Considering a 172H

Considering a 172H

<HTML>Hello all,
I am considering a low time 172H, as an IFR time builder.  I am a newly minted ASEL private.  I would like to thank you all in advance for the advice you can give me.  What is the minimum equip required to make the airplane IFR eligible?  Is there anything that would make an "H" model undesirable?  What about any other general things I might need to think about referencing this purchase?  The one I'm looking at has a 145HP O-300 with around 700 hours left TBO.  Should I try a performance exhaust system or just wait and do a higher HP STC down the road? 
Thanks again for your time!!
Chip Carter</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>The equipment requirements for IFR are listed in 91.205.  The repetitive items are in 91.411 adn 91.413 (Transponder/Altimeter recertifications.)
  The 1967 H model 172 was an excellent airplane with no particular problems.  It was the last year that Cessna used the O-300 engine.  Not because it was not a good engine, because it was.  In fact, the O-300 enjoys the best reliability and safety records among general aviation engines. 
  The reason that Cessna dropped the Continental O-300 engine was because they'd made a serious marketing error.  They believed that their new single engined airplane known as the "Cardinal" would become the 172 replacement, and they'd planned to end 172 production. They had ordered 4,000 Lycoming 150 hp O-320 engines to equip the new C-177 Cardinal.  But the airplane was a flop.  It was underpowered and it didn't sell.  So Cessna took all the those extra Lycomings and stuck them into a continued 172 production run.  Sadly, for admirers of the reliable Continental, the 172 has had Lycomings ever since.
  Perform a thorough pre-buy (read-annual inspection) and enjoy your great choice of an airplane.   (And when it comes time to overhaul the O-300, do so with confidence.  It's a great engine!)</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>I agree with George.  I bought a 1967 172H last spring and have just completed a very extensive annual that turned up nothing, but at least I know for a fact that there's not a bit of corrosion or any other hidden problem.  Have it annualed or pre-buy inspected by someone you trust and you'll never be sorry.  Mine is IFR and low time.. 38 hrs SMOH, is very tight, no oil leaks,  radios have just been re-certified and work great. (Mark 12D w/IDME/VOR/GS, KX170 VOR, KR86, AT150, and an ancient King Loran that will be replaced soon)  She flys hands-off, is very stable and is a joy to fly.  She'll get paint and interior soon.  I plan to keep this one for as long as I am able to fly, I'm 55.  It fits my needs perfectly for 300 - 400 mile trips.  It's a great, reliable, maintenance-easy, airplane.  I love mine, and hope you enjoy yours.</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>Chip, I just purchased a '66G and I had an annual done at purchase. It has the 0-300 1275 SMOH, and the lowest cyl. checked 72 lbs., the rest being within 4 lbs. of each other. I've flown all variants of the 172, and here's my opinion: I see no performance advantage by having the 150HP Lyc. The ones I've flown are identical in performance to the 145HP Cont., except the Continental is smoother. The 160HP Lyc. does give a little more climb & cruise performance, but these engines are plagued with AD's, and the one piece magneto deal. Although, most of these engines do well provided they have been overhauled recently, and all of the svc. bulletins are abided by. I just returned from a 600 mi. trip with a buddy who has a 172N(160HP), and at every stop he was parking at the ramp and I was on base leg or downwind. So given this, I am very happy that I got the 0-300 Continental. But, the biggest problem I have seen with any engine is not necessarly hrs. SMOH, but years SMOH. I would rather have a 1200hr. engine overhauled 5-10 yrs. ago, than a 200hr. engine overhauled 20 yrs. ago. My first plane was a L-2M with an A-65 800SMOH. The thing I didn't take into account was that this overhaul was 25 yrs. old. Needless to say, 100 hrs. later, I'm doing a major, and everything inside of this motor was solid rust. An expensive tuition. But, back to the point, yes I love my Continental powered 172, and the only thing I would trade it for right now would be a Continental powered 182!! Hope this helps.</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>So I'm very excited about my engine (most of us are), but there are also some good and bad about the older airframes too...

