Even though the design dates to the days when Dwight Eisenhower occupied the White House, the fact Cessna is still able to cell some 400 Skyhawks a year speaks we’ll of the designs fundamental utility.
But Cessna has learned one important lesson twice: the venerable Skyhawk is a bit too anemic in climb and cruise for some buyers and they want something with more punch, hence the Hawk XP of yore and the Skyhawk SP in the current Cessna line.
That the Skyhawk is an able design was validated when Cessna tried to replace it with the Cardinal, going so far as adding a 180-HP engine and a constant-speed propeller. That turned the Cardinal into a decent airplane but it wasnt enough to save it from the poor reputation that the early, 150-HP Cardinals had. The Hawk survived, the Cardinal didnt.
Rather than going to the expense of designing another new airframe that might suffer the same fate as the Cardinal, Cessna stuck with what worked, the tried and true 172 airframe, retrofitting it with a bigger engine and constant-speed propeller.
It was a wise move on Cessnas part and an economical one, since re-engine jobs vastly reduce the variables associated with a certification project and if the numbers are good, the change sales through the FAA paperwork mill.
Hawk Gets Teeth
To make the Hawk XP, Cessna hung a six-cylinder Continental IO-360K with a two-bladed constant-speed propeller on the Skyhawk. This six-cylinder powerplant normally produces 210 HP at 2800 RPM. Cessna de-ratedthe engine to 195 HP at 2550 RPM, a strategy they would duplicate two decades later when the newly re-introduced Skyhawk was upgraded to the Skyhawk SP by dint of a different prop. This yielded better climb and more speed from the very same Lycoming IO-360 Cessna fitted into the new Hawk to begin with.
The Continental IO-360 is noted for its smoothness, if not its durability in all of its version. In the Hawk XP, its considered a decent engine but in the turbocharged version found in the Mooney 231, the IO-360 would hardly be considered bulletproof.
When the Hawk became the XP, the gross weight was bumped up to 2550 pounds, 250 more than the Skyhawk.
The new airplane was introduced in 1977, carrying the designation R172K. For two years, the Skyhawk, Hawk XP and Cardinal were sold side-by-side, back in the days when the market could-and did-absorb an enormous number of new airframes.
In 1977, the average equipped price for a Skyhawk was $30,050 while the XP sold for Hawk XP $38,680, a 28 percent premium. Today, the two models share exactly the same price Delta. At current retail in the summer of 2002, an XP sells for $63,000 while a 172N sells for $48,500, or about a 29 percent difference.
To differentiate the product lines, Cessna loaded with avionics and gave it a new name, the Cardinal Classic. The price was raised to $50,760 versus $41,050 for the Hawk XP. With its six-cylinder engine and additional power, the XP caught the eye of the military and the XP made it into uniform as the T-41B, serving as the primary trainer for Air Force pilots for a number of years.
The XP hit a good spot in the market and in the year of its introduction, it sold a respectable 724 units, compared to only 149 of the Cardinal. By comparison, Cessna is selling about 300 to 400 modern Skyhawks a year, with the more expensive, higher performing SP being the top seller.
Good as it was, however, the Hawk XP was dragged under with the overall decline in general aviation that began in the early 1980s. Production ceased in 1981, after some 1450 airplanes were built. Compared to the 30,000 or so Skyhawks produced, this is a tiny number so finding an XP isn’t always easy.
During that XPs production run, few changes were made. Cessna made a company-wide switch to 28-volt electrical systems. In addition, the flap speeds were increased, the crankshaft was strengthened-which carried with it an increase in TBO, from a mediocre 1500 hours to a respectable 2000 hours. The engines with the beefier cranks were designated IO-360KB.
Although Cessna did we’ll with the XP, at least during the first year, it didnt give up on a step-up Skyhawk. In 1980, Cessna introduced the Cutlass RG, a retractable with a 180 HP Lycoming and a constant-speed prop intended to be a trainer for complex aircraft operations.
