Landing a 172

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Well, waddya know.

Conventional wisdom, and what other people have said here, has it that the problem a 152 pilot has when trying to land a 172 for the first time is that the thing floats like b*gg*ry.

It does too, I discovered on my first attempt.

But I thought about this and had another go ... and discovered that if you approach at the right speed the 172 lands itself, exactly as advertised.

From which I deduce that the phenomenon we're actually seeing is that the 172 is a lot less tolerant than the 152 of the pilot who approaches five knots too fast.

Have I got this right then?

[Flyin'Dutch']

But I thought about this and had another go ... and discovered that if you approach at the right speed the 172 lands itself, exactly as advertised

That is due to the 'Land-o-matic' undercarriage, Sir!

the 172 is a lot less tolerant than the 152 of the pilot who approaches five knots too fast.

The 172 with its greater mass will have more inertia than the 152 doing the same speed. Hence the longer float.

FD

Hope you enjoyed the scenery through the 'OmniVision' windows. Ah 60's advertisement speak don't you just love it.

[MLS-12D]

I'm no expert (62 hours on 172s, 84 hours on 152s), but your experience is consistent with mine. The old 172 is easy to land, but if you let the speed build up on short finals, it will 'float' a lot farther than a 152 will.

If in doubt, go around.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If in doubt, go around. Yeah yeah, did that off the very first approach, slightly to the instructor's surprise, 'cos I wanted to make sure I could do one.

[Miserlou]

You'll probably find it doesn't float so much with 4 on board.

[SquawkModeA]

Yes, the 172 floats far down that runway unless you keep your speeds. Realised this again a bit back when I made a really sloppy circuit at an unfamiliar airfield. Bad bad decision to not go around...though backtracking down the runway is always an experience. Keep the correct treshhold speed and you'll be fine.

[englishal]

Its cause of the bigger wing area....Come in at 5 kts slower if your light (55kts) and you'll land and stop in about 100m. Probably doesn't do the U/C much good to do it on a regular basis though :D

Make sure you loose excess airspeed out of ground effect or you will definitely float in a light 172.

EA

[bcfc]

You won't float very far if you're using all 40deg of flap available on the older 172s. :ok:

The 172 is very forgiving but allow a little too much speed over the numbers and she just wants to keep flying.

[Jhieminga]

Just curious but what sort of final/threshold speeds is everyone using for a 172?

I've just done 2 hours in one after loads of Piper hours, and am still trying to produce a decent landing. The guy who checked me out on it suggested 65kts on final, could this be the reason?

[Tinstaafl]

Use manual's figures - ~1.3 Vs - over the threshold (or just prior to it) & you won't go too far wrong. Remember Vs changes with weight. Allow some small additional amount IF there's gusts.


What speed you use on final is largely irrelevent as long as your speed is stable & correct at the threshold. I tend to fly fast down final with a speed reduction in the last 1/4 nm or so. Depends on the a/c type & its characteristics.

[englishal]

As a rule of thumb, I use 65kts on short final, 60 if its short field, maybe 55kts if I'm light and want to stop short, and full flap - be careful in windy conditions though, and don't forget to check the POH for the aircaft you fly :D

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I've just done 2 hours in one after loads of Piper hours, and am still trying to produce a decent landing. The guy who checked me out on it suggested 65kts on final, could this be the reason? The (brand new) one I've flown is fine at 65kts on final ... just so long as you get it down to 60kts over the fence, if I try to land it at 65kts it floats and floats and floats ... (the book figure for this one is 56kts for a short field landing).

[kabz]

172 do like to float ... fly the speeds and it'll be ok ...

[SquawkModeA]

I use 70 knots on final, reducing to 65 on short final and then it'll float for a bit, hopefully to around your touchdown point.

For short field landings 60 knots on final. With some headwind you more or less touchdown when you close the throttle.

[PhilD]

I did some recent flying on a rented 172 after 150hrs on a Piper Arrow, and did my first approach without brain engaged. I went through the same routine as the Arrow - approach at 80kts, 75 over the threshold, flare, cut the power, immediate touchdown - NOT. Next thing I know I am 2000ft down the runway with a plane that is still 5 ft over the runway.

Fortunately this was in the US, with over 6000ft of runway so no harm done, but initially I did try and make it land, which resulted in a bounce and go-around. A bit embarassing....

Next time I got the approach speed right and it landed with no problem, but an important lesson learned.

[big.al]

If the C172 floats so well, should I try landing our group one on water? ;)

[Ludwig]

big al, yes! Please post your finding here afterwards.

[QDMQDMQDM]

...and discovered that if you approach at the right speed the 172 lands itself, exactly as advertised.

Remove 'the 172' from the above phrase and substitute 'an aircraft'.

QDM

[Dale Harris]

QDM, yeah , strange that. Everybody wants to reinvent the wheel........

[Kingy]

What's approach got to do with it ? - substitute 'hold off' for 'approach' and I could agree with you!

Kingy

[LN-ATC]

On my first flights after I got my PPL I flew most approaches a bit fast and often flap less, because I was afraid of getting too low on the airspeed... :ouch: This, of course, made the 172 float, missing intersections and float even more, just like you guys describe. :ooh:

Luckily, after a few circuits with touch and go, I did eventually learn that flying at 'correct' speeds (eg. 70 kts on final, 65 on short final, 60 over/before threshold) and flap setting between 20 and 30 degress made the 172 touch down where I intended it to. 'My' flying club's 172s (LN-AED (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/442855/L/) & LN-FAW (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/444122/L/)) are old N models with 40 degrees flaps, lift killers de luxe really.

[Tinstaafl]

I like the 40 deg flap setting & use it most of the time when I fly a C172. It's a good thing. :ok:

[Dale Harris]

Yep, 40 deg flaps on 172's is great. get ya into places warriors only dream about. Gotta watch them tho, that ROD is high.. But ya know why they took em off the later models? Ever tried to go around at max weight with them at 40 deg?. Some fool did...........