Lack of power in Cessna 172-R

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Chuck wrote:

Also, there was a "burbling" sound from the exhaust.

Fuel spilling in. It's running way too rich.

http://www.sumpthis.com/docketno2001...617rin2120aa64
..htm

or

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K66442667

Paul

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:02:46 GMT, Chuck
wrote:

The prop was removed, inspected and put back on (with plenty of
scratch marks which weren't there before.

if you have
a 160hp it is possible they swapped props with a 180hp 172.

Hah! Different prop! I'd have never have thought of that, I
can't imagine props having been swapped between aircraft!
Sounds like a good explanation given the symptoms or lack
thereof...and given that the prop came back looking different!

This should be easy to trace with the serial numbers shouldn't it?

Paul

Chuck wrote:

Thanks again for your help. I'm going to ask my AME to check the fuel injection
system.

You can do what you want, but I suspect that your mechanic (A&P: Airframe and
Powerplant) would know more about the fuel injection system than your physician
(AME: Aviation Medical Examiner). :-)

Russell Kent

I think Roger Long could be on to something. I had a like experience
with my Hawk XP. Although it has a different engine than the "R", I
too had a power loss. Airplane would not get off the ground well and
climbed poorly. Flew a little slower, but not seemingly much. Had
the fuel system overhauled as well as the governor. No change.
Leaning had no effect. Compressions were no lower than 73. After a
couple shops, the mechanic found same issue Roger mentioned. Mechanic
replaced a few parts and the old plane was back. Good luck!


Mark

Russell Kent wrote in message ...
Chuck wrote:

Thanks again for your help. I'm going to ask my AME to check the fuel injection
system.

You can do what you want, but I suspect that your mechanic (A&P: Airframe and
Powerplant) would know more about the fuel injection system than your physician
(AME: Aviation Medical Examiner). :-)

Russell Kent

He'll be a Canadian. An AME here is an Aircraft Maintenance
Engineer, roughly equivalent to an A&P-IA.

Dan (Canadian AME)

I leaned the mixture for the static runup and consequently got good
results. I did NOT lean before takeoff. Perhaps that is significant.

That can be very significant on a hot day.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Ah so. Apologies Chuck.

Russell Kent

Dan Thomas wrote:

Russell Kent wrote in message ...
Chuck wrote:

Thanks again for your help. I'm going to ask my AME to check the fuel injection
system.

You can do what you want, but I suspect that your mechanic (A&P: Airframe and
Powerplant) would know more about the fuel injection system than your physician
(AME: Aviation Medical Examiner). :-)

Russell Kent

He'll be a Canadian. An AME here is an Aircraft Maintenance
Engineer, roughly equivalent to an A&P-IA.

Dan (Canadian AME)

Nathan Young wrote:
Are you sure they put the correct prop on the plane? I know some of
the new 172 series were produced with 160hp and others with 180hp.
Although you have to hope the mechanics did a better job - if you have
a 160hp it is possible they swapped props with a 180hp 172.
A cruise prop would drag down both the static RPM and climb
performance. On the other hand, you should notice a few mph
improvement in cruise (unless the prop is grossly wrong).

You will definitely feel the difference when you bring the power up for
takeoff.
The club I am in has three C172N's. One has a cruise prop. The first
time I flew it, I thought something was wrong when it took what seemed
(and actually was) a longer takeoff roll. I looked at the tach to see if
the RPM was low, but it was fine. Once leveled off in cruise, I noticed
the higher cruise airspeed and realized the prop difference.