The Cessna 172
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 44
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cessna 172
Hey Guys,
I currently fly the Cessna 150/152's and want to take the step up to the Cessna 172.
Whats your opinion on the Cessna 172's handling and the overall feel of the aircraft? Is it much more difficult than the 150's/152's?
Feedback greatly appreciated
.
Information Delta
I currently fly the Cessna 150/152's and want to take the step up to the Cessna 172.
Whats your opinion on the Cessna 172's handling and the overall feel of the aircraft? Is it much more difficult than the 150's/152's?
Feedback greatly appreciated
.Information Delta
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
The 172, being larger and heavier, will feel a much more substantial aircraft, although familiar enough to feel 'comfortable' in. The 172 is more stable in turbulence and less affected by crosswinds, the 152 is easier to turn. It's more important to get the approach right in a 172.
It won't take you long to get used to a 172.
It won't take you long to get used to a 172.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: BERKSHIRE
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172 is a great ship, you will enjoy it. Much more fun than a Warrior. Better vision for you and your passengers comfier and at least it has two doors.
Conversion from 150 is easy and you will soon be up to speed.
Conversion from 150 is easy and you will soon be up to speed.
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
172 is a great ship, you will enjoy it. Much more fun than a Warrior.
Last edited by SkyHawk-N; 6th Apr 2008 at 10:00. Reason: Spelling!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 44
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys,
can't wait for my first lesson in the C172! It certainly looks a more substantial aircraft anyway, i'm sure it wont disappoint.
Information Delta
can't wait for my first lesson in the C172! It certainly looks a more substantial aircraft anyway, i'm sure it wont disappoint.
Information Delta
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: florida
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172
I have done over 200 hours and only just started flying 172s for flying the odd jolly locally.
I am so impressed by its characteristics, like an Alfaromeo loves to drive fast, a 172 feels like it wants to fly (unlike some warriors i have flown that one has to flog to get airborne and feel like they want to stay on the ground).
Sounds like a silly statement but you will understand when you have flown one. The engine is generally quiet and lazy in the cruise - visibility is second to none - if avionics all work as well, then you would struggle to find a better light SE aircraft in my book.
I am so impressed by its characteristics, like an Alfaromeo loves to drive fast, a 172 feels like it wants to fly (unlike some warriors i have flown that one has to flog to get airborne and feel like they want to stay on the ground).
Sounds like a silly statement but you will understand when you have flown one. The engine is generally quiet and lazy in the cruise - visibility is second to none - if avionics all work as well, then you would struggle to find a better light SE aircraft in my book.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the greatest Spam Cans ever built. I have the version that was fed steroids at birth with 210hp and wobbly prop. Toured all ovr Europe in it VFR and IFR, crossing the Alps at 17,000 ft and the med to the Balearic Islands.
Fantastic value.
Enjoy.
Fantastic value.
Enjoy.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends a good deal on which 172 variant you fly too, doesn't it? I certainly don't have many hours on the 172 (even tho' all my hours are on the 172... 
), but I can definitely feel a big difference between the 172N vs the 172R and 172S.
For one thing, the one that really jumps into the air is a lightly loaded 172S! The 172N feels pretty tired even when light... The R and S feel a lot smoother and more solid in the controls as well, but I suppose that could be due to the age difference..?
), but I can definitely feel a big difference between the 172N vs the 172R and 172S.For one thing, the one that really jumps into the air is a lightly loaded 172S! The 172N feels pretty tired even when light... The R and S feel a lot smoother and more solid in the controls as well, but I suppose that could be due to the age difference..?
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
The 172N feels pretty tired even when light
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Is it much more difficult than the 150's/152's?
So ... get the speed right and no problem. (Just like any other aeroplane.)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South of the North Pole
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 172 is a great wee ship. Pure joy to fly and no sweat to land. However it loves to float on landing a bit. I personally tend to dump the flap in the flare and she greases on every time. But your instructor will show you the preferred technique.
