Hi,

Our C172 O-320 is well over TBO and needs new cylinders. We are
thinking we might just bite the bullet and get a new engine at this
stage.

The Penn Yan Aero SuperHawk STC looks like a good option since it
would give us 180 HP - a nice extra safety margin for our short strip.

Has anyone here had any good or bad experience with this engine?

TIA for any info via post or email,

Z

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:29:49 GMT, (Zippity)
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Our C172 O-320 is well over TBO and needs new cylinders. We are
>thinking we might just bite the bullet and get a new engine at this
>stage.
>
>The Penn Yan Aero SuperHawk STC looks like a good option since it
>would give us 180 HP - a nice extra safety margin for our short strip.
>
>Has anyone here had any good or bad experience with this engine?
>
>TIA for any info via post or email,
>
>Z

I have had the Air Plains O-360 conversion in my 172N for 16 years
(3500 hours now). I am an A&P and IA. The Air Plains documentation
is much better, the installation is easier, and the product support is
great. It makes a poor man's 182 out of a 172, No complaints. Penn
Yan is right in my back yard, but I don't regret getting my STC from
the Kansas facility.

Zippity > wrote:

> Has anyone here had any good or bad experience with this engine?

I don't have experience with that engine, but the recommendations of the
mechanics and pilots around my home airport just east of Penn Yan by 70
miles or so when I was shopping for a zero-time rebuilt engine for my
Bonanza was to avoid Penn Yan these days. Supposedly their quality has
slipped in recent years.

FWIW...

--
Peter

Bill Zaleski > wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:29:49 GMT, (Zippity)
>wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Our C172 O-320 is well over TBO and needs new cylinders. We are
>>thinking we might just bite the bullet and get a new engine at this
>>stage.
>>
>>The Penn Yan Aero SuperHawk STC looks like a good option since it
>>would give us 180 HP - a nice extra safety margin for our short strip.
>>
>>Has anyone here had any good or bad experience with this engine?
>>
>>TIA for any info via post or email,
>>
>>Z
>
>I have had the Air Plains O-360 conversion in my 172N for 16 years
>(3500 hours now). I am an A&P and IA. The Air Plains documentation
>is much better, the installation is easier, and the product support is
>great. It makes a poor man's 182 out of a 172, No complaints. Penn
>Yan is right in my back yard, but I don't regret getting my STC from
>the Kansas facility.

Thanks - I looked at Air Plains but it seems they just have a ship-out
kit to do the STC on an existing engine. I was looking at the factory
new engine option from Penn Yan. Do Air Plains have a similar scheme?
Our plane is N-reg but based in Europe.

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 08:47:25 GMT, (Zippity)
wrote:

>Bill Zaleski > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:29:49 GMT, (Zippity)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Our C172 O-320 is well over TBO and needs new cylinders. We are
>>>thinking we might just bite the bullet and get a new engine at this
>>>stage.
>>>
>>>The Penn Yan Aero SuperHawk STC looks like a good option since it
>>>would give us 180 HP - a nice extra safety margin for our short strip.
>>>
>>>Has anyone here had any good or bad experience with this engine?
>>>
>>>TIA for any info via post or email,
>>>
>>>Z
>>
>>I have had the Air Plains O-360 conversion in my 172N for 16 years
>>(3500 hours now). I am an A&P and IA. The Air Plains documentation
>>is much better, the installation is easier, and the product support is
>>great. It makes a poor man's 182 out of a 172, No complaints. Penn
>>Yan is right in my back yard, but I don't regret getting my STC from
>>the Kansas facility.
>
>Thanks - I looked at Air Plains but it seems they just have a ship-out
>kit to do the STC on an existing engine. I was looking at the factory
>new engine option from Penn Yan. Do Air Plains have a similar scheme?
>Our plane is N-reg but based in Europe.

I bought a factory new engine and did the installation myself with the
Air Plains STC and ship out kit. Air Plains provided the new engine.

Bill Zaleski wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 08:47:25 GMT, (Zippity)
> wrote:

The O-360 is the engine the 172 should have had, like the 150 should
have had the 320. Low compression both as avgas is going away,
thankfully.

Bill Zaleski wrote:

> I have had the Air Plains O-360 conversion in my 172N for 16 years
> (3500 hours now). I am an A&P and IA. The Air Plains documentation
> is much better, the installation is easier, and the product support is
> great. It makes a poor man's 182 out of a 172, No complaints. Penn
> Yan is right in my back yard, but I don't regret getting my STC from
> the Kansas facility.

A '65 C172 that I used to rent had their Air Plains conversion combined
with a Powerflow exhaust. Overall performance seemed comparable to a
new 172SP. Given my experience, if I was facing engine
rebuild/replacement on a similar C172, I'd consider the superhawk
conversion.


