Can we talk about the 172?

luvflyin said:
Wandering trim is a thing in all the 172’s I’ve flown and it’s been a lot of them. Except for maybe some from many moons ago when I was younger and the planes pretty much new. Wanders in straight and level flight. As far as retriming for configuration changes, yeah, ya gotta do it. Becomes second nature after a while. A swipe or two this way or that way when you do this or that. I think the ‘wandering’ might just be because they are all pretty old nowadays and just a little loose.
Click to expand...
They don't wander if they're set up and rigged right, and even if they not they shouldn't be wandering. Wander has more to do with faulty flying technique than anything else. When levelling off, leave the throttle at full until your desired cruise speed is reached. You have to push forward to stay level. Reduce the power to stay at that speed, then trim off the control pressure while maintaining level flight. All in that exact order. Attitude-Power-Trim. It's right in the syllabus, but so many pilots start reducing power as they push forward and are fooling with the trim as the airplane is still slowly increasing speed. Of course it's going to wander; you're flying with the trim instead of using it to take off the pressure.
 
Skyrys62 said:
Pros for me:
Cons:
Slow, boring, not sporty looking, need a ladder to fuel, only 40gal.
Click to expand...
Plenty of 172s had long-range, 48-gallon tanks. It was an option at the time.
 
I don't mess with trim at all in the pattern.
At flap time, just a bit of forward pressure on the yoke to keep the nose from going up... then patience.
Speed sorts itself out after a few seconds.

I also fly slow on downwind, NOT at cruise power or at cruise speed, so that messing with trim is minimal there too. Just reduce power to whatever holds altitude. I actually learned that from my very first DPE on my private ride. When the ride was over, I asked if he had any general advice. He said "There's no need to be barreling around the pattern at 90 knots [in a 152]."
 
I trim for every phase of flight, why fight control pressure that's what trim is for. If the airplane is trimmed for the airspeed you want, that's one less thing you have to be focused on. In the 150 I'd run the trim to the stop on final and it would hold the perfect approach speed.
 
I’m particularly gifted. I can fly either one as BAD as the other.

If you want a different perspective; try flying “ Fish Spotter Style”.

Sit BETWEEN the front seats.

Left foot on Pilot left rudder pedal. Right foot on Co-Pilot right rudder pedal.

Which yoke? Most convenient.

I’ve done the same with. Colt. Seat Belt adjustments needed.
 
Salty said:
Your passengers will not like it if you put flaps in and don't counteract in a 162.
Click to expand...
Well I certainly hope you don't have more than one. ;)
Salty said:
I honestly never tried without trimming, but I think your speed would decay way too much without the down trims each time. It pitches up quite a lot.
Click to expand...
Perhaps true in calm winds, but when I'm putting in constant corrections the forces are so light that I never noticed the difference. Adding to that, I learned to fly with a trim wheel and could never seem to dial in the correct amount in a 162 given that it only has electric trim.
 
Well I just spent yesterday and today flying around a 182T. I do like the 182 far more than the 172.. I believe it comes down to wing load

The 172 just floats and meanders about.. when you look at the stats most other light GA have a higher wing loading. I believe that's a big part of the reason why other planes feel more solid. The location of the true CG relative to the center of lift I believe also leads to feeling more 'wobbly' since the pax compartment hangs below center of lift. In a high wing the center of lift is closer to the true center of gravity (but this is just thought exercise conjecture)

These numbers are rough, but they're directionally accurate
-C172 wing loading: 14 lb/sf
-PA28 wing loading: 15 lb/sf
-C182 wing loading: 17.8 lb/sf
-A36 wing loading: 20.2 lb/sf
-SR22 wing loading: 23.5


Racerx said:
Tantalum, I believe you're up.
Click to expand...
I did hit my head on the flaps this morning.. and I've got well documented posts on this forum about every irritating thing. What really bugs me the most at the end of the day is that they just don't seem to handle true and well. I also hate the location of the trim wheel, the constant bending over. At least if you have electric trim that solves that


By the way, while 'easy' to fly I don't think they make good trainers.. it really prepares you for no other type of flying. It's like passing 5th grade math and then assuming you're a full qualified engineer. Even people going to a 182 have issues 'the NoSe it ToO HeAVy' .. or thinking you're ready to by a motorcycle because you're able to ride a bike with training wheels
 
