bc2209
Well-Known Member
Never flown a Cessna during any of my primary training. Honest question, and i'm lazy, but what is the major difference in all of the 172 a,b,c,d,w,t,f?
Gusty Winds Full Flaps?
- Thread starter bc2209
- Start date
Never flown a Cessna during any of my primary training. Honest question, and i'm lazy, but what is the major difference in all of the 172 a,b,c,d,w,t,f?
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
Depends. The vast majority of my time is in the R/S models or 172SP's. These have more horseys which is really noticible in any situation where you apply a bunch of power, they preform much better of course and usually have nice leather interiors and cool good avionics. Of the older models I've flown the M, N, O, and P models. They were all slightly different, I remember some had 40 degrees of flaps instead of 30, some had cigar lighters and ash trays, some had very dim crappy red cockpit lighting where I needed a flashlight for night flying to see the ASI and anything else, some had only 1 comm and usually with the old turn dial radios, and the main thing of course was most were carborated so you needed to know when to apply carb heat and worry about carb ice. As far as the actual flying, the lack of horseys is evident, and the yokes were skinnier and had a different feel to them and everything just felt a little looser and less instantaneous as far as control inputs. From what I remember the reference speeds were all pretty much the same and they more or less flew the same, just a little different.
z987k
Well-Known Member
The A through M model had 40 degrees of flaps and the elevator would buffet a little if you did a slip with full flaps in. The N through current are only 30 and don't have the issue. It's not an issue to begin with to be honest.
Karnage
I-am-a-pirate. I do not need credentials!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172
I've flown M, N, P, R, and S models. The M thru R were all 160 horsepower when built and as the years went by and Cessna added more equipment to them performance kept going downhill. The S got 180hp from the factory and solved some of the issues but they just keep adding crap making them heavier. There are a lot of 180 conversions out there and most of the best performing 172s I've flown were M and N models that had been upgraded to 180hp.
Like @ChasenSFO said, they all pretty much fly the same (well, M model and newer), have the same reference speeds, and depending on the size of the fuel tanks carry the same. The only real differences are fuel capacity, horsepower, and max takeoff weight. If you want a 172 that performs take up 738EA from Falcon Exec. It's a 172N that has the 180hp conversion and 2550lb max takeoff weight increase. It climbs like mad and you can actually put four adults in it with full fuel (granted its only 40gal but it's like a DA40 that can actually use the fourth seat for something other than a map holder).
I've flown M, N, P, R, and S models. The M thru R were all 160 horsepower when built and as the years went by and Cessna added more equipment to them performance kept going downhill. The S got 180hp from the factory and solved some of the issues but they just keep adding crap making them heavier. There are a lot of 180 conversions out there and most of the best performing 172s I've flown were M and N models that had been upgraded to 180hp.
Like @ChasenSFO said, they all pretty much fly the same (well, M model and newer), have the same reference speeds, and depending on the size of the fuel tanks carry the same. The only real differences are fuel capacity, horsepower, and max takeoff weight. If you want a 172 that performs take up 738EA from Falcon Exec. It's a 172N that has the 180hp conversion and 2550lb max takeoff weight increase. It climbs like mad and you can actually put four adults in it with full fuel (granted its only 40gal but it's like a DA40 that can actually use the fourth seat for something other than a map holder).
Hiboglossi
The Most Depressing Person
If I remember correctly the 172P is the only model I have seen a placard in that says anything about slips with flaps extended. The 172S does not have a placard but if memory serves the POH (I may be thinking of the R) recommends against slips with full flaps because of a possible elevator flutter. I don't think it specifically prohibited in any model, just not recommended.
Actually the N still has 40 degrees of flaps, but starting with the P they only went to 30. I have read that most 172Ns have gone through an aftermarket engine upgrade of some sort- I can't remember what it was- that required reducing the flap range to 0-30. The only 172N I have ever flown, which I did my private training in, had 40 degrees of flaps.
I have slipped 172s with full flaps plenty of times, including the N with 40 degrees, and only encountered the elevator flutter/buffet once (oddly enough in an R with 30 degrees). I would agree it's not all that much of an issue.
I myself have flown the L, M, N, P, R, and S models, so it looks like I win this thread so far for the number of 172 models flown
. All of them fly about the same and have the same, but the V-speeds differ by a few knots between each model. I didn't notice much difference between the L,M, and N except the N is the first model to have "pre-selected flaps" instead of the up/down switch. The P has a higher MTOW and only 30 degrees of flaps. The R is the first fuel-injected model and has bigger tanks with 53 gallons usable fuel instead of 39 or 40 like on the early models. It also has 13 fuel sumps. The S is pretty much an R with a 180 horsepower engine instead of 160.
Some of the early 172 models have 6-cylinder continental engines instead of 4-cylinder lycomings, and the earliest ones have manual flaps, but I have never flown one of those. Yes, I know way too much trivia about the 172 but it looks like I'm not the only one based on this thread.
