C-172L Questions

[[email protected]]

Having carefully analyzed my flight requirements and plans for the next
five years or so, I've decided to take the plunge, probably on a
C-172L that I've been looking at. The fixed costs are right about
the amount of what I've been spending renting (actually a little
lower) and I'm about ready to schedule the pre-buy.

I live in Oklahoma so density altitude is noticeable, but not
necessarily a concern

Does anyone have some historical data of their own experiences (both
good and bad) with C-172L's?

Would you consider one as a practical first aircraft for a relatively
new pilot looking to get his instrument ticket and build hours?

Don

[Howard Nelson]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Having carefully analyzed my flight requirements and plans for the next
> five years or so, I've decided to take the plunge, probably on a
> C-172L that I've been looking at. The fixed costs are right about
> the amount of what I've been spending renting (actually a little
> lower) and I'm about ready to schedule the pre-buy.
>
> I live in Oklahoma so density altitude is noticeable, but not
> necessarily a concern
>
> Does anyone have some historical data of their own experiences (both
> good and bad) with C-172L's?
>
> Would you consider one as a practical first aircraft for a relatively
> new pilot looking to get his instrument ticket and build hours?
>
> Don

Seems like you have analyzed it well. My opinion is that the C172 is an
excellent AC for building hours and instrument training. Docile and slow.
Stable IFR handling. Good 2 place AC up to DA 10,000 ft. Good 4 place AC up
to DA 7-8,000 feet. Can be flown much higher with appropriate precautions.
In my experience the fixed prop resulted in more pilot fatique on long
flights (4+ hours). If it fits your requirements I believe the cost/benefit
ratio of the 172 is better than either the 152 or 182. As you get more
experience, start mountain flying or need to carry 4 adults and baggage
regularly then the move up to a 182 might make sense. The 182 has
significantly higher operating costs than the 172.
Just my opinion
Best of Luck
Howard C182P

[Howard Nelson]

"Howard Nelson" > wrote in message
m...


fatique

oops. fatique = fatigue

howard

[nrp]

I've had an M model (1975) for the last 29 years.

Watch the front end of the engine for vibration related cracking of the
tin work and cooling baffles, the alternator assembly and the
alternator mount. Nose mounted landing lites have a history of quickly
burning out. I sprayed some silicon spray on the black baffle material
to allow it to slip easier within the cowl & got rid of this problem.
The cowl mounts will crack in time, & the muffler flame tubes
disintegrate every 450 hrs like clockwork.

Lycoming engines are hypersensitive to cold starts because of the
upstairs camshaft. I suggest preheating the oil if it is below 40 degF.
Mine has run great for 15 years on mostly UL autofuel & am now at 1700
hrs TTSN with 35 hrs/qt oil consumption. It has the full flow filter
option though.

Be sure to check the stabilizer spar center section for bucking caused
by mishandling on the ground. If you have McCauley wheels be aware
that they have a magnesium center section with steel flanges & must be
treated with care - i. e. proper bolt torque on assembly por the
threads can be stripped. Check the left rear flap skin for possible
small cracks at the trailing edge.

The 172 has no vices. It can handle hot temps, short fields, gross
weights, hi altitudes etc - it just can't handle combinations.
Structurally it is solid, and the engine if treated right, is bullet
proof.

[Michelle P]

Don,
We run three 172Ls in traffic watch. They stay plugged into heaters
whenever not in use. They are docile, reliable and easy to fly. They
each get 20-30 hours a week use. This is good thing since we have a 200
foot window between being to low (1000 AGL) and to high (floor of Class B).
Michelle

wrote:

>Having carefully analyzed my flight requirements and plans for the next
>five years or so, I've decided to take the plunge, probably on a
>C-172L that I've been looking at. The fixed costs are right about
>the amount of what I've been spending renting (actually a little
>lower) and I'm about ready to schedule the pre-buy.
>
>I live in Oklahoma so density altitude is noticeable, but not
>necessarily a concern
>
>Does anyone have some historical data of their own experiences (both
>good and bad) with C-172L's?
>
>Would you consider one as a practical first aircraft for a relatively
>new pilot looking to get his instrument ticket and build hours?
>
>Don
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Howard Nelson > wrote:
: In my experience the fixed prop resulted in more pilot fatique on long
: flights (4+ hours). If it fits your requirements I believe the cost/benefit

What do you mean by that? If anything, I'd say a fixed-pitch prop reduces
workload (especially in IMC) because you can hear small pitch changes as an RPM
change.

