Cessna 172 on steroids | Surprising performance difference of the 172/180hp Superhawk conversion
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- Cessna 172/180hp conversion adds just 30 horsepower but you get huge performance advantages and makes it a very capable airplane.
This plane is for sale, if you are interested or have any questions about the plane for sale, please contact AeroLife directly, not through the comments. Details of the plane here: www.aerolifeav...
If you'd like to watch our detailed video of the Cessna 172/180 conversion, you can see it here: • Cessna 172 180hp conve...
You can watch the full video of this plane here: • Cessna 172 / 180hp con...
![[UNCUT]"ตุลามรณะ"ย้อนฟังคำทำนาย หมอดูทุกสาย ดวงเมืองร้อน (หมอปลาย ฟองสนาน อ.โอเล่)I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lE5az5VvT9M/mqdefault.jpg)
I have converted three 172 aircraft to 180 HP using three different STCs. I have a fourth conversion underway now. One conversion included a constant speed propeller. I concur with everything you are reporting. It is an EXCELLENT conversion. It should be noted that not all conversions (offered) out there qualify for the gross weight increase.
Thank you for sharing the information and your experience.
constant speed is a bit heavy on the nose
Massive improvement to the climb rate
I just saw this beautiful plane on trade-a-plane, Its exactly what I'll be looking for in a year or so. Id buy it today if I didn't have a 150 to sell and an upcoming move.
The 172/180 conversion is a great plane. There may also be other types of planes that could suit your requirements - we have a number of review videos on our channel about different makes and models if you’d like to take a look.
G,day from Sydney Australia.
A little weight adjustment, doesn't make any changes to C of G. And better performance.
Great for a flying school!
🌏🇦🇺
I agree. Thanks for watching & commenting
Go with a Cessna 172 Hawk XP for an additional 30hp (210hp) - used to own one and the climb rate is spectacular!
The Hawk XP has a higher climb rate like you said but apart from that it doesn’t achieve much over the 180hp conversion. The 172 airframe aerodynamics just did not support the hp increase. IO360 is a heavier engine so the total useful gross weight increase is only 100lbs.
I sold mine earlier this year. The Hawk XP II is an awesome configuration!
I'm buying an XP now. It has a 195HP engine.
Love your videos. Thanks for posting.
thank you for watching and appreciate the comment
Love it too much!
(Rio, Brazil).
Thanks for watching and commenting from Brazil!
Looks like a 172G model that came with a Continental O300 engine. (flat spring gear and cooling for oil sump).
It is actually a K model that came with a Lycoming E2D engine. Same as the M model.
Yes I have to use a lot of nose down trim on those
Trim is definitely a good tool to use when you can.
I did my flight training in a Penn Yan 180hp 172, I NEVER saw cruise speeds as high as claimed here. 110kn was pushing it. Maybe need some altitude for those speeds?
The plane can fly the speeds as I demonstrated around 5000ft. There are several reasons you didn’t see those speeds:
1. Much lower altitude or running too rich at higher altitudes
2. Engine isn’t producing full power (such as because of low compressions)
3. Most likely if it’s a flight school plane they could have adjusted the throttle to not allow full power
A 180HP fuel injected engine and I’m game.
Having just purchased an old but decent C172N with a relatively new healthy D2J 160 HP, I was a little disappointed with the lack of performance. I would love to do this conversion in conjunction with a set of power flow headers to turn it into a true 4 seater, but it would probably just be easier & cheaper to sell the 172 as it is, & upgrade to a 182 or Piper Arrow.
It’s a real pity almost all GA aircraft engines are still stuck in the 60’s technologically. I have an air cooled horizontally opposed (exact same configuration as Lycoming) Beetle engine with half the displacement of my C172N, that easily & reliably makes over 150HP without a turbo, uses hardly any fuel compared to the Lycoming, & will run for the next 10-15 years with no problems. It’s a real pity that a GA engine with huge displacement is still only getting 180HP when there’s so many simple bolt on advances that would give it so much more power & efficiency without sacrificing reliability. Electronic ignition, EFI, Direct Port Injection, Variable Valve Timing etc.
This piston engine technology is behind. With of the low volume they can’t invest in the R&D. Also, every change requires extensive testing and a rigorous certification process. For every new component the production facilities need to retool.
Try running your beetle engine at peak power for 2000hrs of run time, plus you'll need a gearbox
@@wolfgagger Considering peak power in a Lycoming or Continental is not even at 3000 rpm, I think that’s a very easy achievement for a VW engine that can easily run at 5000 rpm for tens of thousands of hours.
