Old Hawks

PaSkyhawk · May 5, 2005

I’m volunteering to provide flight instruction at a Wings seminar over the weekend. I just looked up the plane I’ll be teaching in and it’s a 1957 Cessna 172. This is the first time I’ve flown one that old (the year I was born for gosh sakes). Are there any major differences between a 70’s hawk and this one.

Thanks for your help,

Rich

poadeleted20 · May 5, 2005

PaSkyhawk said:
Are there any major differences between a 70’s hawk and this [1957 model].

Yes, including a different engine, different flap system, different weights, and slightly different aerodynamics. You would be well advised to get a bit of ground training yourself on the systems differences as well as a bit of flight time with someone who's flown the older 172's before you start giving training in one yourself. It really IS your father's Cessna, and not the one you're used to.

Ed Guthrie · May 5, 2005

PaSkyhawk said:
I’m volunteering to provide flight instruction at a Wings seminar over the weekend. I just looked up the plane I’ll be teaching in and it’s a 1957 Cessna 172. This is the first time I’ve flown one that old (the year I was born for gosh sakes). Are there any major differences between a 70’s hawk and this one.

Thanks for your help,

Rich

Good on you for volunteering as a Wings Weekend CFI. Greensboro FDSO told me that CFI volunteers are harder and harder to find.

IIRC, and this is foggy memory, the big changes between model years are engines (6 cylinder Continental on older, 4-cylinder Lycoming on newer) and recommended flap settings for take-off (no flaps older, 10 degrees flaps(?) on newer). Carb heat is a bit more important on the Continental birds than on the Lycoming birds, but I believe both call for carb heat "ON" at reduced power. Neither of the above is all that important unless departing a field that is at high DA & tight, or you forget the carb heat in the wrong bird.

poadeleted3 · May 5, 2005

It's got a six cylinder 145 hp Continental instead of a 150 or 160 hp Lycoming. The flaps are manually operated. The cabin is skinner, I think. The sight picture is different. The instrument panel is totally different. Really not the same plane at all.

BillG · May 5, 2005

40° of flaps, too, I think.

PaSkyhawk · May 5, 2005

I'll get a little time with another instructor and check out the POH before starting. I’ll be flying with the owner. I do like manual flaps though.

Thanks for your help,
Rich

poadeleted20 · May 5, 2005

Ed Guthrie said:
IIRC, and this is foggy memory, the big changes between model years are engines (6 cylinder Continental on older, 4-cylinder Lycoming on newer)
Correct.

and recommended flap settings for take-off (no flaps older, 10 degrees flaps(?) on newer).

Click to expand...

For normal takeoffs, it's zero flap in all older, and "zero to ten" in the book for later models, although nearly everyone teaches and uses zero for normal takeoffs in all models. For short-field, the book flap setting changed from zero to ten between the 1979 and 1980 model years, for reasons that Cessna Technical Support is unable to explain, and which is kind of confusing since they are both C-172N's. For soft-field, it's always been 10 degrees in all model years.

Carb heat is a bit more important on the Continental birds than on the Lycoming birds, but I believe both call for carb heat "ON" at reduced power.

Click to expand...

This is true. The Continental's carburetor body is thermally isolated from the crankcase, but the Lycoming's is bolted right to it so it picks up a lot of heat transfer, keeping it warmer and reducing vulnerability to carb ice. However, the checklist still calls for full carb heat in all models at reduced power setting.

Henning · May 5, 2005

PaSkyhawk said:
I’m volunteering to provide flight instruction at a Wings seminar over the weekend. I just looked up the plane I’ll be teaching in and it’s a 1957 Cessna 172. This is the first time I’ve flown one that old (the year I was born for gosh sakes). Are there any major differences between a 70’s hawk and this one.

Thanks for your help,

Rich

Lots of them, Pretty much completely different airplanes, but they're still the same as far as flying goes. You shouldn't have a problem. Mechanical flaps, old stype panel and possible venturi vacuum system are the only things you should notice.

dogman · May 5, 2005

Pay attention to ground handling in windy conditions! The gear is position is such to make it more vunerable to the wind picking up the tail or and wing. USE PROPER CONTOL INPUTS WHILE YOU TAXI. My instructor has been around for a long time and has seen 2 of the 50's models get bent while on the ground. Use good technique.
He suggest keeping it in the hanger if wind is over 25.

The other thing is the sight picture is very different. It is really nce you can really see out over the nose of these ol hawks. When you make your first approach it will feel like you are driving straight into the ground ecspecially with 40 DEG. flaps. It will come down at a very steep approach angle Keep your speed correct. You may have to pitch the nose down to keep the speed up when you apply the last notch. You will also have to keep in mind it will NOT climb with 40deg. in case of a go around.
Do not forget carb heat you will Need It.

Tom-D · May 5, 2005

Ron Levy said:
Ed Guthrie said:

IIRC, and this is foggy memory, the big changes between model years are engines (6 cylinder Continental on older, 4-cylinder Lycoming on newer)
Correct.

The Continental's carburetor body is thermally isolated from the crankcase,

This is not true! only the "C" series engines have a remote mounted carb. such as the C-65-C-85 and 0-200. ALL the C-145s and the 0-300 series have the carb mounted directly to the oil sump..

the pictures below are of both 0-300-D and 0-300-A and C-145-2-D

But you have forgotten that the biggest difference in FLYING the early 172's is the manual FLAPS and they allow 40 Degrees of travel.

Click to expand...

PoAdeleted5 · May 5, 2005

Is that the one you rebuilt that had the corroded oil sump? How'd that turn out anyway?

Tom-D · May 5, 2005

larrysb said:
Is that the one you rebuilt that had the corroded oil sump? How'd that turn out anyway?

It runs great, we replaced the sump with one from Dodson Aviation.

John J · May 7, 2005

The old 172's are great. I flew a 1956 model which is no different from the 1957 model except maybe in paint and a radio. The view over the nose is "fantastic" They are a very much different plane. They are lighter on the controls for the bird is lighter. Also when you put the flaps at 40 the view is" you are looking at the ground" They use to call the flaps "Para Lift" in the ads for Cessna. I love those early 172's for the engine was so smooth not much power but it had that" nice" sound. I flew a 1,400 mile x-c in a 15 hour day in one and I never got tired.

Enjoy a piece of history

John J

bbchien · May 7, 2005

I used to own Cessna N8889B, a 1956 Skyhawk. 145 hp is significantly less horsepower. And, despite the comments about the carbureator, you WILL need carb heat- right on up to 80 degrees ambient if the relative humidity is high.

The aircraft is tolerant to higher than 1.3 Vso landing speeds, but if you land at 75 mph you will three point it. That's bad. So, it's not AS tolerant to the upper ends of airspeeds.

Manual flaps all have Vspeeds, make a chart with them, although you can tell if you have to pull too firmly you're too fast.

mikea · May 8, 2005