Of all the Cessna's that I flew back in the 70s and 80s, my favorites were the Hawk XP and the 172RG (Cutlass). I loved the Hawk XP, it had so much power. I weighed about 125 lbs. back then and the XP had so much power that by the time I had the throttle all the way forward, I was already off the ground -- it was that quick. And at small airports, I was off the ground and at pattern altitude by the time I got over the end of the runway. LOVED IT.
I laughed when they sped up the taxi to the runway! I was thinking wow he looks like he is going about 50 and could about take off, but then he gets to the top of the hill and turns the corner on to the runway. That plane corners like its on rails! 😆🤣 I love your videos they are informative and entertaining
I have owned my R172K since 2004. My first engine had 2700+ hours before I replaced it. Never a problem. I change the oil every 25 hours and the air filter every 50 hours. I have flown from Byron (C83) to Idaho 10 times, Minnesota twice, Ohio four times, and Florida once. I have never had a problem. It is a great plane.
In Zimbabwe I used to fly an FR172K made by Cessna Reims, and called the Reims Rocket. Interestingly enough it came from the factory with a 210hp branded Rolls-Royce IO-360, instead of the branded Continental. The POH was in French. Nice little sportscar. Love this channel, by the way.
Yes, I was once in a Reims Rocket in England. It was a French built 172 XP 210HP. They also made 172's and 182's. All corrosion proofed and you cannot tell the difference.
I taught a bit in a 210hp Hawk XP on straight floats (Wiplines, I think). It was a delightful two-person floatplane! Like flying a comfy Jack Russell terrier. 🥰
There was a 172XP on the rental line at my TOA FBO back in 84...after a check out it was my go to rental if it wasn't booked..this is a gorgeous example of one It was perfect for exploring smaller fields..big bear weekends and even a few trips to Sedona with 3 souls and light baggage ...Cessna should have made (and still should) this part of the lineup...a perfect 170 STC as well
I did my check ride in a 172M with the penn yan 180hp. Made such a difference especially in the AZ summer. Can’t even imagine how much better that XP would even climb out here in the heat.
I ferried a Penn Yan converted 182 that had not flown in 10 years. It fired up (once we put in a new battery) and flew like it had just been put back in the hanger.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 we’re planning on our first purchased plane in the next couple of years. Your videos have been a huge help in us narrowing down what we might truly “need” and make more sense vs what I might want in my dreams.
Another great video! I've viewed a handful of your video's and really enjoy watching, as well as the learning aspect. Although I have been out of the aviation realm for quite some time now , I still find it all very interesting as well as entertaining! You obviously have a wealth of information, and can't even imagine how many aircraft type you are current in. Well Mark thank you for all your effort putting these vids together. I look forward to your upcoming content.
If I recall, the T-41 military version had a higher stall speed than a 172, and an electric fuel pump. Its best angle is scary the first few times you do it.
Nice video! Its awesome to learn about all these details! Thanks!! There was another beefed up 172 in 1983 (according to Wikipedia). The 172Q Cutlass. 180hp like the Cutlass RG but fixed gear. Slightly different engine. Its actually a 172P with an O-360. The Hawk was a successor of the french C172 Reims Rocket with 210hp made by Reims Cessna in Reims, France in the 60s/70s. The 172K Hawk was manufactured both in France and the US at the same time.
Thank you Mark, I enjoy your videos. I am a Piper Fan - soloed in a Piper Tomahawk , fly the Warrior and Cherokee 180. It would be good if you did a video on the Piper Tomahawk which is quite popular here in the country of your birth. Going back to Cessna, Reims in France produced manufactured Cessna products under licence in France. The Reims 172 Rocket was the original Cessna 172XP, I think they produced from 1972 onwards.
A lot of what he said was overload about various C-172 models. When my instructor (John Creasy) checked me out in it, it was simple. "You are going to go like a bat out of hell. Be careful." It was brand new, probably not 25-30 hours on it. Not sure what it cost, but M-20 Mooneys were $25.00 pH. But I was able to put about 20 hours on it before it was sold. Never took any photos but believe it was Lime Green and White.