I have a 66 172G, and there are some differences from the later models:

electric vs. "harmonica" non-electric stall horn

100 watt rotating beacon vs. 300-400 watt strobe beacon

40 flaps with spring switch vs. settable flaps 30 and indicator

landing and taxi light in wing vs. in nose cowl

shin destroying wheel pants and steps vs. smaller pants/steps

generator and old voltage reg vs. alternator and modern reg

big nose cowl access door vs little access doors

fuel drain knob in cabin vs. in nose cowl

vacc gauge way over on right panel vs. in left panel

oil screen vs. oil filter


etc...

  So I personnally like the lights in the wing, because they don't vibrate as much (i.e. break), and I like having 40 flaps but wish they were settable instead of having to hold the little lever for a while.  I also like the big cowl access door.

  But the other stuff in my opinion is a drawback. 

I like the non-electric stall horns better,
the 100 watt rotating beacon is too weak for others to see me,

I have had experienced pilots bang shins on pants (I had the steps torched to a shorter length so that's not a problem anymore),

it's a pain sampling the nose fuel drain without 2 people,

I replaced the generator with an alternator/regulator STC (which
I think is safer and provides more power),

I reworked the panel and put the vacc gauge on the pilot panel,

I got the spin on filter STC.

  So there are other differences besides just engine that you might consider.  Some older planes already have some STC or instrument mod work already done, and I would look at these more favorably if these mods are things you like...


Mark</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>I had a 1965 C172 continental then sold it about 10 years ago when I got out of flying, the one who purchased it still owns it! I now I have a 1969 C172K lycoming and I like both of these airplanes - others too.

My Notes: the continental has 6 cylinders and a shorter TBO so it will cost a little more to overhaul (6 cyl instead of 4) and you'll have to overhaul a little more often.

I think the lycoming has a better climb rate - but that may just be mine , 'cause it has a 160 hp conversion (by a prior owner) and a powerflow exhaust I had put on.

I don't think the powerflow exhaust is available for the continental at this time - and I think it makes a real difference on my aircraft - I have the stol wing kit with fences and gap seals so its pretty easy to climb out at 1200 FPM comfirmed by VSI and GPS, and commented on more than once by the airport regulars.  That is nice for a Family vehicle, even heavily loaded on hot days - I dont climb out as fast or aggresive with the whole family aboard, but its pretty easy and quick to climb 6 or 8 thousand feet to cool, smoot air, and the family really appreciates that and enjoys the trips more - so they are more willing to go again.

I would recomend either aircraft but suggest that you buy the
     *** airframe with the engine that you like most, ***
then add other stuff or upgrade radios and such as needed (read "budget").  If you plan on needing to go the route of engine conversions, you'll spend lots of money and if you ever consider resale you may not get much additional return (read prior posts by many others on engine conversions and upgrades), whereas if you upgrade things on an airplane that you allready like then its just that much better.

I highly recomend the very first upgrade to be a Garmin GPS (or other) if you don't allready have one, but keep your Nav Com's in good working order (and ADF, etc., etc.) then later buy a hand held to leave available in your flight bag - If you're coming home late at night you can do so without radios or elec, but you can use your handheld to turn the airport lights on to land.

Then use your 172 like the family car - my first 172 I took short trips and not very often - nowadays (maybe after being out of aviation for many years) we hop in and take off - 200 miles or 500 miles doesn't matter much and we enjoy it that much more. I haven't had the desire or need to go any farther yet, and with work being what it is, I can get home, or back to the office from just about anywhere in usually 1.5 to 3.5 hours (round numbers - most cases) so many trips are not time constrained as they otherwise would be, and even with weather considerations, most of the time there is a window of good weather a few hours long.   

