Flew a 172

[flyersfan31]

Not groundbreaking news, but all of my whopping (!) 225hrs are in Archers and Sundowners. I finally got checked out in a 172 while my plane is down for annual. Know what? I liked it. It's a nice little plane. Not as cramped as I would have thought. It was a 2002 SP, so it had good performance and ergonomics. Ask me about a 70's era 172 with 160hp, laden with Royalite and ARC avionics and maybe I wouldn't be so positive. Still, a fun ride.

I found I was waaaayyy too hard on the rudders, accustomed as I am to flying planes with rudder/aileron interconnects. An adjustment for me, and a good one at that.

Still, I did NOT like the high wing. I felt like I couldn't see anything. The view down is great for pax. Tipping a wing before turning, and always wondering what's out there over you? You can keep that. It was hard to adjust to the sight picture, since I'm used to looking over the Sundowner cowl, which drops out of sight quickly.

Easy to land, sensitive to crosswind, fun on short field exercises. In all, a nice little bird.

 

[AdamZ]

Unless Tom gets another Archer I may have to do the same just to get some flying time. Sigh

 

[SCCutler]

Hey, 172 may not be my dream plane, but they are so popular because they are so good at being just what they are.

And for me, the 172 will always feel like an old pair of sneakers, real comfy.

 

[Nav8tor]

Unless Tom gets another Archer I may have to do the same just to get some flying time. Sigh

That's why I got checked in in the 172 two weeks ago. I now have six planes to choose from at KLOM vs two before.

 

[jesse]

Hey, 172 may not be my dream plane, but they are so popular because they are so good at being just what they are.

And for me, the 172 will always feel like an old pair of sneakers, real comfy.

Exactly. There really is nothing that can do everything the 172 can do as good as the 172 does it. I've flown quite a few different airplanes now of varying age, manufacturer, and power. Although many of them are more fun than the 172--sometimes I find myself in a 172 because it's the only plane that can do the mission.

It's an airplane that is so forgiving and something I can really trust isn't going to surprise me when I need it the most. To be honest I'm not comfortable in an airplane until I can push it to the limits like I can with a 172. I'm to that point with the DA-20 now but it did take some time and a lot of throwing it around in the sky to master it.

I'm kind of excited about flying the DA-40 to Gastons. I will be spending at least five hours after my initial checkout in it doing some solo performance type flying. I want to master it like I have the 172--otherwise I might just make a fool out of myself at Gastons

 

[gibbons]

--otherwise I might just make a fool out of myself at Gastons

Too late.

 

[jesse]

Too late.

Good point...

 

[Ken Ibold]

And for me, the 172 will always feel like an old pair of sneakers

Beat up and smelly? OK, I'll go with that. If I never fly one again it'll be too soon. I'm up to stick time in 43 different aircraft types. Skyhawk isn't at the bottom, but it's waaaay far from the top.

 

[Lawreston]

I want to master it like I have the 172--

In all due respect to your flying experiences, isn't the above statement a bit on the bold side? Remember the phrase, There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.

HR

 

[jesse]

In all due respect to your flying experiences, isn't the above statement a bit on the bold side? Remember the phrase, There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.

HR

Saying you have mastered an airplane isn't a stupid statement. It's when you can make the airplane do exactly what you want every time. It would be stupid not to master it. It's stupid to assume that this will happen. It's much better to know what will happen. How it will happen and when it will happen. Once you learn all of this--You make it go where you want it to go. I can't express this enough. I have watched many pilots (several from this forum) that are the master of their airplane. It goes where they want it to go and nowhere else. Watching Dr Bruce operate his twin at 6Y9 was a good example of this.

I've also watched many pilots that do not know their airplane. The airplane does not go where they wanted it to go and most of the time the margin for error is large enough for them to be OK. Someday it won't be.

I have explored every scenario I can dream up in every airplane that I can (within the realm of safety and legality). Once I know exactly what the airplane will do. I know how to make it do what I want it to do.

