Backcountry Pilot

[macdon221 offline]

OK, I know the aircraft is not the best for unimproved High Altitude strips, but if you were on a "poorer man's budget" and had to buy/reasonably modify a 172, what attributes would you look for. i.e. model year for W and B, engine, tires, tanks, etc. Also, what "snags" would you look for in this model, i.e. corrosion prone areas, easily damaged areas, etc.

Cheers

Macdon221

[AKGrouch offline]

OK, I know the aircraft is not the best for unimproved High Altitude strips, but if you were on a "poorer man's budget" and had to buy/reasonably modify a 172, what attributes would you look for. i.e. model year for W and B, engine, tires, tanks, etc. Also, what "snags" would you look for in this model, i.e. corrosion prone areas, easily damaged areas, etc.

Cheers

Macdon221

Been there .....done that.....save your money and just buy a 180 or 182. You can look at my photo gallery at the buzzard to see what I had, 180 hp, 8.50's, horton stol, 30 gals entended, etc.....just buy a 180 or 182. It'll go anywhere the 172 will go and lots of places it won't.

[kevbert offline]

The horsepower has come up over the years, but so has the empty weight. Truth be told, I don't consider there to be a fat lot of performance difference from one model to the next. Prop selection, however, will make a big difference.

If you want more prop clearance, the 172 and 172A models (1956-1960) had taller undercarriage. Of course, you can also gain a little by increasing the pressure in the front strut and/or putting on bigger tires.

Electrically controlled flaps replaced the manual lever controlled flaps in 1965. Maximum flaps went from 40 degrees to 30 degrees shortly after that, but I can't remember what year.

If gasoline without ethanol ever becomes available again, the Continental O-300 motors (1956-1967) and the early Lycoming O-320 motors (1968-1976) can be run on auto fuel for significant fuel savings.

It should be easy to find planes with STOL kits and flap gap seals, or they can be added for a price. A bigger engine will dramatically improve takeoff performance, but for the hefty price you're better off just getting a bigger plane.

Vortex generators can really improve backcountry performance. However, if you live in snow country and tie down outside, then they make it very difficult to sweep snow from the wings.

The climate is a better predictor of corrosion than the model number. Damage is where you find it. If you are unable to inspect the plane before purchase then absolutely hire an A&P who has no relationship to the owner to look it over.

I, too, was on a poorer man's budget and chose a 1959 172. The Continental engine is a little anemic, but I liked the landing gear and the manual flaps, and it came with flap gap seals and STOL wing tips. When loaded lightly, I have found it to be quite adequate for flying into some of the backcountry strips in Idaho. My biggest gripe is that there's no baggage door and you have to pull the back seat forward to access the baggage compartment. All in all, I have been delighted with the plane. (But I would kill for a 180!)

[GumpAir offline]

(But I would kill for a 180!)

Hell, I should have

I lost my C180 in the divorce, and I'd be out by now and still have my airplane.

Gump

[Zzz]

There's no replacement for displacement, BUT...

A well kept 172 will always be cheaper to maintain than a well kept 182, simply because of the fixed pitch prop. More often than not 182's are better equipped IFR machines and have the associated instrumentation and avionics to maintain.

I'm sold on manual flaps though...After training in and flying later model 152's and 172's, I love the Johnson bar in the old 170. I'll never go back...to electric.

Sounds like Macdon221 is already set on a 172 though. What fun mods can be done to them?

[WWhunter offline]

I have had my 1960 172A for 21+ years. Over the years I have thought of trading up to a 182 or 180 and after I sit down and really crunch the numbers I realize I really don't NEED a different plane. Most of the time I am by myself or only have 1 passenger. With an O-300 and a climb prop I get in and out of everyplace I have wanted to go. I have had my 'ol 172 all over the US and it has never let me down and it is realitively (LOL) cheap to own and fly. When kept light it is a pretty good performer. I have thought of putting a Sportsmans Leading edge kit on it but never got around to it.
I even used it this past fall flying along with nearly25-30 Super Cubs on a tour of Northern MN. Granted we never went into any true bush strips, but I was very satisfied with it. The nice thing was I was throttled back to 1800-1900 so as to not over run the SC's. Burned a little over 5gph for the 5+ hours of flying.
Only hard thing to accept with the 172 is that you sure aren't any kind of Walter Mitty when flying one.
Good Luck,
WW

[Okie Bush Man offline]

My '74 172M has the Sportsman leading edge, Landes Nose Fork, 8.50x6 tires, horizontal stabilizer boots, PowerFlow exhaust, HID lights, etc, etc. Next will be the O-360-A4M so that I get the 180hp. I don't even have a back seat in it.

But I live in OK and fly to the mountains and local grass strips so it works for me.

