C172 first impressions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C172 first impressions.
I had the opportunity today to fly a C172 for the first time (with an instructor). For the last 4 years I've been flying an Archer III, but having completed my PPL on a C152 I was expecting it to be fairly familiar, but I was wrong. This Cessna was very new (less than 6 months old) so everything worked as it should and up until now I've considered hiring the 172 as it's a bit cheaper.
Firstly, I found the rudder pedals weren't deep enough into the foot wells. I had to sit so far back that it felt as though the instrument panel was almost out of my reach.
Next surprise was the flight controls... very odd! During the flight control check on the ground, it felt as though the yoke was rigged with springs for some kind of force feedback. This was very apparent in the final approach and flare, it just felt as though there was no feeling in pitch or roll. It was almost like flying an instrument trainer.
Next the flaps! My goodness, I had to apply a huge amount of power to maintain the approach speed. Even with flaps 20, trying to climb after a go-around was a real slog!
And then there's the nose-wheel steering, horrible! It was so mushy and unresponsive, I was all over the taxiway. I don't ever remember the 152 being that hard to taxi.
But it's not all bad. Having two doors makes life much easier, and the view down from a high wing is certainly very unique.
I'd be interested to know what other people think of the 172. Especially if you were previously a Piper driver.
Firstly, I found the rudder pedals weren't deep enough into the foot wells. I had to sit so far back that it felt as though the instrument panel was almost out of my reach.
Next surprise was the flight controls... very odd! During the flight control check on the ground, it felt as though the yoke was rigged with springs for some kind of force feedback. This was very apparent in the final approach and flare, it just felt as though there was no feeling in pitch or roll. It was almost like flying an instrument trainer.
Next the flaps! My goodness, I had to apply a huge amount of power to maintain the approach speed. Even with flaps 20, trying to climb after a go-around was a real slog!
And then there's the nose-wheel steering, horrible! It was so mushy and unresponsive, I was all over the taxiway. I don't ever remember the 152 being that hard to taxi.
But it's not all bad. Having two doors makes life much easier, and the view down from a high wing is certainly very unique.
I'd be interested to know what other people think of the 172. Especially if you were previously a Piper driver.
Each airplane is a little different. We tend to gravitate toward that which we know best. I learned to fly in a J-3 cub, and found it more enjoyable and comfortable than most others, at first. Soon I found that the differences are really quite minor, as you'll find given a little time and experience in different airplanes.
Still, when paying the ridiculously high rental fees these days, you're not paying to be uncomfortable...find what works best for you.
If the controls feel a little heavy, try using more rudder or trim. You will find a little difference in the feel between a flying tail and simply moving an elevator, but again, the perceived differences go away quickly.
The 172 is a dirt simple, easy to fly, comfortable small airplane with no bad habits, simple systems, that can be landed about anywhere, flown from about anywhere, and is easy to maintain, good on fuel, has excellent visibility, and exists in larger numbers than nearly any other light airplane...it's a prove design globally. It may not be for everyone.
Still, when paying the ridiculously high rental fees these days, you're not paying to be uncomfortable...find what works best for you.
If the controls feel a little heavy, try using more rudder or trim. You will find a little difference in the feel between a flying tail and simply moving an elevator, but again, the perceived differences go away quickly.
The 172 is a dirt simple, easy to fly, comfortable small airplane with no bad habits, simple systems, that can be landed about anywhere, flown from about anywhere, and is easy to maintain, good on fuel, has excellent visibility, and exists in larger numbers than nearly any other light airplane...it's a prove design globally. It may not be for everyone.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver Island
Age: 39
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
correction, maximum recomended is 10 degrees flaps.
and the approach power... id hazard a guess u were too low on approach... ive never had that problem
JohnGV
and the approach power... id hazard a guess u were too low on approach... ive never had that problem
JohnGV
HHHMMMM.... the part about flaps.... u shouldnt have been climbing at 20 degrees flaps, maximum permissible in a climb is 10!
Ever had the flaps fail to retract during a go-around due to a switch or microswitch failure? I sure have. Knowing how to fly with something other than climb flaps at that point may be important.
Moderator
Enjoy the differences. One of the most important things you will learn in flight training is how to be ready to adapt to a somewhat, or totally different aircraft, and all of it's characteristics. I'm sure that you'd agree that a 172 is a pretty tried and true design by now! You will be much more valuable to an employer, or welcomed by the owners of other rental types, if you can manage the differences with ease.
If you fly it with enthusiazim, you will find the 172 a little more agile that a PA-28. At the edges of performance, it might offer a little more margin for error. I have some examples in mind, but the other posters here will jump me for sure!
