I flew the competition

[AdamZ]

Went to the field today to fly right seat in the FBO's brand spanking new Seminole. We the flight got the deep six due to a major cluster (bad word) and as I was despondently walking back to my car I ran into a fromer CFII from the FBO and we stuck up a conversation. He said he was going up in the C172 G1000 to knock some rust off and aksed if I wanted to join him. Uhhhh YEAH!.

I have been consdering getting checked out in the 172 becuase there are more on my field than Archers and the availbility is better. Kind of felt like I was betraying my low wing bretheren. Stupid feeling. Anyway he offered me the left seat but since it was his dime I felt funny and passed it up But I got .5 from the right including a couple of landing and take offs.

Yes Virginia there IS a difference between the Archer and 172 (G1000 aside) I felt like Mikey trying life cereal I Liked it! The 172 is defenity better short field and climbs noticbly better than the Archer. I really enjoyed flying it. The G1000 didn't hurt! The funny thing was that I found it sinking on final like a rock when I pulled power back, much more so than the Archer. However in the flare the ground effect float was much more noticable. Where I could plant an archer I flooooaaaaated the 172. Gotta get that figured out.

The hip and shoulder room was much better than in an archer and the turns tighter on the ground and in the air. I did not like the placement of the trim wheel, I prefer it in between the seats. The wing over head was not so bad in the pattern. Just using the DG was simple enough to determine where to end a turn. The View down was great but I the high wing did get a bit " in the way" when scanning in cruise.

in short Both these planes are fun. I am really itching to fly a 182 I have a feeling that may just be the ultimate cross country machine. Or perhaps the best combo is the plane that is always in the News papers... you know ever small plane that crashes the Cessna Piper. LOL The perfect combo.

 

[KennyFlys]

If you like the Skyhawk, you'll love the Skylane. It's just too bad they don't make a retractable these days. I flew a R182 during my commercial training. That thing loves to climb. On short-field approach, if you drop a notch or two below that 63 kts it becomes a refrigerator. It's a fun plane to fly.

 

[jesse]

The 172 is a pretty decent airplane. Quite frankly I do like it better than Archers. Although my hatred towards Archers could potentially have nothing to do with the airplane.

 

[Gary]

Adam:

Variety is the spice of life!! Never thought of Cessna's as the "competition", they are just a bit different. The new 172's with the glass are pretty cool! Glad you got some time as a comparason. However, I still believe the wing is in the wrong place!

Gary

 

[sbonek]

If you like the Skyhawk, you'll love the Skylane. It's just too bad they don't make a retractable these days. I flew a R182 during my commercial training. That thing loves to climb. On short-field approach, if you drop a notch or two below that 63 kts it becomes a refrigerator. It's a fun plane to fly.

I'll second that... I got checked out in the 182 and the G1000 at the same time, and I love the 182... the thing gets going so much faster than the 172. If I had the $$, I would always fly the 182.

The 182 gets up to Vr so fast, by time I apply full throttle, do my checks of the engine instrumentation and make it back to the ASI, I'm ready to rotate. In the 172, I'm waiting a few more seconds.

The 182 does like to climb, if you drop 10 degrees of flaps per the POH, it's hard to keep it on the runway.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yes Virginia there IS a difference between the Archer and 172 (G1000 aside)

Just curious, what vintage Archers? 172R or 172SP?

The 172 is defenity better short field and climbs noticbly better than the Archer.

I found it sinking on final like a rock when I pulled power back, much more so than the Archer. However in the flare the ground effect float was much more noticable. Where I could plant an archer I flooooaaaaated the 172.

I think you were drooling over the G1000 too much, or you're comparing a new 172 to an old Archer. Climb rate should be roughly equal assuming similar vintage birds. Archer should be able to get off the ground a bit quicker due to low wing having more pronounced ground effect. That should also make it more prone to floating (I'm guessing you were at or very close to 70 knots on final in the 172? That'd be why it floated...)

G1000 (Cessna) beats Avidyne (Piper) any day of the week tho.

in short Both these planes are fun. I am really itching to fly a 182 I have a feeling that may just be the ultimate cross country machine.