[skybobb offline]

I had a 170 Cessna and moved up to a 182. The 0-300 Cont. is a little short of power for mountain flying I feel. You can't fill all four seats and enough fuel at higher DA to be safe. I like the 182 a lot better for back country flying. Bob

[lownslow79 offline]

I am by no means an expert. I love the Cessna 172, any Cessna pretty much.
In my research for my own future purchase coinsiderations,I have looked at the Stinson 108 as a really good choice, inplace of a 172.

You already have the plane, so of course your faced with do I keep it or upgrade/downgrade to a more capable platform.

I have found many upgraded stinsons on barnstormers and TAP that are in the mid 30-40k Range. Each aircraft has its +/- given a needed mission.
I love the cessna because of the huge parts and support avaialble and they are well known. I have flown an upgraded 70 something model with a Penn-yann 180 conversion. It was phenomenol. Like somebody was telling me, its much less the aircraft capability as is the Pilots. This guy flies a Luscombe 8 in the mountains with camping gear and his wife. Your not going to be able to be doing super cub stuff, but I am sure a lot of places are good to go.

The question is how important is it to you to have your 172 become a supercub and how much are you willing to spend, VS the benifits or just getting into an airplane that resembles a supercub perfomance.
You should see what I can do in a Stock cessna 150. Now not in the mountains, but a high density altitude none the less on short turf strips, with real obstacles ( IE trees, power lines)

[d.grimm offline]

I think 172's are great airplanes, however when I'm done flying and walking away I never turn around and take a last look. I will take a Stinson, Super Cub, Luscombe, T-Craft, Vagabond, whatever, and put up with some inconveniences rather than be normal.
Dave (abby normal)

[lownslow79 offline]

I think 172's are great airplanes, however when I'm done flying and walking away I never turn around and take a last look.
Dave (abby normal)

I understand how you can feel that way. I however like many others cant help but grin when I walk away from just about any airplane. I used to dream of one day being able to fly. Now that I do, I still walk away.....but cant wait until i own my own plane. I have flown some pretty shabby (cosmetically) looking planes and appreciate the machine and the fact that I took flight in it period.

On another note, I am into classic airplanes right now, kinda nostalgic for me. This is what brought me to this forum. I have been to Oskosh and many fly-ins to admire planes. I really like the appeal of the stinson 108.
Everyone i have talked to absolutly raves all about them. The smooth six cylinder Franklin they always say " get the heavy case 165 engine".

This might be for another topic, but anyone want to share what they love about stinsons, how they handle, how practacal are they in the bush and what not.

[SixTwoLeemer offline]

There are a bunch of older strait tail 182's out there for 35K to 45K. They offer so much performance for the money and can haul almost anything you can close the doors on.

I'm shocked at how much people ask for their 172's. It seems a 180hp 172 will cost 65K+.

The older 172's still come in north of 30K so there isnt a ton off price diff.

My .02

[a64pilot offline]

Buy an old 182 or an old Maule if you can live with the tailwheel. What's it cost to overhaul a constant speed and how long is it good for? I don't have the answer on either of those questions, but I think it works out to about $200 a year or something, and that constant speed will pay for itself by giving you both cruise and climb props in one. Seriously, I think the increased speed / increased mileage of a constant speed prop over a fixed climb prop pays for itself in fuel.
The 182 is everything the 172 tries to be, that is an airplane that can actually carry four people and go somewhere. In my little mind the 182 is the first actually use-able Cessna nose wheel airplane.
I'm not beating on the 172's, just as it's almost every ones first choice for their first airplane, the value just isn't there, they are too expensive for what you get.

[mr.helix offline]

Check this thread on a modified C-172 :

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3319&highlight=t41

[45romeo offline]

I bought a 172 in 1991 when I had about 130hrs TT. I was working at a mine in the IBC (Stibnite) and living in Salmon. The drive was 5+ hours, the flight right at 1 hour to JC. Sure made the commute a bunch more fun. I got checked out at Johnson Creek from a local instructor and staged my vehicle there and drove on up to Stibnite. As I recall, I did that for the first season and finally obtained enough experience and confidence and instruction to go ahead and fly into Stibnite.
Anyway, I flew with a local pilot A LOT who owned a 1956 172. I remember on one of my first flights with him we went into Soldier Bar. No problem with two aboard. Can't really remember the weather or temp, but I'm sure it was in the morning.
His 172 was a great performer; with both of us on board we would take off from JC and be level with, or above, the orange dump truck on Golden Gate hill as we passed by. My newer model with only myself aboard would always be below that truck on my way out. Sees like that 56 had drooped wing tips, but the same 0-300 and no STOL kit.
Anyway, I fly my bird all over the IBC and have landed at most of the strips.
Haven't been into the most difficult ones i.e. Mile High, Vines, Dewey Moore, or Lower Loon. If you keep your bird light and get your flying done in the morning you won't have any trouble. I have taken the back seat out and will only take one other person with me into the IBC. But two folks can have a real good time and you can pack enough camping gear for two to be comfortable at most of the IBC strips. I'm much like a lot of other fliers here in that it is usually just me or me and a buddy.
My costs are very reasonable and I can burn what is now $1.95 Autogas. Flying a bunch this winter while fuel is down.
Get a 172 and keep it light and be done aviating by about 11:00 am in the summer.
I have several videos on Youtube. Search "Idaho Backcountry Flying"