In 1983, the same powerplant/prop package was attached to the fixed-gear 172 to create the 172Q Cutlass, which lasted for two model years and390 units. The Cutlass has proven to be a decent retractable trainer but its lack of impressive performance has earned it the nickname gutless. The XP, by comparison, is a much more popular owner-flown model and, in our view, one of the best choices going for an entry-level airplane.
XP versus the Cardinal
When the Hawk XP was introduced, The Aviation Consumer did a side-by-side comparison of the new airplane and the Cardinal. We found that the Cardinal was, on the whole, a better airplane. It offered better handling, better visibility, a much larger cabin, less noise, lower maintenance costs and almost identical performance and load carrying capacity.
The Cardinal was a bit faster, could carry a bit more and could take off and land shorter. On the other side of the balance sheet, the Hawk XP could fly higher and farther. Despite the lack of a clear-cut advantage for the Hawk XP, it trounced the Cardinal in sales. Such is the power of marketing and reputation.
At the moment, prices for comparable Cardinals and Hawk XPs are close to one another; average Equipped versions of the two airplanes with comparable engine times and year models are within a few grand of each other. A 1977 Cardinal, for instance, retails for $58,500 while the same year XP sells for $63,000. There’s actually a bigger price difference between the straight Skyhawk and the XP.
The recent trend has seen the Hawk XP appreciate a bitfaster than the Cardinal which is, we think, primarily due to the fact that the XP enjoys good worth of mouth and there arent that many of them to choose from.
Performance
The blunt truth is that Skyhawks have never been fast, no matter how much power you stuff into them. Its a question of drag. Those strut-braced wings, although strong, offer plenty of wind resistance and there’s no getting past it.
XP owner reports real world cruise speeds of about 125 knots against a claimed book speed of 130 knots.
Considering that the Mooney 231, also equipped with a Continental IO-360-albeit producing the full 210 HP-flies along at 170 knots, the XP is lethargic for an airplane with nearly 200 horsepower.
The impact of a draggy airframe is perhaps more clearly seen by comparing the 195 HP Hawk XP to a standard Skyhawk; contemporary 172s had 160 HP and the 35 extra horses only make eight knots or so, if that.
But the climb is better. Gross-weight climb, according tothe book, is 870 FPM, a tad better than the Cardinal or the Skyhawk and about the same as the Skylane, which has nearly 50 HP more power.
Gross-weight takeoff performance is virtually identical to the Skyhawk. Of course, the XPs numbers come at a higher gross weight, but 150 pounds of that is taken up by the heavier engine and prop. The real payload differenceis only 100 pounds. Then again, thats 16 gallons of gas which can amount the IFR reserves and then some.
Although the book numbers are unimpressively low, XP owners rave about real-world performance. One pilot swears he gets 1500 FPM at moderate weights, even in warm weather. In winter, he does better still.
Has near-STOL characteristics, reports another.
This may be a bit of an exaggeration but not by much. Thanks to that fat wing and low stall speed, the basic 172 is a decent short field machine at any weight. Adding power only helps and its noticeable in the Hawk XP.
Useful load for a basic-IFR XP is about 900 to 950 pounds. One owner of a lavishly equipped XP reports 879 pounds. With the standard 49-gallon tanks filled, the cabin load is about 600 to 650 pounds, meaning that the XP inhabits that well-populated middle ground of four-place airplanes that we’ll really carry on three people and some light luggage. If youd rather go far but carry less in the cabin, the XP was also available with a prodigious 66-gallon of gas. The engine burns between 10 and 11 GPH, depending on power setting and leaning. Owners tell us they typically plan for 10 GPH.
At mid-power setting, four hours and 450 NM is about as long as youd want to fly one. The optional tanks stretch the range to 650 NM if you can hack five hour legs.
Compared to its successor, the Cutlass (same airframe, 180-HP Lycoming), the XP looks bad in terms of payload and range. The Cutlass has the same gross, but weighs 100 pounds less and burns 1.5 GPH less fuel.
