Over the years weve been producing Used Aircraft Guides, only a handful of airplanes qualify for the cant-go-wrong-when-buying award and one of them is the venerable Cessna 172.
Even if you buy the most tapped out, bedraggled hangar queen out there, chances are it will take only a modest amount of money to bring it up to flyable snuff. It might not be the fastest, the prettiest or most prestigious ride around, but one thing is certain: the Skyhawk delivers enormous practical value for its highly affordable purchase price.
That more than anything else may explain why airports are practically paved with the things. During its original 31-year production run, a total of 35,773 Skyhawks were built and we’ll over 20,000 of those are still flying in the U. S. The fact that Cessna could reintroduce what is, frankly, a somewhat stale design by modern standards and still sell nearly 1000 a year says that buyers still find value in the 172, even when priced we’ll north of $150,000 new.
And why not? The airplane toodles along at an honest 115 knots burning under 10 gallons per hour, it will carry a fair if not prodigious load and if youre not in a pants-on-fire hurry to get anywhere, it will get you there reliably, if not in style.
Despite the wide variety of reader comments, enthusiasm for the aircraft is universally high.
Two readers sum up its qualities quite well: The Skyhawk is the benchmark for a docile, easy-to-fly airplane with no rude surprises. It wont eat your lunch at the gas pumps, the maintenance hangar, or on short final. But if youre looking for speed or style, look somewhere else. Said another: It is the perfect all-around airplane-economical, easy to fly, easy to maintain, stable in all flight modes, roomy enough for all the stuff youd want to haul with the backseat out or comfortable enough for four less-than-FAA sized folks, full tanks and a couple of small daypacks with the seat in.
Model History
The genesis of the 172 extends almost back to the beginnings a commercially significant GA in the U.S. In 1949, Cessna rolled out the 170A, a traildragger that became the progenitor of the C-172-and practically every other Cessna single.
The original fabric-winged 170 suffered from poor roll response-the ailerons were lifted directly from the smaller and lighter Cessna 140, another model that morphed into something big, the 150 trainer.
As production matured, Cessna fixed the sluggish roll with a Frise-type aileron to minimize adverse yaw. But this new control design didnt center correctly in cruise, which hampered the performance of the low-cost autopilots then becoming available, according to The Single-Engine Development Story, by William D. Thompson.
The author spent some 30 years at Cessna as an engineering test pilot and his writing is considered a definitive source on all things Cessna.
Trike vs. Dragger
The 172, of course, is a true tricycle gear airplane but one that almost didnt come to pass. Met-Co-Aire of Fullerton, California had already developed a tri-gear modification for the Cessna 170.
Pipers Tri-Pacer, the first trike to sell in serious volume, was a hit because it was so much easier to land and taxi, which is what budding pilots wanted. Then as now, mastering a conventional gear airplane without an excursion into runway edge ditches was a difficult challenge.
The tricycle gear promised to simplify training and it was thought to be the design of the future. But not everyone saw it that way, least of all the established movers and shakers at Cessna.
Nonetheless, some at Cessna saw that there was a place for a tri-gear airplane and they began to develop one, albeit without the official blessing of the companys management.
What happened next nearly cost the world one of its most popular and enduring designs. Thompson says in his book: Unfortunately, Frank Martin, Sales Manager, was aware of our experimental freedom and frequently made weekend visits through the shop.
The result of one such visit, during which he saw the tricycle gear mockup, was a formal order to destroy it.
Fortunately for Cessna, it was disassembled and stowed away, Thompson noted. Reportedly, the concern of Cessna management was that a tri-gear airplane wouldnt handle unpaved strips and would be prone to upset during taxi, concerns that later turned out to be bogus.
Moreover, the notion that only real mean fly taildraggers caused a certain technical and marketing inertia at Cessna, even as Piper sold TriPacers like hotcakes.
The upshot of competitive pressure and evaluation of the after-market mod was authorization of a secret development program to work up a tricycle gear version of the 170C, which had been certified but not put into production.
The R&D effort that became the 172 was conducted at an isolated farm strip we’ll away from Cessnas main operations in Wichita. The prototypes first flight occurred in June of 1955 and although it was successful, a list of concerns surfaced:
There were worries about controllability versus stability, ground handling concerns plus fear of propeller strikes, yaw or directional stability and the need to ensure enough elevator power to overcome the high thrust line, which tended to press down the nose gear, aggravating the prop strike problem.
