An hour at best,just have to get the landing speeds down.
Depends on the pilot's prior experience. One hour might get you to where you can take it around the pattern safely, but budget 2-4 hours total ground and flight time for a true aircraft transition training program IAW FAA recommendations. Might need a bit more for IFR if you're unfamiliar with the avionics, too.How long does such a transition usually take? Hour or so?
What makes you think that? I can't think of any reason a 172 would be either more or less likely than a Cherokee to drop a wing in a stall.I assume the 172 is more likely to drop a wing in a stall as well?
What makes you think that? I can't think of any reason a 172 would be either more or less likely than a Cherokee to drop a wing in a stall.
Reading to much stuff on the internet probably.
The Cherokee is ridiculously stable and docile in a stall. I've always heard a 152 and 172 will drop a wing more easily.
The 172 is about as stable as the Cherokee in a stall; however, the stall break is a lot sharper and more pronounced.
The engine start procedure is different. Remember to use the fuel for takeoff, landings, and switching tanks. Remember to switch tanks as there is only left, right, and off. The stalls are a lot gentler and you might not even recognize it. Read the POH for the differences in systems. I'd say a few on the ground for systems and procedures and about an hour in the air and you should be fine.
Oops. Man its a slow Sunday for me. Good thing is you don't need to switch tanks anymore. There is a lot less control over the flaps. I prefer the Johnson bar. Stalls are a lot more funYou are describing the Cherokee. I'd be going from a Cherokee to a 172.
Oops. Man its a slow Sunday for me. Good thing is you don't need to switch tanks anymore. There is a lot less control over the flaps. I prefer the Johnson bar. Stalls are a lot more fun
I'd believe 120 knots TAS cruise in a 180HP 172, but not a 160. I'm not seeing how that's possible unless you're cruising well over 75% power. If you think you're getting 120 knots TAS at 75% power in a 160 HP 172M, check the tach -- I'll bet it's reading 150 RPM low.They've done the 160 conversion with power flow. 120 knots at cruise
Nice stuff to have.Bigger useful load. Garmin 530, club XM subscription, and autopilot as well.
I'd believe 120 knots TAS cruise in a 180HP 172, but not a 160. I'm not seeing how that's possible unless you're cruising well over 75% power. If you think you're getting 120 knots TAS at 75% power in a 160 HP 172M, check the tach -- I'll bet it's reading 150 RPM low.
Nice stuff to have.
I'd believe 120 knots TAS cruise in a 180HP 172, but not a 160. I'm not seeing how that's possible unless you're cruising well over 75% power. If you think you're getting 120 knots TAS at 75% power in a 160 HP 172M, check the tach -- I'll bet it's reading 150 RPM low.
Nice stuff to have.
I can believe 124 knots full throttle at SL, but not in a 75% power cruise, and the PowerFlow exhaust will not increase speed at the same power setting (i.e., RPM at a particular DA). You might not need as much throttle to get that 75% power RPM with the PF exhaust, but to get more speed at the same 75% power, you have to reduce drag, and the PF exhaust doesn't do that. Increasing power from 75% of 150 to 75& of 160 is only going to increase airspeed by about 2%. Since a stock 172M is about a 110 knot plane at 75% power, that means maybe 112 KTAS with the 160HP STC at 75% power with the 160HP STC. So, if you think you're getting 120 KTAS at 75% power with that 160HP STC, check your tach -- you're probably running a lot more power than you think.It's a 160HP engine + a powerflow exhaust. I've seen a 172K setup the same way push 124 KIAS, so 120KTAS cruise is reasonable.
Former Cessna Manager of Aerodynamics and Flight Test William Thompson (Cessna - Wings for The World, p. 41) described a couple of reasons:What makes you think that? I can't think of any reason a 172 would be either more or less likely than a Cherokee to drop a wing in a stall.
On paper, yeah. But after 45 years of flying legacy 172's, I know full well they don't make book cruise performance.It's a 1976 model, which is faster then the earlier Ms.
The M is a 115kt plane on paper without the conversion. The 76 model is 3 knots faster then that on paper, no conversion.
Not to me, and I suggest you don't plan on it either, unless and until you confirm this plane actually flies this fast on 75% power, with the power confirmed by calibrated tach and fuel burn.One of many sources: http://www.premi-air.co.nz/singlespecs.asp?Model=Cessna+172M
So with the 160hp conversion, them planning for 120kt makes sense.
Thanks for that information. However, my experience is that with most pilots, their feet are more important than the design in avoiding wing-drop at the stall. :wink2:Former Cessna Manager of Aerodynamics and Flight Test William Thompson (Cessna - Wings for The World, p. 41) described a couple of reasons:"Another 1971 change [for the 172] was moving the landing light from the left wing leading-edge to the engine cowl. [...] [T]he advantages were removing a possible source of airflow separation on the left wing (and occasional wing-dropping tendencies at the stall) and,of course, improved light intensity with the absence of a Plexiglass cover."Yes, I remember occasional wing drop in early (1970 or earlier) C-150s and C-172s with the left-wing-mounted landing lights. Certainly nothing hair-raising about it, though.
[emphasis added]
Interesting to note that Cessna moved the landing lights back to the left wing in 1982, likely because of poor bulb life from vibration and heat in the cowl. But the wing cutouts were now smaller and somewhat further inboard than they were in the pre-'71s. Maybe flight testing found a way to mitigate the airflow separation issue.
Thompson went on to mention wing-drop in '73 and later models (p. 42):"The popular drooped (cambered) leading-edge was introduced by customer demand in the 1973 C-172M. [...] Contrary to one's expectations, in some cases the stall characteristics (wing dropping) were compromised by the drooped leading-edge because of reduced aileron effectiveness afrer a sudden and more complete airflow separation over the wing surface ahead of the ailerons at the stall."
[emphasis added]
I can believe 124 knots full throttle at SL, but not in a 75% power cruise, and the PowerFlow exhaust will not increase speed at the same power setting (i.e., RPM at a particular DA). You might not need as much throttle to get that 75% power RPM with the PF exhaust, but to get more speed at the same 75% power, you have to reduce drag, and the PF exhaust doesn't do that. Increasing power from 75% of 150 to 75& of 160 is only going to increase airspeed by about 2%. Since a stock 172M is about a 110 knot plane at 75% power, that means maybe 112 KTAS with the 160HP STC at 75% power with the 160HP STC. So, if you think you're getting 120 KTAS at 75% power with that 160HP STC, check your tach -- you're probably running a lot more power than you think.
What you will get in abundance with that STC and PF exhaust is a significant increase in climb rate, since every 1 HP extra gives you about 14 ft/min more climb rate in a 172 at the same climb speed.