Handling
Since the Hawk XP is essentially a Skyhawk, its no surprise that it handles like one; sedate and not exactly fighter like, although we did talk to one pilot who taught himself aerobatics in a T-41B, the aforementioned military version of the XP. Roll response is somewhat ponderous, and pitch control is heavier than the Skyhawk, due to the extra weight of the engine and the fact that its mass is farther forward than it is in the Lycoming versions. (A revised elevator that appeared in 1981 reduces pitch forces.)
Although the Hawk and XP variant wont win any prizes for control harmony, the airplane also has few nasty habits, which more than anything explains why the Skyhawk has such a good safety record. Further, in a real pinch, those barn door flaps can be hung in the breeze and the airplane slowed to a crawl, vastly improving crashworthiness.
The tradeoff is that those huge flaps cause some pitch changes and theyre so draggy in the 40-degree position that go-arounds can be a dicey. (Flap travel was reduced to 30 degrees in later models). This is a typical Cessna characteristic and can provoke whats known as a trim-tab stall if the aircraft isn’t trimmed aggressively.
On the ground, the nosewheel steering is heavy but precise. And the high-wing design makes the XP susceptible to winds on the ground. Again, typical Cessna.
In short, the handling is what youd expect from an airplane based on the Skyhawk. Predictable, stable, docile, and offering no surprises. The fact that this is what owners want is the reason Skyhawks continue to sell.
Cabin, Amenities
The interior of the Hawk XP is typical Cessna, which is to say not luxurious but adequate. The panel is relatively tall and the seating position is upright. Cessna offered articulated seats with height adjustment, a welcome thing for shorter pilots. These seats are, of course, subject to the famous Cessna seat-track AD.
Access is easy thanks to the double doors and getting into the back seats is easier than on low-wing designs. Its easier to step up into a cabin than it is to lower yourself down into a pit. Ventilation on the ground is good thanks to windows that open and in the air, the wing root vents are effective.
Visibility is the classic tradeoff of high- versus low-wing aircraft. One caveat with Cessnas is that the top of the door window is almost the same level as the top of the glareshield. So there’s some obstruction to the side when the seat is raised to improve forward visibility. The main blind spot is to traffic off the wings and a little high. Tipping a wing up to see it helps.
The panel is reasonably we’ll laid out, with standard vernier controls and conventional instrument placement. The co*ckpit gripes are the usual Cessna beefs: Royalite panels that crack, vent tubes that can pop open at high speeds and the notorious ARC electronics which, despite quantum leaps in avionics, are still found in many of these airframes. If you buy one, plan a budget to allow upgrades.
The baggage compartment is adequate, if not generous. It can be accessed from the outside via a hatch-type door or from the inside over the back of the seat. Hawks have a relatively benign CG envelope so you can carry any reasonable load without worrying too much about CG.
Engine Woes
The heart of the XPs performance-and problems-is the six-cylinder Continental IO-360-K and -KB engine. Its expensive to overhaul and has a mediocre reliability record. The engines main problem seems to be that its tough on cylinders. Low compression and/or high oil consumption are not unusual.
Not everyone has cylinder problems, of course-one owner reported 1800-plus hours of trouble-free operation-but cylinder cracks, along with piston, ring and valve troubles, seem more common than in similar Lycoming engines. One owner, for example, reported he had to replace two cylinders in the first 600 hours, then had a cracked piston that allowed most of the oil to leak out. Scans of SDRs show that cylinder cracking is fairly common.
Connecting rods have also been a problem. A batch of undersize rods found their way into thousands of IO and TSIO-360s during the late 1970s, causing dozens of failures. Though most of the failures occurred in the turbocharged engines, some failures have occurred in the normally aspirated powerplants, too.
There have also been crankshaft failures. Continental beefed up the crank in 1979, producing the -KB engine. It had an improved TBO of 2000 hours. Good thing, too, given the cost of overhaul, which in the summer of 2002, was about $18,600, according to the Aircraft Bluebook Digest. The Lycoming found in the Cutlass is $5000 cheaper to overhaul.
