Andrew Gideon wrote:
: Jonathan Goodish wrote:

: Agree, but in this debate there is one very significant difference: the
: extra 20hp.

: Numerous older skyhawks have been converted to 180hp. I just helped my club
: buy one, and there were plenty on the market (although they were the
: minority, admittedly).

: Most still had fixed pitch props, but I did find one example that had been
: upgraded to a constant speed prop. Amusingly, while I'd never heard of
: that done before on a 172, the owner of that plane had never heard of a
: 180hp upgrade w/o the constant speed prop.

: This aviation stuff is fun.

I think that 180hp (or the rarely-seen 168hp low-compression version of the
O-360) is a great engine for a trainer++ class plane. As far as the constant-speed,
the only thing it really buys you is load/climb. If you don't get a gross weight
increase with a C/S 180hp upgrade, IMO it's not worth the added expense. As I've said
many time before, airframe determines speed (within reason)... not engine.

Just FYI, our -140 with a 180hp engine upgrade could have had the C/S as
well... it's and option with the engine STC paperwork.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************