172 landings

popaviator

popaviator

Well-Known Member
I have been doing touch and goes with my student and have had some rough landings to say the least. :pirate: I was curious how much force a 172 can withstand before the shock struts collapse or become damaged.
 
I can tell you from experience, it can take quite a bit. I still haven't hit a 172 strut like I have hit the oleo struts in the Cherokee 140s though. The problem with the 172 gear is that the nose gear can't take much punishment, but the mains are fine.
 
Depending on previous abuse, you might wrinkle the firewall before you destroy the nose strut. Be ye careful!

For some reason the 172 with students really lends itself to landing flat. I do recall it landing waaaay better if loaded to max gross with people in the back seats.
 
Maurus said:
The problem with the 172 gear is that the nose gear can't take much punishment, but the mains are fine.
Click to expand...
x2

Protect the nose, but the mains can take an amazing amount of abuse.

I've have been through some real smashers in a 172.
 
Roger said:
For some reason the 172 with students really lends itself to landing flat. I do recall it landing waaaay better if loaded to max gross with people in the back seats.
Click to expand...

I find that tends to be an airspeed problem. If my students come in too fast, they tend to land flat instead of being patient and letting the airspeed bleed off.
 
popaviator said:
I was curious how much force a 172 can withstand before the shock struts collapse or become damaged.
Click to expand...

Last I remember they are a stack of bent steel that runs from one tire to the other, through the belly. The steel flexes with force, so it's gonna take a lot. Your nose, as others have said is probably the one that will show the damage before the mains.
 
IIRC, certification standard is hitting the ground in a 600ft/min descent with no damage. But that's an OLD memory.

From experience, I've um... seen, yeah, seen them dropped from 50ish feet with no damage. As previously stated, keep the impact off the nose as much as is possible.
 
Maurus said:
I find that tends to be an airspeed problem. If my students come in too fast, they tend to land flat instead of being patient and letting the airspeed bleed off.
Click to expand...
That is true. I also think the Cessna-recommended 65 is too fast for entering the flare, at least at light weights. Short fields are a lot easier if you come into the flare at about 50...
 
Maurus said:
I find that tends to be an airspeed problem. If my students come in too fast, they tend to land flat instead of being patient and letting the airspeed bleed off.
Click to expand...

It's more fundamentally a failure to recognize the proper pitch attitude for landing. Once that picture is firmly ingrained, you can come in at full cruise speed and still land nose high.
 
tgrayson said:
It's more fundamentally a failure to recognize the proper pitch attitude for landing. Once that picture is firmly ingrained, you can come in at full cruise speed and still land nose high.
Click to expand...
Depending on the length of the runway, you may or may not still be over pavement by the time you land...but yeah..

That might actually be a good exercise for student pilots to learn the proper pitch attitude for landing (provided the runway is long enough).
 
Roger said:
For some reason the 172 with students really lends itself to landing flat. I do recall it landing waaaay better if loaded to max gross with people in the back seats.
Click to expand...

x2

I've had that experience as well.
 
tgrayson said:
Takes about 7,000 feet at 120 knots, zero flaps. ;)
Click to expand...

Funny yet tragic story:

I've personally seen a new-hire CFI from a "Mill" forced into a go-around on a 7400 foot runway in a 172.
The second attempt had him hard on the breaks for the last turnoff.


"Something is wrong with that plane"
"Nope"
 
tgrayson said:
It's more fundamentally a failure to recognize the proper pitch attitude for landing. Once that picture is firmly ingrained, you can come in at full cruise speed and still land nose high.
Click to expand...

I agree. The problem I have seen from my Indian students has been more of a patience issue. they get more used to the timing of a landing than a pitch attitude.

"It should have landed by now" *student drops nose of aircraft*

Good times.
 
Douglas said:
Funny yet tragic story:

I've personally seen a new-hire CFI from a "Mill" forced into a go-around on a 7400 foot runway in a 172.
The second attempt had him hard on the breaks for the last turnoff.


"Something is wrong with that plane"
"Nope"
Click to expand...

I think you could come in at the top of the yellow line and not be able to float 7400 feet.
 
When my students had a hard landings, or a hard time landing in general, I would have them come in to land as usual and then short final take I would control of the power and brief them that I wanted them to remain in ground effect with 20* flaps. It would give them a great sight picture down the runway and also build their go around skills. After a time or two of doing that they would usually have a much better sight picture of the flare and when you add full flaps and keep about 1500RPM in ground effect the landings would be really smooth.

I have had students, myself included, bring a 172 in hard sometimes more than once from the bounce. To preserve the gear, if a hard landing results in a substantial bounce, its a go around immediately. My secondary but equal concern is a nose low attitude and landing on the nose strut followed by a possible prop strike.

Good luck with your student!
 
The older 182s, with the manual flaps, can land softly everytime....you can use that flap handle like a helicopter's collective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top