Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Cessna 175 vs early 172

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Y-K Delta
    Posts
    30

    Default Cessna 175 vs early 172

    Do any of you know what, if any, the significant differences between a 175 airframe and an early model 172 airframe are? I know it's a completely different plane without many interchangeable parts, but I don't have a good understanding if there are any performance differences in the airframe. Basically, if they both had 180hp engines would there be any real difference? I heard from someone that the wing area is larger on a 175 but haven't verified that.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    I believe they're nearly identical airframes. The 172 had a 145hp Continental direct drive engine and the 175 got a high-revving version for 175hp and needed a gear reduction drive for the prop.

  3. #3
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinw94 View Post
    Basically, if they both had 180hp engines would there be any real difference? I heard from someone that the wing area is larger on a 175 but haven't verified that.
    I think aerodynamically the wings are the same. Differences are said to be internal; different spar spacing and slightly more fuel capacity in the 175.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  4. #4
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,218

    Default

    Cessna shot themselves in the foot with the C-175 Skylark. They were basically competing with themselves.
    As mentioned above, both used a 0-300 six cylinder engine, however the C-175 had a reduction gear driving the prop so they could run the engine RPM way up and allow the normally 145 horse engine to develop 175 horses at 3,200 RPM.

    I was always told the the skins of the C-175 wings were slightly thicker skin metal than the C-172s of the same period.

    The 1961 Cessna 172 Shyhawk was listed as weighing 1325 pounds empty. The 1961 C-175 Skylark was listed as weighing 1395 pounds empty.

    The 1961 Cessna 172 had a legal gross weight of 2,200 pounds while the Cessna 175 Skylark had a legal gross weight of 2,350 pounds. The last version of the C-175 had a gross weight over 2,400 pounds.

    The 1961 C-172 has 42 gallons as standard tanks and the same year Skylark (175) had 52 gallons as a standard fuel load.
    For some reason the GO-300 geared engine in the C-175 Skylark also had a larger oil-pan for 10 quarts of oil as opposed to 8 quarts in the same year C-172.

    The wingspan and total lengths are the same for both types.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Y-K Delta
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Thanks guys. It does seem slightly curious that they'd come up with the Skylark when they seemingly could have just put their geared engine on a 175 with modifications.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •