What is a C172 capable of?
 

Hiya,

I tried using the search function for the forum, but as many of you are aware, it is sometimes fairly useless!

I was just wondering, what exactly is the every day C172 capable of in terms of flying, e.g. can it do anything like a stall turn?

I appreciate all of your help!

SO

No. The 172 is not designed for aerobatics. I believe the POH states you can indulge in steep turns, lazy eights and chandelles. If you want to do proper aerobatics, fly an aerobatic aircraft.

Snowy Owl, I suggest you look at this recent thread.

It was a very painful read at the time, and it would be excellent if we could avoid resurrecting it, which your query is in danger of doing!

It will sate your curiosity and leave you very much the wiser, I hope.

It's a bit like the 1.1l Ford Escort of the skies. It's not pretty; it's not fast; it's not terribly comfortable or overladen with gadgets. You get in, turn the key and it'll get four of you where you want to go*.

Eventually!

*Subject to terms & conditions;)

ap:ok:

Cheers for that guys... reading other thread now!!

I've flown Cessna 172's in and out of dirt strips in box canyons in very rough terrain full of people and cargo and gear, even gasoline, towed banners with them, instructed in them, done all sorts of work with them; they're an economical, easy to fly, simple airplane with no bad habits. They're easy to work on. They have decent performance for their designed purpose. Read the aircraft flight manual; it details exactly what the airplane can do.

What on earth is a "stall turn?"

Well, three, unless you're taking no luggage and careful about how much fuel you load.

Yes, you did say subject to T&C. But we wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that you can just put four people in it and go flying.

It's what those of us over on this side of the pond call it instead of a "Hammerhead". No idea why, we just do.

4 people, 5hrs fuel, 130kts and 18,000ft in my 172. LEGALLY.

Don't tar all 172's with the same brush.

bose-x
 

Please tell me how?

Thank you.

Setting aside the issue of legality, you're achieving FL180 in your 172? With four people and 5 hours of fuel? You're seeing 130 knots (indicated??)?

I've flown 172's with 145 hp, 150 hp, 160 hp, 180 hp, and 215 hp. None of them were that effective; they all do well, but four people and full fuel to eighteen thousand feet and holding 130 indicated? I'll bite. Tell us more.

Have to agree with Bose-X, you just need the right model of the ubiquitous 172. Hi Bose, I need a trip to Biarritz soon if you are going that way.

Working hard, you are welcome, in fact we are going to Portugal in the next couple of weeks to look at a chippy project and will be stopping at Biaritz on the way. So if you want a lift PM me.

Sorry I should have said an 18,000ft service ceiling. But otherwise accurate. My Hawk XP has a max weight of 2550lbs and an empty weight of 1560 giving a useful load of 990lbs. Taken from my current W&B schedule done after the avionics work in January.
2 males = 360lbs
2 females = 240lbs
600lbs
Fuel Max useable 188l = 293lbs
Total = 893lbs
Leaving 97lbs for bags or fatter people
200hp constant speed prop.
2000ft indicates 130kts at 23"/2300
10,000ft IAS 110kts ISA day TAS= 128kt or Mach 0.2002
Burns 32lph in the cruise at 10,000ft giving me a 5.8hr range I allow the .8hr for climb and reserve.

The simple answer is:
READ THE P.O.H!

DX Wombat - Notice how everyone else on here has just had a general discussion about it and some have spoken about their aircraft capability, except you! You have to go in and just answer like a tw*t!

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!

Bose-X
 

Thank you I did not think that the humble 172 could do such things but as you say it is a very capable aircraft when fitted with a 200HP engine and VP propeler.

But just to add balace to the thread look a look at the numbers for my Robin DR400 (with a true airways nav fit) and I find a usefull load of 1016 Lb, 132 KT TAS at 10,000 ft, 32Lt/Hr fuel burn and 780 Nm range (to dry tanks). With the long range tank add another 1.5 hours endurance.

