New to Pprune [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Fantome

22nd Jan 2014, 08:46

Welcome to these diverse forums. If you have a wider interest than just one,
the go is to first up have a look through NEW POSTS before homing in your
particular interest.

The C172? Before anyone gives the downside, remember that it was the aircraft of choice for Len Morgan when he hung up his Braniff spurs.

He continued to write his VECTORS column and write monographs about the planes he knew well from having flown them in war and peace (Mustang and DC-3 for instance.) The 172 suited him perfectly. He could take some family , throw in some baggage and set off to visit mates all over the country, including Alaska.

It is wrong to compare what a 172 can do as opposed to an RV.

In the last week I flew my C172A from south of Sydney to SE Queensland. 500 feet up the beaches. Window open all the way. Gawking at shark pods. Fantasising about the hippies on the remote nude beaches. (Swore I saw a beach fisherman with a scope on his rod) This is harder if you are closed in in a low wing RV.

It just the cost of fuel that is a real bugger for a pensioner.

Y'day had a fly of a Sling 2 demo machine. Some bit of kit I can tell you.

Handles like a dream. Cruise 110 kts on a 100hp Rotax and nine hours endurance. One reservation is that for those longer in the tooth it can be hard to get in and harder to get out.

Having said that, an 82 year old former Qantas flight engineer has just bought one and because of good prosthetic knees is not disadvantaged.

If you pay 35G - 40 G oz dollars) for a good clean older model 172 you must be way ahead in available cash reserves for many a year cf 100G for an RV.

Weeds round the prop

22nd Jan 2014, 13:33

DeeCee- Chuck may be referring to the classic B-movie 'District 9',
or have I missed something? Traffic lights? Maybe I have missed something.

Dave Clarke Fife

22nd Jan 2014, 14:25

It's from a long time ago when human policemen directing traffic were replaced by traffic lights .........or robotic policemen.

c. Chiefly S. Afr. An automatic traffic-signal.
1931 Even. Standard 5 Aug. 2/1 (heading) Traffic ‘Robots’ in the City. 1939 Forum (Johannesburg) 4 Feb. 35/1 The Daily Dispatch, East London, is critical of a proposal to fix robots in the town's streets. 1948 H. V. MORTON In Search of S. Afr. 17 Another word used in South Africa, but long discontinued in England, is robot for traffic lights. 1958 Johannesburg Star 16 Dec. 6/7 Johannesburg drivers..want to turn right or left while pedestrians, with the robot in their favour, are crossing. 1969 A. FUGARD Boesman & Lena II. 38 When the robot said ‘Go’ there at Berry's Corner I was nearly bang in my broek. 1974 Eastern Province Herald 2 Oct. 9 Vandals removed the lamps from seven traffic robots and the flashing head from a warning pole.

http://umhambi.********.com/2010/03/why-are-traffic-lights-called-robots-in.html

DeeCee

22nd Jan 2014, 21:05

The story told to me by relatives in Cape Town was that the local newspaper (Cape Times?) ran a story about an exhibition of robots in Cape Town with the headline 'Robots come to Cape Town.' It was placed next to a picture of the first traffic light. After that everyone called traffic lights 'Robots.' I'm sure someone in SA will correct or confirm. It's a good story anyway!

District 9 is a great film by the way.

Fantome

22nd Jan 2014, 22:01

In Sydney and probably Melbourne too, up until the late fifties you had at many intersections "silent cops". These were a slightly raised circular affair embedded in the tarmac, placed dead centre in the middle of the intersection.
They were about two feet in diameter, had reflector glass below the rim and were
painted yellow all over the slightly domed top section. They also rejoiced in the name "fried eggs".

How many careless fast drivers hit them at speed and flipped over GOK.
The FJ Holden was far too light in the back end. It would have been a prime candidate for the unwanted roll. (Graziers who bought them off the showroom floor would put a bag of cement to live in the boot. A boot is a trunk BTW)

Savas

23rd Jan 2014, 19:50

Yea guys, aviation forums have everything from A to Z, check out our very own forum: Avcom.co.za
172, yep I agree on all that was said about this awesome aircraft, I have really enjoyed flying it, around 500hrs, been all over SA, gone into the Okavango Delta where you guys pays big bucks to get there. But alas, it's time to move on , something faster and cheaper to maintain, and one cannot argue about the RV and all that goes with them, apart from wing at wrong place.
Robots, yea that's what we call traffic lights, all said, I think chap was referring to out of service robots, not too bad nowadays.
SA is an awesome country, wide free unspoilt open spaces to fly in, wildlife in abundance, great coastline, red meat is affordable and whiskey is cheap, only problem we have is..........................????????????
Sling, is a South African product as you know! with tremendous qualities! well done to them! flown around the world twice .

