Cruise Speed of a 160 hp Skyhawk?

FormerHangie

En-Route
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
3,912
Location
Roswell, GA
Display Name

Display name:
FormerHangie
Can anyone tell me the typical cruise speed of a Skyhawk? Say around 6000 feet and at 65% power.

I'm just curious, I used to fly one and have no memory of what the real world cruise was. I see the book says around 115 knots, but that seems a little optimistic.
 
I see the book says around 115 knots, but that seems a little optimistic.
Chortle. 115 is what you'd see at 75% with pants if the engine isn't too tired and the airframe isn't too far out of rig.
 
I fly one every flight I take that is a rental from 1983-1985 range. They all cruise at 103-110 at about 2400rpm’s.
 
Whenever I hear someone ask 'what's the cruise speed of a 172?' I always think having that much optimism is just adorable.
 
The ones that make me laugh are the ones that give a speed with "depending on engine health/strength/condition". I'm sorry but if you can't get the engine to produce 75% power due to wear, it shouldn't be in the air to begin with.

To the OP, without pants 110 knots, 115 with are what I used to see 75%.
 
The ones that make me laugh are the ones that give a speed with "depending on engine health/strength/condition". I'm sorry but if you can't get the engine to produce 75% power due to wear, it shouldn't be in the air to begin with.

To the OP, without pants 110 knots, 115 with are what I used to see 75%.
Thinking you'll get 5 knots due to wheel pants (with a fixed pitch prop)? Now that makes me laugh!
 
For some of us, that's all we can (or in my case could) afford, and we are thankful that we can fly at all.
Oh I don't mean to knock it. I just always viewed the 172 as being similar to a cub in that it does pretty much everything (climb, cruise, descend, etc) within a speed band of just a few knots. Close enough for margin of error IMO. Then again I usually climb with the horizon in sight. Better cooling, better vis, yada yada. If you like to climb at vx all the time, then I suppose it might make a difference in your flight planning. I just always thought of it as a plane that does everything at 108 but I'm lazy and probably shouldn't be trusted.
 
For some of us, that's all we can (or in my case could) afford, and we are thankful that we can fly at all.
That's the way I feel about my Beech Sport. It's sower that a 172, I think that's why they put mph as the outer ring on the airspeed indicator..:rolleyes:
I rotate at 70mph, climb at 95mph (that's about 500fpm), cruse 120mph @ 2500rpm, over the fence @ 75mph. Stall 35* flaps 57mph.

I've owned the Sport for 23 years and it has taken me were I want to go (slowly). I feel lucky the Sport has allowed me to enjoy, the excitement of flight.

Now I have a cousin who is retired UASF, he flew B-52's and U-2's. He told me he was done flying. Nothing in GA, excites me enough to fly anymore. Sort of feel sorry that he has lost the passion to fly. But I can see his point.
 
Also flight plan for 110kts at 75%/max continuous. You might be able to get closer to 115kts with wheel pants/clean airframe/perfectly rigged. However, 110 is more likely.
 
That's the way I feel about my Beech Sport. It's sower that a 172, I think that's why they put mph as the outer ring on the airspeed indicator..:rolleyes:
I rotate at 70mph, climb at 95mph (that's about 500fpm), cruse 120mph @ 2500rpm, over the fence @ 75mph. Stall 35* flaps 57mph.

I've owned the Sport for 23 years and it has taken me were I want to go (slowly). I feel lucky the Sport has allowed me to enjoy, the excitement of flight.

Now I have a cousin who is retired UASF, he flew B-52's and U-2's. He told me he was done flying. Nothing in GA, excites me enough to fly anymore. Sort of feel sorry that he has lost the passion to fly. But I can see his point.

Glad to hear you're having fun with your Sport. There are some people who think you have to have something fabulous to have fun in a sport or hobby, but there are lots of us who know better.

I can see how your cousin might not too impressed just puttering around the pattern after what he's done. He might like an ultralight or a trike, or he may want to just get out for a while. When he's older he may want to get back to it, I know I found that was the case after i quit racing cars at age 39. I kept saying I was going to go do a track day, but couldn't motivate myself to do it until this year, figuring it would be a big comedown from racing. Turns out at age 61, a track day is just the right amount of intensity.
 
The ones that make me laugh are the ones that give a speed with "depending on engine health/strength/condition". I'm sorry but if you can't get the engine to produce 75% power due to wear, it shouldn't be in the air to begin with.
But at what altitude? Getting 75% in thinner air is worth a few knots compared to down low where it's dense.
 
Whenever I hear someone ask 'what's the cruise speed of a 172?' I always think having that much optimism is just adorable.
For some of us, that's all we can (or in my case could) afford, and we are thankful that we can fly at all.
Oh I don't mean to knock it. I just always viewed the 172 as being similar to a cub in that it does pretty much everything (climb, cruise, descend, etc) within a speed band of just a few knots. Close enough for margin of error IMO. Then again I usually climb with the horizon in sight. Better cooling, better vis, yada yada. If you like to climb at vx all the time, then I suppose it might make a difference in your flight planning. I just always thought of it as a plane that does everything at 108 but I'm lazy and probably shouldn't be trusted.
Yeah, but you still need to know what that number is, for fuel planning. Also, Vy in a 172N is 73 knots (at sea level), which is 34% less than 110 knots, a difference that is not really negligible.
 
Last edited:
But at what altitude? Getting 75% in thinner air is worth a few knots compared to down low where it's dense.

It should be able to maintain 75% till approximately 8k feet which is usually the best speed as well.
 
It should be able to maintain 75% till approximately 8k feet which is usually the best speed as well.
I think a fresh engine might maintain 75% to a higher altitude than a tired one, hence a couple knots difference.
 
Yeah, but you still need to know what that number is, for fuel planning. Also, Vy in a 172N is 73 knots (at sea level), which is 34% less than 110 knots, a difference that is not really negligible.
Yeah I typically don't climb at Vy either unless terrain or ATC dictates that I absolutely have to. I want to see what I'm about to hit so I put the spinner at the horizon and you get what you get. Doing it that way, you still usually see around 500'/min and airspeed is north of 90 but visibility is virtually the same a cruise.
 
Yeah I typically don't climb at Vy either unless terrain or ATC dictates that I absolutely have to. I want to see what I'm about to hit so I put the spinner at the horizon and you get what you get. Doing it that way, you still usually see around 500'/min and airspeed is north of 90 but visibility is virtually the same a cruise.

A lot depends on the elevation, obstacle environment, and noise-abatement considerations (if any).
 
I usually file for 105 in the M model I fly. I've flown few Skyhawks that exceed 110. Maybe an S model will...
 
I usually file for 105 in the M model I fly. I've flown few Skyhawks that exceed 110. Maybe an S model will...
At the ideal altitude, with pants, a decent rig, and not too heavy 120KTAS at 75% is not unreasonable according to the G1000.
 
It’s a 172..110kts
 
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.
 
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.
That's downright respectable for a skyhawk. The majority of my 172 hours are behind 180hp motors albeit without any of the other mods you have or even wheel pants most of the time, and I never saw anything near that speed. :)
 
That's downright respectable for a skyhawk. The majority of my 172 hours are behind 180hp motors albeit without any of the other mods you have or even wheel pants most of the time, and I never saw anything near that speed. :)

Agreed. All my hours are in multiple versions of the 172 and short of the hawk xp those speeds are pretty much unseen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Back
Top