Have fun and Safe Flying

Ken Wanagas</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>The perception that the 6-cylinder O-300 Continental must be more expensive to operate than the 4-cyl Lycomings is just that, in my opinion....a perception.   True that 6 cylinders cost 50% more to overhaul than 4.  But new cylinders on an O-300 will likely go all the way to the recommended 1800 hour TBO on that engine, whereas the so-claimed 2,000 hour TBO Lycomings have a reputation of needing replacement around 1100 hours.  The result is that the Lycoming engine has a 75% greater cost of operation fleetwide.  Add to that the valve train/cam lubrication problems, the single-piggy-back magneto problems, and the oil pump AD notes, and the Lycoming engine's claimed 2,000 TBO becomes pretty meaningless.
   On top of all that, very few private owners of aircraft actually operate their aircraft from fresh overhaul all the way to TBO.  In the vast majority of cases they sell the airplane long before they reach TBO,..or they buy the airplane well into it's engine mid-life and deal with all those problems during their ownership period.
   The only problem with the O-300 series engines are the -A models which have an 8-bolt crankshaft which is becoming rare.  The more plentiful and later O-300-C/D models with the 6-bolt prop flange cranks have no such problems.  (Only the very earliest C-172's used the -A engine, and even they may be easily converted to the later C/D's.)</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>"What is the minimum equip required to make the airplane IFR eligible?"

To take an IFR flight test, you need to be able to do one precision approach and two non-precision approaches.

A single VOR/GS/LOC technically fulfills this requirement, since you could do an ILS, a LOC, and then a VOR approach.  However, an additional bit of equipment, like a DME or a ADF or an IFR GPS allows a lot more flexibility and makes things easier.

The type of equipment you'll need to actually have to fly IFR to your home airport and your favorite destinations is something best discussed with your local instructor or local IFR pilots,

The required equipment varies for different approaches at different airports...ADF might be more useful than DME (assuming you don't want both) or your home airport may only have a GPS approach, etc...

Mark</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>One thing I do like about the earlier 172's is 40 degrees of flaps - if you use all 40 it's like throwing a boat anchor out - you're gonna loose speed and momentum real fast - makes it easy to plant it on the numbers, and I usually turn off the runway at the first intersection as long as its not right at the very end of the runway, just have the runway made before you dump all 40, if you should loose power after 40 you will have almost no momentum, airspeed, or altitude left.

and - 40 degrees of flaps can bite you if you let it -

I was on very short final, low and slow and put in the last of the flaps - all 40 - right then an aircraft taxied out in front of me and went right into a takeoff accel, I was pretty excited and really wanted to cuss this guy out, but was incredibly busy trying not to crash. I went to full power and the nose wanted to pitch up in the worst way, and it took a lot of heavy forward stick to keep it down and retain what airspeed I had left, as soon as I arrested the descent I let the nose up slightly all the while the idiot, I mean pilot, chose right now to climb out aggresively right under me and just slightly ahead of my center. A few more knots and I had just enough to slide off to the side in a very shallow bank, and just off his wingtip, I think he finally noticed, and now that we were a few feet apart, I was right over a row of hangars,  I remained in a shallow climb, gaining a little speed, then gave us some more elbow room.

I bring this up because there was an instance locally at a tower field where the controller gave a go around to an aircraft - had a student and an instructor both, when they applied power for the go-around they stalled and crashed (fatal) immediatly - the nose pitched up and they didn't catch it in time and the forward stick pressure is incredible - it took me heavy force with two hands to keep mine down. 

I like the availability of 40 flaps and the mechanical flap handle or even the newer detent switch (although the newer doesn't have 40), with both you "know" where the flaps are. My 172K has the switch that you have to hold down and had a next to worthless flap position indicator - I would have to say that it is the feature I liked LEAST on my 172 - replaced the indicator with one from visual inst - lots easier to read - more precise, and I consider it a real safety and operation improvement.     

Just a note -

Safe Flying

Ken Wanagas</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>Ken,

OK this is a little off topic, but I wanted to build on what Ken said.

I suggest you check this out while at a minimum of 2000 feet agl.  What I like about manual flaps is the speed at which they can be manipulated and how reliable they are.  In the case of a go around, I learned to raise the flaps from 40 to 30 degrees as you soon as you add power.  This is really great with mechanical flaps but be careful not to raise them any higher.  This permits you to gain the necessary speed  to get lift immediately without losing any altitude and stuggle with flying the airplane.

I believe this is because the change from 30 to 40 degrees only adds drag and no or a minimal amount of lift.  I have no technical basis for this statement other than it seems to work.  I'm sure George might be able to expand on this a bit more.  My C173M has electric flags and on gusty days I don't usually apply a full 40 degrees upon landing.

