What is a C172 capable of?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DX Wombat said ....
.
THERE IS ALWAYS ONE! 
.
Snowy Owl, that description would fit you rather better. The PLAIN SIMPLE FACT is that it is the MANUFACTURER who knows what the aircraft is capable of and certified to do and that is published in the POH which anyone with any sense at all will read thoroughly BEFORE they first fly the aircraft. You asked what the aircraft was capable of, I pointed you in the right direction to find the definitive information. Only an idiot ignores that information. If you don't like appearing to be a bit dense because you didn't look there first (or couldn't be bothered saying you had studied it) then that is your problem. The fact remains, that no matter what others may think it is capable of, it is the manufacturer who has the definitive information, so I say again:
READ THE P.O.H!
READ THE P.O.H!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: london
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aeros in a cub
sorry to go off the thread a little
but, the other day i saw a video from that airfield in NY. Old Rheinbeck(i think)anyway, this pilot did a display in a cub. loops rolls etc.
Q. Can cubs do this?
Q Has it been strengthened?
or
Is the pilot insane?
but, the other day i saw a video from that airfield in NY. Old Rheinbeck(i think)anyway, this pilot did a display in a cub. loops rolls etc.
Q. Can cubs do this?
Q Has it been strengthened?
or
Is the pilot insane?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-X
Is the long range tank that you talk of a standard factory fit?
The Robins max altitude is quoted in the manual at 20,500ft at a reduced weight and 15,500ft at MTOW (as for the IR I got one of those from both sides of the Atlantic about 8000 hours ago)
The Robins max altitude is quoted in the manual at 20,500ft at a reduced weight and 15,500ft at MTOW (as for the IR I got one of those from both sides of the Atlantic about 8000 hours ago)
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,692
Received 341 Likes
on
187 Posts
sorry to go off the thread a little
but, the other day i saw a video from that airfield in NY. Old Rheinbeck(i think)anyway, this pilot did a display in a cub. loops rolls etc.
Q. Can cubs do this?
Q Has it been strengthened?
or
Is the pilot insane?
but, the other day i saw a video from that airfield in NY. Old Rheinbeck(i think)anyway, this pilot did a display in a cub. loops rolls etc.
Q. Can cubs do this?
Q Has it been strengthened?
or
Is the pilot insane?
My regret is that I didn't see him do it when I went to Old Rhinebeck... Maybe next time... soon..
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. and it can do
THIS
THIS
A maximum take-off weight of 2550lbs will give us an excellent 690lbs of useful load. This means that we can realistically offer 3 seats plus 2 hours flying.
Why travel thousands of miles to Alaska, Canada, or the Mickey Mouse queues in flat, humid Florida ? Instead - before your transatlantic flight would have crossed over Ireland - you (and your loved one .. or flying buddy) could already be splashing down in some of Europe's most stunning and beautiful landscapes.
Years ago my first student came from Germany, to the US, to do his private. He flew over, we did the private pilot in 30 days, then he flew his girlfriend over and toured around the US in a rental airplane, for the cost of what it would have been to do his private at home, and that included the price of airfare back home. Or you could just blow it all on a few hours in a performance limited airplane in Scotland, I guess. Your choice.
Floats sap the performance of any airplane by a wide margin. The 172 especially; particularly if the added weight of amphib floats are used.
The Hawk XP/T-41/Reims certainly makes an improvement, though some of it's lost in the weight of the prop, too.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as well it's not Alaska, because two hours wouldn't get you anywhere...unlike some places where you can cross the entire country in two hours.
Floats and particularly amphibs are always going to be a compromise against wheels. Then again I would say that having to land on tarmac all the time was a compromise.
If you want to go to Alaska or Canada, fine, I just think it is nice to have different options, and as nice as North America is ... I can't think of any castles or distilleries you can float in on
- Plenty of people choose Scotland as a destination - we just hope to offer something a little bit special and different. 
Anyway, the thread title was about 172 capabilities. And that is what I was trying to contribute.
Last edited by PH-UKU; 3rd Nov 2007 at 20:32.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C172 - capable but boring aeroplane (only slightly less boring than the PA28). Good flaps, nice elevator, no view out (high instrument panel, high wing)appalling ailerons giving soggy handling - an insult to the airman's art. Oh, and definatly completely un-aerobatic.
If you enjoy driving a Ford Escort with fogged-up windows ('cept a wiped area for the driver to see through) down the M6, you'll like flying a C172.
I've many hours in them, including para dropping. Which was free flying. Which was why I flew the thing!
If you enjoy driving a Ford Escort with fogged-up windows ('cept a wiped area for the driver to see through) down the M6, you'll like flying a C172.
I've many hours in them, including para dropping. Which was free flying. Which was why I flew the thing!
Ah, the good ole 172. Have owned one with some friends, a fine 'N' model.
