Cruise Speed of a 160 hp Skyhawk?

Wow. I almost forgot how much I love my RV.

But, much love to my 172 days, low and slow. Long live 73FR, 737NF, et al!
 
Pilawt said:
When my 172N was basically stock with its original 160 hp O-320-H2AD engine and full factory wheel and brake fairings, it would true 112-115 KTAS at 7,000' or so with a full cabin load. Now with a 180 hp O-360-A4M, long-stack Power-Flow exhaust, Maple Leaf exhaust fairing, and aileron and flap gap seals it's more like 125-128 KTAS.
Click to expand...
Isn't that like 2 AMU per knot?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 
You guys are pikers. Here's a 172 that made it to 60,000 feet! ;)

PIREP.png
 
FormerHangie said:
Can anyone tell me the typical cruise speed of a Skyhawk? Say around 6000 feet and at 65% power.
Click to expand...
Epic slow. The 160 hp birds in our club; I'm happy if I can coax a little over 100 indicated out of it.. GS usually shows somewhere between 85 and 110 depending on wind

FormerHangie said:
I see the book says around 115 knots
Click to expand...
maybe in a 250 ft/min descent

**I will never understand how that plane became as prolific as it did. Fine, a Cherokee has just one door and the PA28 sheds wings every now and then.. but it flies so much better, like a *real* airplane. The 172 suffers it's way through the flight envelope wallowing in agony as it trudges along with constant trim changes, a leg cramp, and a yoke that feels like you're bending metal during any kind of maneuvering. A total POS. But I'll stop there before I go full bore into another anti-Skyhawk tirade. Apologies in advance, I have probably 120 hrs in them.. they do hold a place in my heart.. but my any meaningful measure they're total garbage
 
You're supposed to put "apologies in advance" at the BEGINNING of a gratuitous inflammatory post, not at the end!
 
The only airplane I ever flew that was too slow for me was a Cub. (Yeah, I know, heresy. ;))
 
Faster than driving. Slower than other planes. Funny all the hate on the old 172. I like mine. I do wish it was faster, but two doors, wing on the right side, comfortable seats, good IFR trainer, good with short runways... works for me. I'm generally at 105-110kts.
 
**I will never understand how that plane became as prolific as it did. Fine, a Cherokee has just one door and the PA28 sheds wings every now and then.. but it flies so much better, like a *real* airplane. The 172 suffers it's way through the flight envelope wallowing in agony as it trudges along with constant trim changes, a leg cramp, and a yoke that feels like you're bending metal during any kind of maneuvering. A total POS. But I'll stop there before I go full bore into another anti-Skyhawk tirade. Apologies in advance, I have probably 120 hrs in them.. they do hold a place in my heart.. but my any meaningful measure they're total garbage[/QUOTE]

Alright, but aside from all that, would you say 172s are OK?
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
**I will never understand how that plane became as prolific as it did. Fine, a Cherokee has just one door and the PA28 sheds wings every now and then.. but it flies so much better, like a *real* airplane.
Click to expand...
Because the 152, 172, 182, 206, 210 progression offered a better upgrade path than the competition?
 
Bobanna said:
**I will never understand how that plane became as prolific as it did. Fine, a Cherokee has just one door and the PA28 sheds wings every now and then.. but it flies so much better, like a *real* airplane. The 172 suffers it's way through the flight envelope wallowing in agony as it trudges along with constant trim changes, a leg cramp, and a yoke that feels like you're bending metal during any kind of maneuvering. A total POS. But I'll stop there before I go full bore into another anti-Skyhawk tirade. Apologies in advance, I have probably 120 hrs in them.. they do hold a place in my heart.. but my any meaningful measure they're total garbage
Click to expand...

Alright, but aside from all that, would you say 172s are OK?[/QUOTE]
Me too. I have a couple hundred hours in various 172's. Have owned my Cherokee 140 for 8 months now and like it far better. Especially in turbulence, the old Piper just wags her tail a little and the 172 would knock out fillings

Speed wise, they are comparable. I plan 107kts in the Piper and 110 in the Skyhawk
 
asicer said:
Because the 152, 172, 182, 206, 210 progression offered a better upgrade path than the competition
Click to expand...
Yeah, Cessna got a lot of that right, but the fact of the matter is that the 172 is just not a pleasant plain to fly

Mooney Fan said:
Especially in turbulence
Click to expand...
Yes! One wallows about while the other is solidly rides it out
 
Tantalum said:
Yeah, Cessna got a lot of that right, but the fact of the matter is that the 172 is just not a pleasant plain to fly


Yes! One wallows about while the other is solidly rides it out
Click to expand...
If you don't like them, don't fly them.
 
^I don't! it's the most prolific plane in the club, and I fly safety for a lot of people so to my chagrin I end up in them quite often!

I've also been spoiled with a Cirrus, but the '78 Archer 2 I did my IR in was a genuine joy to fly

To each their own
 
Tantalum said:
I've also been spoiled with a Cirrus, but the '78 Archer 2 I did my IR in was a genuine joy to fly

To each their own
Click to expand...
I'd rather fly a Tiger than an Archer, but to each their own as you said...
 
I've flown in 172SP's and a Cherokee 140/160.

I prefer the hell out of flying the low wing... but the low wing is poorly represented in rental fleets. You have the entire gamut of 172s from vintage to modern/upgraded. Cherokee/Warrior/Archers are all OEM with maybe a yoke mounted GPS if you're lucky. Makes me a sad panda.
 
My dad, a private pilot for 40 years, suffered greatly from claustrophobia. He had to have a door next to him while flying. Not that he would use it in flight, of course; it just had to be there. He was fine in the 172 he owned for 20 years (which I inherited and still fly). But a low-wing type, with the sole door on the wrong side, wasn't gonna happen.
 
Low and slow over the beach, descending towards the point after the harbor inlet.
i-kcXJ5FM-XL.jpg
 
Agreed, the 172 isn't perfect, but what airplane is? The 172 is a simple plane to fly, and I'd say fun -- given the wonderful runway performance (at training weights, at least), light controls, and it can almost land itself. The two doors offset most all of the stated objections, imnsho, and my biggest beef with 172s are the numerous gashes across my forehead (look closely at the avatar) from walk-arounds (walk in-tos[?]}.
 
I wouldn't call a 172 uncomfortable. For me the Arrow was worse, at least after 3 hours. I can sit in a 172 as long as necessary (bladder wins out long before the long range tanks need attention), but after 3 hours in the Arrow my knees were shot and it was all I could do to crawl out of it. Now, the 182 beats the 172 all to heck in the comfort area, but we're talking 172s here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top