Further, the firewall had to carry both the engines weight and the nosegear attach point, which Cessna engineers knew would take a terrific beating at the hands of ham-fisted pilots. Other questions related to centering the nosewheel in flight and figuring out how to keep the wheel from shimmying like crazy on landing and takeoff. This was all new ground for Cessna and something taildraggers were never bothered with.
The 172 main and nosegear that emerged from these deliberations formed the foundation for what became Cessnas standard fixed-gear design. The gear was made fairly short to lower the center of gravity and minimize porpoising and ground upset. A total of 2318 landings were made during the test program by a number of pilots with widely varied experience.
This resulted in what Cessna marketing mavens called the Land-O-Matic gear and Cessnas promotion soon reflected its new devotion to trikes. The ads touted that you drive it into the sky and drive it into the ground.
Unfortunately, the latter part of that phrase came to have a double meaning. In truth, getting the landing gear right was not quite so simple and it took some effort to improve the 172s crosswind and ground handling habits.
And that long nosegear stalk hanging out in the wind took a toll on both cruise performance and service ceiling compared to the 170.
The 172 as introduced in 1956 was powered by a Continental O-300-D six-cylinder engine rated at 145 HP turning a fixed-pitch propeller. Gross weight was 2200 pounds. The original 172s had an upright vertical stabilizer and a straightbacked fuselage which, to the contemporary eye, looks dated. But that wasnt so in 1956 and Cessna sold 1100 172s that year.
Then began what would become a proliferation of model changes and improvements, the long hibernation between the mid-1980s and 1997 and the reemergence of the completely redesigned model line.
The 172A, with the vertical tail swept, was introduced in 1960. The new empennage was heavier; rudder power was reduced, and directional stability was degraded somewhat. Why did Cessna do it?
Marketing, evidently. And the result is attractive, with the lines of the fastback fuselage blending we’ll with the swept tail.
The 172B was developed for the 1961 model year. The landing gear was shortened by three inches to improve crosswind and taxi handling while the motor mounts were raised by the same amount to retain propeller ground clearance.
A baggage door was incorporated for the first time and the moniker Skyhawk was introduced. Most pilots-and us, too-use 172 and Skyhawk interchangeably, and in later models the two did become one; but early on there was a distinct difference in trim and equipment levels.
In 1963, the Omni-Vision rearwindow 172D version was introduced. To help overcome the further degradation in handling, the span of the horizontal tail was increased by eight inches. The center strip in the windshield was eliminated and replaced by a one-piece windshield, which improved the cockpit view. An optional childs seat for the baggage bay was introduced and gross weight was increased another 50 pounds to 2300 pounds.
Skyhawk models 172 E through H (1964 -1967) featured such tweaks as a shorter nose gear stroke by three inches and electrically operated flaps were introduced on the 172F. Many lamented the passing of the manually operated versions because these were more precise, less distracting and easier to maintain, a viewpoint we agree with. To its everlasting credit, Piper has stuck with its manual flaps which work better and cost less to maintain than do electric versions.
Powerplants
A significant change occurred with the 172I in 1968: the Continental six-cylinder engine was dropped in favor of the Lycoming 150-HP O-320-E2D, one of the most prolific engines ever made. In addition to a new cowling and motor mounts, the new engine package got an oil cooler.
Yet according to Thompson, Cessna believed that the 172 had seen its day and would soon be displaced by the newly emerging Cessna 177 Cardinal.
So Cessna ordered 4000 engines from Lycoming for the Cardinal. But the 150 HP Cardinal proved a dog so the Skyhawk inherited the engine. It included the troublesome dual Bendix magneto which still draws the ire of owners and mechanics alike.
The 172K of 1971 dropped the famed-and successful-Wittman spring steel main gear in favor of tapered steel tubes that provided more fore and aft flexing to supposedly improve ground handling on rough surfaces.
The landing light was moved from the leading edge of the left wing to the nosebowl of the cowl which improved airflow over the wing at the expense of more complicated cowl removal and sharply reduced bulb life, probably due to engine vibration.
In 1972, the 172L emerged with an extended dorsal fin to improve longitudinal stability, making it more difficult to enter a spin. The latter was a negative for training, however.
According to Thompson (and other factory pilots at the time), there was no measurable improvement in performance, and-tellingly-the performance data in the operating manual didnt change.
As Thompson notes, Our customers typically approached and landed too fast. Not incidentally, the accident record bears out that observation to this day; runway prangs due to offspeed landings are a common accident scenario.