The VW motor will run rings around it in both performance in relation to its capacity, and reliability. You do realise VW motors are also used as aero engines? Or did you not know that?
Fact is that unfortunately it’s these antique engines that let GA down more than any other component. One only has to look at experimental aircraft to see how well an automotive replacement engine works compared to these thirsty, large displacement for terrible output dinosaurs. Automotive engines have much (MUCH) more time & money invested into them, & I’d feel much more comfortable with a late model aircooled Porsche flat 6 with electronic ignition, & much more HP for 2/3 the size powering my Cessna. But unfortunately the laws mandate these engines if I want to keep my GA reg. So don’t kid yourself in thinking these motors are the be all & end all of human existence. 2000 hours between builds @ 2750-2850 rpm is absolutely pathetic!
@@davidjolliffe9622 Yes you might be correct on somethings but the design of aircraft engines are nothing like most automotive.For one the hp rating on your VW is just a est. from builder But aircraft engines are governed down to a spec they have basic minimal acc and mags because reliabillity mags still work without a charging system Aircraft engines use different alloys for weight and heat Like chromed cylinders and forged pistons where cars have shitty iron cylinders and numatic pistons for emissions. aircraft engs produce more lowend torque. ever hear that saying Horsepower sell motors but torque wins races. I make my living by trusting a engine designed back in the 1930's with my life and almost 100 years later the r-1340 pratt n whitney is still bolted to Ag-cats and widly used today
@@hotrod6919 Sorry buddy, but you obviously don’t have a clue about automotive engines & you’re talking absolute nonsense. I don’t know who you are or what you do, and I’m sure you know more about aircraft & flying than I do as a student pilot with a Cessna & D2J 0-320, but I’ve been around VW & Porsche engines for over 30 years. I know exactly how they’re built, & the components used, and unfortunately, as far as your argument goes, you couldn’t be further from the truth. But I’ll rebut your comments anyway.
The VW & Porsche Engines I’m familiar with are all hand built and dyno’ed separately for accurate HP and torque figures, so you’re wrong about estimates. Magnetos are also used with these automotive engines when set up for aircraft, as well as dual plugs, just like your Lycoming & Continental engines. Both VW and Porsche come with forged pistons & cylinders from the factory, they are made by MAHLE who you may recognise as one of the FERRARI F1 main sponsors. MAHLE also make larger forged pistons & cylinders for increased capacity. You can also get larger FULLY FORGED crankshafts capable of huge torque numbers. In fact Porsche used to build aircraft motors & if you do some research you’ll find these motors were very well received by those fortunate enough to be able to get a hold of them.
The only reason Porsche stopped building Aero engines, was the ridiculous amount of red tape that the general aviation industry (and it’s largely American Companies) imposes on new players. They’re now content just putting their engines into cars, which is a huge loss for GA & their antiquated engines.
I have no doubt you trust your Lycoming or Continental engine, and I never implied it’s not reliable, and it should be reliable, because it’s EXACTLY THE SAME DESIGN that Dr Ferdinand Porsche developed in the mid 30’s for the KDF prototype which went in to power vehicle’s that proved to be ultra reliable, no matter what the temp or conditions, in some of the harshest theatres of WW2.
I owned a C175 for over 10 years, and the difference from Continental O300 engine to Continental GO300 is 145 HP to 175 HP.
Performance is almost the same as the Superhawk. The gears engine was quirky tho !!!!
CAVU for you !!!
Thanks for sharing the information.
Back in 1992, we did an Avcon conversion on a P172D using 0-360-A1A and 3 blade Hartzel Top Prop. Our hand was forced by a lack of available replacement blades.
Excellent stuff
Thank you for watching and commenting
I have always liked the 172. My only issue?
It is just way TOO EASY to Fly !
I don’t know most people would complain about something being too easy! But I do understand what you mean. Sometimes it’s nice to challenge yourself. Thanks for the comment & watching.
my question is why not just get a Hawk XP
Flying a 150 hp c-172 in the mountains is a pain. If you live at sea level it is ok. Cessna should have built them all with 180 hp for safety reasons in my opinion.
Does the Penn Yan conversion have a different exhaust system? Would a Power Flow exhaust system add even more performance and, ESPECIALLY, fuel economy?
I believe it is the standard A4M exhaust, not tuned. Yes, you can upgrade to a powerflow exhaust.
The Powerflow exhaust increases max rpm by reducing backpressure thereby increasing power. The net result is that you can run it at a lower power setting for similar performance or a higher power setting for more performance but it'll burn more fuel at that higher rpm.