All the best

Shaggy Sheep Driver

23rd Jan 2014, 20:56

There is something good about the 172 apart from its flaps (the 40 degree ones, that is, not the later emasculated 30 degree ones).... It's marginally more fun to fly than the PA28! But it's a close-run thing. :)

The 172 is indeed a practical aeroplane. But as Brian Lecomber said of all spamcans in his great book, 'Talkdown'....

".....with the airman's art designed out of them". :E

I don't think you could say that of the RV. :ok:

Chuck Ellsworth

23rd Jan 2014, 21:22

The Cessna 172 is probably the best example of how to ruin a good airplane when they decided to dumb down flying by putting a nose wheel on a good airplane.

When we got our first Cessna 170B in 1954 I was really impressed with the way it flew...I can still remember the first time I used full flap during the landing approach.....

.......the 172 is an excellent example of how to ruin a good airplane.:ok:

Fantome

23rd Jan 2014, 22:50

1. "Ruin" is too harsh. Render unappealing to the tail-dragger fraternity, maybe?

2. The distance on take-off to break ground. Would there be any difference between a standard, say 172A, and the same model converted to tailwheel?
Incrementally, you'd think the straight 172 would have the edge.

3. Years ago at Cootamundra, Arthur Schutt (Cessna dealer from Melbourne) came in with his brand new C182B.
He said to Jack Masling, who had the Cessna agency at Coota, he said his job would get off 50 yards or better before Jack's 172. You're on said Jack, pulling 20 quid out of his wallet.

Side by side they commenced their run, Jack with his horny old right hand on the big lever. At probably round 30 knots he hauled on enough to win the bet comfortably.

Chuck Ellsworth

23rd Jan 2014, 23:45

172B The 172B was introduced in late 1960 as the 1961 model and featured a shorter landing gear, engine mounts lengthened three inches (76 mm), a reshaped cowling, and a pointed propeller spinner.For the first time, the "Skyhawk" name was applied to an available deluxe option package.

Thank you Fantome for pointing out my typing mistake. !! :ok: I have corrected it.

P.S. "Ruin" is too harsh. Render unappealing to the tail-dragger fraternity, maybe?

Naw , I'll stick with my use of the word ruin as that best describes what putting a nose wheel on a tail wheel airplane does.

And Yeh, I guess I am of the tail-dragger fraternity because those things first learned are those things best remembered.

Been thinking about all the different airplanes I flew over the years and there is only one nose wheel that I can recall that I genuinely liked to fly and that is the Turbo Commander 690B.

Douglas did the same thing with the DC3....put a nose wheel on their next airplane and ruined it.

The DC3 was awesome as an off airport airplane I flew them off everything from eskers, snow, ice to sand beaches way way up in the high Arctic.....

......wouldn't even dream of flying a DC4 or DC6 off the same unprepared surfaces the 3 could operate. ( I have flown the DC6 off ice strips though. )

piperboy84

24th Jan 2014, 13:35

2. The distance on take-off to break ground. Would there be any difference between a standard, say 172A, and the same model converted to tailwheel?

Depending on the condition of the field it would be rather presumptuous to expect you are guaranteed to break ground at all with a trike and not end up with the nose gear buckled up under you, a lot of my TO/landings are into unprepared/wet/soft/muddy strips, I would not have the balls to do that in a trike no matter the STOL performance .

SpannerInTheWerks

24th Jan 2014, 14:31

This group can be a tough one

It depends if you want to be controversial or not?!

:hmm:

alland2012

24th Jan 2014, 14:35

Hi Savas and a warm welcome from me too.
I see you are from Benoni, I used to stay quite close to there when I lived in SA, Norkem Park near Kempton Park, right on the flight path for Jan Smuts....Oh sorry can't call it that these days. :rolleyes:
Spent 8 yrs in your lovely country during the eighties looking after cars for one of the best rally car drivers your country produced.

Enjoyed the country especially out in the veld over in the Eastern Transvaal or down on the Cape coastline.
Did consider settling permanently after my contracts finished, but some not very nice things I witnessed made me decide to move my family back to the UK.

Desert185

24th Jan 2014, 16:08

Quote:
This group can be a tough one
It depends if you want to be controversial or not?!

Facts, recognized or unrecognized, can be like that. :cool:

gooddaysir

24th Jan 2014, 16:27

by 'one of the best rally drivers south Africa ever produced' you mean francis tucker, because he was the only one. not the best south African rally driver, but in fact the only south African rally driver.

Savas

25th Jan 2014, 19:53

Hey Allan, yep I stay opposite end of ORTambo, I think it's called today.
Yep we do have a scenic countryside to fly around, great Wx , cheap red meat with really only one negative:ugh:
Wrong about " only one rally driver" , there is the legendary " Sarel van Der Merwe" , which is off the top of my head.

