My research has me leaning to a 108-2 with the Bobcat 180 conversion. Fixed pitch. VGs. Utility interior. Empty weight down around the factory numbers. I've had a 172A with the Franklin 220 like 172Heavy has. Identical numbers except we had slightly higher fuel burn. We always ran ROP though so that accounts for that. Nose heavy! Could use the nose fork bigger tire for sure.

I just don't want to go the Franklin engine way until it becomes a viable company again. Li'l Red Aero says there are no more cranks available.

All this in a Cessna Thread........sorry, sorry, sorry.

stewartb wrote:I don't recall having any CG issues with my hawk XP even with the big motor and (field approved) 80" seaplane prop on it. A good friend had an identical airplane. Man, we had fun. The newer model 172's tubular main gear is hell for stout and we tested it. The nose gear was never a problem. My buddy ended up putting Schneider penetration skis on his. That was a trick with the tube gear and the way it travels but it worked well for several years.

80 in prop has to be real puller and those sixes are smooth.. I'm curious, where was the battery on the xp?

The battery goes in the back. Great performer, I have a '79 with 210 HP, Sportsman. Now just need bigger rubber all around.

I just looked at a brand new Sportsman STOL kit installation on a 172. I have a couple of questions for those who are more familiar with them than I am. I already KNOW that the aerodynamic performance of this product is good, and I KNOW how well it works once it is installed. My question is about the fit of the kit parts during installation.

This is NOT in any way an attack or insult or belittlement to the STC owner.

There appeared to be a couple of areas where the fit of the parts, and the fit of the installation itself, was lacking.

I spoke at length with the installer, and the AC owner. They say they followed the instructions to the letter. But there were two or three areas where two sheets of aluminum overlapped at a wing rib, and these parts were not in contact with each other, and there was a gap with the edge of one piece sticking up by an eighth of an inch, and the instructions apparently did not permit a fastener to be installed to close the gap or mount the parts to the rib. So you can literally lift one corner of the aluminum and peel it back until it creased, like "dog-earing" a piece of paper.

Another issue was that the aluminum "frame" for the landing light opening was cut square, and it installs at an area where the Cessna wing starts to taper, leaving a big ugly gap and an exposed edge. They could not simply put the piece on where it laid against the leading edge, because the fastener holes were already drilled. So the installers had a choice of lining up the rivet holes, or putting the piece against the leading edge where it belonged.

My question is whether this one kit was unusual or not standard, or whether installing this product always results in these gaps and loose parts. This is the third Cessna 100 series airplane I have seen where the installation of the Sportsman kit looks a little rough.

gflores71 wrote:The battery goes in the back. Great performer, I have a '79 with 210 HP, Sportsman. Now just need bigger rubber all around.

That is a great plane when loaded light to moderately, and still a very good plane at gross. Sadly when I get to fly in one, it's usually loaded heavily with permenant gear and flying IFR - but still fun for tripping around in.

EZFlap wrote:

There appeared to be a couple of areas where the fit of the parts, and the fit of the installation itself, was lacking.

I spoke at length with the installer, and the AC owner. They say they followed the instructions to the letter. But there were two or three areas where two sheets of aluminum overlapped at a wing rib, and these parts were not in contact with each other, and there was a gap with the edge of one piece sticking up by an eighth of an inch, and the instructions apparently did not permit a fastener to be installed to close the gap or mount the parts to the rib. So you can literally lift one corner of the aluminum and peel it back until it creased, like "dog-earing" a piece of paper.

Another issue was that the aluminum "frame" for the landing light opening was cut square, and it installs at an area where the Cessna wing starts to taper, leaving a big ugly gap and an exposed edge. They could not simply put the piece on where it laid against the leading edge, because the fastener holes were already drilled. So the installers had a choice of lining up the rivet holes, or putting the piece against the leading edge where it belonged.

Every seam on a Sportsman installation should be overlapped by 3/4" with rivets installed in the chord direction around the seam. This is called out in view C-C in the installation drawings.

The landing light lense aluminum retainer is cut oversize for trimming and is oblique in nature to account for the taper in the wing.

I encourage anyone doing an installation to call the factory and ask any question big or small. We want it to look good and perform good too.

Will Stene

Thank you Will for the response. I 'm going to look at the instructions you mention, and look more closely at the aircraft installation, so that I can figure out where they went wrong in the installation.

I had already told the aircraft owner, based on the good reputation your company has, that I was sure you would be very willing to speak with them to answer any questions.

For the sake of "good reporting" and fairness to all, I will post whatever I come upw ith for the benefit of the community.

Wow. I just finished doing up a profile of sorts on the Cessna 172, and I became curious about the backcountry possibilities of the 172. Should have know there would be a lot of great information here.

There is, however, one thing missing... photos! Does anyone have photos of their sweet backcountry 172s? I'd love to see 'em!

couple MN birds

Nice pics Jered, the straight tail 172 looks good on 8.50s.

