172 real world cruise speed?
Craig Jordan
140's, given same horsepower, prop pitch, and state of control surface
rigging (preferably true neutral rigging) on both airplanes? I have
Cherokee 140 now (160hp), and due to interior room considerations (I'm 6'3"
225) I'm contemplating..only contemplating mind you, moving over to a 160hp
172 there happens to be what appears to be a decent 160hp (RAM stc) '69 172
for sale at a reasonable price. It has STOL wingtips and I'm also thinking
it may get off the asphalt a little spritelier than my straight-wing
Cherokee.
This is by no means a Piper v. Cessna nor a low wing vs. high wing troll,
I'm gathering data on the 172's real world performance vs. my 140's. I
should mention another reason a 172 is attractive is my good friend who is
wheelchair bound likes to fly with me, and while he can get in my 140, it is
a bit awkward, and his chair, even disassembled some, is a challenge to
arrange into the back seat. And once he's in I then have to engineer myself
past him into the left seat.
Thanks,
Craig Jordan
N9724W
Jon Carlson
> should mention another reason a 172 is attractive is my good friend
who is
> wheelchair bound likes to fly with me, and while he can get in my
140, it is
> a bit awkward, and his chair, even disassembled some, is a challenge
to
> arrange into the back seat. And once he's in I then have to
engineer myself
> past him into the left seat.
This is a significantly better reason to choose one versus the other
than comparing their cruise speeds. I suspect that if they raced,
well, the winner wouldn't win by enough for anyone to care.
-Jon C.
John Galban
<pilo...@sigecom.net> wrote:
>Is a Cessna 172's real world cruise speed really much slower than a Cherokee
>140's, given same horsepower, prop pitch, and state of control surface
>rigging (preferably true neutral rigging) on both airplanes?
<snip>
No. The difference in speed is minimal. My real-life experience
has been that the 140 is a few knots faster, while the 172 was a
better climber.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
Mark Mallory
John Galban wrote:
>
> No. The difference in speed is minimal. My real-life experience
> has been that the 140 is a few knots faster, while the 172 was a
> better climber.
The 172 has virtually equal cruise speed, but with better useful load,
higher service ceiling, two doors, real windows that open.
But it's biggest advantage: it's NOT a Cherokee! :)
Steve Mills
wheelchair bound and short and rather heavy. She is delighted with the
idea of going for a ride. I can rent a C172 or a Warrior. We had
thought (she has not seen either plane, nor ridden in a light plane)
that the Warrior would be easier for her to drag herself up into. I
would appreciate any comments or advice you or anyone else might have.
- Steve
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 20:18:13 -0600, "Craig Jordan"
<pilo...@sigecom.net> wrote:
>snip
Ross Richardson
with you. Big doors, low to the ground. Do not get the 150 hp version.
Dane Spearing
knots faster than the C172's. I trained in a 180 hp C172 and cruised at
about 115 kts, while the Cherokee 180 that I own cruises at 120-123 kts.
So, no, a C172 is not *much* slower than a similarly equipped Cherokee.
We're only talking about a 3-7 kt difference here.
-- Dane
Craig Jordan wrote:
>
> Is a Cessna 172's real world cruise speed really much slower than a Cherokee
> 140's, given same horsepower, prop pitch, and state of control surface
> rigging (preferably true neutral rigging) on both airplanes? I have
> Cherokee 140 now (160hp), and due to interior room considerations (I'm 6'3"
> 225) I'm contemplating..only contemplating mind you, moving over to a 160hp
> 172 there happens to be what appears to be a decent 160hp (RAM stc) '69 172
> for sale at a reasonable price. It has STOL wingtips and I'm also thinking
> it may get off the asphalt a little spritelier than my straight-wing
> Cherokee.
>
> This is by no means a Piper v. Cessna nor a low wing vs. high wing troll,
> I'm gathering data on the 172's real world performance vs. my 140's. I
> should mention another reason a 172 is attractive is my good friend who is
> wheelchair bound likes to fly with me, and while he can get in my 140, it is
> a bit awkward, and his chair, even disassembled some, is a challenge to
> arrange into the back seat. And once he's in I then have to engineer myself
> past him into the left seat.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Craig Jordan
> N9724W
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Craig Jordan
get in the 140, but it involves a fair amount of manipulating around on the
wing, although we manage to keep it on the wing walk area. Getting my 6'3"
225lb frame past him and into the left seat is sort of a hassle. It is
easier with the 172, he can get in easier, and of course with the pilot-side
door I can get in effortlessly.
Also, as mentioned, I could stand a bit more interior room even when flying
solo-- mainly legroom because I have to put the seat all the way until it
touches the backseat in order to get the yoke rotate freely between my
knees. All thisa aside, I really like my Piper, but practicality seems to
dictate something with a 2nd door and also more legroom.
Craig Jordan
N9724W
"Steve Mills" <ste...@NOSPAM.softwareeclectics.com> wrote in message
news:3c0f7b48....@basic.bs.webusenet.com...
Jon Weiner
computed true air speed was 0-2 knots slower than the owner's manual shows.
Here are the results (knots).
Altitude 7500 ft
2200 RPM - 96 kt
2300 RPM - 102 kt
2400 RPM - 108 kt
2500 RPM - 112 kt
Altitude 6500 ft
2300 RPM - 104 kt
2400 RPM - 108 kt
2500 RPM - 113 kt
For "normal" flying at the lower altitudes I flight plan at 105 kt. If I'm
pushing it on a long cross country and running the engine at 65-75% of the
plane's 160hp I flight plan at 110kt. Not fast but relatively inexpensive
to operate.