Let me know what you think.</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>Thanks fo  the "vote of confidence', Barry, but be careful recommending anything I might say. (grin)
  In a go around, we are requesting the airplane to assume a "climb" configuration.  My personal opinion on this is:  If your FAA approved manual on your aircraft has a takeoff/climb flap recommendation then that is the maximum flap deflection/application that should be used for a go-around.  In other words, if your approved performance data doesn't list a climb or takeoff with 30 degrees flaps.,....then I wouldn't attempt  a go-around with that setting.   Use only that flap setting for which takeoff or climb data exists for your aircraft.</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>George,

I have the utmost confidence in your opinion.  I a little confused on what you mean or in my understanding of what you said.  My manual, the 1973 POH states to use no flaps in short field and 10 degrees in soft field take offs. No flaps in climb. 

So if I'm on short final for landing (and on normal days that is 40 degrees flaps), the go around starts there and should end in my climb by slowly and carefully reducing flaps after a positive rate of climb is achieved.  So the starting point is 40 degrees flaps and ~70 mph and gradually changing configuration to no flaps and ~70 mph for Vx and ~90 mph for best rate of climb depending on what's appropriate.  The point would be can or should the 40 to 30-degree change in flaps happen quickly to avoid the condition Ken was describing.

What I thought you might have some data on is the 30 to 40 degrees of flaps change, i.e. little lift and mostly drag.  Therefore, reducing the flaps from 40 to 30 after applying full power should not result in loss of altitude (important in an emergency go around like what Ken was describing).  I'm not sure what this performance data may look like. Perhaps I am looking for a relatively small change in stall speed compared to changes in other flap positions.  I don't have my book handy and have this need to respond in timely manner.  I'll check out the POH tonight and let you know what I find.

