Transitioning from C172R (1999) to C172E (1964)

[Renesh Kumaresan]

Hi,
I’m a student pilot who is going to solo soon, and I’m being switched to a new aircraft my flight school has acquired. I have about 10hrs on a C172N and 5hrs on a C172R. I really like the performance of fuel injected and the nicer looking gauges. Apart from looks, what are major changes in the C172E from the previous mentioned aircraft.
Mainly, will airspeed be in knots or mph?
Thanks

 

[Kenny Phillips]

The Johnson bar flap handle is pretty cool. The E model will have a very smooth six-cylinder Continental. Unless changed, airspeed is in MPH. And not many of them; cruise is 120 mph.

 

[RyanB]

If you can fly an N or R model, you can fly any of the prior models too. I actually doubt you will have much of a transition phase either. The airspeed will be in MPH, so for reference what I do, is basically add 5’s to everything.

For example, in a 172N with KIAS, I’ll fly downwind at 75, base at 70 and final at 65 or thereabouts. With an airspeed gauge reading in MPH, just add 5 to those speeds. So 80, 75, 70. Works like a charm.

 

[FlySince9]

A hawk is a hawk... If you can fly one, you can fly any of them... Docile, forgiving airplane... Continental motor rather than Lycoming... manual flaps (maybe). Probably MPH on the ASI..

 

[alfadog]

If you can fly an N or R model, you can fly any of the prior models too. I actually doubt you will have much of a transition phase either. The airspeed will be in MPH, so for reference what I do, is basically add 5’s to everything.

For example, in a 172N with KIAS, I’ll fly downwind at 75, base at 70 and final at 65 or thereabouts. With an airspeed gauge reading in MPH, just add 5 to those speeds. So 80, 75, 70. Works like a charm.

Actually, you want to add 10 for the conversion at those approach speeds but who's counting

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Actually, you want to add 10 for the conversion at those approach speeds but who's counting

Actually, you would use what was published for that particular airplane. I could use 65 mph over the numbers in calm conditions, no problem.

 

[frfly172]

You shouldn’t have any problems,after all ,it’s just an older 172.

 

[chemgeek]

Should be pretty much the same. The manual flaps can be quickly deployed for quick deceleration for short field, over the obstruction landings. If making go around after deploying flaps take care not to dump them all at once, something you dont have to worry as much about with electric flaps. (Although take care there, too!)

I did my BFR this year in a D model making short field landings over trees on a downhill grass strip. Fun!

 

[texasclouds]

A couple different people told me they older 6 cyl engines can get hot flying closed pattern. Otherwise they are a dandy.

 

[wilkersk]

I'm not 100% sure. But, I think this:

1) Carb heat - 64 has it
2) Flaps - 64's can go to 40 deg. Full flaps in certain conditions can disrupt airflow over the tail and cause the dreaded fwd-slip burble. Not necessarily a killer, but can be exciting if you're not aware of it.
3) Main Landing Gear - I think they're different and maybe more prone to get tipped up and drag a wing if you horse it around on the ground too fast, or don't taxi with proper cross-wind input.

 

[iflyvfr]

Actually, you would use what was published for that particular airplane. I could use 65 mph over the numbers in calm conditions, no problem.

In my 66 G I'm 90-80-70 w/ 63-65 over the numbers in calm air. After reading this thread I'm tempted to try subtracting 5 mph off my numbers to see if I can make my landings more predictable.

 

[labbadabba]

In my 66 G I'm 90-80-70 w/ 63-65 over the numbers in calm air. After reading this thread I'm tempted to try subtracting 5 mph off my numbers to see if I can make my landings more predictable.

Yep, landing at 70mph she'll start to get squirrelly and you'll have to force her down or float 1,000 feet. I'm 65 over the fence and about 60 over the numbers.