I have a Cessna 172 which was upgraded via STC to the 210hp Continental IO-360. The performance is very similar to a Hawk XP as it provided much of the basis for the data in the STC, and I get a gross weight increase in this year model.

The comment about the acquisition cost of a 182 is very relevant. The hourly costs are marginally higher as well. However, with the GW increase in ours, the payload is similar as is the climb, though the 182 is faster.

They are interesting planes on amphib floats, though they are restricted effectively to two passengers by the weight. Good for fun and instruction, but payload issues.

Though it does come from the 175 type certificate, many parts are the same between the Hawk XP and the 172.

We recently installed the McFarlane shimmy damper but haven’t flown it yet to see how well it compares.

Great plane, much much better performance than a regular 172. I have owned my 1980 XP for 22 years now. Yes it is not a 182 (I also have one of those) but the fuel burn is a lot less and it is a lot more fun to fly around than the heavier handling 182. It will leave every other 172 model in the dust. They may look better on paper as far as useful load, etc., but performance wise with the constant speed prop, there is no comparison. The XP engine is definitely a little more complex than the 172 or 182 and over the years I have had to spend some money on the fuel injection system, but it is a good straightforward Continental system. The IO-360 in the XP did not earn the best reputation but one trick, like most engines, is to keep the cylinder head temps under the magic 400° number. These engines were known to go through a cylinder or two before TBO. History has proven that is mostly due to running hot. I consider a graphic engine monitor a must have (but I feel that way about most aircraft engines). I too have Gami‘s and have run it LOP, ROP, high RPM/MP for speed, lower RPM/MP to stay with my slow 172 buddies and all seems to be fine. I typically settle in around 23 square burning 8 gallons an hour or less on the digital fuel flow. I am familiar with owners that have hot start issues with their XP, but I have never ever had that and I am 100% convinced their hot start issues are due to underlying other problems. Mine is a factory float plane and I do have straight floats for it. They can definitely get hot fast on floats and that is a recipe for hot start issues but again I have not ever had that problem. Run some weight and balance scenarios. With the six cylinder and constant speed out front they tend to be in the front of the envelope. Especially with a bigger pilot such as myself. You may find it flies a lot better with weight as far aft as you can get it. I am a big fan of the XP and certainly know mine from one end to the other. Feel free to ask any questions if you have any.

In my limited time at the airport, Continental hot start issues come in two flavors: ignition system and operator.

The Hawk XP - I've flown both the 195 and 210 HP versions - was among my favorite airplanes to fly in the Colorado mountains.

Still own our XP. fantastic bird

when learning in it. Throw 2 cases of water at the very back of the storage to make the front less Clunky with no rear passengers.

If it fits it ships kinda plane on wheels (ours goes back and forth from floats).
full fuel, 4 people and stuffed to the roof has happened a few times!

Ours has 210 hp, No gamis.

25-25 after clearing obstacles.

24-24 for cruising. gets to 10.5gph. ends up bring WOT around 6000k feet or so. cant remember. Use less power for local flights.

cowl flap open in the hot summer, 1/2 in fall. Near closed in winter.

ours runs a bit rich at startup. so lean a bit on the ground clears things up.