I had the pleasure of renting a Hawk XP with the 210HP engine for a couple of years. Climb performance was fantastic , compared to what I was used to. The owner sold it due to high maintenance costs and not being ideal for a primary trainer .
Although the hawk xp filled in between the 172/182 it was expensive to maintain as well as insurance if you own one, it was better to have a 182 instead. mark san francisco calif.
Travis Aero Club in Rio Vista has a T-41C Mescalero painted in the Air Force trainer paint scheme from the Academy. Has the 210HP with a fixed pitch climb prop.
Very good video. Since you mentioned it in this video I would like you to make a video with the Cessna 177 Cardinal, in my opinion the best looking Cessna of all.
We do have a plan to do a video on a Cardinal fixed gear and a Cardinal RG, both of which are based here at Placerville, but one is in annual and the other is getting a radio upgrade so we have to wait for them to get back.
If they have bigger fuel tanks and different instruments there are actually differences aft of the firewall. They also feature rudder trim which is a spring system and quite a nice feature on the 172 XP. Regardless a good review of a nice and capable airplane.
Standard 172's have the same option for long range fuel as an XP but you hardly see them. In the comparison I was talking to dimensions, wings, fuselage, tail, doors, cabin, control surfaces. windows etc etc.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Wow that would be great...you read different specs and opinions...I'd really like to see what the real world numbers are...and what your personal opinion is.
A good segment, but when I mentioned the 172xp last time. I was talking about the 172 with a Lycoming FOUR cylinder I o 360 with a constant speed prop. Not the six cylinder cont. Same kinda HP. but better fuel economy. A number of 172 owners swapped out the 160hp. and went with this engine.
Thanks for a great video. I’ve owned a 172 XP for about 18 months, and it is a fantastic single engine plane for someone relatively new to GA. I find that the climb performance is outstanding at 1000fpm from sea level at my home airport in FL, but cruise is not much better than a standard 172. The max 2800 RPM/210hp is limited to 5 mins and then 2600rpm is max, but typically cruise at 23mp/2350 rpm which results in 9.5gph and 105kts indicated. One quirk I’ve never understood about the plane is why the plane must be slowed down to 85kts before flaps can be lowered?
Do the flaps have a trailing edge bead on your flaps, like a rounded bead so that it is harder to skin your head open on it. That bead makes flaps on a 182 140 Knots. Without it it is 90 kts.
@@philipkinney8361 So flat and internal and flush with the top and bottom skin? OK, yes that is the slower flap. The bead, has a bulb that sticks out about an 8th of an inch and is round in cross section. Your type is better than nothing which is what the early planes had.
Hi Philip I have owned a 77 172 xp for about a year and with a refreshed motor I see 130kts tas at 25mp/2550rpm at 11.5gph so quite happy with the cruise performance. Once the engine was refreshed climb went up to about 1500fpm at lower density altitudes - out of KSPG.
My dad has a XP with the 210hp and sportsman stol stc’s and I have a Peterson 260se 182. The XP is a awesome bush bird and you can fly it backwards in a stiff head wind lol. But the 182 just feels a little better to us anyway. Probably because we fly long legs and bigger cabin and the 260se cruises 150 ish. Want to trade our xp for a 210? lol😁 Great vids I always in joy your stuff cheers!!
@@skywagonuniversity5023 It would only be in circumstances where at the end of the process, the XP came out cheaper than a similarly modified 182. Do you watch the CZcams channel Backcountry 182?
.....humor me here just a bit....within the last 6 mos or so, I watched on another channel 'a conversation with a DPE and the PPL check ride expectatios,' etc, etc, etc that we've all seen in one guise or another.....and one of the first things he mentioned, a la "if you want to impress me," how about when you call out "CLEAR or CLEAR PROP" you actually look up, look to the left, the right BEFORE engaging the starter!?! Nobody does. And he's right. In the ensuing 6 mos I've paid particular attention to countless start ups in video after video AND NO ONE ACTUALLY BOTHERS TO LOOK! Be it a mumble, perfunctory what have you, a grunt whatever, no one has bothered to look and see if someone might actually be in the danger zone, they just start crankin'! That is, until NOW, TODAY, THIS VERY VID! You looked both ways before starting. So aside from being another engaging vid, you demonstrated proper procedure. Thumbs up, well done, I'm your newest subscriber! WHOA DOGGIES!
