TiredSoul

Two things:

1. Human factors
2. Slightly different plane

*1. Don’t underestimate human factors. You were probably so preoccupied about it being a “different” airplane that you didn’t fixate on the landing and did better.
If a student tells me “this airplane doesn’t fly nice” or “this airplane doesn’t land nice” then I know that is 100% human factors.

*2. You’d have to put them side by side to tell the differences. The R carries more gas so may have been a little heavier. Seating position may have been slightly different. Slightly higher or lower due to different seats.
The flight control cables may have been adjusted a little better or because the airplane is newer....less slack.
Also the R does not have 40 degree flaps if I recall correctly and the N does.
So what was “full flap” to you may have only been 30 iso 40 you were used to.

I flew an ‘79 Cessna 172 couple of months back and that thing flew like a wet paper bag. So no, I “don’t like it”.

tomgoodman

Unless, of course, the airplane is possessed by an evil spirit.

Douglas89

I appreciate the input.

You are correct. The 172N does have 40 flaps but we always land with 30 (except short field landings). The seat position may be a little bit different. I think the seat was adjusted to sit a tad higher.

The controls in the 172R feel a little bit heavier and not so touchy. Also, the 172N does have a little bit of play in the yoke. I can’t remember how much play was in the 172R but I would imagine you want some amount of play.

The 172R overall felt more stable in the air. Even on short approach I felt WAY more confident as I just had much better control/feel of the aircraft. It was doing what I wanted it to do.

I fly this morning at 7 am. We were going to do my solo yesterday, but the temp was very high, lower pressure and the pattern was very busy so we waited. May try to first solo this morning if conditions are good.

One of the main reasons I started flying the 172N is that it is the cheapest aircraft at the school.

TiredSoul

The play in the yoke is partially because of the design of the flight control system and partially because of age and wear.
Take a look behind the panel one day.
You’ll see cables and pulleys and a chain over two sprockets that connect the yokes.







The 172 is truly a Yugo of the skies.
Can do a lot of things but not good at any of them.

C130driver

Question, what do you define as a good landing? In my home community (C-130s,) a good landing is defined as in the zone, on speed, on centerline and no crab! Greasing it on is simply bonus points - and highly frowned upon if the runway is contaminated!

USMCFLYR

And that greaser SHOULD be frowned upon if outside of all those other parameters. If you float halfway down a 6,000’ runway trying to ‘grease it on’ and then you do - that is a busted landing attempt as far as being a well executed landing. Now you can go from hitting all those parameters on the nose and ‘greasing it on’ to any landing that you can walk away from being a good landing depending on what your expectations are for your own performance.

But for the OP, make sure you REALLY KNOW what makes a good landing and that you don’t have the wrong idea or some unrealistic expectations in your head.

Douglas89

I crab on final and transition to side slip just prior to round out.

My definition would be roundout at 65 kias, touch down between numbers and 1000’ markers, on centerline, tracking straight down runway (no side load) landing on the mains gently and holding off the nose.

I had way more control and confidence with the 172R than the 172N. It also felt easier to flare as well. The 172N seems to float more than the R.

I actually just did my first solo this morning in my 172N. It went pretty well. Wind was good, pattern was very light. Though.... on my first take off it all just hit me knowing that I was past the point of no return. I have to land this aircraft well or I will probably die. My palms were sweating and my heart racing.

After the first touch and go I calmed down some. My pattern work is pretty solid but my approach on this runway is usually a little high. It has a displaced threshold that always seems to mess with me. Also, I have only landed that runway on 4 separate occasions now.

JamesNoBrakes

Same airplane, same weight relatively, same lifting capacity, etc. It doesn't float more, you were faster and lower in the 172N. Whether starting your roundout earlier or higher, you were "on speed" in the R model.

What height were you level above the runway in both aircraft when at a level pitch attitude? If you aren't estimating this and thinking about it consciously every time and afterwards, as well as where you start the flare and what speed you start it at, all of this is just guessing. Guessing isn't going to get consistent good landings. What procedure did you follow in the aircraft that resulted in good landings? At what point did you reduce the power, flare, round out, etc?

Douglas89

I did everything the same as far as I know. I roundout when my aiming point rapidly expands, then transition my view to about halfway down runway.

I am very vigilant with watching my airspeed in the pattern and especially on final. I’m pretty consistent with my 65 kias on final and at roundout.

I pitch and power idle at the round out. Then hold the plane off and when i can sense it starting to sink I begin adding more back pressure and try to hold the nose up on the horizon. Regarding the height, I’m not sure exactly but I think it is around 12-15’.

That is the thing that is so weird about the R. I did everything the same as I normally do. I may book that plane again just to see how I do in the landings again.

JamesNoBrakes

Just some food for thought, the aim point is expanding the whole time you are approaching, it doesn't "rapidly expand" at one definite point. This is an indicator that you prossibly vary your height and roundout timing significantly during different approaches.

That's good, inevitably you'll be a couple knots slow or fast and it won't be a reason to go around if you roundout a little higher or lower. You can use the height to help manage the energy, increasing the AOA increases the drag, etc., rounding out a little higher or lower...

Good, that sounds good for a cessna like that. The biggest issue I usually see with these is letting it sink too low before starting to try and raise the nose, which results in lots of ballooning, bouncing, etc. Having a target height helps to avoid this. At that speed I tend to find they like a nice long lazy round-outs and power reductions too, 6-10 secs.

Little things can have a big effect, like some crosswind and holding in the inputs puts the aircraft into a sideslip and that increases the drag and makes it sink more readily, which could be beneficial if you are a few knots fast or rounding out too low. I'm not saying that's it, just an example of how things can happen. I usually don't find that two similar aircraft like two 172s at similar weights behave much different during landing, but the key is always following through with the procedure and all the little cues that are taught for landing.

But the more experience you get with this, the better. Once you start to see what good landings look like, you can hopefully apply the same to other aircraft, making similar cues and procedures.