I'm thinking seriously about a 172 180 hp myself, or maybe a cardinal (I'm 6' 3" 230 lbs. and am used to having shoulder room). After 25 years of O470s and IO520s, I've about had it with big bore Continentals. Among the things I've found to be "reliable" with them are exhaust valve leaks and bad lifters (and yes, I have always had an engine monitor, kept chts below 380, done 25 hour oil changes and done oil analysis). I've also been through the wringer with prop and governor overhauls twice--stupid ADs, shoddy work, rare parts etc.etc. I've replaced or welded spinners on 182s and the 206 for $600+ a pop, while a new spinner for a 172 costs a fraction of that. That's one example, but it's generally true of all parts and systems.

I love the capability of the bigger airplane, but the costs have been eating me alive for too long and I have to face facts. The worst case in a a 4 cylinder carbureted engine with a fixed pitch prop and fixed gear is nothing compared to what a 200 series Cessna can dish out. Of course a lot of guys want the bigger airplane. I did and I've paid the price. So has my family. There's no way around that, unless you have a partner or two or can get a lot of benefit from a tax deduction. Keep that in mind when you hear the siren song of more horsepower and more seats.

CAVU

CAVU wrote:I'm thinking seriously about a 172 180 hp myself, or maybe a cardinal (I'm 6' 3" 230 lbs. and am used to having shoulder room). After 25 years of O470s and IO520s, I've about had it with big bore Continentals. Among the things I've found to be "reliable" with them are exhaust valve leaks and bad lifters (and yes, I have always had an engine monitor, kept chts below 380, done 25 hour oil changes and done oil analysis). I've also been through the wringer with prop and governor overhauls twice--stupid ADs, shoddy work, rare parts etc.etc. I've replaced or welded spinners on 182s and the 206 for $600+ a pop, while a new spinner for a 172 costs a fraction of that. That's one example, but it's generally true of all parts and systems.

I love the capability of the bigger airplane, but the costs have been eating me alive for too long and I have to face facts. The worst case in a a 4 cylinder carbureted engine with a fixed pitch prop and fixed gear is nothing compared to what a 200 series Cessna can dish out. Of course a lot of guys want the bigger airplane. I did and I've paid the price. So has my family. There's no way around that, unless you have a partner or two or can get a lot of benefit from a tax deduction. Keep that in mind when you hear the siren song of more horsepower and more seats.

CAVU

To be honest or facing reality myself, I may not be too far behind you!

Guys, that is the exact reason I still have my 172 after nearly 25 years of owning it. Over the years I have wanted something faster, bigger, more HP. Usually what I was looking at were 180's and 182's, I could never really justify the added cost owning one would entail. Granted when all three kids were still at home I could have used one but the times I needed more than 3 seats, were few. Everytime I sat down and cruched the numbers per se, I always had to face reality and come to the conclusion it was pretty hard to beat the overall utility of my trusty 'ol 172. As long as I fly it within its means I have nothing to complain about. It has taken me all over the lower 48 without issues.

I'll always remember how an Air Plains 180 hp 172 ran dead even with my newly-acquired pride and joy '62 182. It was on a trip from the midwest to California. Both planes were carrying the same load. The 172 had a CS prop and the engine was brand new. That was before Poweflow for the 360 came along. That 172 with Powerflow would probably have kicked the 182's butt. The fuel burn was very close, with the 182 burning slightly more over the course of several 2-3 hour legs, probably because it was wider and heavier. I'd be willing to give up a few knots to save 8-10k on overhauling another CS prop and governor. You can buy a decent 172 nowadays with what it costs for a quality overhaul of a 470 and a 2 blade prop and governor, never mind a 520 and a 3 blade. Turbos? Just shoot me.

The 182 mission is a bit different than a 172 mission. I would absolutely own a 172 if it weren't for the fact I gross out an awful lot of the time while flying in the rockies, and fly a lot of longer XC's. A 180 hp 172 (I got my IFR in a 180 CS 175) performs perfectly adequately with 2 persons on most days. But it will not climb as well as a 182 as soon as you add on some more payload- that 25% more HP from the 182 vs a 180hp in the 172/5 does make a rather large difference in excess climb power at high density altitude.

