Cessna Skyhawk XP ????

[Hawkxpman]

Could someone give me some pertitnent info on a Hawk XP. I would like your firsthand knowledge of the good and the bad of this A/C

Thanks, Gary

[BOHIXON]

From what I know it is a 172 with a 180 horse engine, could be 200 now that I think about it, but i'm pretty sure it's 180.

[skid]

A similar model was made for military trainers caled T41. It was a 172 with a six cylinder continental rated at 210 hp for takeoff and 195 continuous. The Hawk XP uses same continental IO360 six cylinder without the extra rpm allowed for takeoff that gave the extra hp. I think the installation is heavier than a 180 lycoming. The engine runs very smooth, but will not last as long as the lycoming and will cost more to overhaul. I think a 180 lycoming in a 172 will make you much happier in the long run, and will be practically identical in performance.

[HighFLyer]

Not sure if skid mentioned this, but the Skyhawk XP has more power because it is limited to 2700 rpms as opposed to 2400 rpms for the normal version. This is almost the same engine run in a Beech Duchess.

[This message has been edited by HighFLyer (edited 03-19-2001).]

[dverespey]

The XP has a 6 cyl continental. The engine was de-rated from 210hp to produce 190hp. The original tbo was 1500 hours. In later years the K version of engine was rated at 2000 hours. Earlier engines can be uped to the 2000 hours at overhaul.

There is an stc that can bring the engine up to it's original 210hp. This is a nice mod, although it makes this a high performance airplane for insurance purposes.

The airplane is pretty much a 172 in handling. It is nose heavier with the bigger motor out front. It hauls more, climbs better and goes a tad faster, then the garden variety 172. Compared to a 180hp 172 you'll get a higher climb rate.

It unfortunatly drinks more av fuel with those extra cyl.

Nice plane, although I'd probably stick with a 180hp 172, or just go one notch up for an older 182.

[HighFLyer]

Oops, your right. I'm sorry, I was thinking of the 180 horsepower 172. Sorry for the confusion.

[skid]

The reason Cessna used this engine for the military t41 is because a 6cylinder continental 0300 was used on 172's until 68. The IO360 continental was a very simple swap into those airplanes. Repowering with a 180 lycoming required quite a bit of additional things to be moved. I had an early 172 with 180 lycoming. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but moving fuel lines, battery, engine mount, controls,etc., takes alot more time(money) than it would seem. Changing a 68 or later 172 to a 180 Lycoming is very easy since an 0320 and an 0360 are virtually identical except for stroke. The exhaust is a bit wider and the carburetor sets a bit lower, but that is the only physical difference. And it is less than 10 lbs heavier depending on the crankshaft model.
The reason Cessna made the Hawk XP is to have an alternative to the 180 hp Cardinal which was only selling about 200 units per year. In order to provide something "new" and different for the marketing department, they chose the 195 horse Continental. One year after introduction, it replaced Cardinal in the lineup. I think a Cardinal is superior in almost every way, but does not handle like a 172 which a Hawk xp does.
The IO360 motor is ideal for some tightly cowled hombuilts because it is narrower than a 4 cylinder lycoming, even though it is heavier. The only reason Cessna used it was for the marketing deptment to have a new offering when bad press killed the Cardinal eroneously.

[jim]

I own a hawk xp, so thought i'd put my two cents in, in no particular order. As with any plane, whether it is "good" or not depends on your mission.
Yes, it is more expensive to own and operate than a simple 172, but less than a 182, so I think it does fill the gap nicely.
I have the 210 hp stc and the climb rate makes me smile on every single takeoff. When I get to cruise altitude I pull the power back and get cruise speeds and fuel burn similar to a normal 172. And being fuel injected it maintains it's climb rate, I've been up to 17,500 (density altitude about 19000) and it was still slowly climbing. Yes, I was lightly loaded and using oxygen. Not that we ever have any reason to get that high but it does give you some confidence when flying around colorado's 14000 foot peaks. So for summertime in the mountains it is a great airplane.
I have about 20 hours in a cardinal rg, and I wouldn't say it's better or worse than the hawk xp- two vastly different animals. The cardinal is great for long trips and that's all i know about that. Ok, theres' my opinion.