My father bought a new 1980 XP, and we still own it. Every single entry in the aircraft and pilot logs call it a 172 for 42 years, as well as the registration. I’m going to continue calling it a 172 XP.
What airport is this you are making this video at? The terrain reminds me of the Sierra foothills, but I’ve watched a couple of your other videos, and I’m thinking somewhere eastern Washington maybe?
Ahhh… I got it after finishing this video, sorry I didn’t catch it at first. Placerville… so it was in the Sierra foothills. I grew up in Forest Ranch east of Chico, so the vegetation looked familiar. I now live and fly up in western Washington. Will be down in northern Cal. during the 4th of July holiday weekend with my Pacer. Happy flying
It kills the lift and allows better ground control while still moving at a speed close to flying speed after touching down. I fly a tailwheel ‘54 Pacer and this helps get the weight on the wheels for better directional control during the rollout to taxi phase.
Absolutely right, and I like they way you use the singular, "Flap" because there is a little single cowl flap under the front that does not do much. That is a difference between a 172 and an XP.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 That in itself is truly amazing! If there is one aircraft engine I loath on this world more than any other, it is the mechanical wreck known as the Continental IO360. I wouldn’t hook one of these up to my sewage macerator I hate them so much. My uncle had a Turbo Arrow III that I used to maintain, goddamn cylinders 2 and 5 to the depths of perdition. Great airplane, BAD, BAD engine.
@@j.muckafignotti4226 I have one and love the plane less the engine. Just did a top w all six cylinders and Im told these should last much longer than the ones previously used. My A&P also had an XP and said plan on cylinders every 1,000 hours but supposedly these are better. That bill made me order my RV10 kit!
@@riverrat7411 Dear M, This is your engine fairy godmother calling you, to out your A&P who so bald face lied to you, in a feeble attempt to give you a brilliant and glowing warm fuzzy. I truly hope for your checkbook and your flying mojo that your top goes 1000 hours, really, I do. The reality of the situation is that Continental Teledyne, in all of its magnificent insanity, had their collective engineering minds resting on the uplocks on this boat anchor. There are so many things wrong with this engine that I feel filthy just talking about it. What could have been a giant killer ended up being a travesty of aviation lore. The first problem with the engine is its mass to thermal loading. The damn thing just won’t get rid of the heat and #2 and #5 ALWAYS go first in my experience. If Continental had liquid cooled this engine it would have been THAT engine. My god, do you know how many of us had to have professional psychological assistance after working on Cessna 337’s??? And then, those stupid bastards, just had to throw turbocharging at it. I was gobsmacked when this happened! Let’s throw gas on that fire shall we! But one thing I will say for it, it was a damn smooth running engine when all of the parts were working as they should be. Recently I was going to buy a beautiful Glasair II until I realized it had the dreaded Continental IO360 in it. Ran away screaming unfortunately. I hope you have good service with your engine, watch those hot summer day climb outs, run her fat, and by god don’t ever let me hear you mention you might try running her lean of peak! Blue skies to you!
@@j.muckafignotti4226 LMAO, great reply! I did get 1,000 after the last factory reman till it was can time! Just got the new top maybe 30 hours ago and man, she is smoooooth right now. Ironically my numbers 1 and 4 have been my nemesis cylinders. My guy knew I was a fanatic about trying to get my baffling right so he spent some time trying to get it perfect with this last situation and it is almost like a normal engine. All my temps are normal and within about 30 degrees of one another and get this, I can even close my cowl flaps completely in cruise. No lie.... Now, lets see how long it lasts. I hope this didnt throw you back into therapy :-) If it didn't, maybe Ill try LOP and let you know how she does. My guy also says dont, avgas aint that expensive.
"Take her up for a spin" takes on a whole new meaning in an airplane!
Yes it does. ;-)
I grew up flying with my grandfather. He owned a few 185’s, 182’s and 172’s. His all time favorite was the Hawk XP.