"Craig Jordan" <pilo...@sigecom.net> wrote in message
news:byAP7.801$pQ.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Dane Spearing
My home airport sits at almost 7500 ft (7250 actually).
10,000 - 12,000 feet are "real" cruise altitudes for light singles.
Only whimpy sea-level pilots who don't know the meaning of the words
"density altitude" consider anything below 9,000 ft a "cruise altitude". :)
(Sorry, I couldn't resist....I hope that the abundant use of smiley faces
made it clear that this was tongue-in-cheek...)
-- Dane
In article <6bTP7.82527$S93.4...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, "Jon
Weiner" <jrwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I own a 172N and have run a speed test a couple of times. In both cases the
> computed true air speed was 0-2 knots slower than the owner's manual shows.
> Here are the results (knots).
>
> Altitude 7500 ft
>
> 2200 RPM - 96 kt
> 2300 RPM - 102 kt
> 2400 RPM - 108 kt
> 2500 RPM - 112 kt
>
> Altitude 6500 ft
>
> 2300 RPM - 104 kt
> 2400 RPM - 108 kt
> 2500 RPM - 113 kt
>
> For "normal" flying at the lower altitudes I flight plan at 105 kt. If I'm
> pushing it on a long cross country and running the engine at 65-75% of the
> plane's 160hp I flight plan at 110kt. Not fast but relatively inexpensive
> to operate.
--
Craig Jordan
altitudes for my patch here in SW Indiana, you would be protected from a
direct nuclear hit ;~)
Craig Jordan
N9724W
"Dane Spearing" <speari...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:spearingdane-0...@teton.lanl.gov...
> Heh. To fly at these altitudes, I'd have to attach a shovel to my
spinner. :)
> My home airport sits at almost 7500 ft (7250 actually).
>
> 10,000 - 12,000 feet are "real" cruise altitudes for light singles.
> Only whimpy sea-level pilots who don't know the meaning of the words
> "density altitude" consider anything below 9,000 ft a "cruise altitude".
:)
>
> (Sorry, I couldn't resist....I hope that the abundant use of smiley faces
> made it clear that this was tongue-in-cheek...)
>
>
> -- Dane
Craig Jordan
altitudes for my patch here in SW Indiana, you would be protected from a
direct nuclear hit ;~)
Craig Jordan
N9724W
"Dane Spearing" <speari...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:spearingdane-0...@teton.lanl.gov...
> Heh. To fly at these altitudes, I'd have to attach a shovel to my
spinner. :)
> My home airport sits at almost 7500 ft (7250 actually).
>
> 10,000 - 12,000 feet are "real" cruise altitudes for light singles.
> Only whimpy sea-level pilots who don't know the meaning of the words
> "density altitude" consider anything below 9,000 ft a "cruise altitude".
:)
>
> (Sorry, I couldn't resist....I hope that the abundant use of smiley faces
> made it clear that this was tongue-in-cheek...)
>
>
> -- Dane
Dane Spearing
-- Dane
In article <YRVP7.2$gO1...@newsfeed.slurp.net>, "Craig Jordan"
<pilo...@sigecom.net> wrote:
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Highflyer
>
> I have a friend (my ex-wife's divorce laywer [don't ask]) who is
> wheelchair bound and short and rather heavy. She is delighted with the
> idea of going for a ride. I can rent a C172 or a Warrior. We had
> thought (she has not seen either plane, nor ridden in a light plane)
> that the Warrior would be easier for her to drag herself up into. I
> would appreciate any comments or advice you or anyone else might have.
>
> - Steve
>
Rent a Cardinal! :-) However, it is amazing what you can do with
perseverance and a bit of help. There is a paraplegic up in Iowa that
we get into the front cockpit of Rob Bach's Travelair Biplane every year
for a ride. That is comparable to fitting him into the front pit on a
Stearman, for those of you who don't know the old Travelair. ( The
Travelair Aircraft Company later changed its name to Beechcraft! )
--
Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Trip Farmer
I agree that a Cessna would be the way to go.
Trip
Gordon Hanka
"Steve Mills" <ste...@NOSPAM.softwareeclectics.com> wrote in message
news:3c0f7b48....@basic.bs.webusenet.com...
> my ex-wife's divorce laywer [don't ask]) who is
> wheelchair bound and short and rather heavy. She is delighted with the
> idea of going for a ride. I can rent a C172 or a Warrior.
It is probably easier to fling a lawyer out of a high wing. With the
low-wing, they might hang on to the wing long enough to cause trouble. Of
course, the Cessna wing strut makes a pretty good handhold too. Tough
choice.
Highflyer
Use a Cardinal. Easy to get in and out with the big door. No strut!
:-)
Steven VFR
wheelchair bound likes to fly with me,>>
Having flown both with friends, i find the Cessna much easier to deal with
'access' and 'chairs'. We'd found it much easier on the passenger to be simply
helped(lifted, whatever) into the right seat, and put the chair in through the
left door, into the rear. (the baggage door is almost useless for larger
objects)
I've always felt it made the chairbound passenger feel better, knowing they
didn't have to crawl out on the wing for me to get out of the plane to help
them, if needed.
just my 2cents worth
Steve