need some info here on diff. 172 types

[mattpilot]

hi

I was wondering if anyone could help me out, please (you dont hear that word to often :))

I have experience on the 152 (carb operated) and the 172R (fuel injected). I know how to operate both systems very well.

Anyhow, the local FBO who rents out planes has 172N or P types. You know, the older 172 carb operated ones. Since my instructor signed me off for the 152 and the 172R, the FBO lets me fly all of their 172's. Thats the way it goes in the US :). I'm confident that i will have no problem operating a older 172 since the system operating is the same as the 152 and the V speeds the same as 172R's - thats not what i'm worried about.

ANyhow, I recently read on a 'sales' website that the older 172's(older than 'R' version), have different weight limitations.

For example, one site said it max takeoff weight was 2150. For a diff type it said 2050.

Is that true?

The 172R has max takeoff weight at 2450 (that, i know).

I know it ain't no big problem/issue :) but i was planning on taking one of their planes up with 2 pax. But when i show up with 2 extra guys and the max weight is 300 lbs down, i dont think i can fit both of them in there. :)

Anyhow, to make this post more worthwhile :), i'd like to ask you guys who have experience on older types what else i should consider when flying the older metal as compared to the '99 version?

Thanks for any help!

[bcfc]

Matt'

Best take a read of the POH before you turn up with half the football team and use this to calculate your W&B. The only definitive guide is this book that should be kept updated by the FBO with any mods to the aircraft.

-bcfc

[englishal]

Yea, check the POH....very important, especially if you have a short runway and any sort of density altitiude.

The newer 172 probably has a 180HP engine doesn't it? In my experience, a PA28 Warrior (160) / C172 (160HP) will carry three big blokes fueled to the tabs ok. A new 172 will take two bigish blokes, and two girls (no luggage) with nearly full fuel.

(besides it doesn't matter if you're a bit overweight on takeoff....you soon burn off some of that fuel....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: ......joke...before some of you reach for the keyboard and fly into a typing frenzy;) )

Cheers
EA:)

[poetpilot]

Interesting query though. Having just bought a near-vintage F172 G (1965 model) I'd be interested in finding some info on the web or elsewhere about the different specs of each model - if only to see how mine compares to more recent ones.

Anyone had experience of the older C172s ? Mine has a 6 cylinder RR O300-D, which runs smoothly and seems OK, any pearls of wisdom on weak points of the aircraft/engine?

Ta.

[FlyingForFun]

Never flown a Cessna yet, so can't comment on the specific types - I'm a Piper person. But definitely check the POH for the specific aircraft. It's possible that different aircraft are kitted out differently, for example - so even aircraft of the same type, with the same MAUW, may be able to carry different loads. The only place you'll find this is the POH for that particular aircraft.

FFF
---------------

[Squawk 8888]

Most of the rental 172s are M and N, which have a max weight of 2300. I've flown the M, N and SP and looked at the numbers for the R and even though they are heavier they also carry more fuel and usually have more eqipmen so the difference in payload between them was < 75lb. Biggest difference is that the extra weight gives you more range.

[mattpilot]

Yea, i know the POH (actuall the Flight manual for each aircraft should be used) is the best place to look. But i dont have any. ANd i dont really want to spend 20 bucks/each for every type of aircraft that i'm not sure i'll even fly. I was hoping some of you could open your POH's and take a look for me.

I understand that in the older models the basic empty weight various (in the 152's it was usually always within 50lbs of standard empty weight), but what i'm concerned about is max weight. In fact, i'm curious now. Someone, i think squawk, said that the fuel carrying capacity various also? the 172R has 53 useful US gallons. Can anybody look up the specs for the M, N & P versions, please?

[Carlito]

I should hope that you don't have THE manuals for the club aircraft. You don't get your W & B figures from the manual for the Type of aircraft. You get them from the manual for that ACTUAL aircraft. And that document should be held by the club. If they so much as add or remove a radio, GPS etc. those figures have to be updated.

Carlito

[mattpilot]

yea i know.. that book is called the "Flight Manual".

I'd go ask them. But I figure that if i go up there and ask a lot of question about the aircraft they might not let me fly and require i'd get checked out. Thats 80bucks i dont wanna waste cause i already know how to fly/operate that airplane. Its just a couple of technical things i dont know :) hehe

[Send Clowns]

Tell them you just want to check the exact weight and balance and performance graphs before inviting a couple of friends. So many PPL holders (even experienced ones and even CPL holders who should know better) fail to check the W&B before a high-load flight you should impress them not make them suspiscious!