They are very underestimated.
Wow, beautiful airplane. Back in the 70’s I wanted a Cardinal. Alas, I was still a teenager. 😢
Just the same today
What a clean aircraft looks new !
Of all the Cessna's that I flew back in the 70s and 80s, my favorites were the Hawk XP and the 172RG (Cutlass). I loved the Hawk XP, it had so much power. I weighed about 125 lbs. back then and the XP had so much power that by the time I had the throttle all the way forward, I was already off the ground -- it was that quick. And at small airports, I was off the ground and at pattern altitude by the time I got over the end of the runway. LOVED IT.
The XP really does make a 172 very useful.
I laughed when they sped up the taxi to the runway! I was thinking wow he looks like he is going about 50 and could about take off, but then he gets to the top of the hill and turns the corner on to the runway. That plane corners like its on rails! 😆🤣
I love your videos they are informative and entertaining
Thanks.
I have owned my R172K since 2004. My first engine had 2700+ hours before I replaced it. Never a problem. I change the oil every 25 hours and the air filter every 50 hours. I have flown from Byron (C83) to Idaho 10 times, Minnesota twice, Ohio four times, and Florida once. I have never had a problem.
It is a great plane.
Take care of them and they last just like anything else.
Another great review - the 1977 XP is the model I got my PPL - this is the first time I have seen one in many years - I remember it was like a rocket.
Yes, a 172 with attitude.
In Zimbabwe I used to fly an FR172K made by Cessna Reims, and called the Reims Rocket. Interestingly enough it came from the factory with a 210hp branded Rolls-Royce IO-360, instead of the branded Continental. The POH was in French. Nice little sportscar. Love this channel, by the way.
Yes, I was once in a Reims Rocket in England. It was a French built 172 XP 210HP. They also made 172's and 182's. All corrosion proofed and you cannot tell the difference.
Flew 736KG for a few years...... Miss that bird!
Great summary as always!
Close in age judging by the N number.
I taught a bit in a 210hp Hawk XP on straight floats (Wiplines, I think). It was a delightful two-person floatplane! Like flying a comfy Jack Russell terrier. 🥰
Very Nice original plane and I love the Paint, it looks like a seventies model.
Thanks a lot!
If I recall, the Hawk XP was not built on the C172 type certificate, it was on the previously retired C175 type certificate.
Another well done summary. The Hawk has nice performance and flight fidelity without the clunkiness of a -182.
Thanks.
This was my second favorite Cessna Single, The 177RG Cardinal was my favorite.
Love the XP !! I have lots of hours before I purchased my Skylane.
Nice 👍
A 172XP with a stol kit would be a fantastic plane
There was a 172XP on the rental line at my TOA FBO back in 84...after a check out it was my go to rental if it wasn't booked..this is a gorgeous example of one
It was perfect for exploring smaller fields..big bear weekends and even a few trips to Sedona with 3 souls and light baggage ...Cessna should have made (and still should) this part of the lineup...a perfect 170 STC as well
I’m in love with your videos! I learn so much. Great job!
Thank you.
I did my check ride in a 172M with the penn yan 180hp. Made such a difference especially in the AZ summer. Can’t even imagine how much better that XP would even climb out here in the heat.
I ferried a Penn Yan converted 182 that had not flown in 10 years. It fired up (once we put in a new battery) and flew like it had just been put back in the hanger.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 we’re planning on our first purchased plane in the next couple of years. Your videos have been a huge help in us narrowing down what we might truly “need” and make more sense vs what I might want in my dreams.
We try to educate people.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 it is helpful and very much appreciated
Another great video! I've viewed a handful of your video's and really enjoy watching, as well as the learning aspect. Although I have been out of the aviation realm for quite some time now , I still find it all very interesting as well as entertaining! You obviously have a wealth of information, and can't even imagine how many aircraft type you are current in.
Well Mark thank you for all your effort putting these vids together. I look forward to your upcoming content.
Thank you for watching. Many years and some of the info sticks.
If I recall, the T-41 military version had a higher stall speed than a 172, and an electric fuel pump. Its best angle is scary the first few times you do it.