Just curious what you meant,
-Cory



--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Howard Nelson]

> wrote in message
...
> Howard Nelson > wrote:
> : In my experience the fixed prop resulted in more pilot fatique on long
> : flights (4+ hours). If it fits your requirements I believe the
cost/benefit
>
> What do you mean by that? If anything, I'd say a fixed-pitch prop
reduces
> workload (especially in IMC) because you can hear small pitch changes as
an RPM
> change.
>
> Just curious what you meant,
> -Cory

Not work load and not IFR, just physical fatigue. I had always presumed it
was from the constant RPM changes and vibrations transmitted back to the
cockpit. I have very few hours in 172 with CS prop. Most hours in C177RG and
C182. I may not be comparing apples to apples. I just felt more physically
tired after C172 cross country flights and chalked it up to a greater level
of noise and vibration.
Howard

[[email protected]]

Howard Nelson > wrote:
: Not work load and not IFR, just physical fatigue. I had always presumed it
: was from the constant RPM changes and vibrations transmitted back to the
: cockpit. I have very few hours in 172 with CS prop. Most hours in C177RG and
: C182. I may not be comparing apples to apples. I just felt more physically
: tired after C172 cross country flights and chalked it up to a greater level
: of noise and vibration.
: Howard

OK, I see what you mean, but I'd venture to say that CS vs. FP prop doesn't
inherently mean more or less vibration. If they're both balanced properly, they
should be basically the same.

Comparing it to a 182 is much more likely 6 cylinders vs. 4. Also,
three-bladed vs. two-bladed makes a difference in the harmonics produced/felt.
If your 172 was old enough to have the O-300 Cont in it, it's a moot point, but with a
4-banger Lycoming, it's got lots of rattle. Comparing my O-360 FP Lyc Cherokee to a
friend's O-540 CS Commanche is night and day for vibration.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Howard Nelson]

> wrote in message
...
> Howard Nelson > wrote:
> : Not work load and not IFR, just physical fatigue. I had always presumed
it
> : was from the constant RPM changes and vibrations transmitted back to the
> : cockpit. I have very few hours in 172 with CS prop. Most hours in C177RG
and
> : C182. I may not be comparing apples to apples. I just felt more
physically
> : tired after C172 cross country flights and chalked it up to a greater
level
> : of noise and vibration.
> : Howard
>
> OK, I see what you mean, but I'd venture to say that CS vs. FP prop
doesn't
> inherently mean more or less vibration. If they're both balanced
properly, they
> should be basically the same.
>
> Comparing it to a 182 is much more likely 6 cylinders vs. 4. Also,
> three-bladed vs. two-bladed makes a difference in the harmonics
produced/felt.
> If your 172 was old enough to have the O-300 Cont in it, it's a moot
point, but with a
> 4-banger Lycoming, it's got lots of rattle. Comparing my O-360 FP Lyc
Cherokee to a
> friend's O-540 CS Commanche is night and day for vibration.
>
> -Cory
>
Probably is 4 vs 6. I had a chance to fly an older 6 cylinder straight tail
172 and loved how smooth the engine was.

Howard

[[email protected]]

Howard Nelson wrote:
<snip>
> I just felt more physically
> tired after C172 cross country flights and chalked it up to a greater
level
> of noise and vibration.

That's easy. Compared to the 182 and 177RG, you were spending 50%
more time in the air to get to the same place :-)))

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Doug]

172 is a fine aircraft. Probably the best thing to know about it is
it's history. If it's had an engine rebuild what is the quality of the
rebuild? Make sure you pay YOUR mechanic to do a compression test,
preferrably while the owner is elsewhere, and be objective about what
you have. There are lots of 172's around. Also it is more cost
effective to buy the airplane with the avionics you want rather than
planning on upgrading. Paying a little more to get what you want will
be worth it, as the hourly costs outweigh the aquisition costs in only
a few years.

As for the pilot fatigue issue, if that is a problem, get some noise
cancelling headsets. They are really great.