Going from Cessna 152 to 172

[Sierra_Sierra]

Hello folks,

Fairly new to the forum and pretty fresh into my PPL with only 80 odd hours to my name.

I'm looking to start on the Cessna 172, for a variety of reasons, one which you can probably guess are the MTOW of the flying sardine can, its either the fuel or the passenger, or the W&B calcs go off the chart, and cabin space, I'm what you'd describe as a fairly hefty bloke.

All I'm after is just some advice, how long it would take to get approved usually, what to expect from the aircraft, how it flies in comparison to the 152 etc.

Thanks very much for all replies!

P.S. Any general advice with regards to flying is always welcome from anyone!

[The Ancient Geek]

One hour in the classroom, one hour in the circuit, job done.
The 172 has a tendency to float so you need to pay attention to your landing speeds but in general its a pussycat.

[India Four Two]

"Wot The AG said!"

You shouldn't have any problem and you will like the extra elbow-room.

Just remember that the 172 with full tanks is basically a 2-3 seater. If you are planning on 4-up, look carefully at the W&B. You might want to consider a test flight at gross weight, with an instructor and a couple of pilot friends in the back. The feel during the flare will be different.

If you want a "fill 'er up and go" four-seater, you need a 182.

As has been mentioned before on other threads, if any FTO wants you to do more than an hour or so, take your money elsewhere.

[TowerDog]

Skills transfer quite well.
The c-172 is a bit more comfy, especially if you are a big and fat guy.
A tad more sluggish perhaps as the C-152 is a more "crisp".
It has been too may years since I flew either but have hundreds of hours on both, learning and teaching, nothing has changed however, they are both good aero planes as the Brits would say.

[9 lives]

The engine will seem to be turning a little slower on takeoff, that's normal. Your first flight with someone in the back should be one person only, and then pay particular attention to the C of G. You can aft load a 172, which you won't be so used to with the 152. It'll be fine, but just check it.

As said, if you're being asked for more than an hour dual for a checkout, something is wrong...

Don't worry, it'll be just fine!

they are both good aero planes as the Brits would say.

Well.....all but one Brit!

[Council Van]

or you could try one of the PA28 series aircraft, I personally always preferred them to the C172, but again 4 seats does not necessarily mean 4 passenger's.

[Sierra_Sierra]

Wow! Thanks for all the replies, it sounds like an easy conversion

I did consider the PA28, but I thought it would require a fair few hours work to convert to, and it is rather costly at the club with instructor (approaching £200 p/h), how does it fly in comparison to the 152?

[The Ancient Geek]

The 172 is easier especially for those with limited agility. You need to climb into the Piper, with the Cessna you just open the door and sit in.

As an aside, if you are "big" at the age of 23 you might like to consider fewer pies to avoid failing future medicals.

[londonblue]

The 172 is easier especially for those with limited agility. You need to climb into the Piper, with the Cessna you just open the door and sit in.

That may be true, but with a 172 you have to climb up to visually check the wing surface, and fuel. You also need a ladder if you need to refuel. (Especially if you're a short arse like me.)

Getting back to the original question: I don't consider myself an experienced pilot, or even a particularly good one, but even I managed that conversion in 1 hour. I really liked the 172 because of the extra space (I may be small, but a 152 was too small for me to feel comfortable), and because it felt more stable, probably due to its extra weight.

[Airgus]

I remember my first reaction was a WOW on the gliding or floating during the landing.
Well done on the move, what I did almost 20 years ago, was to go from the 152 to the 172. After that I started taking friends for a ride and some time after that they were asking me to take them and we were paying half and half.
Better choice for cross country flights.
After few hours I started flying the PA28 and then the C182 (noticing the extra power when flying solo) and then the PA28R. It worked fine for me (but there is no reason nor common rule I guess)

[mothminor]

Ditto all above,
In addition, during the 3 or 4 up check make sure you do a low level go-around from an approach with full flap (not as interesting as in a 182 )

[Sierra_Sierra]

Oh I can easily climb and crawl around as much as required.

The issue is I'm broad in the shoulders and I'm rather tall, I could probably carry a small thin adult with about 3/4 tanks (aprox 3 hours flight?) in the 152, and maybe an adult male on the smaller end of average size with half tanks.

I just want to move onto something comfortable for when I share flights and take family and friends up for a ride, without having to become a semi-professional contortionist to get in and out of the aircraft.

Though I admit, I am working on losing some kg's, mostly for future health.

