by the Avcon STC'd engine conversion.

Cary

LOL, I'm not not really shooting for the mystic or cool factor and really don't care much what people think of me wasting my time(or money). Yes I've seen plenty of real nice 172s, 182s, 175s etc and don't really subscribe to the whole tailwheel vs nose wheel debate. I like them both. Never said anything about 4 place and full tanks either

Believe me I have heard or read about all the arguments and angles that this site has presented on more hp, bigger tires, tailwheels, Maules, flap setting, density altitude and on and on. My 175 dream is something I was pursuing long before I joined up here and while I thank you for the advice, I think I'll keep marching to the beat of my own drum.

Gosh, I didn't mean to insult you! I was just picking up on a few things:

You said "I have not been able to find the time to dedicate to the project in order to find out", so I thought you'd save a whole lot of time by not converting to a tailwheel--from everything others have said, that's a very time consuming project all by itself.

You said "My decision to pursue a 175 was because with a 180-210hp engine it would make a decent 4 place airplane without going to the extra expenses of a 180". Granted that you didn't say you were going to try it with full tanks, but you were comparing it to a 180, which can be flown with the seats filled and full tanks.

So by all means, march to your own drum. I was just trying to be helpful.

Cary

Cary wrote:

SkyLarkin wrote:

Cary wrote:
You'd save a whole lot of time, if you'd just restore the 175 to flyable, airworthy condition, rather than convert it to a tailwheel. The mystic of a tailwheel wouldn't be there, but for many purposes, the utility wouldn't be compromised. Sure, no big rocks, but trikes can still go a lot of places, especially with bigger tires. And your airplane would be less likely to become a statistic.

There are some 172s here and there on this forum. Look for Jared's--it's about as nice a looking one as any.

Don't kid yourself, though. A 175 is only a 4 place airplane with partial tanks--that bigger engine doesn't give it more useful load. Otherwise, like any 172, it's an OK 3 person airplane. In fact, on my P172D, the gross weight in the manual of 2500# is reduced to 2350# by the Avcon STC'd engine conversion.

Cary

LOL, I'm not not really shooting for the mystic or cool factor and really don't care much what people think of me wasting my time(or money). Yes I've seen plenty of real nice 172s, 182s, 175s etc and don't really subscribe to the whole tailwheel vs nose wheel debate. I like them both. Never said anything about 4 place and full tanks either

Believe me I have heard or read about all the arguments and angles that this site has presented on more hp, bigger tires, tailwheels, Maules, flap setting, density altitude and on and on. My 175 dream is something I was pursuing long before I joined up here and while I thank you for the advice, I think I'll keep marching to the beat of my own drum.

Gosh, I didn't mean to insult you! I was just picking up on a few things:

You said "I have not been able to find the time to dedicate to the project in order to find out", so I thought you'd save a whole lot of time by not converting to a tailwheel--from everything others have said, that's a very time consuming project all by itself.

You said "My decision to pursue a 175 was because with a 180-210hp engine it would make a decent 4 place airplane without going to the extra expenses of a 180". Granted that you didn't say you were going to try it with full tanks, but you were comparing it to a 180, which can be flown with the seats filled and full tanks.

So by all means, march to your own drum. I was just trying to be helpful.

Cary

I'm not sure there's a lot of 180s that will take full fuel and 4 people either. Especially if you throw LR tanks in.

Great to see you building the plane you want Skylarkin. Looking forward to seeing the progress.

Saturday.