The flaps on just about any Cessna you're likely to find yourself flying are much more effective than the flaps of any Piper you'll likely find. That's okay, it's how it was designed. They are a little startling, particularly at 40 degrees (if yours go that far - depends upon year). Bear in mind that the aircraft has demonstrated the ability to "go around" at full gross with a failed flap system, meaning that you're going to fly the whole circuit with full flaps. In the case of older 172's this would be 40 degrees. I have demonstrated this during design change flight tests many times, as it is a requirement. I have had night electrical failures during approach (including lost the landing light) and thus gone around with full flaps 'till I got it worked out. It is a real world situation, and I hope a part of a proper checkout for you.
The nosewheel steering has a shock absorbing system included, which the Piper does not. Which is better? It's up to your preferences. With practice, and some additional thinking ahead, you'll taxi the 172 right down the centerline just as you would a Piper. The differencs? The Cessna is not streering the nosewheel in flight. When (not if) you have a nosewheel shimmy, those unpleasent, harmful forces are not transmitted through the entire rudder control system trying to tear your rudder off. If you are cross controlling during takeoff or landing, the Cessna will let you away with it, the Piper will chirp the nosewheel and yaw if you have too much pedal in. In a twin, the Piper system has advantages, like you CAN taxi in on one engine without going in circles! If the particular 172 you are flying has had the nose oleo inflated too much, nosewheel steering will be difficult or impossible. If this is the case, to take it back the ramp for the maintenance it requires, jump on the brakes quickly (nose comes down), and steer, it'll go. As a part of your preflight, to check for this, have a QUALIFIED person push the tail down, and watch the nosewheel, if it does not extend further, do not fly.
The controls have no springs. It's all you and the sky. The elevator/stabilizer combination of the 172 does have a different feel to that of the stabilator of the Piper. The Piper stabilator system does have a servo tab, and some models, bob weights, so they have their own "feel". A Piper Aztec "F" model has a funny bob weight system, which make the control forces very light near the middle of the range, and over controlling is easy when you're new at it.
You will find the short field capabilities of the 172 very rewarding compared to the Piper. Get compotent training for this, before trying on your own.
When taxiing on soft or contaminated ground, consider the use of 15 degrees of flap, holding the controls all the way back, and a bit more power than usual. The nose will come way up, and the person who would have to pay for propeller damage will appreciate you. Do not apply full power in this configuration though, particularly with an aft C of G, or the person who pays for the tail tiedown ring will not appreciate you!
Have fun, learn them all!
Pilot DAR
If you fly it with enthusiazim, you will find the 172 a little more agile that a PA-28. At the edges of performance, it might offer a little more margin for error. I have some examples in mind, but the other posters here will jump me for sure!
The flaps on just about any Cessna you're likely to find yourself flying are much more effective than the flaps of any Piper you'll likely find. That's okay, it's how it was designed. They are a little startling, particularly at 40 degrees (if yours go that far - depends upon year). Bear in mind that the aircraft has demonstrated the ability to "go around" at full gross with a failed flap system, meaning that you're going to fly the whole circuit with full flaps. In the case of older 172's this would be 40 degrees. I have demonstrated this during design change flight tests many times, as it is a requirement. I have had night electrical failures during approach (including lost the landing light) and thus gone around with full flaps 'till I got it worked out. It is a real world situation, and I hope a part of a proper checkout for you.
The nosewheel steering has a shock absorbing system included, which the Piper does not. Which is better? It's up to your preferences. With practice, and some additional thinking ahead, you'll taxi the 172 right down the centerline just as you would a Piper. The differencs? The Cessna is not streering the nosewheel in flight. When (not if) you have a nosewheel shimmy, those unpleasent, harmful forces are not transmitted through the entire rudder control system trying to tear your rudder off. If you are cross controlling during takeoff or landing, the Cessna will let you away with it, the Piper will chirp the nosewheel and yaw if you have too much pedal in. In a twin, the Piper system has advantages, like you CAN taxi in on one engine without going in circles! If the particular 172 you are flying has had the nose oleo inflated too much, nosewheel steering will be difficult or impossible. If this is the case, to take it back the ramp for the maintenance it requires, jump on the brakes quickly (nose comes down), and steer, it'll go. As a part of your preflight, to check for this, have a QUALIFIED person push the tail down, and watch the nosewheel, if it does not extend further, do not fly.
The controls have no springs. It's all you and the sky. The elevator/stabilizer combination of the 172 does have a different feel to that of the stabilator of the Piper. The Piper stabilator system does have a servo tab, and some models, bob weights, so they have their own "feel". A Piper Aztec "F" model has a funny bob weight system, which make the control forces very light near the middle of the range, and over controlling is easy when you're new at it.
You will find the short field capabilities of the 172 very rewarding compared to the Piper. Get compotent training for this, before trying on your own.
