Lack of power in Cessna 172-R

Thanks for your suggestion, Tony,

I'll ask my AME to check the plugs, as well as the fuel injection
system. And I'll try the forum you suggested.

Chuck



On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:06:26 GMT, tony roberts
wrote:


Last summer we bought a 1997 160 HP Cessna 172-R. The test flight
(with 3 adults) went just fine.

Hi Chuck

Suggest you pull all of the plugs & examine them - I believe that you
will find at least some of them are black from running too rich.

I also suggest that you also post your question at:
http://www.cessnaowner.org/new/forum/forums.htm

There is a ton of Cessna knowledge there.

Tony


Freedom Chuck - The Man of 1,000 Songs

see my website at: www.freedom-chuck.com

Chuck wrote in message . ..

I'll ask my AME to check the plugs, as well as the fuel injection
system. And I'll try the forum you suggested.

Wow, your AME must be pretty well-rounded. I don't think mine even
dabbles in mechanics. ;-)

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:02:46 GMT, Chuck
wrote:

Hi, all,

All rpm indications were within spec (for static run-up, etc). When on
the takeoff roll, rpm was about 2100, which seemed low, but there is
no spec in the POH for rpm for the takeoff roll. The rpm went much
higher after we were cruising (2300 or so).

Also, there was a "burbling" sound from the exhaust.

The prop was removed, inspected and put back on (with pleanty of
scratch marks which weren't there before.


Are you sure they put the correct prop on the plane? I know some of
the new 172 series were produced with 160hp and others with 180hp.
Although you have to hope the mechanics did a better job - if you have
a 160hp it is possible they swapped props with a 180hp 172.

A cruise prop would drag down both the static RPM and climb
performance. On the other hand, you should notice a few mph
improvement in cruise (unless the prop is grossly wrong).

-Nathan

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:02:46 GMT, Chuck
wrote:

The prop was removed, inspected and put back on (with plenty of
scratch marks which weren't there before.

if you have
a 160hp it is possible they swapped props with a 180hp 172.

Hah! Different prop! I'd have never have thought of that, I
can't imagine props having been swapped between aircraft!
Sounds like a good explanation given the symptoms or lack
thereof...and given that the prop came back looking different!

This should be easy to trace with the serial numbers shouldn't it?

Paul

Nathan Young wrote:
Are you sure they put the correct prop on the plane? I know some of
the new 172 series were produced with 160hp and others with 180hp.
Although you have to hope the mechanics did a better job - if you have
a 160hp it is possible they swapped props with a 180hp 172.
A cruise prop would drag down both the static RPM and climb
performance. On the other hand, you should notice a few mph
improvement in cruise (unless the prop is grossly wrong).

You will definitely feel the difference when you bring the power up for
takeoff.
The club I am in has three C172N's. One has a cruise prop. The first
time I flew it, I thought something was wrong when it took what seemed
(and actually was) a longer takeoff roll. I looked at the tach to see if
the RPM was low, but it was fine. Once leveled off in cruise, I noticed
the higher cruise airspeed and realized the prop difference.

Chuck wrote:

it. OK it was hot but the book said we should be over a 50' obstacle
at about 1800' - we were not even close!

Hey Chuck,

Maybe those 1000 songs were weighing down the plane grin.



Michael Nickolas
www.studionineproductions.com

I think Roger Long could be on to something. I had a like experience
with my Hawk XP. Although it has a different engine than the "R", I
too had a power loss. Airplane would not get off the ground well and
climbed poorly. Flew a little slower, but not seemingly much. Had
the fuel system overhauled as well as the governor. No change.
Leaning had no effect. Compressions were no lower than 73. After a
couple shops, the mechanic found same issue Roger mentioned. Mechanic
replaced a few parts and the old plane was back. Good luck!


Mark