jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
There's a word for that. Payload.
Seems pretty good for a 172. Nice. Our Archers are 1004 and 1006. 20 extra ponies for 30 extra pounds!
P model has way better useful loud than N's..because of the flap reason like I wrote.
Flew a 172
- Thread starter flyersfan31
- Start date
P model has way better useful loud than N's..because of the flap reason like I wrote.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 28,184
- Location
- UQACY, WI
- Display Name
- iMooniac
- Home Airfield
- KUES/KMKE
Betcha can't climb at 1700fpm, or make it 700+ nm with reserves before fueling...
Yup.
Or I could just get out the DA-20 and beat you with 5.5 GPH
Yeah, but I'd still be going for two hours after you ran out of fuel.
I really do like efficient airplanes and I probably wouldn't ever buy a 182 for myself, but I've gotta admit that after flying the heck out of 271G for the past couple of years, I really do like that old bird. Comfy, sturdy, and gets me places (where I can fly sexier airplanes
)
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 5,129
- Location
- Lincoln, Nebraska
- Display Name
- Jason W (FlyNE)
- Home Airfield
- KLNK
The question is, can YOU make it for two hours after he ran out of fuel? My eyeballs would be floating.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 28,184
- Location
- UQACY, WI
- Display Name
- iMooniac
- Home Airfield
- KUES/KMKE
I flew N271G for 5.3 hours, KEFD (Houston, TX) to KSIK (Sikeston, MO) in the summer of 2005.
I think that's the only time I've exceeded 5 hours in a leg, but I've done many legs over 4 hours (KMSN to KCAD around the lake, return trip, KMSN to KLEX and return, KMSN to 3M0, 3M0 to EFD, etc etc). Remember, I get paid to sit in a seat and make a big hunk of metal go places. It just doesn't exceed 0 AGL very often (except in states like Michigan!
).So, I'd have to say yes.
C
CowboyPilot
Guest
My wife and I decided that even after we finish the Lancair (which we're still debating on model--Legacy or IVP) and the Four Winds, we're still going to keep the 172 Skyhawk.
As I've said countless times before, it's our "daily driver" and I often equate it to the "Ford Taurus" of the airways. It's not real sexy, it's definitely not real fast, it's not a snappy handler, but for some reason, to ME. . . it epitomizes what General Aviation is all about.
I've got a lot of time in a lot of different aircrafts and even a seaplane rating. V-tail Bonana birds, Cubs, Champs, Luscombes, Pipers (used to own a turbo Toga), Cessnas (owned a 182 and own a CardinalRG, 172 Skyhawk, C-150 and "silent" partner in a C-152), RVs and other homebuilts, Mooneys, Stearmans, blah blah blah.
If it flies, it's fun. But to me, there is something mystical and magical about taxiing out in the 172, pointing the nose down the runway, looking over at my wife or passenger, asking "Are you ready," then pushing the throttle forward and feeling the gradual increase in velocity, the easing back of the nose, a little more right rudder and then suddenly. . . you've slipped the bonds.
I also credit the Cessna 172 and C-150/152 for teaching so many of us how to fly.
For me, it's a great airplane. Yeah, it has its limitations, but nothing to me is more limiting than the damned ground. With just me and the wife, to hell with the ground. We just enjoy the mischief out of our little Skyhawk--and at 8 gph and an honest 100 kts, it gets better mileage than my one-ton truck or her 3/4-ton Suburban, and it's more fun to drive.
I remember that and Budd Davisson is an ass for saying that. But having met him before on several occasions, I found him to be an elitist ass anyways. Or at least, he thinks he's an elitist.
Between him and Rod Machado, they're a big reason why most of the folks I hang out with pulled out of the Project Pilot program and have steered our students into EAA.
If I could only fly a raggedy-ass Aeronica Champ or Cessna 120, well, then that's what I'd fly. It's about the love of flying.
Gotta disagree with you there, Jesse.
There are two short, grass fields I like to fly into. One is McGhee's Catfish--a catfish joint up on the Red River on the Oklahoma side. It's famous for pilots flying in and loading up on catfish. It's also famous for pilots bending their wings on the trees upon departure. Seems like once a year, or more on occasion, somebody will take an underpowered airplane in there. Much easier to get in than get out.
There's another grass strip up on Lake Texoma we like to frequent--Cedar Mills Marina. Nice little restaurant right down in a cove on the docks. The strip is about a half-mile/mile walk to the restaurant. But on a typically hotter-than-hell Texas summer day, it's a damned long walk.
Again, getting in ain't the isue--it's getting back out.
Couple of years ago, we fished a Grumman Cheetah (I think it was) out of the lake because while he made it in just fine, he couldn't make it out--stalled it into the water.
When I had the 182, I never gave either place any serious thought about getting in OR getting out. No way in hell would I take me and the wife up to McGhee's in the 172. We take the RV8 there, as well as to Cedar Mills. The strip at Cedar Mills is really nice and we'll occasionally take friends with us in the Cardinal. But even with 220 turbo horses, you gotta bring your game with you getting out of there on certain days. It's a "one-way in, one-way out" strip which means you often land/takeoff with a tailwind and in high DA conditions.
172s don't like high DA conditions. That is one area where having those extra ponies under the cowling in a 182 plus the ability to put in two notches of flaps and a CS prop give the 182 a significant edge in performance capabilities over the 172.
The only other real difference I noted between Skylanes and Skyhawks is in useful load. I found that if I could get it in my Skylane, I could take off with it. Ain't the case with the Skyhawk.
But you are spot-on right-on about the lowered operating costs, which is another reason we love the bird so much.
Regards.
-JD
Last edited by a moderator:
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
I easily have/had a shorter takeoff roll than Kent in the 182. Perhaps it's because of my light weight. I'm not sure--But I'm off way before him. I can make it off of grass in 500 ft without really a sweat.
With a DA of 7500'+? The place JD is talking about gets that most of the summer.
C
CowboyPilot
Guest
Which means you could make it off the grass in about 200' in a 182.
And, as Henning said, it ain't gonna happen at the really high DAs. Even a 182 needs some roll on a grass strip to get the mains cleared and start working ground effect.
Regards.
-JD
Frank Browne
Final Approach
Good post JD. When it comes to flying, I happen to subscribe to the philosophy that "it's better to travel than to arrive." The 172 certainly isn't the fastest, or most glamorous airplane in the sky, but it is to me, a delightful airplane to fly.
C
CowboyPilot
Guest
Agree. I often blame my lousy landings on the fact that I wasn't ready to quit flying once I arrived at my destination.
Regards.
-JD
flyersfan31
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 14,274
- Display Name
- Freiburgfan31
- Home Airfield
- N51
Ahhhh, that must be my problem!!
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 28,184
- Location
- UQACY, WI
- Display Name
- iMooniac
- Home Airfield
- KUES/KMKE
Maybe it's 'cuz you don't drag your tail hook.
Tell you what, next time we're at the same field in Cessnas, I challenge you to a ground-roll competition!
Might be Gaston's though. I've got an Archer for the glide-a-thon.