The problem with that old bold pilot statement. The people that tend to say it--Consider "bold" to be that which they can't or won't do. That doesn't mean it's unsafe. Remember--When you first started flying. EVERYTHING was outside of your comfort zone. Over time you became comfortable with it. There is nothing wrong with pushing yourself out of this zone once you get your license. Just don't be an idiot about it. With time what you were not comfortable with will become second nature.

 

[Lawreston]

Show me where I used the word, stupid.

 

[jesse]

Show me where I used the word, stupid.

You said that

1. Saying you have mastered your airplane is bold.
2. If you are bold you will never get old.

Call that whatever you want. But it's not positive nor is it anywhere near correct in my opinion.

Just because there are people that do things in aviation that you consider uncomfortable does not mean that they are going to get killed next week. Some pilots get their license and want no more then to fly around on a nice sunny day. Other pilots get their license and enjoy constantly improving their skill, widening their comfort zone, and doing things they couldn't before. This is how aviation has advanced.

There is stupid. But just because one pilot may not want to do it. DOES NOT mean that it's bad for another pilot. We are all grown ups. We all manage our own risks. There are all kinds of things I see on this forum that I do not think are correct. But I let those people do their thing. What bothers me is those people are the ones that try to father everyone else.

The funny thing is I know a number of pilots on here that may do exactly what I do. But they would never admit it on here for fear of being jumped by someone who thinks they are the all knowing safety god. There are a number of cool videos I have that I quit even bothering to post because I don't want to deal with some people. Instead I show them to the people that can appreciate it.

I didn't even say much. I said I like to master the airplanes I fly. I'm sorry if you think that means you are going to get killed. I really do hope that you enjoy the plane mastering you--I wouldn't.

 

[Henning]

In all due respect to your flying experiences, isn't the above statement a bit on the bold side? Remember the phrase, There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.

HR

I don't know, there's not a heck of a lot to master in a 172. It's a rather limited complexity/ability/usefullness aircraft so the amount required to master it is not that high. The biggest thing to master on a 172 when solo is sliding the seat all the way back and flying with your feet to pick up the extra 5 knots. Got that one down yet Jesse?

Besides, I think boldness more applies thinking you can make a plane do things it cannot.

 

[jesse]

The biggest thing to master on a 172 when solo is sliding the seat all the way back and flying with your feet to pick up the extra 5 knots. Got that one down yet Jesse?

I'm too short. I can barely reach the damn things with it all the way forward

I agree with Henning that the 172 is a baby that'll let you be *really* stupid..The problem is if you read the NTSB reports--there are a lot of *really* stupid pilots out there.

 

[infotango]

Other pilots get their license and enjoy constantly improving their skill, widening their comfort zone, and doing things they couldn't before.

Yes!

Making the plane do what you want is a minimum. Comfort is a very different thing from mastery.
Mastery is a zen-like place, which one can only approach, and never actually reaches.

"The great masters always regard themselves as beginners, with minds open to new experiences, the momentary adventure of life. A close-to-retirement Boeing 777 examiner, and former T-37, F-4 and F-15 instructor, once told me he still learns something on every flight. If he does, I must."
See: http://www.hikoudo.com/index.html

 

[infotango]

Beat up and smelly? OK, I'll go with that. If I never fly one again it'll be too soon. I'm up to stick time in 43 different aircraft types. Skyhawk isn't at the bottom, but it's waaaay far from the top.

Budd Davisson said, "If I could only fly 172's I'd quit flying."

I'm curious which planes you have flown that are worse, I'm guessing PA-28-140 would make the list? What do you think makes the 172 such a poor airplane?

I like the 172, but I've then again I've only flown some 13 airplanes.

 

[Henning]

I'm too short. I can barely reach the damn things with it all the way forward
quote]

Feet on the yoke Jessie, feet on the yoke.

 

[jesse]

I'm too short. I can barely reach the damn things with it all the way forward

Feet on the yoke Jessie, feet on the yoke.

I don't imagine I'd be able to see anything if I tried that. I'd rather be slightly slower and not run into something else. You'd get the same effect with the seat all the way back and autopilot on. I've done that quite a few times in SP's and I don't remember any noticeable airspeed difference. Although the SP is a slightly different bird.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I'm curious which planes you have flown that are worse, I'm guessing PA-28-140 would make the list? What do you think makes the 172 such a poor airplane?