Thanks for all the informative replies, it sounds like a good step forward to take, I will have a chat with an instructor when I next plant to fly, and once I have a few hours on the 172 then maybe I'll look at working towards an IMC and/or night rating.

If anyone has further advice I would love to hear it.

[Curlytips]

172s forever!

Like the man with the razor who bought the company, when I tried the 172 (after learning on 152s) I liked it so much, I bought one. That was 31 years ago, and she's still giving me everything I want from an aircraft. Roomy, stable, economic and statistically the safest aircraft built. There are more 172s built than any other aeroplane. They'd built 37,000 before they stopped production due USA liabilities, and then they started production again with the 172R, then S, then SP.

A good 172 will get in and out of just about anywhere (a 182 even more so, but at greater expense). As a previous poster pointed out, it's much easier to enter a 172, and if your passengers like space and comfort, the back seat is second to none.

As you progress with your learning, the 172 is a superbly stable instrument platform for when you do your IMC (sorry, IR(R), in EASA-speak).

High wing means you and passengers have the best view downwards (but you need to lift the wing to check for other traffic before you turn - but you know that from the 152). Opening windows mean it can be a great camera ship.

If you can find an example that's been upgraded to 180HP (as mine is) you can even drive it flat-out at 130 knots for less fuel than a 182. Demo flights available in Southeast England - PM me if of interest.

[Piltdown Man]

A 172 is a very easy to fly, extremely useful and honest aircraft. By comparison with other aircraft of it's class it has very few hang-ups, the exception being the overhead wing. Whilst it's good at keeping the sun out, it does block your view out. Also, the view over the bonnet is not that good - so bear this in mind. As for conversion, if you want to give it a name, it's a non event.

The only advice I would give is don't approach too fast. The POH will give a full flaps stall speed of something 33 knots for some models and 40 knots for others. So if you come whistling in at 65 knots do not be surprised if you float miles down the runway. A 1.3 Vs has always worked well for me.

PM

[abgd]

I remember my first reaction was a WOW on the gliding or floating during the landing.

I flew a version with an ASI calibrated in both knots and mph. All my best landings were done whilst flying the book speeds (given in knots) whilst reading the mph scale on the ASI

[Flyingmac]

The 172 is a 4up, full tanks aeroplane. Try to get your hands on one with proper flaps too. Like the majority of aircraft, it only floats if you're going too fast. Sit high in the seat and the view forward is as good as anything. Cushion if required. Have fun.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Originally Posted by Flyingmac

Like the majority of aircraft, it only floats if you're going too fast.

... which does seem to be a difference from the 152, as the 152 seems to some of us to be more tolerant of being landed too fast. So if you're used to landing too fast in a 152 and getting away with it then the 172 experience may well be different.

[foxmoth]

if any FTO wants you to do more than an hour or so, take your money elsewhere.

If it is expected when you start then fine, as an instructor though, to me a conversion takes as long as it takes, most will do 152-172 in under an hour, but I will not clear someone until I am happy, if that takes 20 mins or 10 hours the same rule applies!

Well.....all but one Brit!

Make that two - if you want an aircraft to go A-B with minimum interference from the pilot it is great, if you want an aircraft to enjoy the sensation of flying then look elsewhere!

[The Ancient Geek]

Indeed, the 172 is the biggest selling aircraft of all time for a good reason, it is just a big old pussycat with no vices, foregiving and easy to fly safely. Excitement was never part of the design brief.
It was specifically designed as the aviation equivalent of the small family car with mum and dad in the front and 2 kids in the back. It does this very well but it will never be a sports car.

I love it for what it is, others might be happier in a Pitts.

[India Four Two]

The 172 is a 4up, full tanks aeroplane.

Only if everyone is light weight.

From the 172N POH:

Max. useful load 907 lbs
minus full fuel (43 US gal) 344 lbs
Remaining useful load 563 lbs

Equals four 140 lb people - 10 st in old money.

Try to get your hands on one with proper flaps too

This means an older one with the 40 degree "barn door" setting, rather than the current 30 degree setting. I'm not sure which year Cessna made the change.

Sit high in the seat

The 172 seat height is adjustable (I'm not sure about the 152). I crank the seat to max height before I get in (it's easier) and then lower the seat until my head is just clear of the roof.

as an instructor though, to me a conversion takes as long as it takes,

foxmoth,
I absolutely agree with you. I was just warning SS to beware of comments like "our insurance company requires five hours dual before solo".