Judging from owner reports, the XP is easy to maintain, which should come as no surprise since it has the same simple airframe as the Skyhawk. Surprisingly, despite the extra weight up front, we have found no real problems with the nose gear or its attachment at the firewall.
Typically, airplanes with heavier engines are more likely to suffer hard-landing damage from pilots slamming the nose down. Still, we recommend a close look at that area.
Unfortunately, most XPs were made during the years for which Cessna is infamous: 1977 to 1980. This was when the ARC avionics had their worst engineering and quality control problems. Also, virtually all single-engine Cessnas made at this time had defective paint jobs. Trying to get airplanes out the door as fast as possible, Cessna ignored DuPonts specifications and used a cheap, quick primer under the paint.
The result was persistent, cancerous filiform corrosion that affected hundreds (if not thousands) of aircraft, particularly those based in warm, humid climates. By this time, most if not all, of these aircraft have been repainted, but a check should be part of the pre-buy inspection.
One advantage of buying a Cessna single is that its easy to find parts and maintenance expertise. The Hawk XP is no exception. The airframe holds no surprises and its not different enough from the standard Skyhawk to cause any trouble for mechanics. There are no particularly onerous ongoing ADs on the Hawk XP.
Naturally, several of those that apply to the 172 also apply to the XP, but for the most part theyre one-time modifications that should have been done long ago.
Recent directives include 97-1-13, a Cessna-specific shotgun AD that mandates replacement of hoses; 97-26-17, which calls for ultrasonic inspection of the crankshaft and possible replacement if defects are found; and 95-11-8, inspection of the prop blade clamp screws.
Mods, Support
STCs are available to bump the power of the de-rated IO-360 back up to the full 210 HP. There is also the usual selection of flap, aileron and elevator gap seals, go-fast fairings, and so forth. Its a safe bet that any company that makes mods for the Skyhawk has a version available for the Hawk XP.
The owners club to join is the Cessna Pilots Association (www.cessna.org, 805-922-2580) which offers a magazine, insurance discounts and technical help. The Hawk XP was also available as a floatplane. The extra power comes in handy in this application.
———-
Reader Comments
Ive been a Hawk XP owner now for some 13 years and Im afraid I may be one until I die. Talk about diamonds in the rough! While I was at the Air Force Academy, I did fly the T-41D, a closely related cousin, but the altitude and USAF configuration hid the outstanding capabilities of the airplane.
Those of us who know about the R172K have fallen in love with it and affectionately refer to it as the poor mans 182. Not a bad description.
The performance, particularly when lightly loaded, usually waters the eyes of most 172 drivers. But even at high density altitudes, the airplane handles and performs admirably. My airplane has a useful load of 920 pounds and during a recent trip to Colorado Springs, I filled up the airplane and took off at 2550-pounds gross with the temperature at 85 degrees F (9000 feet density altitude) without a problem.
I saw the same results all of the time flying in and out of Mammoth Lakes, California (7200 feet MSL), taking three passengers with overnight bags.
I have been known to cross the Rockies routinely while making use of the 30 minutes at 14,000 foot rule with my wife cuddled up in the back with the suitcases and a down comforter.
The airplane trues at 130 knots without a problem at 6000 feet MSL or below. For planning, I use 120 knots groundspeed at 10 GPH-the book usually quotes just under 10 GPH-and that works out just fine. Ive flown it as far as 470 miles non-stop, but I usually hit a bladder limit before I use up the 49 usable gallons.
My tiedown in the Atlanta area costs $65 a month, and insurance runs $720 a year. Im a 5000-hour ATP CFI. I do have an open pilot rider, so I have a few co-workers fly with me to help fly it about 120 hours a year.
I usually do an owner assisted annual, which has averaged just under $500 a year, with the occasional spike for bigger parts. Because my airplane is getting old (its a 1977 model), I plan on an extra $500 a year in upkeep-replacing plastic, maybe a blind encoder, or a strobe power supply. That works out to be about $42 an hour before any reserves.