I weighed a 182 vs a 172 pretty hard due to the difference in costs. I got into a low equity partnership in the 182. When the other two partners bailed, I ponied up and bought it outright at a price that is about the same as a middle of the road 172. My operating expenses are around 120 an hour with everything included. I had to replace a cylinder from previous bad fuel management. I'm lucky I have not been stung by valve issues or metal yet. The fuel burn is a sticker shock (12 gph).

But overall, I spend around $1k more on 100ll a year, $200 more on insurance, $600 a year on additional engine/prop reserve, and perhaps $400 more on maintenance for the 182 over a 172. That adds up to around $2200. For that, I get 20mph more while hauling around 250 lbs more while going over the weather at 14k'-16k' when needed. Almost all of that is in the mountains and long XC's. If I were to add on the additional hours I would need in a 172, that $2200 premium shrinks to around $1600-$1700 per year.

A tricked-out 180hp 172 will pretty much close the gap between the 172 and the182 for most missions- but not when it comes to load hauling. But it comes at a price. I am paying it, knowing what that price is. The 180HP plane will burn around 10 gph, based on my experience with my instrument rating. Even on XC's, I never got below 9.2 gph (at altitude even).

If I still lived in Montana, I'd be a 172 driver. Burning mogas.

Back Country and X country 172
Here is my two cents worth and I don’t intend to rub salt in a wound or go; “look what I got “But, I fly a 1967 172H with a Franklin 6a-350-C1 220 HP Mc 201 C/S prop @ 78”, last summer I went up to Stene and had the Sportsman STOL kit installed, for what it does for the performance of my aircraft I think it was a great value for the dollar, less than $ 4000.00 installed, I helped, less paint, and out the door in less than a week, I highly recommend them. It is truly a shame that we cannot go out and buy a new Franklin 220 HP engine and conversion kits, they were an ideal repower for the older 172 puts it up a notch from an XP; these engines make great power and weigh less than a LYC IO360. The larger C/S prop acts like an air brake when the rpm is up and the throttle is pulled back, I find myself standing on the rudder pedals, in combination with 40 deg. of flaps it’s impressive, got to be very careful when pulling back the power on short final. The 172s cruse performance with the Franklin is unequaled , here are some solid numbers @ gross or close to it, FL 8500 @ 50 F, 2500 RPM airspeed indicated 125-127 Fuel flow 8.5 (it bounces around a bit) I lean some cylinders LOP. I balance the EGT on #4 and #6, #4 LOP and #6 ROP about 1430F, this combination gives me about 148 true airspeed @ less than 9 GPH point to point. At sea level 1500 FPM light and realistically full of fuel and two passengers 1350 FPM, @ FL 12500 I can still get 450 to 500 FPM. The addition of the Sportsman STOL made no measurable difference in cruse performance and a huge improvement at low speed. I have had friends doubt my performance claims, then I take them for a ride, love the look on their face, it’s like the old joke about the man that made the horse cry. When flying back country in Idaho I watch other aircraft depart and note where there tires leave the ground and where there wings clear the tree line, my aircrafts takeoff performance is somewhere between a 180 and a 185 with it loaded with camping gear. Next will be a HD nose fork and larger tires, yup, that will slow me down some. I think that I have a more capable airplane than I am a pilot, I’m still learning. My wife and I love it and feel safe flying X country and back country with it. As for draw backs, Franklins must have 100LL, parts hard to find, for my piece of mind I have got to have a backup engine. I would not fly one without an engine management system like a JPI, wonderful tool, makes the Bogy man go away.
Fly Safe.

Hey guys. This is actually something I've been looking into as well so I'm glad it has been addressed (I'm looking to buy a plane in q1 of 2012). From what I'm reading so far, it sounds like if I can find a CS Prop, 180HP 172, it'll make a fine BC plane for me +1 for some weekend camping trips and x-country work providing I avoid some of the higher strips in CO (I'm in Vegas so most everything out here is 5k' or lower in alt, though sometimes DA at my local 2500' (alt) strip can get above 5k'). It also sounds like the maintenance will be considerably less on the O360 than on the O470, which is nice. I'm assuming that if I go CS 172 the maintenance on the prop won't be MUCH cheaper, but is still a little less than the CS prop on the 182.

The other thing that I was thinking about that seems to have been addressed was manual vs electric flaps. A benefit that I haven't seen mentioned here yet is cost. Generally (and correct me if I'm wrong), the manual flaps will be cheaper in maintenance as it's one less thing to fail. Not only that, but when you lose your battery/electronics, you'll still have them there to help you land (this happened to me on my FIRST solo away from my local airstrip in a 180/172 with electric flaps, and was BEFORE we practiced flapless landings.. that was an adventure). The other benefits of manual flaps is you can accelerate on take-off with them up, and then yank them to 20% to lift off on those shorter strips without the drag of having them slowly extend, or be down the whole time (though this may not be correct technique, I'm still learning about BC flying). After landing they can be retracted much faster than electric flaps as well.

If I remember correctly, I've seen some 172's with 182 wheels, which are slightly larger, and much cheaper than going with bushwheels. I've been curious if I could put 206 wheels on a 172. I figure if you can put 182 wheels/fork on a 172, and you can put 206 wheels/fork on a 182, then transitive logic tells me that I should be able to put 206 wheels/fork on a 172, but that might just be crazy talk.

Either way, great thread, keep the info coming!

One more quick note:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1302

Hopefully relevant to this topic of building a back country 172:

My 172 tailwheel conversion STC "re-boot" is coming along very nicely. Still nowhere near done, but significant progress is being made on the engineering/design side. The following changes will likely be made to the existing STC, which will potentially be of interest to the "fastback" 172 owners here on BCP:

Definitely no more control de-rigging/re-rigging and removal/re-installation of stabilizer, elevator, fin, saving 10-30 hours of labor
(Hopefully) no more removal of wing struts and/or wings, saving 5-10 hours of labor
Very significant cost savings on inboard/outboard STC-PMA gear boxes
Greatly strengthened gear boxes
New STC-PMA main gear legs, significantly less expensive than OEM parts
Eliminate requirement to remove forward skin from boot cowl area
Use of approved blind fasteners (Cherry/Hi-Lok etc.) saving hours of labor removing/replacing certain skins/floorboards
More than one tailwheel option, as well as customer supplied used Scott 3200
Greatly improved instruction manual, illustrated, and designed for both supervised amateur and professional mechanics

Still a ways from being done, we're kind of in the middle now instead of the beginning or end.

I know of two female Idaho pilots that have done commercial business with a stock square tail 172.
Flew with the first one 1983. Also took a stock 7ECA into several strips with Sparky I. and Art Lazzarini. One of those female pilots has a picture of her bone stock 172A sitting atop Mile High with itty bitty tires.

I know, I know, i have made this statement before, but the subject keeps oozing up out of the background every so often. It is not always horsepower. Jim Larkin spent a lot of years delivering stuff in a PA-12 all over Idaho, and he weight well over 250. Bill, Pat, & Mike Dorris flew a 1954 180hp 170-B from it's first days. Last I saw it i was helping Mike to load up batteries to go into the Willy Ranch. The poor thing looked like it had used a rock slide for a landing strip. It belongs in a museum of the most battered, and still flyable, airframe of fame. Go figure. I flew my 85 hp J5 all over the Sierra. Only problem was the day I tried to push the limit by taking off from Truckee in the afternoon with full fuel and camp gear, (just to see what would really happen). Learned a lot about using old black fire burns to stay up out of the dirt on my way to Alpine County.

Chris C.

totoro001 wrote:Hey guys. This is actually something I've been looking into as well so I'm glad it has been addressed (I'm looking to buy a plane in q1 of 2012). From what I'm reading so far, it sounds like if I can find a CS Prop, 180HP 172, it'll make a fine BC plane for me +1 for some weekend camping trips and x-country work providing I avoid some of the higher strips in CO (I'm in Vegas so most everything out here is 5k' or lower in alt, though sometimes DA at my local 2500' (alt) strip can get above 5k'). It also sounds like the maintenance will be considerably less on the O360 than on the O470, which is nice. I'm assuming that if I go CS 172 the maintenance on the prop won't be MUCH cheaper, but is still a little less than the CS prop on the 182.

