172's are awesome

Salty

Salty

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
14,289
Location
FL
Display Name
Display name:
Salty
The title is mostly just to tweak @Tantalum, but seriously, I flew a 0-300 powered 172 yesterday for an hour and really enjoyed it. I still think it's a fun plane if you don't have anywhere serious to go. Was super high when I turned final, threw out those flaps and rode the elevator down to the numbers. I'd have been full rudder slip in my Mooney on that approach and still wouldn't have hit the numbers. It is ridiculously easy to fly, so not the plane if you're looking for a challenge. It's been years since I flew one but it still fit like a glove.

PS> It doesn't hurt that it didn't cost me anything. ;)
 
So this was the 145-hp, 6-cylinder Franklin engine? I've been in a couple powered by that. It's so smooooth.

I mean, the plane only goes 100 mph, but that engine sure runs nice.

I got a guy about halfway through his instrument rating in one. Venturi and all. Then he bought a Comanche and we basically had to start over! :D
 
it's a 6 cylinder Conti. Was fun to fly a plane without the gadgetry too, not only no GPS, it didn't even have a CDI.
 
Yeah that's what I meant. Was getting the Franklin confused with something else I've flown. Probably the Stinson 108. The rest is true though - a nice smooth engine!
 
Some of my most fun flying was in swept tail 172's with a tailwheel conversion. I look back very fondly on those flights in that plane.
 
Awesome? Funny... more like "adequate", but they can be fun at times. I still remember my first solo flight in a 172, a 1978 N model; stepping up from a C-150, it felt huge, like an airliner.

I hadn't flown a 172 in 15 years, but earlier this month I broke that dry spell and flew a '73 M. It was... interesting. I'd started the day by bumming a ride in a buddies RV-14 to Dallas to pick up the CAF Curtiss Helldiver and fly that to Conroe, TX. I then hopped in the B-17 to do a revenue ride flight. That evening another dude needed someone to fly his 172 to Ellington... well, sure I will, I'll fly anything! Except maybe an Ercoupe, never had any interest in those. So it was an interesting day going from RV-14 to SB2C to B-17 to C-172; the Skyhawk, even with a 180hp engine upgrade, was underwhelming... but still kinda fun. Like riding a moped I guess?
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Some of my most fun flying was in swept tail 172's with a tailwheel conversion
Click to expand...
I had no idea such a thing existed.. any pics?

Salty said:
The title is mostly just to tweak @Tantalum, but seriously, I flew a 0-300 powered 172 yesterday for an hour and really enjoyed it. I still think it's a fun plane if you don't have anywhere serious to go. Was super high when I turned final, threw out those flaps and rode the elevator down to the numbers. I'd have been full rudder slip in my Mooney on that approach and still wouldn't have hit the numbers. It is ridiculously easy to fly, so not the plane if you're looking for a challenge. It's been years since I flew one but it still fit like a glove.
Click to expand...
HA! They're fun for an occasional ride. I get a few 172 flights per year, sadly our nicest "fun local" planes in the club are 172, the PA-28 are pretty worn (aside from a select few). Like you said, it's a fun plane if you don't have anywhere serious to go. Just a few weeks ago I was at FLABOB in a 172N (no 180 conversion) but it had the powerflow exhaust, it flew real nice I must say.
 
@Dan Thomas and @Mtns2Skies thanks! I had heard rumors of at least a few PA-28 tail conversions, namely N8430W.. now I know swept tail 172 conversions exist too
 
What is it with those tailwheel conversions? To me the main gear doesn't look quite right. I don't know if it's the angle of the gear legs or the length. Something just looks weird.

Maybe it just me.
 
Tantalum said:
@Dan Thomas and @Mtns2Skies thanks! I had heard rumors of at least a few PA-28 tail conversions, namely N8430W.. now I know swept tail 172 conversions exist too
Click to expand...
Some older straight-tail 172s were converted; they could almost pass for 180s. And there's a taildragger conversion for the 150 as well.

upload_2021-11-29_21-24-47.jpeg

proxy-image


And then I found this:

upload_2021-11-29_21-29-51.jpeg
 
The guys in the mx hangar call them the "vampire" 172's with the dual exhausts.

I've never actually flown a 172. I'm trying to get into a local club with an "m" model, but the guy doesn't ever want to email me back, which is a bad sign.

There's something to be said for slow & simple. I remember learning to fly in the archer & feeling like I'd never catch up to it. Now I feel like I could write a book waiting for the damn thing to float down final.
 
saddletramp said:
What is it with those tailwheel conversions? To me the main gear doesn't look quite right. I don't know if it's the angle of the gear legs or the length. Something just looks weird.

Maybe it just me.
Click to expand...

not just you. I think they look odd too. I suppose if you can't find a proper 170, then it might just do...but yeah.

I too am a fan of the 172....as Cessna intended them anyway....
I suppose I'm partial since most of my time is in 172's...most in 172N. Although the last couple I rented were old tired dogs that really needed some serious help
 
They would look better without those awful struts.
 
l8evator said:
See Cessna C-34, C-37, C-38, C-145, C-165, C-190, C-195.
Click to expand...
Were any of those trikes to start with? Nope.

But yes, they were cantilevered-wing airplanes. I had forgotten them. The 180 (1953), was a regression in that way. Still, those early 180s were really light and flew well. I have some time in serial number 4, which was, supposedly, the oldest 180 still flying. Its empty weight was less than a couple of the 172Ms we had in the flight school.
 
Must be something wrong with me. I don't miss flying in trainers at all, not even one little bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top