Barry</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>I am rethinking the performance data as with the change in flaps is more complicated than just stall speed due to different angles of attack.</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>What I am trying to express is this:
  If your airplane FAA approved performance data lists a takeoff and/or climb performance with a particular climb setting....then that is the maximum flap setting that should be used in any go-around attempt.  This is because, if there is no approved takeoff/climb data available for any particular flap setting....it's because the aircraft will not climb in that particular configuration.
  Let's say your aircraft has data for zero flaps for takeoff and climb.  Then you may confidently go around with zero flaps.  That's the most obvious situation, right?
  Let's say your aircraft has data for 10-degrees flaps published.  (That section of the data may have certain restrictions placed upon it, but the point is that such data IS actually published.)  Then you may initiate a go-around with flaps at 10-degrees, also.
  Let's take your suggested scenario.  You're on short final with 40-degrees of flaps and 70 IAS.  Since there's no published takeoff or climb data in your approved flight manual for a flap setting of 40, then you should not attempt a go-around in that configuration. OK?
  BUT,....since you're at 70 IAS, you are well above the flaps up stall speed.  (You are well within the green arc on your airspeed indicator.)  The solution is to apply go-around power and retract the flaps to a published/allowable takeoff/climb flap setting.  If you are well above the bottom of the green arc, then you should not have any problem avoiding either stall or loss of altitude, provided you pitch up simultaneously to the attitude that you know will allow 70 IAS with the new flap setting.  The technique you wish to use is apply full power first, retract flaps and pitch up simultaneously. (If the engine didn't first develop takeoff/go-around power then you aren't going around!  You're still landing!)  Certainly the less flaps you use, the better climb performance you can expect.  How much?  Simple.  You can expect to achieve the same or better performance that your published aircraft data states you may expect in that configuration.  (Since you are already in flight, and since you are already at 70 IAS at the BEGINNING of the runway, you will beat the total distance requirements stated in the takeoff/climb performance charts.   Now, isn't that comforting?)
  The point is, that if there's no takeoff/climb data published for flaps 40 or flaps 30, then you should assume no climb performance will exist with that flap setting.  There's just too much drag to allow it.  You've got to get the flaps up to a setting that IS allowed.
  Bottom line:  Do not allow your airspeed to fall below that speed which will allow flap retraction and a go-around until you are committed to landing on that runway.  (In purely imaginary conversations regarding this subject, it is common for people to keep suggesting scenario's which are ever more precarious.  The answer is: if you are on final and you see someone pull out onto the runway in front of you, then you simply must make your decision sonner rather than later.   If you delay the go around, yes, it's possible to box yourself into a no-win situation.  Maybe that other person decides to do a brake-release takeoff and take their sweet time.  Or maybe he has an unexpected engine problem.  After all, if he pulled out onto the runway with you on final, it's most likely he either did not observe you on final (as the aircraft on final you did have the right of way, so surely he didn't deliberately block your landing) or he thought you were sufficiently far out so as to not expect he'd be a hindrance to you.  Either way, it's now YOUR MOVE!  Clearly you can't land with him there.  The longer you delay the fewer options you have.  Make your decision earlier rather than later.  (DON'T "buzz" him in anger thereby showing your own loss of temper and/or judgement.)  Fly to the right side of the runway in order to keep him in sight.  Get his tail number if you wish to visit with him later about it over coffee.  But be courteous and professional.  Initiate a go-around before you get boxed in and have the satisfaction that at least YOU did the right thing and did it well.
  If your airspeed is in the green arc you should have plenty of options to apply power and raise flaps to a position that will allow a successful go-around.</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>George, I can't believe ANYONE would buzz another aircraft when in this type of situation.
As for me - I did say very short final, I guess that  I could expand on that - very, very short final, (I don't remember if I had began the roundout to flair - but it was close) and after recapping this again I'm led to believe that the other pilot may have looked a few seconds before he actually taxied out (and got momentarily distracted by radios or something else and more time elapsed than he realized), and - or seriously underestimated the distance between us (maybe in combination), then went to agressive taxi out and takeoff, thinking that he still had enough time for that. 
As soon as I went to full power I was concerned with arresting the descent, at that time the aircraft which taxied onto the runway and began his takeoff roll agressively, and I found that I was trying to keep my prop from chewing through his rear window, followed by just enough bank (maybe 10 degrees) to slide to the right without risking hitting wingtips or loosing what precious lift I had, as soon as I was off to his right He was at or above my altitude, but I didn't want to take my eyes off him for fear that he may pick this inopportune time to make a non standard right turn -  the radio went dead for a while - Some actually dropped their mic's - others were speachless. Then I began retracting flaps and moving farther to the right, and actually had time to get on the radio and declare - an aborted landing, veering to the right and exiting the "pattern" ( I was hoping that no one was going to get on the radio and in excitement say something that would induce the other pilot to turn the "wrong" way", ( most of this elapsed in just a few seconds, and although I was "unhappy with the other pilot" my FIRST order of business was to
" FLY THE PLANE " 
There was no need for coffee or other forms of caffeine at this time, even after landing.
On re-entering the pattern and landing, the airport manager came over and mentioned that he hadn't realized that we were using parallel runways, It was his attempt at light homor, He said that he knew the other pilot and would surely discuss the situation with him on his return, but I think that by then the other pilot had realized he had an oversight of somekind, even if I wasn't fully aware of what it was, and I'm sure that more than one other pilot, and instructor, in the pattern at that time, or waiting to takeoff themselves, were going to bring it to his attention.

Since then I do concern myself ***more deeply with emergency landing areas to the right***, in the grass, or whatever, even if it could mean taking out runway lights or whatever, It's just that at this airport, there was none. It was crowded in the air and on the ground, no separate taxiways, and aircraft doing runups or holding to takeoff just to the right, behind them a row of airplanes and behind them a row of hangars, but there are a few other small fields like this in the general area, it just gets critical when they get crowded. A note - For other reasons, the row of aircraft has been completely moved so there is more room now and they have started plans and construction on a taxiway.</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>Ken,

That sure is some story. These are the moments that stay with you for a life time. I think I'm also going to pay more attention to nearby landing areas now then I did before.

George,

I appreciate the time you took to give me this explanation.

Your salient points are:
1) Use of the published performance specs in the POH to provide safe configurations of what is recommended and you can count on from your airplane.
2) When in the green arc you are above flaps up stall speed so dumping the flaps after applying power and raising the nose to compensate for the loss of flaps should result in a climb without stall or loss of altitude.
3) On short final, maintain speed above the flaps up stall speed in the event of an emergency go around.
4) Make your go around decision as early as possible.  This way you maintain margin in the event your like me and haven’t tried these maneuvers lately.