Ive put about 2600 hours on the airplane, a good portion of that from when I leased it back to an Air Force Aero Club where I instructed in it for a few years.
I did get the -KB engine mod done at my first overhaul which I had done at Firewall Forward and its a must to bring the TBO up to 2000 hours.I went back to them 400 hours later when Chevron graciously decided to overhaul it again (for free) when I topped off with 10 gallons of less-than-1 percent tainted fuel.
The engine itself has never been a problem-compressions are always 75 PSI or better, with no oil use or leak problems. While the fuel-injected Continental IO-360 has six cylinders, I think the smaller bore combined with the 195 HP de-rate helpskeep wear and tear in check.
My first engine went 300 hours beyond TBO and Im 800 from TBO in my current overhaul with no problems. The only mod I have done to the airplane is the addition of a Walker air-oil separator, which has significantly improved my belly color.
My only nagging problems have been the ARC 300 autopilot and the interior/exterior plastic. Never having been fortunate enough to have access to a hangar, I guess I cant complain much about a 25-year-old airplane thats lived most of its life outside.
The airplane did fine in the California desert, but after moving to Atlanta 18 months ago, it has deteriorated noticeably. I have recently purchased a new Avion lighted glareshield and a new windshield, with next years upgrade being a new navcomm. I replaced the number 2 in 1995 with a KLX135 Comm GPS, which works fine.
I have done a fair amount of training in the airplane, and my students have really loved it. The big engine up front means the CG rides pretty far forward, making the airplane a smooth, stable instrument platform. This does present some problems with incomplete landing flares and with a 76-inch constant speed propeller, this can get costly in a hurry.
As my 16-year-old son pointed out last month when I solod him, its easier to land when the 200-pound slug instructor gets out and the CG moves back. Since the airplane is a mean cross country machine, most of the hours have been logged outside of the pattern.
A few years ago, a Hawk XP could be had relatively cheaply. Most of then now seem to be $55,000 plus, which sounds frightening for what most peoplethink is just a 172.
Believe me, its not. You have to fly it to appreciate the steroids this airplane is on. Its a shame Cessna only built it for a few years.
-Steve Knoblock
Experimental Test Pilot
Lockheed Martin Flight Operations
Ive owned N3053V, a 1977 Hawk XP II since August 1996. When I bought it, it had a near-zero time overhauled engine from T.W. Smith and 3200 hours on the airframe. Ive flown it almost 1200 hours since then in all kinds of VFR and IFR weather.
Much of the flying I do is for organizations like AirLifeLine, Lifeline Pilots, and Angel Flight so I often have several passengers with more luggage than ought to be carried in a small airplane. At times like these, the extra performance of the XP really shines. It carries its 2550-pound gross weight easily, be it in Illinois or Colorado, winter or summer.
Ive upgraded the instrument panel with an S-TEC System 20 autopilot, Apollo GX-55 GPS and a Goodrich WX-900 Stormscope, all of which add greatly to the utility of the airplane. I pay about $1100 per year for insurance and average $2100 per year for owner-assisted annuals including parts.
The only unplanned maintenance expense Ive had is a top overhaul in 1998, precipitated by an AD on Superior Air Parts piston pins installed during the T.W. Smith overhaul. So far, one cylinder has needed rework during an annual inspection.
The Continental IO-360 starts every time, runs very well, is powerful and very smooth. Sometimes I wish it were faster, but not very often and sometimes I wish the fuel tanks were slightly larger for a more comfortable reserve in marginal weather, but again, not very often.
I flight plan for 120 knots and always get that and a little more at a fuel usage rate of 10.5 to 11 gallons per hour. In case you cant tell, I really like this airplane. It has always gotten my passengers and me wherever weve headed safely and comfortably and has never disappointed me in any way.
