C172RG.... Soft field T/O

PanAm24

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Posts
17
Total Time
250
What is the recommended flap setting for a soft field takeoff in the 172-RG Cutlass? The PIM specifies zero flaps for short field takeoffs but doesn't cover softs.
 

bobbysamd

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
5,710
Total Time
4565
RG soft-field flap setting

What does your school recommend?

You might ask your instructor about using ten degrees. Sometimes, manufacturers recommend against using flaps because debris can be flung against them.
 

pudnocker

Just Lookin
Joined
Jan 7, 2002
Posts
50
Total Time
+00010
The RG POH states " if the GW is below 2550 (100 below gross) then 10 degrees of flaps may be used to reduce the ground roll for soft field procedures".;)
 

shaun3000

Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Posts
15
Total Time
Enough
In all the 172s I've flown, it's been SOP to use 10 deg. of flaps for soft and short takeoffs. I can't imagine yours would be any different. I wonder why it says to takeoff clean whend doing a short field. That first 10 deg. doesn't add much drag, only lots and lots of lift. Weird...
 

Pirep1

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2002
Posts
27
Total Time
4000+
I second what Pudnocker says. Below 2550 G.W., 10 degrees of flaps.
 

Sunken_Lunken

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Posts
12
Total Time
220
_______________________

In all the 172s I've flown, it's been SOP to use 10 deg. of flaps for soft and short takeoffs. I can't imagine yours would be any different

________________________

The flap settings for short field takeoffs in the C-172 POH depend on the model you have. I don't have the books with me now, but I seem to remember the POH for the 172N calling for zero flaps for short field t/o. However, the POH for the 172P calls for flaps 10 degrees for short field t/o.
 

dmspilot00

Independent
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Posts
712
Total Time
300
I believe the Cessna 172L manual does not recommend any flaps for short or soft&short field takeoffs. It states that using flaps will shorten the ground run, but a slower climb and longer distance to clear an obstacle will result.

However, it also states that if you do use flaps for takeoff, you should leave them extended until the obstacle is cleared and not retract them.
 

Flymach2

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Posts
238
Total Time
>8K
The original poster was asking specifically for information regarding the C-172RG.
The POH for that airplane stipulates that if take-off weight is <2550 lbs., 10 degrees is recommended. Anything >2550, no flaps.
 

Limeyflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Posts
460
Total Time
Enough
I have to agree with flymach, just what he says is the correct / recommended way to do the takeoffs. The same procedure is in my companies maneuver handbook.
 

Yankee301

Boss
Joined
Jul 27, 2002
Posts
34
Total Time
10000+
The guys talking about using 10 degrees in the RG less than a particular weight are correct. As far as a straight leg 172 goes it depends on the model. The 172N states use no flaps for a short field takeoff and 10 degrees for a soft field. It also elaborates some: Use of 10 degress flaps is reserved for minimum ground runs or for takeoff from soft or rough fields. Us of 10 degrees flaps allows safe use of slightly lower takeoff speeds than with flaps up. the lower speeds result in shortening the ground run and total distance over a 50 foot obstacle by approximately 10%. However this advantage will be lost if flaps up speeds are used, or in high altitude takeoffs in hot weather at maximum weight where climb would be marginal with 10 degrees flaps. Therefore use of 10 degress flaps is not recommended for takeoff over an obstacle at high altitude in hot weather.
 

HexWRX

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2002
Posts
21
Total Time
0008.3
Cool

O/T, but man, I think the 172RG is so cool!

The new FBO I'm gonna be training at has one, and I can't wait to fly it. I'm switching because the place I'm currently training at has scheduling issues (Too many pilots + Not enough planes = me flying 1-2 times a week instead of 4-5)
 

HexWRX

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2002
Posts
21
Total Time
0008.3
I said it was cool, not complicated. Its the only 172 with retractable gear as far as I know, which is the main reason I think its cool - I have only flown fixed gear airplanes so far.
 

surfnole

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Posts
215
Total Time
350
One of my instructors taught me to start with no flaps then put in 10 degrees flaps around 50-55 knots. I am not sure if this is proper technique, but it would pop the plane right off the ground. We would then fly in ground effect until reaching sufficient speed.

BTW, this instructor earned his wings in WWII.

Any opinions?
 

172driver

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2002
Posts
744
Total Time
4000
Patmack,

Your reply is unprofessional and unkind. Why would you rain on the parade of a new pilot like that? He is obviously excited about the RG and should be. It is a new aircraft to him. He has 8 hrs. To you and I the RG may be just another 172, to him it is higher horsepower, complex procedures, CS prop, retractable, 30 kts faster, etc.

Hex, keep up the enthusiasm and watch out for wet rugs.
 

HexWRX

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2002
Posts
21
Total Time
0008.3
172driver, thanks, I will keep up the enthusiasm, and Patmack didn't diminish it in the least.

Patmack, you make a good point. I will still be mainly flying fixed gear 172s, but I do want to learn and get comfortable with retractable gear so I am good to go for complex endorsement.

I'm not looking to train in the RG for anything I can do in a regular old 172, for less $$. Still a 172? yea, but at least it doesn't look like a tricycle with wings when you retract the landing gear! That's my only beef with the 172. It is a great, fun machine, but looks ridiculous.Kinda like my WRX - looks like an ugly Hyundai wagon.

FYI - a Subaru WRX is a rally-design with a $23k sticker price that pulls the 0-60 and 1/4mile times of a Porsche Boxster. The only downside? its butt ugly.
 

HexWRX

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2002
Posts
21
Total Time
0008.3
Hey Patmack18

- Er, to say I "like" it would be an understatement. I'd a joy to drive. as for handling, Well, its a really light car (~3000-3100 depending on standard/auto trans, and sedan/wagon) with a really tight sport suspension and front and rear stabilizer bars, so there's almost no body roll at all, and I am really pleased with its cornering. The full time AWD kicks ass. every time I drive in the rain I am glad I have it. It doesn't mean you dont have to be careful on wet roads, just that you don't have to be slow. Test drive it I guess. it's also got a very low C/G because of the boxer engine. Oh, yea, the engine. It's well balanced, but there is a turbo lag until about 3000rpm. But, even so its lightning fast. I really love the turbo. Its just plain cool, and will impress anyone who rides with you. Uh, what else.. The automatic is supposed to be nice for an automatic, but I have a 5-speed stick. Its kinda stiff, but not too bad. Gas mileage varies wildy on this car. I usually get about ~15mpg out of it, but I haul asphalt around town delivering pizza. My mom claims around 20-25mpg when I let her borrow it. go to the subaru website, it has more info - all the automotive press have really raved about this car, and it was Car and Driver's Car of the Year (2002 is its first year available in the US). Don't just take my word for it. I just think its a whole lot of car for the price. Plus subarus are really well-made. I've had no problems with mine so far, but I've only got 34k on it. Oh, one more thing. If you like a good sound system in your car... replace the factory one in this. Its crap!

But for the most part I think its way worth its price.

If you want a station wagon/sedan thats safe and has a nice ride, its good, if you want a really fast, turbocharged car that handles really well, Its good too. I have the wagon, and its way more dorky than the sedan, but I get alot of use out of it. Also I think it just might be the fastest station wagon EVER.
 
Top