Cessna 172K

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
I was finally lucky enough to go on a flight with a local pilot next saturday. I checked out his airplane and it is a 1969 Cessna 172K. The aircraft looks like something in between a 172 and a 182. This aircraft is not in production anymore. Has anyone ever flown in one of these?
 
[ QUOTE ]
The aircraft looks like something in between a 172 and a 182. This aircraft is not in production anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brian -

A 172K is a 172 (not to be confused with the larger and more powerful 182). The 172 has gone through many different variations, but all of them have essentially kept the same wings and fuselage (essentially).

It will fly like most all other 172's--stable.
 
Was it a C172K or was it the R172K(Hawk XP). The Hawk XP is a fun airplane to fly. It is like a 172 on steriods with 195 horsepower and a constant speed prop. The one I used to fly had a STOL kit, and I could be up to traffic pattern altitude before the end of the 5000 foot runway at SUS.
 
One of my coworkers owns a 172XP and SUSPilot is right, it's a fun plane to fly. His is very well equipped (GNS 430, Stormscope, etc). He just passed his commercial ride so we've flown with each other a bit to compare notes on maneuvers, etc, and I'm sure we'll do more as he will also be doing his CFI about the same time as me. Great airplane, it really is kind of a hybrid 172/182.

Sarah
 
Yes, we have one available where I fly. Great airplane!

We're talking a CE-172K Hawk XP, a Cessna 172 with a constant speed prop and a 195 HP engine (although I've seen them with as much as 210 HP). Like a 182, it has cowl flaps, an engine-driven fuel pump, and a bunch of other hight performance systems.

It's become my airplane of choice for shorter trips into the Colorado mountains. Within it's weight and balance envelope it will outperform a 182 on takeoff at very high density altitudes.
 
Its going to be a 150hp C172 unless he did an engine conversion on it because the 160hp engine was put in the plane starting with the N model, but it is not the R172K we were talking about.
 
actually the older 172's had 0-300 Continental engines producing 145hp.


this one might have a lycoming in it though because of only one exhaust pipe, usually the continentals have two exhaust pipes, one on each side of the cowling.


they definatly were not a full tanks full seats airplane thats for sure.
 
In the registry it says it has a Lycoming, so it shold be a 150 with that model year if it is a Lycoming, The straight tail had the 145 Continental, With the new body design they went to the Lycoming O-320 150hp, in the N Model they switched to the 160hp version of the 0-320, In the R they switched to the 160 hp IO-360, and the S has the 180hp IO-360.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Mark -

It looks like, according to the tail number, it is not an XP, but rather a 160hp 172K.

[/ QUOTE ]Looking at it I agree. But he did say that it looked like a cross between a Skyhawk and a Skylane and that's a usually pretty good description of a Hawk (although I have seen "normal" 172s with a constant speed prop)
 
[ QUOTE ]
The straight tail had the 145 Continental, With the new body design they went to the Lycoming O-320 150hp

[/ QUOTE ]


there were some new body ones with continentals though.

1965F

1966G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top