The other thing that I was thinking about that seems to have been addressed was manual vs electric flaps. A benefit that I haven't seen mentioned here yet is cost. Generally (and correct me if I'm wrong), the manual flaps will be cheaper in maintenance as it's one less thing to fail. Not only that, but when you lose your battery/electronics, you'll still have them there to help you land (this happened to me on my FIRST solo away from my local airstrip in a 180/172 with electric flaps, and was BEFORE we practiced flapless landings.. that was an adventure). The other benefits of manual flaps is you can accelerate on take-off with them up, and then yank them to 20% to lift off on those shorter strips without the drag of having them slowly extend, or be down the whole time (though this may not be correct technique, I'm still learning about BC flying). After landing they can be retracted much faster than electric flaps as well.

If I remember correctly, I've seen some 172's with 182 wheels, which are slightly larger, and much cheaper than going with bushwheels. I've been curious if I could put 206 wheels on a 172. I figure if you can put 182 wheels/fork on a 172, and you can put 206 wheels/fork on a 182, then transitive logic tells me that I should be able to put 206 wheels/fork on a 172, but that might just be crazy talk[googlemap][/googlemap].

Either way, great thread, keep the info coming!

My first airplane was a Hawk XP. For those who aren't familiar an XP is a 172 with a factory TCM IO-360 and CS prop rated at 195hp. With an STC to dial up the take-off rpms to the engines's rated limit the hp increased to 210hp. That makes a very good performing 172. Mine flew on floats and tires. Tires included a Landes nose fork with an 800 or 850 (can't recall) and 26" Goodyears on the mains. That was a fun airplane and I'd have kept it except I needed more utility on skis, and that led me to a taildragger and my 180. Except for skis the nose dragging 172 was every bit as capable as a 180 for off airport ops. The same is true for 182s. Don't let the taildragger club convince you otherwise. I could get my XP in and out of places some of my Cub buddies woudn't go. But to answer your questions....

A lycoming 0-360 is a great engine but so is a TCM 0-470. I don't get your maintenance cost comment at all. Acquisition cost of a 172 will generally be less than a 182 but powerplant maintenance costs will be quite similar. Ditto for CS prop maintenance, although the guys I know with 180hp 172s are running fixed pitch props. Constant speed props are probably the most under maintained component on most planes. If you buy one demand that the factory recommended maintenance is complied with (as opposed to book legal deferred maintenance). In any event a fixed pitch is cheaper and easier to buy and work on.

Flaps? Electric flaps are pretty much maintenance free, as are manuals. Flap hinges and tracks will require changing every 20 years or so but that's minor stuff. The big difference between manual and electric is time to deploy or retract. With manual flaps I can grab a notch to get airborne or to hop over an obstacle. Or I can instantly retract flaps to pin the plane to the ground on landing. Those are techniques that can be used with electric flaps but the flap action is slower. The ONLY time that's important is when very close to the ground and doing something low time pilots shouldn't be doing to start with. The unspoken magic of older manual flap Cessna nose draggers is the jackscrew trim as opposed to a trim tab. Old straight tail 182s are one of my favorite planes. Incredibly versatile and capable in the off airport worrld.

Wheels are wheels. There is no magic to 182 or 206 wheels. Tire sizes are defined in the aircraft type certificate and the bigger planes included bigger tires but you have approved methods of installing bigger tires on any of these models.

I have a 63 P172D with an Avcon conversion, 180hp Lycoming with a CS prop. It has droopy tips, flap gap seals, and an extended dorsal fin. The list of mods takes more than a page, single spaced, and includes an Alpha Systems AOA, which I really like. While I don't do a lot of back country stuff with it, I do some. It handles me, my Golden, and all the camping gear very well, including at high altitude strips. At 5000' DA, I can get in and out in 1000' easily with that load, obviously longer on TO at higher DAs. It's a great little airplane, not particularly fast, but it'll get there safely. I cruise at 115 knots burning 9.8 gph 100LL (doesn't qualify for an auto gas STC).

Pm me if you have particular questions.

Cary

stewartb wrote:....The unspoken magic of older manual flap Cessna nose draggers is the jackscrew trim as opposed to a trim tab. Old straight tail 182s are one of my favorite planes. Incredibly versatile and capable in the off airport worrld.....

The early C182 is the only cessna nosedragger that I'm aware of that has the jackscrewed horiz stab. Actually, the C180/182/185 series are the onliest ones with the jackscrew- all the rest including the 120/140,150/152,170/172, & Birddog use a trimtab.

