Trouble learning older C172F/J model idiosyncrasies ...

[Snakum]

I've never had any problems transitioning between models of C150/152, C172, PA28 until yesterday, when trying to land a 1966 C172. I know I'm rusty, but I looked like a 'monkey f@cking a football' while trying to get that thing dead on the centerline and with a full-stall touchdown.

A couple landings I floated literally halfway down the runway ... twice I had to go around because I was just so fouled up ... and on the one landing that was absolutely one of the most beautiful landings I've ever made (right on the numbers, dead center of the line, full stall with a faint 'sqweek" ) I hit the gas for a T&G and the thing SHOT off to the left and actually raised the right tire! I had to kill the throttle and stand on the brakes. I think I'm missing something, because the wind was right down the centerline with no gusts, the aircraft flew beautifully and trimmed right up ... she's a sweet old lady.

So I have to ask ... has anyone else experienced trouble with the older model Skyhawks, or have you had a student who had trouble with them?

Another question: I was taught with electrically-operated flap Cessnas to get the flaps up before punching it for another 'T' when doing T&Gs, and to wait and milk them while climbing in the mechanically operated Pipers. When doing touch and go's, would I milk the flaps once airborne again in the older manually-flapped Skyhawks, as opposed to trying to pull 'em in before hitting the gas again?

And lastly: Are they prone to vapor lock on the tanks? There was much made in the POH of managing the fuel from seperate tanks above 5000', as opposed to 'BOTH set and forget'.

Also, here is my abbreviated checklist for the C172J, can someone take a gander at it. I've done my own abbreviated checklists for every airplane I've flown, including or excluding the various things I've learned from CFIs over the years, i.e. I changed all the Cessna and Piper CLs so that emergency restarts are performed with a 'flow' depending on where a specific switch or control was located on the panel, and other stuff like that. I always have a CFI check them though ... so how's this one look?

http://www.activesolutions.com/thichminhthong/images/172JCheck.xls

Danke Schon ...

Herr Minh

 

[nosehair]

The old pre- '67 or '68 (or so) 172's were my favorite airplane to make the kind of soft, barely audible, touchdowns. I actually have flown them with brand new tires and could hear the little rubber 'tits' on the new tires start ticking on the runway before the main tire began to softly roll onto the runway. They have that spring steel landing gear and delicately quick responsive elevator. I can't get any other airplane to do what this one did. Acually, it was a 1959. No rear window.

Anyway, my theory is, that the light, quick response of the elevator is so much like a 150 that you were used to the new modern heavy elevator types, and you were just overcontrolling. Practice and you will repeat the squeakers. Also, maybe the lightness caused a much quicker yaw response on the go, and you are just used to the newer 'slug' 172's.

 

[SMOE]

At our Aero Club we fly two Fs, four Hs (ex USAF T-41A) and one T-41C (has 210HP eng). The thing to remember with the older Skyhawks is they have 40 degrees of flaps instead of 30. On landings that extra ten degrees acts like speed brakes and with only a 145hp engine, its real easy to get too slow and the rate of descent really picks up. Result: bounce or hard landing. The only thing that extra 10 degrees is good for is real short field landings. At 30 degrees or less, they land like a normal Skyhawk provided your on your airspeed. The least bit of extra speed is going to float you down the runway.

As for takeoffs, it sounds like torque was getting the better part of you. These planes are lighter (2300 max) than newer 172s and are more sensitive to the turning tendencies since they don't have a fixed rudder tab. Therefore, much more right rudder input is required.

T&Gs can be tricky because you have to hold the flap handle up to get the flaps to move. I recommend getting the speed down to about 30-40 mph before putting power in and then retracting the flaps.

As for the vapor lock, I couldn't tell ya. It takes all day to get to 5,000' so we do all of our cross country ops at 4,500 and below.

Finally, your checklists look fine. I would add something about leaning the mixture during ground ops and you may want to add an Emergency Descent Checklist. Trim for 100, drop Flaps to 40 and enjoy ;-)

Hope this helps.

 

[Snakum]

Thanks for the feedback, guys.

She was, indeed, very light on the controls, and as she was well-rigged to boot, I thought she was a sweet airplane once off the ground. I really enjoyed it. I think you nailed it on the over-controlling thing. I don't think I was taking that into consideration since I am so used to later model XPs and SPs which are quite a bit heavier in response. Also, I win the 'Duh Award' for the torque issue. Seems plain as day now that's exactly what happened on the last T&G ... I gassed it and didn't get in enough rudder.

About leaning the mixture on the ground, I must admit I have never been told to do that. I'm assuming you mean that I should be leaning for peak CHT or RPM immediately after start-up, and during all ground ops, as well as the usual above 3000'?

