The 172M is slow but quick off the ground.
The 172N is fast but slower off the ground.
The 172P is faster again but slower again off the ground.
We have owned all of them, flown them all extensively.
@WilliamF after forty years all these airframes have their unique features.
Richard Collins went on a crusade in the mid 1970’s, in part because of the oil crisis, to show a 172 was a practical business transport. Recall that as a senior Editor of Flying magazine, with his home in Little Rock Arkansas, that 172 put on a lot of air miles.
He regarded 120 KTAS as a minimum for IFR, and in fact N40RC (subsequently N40RG when he transferred the registration to his P210), was a brand new 172M, with the improved clean up that delivered the 120 KTAS at 75%.
The 172N had the problematic -H2AD engine, which through the mystery of nominative determinism resulted in an expensive AD :)
I suspect this has been resolved but it seems there is always more Ns available than M, P, R or S.
I’ve often heard that figure of 120kts. The 172 can be tuned up for sure, maybe I’ve only had higher hours ones but they were never that fast. They all vary a lot, but watching them all take off in grass is interesting. The same way all the aeroplanes put on weight over the years, they all slowed down with antennas/weight/rigging issues.
I would expect a P to be the one to do 120kts, my partner has one mint low timer example that can indicate 115kts. I’ve had M models that sat at 95kts.
Our flying club in Houston had a 172N (virtually from brand new, it was lost in a hangar collapse during a hurricane a few years ago). I quite liked flying behind the H2AD, but wouldn’t necessarily want to own one :-) At the same power setting it was about 1USG per hour better on fuel than the O-320-B3B, I could reliably get 6.7GPH block to block.
WilliamF wrote:
The 172M is slow but quick off the ground.
The 172N is fast but slower off the ground.
We had both M and N in our club. I can confirm your observations. The N was also a bit smoother, not as many vibrations. But for grass strips I pick the M any day.
I think we missed this one :
https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=50626
PA-22 Tri-pacer, 38k asked.
Does someone 1m92 tall fit in a tri-Pacer, without bowing his back to see outside ?
Jujupilote wrote:
Does someone 1m92 tall fit in a tri-Pacer, without bowing his back to see outside ?
I am 183cm and fit on in one, up for 50/50 if we put the tailwheel STC on it? 
A Tri-Pacer for €38K would need to be exceptional, in the top few percent in terms of condition and engine status.
They are are practical plane with pretty good performance for their power, and based on my experience somebody 1.92 m tall would fit.
Ibra wrote:
up for 50/50 if we put the tailwheel STC on it?
You are not aware of my tailwheel non-ficiency
This could be a great deal. 1954 PA-20, O-320 4 seater.
349kg UL and reported to be pretty fast.
planecheck_SE_BZT_51787_pdf
