(Paul) wrote in message om...

What has been the expierience of owners of Cessna 172Ns with this
engine?

I recently joined a partnership that's owned a 172N since new. One
partner, who entered the partnership three years into the life of the
plane said they went through two rounds of very serious engine work
(major-overhaul scale IIRC) very early in its life. It's now over 1800
on the tach (equal to ~2000 Hobbs) and the compressions are starting
to weaken but it's otherwise purred like a kitten for close to 20
years. My old CFII who owns a 172N also with plenty of hours on it has
suggested that he'd merely top it and reasonably look to get another
400-500 hours before majoring it.

We do 50-hour oil changes and send the oil for analysis at every one.
The plane is flown regularly in summer, intermittently the rest of the
year, though I think everyone is pretty careful about preheating.
Other than that I can't say it's been babied at all, except that it's
never been a trainer, which is saying something in a 172.

Lycoming joked that they'd never make an engine with the word "AD" in
it again. Overall I've never noticed any difference in values of 172s
based on this engine. My impression has been that it had a lot of
problems early on that have long since been addressed, though another
poster here had some interesting tips about ongoing maintenance I
haven't heard before. Worth looking into.

Broadly speaking the enduring value and popularity of every kind of
Skyhawk tells you something. If I was doing it again I'd look for a
180HP one with an autopilot and an IFR GPS and then I wouldn't have
gotten bigger-faster-plane-fever quite so quickly, perhaps. I'd also
look for a mid-time engine that's built its time over no more than 10
years. Of course, if I'd waited for that, I wouldn't own anything
right now as career changes made 1/5th of a 172 almost more than I can
afford.

Best,
-cwk.