Hey Guy's - Been a while since I posted... I've been lingering around and really missing back country flying after selling my Maule and getting into a Bonanza. So I started the search for another plane I could land on dirt (I know the V35B will do it, but I don't like getting it dirty and the RV7a won't get it done).

I had pretty much settled on getting a 182, but then I found a pretty unique 172. Most people don't think a lowly 172 would qualify as a back country/Mountain plane; BUT this one's got a Franklin 220HP hanging on the front! It literally leaps off the ground! I know a lot of people don't like the Franklin, but I do! I flew a Stinson 108 with the Franklin for a year and absolutely loved it!

So today I pulled the trigger and bought it. Spent the day cleaning years of oil off the belly and detailing it. It's a pretty straight low time bird. I'm going to clean up the paint, add the Alaskan bush wheels with the Airglass front fork, get some Micro VG's and see how it does.

Anyways, glad to be back in the ranks! Ugh, I gotta find a bigger hangar!

Jim

Now, your significant other might say you have an airplane problem. I agree with you that the problem is in the size of the hangar.

Good looking bird, I can't wait to see it with the mods. I did the fork and tires on my 182 a few months back and am very, very pleased with the results.

Nice! I ordered all the mods today and can't wit to get them installed!

Jim

Nice looking bird! Does it have long range tanks?
Vgs will work good. Ever thought of putting a sportsman on before though? If you want to do it later it's a pain to remove the vgs.
Have fun!

David

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

You can take off the "For Sale" sign now

Nice looking plane and a great choice. A 172 with more horsepower is a great thing. Heck, a 172 is a great thing. I have never flown a Franklin powered one but the XP Hawk on 195 HP goes well so I can only imagine that yours is an improvement on this again.

Beautiful machine mate! Congratulations!

Nice, and congrats!!

Well done Sir.
That 172 has got to Rock with the 220 Frank in it.
I've nothing but fond memories behind the 165 and 220 hp models.
If you ever get tired of its existing performance, the Mac 201 is a fantastic compliment to the 220.
Chaz

Excellent - I also did the Airglass mod on my 182. I put 850's on the mains and 800's on the nose. No regrets- Love it!

Congrats - Fly Safe !

Now your off airport plane is TOO CLEAN to take off airport.

Only thing I would wonder about is the wheel pants.

The 172 is a great backcountry airplane if it has some extra juice (180HP or in your case even more).

The flaps and landing characteristics of the 172 are wonderful.

Nice--and the D's manual flaps make it much better than a newer one. The only downside will be if you have stock fuel tanks--they'd be a bit puny with 220 hp hanging out front. If you have the 52 gallon tanks, like my P172D has, then that's acceptable. The only gotcha with them is that it's only 42 usable in all situations, 47 usable straight and level.

Cary

No - It's got 38 Usable. About 4 hours endurance which I'm ok with.

Jim

The wheel pants are going on the shelf. I flew it this morning - It's got wonderful performance!

Great looking airplane! I have a similar set up to what you have also with a Sportsman and flint tip tanks which makes a really nice set up for the cost. We have ours on floats in the summer and it is quite the little performer. You should have lots of fun with the combination. Unless you have long distances with out fuel available you should be ok with the standard tanks. I rarely have the need to fill the tip tanks, like you said 3.5 hours per leg gets you quite far. I will admit that I don't have to fly far to get out of town.

I had a partnership in a 1960 straight back with the Franklin in it. Eighty inch McCauley. It was a rip snorter getting off the ground but we never could outrun the 182s on the field. Don't know why unless Continental makes bigger horses than Franklin.

Dan

jaudette wrote:No - It's got 38 Usable. About 4 hours endurance which I'm ok with.

Jim

I think with the Franklin that'll be 3 hours 20 minutes total, or 2.7 plus 30 minute reserve. With my 180hp Lycoming, I get 9.8 gph almost constantly. I'd guess you'll be in the 11.5 gph range.

Cary

Cary wrote:

jaudette wrote:No - It's got 38 Usable. About 4 hours endurance which I'm ok with.

Jim

I think with the Franklin that'll be 3 hours 20 minutes total, or 2.7 plus 30 minute reserve. With my 180hp Lycoming, I get 9.8 gph almost constantly. I'd guess you'll be in the 11.5 gph range.

Cary

It takes very nearly the same amount of fuel to make the same horsepower, regardless of the engine.

If you want to dial back the MP/RPM a bit, you can have fuel burns very similar to a smaller engined airplane with very similar airspeeds.

I cruise my 160hp O-320 between ~5.5 and 8.5 gph. Just depends on how fast I want to get somewhere.

In other words, there's no magic behind a smaller engine burning less fuel. A larger engine can do the same.

As Ak454 said we have the same setup but with the sportsmans added. You'll love the manual flaps and it should be great for you. Especially with the bigger wheels!

Nice and congrats!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cary wrote:

jaudette wrote:No - It's got 38 Usable. About 4 hours endurance which I'm ok with.

Jim

I think with the Franklin that'll be 3 hours 20 minutes total, or 2.7 plus 30 minute reserve. With my 180hp Lycoming, I get 9.8 gph almost constantly. I'd guess you'll be in the 11.5 gph range.

Cary

When we went to JC a couple weeks back, will filled up at Baker City and went BKE>3U2>U60>3U2>3U1>JSY and topped off again. 2.5 hours in the air, 25.1 gallons in the tanks. The first leg of my ferry flight home was at about 2000', and I don't remember engine settings, other than setting the prop for 2500 rpm and not leaning and used 13 gph.