All of the above statements are excellent points.  In fact, your discussion reminded me that I was thinking more of power off stall recovery than a go-around. I haven’t done a go-around in a very long time.

The only point in your discussion that I found contrary to experience was the statement that “....then that is the maximum flap setting that should be used in any go-around attempt. This is because, if there is no approved takeoff/climb data available for any particular flap setting....it's because the aircraft will not climb in that particular configuration.”

During stall recovery I do climb with flap settings from ~30 to full up.  I took your statement to mean that it is not recommended to climb for any long period of time in other configurations, such as during a go –around with flaps or a climb to cruising altitude.  It’s more work for the engine and the performance stinks (to be technical), but you do climb.  Basically, the published data are the steady-state or end state (configuration) you want to transition to, but obviously the plane will perform in other configurations; otherwise we would all be in trouble.

Barry</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>Hi, Barry!
  I suspect when you were able to obtain a climb with that flap setting, you were not at gross weight.  Remember that most performance data is gross weight data.</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>Good point.

Yesterday, however, I had to try it.  My weight was about 2260#.  I had full long range tanks, two handsome people (Including the pilot) in the plane, and some other stuff.  Anyway I set up an approach to landing @ about 3000' density altitude, 40 degrees flaps, 70 mpg and 500 fpm decent.  My typical approach to landing speed.  I have electric flaps.
I then added power and immediately raised flaps (as fast as my electric motors would allow) while pitching up. 

Results:  From the point of pitching up about 5 degrees and starting to raise the flaps there was no further loss of altitude and the plane began to climb.  Since I based it on the altimeter, and unfortunately not the VSI, the climb appeared delayed but I attributed that to the lag in the altimeter.  (I'll do it a few times next time I'm up.) 

It would be interesting if some others performed this manuever to see how pilot dependent the results are and get some other feedback. At this point there are too many variables to and unknowns to draw a conclusion other then I had some fun.

CAUTION:  This was by no means an official test, it was just a private pilot and a CFI taking a break from commercial training and doing an experiment, the results should be considered inconclusive and anecdotal at best.</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>Go around at full power.  Most important.  Get that carb heat off.  Then get to climb pitch.

Next, pulling up flaps causes an instantaneous loss of (some) lift.  The increase in airspeed from less drag, on the other hand, happens over time (as the plane accelerates).

Since pilots are often busy for this procedure, I teach half flaps for go-arounds, then retract fully a little later.  It's a SWAG, but it's mostly correct for many planes (when in a hurry).

The main thing is to reduce drag a bit but not reduce lift or increase stall speed.  Approximately half flaps does this in many planes (but you can probably get a better guess from the T/O data George alludes to).

The main thing is to NOT pull up all flaps at once.  This can only cause a sink/stall (at low speeds), since the plane cannot accelerate from the decreased drag immediately.  Several pilots have tried pulling up all flaps at once on go arounds, and they've all later said to me "I'll not do that again."

Mark</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>Older C-172 ,
Save your money and buy a later model 172 with the Lycoming engine ,
This would be a much better choice, preferrably one that will burn 100LL
avgas since 80 is athing of the past.
I have owned 3 Skyhawks and only one of them had the old Continental engine
it was miserably under powered and I really liked the airplane but hated its poor performance ,thus sold it and upgraded to a 160 hp. lycoming C-172.</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Considering a 172H

<HTML>  Chip,
Read my reply dated 10-16-02.
                   
                    Jerry</HTML>

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Board Info

Board Stats:
 
Total Topics:
6042
Total Polls:
1
Total Posts:
16348
Dormant:
User Info:
 
Total Users:
2504
Newest User:
henry@blockisland.com
Members Online:
0
Guests Online:
2525

Online: 
There are no members online

Forum Legend:

 Topic
 New
 Locked
 Sticky
 Active
 New/Active
 New/Locked
 New Sticky
 Locked/Active
 Active/Sticky
 Sticky/Locked
 Sticky/Active/Locked

ankara escort ankara rus escort ankara escort bayan ankara bayan partner ankara escort kizlar escort ankara ankara escort ankara eskort ankara escort bayan ankara bayan partner ankara escort kizlar escort ankara