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane
Arrow N2104T

"To become a Jedi knight, you must master a single force. To become
a private pilot you must strive to master four of them"
- Rod Machado

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:19:17 -0700, Jack Allison
> wrote:

>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>
>> I have had the Air Plains O-360 conversion in my 172N for 16 years
>> (3500 hours now). I am an A&P and IA. The Air Plains documentation
>> is much better, the installation is easier, and the product support is
>> great. It makes a poor man's 182 out of a 172, No complaints. Penn
>> Yan is right in my back yard, but I don't regret getting my STC from
>> the Kansas facility.
>
>A '65 C172 that I used to rent had their Air Plains conversion combined
>with a Powerflow exhaust. Overall performance seemed comparable to a
>new 172SP. Given my experience, if I was facing engine
>rebuild/replacement on a similar C172, I'd consider the superhawk
>conversion.

I had the Powerflow exhaust on my 0-360. There was absolutely no
measurable increase in power. This measurement was carefully done
using temperature and density altitude corrections. No static
increase in RPM, hence no increase in power. No increase in airspeed
or climb performance. I had over 3500 hours of experience in that 172
prior to the exhaust install. I sent it back and got a refund. At
least I didn't pay an A&P about $700 to put it on, then take it off
again. It MAY give a performance increase on some engines, but not on
my O-360.

I have the Airplains 180hp conversion, and love it. Ave about 9.4 gph,
and get consistent 124 knots true. I fly high (up) and lean to 100+deg
ROP. Makes my 172N a true 4 place aircraft. Gross wt 2550. Wouldn't
own a 172 without it.

Bill Zaleski > wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:19:17 -0700, Jack Allison
> wrote:
>
>>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>>
>>> I have had the Air Plains O-360 conversion in my 172N for 16 years
>>> (3500 hours now). I am an A&P and IA. The Air Plains documentation
>>> is much better, the installation is easier, and the product support is
>>> great. It makes a poor man's 182 out of a 172, No complaints. Penn
>>> Yan is right in my back yard, but I don't regret getting my STC from
>>> the Kansas facility.
>>
>>A '65 C172 that I used to rent had their Air Plains conversion combined
>>with a Powerflow exhaust. Overall performance seemed comparable to a
>>new 172SP. Given my experience, if I was facing engine
>>rebuild/replacement on a similar C172, I'd consider the superhawk
>>conversion.
>
>I had the Powerflow exhaust on my 0-360. There was absolutely no
>measurable increase in power. This measurement was carefully done
>using temperature and density altitude corrections. No static
>increase in RPM, hence no increase in power. No increase in airspeed
>or climb performance. I had over 3500 hours of experience in that 172
>prior to the exhaust install. I sent it back and got a refund. At
>least I didn't pay an A&P about $700 to put it on, then take it off
>again. It MAY give a performance increase on some engines, but not on
>my O-360.

If this is true then that's certainly disappointing. Though it
actually transpires the powerflow is cheaper than a new Cessna exhaust
so we are going with the Powerflow anyway.

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:31:02 GMT, (Mark B) wrote:

>Bill Zaleski > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:19:17 -0700, Jack Allison
> wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have had the Air Plains O-360 conversion in my 172N for 16 years
>>>> (3500 hours now). I am an A&P and IA. The Air Plains documentation
>>>> is much better, the installation is easier, and the product support is
>>>> great. It makes a poor man's 182 out of a 172, No complaints. Penn
>>>> Yan is right in my back yard, but I don't regret getting my STC from
>>>> the Kansas facility.
>>>
>>>A '65 C172 that I used to rent had their Air Plains conversion combined
>>>with a Powerflow exhaust. Overall performance seemed comparable to a
>>>new 172SP. Given my experience, if I was facing engine
>>>rebuild/replacement on a similar C172, I'd consider the superhawk
>>>conversion.
>>
>>I had the Powerflow exhaust on my 0-360. There was absolutely no
>>measurable increase in power. This measurement was carefully done
>>using temperature and density altitude corrections. No static
>>increase in RPM, hence no increase in power. No increase in airspeed
>>or climb performance. I had over 3500 hours of experience in that 172
>>prior to the exhaust install. I sent it back and got a refund. At
>>least I didn't pay an A&P about $700 to put it on, then take it off
>>again. It MAY give a performance increase on some engines, but not on
>>my O-360.
>
>If this is true then that's certainly disappointing. Though it
>actually transpires the powerflow is cheaper than a new Cessna exhaust
>so we are going with the Powerflow anyway.


Your money is better spent elsewhere. The performance promises are
just not there to justifly the expense. Do you think that Cessna
didn't already try to get more performance out of their design before
this?