I'm assuming that you won't think mine looks back-country-ish enough, even with the droopy tips:



Oh well, as the pic shows, it still gets in and out of the less strenuous back country places. This was at La Garita last May.

Cary

Those are some great pictures! Thank you for helping a guy out. I have to say, though, that Sky Blue Cessna in BRD's photos is amazing! Love that look.

robw56 wrote:Nice pics Jered, the straight tail 172 looks good on 8.50s.

X 2.
There's just something I like about that big square Cessna tail.

First post on Backcountrypilot: Here's my 1979 172N 180hp. Just put 8.50's on the mains and an 8.0 on the nose with an airglas nose fork. I'm a new pilot with low hours, so take that into consideration with anything I say. I'm a rancher here in central Montana. Obviously the 172 isn't going to ever be able to go to all the places a supercub can go, but for me being a new pilot I really wanted the ease of a tri gear. The price point of the 172 even with the 180hp engine is hard to beat. After getting used to my plane I will say that even with the 180hp engine I would be hesitant to carry 4 people in the summer here. My future goals are a Sportsman STOL kit, Powerflow exhaust, and getting my prop repitched to a climb prop. Currently with the big wheels and cruise prop I'm only cruising at around 105kts, so losing more cruise speed is a little discouraging but I think the climb prop will be worth it for what I want the plane for. Any thoughts for putting VG's on it as well after I put the Sportsman kit on? I'm in no position to recommend anything with my experience, but after having this plane for awhile now with the big tires I think it will make a very capable back country plane for what I want it for around the ranch here in central Montana. Any thoughts or considerations would be appreciated.

mjdelaney wrote:First post on Backcountrypilot: Here's my 1979 172N 180hp. Just put 8.50's on the mains and an 8.0 on the nose with an airglas nose fork. I'm a new pilot with low hours, so take that into consideration with anything I say. I'm a rancher here in central Montana. Obviously the 172 isn't going to ever be able to go to all the places a supercub can go, but for me being a new pilot I really wanted the ease of a tri gear. The price point of the 172 even with the 180hp engine is hard to beat. After getting used to my plane I will say that even with the 180hp engine I would be hesitant to carry 4 people in the summer here. My future goals are a Sportsman STOL kit, Powerflow exhaust, and getting my prop repitched to a climb prop. Currently with the big wheels and cruise prop I'm only cruising at around 105kts, so losing more cruise speed is a little discouraging but I think the climb prop will be worth it for what I want the plane for. Any thoughts for putting VG's on it as well after I put the Sportsman kit on? I'm in no position to recommend anything with my experience, but after having this plane for awhile now with the big tires I think it will make a very capable back country plane for what I want it for around the ranch here in central Montana. Any thoughts or considerations would be appreciated.

I may be speaking out of turn here, because I don't have either the Sportsman or VGs on my airplane, just really droopy tips. But I have kept sort of a tally on the comments others have made regarding both, and the results are that the Sportsman is universally praised and the VGs are mixed, some saying they improve low speed handling and others saying that they were a waste of money and effort.

My biggest objection to VGs has nothing to do with their efficacy. It's whether I'm going to get cut refueling my airplane!

For myself, the expenditure I made some years ago for an Angle of Attack indicator was worth it, as it allows me to fly approaches at the lowest safe speed comfortably, regardless of whether I'm flying light or heavy. I would never own an airplane again without an AOA indicator. But the last time I said much about an AOA indicator, there were many comments for and many against, so I guess you pay your money and take your choice.

Cary

A friend in Durango, Co has one with 850's all around....He has it on the market...Been into Cabin Creek, Upper Loon (had to leave it one warm day) and several other strips...It's on the market and he is gonna get a 182...Nuff said..

Cary wrote:For myself, the expenditure I made some years ago for an Angle of Attack indicator was worth it, as it allows me to fly approaches at the lowest safe speed comfortably, regardless of whether I'm flying light or heavy. I would never own an airplane again without an AOA indicator. But the last time I said much about an AOA indicator, there were many comments for and many against, so I guess you pay your money and take your choice.

I have also been contemplating getting an AOA indicator. I think being a new pilot and wanting to practice STOL it could be very helpful. I've seen so many comments now about getting a 182 over a 172 I'm starting to wonder, should I put all these upgrades into my 172, or save my money towards a 182 someday and just fly my 172 like it is until then. Anybody have any luck with a powerflow exhaust for the 180hp engine?

I just had to replace my exhaust system--the old one was "rotting". My IA and I have talked Powerflow in the past, and it has been his opinion that mine (a slightly modified Mooney dual exhaust system) is very nearly as efficient as a Powerflow. So when it had to be replaced, we talked again Powerflow. The cost could have been about an AMU more than doing a new system by Knisley that copied the existing one, the benefits are of the "if any" variety, so I decided to go with Knisley. I'm glad I did. It's beautifully made, of heavier than stock SS tubing--very impressive.

Cary