Landing a 172
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
the 172 is a lot less tolerant than the 152 of the pilot who approaches five knots too fast.
FD
Hope you enjoyed the scenery through the 'OmniVision' windows. Ah 60's advertisement speak don't you just love it.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
If in doubt, go around.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If in doubt, go around.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Northern Europe
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Make sure you loose excess airspeed out of ground effect or you will definitely float in a light 172.
EA
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The 172 is very forgiving but allow a little too much speed over the numbers and she just wants to keep flying.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Northern Europe
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
For short field landings 60 knots on final. With some headwind you more or less touchdown when you close the throttle.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and discovered that if you approach at the right speed the 172 lands itself, exactly as advertised.
QDM