OK, worse than a 172, IMHO only, of course, would be the Eagle 150 (a funky little 2 seater with a canardlike forward wing AND a conventional tail), Liberty XL-2, Cessna 206, Beech Sierra. (No particular order, just how I thought of them.)

The "best" list would include, in no particular order, V-tail Bo, Pitts, CJ-6A, J-3 on floats, Mooney 201.

Because it's unfair to try to compare airplanes built for different purposes, I try not to use things like control forces, speed, visibility etc -- which would naturally favor one type over another -- and instead assess fitness of purpose, cockpit ergonomics, thoughtfulness of design, and a simple subjective gauge of whether I'd want to fly that airplane again.

Sorry if I've offended any owners or enthusiasts, but like I said, this is pure subjectivity.

 

[jesse]

OK, worse than a 172, IMHO only, of course, would be the Eagle 150 (a funky little 2 seater with a canardlike forward wing AND a conventional tail), Liberty XL-2, Cessna 206, Beech Sierra. (No particular order, just how I thought of them.)

The "best" list would include, in no particular order, V-tail Bo, Pitts, CJ-6A, J-3 on floats, Mooney 201.

Because it's unfair to try to compare airplanes built for different purposes, I try not to use things like control forces, speed, visibility etc -- which would naturally favor one type over another -- and instead assess fitness of purpose, cockpit ergonomics, thoughtfulness of design, and a simple subjective gauge of whether I'd want to fly that airplane again.

Sorry if I've offended any owners or enthusiasts, but like I said, this is pure subjectivity.

What is it that you don't like about the 172?

 

[Henning]

What is it that you don't like about the 172?

For me, too light, too slow, anemic climb, low useful load, uncomfortable, have to lean for controls like throttle mix and trim. Smallest Cessna I like is a 182.

 

[jesse]

For me, too light, too slow, anemic climb, low useful load, uncomfortable, have to lean for controls like throttle mix and trim. Smallest Cessna I like is a 182.

Hmm..

I don't think I have to lean for any of those three. But because of my height (5'7") I'm pretty close to everything.

As far as useful load and climb--the short field performance is pretty respectable. I can get off in 500 feet most of the time since I am usually solo. Useful load is pretty much on part with most other GA aircraft that I've checked as far as weight per occupant with full fuel.

There is a big difference in useful load amongst different 172s (almost 100 pounds) due to the flap differences. The FAA requires for certification that the airplane can do a go around with full flaps. So the airplanes with the 40 degrees have a lower useful load.

The 172 P's I fly with full fuel have a useful load of 734 pounds. That's better than MANY airplanes. That lets you get four 183 pound people in. Considering how I am 150 lbs I can carry three people weighing almost 200 lbs.

The climb does suck though. I will admit that--and the climb of the 172 after takeoff can really bite you in the ass if the engine quits. You are too far from the runway, too low, etc. The options are limited.

My favorites out of what I have flown so far comes down to either the Super Cub or Diamond. But you get what you can get in the rental world.

 

[Ken Ibold]

What is it that you don't like about the 172?

Awkward seating position, poor visibility, anemic performance (climb and cruise), poor control harmony, ugly. And some intangible that just makes me think of a 1972 Pinto.

But I would fly one to escape Ron Levy's proverbial rampaging tribe of cannibals.

 

[gkainz]

Y'all would ***** if they hung you with a new rope, now wouldn'cha?

It's FLYIN', ain't it?

Pardon me, but I'm a bit growly, since I haven't flown since last August... for a number of reasons, none of them pleasant. But, this too shall pass....

 

[cwyckham]

I'm curious which planes you have flown that are worse, I'm guessing PA-28-140 would make the list? What do you think makes the 172 such a poor airplane?

I haven't flown that many airplanes and I only have a few hours in a 172, but the 172 is at the bottom of my short list. In fact, I place the PA-28-140 a ways above it. I suppose it all depends on your mission, but I mostly fly VFR, and I like the sense that the aircraft is an extension of my body. I can't see out of a 172, and it handles like a Mac truck.

