Price!

Also upon restartin the cessna line,they dropped other good models like the 180/185.I think economics and slimming down in the econmic and frivolous lawsuit times we live in.

Tom:

I can only give you my experience with the XP: 

Ive had mine since 1999.  I bought it with a engine "K" well beyond TBO, but it still had very good compression and ran great.  But I droped a factory remanufactured "KB" in it.  When you trade in your "K" for the "KB" you will not get very much for the core return.  The "KB" also has a longer TBO than the "K". 

Mine currentlly has 650 hrs since I put it in and I havent even had a oil leak, absolutely perfect so far (knock on wood)  The best thing is the fuel injection, no CARB ICE to worry about!!!  The plane is truly a 4 passenger plane, and flys at 130kts.  Maybe thats why Cessna quit making them is that it was competing with the 182's.

The airplane is a screamer at 195hp, you can really tell the difference between this aircraft and a normal 172.  Plus if you want extra hp, you can purchase the STC that takes the engine back to its rated power of 210hp.

I have great praise for the XP.  But this is only one experience of many that are out there.

Sal

I've owned my XP since 1998. When I bought it, it had 561 total hours since new with the original "K" engine. I've now got about 950 hrs total and all is well.

I've done extensive work on it since then including paint, interior, avionics, custom metal panel, Isham 210 hp conversion, gap seals, etc. etc. It's a great plane and I have few complaints. I've had one vac. pump failure 3 years ago, and the "dreaded" alternator shaft failure this past fall. No internal engine damage, but they pulled the engine to check none the less. Prop was overhauled 2 years ago when I did the Isham conversion- though it was fine except for the # of years elapsed since it was new.

When overhaul time comes, I will upgrade to the KB engine with the longer TBO and stronger crankshaft, and was interested to read (just this morning) about the just announced brand-new Hartzell 3-blade prop conversion...I may try that before engine o/h! They claim cruise better by 1 to 3 knots, and better climb.

My performance profile has been book or slightly better, and since the Isham mod, the climb rates can be amazing. With ouside temp about 30 degrees F. and light winds, I've seen a solid 1,700+ FPM initial climb at 81 KIAS with full tanks, pilot and gear aboard. The deck angle is steep at 81 so a more conservative climb at 90 KIAS brings about 1,000 fpm. Best of all, on the ramp and on takeoff, the Continental 6 really growls...Sounds like a C210. This ain't your father's 172!

I'd fly my plane over a garden variety 172 any day!

J.G.

Hi Tom, i'm a bit confused also.  I have a 1980 xp in Ireland, and a 77 xp in South Africa. The Irish one has a half life kb 195hp mill in it and at 23/23 cruises at 115kias. The one in SA has a end of life K mill in it and seems to cruise at around 105kias at 23/23.(at one stage i checked to see had i got 10 of flap down!) The K engine, even with 1780 hours on it, has brilliant compression on all six pots.  I've never got anywhere near 130kts in either of them.  The xp is ideal for Ireland, short fields with stone walls at either end, i often loaded it to the gills and it will get out of anywhere so long as you keep the C of G in the right spot. Even with the 195hp, you can giv it full poke, pull the stick back until you have no forward airspeed, and no vertical airspeed, and she will just hang there on the prop (don't try this near the ground),  The one down in South Africa is limited with 195hp, lots of fields have DA's 6000ft>. I intend to put in the KB engine and the Isham conversion sounds good. How does yours perform with this conversion? Where can i get detailed info on it? 

Sal, what is the STC ?