They decided to sell it and bought a brand new one at 140,000 Sterling. I told them they were crazy, especially after having flown the new one myself. Apart from electronics and FADEC, it's an exact replica of a 50 year old aircraft.
Anyway, I still fly the thing, and like it in a way over Pipers. More space, better short field performance, two doors. The damn airfields keep disappearing when I turn.
They decided to sell it and bought a brand new one at 140,000 Sterling. I told them they were crazy, especially after having flown the new one myself. Apart from electronics and FADEC, it's an exact replica of a 50 year old aircraft.
Anyway, I still fly the thing, and like it in a way over Pipers. More space, better short field performance, two doors. The damn airfields keep disappearing when I turn.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plenty of people choose Scotland as a destination - we just hope to offer something a little bit special and different.
To this day the single most haunting, soul moving sound I have ever heard is a bagpipe. I have relatives, none of whom I know now, all over the UK. One of these years will be the right time to look some up. Or at least go get some haggis.
Just not in a rented Cessna...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C172 is capable of doing stall turns...whether or not they are designed to fly such a manoeuvrer is another issue...I have seen many done during mustering ops and they have handled well. Don't recommend trying them without known how to do them properly. And if you do, do it in a plane built for aero’s. Also the manufacture won’t take any responsibility if something happens.
The C172 is a hardy a/c. I have landed them on clay-pans, gravel flats, both main and dirt roads, beaches and sealed RWY's. They handle ok, can be sloppy at slow speeds. I have had some good performance in them in 45degree heat mustering and pushed them to max +ve G's and could never fault them apart from being slow in cruise. Best T/O distance I have achieved was 290m with 60-75% fuel and only me (70kg) in approx 5kt headwind at about 12degrees C. I used a short field t/o technique with flaps 10. A/c was a C172SP.
As long as you fly them properly, within operational limits, like all a/c you will have no issues with them. Push them past there envelope and you’re on your own.
They train pilots in them and if you have watched or experienced a student pilot do a sh*t landing you will see how capable they can be.
Just my bit, redT7
The C172 is a hardy a/c. I have landed them on clay-pans, gravel flats, both main and dirt roads, beaches and sealed RWY's. They handle ok, can be sloppy at slow speeds. I have had some good performance in them in 45degree heat mustering and pushed them to max +ve G's and could never fault them apart from being slow in cruise. Best T/O distance I have achieved was 290m with 60-75% fuel and only me (70kg) in approx 5kt headwind at about 12degrees C. I used a short field t/o technique with flaps 10. A/c was a C172SP.
As long as you fly them properly, within operational limits, like all a/c you will have no issues with them. Push them past there envelope and you’re on your own.
They train pilots in them and if you have watched or experienced a student pilot do a sh*t landing you will see how capable they can be.
Just my bit, redT7
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C172 is capable of doing stall turns...whether or not they are designed to fly such a manoeuvrer is another issue...I have seen many done during mustering ops and they have handled well. Don't recommend trying them without known how to do them properly. And if you do, do it in a plane built for aero’s. Also the manufacture won’t take any responsibility if something happens.
The manufacturer isn't going to take responsibility anyway...that should never be the criteria in determining how to act in the airplane. Staying within the certification and legal limitations of the airplane, and the conservative safety boundaries of the airplane should be the yardstick.
Hotdogging and cowboy flying has no place in the cockpit.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of a short @rse are we Shaggy Sheep Driver?
But even if I was, what's that got to do with Mr Cessna blocking off half the windscreen with bleedin great instrument panel in a simple plane like a 172? European manufacturers don't feel the need to block the outside view, which is what a lot of us fly for, and which in what is mainly a VFR aeroplane is a serious safety issue.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what's that got to do with Mr Cessna blocking off half the windscreen with bleedin great instrument panel in a simple plane like a 172
) and as for the 'bleedin great instrument panel' I've run out of space on mine and wish it had a bit more space on it.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But even if I was, what's that got to do with Mr Cessna blocking off half the windscreen with bleedin great instrument panel in a simple plane like a 172?
Try raising your seat up a little higher.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy I total agree with your reply quoted below:
The point i was pushing with my original post was the manufacturer will not take responsiblity for trying such manoeuvrers where damage or loss of airframe are a result.
But of course, as you said, it comes down to the individual flying. The limtations are there to avoid damage/loss of airframe of the a/c and most importantly the life of the Pilot and Pax.
The manufacturer isn't going to take responsibility anyway...that should never be the criteria in determining how to act in the airplane. Staying within the certification and legal limitations of the airplane, and the conservative safety boundaries of the airplane should be the yardstick.
Hotdogging and cowboy flying has no place in the cockpit.
Hotdogging and cowboy flying has no place in the cockpit.
The point i was pushing with my original post was the manufacturer will not take responsiblity for trying such manoeuvrers where damage or loss of airframe are a result.
But of course, as you said, it comes down to the individual flying. The limtations are there to avoid damage/loss of airframe of the a/c and most importantly the life of the Pilot and Pax.