When taxiing on soft or contaminated ground, consider the use of 15 degrees of flap, holding the controls all the way back, and a bit more power than usual. The nose will come way up, and the person who would have to pay for propeller damage will appreciate you. Do not apply full power in this configuration though, particularly with an aft C of G, or the person who pays for the tail tiedown ring will not appreciate you!
Have fun, learn them all!
Pilot DAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
u shouldnt have been climbing at 20 degrees flaps, maximum permissible in a climb is 10!
We performed a go-around from the flare due to a rather long float. I thought the climb to 300ft with flap 20 was rather slow.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LKBU
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TotalBeginner
We performed a go-around from the flare due to a rather long float. I thought the climb to 300ft with flap 20 was rather slow.
Moderator
C150's and 152's never left the factory with an increased leading edge radius wing, the 172 and others did beginning in 1974. This gives the newer 172's wing aerodynamics similar to those of a Cessna with a STOL kit cuff on it (much lower stall speed).
This benefit was never extended to the 150/152. Probably this was mostly due to the affect of this increased leading edge radius on the wing on spinning. The increased wing leading edge radius makes the plane much harder to hold into a spin. 150/152 needed the spin characteristics retained for training much more than it needed the reduced stall speed, and improved STOL characteristics. If spinning a newer 172, refer to the flight manual procedures and limitations. Do not spin STOL kitted Cessnas (as directed by a required limitations placard). Though the aircraft can be spun, the recovery can be unexpected.
Also be aware that Cessnas with the larger radius leading edge wing are very comfortable to fly at slower speeds. This is safe with power, but the safety of the lower speed is deceptive when performing a complete power off landing. Yes, the 172 tends to float, but if it is glided too slowly, it will not really have any reserve energy with which to flare, and a hard landing could result. Glide and flare at speeds as directed in the flight manual.
If you want to appreciate the difference, have a look at the leading edge of the wing of an older 172, it is noticably less radius (or "sharper"), as is the 152 wing.
If you ever have the chance to really fly and stall a STOL kitted Cessna, the difference is stellar. The STOL kit is, in my opinion, the greatest possible safety aide a Cessna could have. My STOL C150, when lightly loaded, will climb 150 FPM with full flaps, and can be banked side to side 30 degrees, while flying at 23MPH IAS. (helicopter airspeed indicator installed so as to read these low speeds, the factory one just sat on zero!)
Pilot DAR
This benefit was never extended to the 150/152. Probably this was mostly due to the affect of this increased leading edge radius on the wing on spinning. The increased wing leading edge radius makes the plane much harder to hold into a spin. 150/152 needed the spin characteristics retained for training much more than it needed the reduced stall speed, and improved STOL characteristics. If spinning a newer 172, refer to the flight manual procedures and limitations. Do not spin STOL kitted Cessnas (as directed by a required limitations placard). Though the aircraft can be spun, the recovery can be unexpected.
Also be aware that Cessnas with the larger radius leading edge wing are very comfortable to fly at slower speeds. This is safe with power, but the safety of the lower speed is deceptive when performing a complete power off landing. Yes, the 172 tends to float, but if it is glided too slowly, it will not really have any reserve energy with which to flare, and a hard landing could result. Glide and flare at speeds as directed in the flight manual.
If you want to appreciate the difference, have a look at the leading edge of the wing of an older 172, it is noticably less radius (or "sharper"), as is the 152 wing.
If you ever have the chance to really fly and stall a STOL kitted Cessna, the difference is stellar. The STOL kit is, in my opinion, the greatest possible safety aide a Cessna could have. My STOL C150, when lightly loaded, will climb 150 FPM with full flaps, and can be banked side to side 30 degrees, while flying at 23MPH IAS. (helicopter airspeed indicator installed so as to read these low speeds, the factory one just sat on zero!)
Pilot DAR
And what about your minimum retraction height? When flying the 152, I was always taught the following. To perform a go-around apply full power and immediately remove the drag flap (30-20). Under no circumstances must you retract the flaps any further until you have reached your min retraction height (normally 300ft AAL).
The flaps on just about any Cessna you're likely to find yourself flying are much more effective than the flaps of any Piper you'll likely find.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most people can't get near enough the pedals so I reckon you must be pretty tall.
I presume the 172 is a 180hp to compare like for like.
I always thought the elevator was much more powerfull in the 172 making it easy to hold the nosewheel off much longer. It also feels heavier on the 172 despite the servo tab on the "stablator" of the PA28.
I thought the 172 always flew better with some weight in the rear seat.
The 172 is a slightly more stable instrument aircraft whereas I found the PA28s curved instrument panel tended to make me want to turn left for the first few minutes of IMC. The soft pitch control calls for a very gentle touch when practicing partial panel.
Both are good aircraft but the 172 has a better short field capability and has more space. The SP models have a huge endurance, but the PA28 is probably prettier.
DO.