In 1974, cruise performance was improved through an effort to reduce drag and improve airflow through the cowling. This turned out to be a greater improvement than many of the other changes.
At 8000 feet, 75 percent cruise increased from 113 to 120 knots, although owners say the lower number is more realistic and most plan for even less, around 100 to 105 knots. This suggests that if Cessna had paid more attention to aerodynamics than to perceived market movements, the 172 would have performed better than it does, at least with regard to cruise. Environmental awareness soon caught up with GA as the Skyhawk continued to evolve.
With the mandated change to low-lead fuel, engines designed to operate with 80-octane fuel showed various signs of distress. Lead fouling of plugs and valves rose to epidemic proportions. Deposits caused hot spots that lead to premature failure of engine components. Fuel system elements deteriorated because of new and incompatible aromatics and other additives.
Engine Disaster
The Cessna and Lycoming solution turned out to be ill-starred at best, a disaster at worst. In 1977, the 172N was fitted with the now-infamous O-320-H2AD. It had 10 additional horsepower which yielded a higher service ceiling and a knot or two of added cruise speed but these improvements came at horrendous cost. The engine was a maintenance nightmare. Because of poor lubrication in the valve train, cold starts in cold weather caused tremendous damage to cams and tappets. The spalled metal tended to quickly trash bearings, oil pumps and other critical components. Engines operated in warmer climates didnt seem to experience these problems.
To their credit, Cessna and Lycoming supported owners to a generous degree, as aviation goes, but it took a long time to understand the nature and cause of the problem and to devise ways to alleviate it. More than 5000 of these engine/airframe combinations were built.
There are three major ADs on the H2AD engine and resale value of the airplane is dependent on compliance. AD 77-20-7 calls for replacement of the tappets, AD 78-12-8 calls for replacement of the oil pump impeller and AD 78-12-9 (the big one) mandates replacement of the crankshaft.
Its critical that these ADs be checked. We think its unlikely that any 172s are still out there sporting unmodified H2ADs but the logs ought to be reviewed, nonetheless.
In 1981, the troubled H engine was replaced in the 172P with another model, the O-320-D2J engine that yielded relatively good service. This is the last of the original Skyhawks. Production ceased in 1986.
A New Era
To his credit, Cessna Chairman Russ Meyer stood by his promise to restart piston single-engine production if Congress passed liability reform. It did and he did.
The Skyhawk was reintroduced in 1997 with great fanfare and a matching price tag: With average equipment, the 1997 Cessna 172R sold for about $135,000.
Although produced under the same type certificate, the airplane has a long list of improvements, including a metal panel for the ugly Royalite version in the older Hawks, improved seats and seatbelts, better ventilation, improved anti-corrosion treatment and more-or-less state-of-the-art avionics. We say more-or-less because Cessnas come equipped with Bendix/King avionics, and we think Garmin enjoys the edge in high-tech navcomms.
The biggest change is perhaps the fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360-L2A in place of the carbureted variant used in the last production Hawks. This change reduces the likelihood of carb ice at the expense of hard starting, which some owners have complained about.
The Skyhawk SP-essentially the same airplane but a different prop that allows 180 HP from the de-rated 160 HP of the standard airplane-has been a good seller for Cessna. In addition to the prop, the airplane also has leather seats. As of winter 2001, the standard Hawk retails for $154,200 while the SP sells for $161,600.
Cessna has done moderately we’ll with the re-introduced Skyhawks, although not nearly as we’ll as it predicted. By October of 1999, Cessna said it delivered the 1000th new Skyhawk. Yet when it announced resumption of new production in 1995, Cessna hoped to be producing new piston singles at the rate of 2000 per year within two to three years. It hasnt happened yet, as of fall 2001. In fact, Cessna announced significant production cutbacks due to a soft economy.
Quality Issues
Until recently, it was easy to pick the worst 172: the notorious O-320-H2AD engined 172N. However, thanks to mods, overhauls and information about the engine, this models horrors have receded into the distant past.
Its now a foot race as to whether the 172N is less desirable than the 172 through 172H -Continental O-300-D powered-models. Overhauls on the six-cylinder engine are more expensive-the Aircraft BlueBook Price Digest says $15,800-than on the four-cylinder Lycoming engines, which run $13,000 for the E2D and D2J (first and last) and $13,600 for the H2AD.