And all this is done with 180HP and a fixed prop.

DX - i've done most of my flying in a PA-28 and therefore i haven't read the 172's POH yet!

And anyhow, what would be the point in this section if everyone just read the POH and that was that!?

A and C,
We could get into a mine is better than yours contest but we each bought what we wanted. And I bet my true airways fit equals yours (not to mention I have an IR to actually use it!)....... And with my long range tank fitted I have an 11hr range and my service ceilings is a lot higher, yours is 14k as I recall..... nah nah nah!!!
The robins are indeed suberb aircraft, lots of performance from minimal horse power and that cranked wing is amazing but wood and fabric are what deterred me from buying one and the fact that I wanted short field performance that even yours is not capable of.

AVWEB:

A WELL-DESERVED RETIREMENT FOR TROPIC AIR'S CESSNA 172
For those of you struggling to put 50 hours a year on your Cessna 172, consider the long and productive life of a 1982 P-model that was retired last week with 30,000 hours on it, likely making it the highest-time 172 in the world. The 172, with tail number V3-HDN, has been making as many as three or four flights a day in scheduled airline service for Tropic Air, which is based on San Pedro, an island off the coast of Belize. AVweb's Russ Niles spoke with Tropic Air President John Greif about the aircraft's history and his experience with a diesel-powered replacement.

DX Wombat said ....
.
THERE IS ALWAYS ONE! :rolleyes:

Bose x
 

Forgive the thread creep, but why would you use Max Useable fuel in your weight & balance calculation? Should it not be total fuel on board?

Feel free to educate me.:ok:

Because the unusable fuel weight is included in the basic weight and balance calculation on my aircraft as is the oil.

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?

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)

Ah the Flying Farmer Routine... Stan Segalla... He's been doing it every other summer weekend at least as long as I've been alive and in the same aeroplane without breaking it. But it's best left to him perhaps...

My regret is that I didn't see him do it when I went to Old Rhinebeck... Maybe next time... soon..

Agree with Bose-X
 

Hawk XP or Reims Rocket ... 210HP .. and it can do

THIS :ok:

You mean this?

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.

Why travel overseas to fly...because it's whole lot less expensive.

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.

The point is that AFAIK all the other training seaplanes in Europe are 2 seaters (Cubs/Huskies) - 3 seats and fuel just isn't an option. However, 2 seats gives us full tanks. Guess we can get just as far as most other 172s on full tanks. :rolleyes:

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 :E - Plenty of people choose Scotland as a destination - we just hope to offer something a little bit special and different. :ok:

Anyway, the thread title was about 172 capabilities. And that is what I was trying to contribute.

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. :E

I've many hours in them, including para dropping. Which was free flying. Which was why I flew the thing!

Bit of a short @rse are we Shaggy Sheep Driver? :E

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.

Don't get me wrong. Scotland is on the list of places to spend some time, one day. Definitely special, definitely 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...;)

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 !!!!! landing you will see how capable they can be.
Just my bit, redT7

My first employment in aviation was flying ag--crop dusting, right after high school. I've done a lot of low level maneuvering work, from chasing animals to firefighting to ag work, and there is never a call for hammer head turns (especially in aircraft not designed for it). I've seen more than a few pilots do it too, but inevitably they're the ones destined for tragedy at some point. It's just not necessary. Pushing any airplane beyond it's design and certification isn't necessary, and is always a bad idea.

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.

Nope.

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.:rolleyes:

I don't find the 172 windscreen blocked (there is an engine and cowling behind the panel :bored:) 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.

That migh be the case if you're three feet high. In that case, get a booster seat. Otherwise, the 172 has excellent visibility. I spent a few years flying tours, back country charter and all sorts of other things from banner towing to search and rescue to grand canyon charters in 172's, 182's, 206's, and 207's...the high wing Cessna's have always been popular because of their excellent visibility and unobstructed view.

Try raising your seat up a little higher.

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.