Thanks again for the feedback. She has enough new gadgetry (Loran and something else I didn't recognize) to keep me occupied for hours and so I'm going to take her again today and get a little more comfortable.

Minh

 

[DaveJ]

No, just lean for smooth operation. You won't budge the EGT at idle speeds. The mixture is purposely rich for extra cooling during t/o and climb, but you don't need any extra cooling for taxiing around the airfield. You can normally get about a 50 rpm increase when you lean at idle speeds.

 

[puddlejumper]

W&B - Older C172s

The older 172 I used to fly scenics in was notoriously nose-heavy with no passengers in the back. You may want to look back there in the baggage compartment to verify there is no ballast and just for the heck of it, run a weight and balance. You may be surprised at what you find. The O-300 is the smoothest running 172 engine, I think. They were always slow (95 kts) but I thought they were more quiet and just smoother running. Similar to nosehair, the older 172s were always easier for me to land. Many greasers always led to good tips with the Irish tourists in upstate NY.

-pj

 

[Snakum]

I had the year wrong, she's a 1964 E-model, with the O-300 6-cylinder, of course.

I, too, noticed how smooth the engine seems to run. Sort of reminded me of a sewing machine for some bizarre reason ... smooth and kinda' under-powered, but still sweet. And she is DEFINITELY nose-heavy. The TO trim position indicator is rubbed off and so I had to play with the trim to get a feel for settings. On take-off I had her to the last 1/4 of the travel to get an easy pull up.

Any specific info on loading for a weekend outing with one or two pax? I haven't done a W&B on her yet because I haven't carried anyone up.

I've gotta get a handle on the actual GPH and average TAS, too, so I can flightplan for local weekend outings and business meetings. At $75 per hour, I can't get anything else close to that price that will haul three bodies, or two pax with bags. Have you guys done any longer trips in one?

Thanks again for all the info ...

Minh

 

[Tinstaafl]

If you're floating 'half way down the runway' then your speed over the fence is too fast. A lot of early model a/c are rather lighter than their late model brethren. This affects stall speeds & subsequently landing speeds.

 

[Snakum]

Yeah ... I am used to carrying a little bit of power in on later Skyhawks to assist in getting to nose up to a full stall landing (gotta horse some of 'em up), and I forgot that the approach speed should have been reduced, as well, because I was flying solo and with no bags. When I kept it down to just above 60mph on short final she landed nicely. Of course ... immediately afterward I tried to put it in the grass when I punched it for the T&G because my right foot got lazy. That thing is 'torquey'

I'm flight planning for our hot southeastern Summers with 105kts TAS @ 2400 rpm, 8.5 gph and a fuel stop at 3 hours, flying at 3500 to 4500 (cruise climbing higher if the winds are worth it). Sound about right for actual, real life trips from GSO to ATL, ILM, GSP, and RIC?

Also ... on touch and gos ... I'm just not getting comfortable pulling in the flaps on the ground then punching it for the TO (lots going on while I'm reaching for that long bar ). Would it be unwise to punch it and then milk them up once airborne? Is that just gonna be too much drag?

Thanks all ...

Minh
(I'm anal about knowing my aircraft, because I carry my family and coworkers a lot, and I owe it to them. )

 

[Snakum]

Fly the plane to the runway....you don't have to stall it

I see you haven't 'nosewheeled' a Skyhawk yet.

A few years ago, I watched a rather boastfull, older student with lots of right-seat hours in his bosses' Lance hit the nosewheel on an N-model so hard I could've sworn I saw the fuselage flex. Stuff like that will cost someone a new firewall eventually, and can cost a pilot some dental work when his fillings fly out.

It's a pretty impressive jolt. Not that I've ever done it ... I'd never do anything like that ... but that's just what I heard ...

Minh

BTW GK ... what college are you attending this fall?

 

[Tinstaafl]

There aren't any singles I'm familiar with that need a trickle of power for a good landing. They're certainly not certified with a need for power application during landing. Don't forget that any power application during the landing will invalidate the runway performance calculations.

Approach at the correct speed, close the throttle at the correct point, and the aircraft will have sufficient control authority for a good landing AND will be able to meet chart figures.

 

[Snakum]

That was just something the CFI who did my C172 checkout taught his students. He said that elevator authority begins to diminish in Skyhawks below 65 knots when flying solo (nose-heavy when solo, too) and may present problems when time to flare. I, myself, have experienced that some C172s have to really be horsed back to flare unless there's a lot of trim.