Do it! While I generally prefer Piper over Cessna, all else being equal, the 182 is an excellent traveling machine. Big and comfy, stable, reasonably fast, and can go into darn near any field. Plus, it can haul a helluva lot of gear.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Although my hatred towards Archers could potentially have nothing to do with the airplane.

...And everything to do with your former club?

 

[AdamZ]

Kent it is a relativley new Archer perhaps 2004 and a 2006 172SP. Interestingly I thought exactly what you said. I thought the ground effect would be more pronounced in a low wing, the wing being lower to the ground, but even the CFI said the cessnas have more of a tendency to float. I also got some bounce out of them that I don't get in the Archer unless I really screw things up. Perhaps its just that I am unfamilar with the plane.

 

[KennyFlys]

Kent it is a relativley new Archer perhaps 2004 and a 2006 172SP. Interestingly I thought exactly what you said. I thought the ground effect would be more pronounced in a low wing, the wing being lower to the ground, but even the CFI said the cessnas have more of a tendency to float. I also got some bounce out of them that I don't get in the Archer unless I really screw things up. Perhaps its just that I am unfamilar with the plane.

The Skyhawk will float pretty well if you keep the power in. The Skylane is about 800 pounds more so without power in and flaring too high, it will sink quite well. At least that's certainly the case with the R182. I've not flown the 182T much but very little changes overall.

 

[jesse]

The Skyhawk will float pretty well if you keep the power in. The Skylane is about 800 pounds more so without power in and flaring too high, it will sink quite well. At least that's certainly the case with the R182. I've not flown the 182T much but very little changes overall.

Keep it at 60 knots. Pull the power on final. No more float.

65 knots gives some float.

70 knots and you'll be floating forever

 

[KennyFlys]

Keep it at 60 knots. Pull the power on final. No more float.

65 knots gives some float.

70 knots and you'll be floating forever

63 knots on the R182 works just about perfect. Roll a tad power just as you flare and immediately roll it out and touchdown is soft as ever.

 

[TMetzinger]

Some airplanes are the epitome of their class. The DC-3, the F-4, the 737.

The 182 is pretty much that airplane for the four seat fixed gear single. There are other planes that do certain things better, but none do them ALL so well as a 182. That's one reason that even older 182s are north of $100K nowadays.

 

[flyersfan31]

Adam, as you know I did the same thing recently and had the same impression. Darned if I didn't like the 172! It was fun to have rudder pedals that actually did something! Another thing I liked, which became clear last week flying a 182, was the "Both" selector for fuel. No more obsessing about tank changes. (Yes, I know there's a little fiddling, but....)

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Kent it is a relativley new Archer perhaps 2004 and a 2006 172SP. Interestingly I thought exactly what you said. I thought the ground effect would be more pronounced in a low wing, the wing being lower to the ground, but even the CFI said the cessnas have more of a tendency to float. I also got some bounce out of them that I don't get in the Archer unless I really screw things up. Perhaps its just that I am unfamilar with the plane.

Adam, I think the reason Cessnas float is that CFI's tell students to do 70 down final. Note that in the POH, the approach speed is listed as "60-70" knots. 70 should only be used at max gross, and when was the last time you loaded a plane to gross and didn't burn off quite a few pounds of fuel before landing? So, it's not the plane so much as the pilots, who get this technique from nervous CFI's. 70 knots in a 172 is almost always too fast.

Unfamiliarity will certainly contribute to bounces and such as well. 172's are noticeably harder to land than Archers. Well, they can be anyway. I think my primary CFI had it about right: "Cessnas are easier to land, Pipers are easier to land well." It took me almost 2 years to be able to get consistent greasers in the 182. I just hopped in an Archer the other day, not having flown one for 11 months, and greased 7 of 8 landings.

 

[Bill M.]

70 knots in a 172 is almost always too fast..

It is! If you cross the fence at 70Kts in a 172 here on the 1700ft runway in Boone, you will use most of it. Add a high DA and you may use more that all of it.
My 172 lands quite well with a final app. speed of 60.