If price isn’t the major concern, the last version-the 172P-is the one to pick, in our view. It has a proven, reliable powerplant and represents good value for the money. But check the logs for an airplane thats been beat up in flightschool operations, banner tow or power/pipeline patrol.
The other side of this coin is a barn dweller, one that may have only 1200 hours of use over 30 years. That could be trouble, too, especially if it lived outside, didnt fly much and wasnt we’ll maintained.
Quality control in general has had its ups and downs at Cessna. One reader told us, The decline in Cessna quality control from about 1975 through 1979 is evident in the airframe. The 50s models have much less dimpling and oil canning skin.
However, much of the factory-induced trouble-such as the widespread corrosion problem introduced by poor pre-paint preparation in the late 1970s-should have been corrected in most 172s by now.
In 1997, the Cessna 172R rolled out of the factory doors to much acclaim. But once again, Cessna shot itself in the foot on quality control. Owners of these newer aircraft were peppered with ADs and service bulletins totaling no fewer than nine for the 172, ranging from exhaust system problems, engine oil pressure switches, missing rivets and bad bolts in control yokes. Cessna has stood behind these fixes but all things considered, owners would prefer better quality.
If youre not considering a new model or recent used, which of the many variants is best? For basic day VFR flying, an earlier 172 is a good buy. The original Skyhawk with the straight tail and fastback fuselage is the best handling, say those who know the breed.
Although the 172 underwent continuous refinement over the years, some of Cessnas ideas for improvements werent all that good. Empty weight crept up, handling was compromised and most improvements- except for the aerodynamic cleanup introduced on the 1974 172M-resulted in a performance reduction.
don’t be fooled by the higher-powered models. Aside from hot and high capability, the additional operating, maintenance and overhaul costs arent worth the marginal performance increases.
Some readers are delighted with their Continental-powered Skyhawks, some with their H2AD (modified or unmodified) 172Ns. The O-300D is unquestionably one of the most successful and comparatively trouble-free engines ever to come from Continental. But its old and it has two extra cylinders to maintain and repair.
Performance
Our impression is that people who buy Cessna 172s tend to be salt-of-the-earth types honest about the airplanes attributes and limitations. Most consider the 172 a two- to three-place airplane with room for baggage and with acceptable although not exceptional performance and range. Its variously described as honest and forgiving in handling.
Most owners say 8 GPH is about right for fuel burn, with a little more for the newer 172s, especially the SP. Allowing for leaning and other variations, most owners figure their Skyhawks to be three-and-a-half to four-hour airplanes, and most who operate them IFR use 100 knots as the flight plan speed.
The 172 can easily operate out of 2000-foot runways, even shorter if the pilot is sharp. But as is the case with many such GA airplanes, a Skyhawk will get into a runway too short to fly out of. Moreover, Hawks don’t have much-really any-excess performance in high density altitude conditions.
Loading a 172 requires some attention from the pilot but its relatively generous in CG range and regardless of loading, there are few complaints about the handling qualities. Pitch forces are the highest of the three axes, but good speed control minimizes this. Properly flown, the 172 can handle stiff crosswinds. Improperly handled, it suffers a high level of landing accidents.
Another strong tendency of the 172 family is pilot-induced oscillation. In stressful approaches, such as poorly-planned ones, or those made in gusty conditions, and in recovery from bounced landings, there’s an almost universal tendency among pilots unfamiliar with the 172 to chase pitch control with out-of-sync inputs that can cause alarming pitch excursions.
The result is a loss of directional control, prop strike, nose gear failure-or all three.Even at that, however, the 172 has few vices. It has proven itself as a forgiving airplane that has enabled many people to be pilots who otherwise wouldnt have made the cut.
One of the great strengths of the 172 is its comfort. While its dimensions arent generous, for all but the longest or widest of pilots and passengers, its comfortable. For sightseers, the backseat of a Skyhawk is one of the best places to be. Seats in earlier (and unmodified) models are somewhat skimpy and uncomfortable after a couple of hours. In later models, both the comfort and adjustability of the seats are good.
Maintenance
One well-to-do pilot who has owned a variety of airplanes described the 172 as the only aircraft he really could afford to own and operate. Most owners, particularly those whove had their Skyhawks for a few years, report low annual costs.
Depending upon the service history, the first year or two can be somewhat expensive as the owner pays to get things up to snuff. Even at that, however, few Cessna parts are expensive and there are so many 172s out there, that used parts are normally available in abundance, if needed.