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Jan 2014, 20:22

Did you know Glen Dell Savas?

I did quite a bit of flying with Glen out of Cape Town.

Flyingmac

29th Jan 2014, 07:39

Lay off the 172 you lot. It's a very capable aircraft. Unfortunately it's often flown by 'book' pilots who have no idea how to get the best out of it.

Many moons ago in southern Africa, I landed one that had been hit by some AK47 ground fire. Not discovered 'til after shutdown. Too low, too slow in the wrong place. (I didn't mourn the recent passing of Nelson M).

I own a taildragger, but also fly a 172. Horses for courses.

Savas

29th Jan 2014, 19:21

Yep Chuck had a few chats with Glen, a BIG loss for SA aviation and the world I assume. Questions have been raised whether he would of survived if fire trucks got there sooner and acted quicker, but if you look at You Tubes , they looked pathetic, just like all our services in this country , it's pathetic how this great new government is messing up everything they touch .

Chuck Ellsworth

29th Jan 2014, 21:06

Glen was a real nice guy and a pleasure to fly with Savas, the lack of effectiveness by the fire crew was classic for the culture.

I have done a lot of flying all over Africa ( about 25 different countries ) and sadly South Africa is going the way of every other African country, back to the stone age.

Looking at the video he almost made it and I can imagine the feelings going through his mind just before impact as I also flew for years in the air show business and have came real close to the same outcome and the adrelinin takes a long time to burn off.

Chuck E.

Chuck Ellsworth

29th Jan 2014, 21:16

Here you go Flyingmac, right from Cessna's own advertising, the perfect airplane to dumb down learning how to fly...in fact you don't even have to know how to fly you just drive it.

And they were successful in their campaign.

http://i.imgur.com/Zr6AT8s.jpg

Flyingmac

30th Jan 2014, 07:27

Chuck. Nobody said it was difficult to fly. It's simply very good at what it was designed to do. It's also good at some things it was never designed to do.

I've sat in a fully loaded 172 while the PIC declared that due to the runway length and the temperature we were far too heavy to get off the ground.
We swapped seats and magically took off and flew home.

Not sure about the Land-O-Matic description though. Judging by the number of noselegs people have managed to wipe off.

It's not what you fly, it's how you fly it.

Chuck Ellsworth

30th Jan 2014, 18:59

It's not what you fly, it's how you fly it.

Depends on what type of flying you are doing.

For the purpose of flight training to teach aircraft handling skills the Cessna 170B is superior to any model of Cessna 172.

>>>>>>>>>

Note:

The above is my personal opinion from having instructed on both types.

Flyingmac

31st Jan 2014, 10:25

A little bit of history Chuck.

Despite the spreading belief that tricycle gear was the wave of the future, Cessna apparently had its doubts about prospects for the new model, however, as the original 172 was certified under the 170’s type certificate. Only later did the 172 earn its own production authority.
In total, Cessna constructed just over 5,000 Model 170s, not bad for only eight years of production, especially by today’s standards when some manufacturers celebrate producing 100 of a given type a year. Slightly less than half of those 5,000 Model 170s are still on the aircraft registry today. In contrast, Cessna’s 172 was even more widely accepted by the pilot public. That original Skyhawk has spawned something like 40,000 copies over the last 54 years of discontinuous production.
It should come as no great surprise that the 170 and 172 shared equivalent performance, since both airplanes operated with essentially the same wing and the same engine. Standard power for both models was a Continental 145-hp mill that was allegedly up to the task of transporting four folks.
In fact, the more common payload was 2+2 – Mom and Dad up front and two kids in back. Using the comparative numbers for a typical 170B and an early 172, gross weight of both airplanes was 2,200 pounds, and empty weight on the 170B and 172 was 1,205 pounds and 1,260 pounds, respectively. The difference was, obviously, in the additional weight of the nosewheel on the Skyhawk, since hardly anything else changed.

Chuck Ellsworth

1st Feb 2014, 22:01

Thanks for the history lesson Flyingmac.

I don't think you understand my comments on the 172, my comments were that the Cessna 172 was the start of the dumbing down of flight training.

The Cessna advertising link I posted here for the Cessna 172 clearly states that they designed the 172 to dumb down training.

My opinion is objective not subjective having worked as a flying instructor in the 1950's before the 172 was produced...the 170 B produces a superior airplane handling skills pilot...period.

Here is a comparison test you can carry out.

Train two pilots from zero hours to PPL, one on the 170 the other on the 172.

To make this test fair to both pilots we will assume they each received their PPL in 45 hours of flying.