Great looking plane!! Love the wood grain panel.
Thanks!
Excellent as always. I love the 172XP.
Many thanks!
Nice video! Its awesome to learn about all these details! Thanks!!
There was another beefed up 172 in 1983 (according to Wikipedia). The 172Q Cutlass. 180hp like the Cutlass RG but fixed gear. Slightly different engine. Its actually a 172P with an O-360.
The Hawk was a successor of the french C172 Reims Rocket with 210hp made by Reims Cessna in Reims, France in the 60s/70s. The 172K Hawk was manufactured both in France and the US at the same time.
Awesome, so I’m one of these on the ramp the other day, and was wondering what it was.
Hi Mark..love your videos, excellent content. Flying a 172 here in the UK. Keep um coming
Thanks, will do!
Very nice. Did not know these existed. Thank you!
Four years of production here in the US. They were called Riems Rockets when built in France under license.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Ah yes makes sense now. I have head of the Reims Rocket before. Thanks for the info!
Great airplane. Love the XP I get. 4 adults and almost full tanks.👍👍
Nice video Skywagon, happy new year
Thanks, you too!
Mark, love the videos, keep it up!
Ok. Thanks.
I have flown one of those a good bit. Love the plane.
Very cool
Nice bird! This airfield remembers me Congonhas SP Brazil. Looks like an aircraft carrier navigating over on the landscape...
Thank you Mark, I enjoy your videos. I am a Piper Fan - soloed in a Piper Tomahawk , fly the Warrior and Cherokee 180. It would be good if you did a video on the Piper Tomahawk which is quite popular here in the country of your birth. Going back to Cessna, Reims in France produced manufactured Cessna products under licence in France. The Reims 172 Rocket was the original Cessna 172XP, I think they produced from 1972 onwards.
Thanks James! As it turns out, we did a video on the Tomahawk. czcams.com/video/KX9Dg0R5sJc/video.html
Thought you were gonna take off from the road! Nice plane well kitted.
Another great video. Really looking forward to the Skywagon video - curious to hear what the new builds are like.
That will be interesting, but it is early days. I'll show one that is finished as soon as one is.
Nice vid Bro.
Thanks! We're glad you liked it, Jetme8815!
Great review love the retro look.
Thanks, Wayne! We like the retro look as well.
I love this one to purchase Mark
A lot of what he said was overload about various C-172 models. When my instructor (John Creasy) checked me out in it, it was simple.
"You are going to go like a bat out of hell. Be careful."
It was brand new, probably not 25-30 hours on it. Not sure what it cost, but M-20 Mooneys were $25.00 pH. But I was able to put about 20 hours on it before it was sold. Never took any photos but believe it was Lime Green and White.
Great aeroplanes, owned a 1973 Reims 172 (ZS-IYH) and had many happy hours in it..
They are great planes and not very well known.
I had the pleasure of renting a Hawk XP with the 210HP engine for a couple of years. Climb performance was fantastic , compared to what I was used to. The owner sold it due to high maintenance costs and not being ideal for a primary trainer .
If you find a T-41 that would be good to see.
Great lesson and review
Glad you liked it!
Excellent Airplane !!
Thanks a lot!
Although the hawk xp filled in between the 172/182 it was expensive to maintain as well as insurance if you own one, it was better to have a 182 instead. mark san francisco calif.
Travis Aero Club in Rio Vista has a T-41C Mescalero painted in the Air Force trainer paint scheme from the Academy. Has the 210HP with a fixed pitch climb prop.
I flew that plane several times! Don the Camera Guy.
Handles great during taxi. 😂😂
Taxi's easily.
That actually is a 175 or the 172D reams is the one the first put the I/O 360 in it
Very good video. Since you mentioned it in this video I would like you to make a video with the Cessna 177 Cardinal, in my opinion the best looking Cessna of all.
We do have a plan to do a video on a Cardinal fixed gear and a Cardinal RG, both of which are based here at Placerville, but one is in annual and the other is getting a radio upgrade so we have to wait for them to get back.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 we have to wait then. Thanks for the answer!!!