View is really important to me for two reasons. One, I don't like the idea of hitting things (and I've had one very, very near miss on final with the high wing of a 152 being a contributing factor), and two, the amazing view is a big part of why I like to fly.

The handling is just a matter of taste, I guess, but I love the "think left and it goes left" sort of sensation I get in other aircraft. I have to wrestle with the yoke in a 172 because the stick forces are so high. Maybe I just need to hit the gym a bit more, but I sure don't feel that way in a Diamond or a Grumman or a Piper.

Chris

 

[jesse]

I haven't flown that many airplanes and I only have a few hours in a 172, but the 172 is at the bottom of my short list. In fact, I place the PA-28-140 a ways above it. I suppose it all depends on your mission, but I mostly fly VFR, and I like the sense that the aircraft is an extension of my body. I can't see out of a 172, and it handles like a Mac truck.

View is really important to me for two reasons. One, I don't like the idea of hitting things (and I've had one very, very near miss on final with the high wing of a 152 being a contributing factor), and two, the amazing view is a big part of why I like to fly.

The handling is just a matter of taste, I guess, but I love the "think left and it goes left" sort of sensation I get in other aircraft. I have to wrestle with the yoke in a 172 because the stick forces are so high. Maybe I just need to hit the gym a bit more, but I sure don't feel that way in a Diamond or a Grumman or a Piper.

Chris

Depends I think the Cherokee series handles pretty decent.. But for some reasons Archers are just terrible. Slow to respond, bugs the **** out of me. Might be the tapered wing.

 

[cwyckham]

Depends I think the Cherokee series handles pretty decent.. But for some reasons Archers are just terrible. Slow to respond, bugs the **** out of me. Might be the tapered wing.

Good point. I should have said that I don't feel that way in a Diamond DA20 or a Grumman AA1C or a Piper Cherokee. After all, I've only flow one flavor from each manufacturer so far. For what it's worth, I also don't feel that way in a 152. I think it handles much better than a 172.

I do love those Cessna flaps. I like the 172's short field performance and its useful load is more than many on the bottom end of the market where I fly. I've chosen to take a 172 when it fit my mission, I just don't like to fly it that much.

Chris

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Exactly. There really is nothing that can do everything the 172 can do as good as the 172 does it.

Except the 182.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The biggest thing to master on a 172 when solo is sliding the seat all the way back and flying with your feet to pick up the extra 5 knots. Got that one down yet Jesse?

5 knots? Really? I know it'll speed up a little, but 5 knots is an awful lot for a 172.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The 172 P's I fly with full fuel have a useful load of 734 pounds. That's better than MANY airplanes. That lets you get four 183 pound people in. Considering how I am 150 lbs I can carry three people weighing almost 200 lbs.

Useful load, or payload? If it's 734 lbs useful and you put four 183-pounders in, you're not going anywhere. (No fuel.)

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And some intangible that just makes me think of a 1972 Pinto.

That reminds me of a "new plane shoot-out" we had in Dec. 2003 at MSN. Cirrus, Columbia, Diamond, and Cessna were invited to show off their planes and there was a debate of sorts followed by demo flights.

Of course, what happened is that the three plastic plane makers ganged up on Cessna. The Cessna rep kept talking about proven designs, blah blah blah.

Then, the Columbia rep said "Who here still drives a Ford Pinto?"

The Cessna rep hung his head and raised his hand.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

View is really important to me for two reasons. One, I don't like the idea of hitting things (and I've had one very, very near miss on final with the high wing of a 152 being a contributing factor),

A low wing can be just as much of a contributing factor. High below low = very bad. Low below high = both can see. If you get low over low or high over high, one can see and the other can't. So what's the difference?

Frankly, I don't know why people argue about wing placement. I've flown plenty of both low and high wings (and a biplane too!) and I really have no preference. They each have their advantages and disadvantages, but they all fly!

I have to wrestle with the yoke in a 172 because the stick forces are so high.

Control forces? High? In a 172?

Sure, it's not a Diamond - But I've never felt that roll forces were high in any 172 (or 182, for that matter). Newer 172's (R, SP), 172XP's (R172K), and 182's have higher forces in pitch than most of the old 172N's you find on the rental line. The older ones, though, seem to be very light.