Thanks and take care,  joe

I have a 77 Hawk XP with the IO-360KB engine and McAuley two bladed prop.
it happens to be for sale! I would rather not sell it but with a wife and 3 kids and going to build a house wont allow me to keep the aircraft. maybe I am selling the wrong expenses. LOL!
anyway, I run an FBO and am an A&P IA and of course a pilot. The hawk XP here in wisconsin loves the cold air this time of year. I give a lot of my customers rides and they cant believe the performance. with full fuel and two people and at 900ft AGL. it easily climbs out at 2000 ft per min and still 8 knots above VX.
with four and full fuel it still will do 1500 ft per min.
an earlier post mentioned the continental engines, dont be confused between the older O-300 6 cyl. continental and the larger cont. engines. the older cont. engines were good engines but I have never seen one that didnt leak oil. not to mention lack of power. when cessna switched to the lycomings it was a huge improvement in power, and if maintained correctly no leaks. from my experience with the larger engines a continental is much easier to work on than the larger Lycomings. again this is my preference
not saying it to be a fact.
The XP was mainly designed for floats with the 3 blade prop and upgradable 210 HP engine. is was derated mainly for insurance. I have a 2002 piper (sorry) senecca 5 in my shop with the same KB engine of course this has turbo.
my opinion is its a great performer without the expense of a 182 and demand.
also looks and flies like a 172, just more cruise speed and amazing climb.
Louis

Just a few bits of info..

The Type certificate 3A17 was originally certified with the Cessna 175 as its meaning. The 175 was built, as many know, with the Continental GO-300 175HP engine. Not a stellar performer but a significant improvement over the O-300 in the 172's at the time. Due to problem with maintenance and TBO issues, the 175's popularity waned in the early 60's and was phased out after the P172D " Skyhawk Powermatic" only sold 65 models. Later, cessna "got the picture" and came out with the R172 and the T-41 on the same Type certificate, this time armed with the IO-360 210HP engine, which is what the 175 should have came out within the first place, but in a rush, Continental had devised the geared idea. The T-41 and R172 airframes were possibly beefed up a little and had a higher rated mximum continuous cruise rating than the 175. Interestingly, the Hawk XP with the derated RPM governor has an even higher rated max cruise- 129 kts. I guess they cleaned up the footprint of the Hawk over the R172- I don't know why its rated higher. The XP has the highest Gross weight of any 17X series aircraft that I know of- 2550lbs. over the 175C's 2450.

I have just purchased a 175 Skylark "XP" that will arrive next week. It has the Continental IO-360-C. I am looking forward to flying it.

These birds had Continentals from the go, Lycoming was the afterthought. - to address the question in the first post. It was, in fact, a Lycoming/Continental Duel that birthed the GO-300.

I think that the Lycoming has a public opinion that is slightly higher than Continental. I think the 4 cylinder is thought to be less expensive to maintain and possible "more" reliable. Wether this is true I don't know, but apperently Cessna has a taste for Lycomings these days. There will soon be an STC for the 175 to run the Lycoming 200HP IO-360.

I'm going with the Continental, though. I like having 6 cylinders.

Kristopher

But, If Cessna and Whirlpool should have a merger will the company be called Cesspool?  lol

Frank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi,
    I live in australia and was wondering if some one can give me some leads on buying a new motor for my XP Hawk, an exchange one or a new one
                            Thanks
                                Bruce

I need advice.

Just purchased a 1977 hawk xp...taking it to the paint shop and am trying to decide if I want to modify it with the Isham 210hp conversion, while it is down.  I will be flying in flat terrain.  Do I need it??? Is it a drastic improvement over the 195hp climb???? Any increase in cruise speed? Any advice would be appreciated..

I have had my Hawk XP11 for about five years now.  It has the K engine and about 1150 hours total time since new.  A couple of years ago I had a set of GAMI injectors installed.  Now, I can cruise at 50 degrees lean of peak at about 60% power and burn about 7 GPH.  True, the air speed drops and if you need to go fast, you can.  These are great little airplanes and I highly recommend them.  Mine is a 77 and I have replaced most of the plastics and painted the rest.  The interior looks like new.  The paint is original and still is decent and takes a polish.

These planes literally jump off the runway, even here in Arizona with high density altitude.  Landing roll is short and I can usually turn off at the first exit.  Maintenance costs seem about average.  You don't see very many of them and most people never heard of them.  For anyone in the market for an older 172, a nice low time one would be just the ticket.