[AKGrouch offline]

Don't do the tailwheel/180 hp conversion on a swept back tail bird. Like I said in my first post in this thread,.....been there and done that....with the buzzard. Not enough rudder. The same isn't true for a square tail. It makes a wonderful platform for the 180 hp tailwheel conversion. Plenty of rudder and works nicely on bushwheels too....lol. I know a man up here that has one (was mainly a square tail version of the buzzard w/o the extended fuel and he has the dodge fold down seats). His is a fantastic bird. As for price....a fresh 180 hp tailwheel set up right would bring 60k to 75k up here. I'd still go with a 180 or 182 for the money.

[mtv offline]

A Cessna 172 can be a great airplane for a LOT of missions. Like any other airplane, you have to consider the mission before tackling it, but the difference is more often the PILOT rather than the airplane.

A Sportsman STOL kit is a good (but fairly expensive) mod to the 172 (or any other Cessna).

If you already have the Lycoming engine, as in a later model airplane, you are ahead of the game, but even the O-300 does fine.

I guess I'm the odd man out, cause I LOVE electric flaps, compared to the manual flaps. Sure, you can "pop" flaps with the manual, but just prior to touch, you can reach over with your right hand, and punch the flap switch to "Up", and the airplane will settle nicely, with no float. Try that just before touchdown in a manual flap airplane. You'll find that guys driving 206/207 airplanes do that pretty routinely in short spots. Bottom line, learn to use the tools the airplane is equipped with.

On ANY tri gear airplane to be operated off airport, I would install a "temporary" piece of thick wall rubber hose around the nose strut, split lengthwise, and held in place by a couple hose clamps. This prevents the nose strut from reaching its fully collapsed point, and helps to protect the prop, particularly if your nose strut loses a bit of pressure. Keep that nose strut pumped up pretty tight as well. Protect that prop.

I would DEFINITELY install a Landes nose fork, with bigger tires all around. Two reasons: better prop clearance, and better floatation. Think gopher holes, NOT big rocks and long props.

Bigger engines are expensive, but great on warm days or high altitude. I'd look for an airplane with one installed, rather than do the mod, though.

Learn to protect that propeller and firewall. I've seen firewalls bent due to nosegear first landings. This is the weak point of both the 172 and 182. Learn to work the airplane, AND if mostly empty, always carry some weight (think survival gear) as far aft as possible, to keep the CG a bit aft.

Finally, as many folks have noted on many forums, the best modification for ANY airplane to be operated in the back country is to spend a LOT of money on flying it, and LEARNING to fly it. Go find folks who KNOW how to fly a 172, and learn from them. Then, practice, practice, practice.

MTV

[182 STOL driver offline]

OK, I know the aircraft is not the best for unimproved High Altitude strips, but if you were on a "poorer man's budget" and had to buy/reasonably modify a 172, what attributes would you look for. i.e. model year for W and B, engine, tires, tanks, etc. Also, what "snags" would you look for in this model, i.e. corrosion prone areas, easily damaged areas, etc.

Cheers

Macdon221

1st. -more power min. 180 hp. , KEEP IT LIGHT ! take out everthing that's not essential for flight ! Take out the super El Cid interior and Back seat .Pull out and discard all that old wire-radio racks-things that don't work anymore . Dump that old battery and get one of the Hawker Energy SBS-J16 batteries and mount it on the firewall or near. (see http://www.edmaircraft.com ) If you can afford a STOL kit I'd get a SPORTSMAN -forget the rest. I would stay away from VG's . I'd want to add wing area and SPORTSMAN adds another 9 sq. Ft. of wing area >VG's add nothing except better low speed handling . MANUAL FLAPS isaMUST have !You could well get into areas with the VG's that you can't fly out of-except for truck and trailer. I'd get a set of Cleveland wheels and brakes and add a 6 inch nose fork. I'd do 700 x6 mains. I''d keep radio's to bare minmum . Get a Lift reserve indicator and use it. I'd stick with a 1950's 172 before that slant tail or goofy back window. I think I just desribed my airplane -.

[spacer offline]

A couple weeks or so ago, we were visited by some fellows in a taildragger converted C175.
Under the cowl, they had an O-470.

Woot!

I have some pics, which I'll dig out (if I don't forget) and post.

[mtv offline]

There were a small number of C 175s that were converted to O-470's. I've flown one on wheels and floats a good bit. It is a beast in takeoff and climb. A VERY far forward CG airplane, however, so be careful. Loaded, there's no comparison. Empty, you'd best get some weight in the back. The tailwheel conversion would help some with this.

They are pretty rare. I heard that the STC was rescinded after a certain number were converted, but don't know if that's true. I don't think the STC is out there any more.

MTV