[Ozemale]

Just thought I would add my 10 cents worth. I have had some time in XP's, but more in the Reims FR172E with 210+ horses. This would really get off the ground in very short time fully laden, but no real speed increase over Normal 172 of that era. The main downfall of both the XP and Reims was the fuel consumption and cost of overhauls. Give me a Lycoming any day. Cheers from Down Under

[JRA]

I am considering the purchase of a 1973 Cessna 172J - Reims Rocket with a 210hp engine io-360. Can I assume that the performance is similar to a Cessna 172 XP?
Or is there some difference in the cell?I would appreciate some info since there is not much about this type of plane in the Cessna page.

[Ozemale]

JRA, the Reims is a great aircraft and will outperform the XP on any day, especially in the climb. I have a close friend who still has his (1968 model) which is in mint condition. Only drawback, is the fuel consumption vs speed performance, meaning for all those horses galloping at the front guzzling their want, you will not go that fast. About 115 knots or so. Better off with a 177 with 200 horses. Hope that you all had a great 4th of July. Cheers from down under.

[JRA]

Thanks for your hints.
I have assumed that the difference of consumption would be reduced operating the Rocket at 65% power, 9 gallons per hour, compared with 8 gallons for the normal Skyhawk, no?
I understand that the engine is a Continental 1500 hrs TBO compared with Lycoming 2000 TBO for the Skyhawk ( new overhauls now are at 2000).However the fact that it is fuel injected and not carburetor (no carburetor ice problems) and the extra safety in the take off and climbing is important for me, not being a very experienced pilot.
Cruise speed would then be 115 k instead of 100 for the normal Skyhawk,no?
In any case I can assume the performance of the Reims Rocket is equl to a Skyhawk xp, no?

[skid]

A lot of time is spent on whether a Lycoming or Continental is better. The Lycoming is usually longer lived. But when you compare two used airplanes, who had it probably has more to do with life than who built it. Why don't you fly a 180 lyc 172 and a hawk xp or reims and see which one you like better. The best deal on the nicest of what you can find is going to be the end result anyway, just make sure you like what you get. A big bill on a airplane you really like is forgotten much quicker than a small bill on something you're not crazy about. And the difference in fuel cost are usually a very small percentage of ownership cost. A Bonnanza will use less fuel per mile but you'll pay elsewhere.

[archarrell]

I recently bought a 1980 172k which is called a Skyhawk XP, or XPII (I hear the II meant it had a better radio package- which may not mean much in 2001.Mine is 195HP at 2600RPM, but can be upgraded to 210 at 2800RPM. Usually the 2800 is just used on take-off and reduced just after. Probably a great float plane. The 172K or XP was built from 1977 to 1981. I believe it was in 1979 or 1980 that the TBO went to 2000 with a better crankshaft. I also flew the Army T-41 in 1969. I believe it was a 172E. It was 210HP. I like the extra power and it does move along 120 plus knots 65% (Says Cruise 130)
I was looking for a 177, but was told parts would be easier to get for the 172XP.
About XP handling: I think it's handles more like a 182 since on let down the constant speed prop RPM, the MP and mixture has to constantly be adjusted or it'll sputter. It's like fine tuning. I hear this from other (fuel enjected) 172XP folks. Maybe after I get more time in it, I'll figure it out, but it's not like a let down in a 172 and going full mixture, reduce RPM.
If you look at the useful load on all these, the 172, the 172Xp and the 182, there's not that much difference -- especially when long range fuel tanks have been added to a 172XP or 182.



[This message has been edited by archarrell (edited 09-01-2001).]

[Bradley Kidd]

Can anyone help as to where to find the STC for teh 210 convex
thanks
Brad