As for the original question... No 172's aren't fancy but they get the job done. To compare them to their direct competitor which is the Piper Cherokee 160, really you can see a lot of benefits for the Skyhawk over the Cherokee:

  • Cherokee Trim is in an awful spot for short people, basically have to reach behind to get there.
  • One door.
  • Very heavy stabilator (in comparison to a 172)
  • Less rudder required in X-winds (positive for 172 as a trainer)
  • Panels tend to be laid out more poorly
  • Tiny window for ants.
  • Not as rugged
  • Wings fall off
Comparing these training planes to 182's bonooney's & your lance really isn't a fair comparison. But given the choise of apples to apples, cherokee 160 vs 172, I'd rather pay for the 172.
 
Last edited:
Mtns2Skies said:
As for the original question... No 172's aren't fancy but they get the job done. To compare them to their direct competitor which is the Piper Cherokee 160, really you can see a lot of benefits over the Cherokee:

  • Cherokee Trim is in an awful spot for short people, basically have to reach behind and under to get there. - huh?
  • One door. - hard to argue that math
  • Very heavy stabilator (in comparison to a 172) - huh?
  • No need to use rudder (positive for 172 as a trainer) - huh?
  • Panels tend to be laid out more poorly - huh?
  • Tiny window for ants. - whu?
  • Not as rugged - wh, huh?
  • Wings fall off - that's true, happens all the time
Comparing these training planes to 182's bonooney's & your lance really isn't a fair comparison. But given the choise of apples to apples, cherokee 160 vs 172, I'd rather pay for the 172.
Click to expand...
 
Mtns2Skies said:
  • One door.
  • Tiny window for ants.
Click to expand...
The day after you pass your checkride and you take up your first passengers, wouldn't you want them to have their own door, be able to prop their elbow out the open window during taxi and be able to look down at the world without a wing in the way?
 
Mtns2Skies said:
As for the original question... No 172's aren't fancy but they get the job done. To compare them to their direct competitor which is the Piper Cherokee 160, really you can see a lot of benefits over the Cherokee:

  • Cherokee Trim is in an awful spot for short people, basically have to reach behind and under to get there.
  • One door.
  • Very heavy stabilator (in comparison to a 172)
  • No need to use rudder (positive for 172 as a trainer)
  • Panels tend to be laid out more poorly
  • Tiny window for ants.
  • Not as rugged
Comparing these training planes to 182's bonooney's & your lance really isn't a fair comparison. But given the choise of apples to apples, cherokee 160 vs 172, I'd rather pay for the 172.
Click to expand...
I did all my training in an Archer, with a few hours in a Warrior, which is really the more fair comparison. I'm willing to give the Cessna a chance, but I'm really missing the PA28. (and REALLY missing my plane, which let's be honest is why I'm arguing about trainers on the internet)
  • As a tall person, the Piper trim works FAR better for me. It's right where my hand naturally falls. The Cessna trim is a reach.
  • ingress/egress is really a draw to me...ducking under the wing is about the same as crawling up on one, and the idea of a pilot's door sounds great until I have to wedge my size 13 feet through the tiny gap between the seat and the doorframe. Then the stupid door handle is behind me so there's more contortion required to lock the door. I'm quite certain I could bail out of a pa28 on fire far faster than a 172.
  • stabilator probably does require a bit more effort, but feels more stable to me...less wobbly. In fact the whole plane feels more stable, which as @Tantalum says probably goes back to wing loading
  • agree the Cherokee an almost be flown with no rudder. I haven't gotten the rudder on the Cessna figured out yet; It's much bigger, so I think I'm using too much actually, but it's also lighter somehow...just need to get used to it
  • you lost me on the panel layout. True the OLD cherokees can have weird layouts, but not in the ones I've flown. Oil pressure & temp are actually in front of the pilot too....
  • again, draw. Yes ground visibility is better in the 172, but as a tall person, the top 1/2 of the window is filled with the wings, and you completely lose sight of the airport/traffic when turning in the pattern
  • I'll grant you the rugged point. The Cessna seems much more at home doing unpaved runways and slam n' goes all day.
My other gripes, since you already hit most of them above:
  • Ground handling...maybe this one needs new bungees, but the rudder pedals have almost no effect on the nosewheel. Also, the wingtips are much harder to see.
  • have I mentioned how much I hate electric flaps? Let's add a failure point, one more thing that won't work if you lose electrical power, weight, and ambiguity as to where they're actually set
  • the heater is a joke. Every Piper I've been in will make you sweat at half heat, this thing was full blast and I was still cold. I understand why @kaiser wears gloves now. It wasn't even a cold day...like 40F
  • why does an o-320 in a 172 require carb heat all the time, but not in a pa-28-151?
  • Those stupid seat belts.
  • Why does the left window open, but not the right?
That's all I got right now. Again, this is all in fun, I don't begrudge anyone's preferences...I just hate to see them be wrong :D. I also am amazed how how beautiful a 170 is, and how ugly a 172 is. That nosewheel really ruins a high wing.
 
