Cessna 172A Question

Hello groups, just to let all you know if things go right this week i should
be an owner of a Cessna 172A With 2,600 Hours TT 200hours SMOH In
exelent cond. All i have to say is this an addiction! I belive its worse
than a drug addiction, Can any of you other owners of the A models tell me
what to
watch out for?

The pre purchase inspection from a independant a&p said it was in exelent
shape only found 3 things: 1, Nose strut seal should be replaced soon, 2,
Right side tire has nice bald spot, Said not an airworthy issue but would
recomend having it taken care of wich i will if it becomes myne. 3, 1 Thing
Missing in the Logs (well cannot find) Sign Off For Instulation Of The
Wheel Pants? Says will not a problem getting that taken care of and signed
off.

Like to hear some feedback about the first year 172's

I have a 172B (same thing). Seems unusually fast for a 172. I'm told it's
because it's a 'straight back'. Auto fuel STC was the best thing I ever did.
Runs better for half the cost. Runs out of elevator on landing with 2 people
and full fule but a 60 pound bag of sand in the baggage compartment makes my
wife or myself land like a pro.

Jim

Hello groups, just to let all you know if things go right this week i should
be an owner of a Cessna 172A With 2,600 Hours TT 200hours SMOH In
exelent cond. All i have to say is this an addiction! I belive its worse
than a drug addiction, Can any of you other owners of the A models tell me
what to
watch out for?

The pre purchase inspection from a independant a&p said it was in exelent
shape only found 3 things: 1, Nose strut seal should be replaced soon, 2,
Right side tire has nice bald spot, Said not an airworthy issue but would
recomend having it taken care of wich i will if it becomes myne. 3, 1 Thing
Missing in the Logs (well cannot find) Sign Off For Instulation Of The
Wheel Pants? Says will not a problem getting that taken care of and signed
off.

Like to hear some feedback about the first year 172's

I just sold a 1956 172. I owned the plane for 4 years and it was a great first
plane. Believe it or not, but it had an O-300A with 2600 hours on the bottom
end and the oil pressure and temps were great. Very economical and a great
plane to have. When I went ot sell it, I sold it in 4 days after listing on
Barnstormers.com

"MRQB" wrote in message ...

Like to hear some feedback about the first year 172's

I had a '59 172 (same as yours but with a straight tail). The one
thing I would highly recommend is an autogas STC. If you can't run
autogas, then lean religiously (ground and air). The cylinders on
that O-300 just hate all that extra lead in 100LL and they have a
difficult time getting rid of it. The problems manifest themselves as
sticky valves.

Use carb heat as directed in the manual. The Cessna practice of
turning on precautionary carb heat came from models with the O-300
(and 150s w/O-200). While not extremely important in the later model
Lycoming powered Cessnas, the Continental versions will make ice when
you least expect it. They do not run the intake air through a warm
oil pan, so they tend to be more prone to carb ice. I called mine
"The Ice Machine".

Other than that is a a great flying plane. Expect about 120 mph in
cruise. Landing is a piece of cake with the barndoor 40 degree manual
flaps, but beware of the nose heaviness mentioned in another post.
With 2 up, if your not carrying ballast in the baggage compartment,
you may have some difficulty keeping the nose off the ground when
landing with full flaps.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

(John Galban) wrote:

Other than that is a a great flying plane. Expect about 120 mph in
cruise. Landing is a piece of cake with the barndoor 40 degree manual
flaps, but beware of the nose heaviness mentioned in another post.
With 2 up, if your not carrying ballast in the baggage compartment,
you may have some difficulty keeping the nose off the ground when
landing with full flaps.

I never had a problem landing a '57 Cessna 172 with two in the front,
no backseat ballast, and full flaps. (About 400 lbs in the front, I
think). Just trimmed it properly.

Rob

I have herd that from more than you people telling me to stay away some say
best plane they ever owned (after vac. converstion) and you will not regret
buying one getting a lot of mixed opinions on this airplane. i like the
manual flap's no motors or switches to fail and hard top forget to put them
up like electric.

I Need to know main things to look for on this model like trouble spots ect.
any one know what it would cost to to a vac. pump conversion.



"Rob Perkins" wrote in message
...
(John Galban) wrote:

Other than that is a a great flying plane. Expect about 120 mph in
cruise. Landing is a piece of cake with the barndoor 40 degree manual
flaps, but beware of the nose heaviness mentioned in another post.
With 2 up, if your not carrying ballast in the baggage compartment,
you may have some difficulty keeping the nose off the ground when
landing with full flaps.

I never had a problem landing a '57 Cessna 172 with two in the front,
no backseat ballast, and full flaps. (About 400 lbs in the front, I
think). Just trimmed it properly.

Rob

"MRQB" wrote:

I have herd that from more than you people telling me to stay away some say
best plane they ever owned (after vac. converstion) and you will not regret
buying one getting a lot of mixed opinions on this airplane. i like the
manual flap's no motors or switches to fail and hard top forget to put them
up like electric.

I Need to know main things to look for on this model like trouble spots ect.
any one know what it would cost to to a vac. pump conversion.