-Thomas H. Nicol
St. Charles, Illinois
Weve owned N758BQ, 1979 R172K, for five years and have enjoyed many happy flights, including the two loaded-to-gross trips to Alaska, yearly visits to Washington, D. C., Sun n Fun every spring and whatever else comes to mind.
Mandatory expenses have been reasonable, but weve spent perhaps an unreasonable amount on frills such as paint, leather interior, Garmin 430, JPI engine analyzer, GAMIijectors, stand-by vacuum, Strike Finder and so on.
Our annuals run from $900 for a more or less routine visit to the shop to $2600, which included repair to the exhaust system and muffler and two new tires. Insurance from AOPA is less than $1500.
Were able to cruise at 8.5 GPH by monitoring the analyzer and we do our own oil changes at 30 hours. The airplane is easily capable of 1200 FPM climb and cruises at 118 knots.
We sometimes think wed like more range, but on the whole, three hours, with plenty of reserve, is as long as we want to fly without a break anyway. Were crazy about our airplane and eager to read what other owners have to say.
-Peggy Jacobs
Huntsville, Alabama
Alice and I have owned Charlie Sierra since 1981 and I am happy to brag about her…a good instrument platform as we’ll as good cross country aircraft. But not a primary trainer. That big engine makes for a very heavy nose and will build your left arm strength.
A panel of dual KX155s, each with glideslope, KN62A DME, Cessna ADF and transponder, 300 autopilot, Bendix/King audio panel and Bose pilots hookup. Alice uses a Telex lightweight clip-on headset. Not the quietest co*ckpit around but with proper headsets, very comfortable. Insurance runs $1100 this year, up from before 9/11 with annuals about $500 to $800, few ADs. Instruments and transponder checks run $200.
The XP serves us we’ll on the Mojave Desert, with temps nearing 115 degrees and its not even summer yet. I have heard its like having a mini 182. It does burn a little less fuel, about 10.6 GPH for us. We always plan for 11 to 12 GPH, however. Oils is more than 10 hours per quart and we do analysis with each change.
I keep a running spread sheet on all the temperatures, power settings, fuel and speeds, taking the info usually half way to our destination from our GEM. Speeds are book, 118 to 120 KTAS.
Weve done several trips to the Midwest and more to the northern parts of California. This allows us breathable air up and away from the smells of the freeway.
-Ron and Alice Hamm
Daggett, California
My aircraft was Cessnas prototype for the T-41, Reims Rocket and Hawk XP. It was manufactured in 1964 and served for 10 years as a test aircraft.
Cessna upgraded it to a model R172J in 1974 and sold it as a normal category aircraft. I am the third owner, having purchased it in 1987. Its equipped with the Continental IO-360 210 HP engine which climbs at 1000 feet per minute with two souls aboard. The top speed is 130 knots. I cruise at 124 knotsat 2300 RPM and 24 inches MP.
The best glide with two souls aboard is at 72 knots which, with no wind, will glide 1 1/2 miles per thousand feet of altitude. For cross country, I flight plan for 4 1/2 hours of fuel on board (49 gallons usable) pilot and two passengers, plus 180 pounds of bags. Maximum gross weight is 2550 pounds.
At time of purchase, the engine had 235 hours since overhaul. The engine was changed at TBO which was 1500 hours. Plan on investing $20,000 for a zero-time remanufactured engine. It was painted and the interior refurbished in 1998 including replacing the Royalite instrument panel with aluminum. I added an UPSAT/Apollo approach-approved GX 50 GPS with a moving map.
Its a reliable instrument platform and I have great confidence in this machine flying IFR. Overall, I have been very happy with the Hawk XP.
I fly about 100 hours a year with an overall operational cost with maintenance, insurance and hangar of about $9900 annually.
-Steve Najarian
Newtown Square, Pennsylvania
Also With This Article
Click here to view “Accidents: VFR-into-IMC, Fuel Exhaustion, Stalls Lead Causes.”
Click here to view “Resale Values, Payload, and Prices.”