I presume the 172 is a 180hp to compare like for like.
I always thought the elevator was much more powerfull in the 172 making it easy to hold the nosewheel off much longer. It also feels heavier on the 172 despite the servo tab on the "stablator" of the PA28.
I thought the 172 always flew better with some weight in the rear seat.
The 172 is a slightly more stable instrument aircraft whereas I found the PA28s curved instrument panel tended to make me want to turn left for the first few minutes of IMC. The soft pitch control calls for a very gentle touch when practicing partial panel.
Both are good aircraft but the 172 has a better short field capability and has more space. The SP models have a huge endurance, but the PA28 is probably prettier.
DO.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
We performed a go-around from the flare due to a rather long float.
I thought the climb to 300ft with flap 20 was rather slow.
Yes it does climb more slowly with 20 degrees of flap than with none. Are there aircraft for which this is not the case?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it does climb more slowly with 20 degrees of flap than with none. Are there aircraft for which this is not the case?
This particular aircraft was also fitted with a G1000. What is the technique for reading the speed tape? It was quite bumpy and I found it hard to tell whether we were accelerating or decelerating. It was just a mish-mash of digits with the only legible figure being the 10's. As for the PFD, this beautiful attitude indicator must make instrument flying much easier?
Different STOL kits affect the airplanes in different ways. Some make for a better flying airplane, but some make for better performance at the expense of handling. The Robertson STOL kit, for example droops the ailerons and makes for much-improved short field work, but the ailerons become VERY heavy. I've experienced that on several different kinds of Cessnas, with similiar results. The good news is that when the STOL system isn't used, meaning the flaps are left up, the aileron control is normal. In the Robertson system, the ailerons both droop with the flaps, effectively creating full-length trailing edge flaps.
The heavy ailerons and restricted aileron travel and have been cited in a number of landing mishaps involving loss of control in a crosswind.
The difference between their use and not is displayed in the following video clips...the first with flaps up and the STOL system not in use:
http://home.comcast.net/~tcovey4/cleanstall.wmv
The second with the flaps drooped, and the STOL system in use. You can see the difference between the two in the stall propogation on top of the wing, as shown by the tufts:
http://home.comcast.net/~tcovey4/takeoffstall.wmv
You'll also notice the difference in the effort undertaken to recover, and how far the airplane departs, when the stall finally breaks in the STOL stall (second video). It does wonders until the wing finally pays off. If you happen to be close to the ground at that point without sufficient room to maneuver or recover, watch out.
The heavy ailerons and restricted aileron travel and have been cited in a number of landing mishaps involving loss of control in a crosswind.
The difference between their use and not is displayed in the following video clips...the first with flaps up and the STOL system not in use:
http://home.comcast.net/~tcovey4/cleanstall.wmv
The second with the flaps drooped, and the STOL system in use. You can see the difference between the two in the stall propogation on top of the wing, as shown by the tufts:
http://home.comcast.net/~tcovey4/takeoffstall.wmv
You'll also notice the difference in the effort undertaken to recover, and how far the airplane departs, when the stall finally breaks in the STOL stall (second video). It does wonders until the wing finally pays off. If you happen to be close to the ground at that point without sufficient room to maneuver or recover, watch out.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In short the flaps on the 172 are larger and MUCH more effective, partly due to the design. It will be more speed stable on approach 'cos it's carrying more drag; the tradeoff is it will hurt the flap out climb; for instance, the PA28 short field flap is 25, the 172 10. The flap limit speed is also some 30kts lower in the 172, however (on older models) the flaps 40 power off approach is something to behold 
Personally on a 172 go-around, I'd be coming back to a target of flaps 10 pretty quick, rather than the 20 you mention, certainly not waiting to 200/300ft.
Feel wise, I think the elevator's heavier in the 172, but I fly both regularly, and can't say I notice it anymore - I think it's just a case of what you're used to. You'll also get used to using the brakes somewhat to steer the 172 on the ground - I'm convinced it turns tighter than the warrior when required. The high wing requires a little more thought taxiing in a breeze, or on a crosswind rollout too.
It's also less forgiving to land - where the pa28 will give you a solid thump when you stuff it, but still settle, the 172 will bounce beautifully
Personally on a 172 go-around, I'd be coming back to a target of flaps 10 pretty quick, rather than the 20 you mention, certainly not waiting to 200/300ft.
Feel wise, I think the elevator's heavier in the 172, but I fly both regularly, and can't say I notice it anymore - I think it's just a case of what you're used to. You'll also get used to using the brakes somewhat to steer the 172 on the ground - I'm convinced it turns tighter than the warrior when required. The high wing requires a little more thought taxiing in a breeze, or on a crosswind rollout too.
It's also less forgiving to land - where the pa28 will give you a solid thump when you stuff it, but still settle, the 172 will bounce beautifully