In Carey's back yard, a few years ago there was a straight-tail C-172 being built up at Valley Air Service, when Downtown Airpark was still open. Among other things, fixed pitch Lyc 180, 8.50x6 mains, 8.00 nose (Atlee fork? I forget), and lots of Del-Air mods, including baggage door. Last I heard it was headed for Greeley. Anyone heard more?

Flown appropriately light, with good pitch control, a VERY capable aeroplane. Come to think of it I think I know where one with an 0-300 might come on the market soon.

Thanks. cubscout

You know, I must say I've been following this thread with great interest, mainly because I liked the idea, however in my own personal research, I found something that I felt I should warn you about.

While the 172 is a very capable plane, you hear a lot of people saying "tailwheel is the best for back country flying". It wasn't until recently that I found a legit reason as to why.

If you look at the rake of the mains on a cessna 170 when in a landing attitude, they're essentially at a 90 degree angle with the ground, and the tailwheel (the weakest point) is raked away from the direction of travel, essentially being dragged behind the plane. I've seen a number of posts on here where people landed without their tailwheels and were more or less just fine.

Now examine the landing gear configuration on a 172. Your mains are at roughly the same angle, however the weak point, the nose wheel, is raked forward, towards the direction of travel. In the event it catches a mole hole/whatever, it's more likely to snap off. The weak point is where the nose wheel connects to the firewall.

There were a couple more smaller reasons that I found, but that was the big one that made me think of this thread.

Please don't think I'm trying to discourage you. I may very well be ending up with a 172/182 myself here in the near future, and either one will suffer the same issue. I just wanted you to have that in the back of your head when you were choosing where to land.

Also please keep in mind that I'm FAR from a back country ninja.. I hope this helps you in your planning.

Totoro001, I fly a 1959 172, and like you, I figured the nose gear was going to snap off at the first little hole or bump. However, a couple of years ago, um..... someone... got into a bad downdraft during a takeoff (don't fly late in the morning in the summer in the Idaho backcountry!) and had to abort the takeoff. I put it down on the remaining runway and then rode it off the end through some big rocks. The aluminum nose wheel broke, but despite several inspections by A&P mechanics, there was no damage to the firewall, nose gear, etc. So, I've come to believe that the nose gear is much stronger than many people assume.

When landing or taking off from a rough strip in a tricycle gear, one can mitigate the potential for damage by using a soft-field takeoff or landing, thus greatly minimizing the weight on the nose gear.

I've seen 172's (and other nosedraggers) taxi by me on rough ground, & it's frightening sometimes just how close to the prop gets to the ground. You can only see it from the side, at just the right angle. A bigger nose fork, taller tire, and definitely the heater-hose mod should be seriously considered for rough field work, let alone off-airport, along with religiously checking that the nose strut is fully pumped up.
I'm surprised that there aren't more prop strikes, given the number of deflated nose struts and "just plop her on" landings I see.

It is real easy to put two folks in a 172 or 182 and be way forward on the envelope. Many BC flights are front seats only, and maybe 100 lb in back. Sure, we often think about the flying qualities of forward CG, less often the ground handling. Go into a rough strip with that forward CG and that nosegear gets pounded. Might be why the nose gear mods are so popular.

Another way to approach the problem is get weight off the front end. Probably my favorite mod on my 180 HP 59 is the Selkirk extended baggage. Prior to the extended baggage, I couldn't put two big guys in front and expect to be in CG (the lycoming isn't heavy, but the Hartzell sure is). To get in CG it took grossing out rear baggage, but even then, CG was still far forward making the nose gear take more pounding than needed. Selkirk mod gives you another 3 feet behind the factory bulkhead and a 50 lb allowance so you've got some ARM to do some good. And... it lets you fit in some ridiculous cargo like 10 foot kayaks.

Calculations indicate I could move the battery as well, just haven't figured out how to make the battery box and Selkirk baggage floor play well together from a paperwork standpoint.

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.

For anyone looking for one of these 180 hp 172's, you might as well get a 175/180. It is basically the same plane except the 175 has 52 Gallon Tanks, floating cowl and the panel is a little different. Plus the name "175" still scares people so they don't sell for any more either.