Knox.
Knox.
The fellow who gives checkouts at my field has a habit of pulling the trottle and announcing "you just lost the engine" right after you have selected carb heat on the downwind checks
Keep the base leg tight and once the field is made start adding flap to bring the aim point back to the button (it's a short runway) .
40 flaps works just fine as long as you keep your speed up until flare. Our usually uphill slope bleeds off the airspeed in no time at all.
Keep the base leg tight and once the field is made start adding flap to bring the aim point back to the button (it's a short runway) .
40 flaps works just fine as long as you keep your speed up until flare. Our usually uphill slope bleeds off the airspeed in no time at all.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My initial impression of the 172 vs. the 152 was one of sitting up, instead of laying down. So far as a light economical, straight forward light four seater, the 172 is an outsanding airplane. It's strong, simple mechanically, and is a great design.
I've instructed in them, towed banners with them, flown freight with them, and operated them from dirt and gravel strips as much as paved ones in all kinds of climates and terrain and weather, and still think it's a great little airplane.
Moving from a 152 to a 172 is a very natural step; you'll have no problem at all.
I've instructed in them, towed banners with them, flown freight with them, and operated them from dirt and gravel strips as much as paved ones in all kinds of climates and terrain and weather, and still think it's a great little airplane.
Moving from a 152 to a 172 is a very natural step; you'll have no problem at all.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 172 is a fine aeroplane.
However, although is has four seats, many times you can't fill 'em all with heavy folks (read, most Americans
) and still carry much fuel.
I have lost count of the number of times I've seen 172's taxi by, with 4 large adults, tail nearly dragging on the taxiway, and then takeoff with wild abandon...whereupon it climbs like a lead brick.
For this kind of flying, one needs a 182....now there is one fine aeroplane.
However, although is has four seats, many times you can't fill 'em all with heavy folks (read, most Americans
) and still carry much fuel.I have lost count of the number of times I've seen 172's taxi by, with 4 large adults, tail nearly dragging on the taxiway, and then takeoff with wild abandon...whereupon it climbs like a lead brick.
For this kind of flying, one needs a 182....now there is one fine aeroplane.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Iceland
Age: 34
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did most of my training in a 2001-2004 sp skyhawk. After I got my licence I got in to a club who has a 152 II and a 172 Hawk XP.... since it's a 100 hour limit on the hawk XP I'we been flying the 152 much I find it not so diferent from the 172 SP just a bit lighter to land the 152 but the 172 is roomier and nicer to fly if you are flying with passangers.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Information Delta
I assume you are quite low hours? You have experience on Cessna 150/152's. Rather than more of the same you would get a lot out of flying other types. When you have flown DA40, AA5B, PA28, Cirrus, AT3 etc even if only for 1 hour a go, you will have a much better appreciation of what is available and what compares to what. You can then decide what you enjoy flying, which might or might not be a 172…
Rod1
I assume you are quite low hours? You have experience on Cessna 150/152's. Rather than more of the same you would get a lot out of flying other types. When you have flown DA40, AA5B, PA28, Cirrus, AT3 etc even if only for 1 hour a go, you will have a much better appreciation of what is available and what compares to what. You can then decide what you enjoy flying, which might or might not be a 172…
Rod1
[thread creep, sorry]
I flew a little 152 immediately after flying 17 hours in a week in a 182 and I was mightily impressed with the smaller aircraft. I wouldn't have enjoyed doing the same trip in the 152 but it is certainly fun to fly. 182s, and 172s for that matter, are bigger and heavier and the handling reflects that.
I flew a little 152 immediately after flying 17 hours in a week in a 182 and I was mightily impressed with the smaller aircraft. I wouldn't have enjoyed doing the same trip in the 152 but it is certainly fun to fly. 182s, and 172s for that matter, are bigger and heavier and the handling reflects that.