172 airspeed base to final?

3 in the green said:
Oh I agree and I mentioned that I do it too, my point was that 55 is not necessarily "unsafe" and in fact safer, in certain situations. Personally I'm over the fence at 60ish most of the time.
Click to expand...

I gotcha now, thats about what I shoot for. Short final at my home drome is right over trees, so I try to aim for 65 and be a bit high. Easier to slow a 172 down on a dime than the T310.
 
I've flown several different variants of 172, including the M, the R, and S. They all seem to land fairly nicely for me if I'm 60kts over the fence and 55 by the time I get into ground effect. If I flare faster than 55, I float. The darn thing just doesn't want to quit flying. With a smooth flare and aerodynamic braking, I can make the mid-field turn off, barely touch the brakes and taxi the shortest distance back to the ramp. But, on a short field, I'd better round out with the stall horn blaring, or its gonna be a nail biter.
 
James331 said:
I've never really don't a turn, always made my pattern one big oval.

Short final you want to be on the cusp of the stall horn, so depends on your weight. I'll agree with the above 65-70, slowing sown after to vref.

This is for a normal tight pattern tough, if you're flying a 737 pattern Id keep the speed up.
Click to expand...
Lol!!! The pattern is now a big oval??!!!!
 
Wow, my 182 speeds are slower than most people's 172 speeds.

Who woulda thunk it.

(Hmmmm...I wonder if that's why I can regularly go in to/out of a 1600' strip and use 1/2 of it)

James331 said:
Wouldn't say a "big" oval, but never been a fan of a huge square pattern.
Click to expand...

All my approaches are dead stick from abeam the numbers. There is nothing squared off about mine either.
 
The TSA was nothing more than a power grab and as stated security theatre. It is NOT the case that airports didn't have security before. Each had its own system and plan that was approved by the FAA. As pointed out, there's no indication the TSA improved anything. Changing the rules about what you could carry on the plane helped a bit. There's no sign that creating a new federal bureaucracy and stocking it with the unskilled people did anything.
 
flyingron said:
The TSA was nothing more than a power grab and as stated security theatre. It is NOT the case that airports didn't have security before. Each had its own system and plan that was approved by the FAA. As pointed out, there's no indication the TSA improved anything. Changing the rules about what you could carry on the plane helped a bit. There's no sign that creating a new federal bureaucracy and stocking it with the unskilled people did anything.
Click to expand...

Wrong thread?
 
These 172s , 182s are pretty docile aircraft, big wings , no bad habits , easy to fly. I don't get the mystery about landing any of them in 2000 feet. I do think 55 is slow on final for if it quits and your out there on your airliner approach your not going to make it. I was taught to stay in close and be able to make the runway from any point in the pattern should the engine quit. I did not follow this to the letter but always in sight of the runway and usually able to land without much additional power. I never did an airliner approach or many straight ins as I knew there were idiots out there with no radios, low time or both.
 
flyingron said:
The TSA was nothing more than a power grab and as stated security theatre. It is NOT the case that airports didn't have security before. Each had its own system and plan that was approved by the FAA. As pointed out, there's no indication the TSA improved anything. Changing the rules about what you could carry on the plane helped a bit. There's no sign that creating a new federal bureaucracy and stocking it with the unskilled people did anything.
Click to expand...
Airports had lousy security which is how 9-11 happened. The airlines were supposed to police themselves. They did not.
 
Typically fly downwind and base at ~70kts, decelerate to 65 on final. On short final (especially for short field landings) drop down to 55 or even slightly less. I don't really watch airspeed on short final, I feel the plane.

I DON'T fly an airliner sized pattern unless forced by other traffic.

As draggy as a 172 is, getting it slowed down is easy.

John
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
Airports had lousy security which is how 9-11 happened. The airlines were supposed to police themselves. They did not.
Click to expand...
Bullhockey. It's the airports that were doing the policing. And how 9-11 happened is nobody ever assumed that people would hijack planes on suicide missions in the US (though there are a couple of cases of it happening overseas). The "weapons" the 9-11 hijackers carried aboard were (as already pointed out) LEGALL to board with at the time. WIth the same RULES in effect, it would have made no difference if the existing security, our TSA blue shirts, or the US Marines had been on the job.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I do think 55 is slow on final for if it quits and your out there on your airliner approach your not going to make it.
Click to expand...

So in the same scenario above (airliner approach) you'd be at your 60/65 and you think that would make a difference in making the runway?
 
Good question. Depends upon where I am, how far out am I making my base, is there any traffic I'm following? If I'm strung out there far, I'll stay clean and high (i.e: stay at pattern altitude) I can always slow and add flaps close in while flying 150 or 172 and still taxi off at midfield on a 2300' runway while still using the POH numbers.
 
I haven't flown a 172 in quite a while. But IIRC I was taught; Abeam the numbers power to ~1700, pitch for 80 one notch of flap, power to establish and hold 500fpm down, turn base, another notch of flap, pitch for 75, power to hold 500fpm down, final, last of flaps, 75 500fpm down,
runway made, power to idle, and land. Works just as good in 182, and Cherokee. All speeds in MPH. I frustrate some instructors because I like to fly a close pattern.
 
bluerooster said:
I haven't flown a 172 in quite a while. But IIRC I was taught; Abeam the numbers power to ~1700, pitch for 80 one notch of flap, power to establish and hold 500fpm down, turn base, another notch of flap, pitch for 75, power to hold 500fpm down, final, last of flaps, 75 500fpm down,
runway made, power to idle, and land. Works just as good in 182, and Cherokee. All speeds in MPH. I frustrate some instructors because I like to fly a close pattern.
Click to expand...

Wow, sounds complicated, even though I flew a couple of 172 variants about 10 years ago. I like to reduce the workload in the pattern in my RV-9A, so I've got full flaps in by the downwind, stabilized at about 75 kts. Then 60-65 kts on final. The -9s are really kites with their bigger, high-aspect wings (compare to the -6, -7)....they just don't want to come down, so on final I'm usually just above idle and furiously adding up trim to get her slowed down. The classic chop and drop!...a real adjustment from my BFR rental Cherokee that would sink at will on final.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Wow, sounds complicated, even though I flew a couple of 172 variants about 10 years ago. I like to reduce the workload in the pattern in my RV-9A, so I've got full flaps in by the downwind, stabilized at about 75 kts. Then 60-65 kts on final. The -9s are really kites with their bigger, high-aspect wings (compare to the -6, -7)....they just don't want to come down, so on final I'm usually just above idle and furiously adding up trim to get her slowed down. The classic chop and drop!...a real adjustment from my BFR rental Cherokee that would sink at will on final.
Click to expand...
It sounds like a part 141 procedure.

My 182 transition instructor taught me something rather similar. It does work, and the steady descent speeds are convenient. It also works for 152s, 172s, PA28s, and even Cessna retracts (with the gear down), though the 152 likes slightly slower speeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top