Choosing The Right Cessna 172
12-19-2018, 07:36 AM
#34
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,501
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Four people in a 172 at 10,000' density altitude, no problem. Did it for some time, in the mountains. For training and two people, it's a great platform. A lot less expensive, too.
And yes, the 172 will carry four people to 10,000 feet (although barely on a warm day), if only because you will be well under gross weight when you get there because of the fuel burn during the time to climb.
But I wholeheartedly agree about the 172 being a great training platform for two people. That was basically the old Air Force Academy trainer program, take the back seats out of a T-41 so no one would be tempted to use it as a four place at COS on a warm day initially and later go exclusively to the 180hp version.
And then one of our less bright chief of staffs decided something different should be used.
https://robrobinette.com/T-3A_Firefly.htm
12-19-2018, 07:42 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Two-thirds the gas so it is cheaper but an annual is very nearly a push. And a major for an O-320 is little if any cheaper than for an O-470 any more and insurance is actually cheaper on the 182.
And yes, the 172 will carry four people to 10,000 feet (although barely on a warm day), if only because you will be well under gross weight when you get there because of the fuel burn during the time to climb.
But I wholeheartedly agree about the 172 being a great training platform for two people. That was basically the old Air Force Academy trainer program, take the back seats out of a T-41 so no one would be tempted to use it as a four place at COS on a warm day initially and later go exclusively to the 180hp version.
And then one of our less bright chief of staffs decided something different should be used.
https://robrobinette.com/T-3A_Firefly.htm
And yes, the 172 will carry four people to 10,000 feet (although barely on a warm day), if only because you will be well under gross weight when you get there because of the fuel burn during the time to climb.
But I wholeheartedly agree about the 172 being a great training platform for two people. That was basically the old Air Force Academy trainer program, take the back seats out of a T-41 so no one would be tempted to use it as a four place at COS on a warm day initially and later go exclusively to the 180hp version.
And then one of our less bright chief of staffs decided something different should be used.
https://robrobinette.com/T-3A_Firefly.htm
12-19-2018, 09:09 AM
#36
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,267
Originally Posted by Excargodog
And yes, the 172 will carry four people to 10,000 feet (although barely on a warm day), if only because you will be well under gross weight when you get there because of the fuel burn during the time to climb.
12-19-2018, 09:12 AM
#37
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,267
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Proper leaning becomes important if you are operating at those DA, not just winging it...
12-19-2018, 07:55 PM
#38
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,018
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Yes, and that includes for takeoff and go-around.
I operated the 172 in the Grand Canyon in the summe with seats full, sometimes full of cargo, flying off dirt airstrips, no problem. The airplane was a moneymaker; a higher profit margin for that than other single engine airplanes like the 206/207, despite the reduced capacity, precisely because it was so inexpensive to operate. It wasn't a long struggle to get to altitude, either. Cruise climb up, normal descent back, it worked just fine.
12-21-2018, 06:55 AM
#39
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,267
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
If leaning for takeoff, do it at takeoff power setting and enrichen when making a power reduction; the 172 uses an enrichment function in the carburetor and if leaning is done at 1700 RPM during the runup, it hasn't been leaned for takeoff; only for 1700 RPM.
I operated the 172 in the Grand Canyon in the summe with seats full, sometimes full of cargo, flying off dirt airstrips, no problem. The airplane was a moneymaker; a higher profit margin for that than other single engine airplanes like the 206/207, despite the reduced capacity, precisely because it was so inexpensive to operate. It wasn't a long struggle to get to altitude, either. Cruise climb up, normal descent back, it worked just fine.
I operated the 172 in the Grand Canyon in the summe with seats full, sometimes full of cargo, flying off dirt airstrips, no problem. The airplane was a moneymaker; a higher profit margin for that than other single engine airplanes like the 206/207, despite the reduced capacity, precisely because it was so inexpensive to operate. It wasn't a long struggle to get to altitude, either. Cruise climb up, normal descent back, it worked just fine.
12-21-2018, 06:57 AM
#40
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,018
I do it on the runway, too, along with the carb check, because there's no point fouling anything or getting carb ice or heating the engine unnecessarily between the runup area and the runway; if I've got to power up for takeoff, that's a good time to catch the runup and leaning, prior to brake release.
The exceptions are busy fields, and areas where runups can't be performed or powerups with brakes held, due to field conditions.
The exceptions are busy fields, and areas where runups can't be performed or powerups with brakes held, due to field conditions.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MDT06
Regional
46
09-26-2008 06:59 AM