Landing gear elements such as main gear attach bolts, nosegear mount and the firewall suffer abuse and also are showing the cumulative effects of age. An article in our sister publication LightPlane Maintenance offered some suggestions.
One that applies to every engine installation is that the condition of baffles requires regular inspection and replacement. Another is that cam and tappet spalling is a fact of life with Lycoming engines, with the only sign being metal in the oil.
Any 172 without a replaceable-element filter should have one installed and filters should be cut open and examined for metal during oil and filter changes. Oil analysis is a useful investment, too.
For a design as old and with so many airplanes operating, the number of SDRs and airworthiness directives is surprisingly small, even considering Cessnas problems with recent production quality.
Some serious corrosion has been uncovered in the flying surfaces, in the belly of the fuselage and around the main gear fittings of older models. This is a function of poor or no corrosion protection at the factory and the exposure of the individual airplane.
Also, Skyhawks are notorious leakers of rain, especially around the windshield. Rigging and condition of control cables, pulleys, fairleads and fittings should also be carefully checked.
Many 172s have been poorly or improperly rigged over the years. Corrosion has been found between cable strands and this isn’t always visible. Things like this tend to be disguised by a new paint job rather than fixed. The design is notorious for poor nosegear shimmy dampening. The problem is exacerbated by poor pilot technique: too much forward pressure on the yoke during takeoff and too many nosewheel-first or three-point landings. The latter is good technique in tail draggers; not in tricycle gear airplanes.
Mods, Owner Support
Fifty years ago, the general aviation industry was busy putting the tail wheel in front. Now, there are modifiers to put the nosewheel in the tail. Things have come full circle so you can now undo Cessnas work and turn the 172 into a 170.
The number of modifications and suppliers for the 172 is too long to list. Everything from thicker windshields and cabin windows (reduce noise and vibration) to aileron and flap gap seals to STOL kits and engine upgrades is available.
Its worth taking the time to evaluate the range of 172 mods available and the effects these may have on performance. For instance, additional fuel capacity is good to have, even necessary for some operators.
But the reduction in payload has to be considered, too. Perhaps a combination of auxiliary tanks and a gross weight increase-which has its own limitations-is advisable.
Some owners swear by auto gas STCs and others who have the autogas option say they don’t use it; those who like the extra performance of a more powerful engine (180-HP conversions are the most popular) and others who feel its better to put the money into good overhauls of the original engine type.One owner wrote: I considered a 180-HP O-360 kit; estimated cost was close to $20,000, or the equivalent of two H engine overhauls, a high cost for 13 to 17 knot increase at altitude.
Some owners feel flap and aileron gap seals pay off both in low-speed handling and improved cruise. Others say there isn’t any difference. Perhaps the best advice is to spend the time and money, initially at least, on careful inspection, replacement and repair of the basic airplane and its systems, then worry about mods later.
Some of the more popular mods included STOL kits from Bush (800-752-0748) Horton (800-752-8451) and Sierra Industries (830-278-4481), engine upgrades from Penn Yan (315-536-2333) Bush, Air Plains Services (620-326-8904), Isham Aircraft (316-755-0713) and Avcon (316-284-2842). Auxiliary fuel tanks are available from O&N (570-945-3769) and Flint Aero (619- 448-1551). PowerFlow exhaust modifications are available at 877-693-7356.
For support during ownership, we highly recommend the Cessna Pilots Association (www.cessna.org, 805-922-2580) which has an insurance program, monthly magazine, fly-ins and terrific technical support.
Its widely considered to be the best source of information and support for most Cessna piston aircraft.
The association runs a variety of type-specific maintenanceand operational clinics, including sessions on owner-performed maintenance.
Owner Comments
My sister, Beth Pontiff, and I both own Cessna 172s. Hers is a 1956 (N6837A) and mines a 1957 (N7928B). Operating costs are low, fuel burn is good and we have enough payload to take family and friends flying.
We wouldnt consider owning anything else for several reasons. First and foremost, we love the look of the straight tail. Couple that with a lower purchase price and great visibility over the dash and you cant argue with us.
Both airplanes are based at Culpeper, Virginia. I may have been influenced to buy a straight tail by my fianc, Steve Roth, who took me flying in his 1959 C-172 when we started dating.
He later bought a Temco Swift, but I was hooked and had to have my own Cessna. Ive attached a photo of the two of us with our straight-tail 172s.
-Lynn Dawson
Major, USAF
Culpeper, Virginia
———-
Let me first say that I have been reading your periodical since I was a teenager in highschool. My dad has had a subscription for some time now, and I have used information you published to help me decide to purchase my very first airplane.