I know of a very experienced pilot (same squadron as my father in the late 60s, so very experienced) who was seen to try taking off in a PA-28 with 4 on board on a short grass field. I had previously done the calculation for a similar aircraft, similar field, 3-up, mid fuel, and that was marginal! He failed on at least two different runways, trying to get the best wind/length combination and in the process churning the slightly muddy ground with heavy braking before narrowly clearing the hedge. If you read GASIL (UK General Aviation Safety Information Leaflet - sketch outline of recent accidents and causes) you will always read of aircraft trying to taking off outside the limits with less fortunate results. It is good to see you are not likely to be following them!

[mattpilot]

hehe - someone told me of a story where a experienced 747 capt + 2 friends (also Airline pilots) came to our flight school and wanted to fly around a bit (dont know reason). The flight instructor who was selected to fly with them in a 172 at first refused to fly all of them at the same time because of W&B issues (or simply taking off dry (no fuel)). He said he was threatend with job loss, and said he should do whatever the 747 capt wanted to do. So reluctantly he went along. According to him they took up about 4/5 of the runway(5000ft) before taking off. The instructor advised him off the problem and the captain (who is at the controls), said this is normal and he always takes up so much pavement (in his 747 of course). Anyhow, they barely made it off the ground, did some flying and came back. Btw, the airline pilots were chinese or japanese. Dont remember. I thought it was funny :)

----

Anyhow, i just wanted to say i aint never dumb enough to risk lives. If i would show up with 2 friends, and W&B is not okay i'd just cancel the flight or ask one to stay. Common sense, duh!

-----

......... Doesn't anybody here have a POH for some 172's? Surely someone does!

[I have control]

The older models of 172 have up to 40 degrees of flap, which is quite interesting to experience... On a hot day with full power, 2 people & full tanks you will have difficulty holding altitude. I'm told that Cessna changed the flap setting to max 30 degrees because of problems with the flaps getting stuck at 40 degrees. For this reason I personally never use the full 40 even though I've got the option. The POH also says don't side-slip with 40 degrees of flap.

[LowNSlow]

poetpilot the 6 cylinder Conti may not be as powerful as the 4 pot Lyc 145hp v 160hp) but it sounds sooo much nicer :D They can be a tad prone to cylinder barrel cracking if abused as they are a bit more sensitive to shock cooling than the Lycoming (same prob on 130 hp Aerobats cos they use the same cylinder barrels - or so I've been told ;) ).

Cessna changed the max flap setting from 40 to 30 deg cos a few people had real trouble trying to do a go around with 40 deg of flap down.

Apparently side slips with full flap in a C172 are VERY interesting as the flaps blanket the airflow to the vertical fin/rudder resulting in the nose trying to tuck itself under the downgoing wing.........:eek:

[bcfc]

Poet'

Have a look at this site. It lists the life histroy of the 172 and maybe what you're looking for... The Cessna 172 Register (http://www.skycam.com.au/172/172history.html)

Also, someone who owned a RR powered 172 once said they were more prone to carb ice but I don't know what he based this on. Could be idle speculation.

-bcfc

[B2N2]

Englishhal....2 big blokes and 2 girls in a new 172R?
Unless the're kids under 5 this will put you over weight.
Usefull load for a 172R is app 770lbs.
2 blokes 350lbs
fuel 318lbs
leaves 102 lbs for luggage or 3rd pax.
An anorexic might do...
The fact that Mr Cessna put a georgeous high lift wing on it don't mean you gotta do it right?

[LowNSlow]

bcfc the RR engine was a licence built Continental 0-300 which in turn was a 6 cylinder version of the 4 cylinder 0-200. Unfortunately it inherited that type's propensity for generating carb ice. The little Conti's seem to generate carb ice much more than the equivalent Lycoming for some reason.

[bcfc]

Low'

So are you saying the RR and the Conti are equally prone (if thats the right word) to carb icing?
I've just bought into a 172M with a Lycoming O-320-E2D. I've heard good things about this but the others in the group say this she's prone to icing, particularly on the ground (I guess because of the idle revs). Are they all just prone or are some particularly worse than others?

Cheers
-bcfc