The day they get their licenses have them switch airplanes with no flight check out.....all they have is the airplane and the POH.

Just to make this test more conclusive there has to be a X/wind on that day that is at the X/wind limits they were trained to.

Oh and by the way you own both airplanes and they have no hull insurance.

See any problem with this?

Flyingmac

2nd Feb 2014, 08:01

See any problem with this?

Only the addition or removal of the training wheel. A little bit of difference training sorts that out. Handling in the air very similar.

I would expect a higher workload with any tailwheel type in a Xwind, but that's the norm. Not specific to the 170/172.

I regularly fly both.

Chuck Ellsworth

2nd Feb 2014, 14:06

This is like pulling teeth trying to get a straight answer.

So once again Flyingmac, if the 172 is as good a flying skills trainer as the 170, would you answer my question regarding the two new PPL,s I asked.

Would you switch the two students with no further flight training, under the conditions I outlined?

Fantome

2nd Feb 2014, 15:35

"This is like pulling teeth"

dogged persistence there Chuck . . . . .. . a dentist I know with a C170
says that's all he can afford to run .. . . blames his hand to mouth existence

p.s. . . . you know your hypothetical match is just that and will never be put to the test. . .. . . . still, if someone did line it up and opened a book . .. I'd put money on your man proving the point.

if the trial were run with a 182 and a one-eighty . . now that would separate
the men from the boys . . .. . x/w minimum 20 kts

p.p.s. ,. .. interesting .. init. .. that a Dak in a big x/w is no where near as challenging as a one-eighty

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Oh and by the way you own both airplanes and they have no hull insurance."

That of course is the ultimate test as to confidence, sincerity and . . . .. and bloody mindedness

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Owned a Blanton Wichawk once. First ten landings were exciting . . and exiting too .. . . as she wanted to segue rapidly 90 degrees to the right every time the tail came down..... until it was discovered some fool had strung the tailwheel cables wrong way round.

Chuck Ellsworth

2nd Feb 2014, 15:42

pps interesting .. init. .. that a Dak in a big x/w is no where near as challenging as a one-eighty

How true.

The DC3 is a real pussycat compared to a 180 in a X/wind landing.

Fantome

2nd Feb 2014, 16:23

Welcome. Check your thin skin at the door. This group can be a tough one

R & N and Rotorheads are frequented by some tough nuts. Particularly so over the years. There have been some memorable slanging matches, slanderings and merciless character assassinations . Also permanent departures in high dudgeon, voluntarily and by dint of being banned. People still talk of Rainboe who finally took his marbles and cleared out. He knew his stuff . Inside out. . He didn't mince his words.. But in the end decided the game was not worth the candle.

On Rotorheads there have been recent charges of stalking laid, resulting in a highly respected gentleman also packing it in.

So tread softly . . . lest they tread on your jokes.

The late Duke Elegant... . ( An Australian, LM was a highly experienced military and then civilian pilot) .. . . . he posted many brilliant stories, which together read like an EK Gann classic... Well worth digging them out. Someone collated Les's stories and put them together in one place. Will try to find where. Que hombre!

Chuck Ellsworth

2nd Feb 2014, 17:17

R & N and Rotorheads are frequented by some tough nuts. Particularly so over the years. There have been some memorable slanging matches, slanderings and merciless character assassinations . Also permanent departures in high dudgeon, voluntarily and by dint of being banned. People still talk of Rainboe who finally took his marbles and cleared out. He knew his stuff . Inside out. . He didn't mince his words.. But in the end decided the game was not worth the candle.

On Rotorheads there have been recent charges of stalking laid, resulting in a highly respected gentleman also packing it in.

So tread softly . . . lest they tread on your jokes.

The above is very true, but if everyone were afraid to communicate openly and express their opinions then we would be living in a world of sheep.

For sure Duke Elegant wrote awesome stories.

The Dukes real name was Les Maike and we were real good friends, in fact he came to me for his differences training from the DC3 to the C117 a few years before he passed away from cancer.....

He was a true aviator.

Big Pistons Forever

2nd Feb 2014, 18:07

It depends if you want to be controversial or not?!

:hmm:

Controversial is good as it often leads to some very interesting threads, a few of which have forced me to re-evaluate the way I think about things.

It is the folks that lean toward the confrontational on a regular basis, that get a bit wearying.

Big Pistons Forever

2nd Feb 2014, 18:41

Owned a Blanton Wichawk once. First ten landings were exciting . . and exiting too .. . . as she wanted to segue rapidly 90 degrees to the right every time the tail came down..... until it was discovered some fool had strung the tailwheel cables wrong way round.

Sorry for the thread drift but I saw a side by side 2 place small homebuilt Bi-plane once. Could this have been a Wichawk ?