If they have bigger fuel tanks and different instruments there are actually differences aft of the firewall.
They also feature rudder trim which is a spring system and quite a nice feature on the 172 XP.
Regardless a good review of a nice and capable airplane.
Standard 172's have the same option for long range fuel as an XP but you hardly see them. In the comparison I was talking to dimensions, wings, fuselage, tail, doors, cabin, control surfaces. windows etc etc.
I did my commercial license training 1993 on one of those, I love the look of it's wood paneling.
It is pretty cool.
Miss my XP a great plane. Off of a 2200' grass strip loaded, many times, no problem. Video at " Flight at dusk xppilot"
OK Thanks. I'll look.
Really neat plane...I hope you get a 150/150 in some time. I would love to hear you talk about...and show us the difference in performance over stock.
We do have a 150/150 on the field. I'll ask the owner if they can lend it to me.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Wow that would be great...you read different specs and opinions...I'd really like to see what the real world numbers are...and what your personal opinion is.
If I’m not mistaken there’s one other Cessna they used that engine in the really cool Skymaster.
Yes, two of them.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 I hope you do a video on a skymaster soon.
Having the bigger engine up front would probably make it nose heavy similar to a 182 I would think. Thanks, enjoyed the video
Not as bad, but a little heavier yes.
A good segment, but when I mentioned the 172xp last time. I was talking about the 172 with a Lycoming FOUR cylinder I o 360 with a constant speed prop. Not the six cylinder cont. Same kinda HP. but better fuel economy. A number of 172 owners swapped out the 160hp. and went with this engine.
We did :-)
It's the engine the 172 was born to fly with.
I'll take it!
Used one in Nevada a few years... Great hot & high plane. Test a 150/150 sometime? Another sky-jeep.
150 150's are great. Small but fun.
Hell, you might as well make it a 210hp version.
210 is also better for the engine because it is designed for it.
6:20 the 1977 C172 that I learned in has rudder trim but I know some that don’t, did they change that midway through the year of production?
I'm drooooooling!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for a great video. I’ve owned a 172 XP for about 18 months, and it is a fantastic single engine plane for someone relatively new to GA. I find that the climb performance is outstanding at 1000fpm from sea level at my home airport in FL, but cruise is not much better than a standard 172. The max 2800 RPM/210hp is limited to 5 mins and then 2600rpm is max, but typically cruise at 23mp/2350 rpm which results in 9.5gph and 105kts indicated. One quirk I’ve never understood about the plane is why the plane must be slowed down to 85kts before flaps can be lowered?
Do the flaps have a trailing edge bead on your flaps, like a rounded bead so that it is harder to skin your head open on it. That bead makes flaps on a 182 140 Knots. Without it it is 90 kts.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 I wouldn’t describe it as a bead. But it is flat.
@@philipkinney8361 So flat and internal and flush with the top and bottom skin? OK, yes that is the slower flap. The bead, has a bulb that sticks out about an 8th of an inch and is round in cross section. Your type is better than nothing which is what the early planes had.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 thank you very much! Very helpful.
Hi Philip I have owned a 77 172 xp for about a year and with a refreshed motor I see 130kts tas at 25mp/2550rpm at 11.5gph so quite happy with the cruise performance. Once the engine was refreshed climb went up to about 1500fpm at lower density altitudes - out of KSPG.
My dad has a XP with the 210hp and sportsman stol stc’s and I have a Peterson 260se 182. The XP is a awesome bush bird and you can fly it backwards in a stiff head wind lol. But the 182 just feels a little better to us anyway. Probably because we fly long legs and bigger cabin and the 260se cruises 150 ish. Want to trade our xp for a 210? lol😁
Great vids I always in joy your stuff cheers!!
The XP's are great with 210 HO and big tires and a STOL kit.
HP
Nice aeroplane.
Have you heard of many being bushed with Sportsman’s, vgs, bigger tires, etc.? I can imagine that. Especially if put on floats.
Yes, they can do all that. However if you do too much to an XP you may as well have bought a 182.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 It would only be in circumstances where at the end of the process, the XP came out cheaper than a similarly modified 182. Do you watch the CZcams channel Backcountry 182?