What flavor of 172 did you fly?

 

[jesse]

Useful load, or payload? If it's 734 lbs useful and you put four 183-pounders in, you're not going anywhere. (No fuel.)

If you read what I wrote. I said useful load left over after full fuel.

974 pound useful load

40 gallons at 6 pounds per gallon = 240 lbs

974
- 240
734 pounds

734 - 150 (my weight) = 584 pounds

584 pounds / 3 = 194 pounds left over per passenger

 

[jesse]

Except the 182.

Not really. I can do everything you can do in the 182 at a slight slower speed but with lower operating costs. Of course I'm slightly smaller then you which helps out in the performance department.


Or I could just get out the DA-20 and beat you with 5.5 GPH

 

[cwyckham]

A low wing can be just as much of a contributing factor. High below low = very bad. Low below high = both can see. If you get low over low or high over high, one can see and the other can't. So what's the difference?

Frankly, I don't know why people argue about wing placement. I've flown plenty of both low and high wings (and a biplane too!) and I really have no preference. They each have their advantages and disadvantages, but they all fly!

My problem was with view in the base to final turn. A guy behind me on downwind decided he'd come in and do a continuous turn from downwind to short final. That would have been fine, except that I was NORDO due to a failure and he didn't know I was there. He cut me off as I was doing my turn and I couldn't see him coming because of my wing.

I don't really have a high/low preference when it comes to handling, but I really like to be able to see in the direction I'm turning.

Control forces? High? In a 172?

Sure, it's not a Diamond - But I've never felt that roll forces were high in any 172 (or 182, for that matter). Newer 172's (R, SP), 172XP's (R172K), and 182's have higher forces in pitch than most of the old 172N's you find on the rental line. The older ones, though, seem to be very light.

What flavor of 172 did you fly?

I think it was an N and and SP. In both, I found the pitch forces in flare to be higher than I liked, even if I was well trimmed for the approach speed. In retrospect, maybe it wasn't the roll force so much as the slow roll rate that I didn't like. It seemed like when I wanted to bank, I had to plan ahead and heave in a lot of yoke. I just didn't like the feel of the thing. It's the SUV of the skies.

Chris

 

[gprellwitz]

The 172 P's I fly with full fuel have a useful load of 734 pounds.

Jesse,
Since you're saying with "full fuel", that is "payload", not "useful load". Remember, payload is that load that you can get paid for flying!

I could never remember which was which, until I figured that out. You don't get paid for carting the fuel. (Yeah, I know that it might be proper to pull out the pilot's weight too, but then you couldn't publish the number, since I'd have to shoot you! )

I think this is part of the confusion you were having with Kent.

 

[jesse]

Jesse,
Since you're saying with "full fuel", that is "payload", not "useful load". Remember, payload is that load that you can get paid for flying!

I could never remember which was which, until I figured that out. You don't get paid for carting the fuel. (Yeah, I know that it might be proper to pull out the pilot's weight too, but then you couldn't publish the number, since I'd have to shoot you! )

I think this is part of the confusion you were having with Kent.

I'm fully aware that useful load is the difference between empty weight plus oil and maximum takeoff weight. I said AFTER FUEL MEANING. AFTER FUEL. Just because I put the word useful instead of payload doesn't matter who cares--I knew what it meant. As you can tell from reading it. Why make such a big deal out of wording?

 

[gprellwitz]

Why make such a big deal out of wording?

Because it caused confusion. Didn't mean to make a big deal out of it. Sorry!

Avoiding confusion is the same reason we're supposed to use the glossary when talking on the radio. Nothing personal meant here, Jesse!

 

[jesse]

Because it caused confusion. Didn't mean to make a big deal out of it. Sorry!

Avoiding confusion is the same reason we're supposed to use the glossary when talking on the radio. Nothing personal meant here, Jesse!

I know.. I know

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If you read what I wrote. I said useful load left over after full fuel.

There's a word for that. Payload.

974 pound useful load

Seems pretty good for a 172. Nice. Our Archers are 1004 and 1006. 20 extra ponies for 30 extra pounds!