I think if you had a heart to heart about N7958B, which Jeff Paulson
might have for sale over in the hangar at Evergreen, he'd be able to
tell you what's what on a Fastback 172.

I think the thing even takes mogas.

I liked it, but the ones at Pearson climb oh so much better, with all
those extra horsies!

Rob

Oh yea the ones at Pearson's climb very well. As for Jeff Paulson i looked
at his fast back 172 he is asking way more than i am willing to pay for its
condition! I found better maintained ones for much less. I feel sorry for
anyone that buys either of his 150's that he has for sale 1 has patches on
the horizantal stab and is past TBO and a stress crack on the cowling. The
other has a big ding on the prop, needs battery and interior is roached 2
diffrent seats, looks like it may need some airframe work soon! and either
leaks a lot of oil for only having 200 hours on recent OH or some one dont
know how to poor oil in it with out spilling and he wants 15k for the over
TBO one 18k for the other says he owes the bank for them but no leins on
record??? No wonder he went out of flight school business.



"Rob Perkins" wrote in message
...
"MRQB" wrote:

I have herd that from more than you people telling me to stay away some
say
best plane they ever owned (after vac. converstion) and you will not
regret
buying one getting a lot of mixed opinions on this airplane. i like the
manual flap's no motors or switches to fail and hard top forget to put
them
up like electric.

I Need to know main things to look for on this model like trouble spots
ect.
any one know what it would cost to to a vac. pump conversion.

I think if you had a heart to heart about N7958B, which Jeff Paulson
might have for sale over in the hangar at Evergreen, he'd be able to
tell you what's what on a Fastback 172.

I think the thing even takes mogas.

I liked it, but the ones at Pearson climb oh so much better, with all
those extra horsies!

Rob

"MRQB" wrote:

I feel sorry for
anyone that buys either of his 150's that he has for sale 1 has patches on
the horizantal stab and is past TBO and a stress crack on the cowling.

Great trainers!

They weren't getting students last summer. People had been spreading
the irresponsible rumor that the whole airport was closed, to the
point where people were telling Jeff at the Arlington show that his
airport had closed the year before, even with him standing in front of
them telling them that he ran the FBO there and no, it wasn't closed.
And it's still not closed.

But that didn't stop the insurance company from sending its bill each
month.

Personally, I feel pleased to have trained at an airport many pilots
don't consider themselves capable of operating out of, in airplanes
which were not pristine. Not only was the cost lower, but you had to
stay on the ball during preflight!

But if you're gonna buy an airplane from Jeff, buy the Cub! And let me
fly it... :-)

The
other has a big ding on the prop, needs battery and interior is roached 2
diffrent seats, looks like it may need some airframe work soon! and either
leaks a lot of oil for only having 200 hours on recent OH or some one dont
know how to poor oil in it with out spilling

It's probably the latter. These were student planes, after all.

We had to bang on the DME in that 172 from time to time, to get it to
work at all.

Rob

So your saying that broken & stressed out airplanes are great trainers? With
the condition of his airplanes and the price he was charging is why he was
not getting any customers and went out of business. If a flight school dont
put any money in to the maintiance and upkeep in their aircraft they are
renting (who cares about paint) no one will want to fly them. The aircraft
dont not have to be pristine just airworthy.

I think rentals should have to be maintained and signed off for repairs by
someone other than the owner of the flight school that has an IA.

If the horizantal stablizer has a stress crack's in it don't just patch it
with another pice of aluminum replace it. If the school cannot afford to do
this how they going to afford to stay in business. I would not fly an
airplane that has patches on its airfoils or airframe unless the person that
designed the patch has documentation and an enegenering stamp on the design
of the patch and the patch was approved by the manfacture for that
application. Also if the airplane had enough load on it to stress crack an
airfoil what other cracks can be hidden that you cannot see.

"Rob Perkins" wrote in message
news
"MRQB" wrote:

I feel sorry for
anyone that buys either of his 150's that he has for sale 1 has patches
on
the horizantal stab and is past TBO and a stress crack on the cowling.

Great trainers!

They weren't getting students last summer. People had been spreading
the irresponsible rumor that the whole airport was closed, to the
point where people were telling Jeff at the Arlington show that his
airport had closed the year before, even with him standing in front of
them telling them that he ran the FBO there and no, it wasn't closed.
And it's still not closed.

But that didn't stop the insurance company from sending its bill each
month.

Personally, I feel pleased to have trained at an airport many pilots
don't consider themselves capable of operating out of, in airplanes
which were not pristine. Not only was the cost lower, but you had to
stay on the ball during preflight!

But if you're gonna buy an airplane from Jeff, buy the Cub! And let me
fly it... :-)

The
other has a big ding on the prop, needs battery and interior is roached 2
diffrent seats, looks like it may need some airframe work soon! and
either
leaks a lot of oil for only having 200 hours on recent OH or some one
dont
know how to poor oil in it with out spilling

It's probably the latter. These were student planes, after all.

We had to bang on the DME in that 172 from time to time, to get it to
work at all.

Rob