I'll watch that channel. The XP's are about the same price as a 182 nowadays.
.....humor me here just a bit....within the last 6 mos or so, I watched on another channel 'a conversation with a DPE and the PPL check ride expectatios,' etc, etc, etc that we've all seen in one guise or another.....and one of the first things he mentioned, a la "if you want to impress me," how about when you call out "CLEAR or CLEAR PROP" you actually look up, look to the left, the right BEFORE engaging the starter!?! Nobody does. And he's right. In the ensuing 6 mos I've paid particular attention to countless start ups in video after video AND NO ONE ACTUALLY BOTHERS TO LOOK! Be it a mumble, perfunctory what have you, a grunt whatever, no one has bothered to look and see if someone might actually be in the danger zone, they just start crankin'! That is, until NOW, TODAY, THIS VERY VID! You looked both ways before starting. So aside from being another engaging vid, you demonstrated proper procedure. Thumbs up, well done, I'm your newest subscriber! WHOA DOGGIES!
The Hawk XP is NOT a 172. It uses the 175 type certificate.
But 90% of it's parts are the same as a 172 and 175's have manual flaps and straight tails and no rear window etc etc etc.
My father bought a new 1980 XP, and we still own it. Every single entry in the aircraft and pilot logs call it a 172 for 42 years, as well as the registration. I’m going to continue calling it a 172 XP.
Nice video and planes as always. Where this airport is located?
In Northern California between Sacramento and Tahoe at 2500 feet in the Sierra foothills.
Do the Cessna 182s have rudder trim?
I am I the only one that noticed the oil access lid was loose(bouncing)?
Did Cessna build this for the Air Force? Seems like someone told me they used them at the AFA.
Yes. This was called a T-41. The difference between the two was the spinner was taken off for the military version.
Lower rpm to match European noise regs as well, you need a screwdriver to increase the governor
Plus the prop pitch stops have to be adjusted.
Sod my 182. Looking for a bit better fuel efficiency. Wondering if the new lyc io390 would be good on this. 4 cylinder. Nice plane is it for sale?
Not sure about the IO-390 in this, probably better in a stock 172. It's for sale yes.
What airport is this you are making this video at? The terrain reminds me of the Sierra foothills, but I’ve watched a couple of your other videos, and I’m thinking somewhere eastern Washington maybe?
Ahhh… I got it after finishing this video, sorry I didn’t catch it at first. Placerville… so it was in the Sierra foothills. I grew up in Forest Ranch east of Chico, so the vegetation looked familiar. I now live and fly up in western Washington. Will be down in northern Cal. during the 4th of July holiday weekend with my Pacer. Happy flying
It's Placerville about 35 miles East of Sacramento KPVF
A video on a pressurized 210 would be nice to see. Or some twins c-310 340 414 421 etc thanks :)
I have to have one here or interview an owner.
Eh. I’m a big boy. I love me a 182 or 206. Especially up at the high DA’s… I like me something turbocharged too
Those are what you need. Wider and able to carry weight easily.
Hi me again. If that is a normal 172 with bigger engine. How do they keep it Ballanced?
Good question. They are a little heavier up front.
The nose is different too no? It seems more aerodynamic than a standard 172
Yes, firewall forward is all XP.
Are these engines a candidate for a p-mag?
Yes, Two single mags so one can be swapped.
G,day Mark at Skywagon University from Sydney Australia.
Hawk 77XP -why do you think they put that powerplant there?
The choices they made: "Hey"
🤨
Availability? Previous contracts? Who knows? But, this particular engine has gone 200 over TBO and is still running very well.
The hawk is a good compromise for killing off the Cardinal
I think it was afterwards. Cardinal gone, Then XP.
What's the cruise speed for the Hawk XP?
They do about 120 Kts on 11 GPH.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Isn't that approx C172 performance?
@@toddy2519 No! The POH says so but most 172 do 105 to 110kts. Not a huge difference but take off is quicker for sure!
Mine does 130ktas on 11.5gph
50 gallons each side or total? All of our 172s have 53 usable gallons total.