Jim K said:
  • Ground handling...maybe this one needs new bungees, but the rudder pedals have almost no effect on the nosewheel. Also, the wingtips are much harder to see.
  • have I mentioned how much I hate electric flaps? Let's add a failure point, one more thing that won't work if you lose electrical power, weight, and ambiguity as to where they're actually set
  • the heater is a joke. Every Piper I've been in will make you sweat at half heat, this thing was full blast and I was still cold. I understand why @kaiser wears gloves now. It wasn't even a cold day...like 40F
Click to expand...
Agree with all these except the heater... I think something must be wrong with that heater, the ones in Cessnas, including mine are pretty well renowned for being stupid warm.

I think a lot of what it comes down to is tall person vs short person with my points vs. yours :)

Good thing we have lots of choices! Also... Ford.
 
Jim K said:
I did all my training in an Archer, with a few hours in a Warrior, which is really the more fair comparison. I'm willing to give the Cessna a chance, but I'm really missing the PA28. (and REALLY missing my plane, which let's be honest is why I'm arguing about trainers on the internet)
  • As a tall person, the Piper trim works FAR better for me. It's right where my hand naturally falls. The Cessna trim is a reach.
  • ingress/egress is really a draw to me...ducking under the wing is about the same as crawling up on one, and the idea of a pilot's door sounds great until I have to wedge my size 13 feet through the tiny gap between the seat and the doorframe. Then the stupid door handle is behind me so there's more contortion required to lock the door. I'm quite certain I could bail out of a pa28 on fire far faster than a 172.
  • stabilator probably does require a bit more effort, but feels more stable to me...less wobbly. In fact the whole plane feels more stable, which as @Tantalum says probably goes back to wing loading
  • agree the Cherokee an almost be flown with no rudder. I haven't gotten the rudder on the Cessna figured out yet; It's much bigger, so I think I'm using too much actually, but it's also lighter somehow...just need to get used to it
  • you lost me on the panel layout. True the OLD cherokees can have weird layouts, but not in the ones I've flown. Oil pressure & temp are actually in front of the pilot too....
  • again, draw. Yes ground visibility is better in the 172, but as a tall person, the top 1/2 of the window is filled with the wings, and you completely lose sight of the airport/traffic when turning in the pattern
  • I'll grant you the rugged point. The Cessna seems much more at home doing unpaved runways and slam n' goes all day.
My other gripes, since you already hit most of them above:
  • Ground handling...maybe this one needs new bungees, but the rudder pedals have almost no effect on the nosewheel. Also, the wingtips are much harder to see.
  • have I mentioned how much I hate electric flaps? Let's add a failure point, one more thing that won't work if you lose electrical power, weight, and ambiguity as to where they're actually set
  • the heater is a joke. Every Piper I've been in will make you sweat at half heat, this thing was full blast and I was still cold. I understand why @kaiser wears gloves now. It wasn't even a cold day...like 40F
  • why does an o-320 in a 172 require carb heat all the time, but not in a pa-28-151?
  • Those stupid seat belts.
  • Why does the left window open, but not the right?
That's all I got right now. Again, this is all in fun, I don't begrudge anyone's preferences...I just hate to see them be wrong :D. I also am amazed how how beautiful a 170 is, and how ugly a 172 is. That nosewheel really ruins a high wing.
Click to expand...
The early pa28's had the window crank trim above your head. Lemme know if you wanna give that a go.
 