This brings me to my feedback on the Cessna 172. At the age of 20, I had just finished up my CFII MEI and was looking for a place to work. I also had a dream of owning a machine that could help me build credit while allowing me the freedom of cheap flight.
My dad helped me out by co-signing for a 1978 C172N with long range tanks that I ended up putting on a leaseback at West Valley flying Club in Palo Alto, California. I purchased the aircraft with mid-time airframe and engine for about $32,000.
The interior was ragged, the paint was, we’ll 1970s Cessna brown. After a good paint job, ultra leather interior, some new avionics, and an overhauled engine with PowerFlow exhaust, I now have a great little trainer that pays for itself.
I have kept detailed records of its expenses since I put it online about a year ago, and have found hourly operating costs to be anywhere from $50 to $70.
This takes into account insurance at about $400 a month, $100 a month tiedown, fuel, all maintenance as we’ll as the $13 per hour West Valley takes out of the $85 per hour rental price as commission for keeping the airplane on line.
I should also note that I have seen no performance enhancements due to the PowerFlow exhaust, only a noticeably louder cockpit. Definitely not worth the $3000 I paid for it.
My Baby(yes I actually have that painted on her tail) has flown as much as 125 hours in one month during the busy summer months. Since I purchased her just outside of Chicago, I have flown here all the way back to California via a short stop in Arkansas for upgrades.
Thats when I discovered that those long-range tanks have slightly more range than my bladder. I have also taken the airplane on more than one occasion all the way from Palo Alto to
Las Vegas without the need for a fuel stop. All in all, even though I had some problems with the engine that was installed-now resolved-I have been very pleased with my experience.
I use her as the primary aircraft for most, if not all, of my students. Even though the only times I fly her these days is for training, its still quite refreshing to just sit and think of my first plane.
I am now a 21-year-old 1400-hour pilot that owes most of my accomplishments not only to my family for helping but to my little brown-and-white baby that spends her time basking in the California sun. Hope you folks didnt mind reading this long note from a kid with a dumb love for his plane.
-Garrett Woodman
West Valley Flying Club
Palo Alto, California
———-
I have owned a 1964 172E with the O-300D for almost two years and have been most satisfied. It was a practical way for me to purchase my first airplane and be able to sleep at night.
I was apprehensive about the first annual, not knowing what to expect. But the IA I found was agreeable to owner-assisted so I was not only able to save some money but able to satisfy my own questions about the mechanical condition of the airplane.
I was an aircraft mechanic in the Air Force, so most of this was not foreign to me. I was able to see and put my hands on most cables, pulleys, and various hardware and realized just how simple the 172 is.
I spend a lot of easy-chair time with an Aircraft Spruce catalogue and the Cessna service/parts manual in my lap. Obviously, the parts can be expensive, but I am amazed at how readily available the majority of parts are.
It has been as much fun learning and working on the airplane as flying it. My fuel burn seems to be about 8.5 to 10 GPH, depending on leaning and how Im flying at the time. Insurance is $840 annually as I have less than 200 hours and am not instrument rated.
As others do, I often dream of selling and going to something else, but I always come back to the Skyhawk for its simplicity, safety, and relative economy. I think when the time comes, it will be an easy task to sell this airplane and not have lost a kings ransom on what I paid.
I am presently installing a new interior myself, and it is going together remarkably well. And for the benefits of Cherokee, 172, and 182 owners out there, I found www.angelfire.com/rpg/hangarbay.
I contacted them and purchased new carpet and a complete set of seat covers, complete with cushions and ready to install for a very reasonable price. All were easy to install.
I completely stripped the seat frames, and installed the cushions and they look great. I have contacted them about the door panels and will have the headliner done next. The owner can easily install all of this in very little time without much effort.
Next, the yokes will be powder coated and the shop said they could do that for $20 each. So for very little money, this airplane will have a very nice interior. Next, will be something with the engine. Its at TBO now but I do oil samples at every change 35 hours or so, and all come back clean.
Compression is in the high 60s to 70s and there’s no oil consumption, so I keep watching and evaluating who to send it to when its time for an overhaul. But for now, I will continue to repair the smaller squawks and clean up the 35 years of wear and tear to end up with a nice, safe airplane.
-Ron Brown
via e-mail
Also With This Article
Click here to view “Cessna 172 Safety: Arguably, the Best Record in GA.”