Long range fuel on a 172 is 53 gallons. Standard was 34, but that was quite rare. All the XP's had 53 gallons usable.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 ah, we learn something new every day!
I thought you mentioned this plane wasted more gas didn’t fly as good as the 177 b but they sold 300 more
The XP is a 172 with a bigger engine. The 177 is a totally different plane. Practical for different purposes.
You’re a very good bloke wth ex element knowledge of your product. But why oh why would retract flaps on rollout>??????
So you stay on the ground if a guest of wind comes.
It kills the lift and allows better ground control while still moving at a speed close to flying speed after touching down. I fly a tailwheel ‘54 Pacer and this helps get the weight on the wheels for better directional control during the rollout to taxi phase.
Yes, once the wheels are on the ground, flaps up for reduced lift and better braking.
Civilian T-41 Mascalero
Yes. Exactly.
Why make a radio call on every circuit leg when their is no other traffic?
Just in case! Why stop at a stop sign when there are no other cars. :-)
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Exactly!!! Thanks!! Someone could just switch over from a different frequency. Doesn’t cost anything!
Cowl Flap
Absolutely right, and I like they way you use the singular, "Flap" because there is a little single cowl flap under the front that does not do much. That is a difference between a 172 and an XP.
And it’s funny, that engine is a piece of junk in every one of those aircraft you just mentioned.
Interestingly, this particular engine has gone 200 hours over TBO and is still running strong.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 That in itself is truly amazing! If there is one aircraft engine I loath on this world more than any other, it is the mechanical wreck known as the Continental IO360. I wouldn’t hook one of these up to my sewage macerator I hate them so much. My uncle had a Turbo Arrow III that I used to maintain, goddamn cylinders 2 and 5 to the depths of perdition. Great airplane, BAD, BAD engine.
@@j.muckafignotti4226 I have one and love the plane less the engine. Just did a top w all six cylinders and Im told these should last much longer than the ones previously used. My A&P also had an XP and said plan on cylinders every 1,000 hours but supposedly these are better. That bill made me order my RV10 kit!
@@riverrat7411 Dear M,
This is your engine fairy godmother calling you, to out your A&P who so bald face lied to you, in a feeble attempt to give you a brilliant and glowing warm fuzzy. I truly hope for your checkbook and your flying mojo that your top goes 1000 hours, really, I do. The reality of the situation is that Continental Teledyne, in all of its magnificent insanity, had their collective engineering minds resting on the uplocks on this boat anchor. There are so many things wrong with this engine that I feel filthy just talking about it. What could have been a giant killer ended up being a travesty of aviation lore. The first problem with the engine is its mass to thermal loading. The damn thing just won’t get rid of the heat and #2 and #5 ALWAYS go first in my experience. If Continental had liquid cooled this engine it would have been THAT engine. My god, do you know how many of us had to have professional psychological assistance after working on Cessna 337’s??? And then, those stupid bastards, just had to throw turbocharging at it. I was gobsmacked when this happened! Let’s throw gas on that fire shall we! But one thing I will say for it, it was a damn smooth running engine when all of the parts were working as they should be. Recently I was going to buy a beautiful Glasair II until I realized it had the dreaded Continental IO360 in it. Ran away screaming unfortunately. I hope you have good service with your engine, watch those hot summer day climb outs, run her fat, and by god don’t ever let me hear you mention you might try running her lean of peak! Blue skies to you!
@@j.muckafignotti4226 LMAO, great reply! I did get 1,000 after the last factory reman till it was can time! Just got the new top maybe 30 hours ago and man, she is smoooooth right now. Ironically my numbers 1 and 4 have been my nemesis cylinders. My guy knew I was a fanatic about trying to get my baffling right so he spent some time trying to get it perfect with this last situation and it is almost like a normal engine. All my temps are normal and within about 30 degrees of one another and get this, I can even close my cowl flaps completely in cruise. No lie.... Now, lets see how long it lasts. I hope this didnt throw you back into therapy :-) If it didn't, maybe Ill try LOP and let you know how she does. My guy also says dont, avgas aint that expensive.