Ford- F****r Only Runs Downhill

Chevy- "like a rock" I guess if you don't want it to move. I guess the Lance isn't moving either...

Dodge- "Different" got a cousin that's "different". Not exactly useful.
 
asicer said:
You must be flying a rather early one. Or one that the original purchaser went cheap.
Click to expand...
It's a '74. I believe the club bought it new. Apparently you had the option of a "Skyhawk" or a standard in 1974....this is a standard.
 
There is a pretty good case that the 172 is the greatest airplane ever made.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Agree with all these except the heater... I think something must be wrong with that heater, the ones in Cesnas, including mine are pretty well renowned for being stupid warm.
Click to expand...
The heaters in the 172s up to the L model were not bad. The M model had different baffling in the front, with the heat muff inlet down low in that baffle near the landing lights, and it was a poor setup. I believe that the cooling air rushing in toward the cylinders and heads, in passing over that cavity, created some suction that partially defeated the pressure zone there and lowering the volume entering the heat muff.

And the 172 doors never sealed all that well. They fixed that with the R and S models.
 
Racerx said:
The early pa28's had the window crank trim above your head. Lemme know if you wanna give that a go.
Click to expand...
At least with that your passenger doesn't think you're about to feel them up when you're adjusting trim
 
I got my PPL in a 172 and I found it really easy to land compared to a Warrior and Archer I flew after getting my PPL and now a’69 Cherokee 140. I much prefer the 172 for ease of landing and sightseeing especially compared to the brick like glide of the ‘69 Cherokee Hershey bar wing. The one thing I really like about all the Cherokee’s compared to the 172 is the wider cabin width. It may be around 3” wider than a 172. When I get back in a 172 seems like I am shoulder to shoulder with the pilot compared to a 172. One more minor item is the yoke in the Cherokee’s are wider than the 172. When I get back in a 172 the yoke seems it is more toy like than it belongs in an airplane. However if I had a choice I would take a 172 over my ‘69 Cherokee 140 any day.
 
Ten degrees of flaps is only for takeoff in a 172 or 150/152. Straight to 20 degrees on downwind abeam avoids unnecessary re-trims on base and final, if you are "bothered" by constantly re-trimming.

My only complaint with the 172 is the purchase price.
 
Well, Cessnas are built with pride in Wichita, and with midwestern poise and focus.

Pipers are built by florida man.
 
somorris said:
All I have to say about all the folks here who think a 172 is boring, or more boring than a Cherokee is that you need to look out the windows more. I think you have lost the joy of flying.
Click to expand...
It's just a matter of what aspect of flying brings you joy.
 
My 172 L model has the original paint [pealing] and factory interior [cracking] and continues to fly pretty good. Not sure I would attempt a coast to coast cross country without an AI on board but I like the plane. I do feel the need to defend the "honor" of the lowly 172. I'm also surprised this thread hasn't gone nuclear yet. Not much ramp appeal but no payments either.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I'm all dressed in my fire suit, here goes.

I think the PA-28 is an ugly little plane!

I've got about 45 hours in various ones, Archer, Warrior2, another 180hp one. One of them had overhead trim, really didn't like that. I hate the low wing, one of the reasons I fly is to explore and see new stuff. Sumping fuel crawling around on the ground is ridiculous. Crawling up on a wing to get in sucks. The single NON-pilot side door really sucks. My instrument instructor was a guy in his 80's, and a little big around the middle, If I had to get out in a hurry I don't think it was possible with him sitting there. After each flight he would sit there and talk for 15 minutes while the temperature in the cabin went up and up, I didn't hear much of what he was saying because all I could think was "Get the F out of the airplane, I'm cooking in here".
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Try this 172. It's way less boring!
Click to expand...

A surprise 6” to 8” snow here near Knoxville resulted in an impromptu - albeit temporary - C172 taildragger conversion!

51936384820_3d6ea51ab1_z.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top