A lot of trim, however, poses risk during a go-around or a touch and go. I'm sure many of us have experienced, at one time or another in our training, punching the gas for a G/A only to have the nose scream skyward and subsequently require a bit too much back-pressure to be comfortable that we're nowhere near a potential stall attitude. In talking to other pilots over the years, I've heard this over and over, so I assume it's not an uncommon experience.

So this CFI's method, one he learned from his instructor, who learned it from Clyde Cessna while prototype testing the first C172 (not really ), was to trim for a comfortable descent, but not so much that there'd be problems on a go around, and then leave 1200 rpm on the engine till touchdown. It has always worked for me, no matter what model Skyhawk I was in, and I'd hear that method repeated in conversations around various flight schools over the years, so it must have been a relatively common technique.

However, when I tried this in the 1963-model she flew right on down the runway. Based on comments from the CFIs here, I've since learned that when solo in the '63, if I shoot for 60-65mph over the fence and chop the power completely at round-out she settles right down for a (near) full-stall landing. She's a sweet thang now ... I think I love her.

Minh

GK ... if you mean the "expensive one" in Florida, next time the GF and I take a rental to Jacksonville we'll come by and pick you up for dinner, if you can get away. It'd be a nice change from all that pizza!

 

[Snakum]

Wow ... that'd be a nice trip. Just don't forget the over-water gear and the customs stop on the way back in. Those guys in the government Citation might not be amused.

You could search here and probably get a full list of what you'd need to pack. I've seen a few threads about flying the Carib in singles in the last four years. I love sight-seeing slow over the beach, and I'll bet that azure Carib water is gorgeous from the air. When I build my Kitfox I'm gonna get floats for it too, so I can fly down to Topsail Island and use it for trolling when the Kings are running. I just have to figure out a way to put outriggers on it.

I just had a thought ... if the FAA pulls my medical, I could use it as a boat and just taxi it around on floats, then go flying for short hops when I'm sure no one's watching.

Minhommad the Muslim Pig Farmer
Future Kitfox Boat Owner

 

[Tinstaafl]

I've flown all the Cessna nosewheel singles from C150 to C210 + a couple of their small tailwheel types into short strips & long. Not one of them *needs* a trickle of power to land. Nor do they have elevator/tailplane authority problems during the landing (possibly apart from the C177 evidenced by the fixed slots in the all-flying tailplane).

They do have a pitch up tendency during a go around. It's quite controllable & can easily be trimmed.

 

[Snakum]

Well, that's just one opinion. Every CFI has their own way of teaching things within certain parameters, I'd wager, and none of them are absolute. It's like the pitch/power debate. I've seen you guys on here argue about that stuff till insults start flying. Kinda silly, ain't it? You know what they say about 'good landings'? Any one you can walk away from is a good one.

Whatever works for ya ...

Minhberg

 

[Tinstaafl]

No. It's whatever one works for Cessna - as written in their POH where they specify the technique to be used. You're on a hiding to nothing **IF** - & I emphasise the 'if' - you have a prang & then have to explain to the insurance company (and possibly the lawyers) why you chose a different technique.

We've all used various techniques but ultimately if something goes awry then we haven't a leg to stand on if we haven't followed the specified techniques. Unless good airmanship would dictate otherwise, of course. Good airmanship is something that would then be argued in the courts using the test of 'a reasonable man'. You would have a hard time arguing that a reasonable man would choose to use a technique different to the one the manufacturer specified.

As far as I can see, your only hope would be where the manual specifies to '...close the throttle...' (or words to that effect). You MIGHT then have the argument that it doesn't specify the rate to close the throttle, which would leave you with some leeway. If however, as I recall, the wording is to pass through 50' in a glide then that argument is a non-starter.

There are times when a squirt of power is needed to arrest sink or correct a ballooned hold off or due to shear etc etc. No argument about that. None of these times are related to the controllability of the aircraft type in question during a normal landing.

 

[Snakum]

What can I say ... I guess I'm just a rebel.

Minhhommad the Muslim Sausage King

 

[Snakum]

I just got back from an awesome early morning flight. No wind ... no haze ... still, cool air ... buzzing over the Uhwarries ... reminds me why I wanted to do it for a living.

The flight this morning made about two hours total in her, with about 20 total landings. I've found that if I fly her light on the controls and have about 60 - 65 mph over the fence when solo, that she sits right down on the numbers and tracks dead center. It took me a while to get used to her, but this morning I think she's about the sweetest airplane I've ever flown. At 85%, or 2500 rpm I could trim and lean her out to 120mph IAS in the cool air at 3500'. Not bad. If I could afford the maintenance on that old Continental, I think I'd try to buy one next Summer. Anyone need a partner in an old Skyhawk?

Thanks for all the help getting the landings down on the old gal.

Charles Minhberg