The Cessna 172/Robison R22 Approach?

bigblockz8

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
429
Display Name

Display name:
Gore
I was thinking about my personal skills and such. Naturally, I got to thinking about aircraft and their skills. Some are highly specialized while others are good at any task.

I then thought about two of the most prolific aircraft that exist. These two aren't the only two but they are widely known. I personally love flying both.

Cessna 172-The ace of all trades. From flight training to law enforcement to bush airplane to banner towing to a $100 hamburger ride.

Robinson R22-The Swiss Army Knife of helicopters (I'd add the Jet Ranger but that's too expensive for this). Flight training-proposed "ultra light" observation/attack helicopter. Luckily the latter idea never saw fruition. It is used for aerial application, digital flying billboards (awesome idea), it's even used as a poor man's police helicopter.

Both are good at just about anything that they try. They are not the best in any one particular field though. All aircraft are designed with a purpose in mind.

Sure a Super Cub might work better for a 1200ft off airport strip while at MTOW but you can't carry 3 pax (maybe one taped to each wing?)! Maybe your Pawnee or Brave works a LOT better as a duster and tow plane but can you then turn around and carry some people to a field to rendezvous with a ground crew to help recover a glider? Nope.

Sure a R44 or B206 would be a better police helicopter but they can't effectively be used for recreation or flight training!

Like I said, not the best aircraft in any one area but they are work horses and entry level ones too!

My question is is it better to be a Pawnee or Apache or is it better to be a 172 or R22?

For my money I'd go with an aircraft that can do another task equally as well. More opportunity in my opinion. My banner business goes bust? I can do some mods and dust. That goes bust? I can put her on floats and do sightseeing tours. That goes bust too? I need to realize that aviation doesn't work, $100 hamburger please :D


*Note: I realize that a lot of aircraft are able to do a variety of tasks but these two are some of the most widely known. Almost everybody pictures a C172 when you say "small plane" or "Cessna." With helicopter it's usually a Huey or 206 though but you know what I mean!
 
Last edited:
I love my skyhawk. I've taken it to 13 different states and loved every minute of it. Sure, it's not the fastest or it doesn't carry the most, but as you said it's fairly good at most things. It's a solid IFR platform and decent for long XCs. Next year I intend on putting the flint wingtip tanks in it to make it an even more viable xc airplane.
 
It all boils down to your mission requirements. If you need a basic minimum eggbeater that you can sort of barely afford to own, you get an R22. If you need an ultimate police helicopter, you get an Mi 24.
 
How about a Hiller UH-12 series helicopter. I'd rather have one of these than a Robbie.
 
I think that the generalist (172/r22) is probably better, because it's useful to more people. That said, there will always be room for and a need for the specialist. Now, I might argue that a 182 is a better generalist than a 172, but they're similar enough that the point is valid in either case.
 
The R-22 was designed to be a (comparatively) affordable helicopter for people that wanted a personal helicopter and weren't humanities majors in college. Frank didn't realize people would start training in them and using them for all manner of commercial work. Far from being designed as a swiss army knife, it was designed as a toy and forced into all the other roles because it is cheap(er)
 
The R-22 was designed to be a (comparatively) affordable helicopter for people that wanted a personal helicopter and weren't humanities majors in college. Frank didn't realize people would start training in them and using them for all manner of commercial work. Far from being designed as a swiss army knife, it was designed as a toy and forced into all the other roles because it is cheap(er)

Well he did come from Bell so I guess he didn't design it with the idea of being able to do any specialized task. I even saw an ad in a magazine (gotta find it) where a R22 was doing mini heli logging. It was moving Christmas trees. It sure is an average Joe's helicopter though.
 
I was in a 150 a few weekends ago with a CFI who said if she knew they were bringing out "the village" (little snoopy type dog houses to act as targets) then she would have for sure brought bags of flour up with us.

My question is this: which makes the best flour bomber for 200ft passes? Dumb question, I know, but the flour bombing is in April or May and who knows, perhaps I'll sign up.

I have:

1. A "normal" 1980 Cessna 172 with wheel pants

2. A "super duper" 1980 Cessna 172 with the 180hp conversion, wheel pants, and a Garmin built in to the panel (small but still in color)

3. A "normal" 1978 Cessna 152 with no wheel pants

4. A "pretty cool" little 1975 Cessna 150 with wheel pants and a yoke mounted handheld Garmin


Which one should I bomb with?
 
I'm going to guess 3 or 4, as I would expect slow speeds to be an asset.
 
Um, no. And unless a POA pilot is in town or I take one of the pilots I know through the airport, the bomber will be my boyfriend and he's never bombed before.
Are you sure? That's not something a guy really likes to brag about! :no::yikes::D
 
I've always wondered how flour bombing fits with the FARs. You're basically buzzing the runway with no intent to land...

I am also getting a kick out of Kim's description of whether or not the airplanes have wheel pants. That's squarely in the "who cares?" box in my head.

I'd prefer to take ours off but the co-owners think a plane without wheel pants "looks like a rental". Heh.
 
I've always wondered how flour bombing fits with the FARs. You're basically buzzing the runway with no intent to land...

I am also getting a kick out of Kim's description of whether or not the airplanes have wheel pants. That's squarely in the "who cares?" box in my head.

I'd prefer to take ours off but the co-owners think a plane without wheel pants "looks like a rental". Heh.

Hoping I won't get in trouble, they've been doing this for years, perhaps decades even, and besides - I'm not the organizer. Maybe they get a letter from the FAA just like air shows do?
 
I've always wondered how flour bombing fits with the FARs. You're basically buzzing the runway with no intent to land...

I am also getting a kick out of Kim's description of whether or not the airplanes have wheel pants. That's squarely in the "who cares?" box in my head.

I'd prefer to take ours off but the co-owners think a plane without wheel pants "looks like a rental". Heh.

They make a noticeable difference in speed.
 
I think I read somewhere it's 3 knots per fairing, and when I had mine off it was about 7 or 8 knots slower

When I flew a 172 with them (same airplane, pre fairing removal and 2 gal of fuel difference) I got about 8kts better in cruise. Same results here.
 
Back
Top