Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Private Flying The forum for discussion and questions about any form of flying where you are doing it for the sheer pleasure of flight, rather than being paid!

Landing a 172

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 19th November 2003 | 03:40
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 1
From: Cambridge, England, EU
Lightbulb Landing a 172

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?
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 19th November 2003 | 03:56
  #2 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,414
Likes: 2
From: Europe
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.
Flyin'Dutch' is offline  
Old 19th November 2003 | 03:59
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
From: Canada
Smile

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.
MLS-12D is offline  
Old 19th November 2003 | 04:05
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 1
From: Cambridge, England, EU
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.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 19th November 2003 | 04:12
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
From: The Heart
You'll probably find it doesn't float so much with 4 on board.
Miserlou is offline  
Old 19th November 2003 | 05:02
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
From: Northern Europe
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.
SquawkModeA is offline  
Old 19th November 2003 | 15:44
  #7 (permalink)  

 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
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

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

EA
englishal is offline  
Old 19th November 2003 | 16:03
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
From: UK
You won't float very far if you're using all 40deg of flap available on the older 172s.

The 172 is very forgiving but allow a little too much speed over the numbers and she just wants to keep flying.
bcfc is offline  
Old 19th November 2003 | 16:13
  #9 (permalink)  
Community Builder
20 Countries Visited
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 328
From: near an aeroplane
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?
Jhieminga is online now  
Old 20th November 2003 | 01:17
  #10 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 6
From: Escapee from Ultima Thule
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.
Tinstaafl is offline  
Old 20th November 2003 | 01:49
  #11 (permalink)  

 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
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
englishal is offline  
Old 20th November 2003 | 06:42
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 1
From: Cambridge, England, EU
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).
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 20th November 2003 | 11:09
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
From: Texas, USA
172 do like to float ... fly the speeds and it'll be ok ...
kabz is offline  
Old 20th November 2003 | 22:13
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
From: Northern Europe
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.
SquawkModeA is offline  
Old 21st November 2003 | 01:13
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
From: London, England
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.
PhilD is offline  
Old 27th November 2003 | 23:13
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
From: N.E. Derbyshire, UK
If the C172 floats so well, should I try landing our group one on water?
big.al is offline  
Old 27th November 2003 | 23:50
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
From: don't know, I'll ask
big al, yes! Please post your finding here afterwards.
Ludwig is offline  
Old 28th November 2003 | 00:10
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 0
From: New South Wales
...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
QDMQDMQDM is offline  
Old 28th November 2003 | 15:04
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne, Australia
QDM, yeah , strange that. Everybody wants to reinvent the wheel........
Dale Harris is offline  
Old 28th November 2003 | 18:08
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
From: Bristol and Forest of Dean
What's approach got to do with it ? - substitute 'hold off' for 'approach' and I could agree with you!

Kingy
Kingy is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.