What is the effect on range?
It burns a little more fuel. Also flies faster so you can go further in the same timeframe. I think the range is similar or better.
How much was the 30 hp upgrade?
It is listed for $35,000 but that could have gone up with the current pricing
So nice for a 172 so it a reims rocket moder
I love to own one
They are a good plane to own
If you can do a 180 hp upgrade, why not 200 hp ?
There isn't an STC for a 200hp motor on a 172 afaik, which would be the IO-360. However you could have the heads on the 180hp O-360 ported and polished for improved air flow and put on a Powerflow exhaust on, which would give you 200hp+ for impressive performance.
Cessna 172 aircraft have very little performance increase upgrading from 180hp to 200 because of the parasitic drag and the heavier weight of the bigger engine. Cessna made a 172 with 210hp engine - it’s called a Hawk XP. It can climb better but the cruise speed is the same as this one. The payload increase was only 100lbs where this one was 200lbs. So I think the sweet spot for a 172 is 180hp. That’s probably the reason all newer Cessna 172 come with 180hp from the factory. Hop this helps
What is the registration of the cessna in the video?
is plane available
Fix Pitch... same bird
This fixed pitch propeller is longer. I think the reason they used the fixed even though constant speed has advantages, is the upgrade would be heavier and more expensive. That would lose some of the performance advantages.
Also, people who like higher performance and constant speed have the option of a 182.
Man can that girl fly !
I wanna marry this woman so shell take me flying every weekend
Why not just buy a 182? Throttle back if you want the 172 fuel consumption and economy and cruise at 115 mph! The 172 is a joke, don't care what you say! Any 4 place airplane should have MINIMUM 50 hp per person! The 172 is nothing more than a 4 place Cessna 150! The low power of the 172 has killed a lot of people! WHY WASTE your money on getting a underpowered 172, upgrading the engine to a higher HP when you can buy a really nice 182 for same price or less? I've argued this with the 172 Cult for decades now! Such a no brainer!
Cessna 182 is a very good airplane. Before I answer your question, I’d like to know a few things.
1. Are you a pilot?
2. If you are a pilot, did you fly a 172 or similar plane to learn or did you do you private training in a 182?
3. Why do you think more people drive cars than minivans? For a similar price a minivan can carry more passengers and cargo along with many other features a car doesn’t have.
@@aerolife1646 Yes! Commercial, A&P and IA! Why would you theoretically reference a 172 as a car and a 182 a minivan when they are pretty much the same when looking at them on the ramp? When I look at a 182, minivan does not even enter my mind as a comparison. Now a Cessna 207, YES! Have had 3 182's over the years, "1962, 68, and 73 models" flew a 172 some during training, "42 yrs ago" but mostly my Citabria and Cessna 140 for basic training for my private. Retired after 40 years! Had and incident in a 172 that would not get off a 2500 ft grass strip with 4 people, I wasn't flying, but had a nice excursion through about 100 ft of a soy bean field! FORTUNATELY, we went WITH the rows and the beans were only about 20' tall and no damage to the aircraft. Had to unload, three of us had to get a ride to the county airport with a 3500 ft paved runway and we got off the ground in about 2000 ft. We were just within the load legal limits, but the old 6 cylinder 150 hp engine was not very strong! The 182, you can load 5 people in it, full fuel and it never breaks a sweat, yes, it WAS over max gross, but never even huffed and puffed! Have also owned a flying minivan, an 1980 Cessna 206, what a HOSS! I do not like flying anything without at least 230 hp and a constant speed prop! My 1949 E-225 Navion - A Model was the sweetest of them all, 12 GPH, and 150 mph cross country aircraft! You could load it to the gills and GO! I still think the 172 0r any4 place should have minimum 180-200 hp or MORE. It is no faster than a C-150, OK for flying around local or for training, that's about it! Just get a Cessna 182 and you'll never look back, 12 GPH and a solid 140-145 mph cruise! Had an older 1962 fast back with manual flaps and swept tail, the best flying and fastest of all 182's! Great machine and I have flown out of 1000ft strip fully loaded with no issues! As an A&P/IA, I would find some plane sitting, "hangar queen" for a while, buy it at a decent price, but some TLC into it, whip it into nice shape, fly it for 2-4 years and then sell it for a profit and come out basically flying it for the cost of fuel alone! Only way I could support my habit, Ha! I've seen and KNOW too many people who've gotten themselves in serious trouble in the underpowered and anemic C-172, no love between me and the 172! 🛩🚁✈