Actually the N still has 40 degrees of flaps, but starting with the P they only went to 30. I have read that most 172Ns have gone through an aftermarket engine upgrade of some sort- I can't remember what it was- that required reducing the flap range to 0-30. The only 172N I have ever flown, which I did my private training in, had 40 degrees of flaps.
I have slipped 172s with full flaps plenty of times, including the N with 40 degrees, and only encountered the elevator flutter/buffet once (oddly enough in an R with 30 degrees). I would agree it's not all that much of an issue.
I myself have flown the L, M, N, P, R, and S models, so it looks like I win this thread so far for the number of 172 models flown
. All of them fly about the same and have the same, but the V-speeds differ by a few knots between each model. I didn't notice much difference between the L,M, and N except the N is the first model to have "pre-selected flaps" instead of the up/down switch. The P has a higher MTOW and only 30 degrees of flaps. The R is the first fuel-injected model and has bigger tanks with 53 gallons usable fuel instead of 39 or 40 like on the early models. It also has 13 fuel sumps. The S is pretty much an R with a 180 horsepower engine instead of 160. Some of the early 172 models have 6-cylinder continental engines instead of 4-cylinder lycomings, and the earliest ones have manual flaps, but I have never flown one of those. Yes, I know way too much trivia about the 172 but it looks like I'm not the only one based on this thread.
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
Out here, most of the 172Rs have been upgraded to 180 horseys. I've found that the standard 6-pack SPs vary 400+ pounds sometimes in useful load depending on the equipment. There are certain planes I can routinely take 3 pax in(usually at least one would have to be a smaller girl) and others that can barely take 2. It's very important to use the specific planes weights and not the POH data as I've known people to do.
JustinS
Well-Known Member
All this talk about horses... Weren't you trying to fit one in a Skyhawk at one point?
DPApilot
GUYSH! GUYSH! GUYSH!
I have more picture where the last came from, Rash.
DPApilot
GUYSH! GUYSH! GUYSH!
JRH, NBR.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
I've never flown an 'S' model. I didn't hit it rich until very recently. Now I can afford to rent a 'S'
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
I'd like to get back into GA flying but I refuse to fly any 172 over New Jersey/Hudson that doesn't have a TIS. Those are hard to find unless you transition to the G1000.
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
Personally, I wish the place I rented from had older 172s as well. The S is nice for XC's if you want to be comfortable and lazy with a GPS, but the older ones are more fun for local flying and cheaper to boot. Most schools out here have at least 1 or 2 6-pack birds with TCAS. The G1000 is cool and all, but I really don't think its necessary for the type of flying most renters do in 172s.I've never flown an 'S' model. I didn't hit it rich until very recently. Now I can afford to rent a 'S'
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Why? I mean, you can literally feel exactly how much lift and drag you have while you do it, it's pretty straight forward, if you're settling too much, you pull a little back in. You're not just clicking the button and dropping the flaps to the ground.Sounds shady...
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
What 172 setup offers TCAS? Built into what?
z987k
Well-Known Member
Flying an airplane for fun really shouldn't require anything more than a compass and a tach.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
True. But where I live is congested airspace with way too many flight schools flying around newbies in Pipers and Cessnas. Besides, several times now going into EWR somewhere over central Jersey at 6,000' I get a "traffic at blah blah at 5,500 I'm not talking to him..." only to turn out that he's actually at 5,700 because he's cool like that. Which then goes to set off a TCAS RA and we have to climb to avoid.
It's the other guys out there I want to be able to see which is why I'm looking only for those planes with a TIS at minimum. Now if I was in podunk, USA I wouldn't care as much. But the NYC metro airspace is very busy and extremely congested with lots of flight training activities.
z987k
Well-Known Member
I guess my point was more that if you need TIS to go flying, it's not really going to be that much fun. Sounds a lot like work to me.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Maybe. It doesn't have to be. Just something that says "traffic" and shows it on a GPS/map the location and relative altitude.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Another issue I'm seeing is some rental locations requiring renters insurance liability for airplane at 25,000 - 35,000 dollars! Some of those planes aren't even worth that much. Most flight school damage deductibles are only 1,000 or 5,000 which is what you are on the hook for. But some near me require you to purchase renters insurance with aircraft damage/hull liability to cover 25k-35k. With the mandatory property damage coverage (aircraft liability is the optional portion), with both of those it costs nearly $400 in renters insurance for one year. Just to be able to rent.
Another minor issue is despite the FAA rule of 3 TOs/LDGs in cat/class in previous 90 days, some of these flight schools want you to rent there every 60 days or go through a "mini" checkout process before you can rent again. As a full-time airline pilot, if I rent I can't guarantee it will be every 60 days. I think realistically I'd do it once every 90 days (3 months) which is about 4 pleasure flights per year.
Another minor issue is despite the FAA rule of 3 TOs/LDGs in cat/class in previous 90 days, some of these flight schools want you to rent there every 60 days or go through a "mini" checkout process before you can rent again. As a full-time airline pilot, if I rent I can't guarantee it will be every 60 days. I think realistically I'd do it once every 90 days (3 months) which is about 4 pleasure flights per year.