Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kiwi_Roy on November 01, 2017, 06:43:17 PM
-
I saw this on an Engineering Forum
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170302-the-plane-so-good-its-still-in-production-after-60-years
-
Meh.. spam can. :evil: :smiley:
-
The VW Beetle of aircraft.
-
I'd rather have a Tri-Pacer.
-
I'd rather have a Grumman Tiger.
Think Miata vs Buick.
-
My glider club has it's big brother, the very first 182. Our tow plane was originally an 180, but was the the test airplane for 182, moving from tail dragger to tricycle landing gear. It was literally saved from the landfill. I joined the club in 1985 and the plane at that time had logged over 26,000 take off/landing cycles and I was told many more were not logged. It is still going strong but not very pretty.
GliderJohn
-
My glider club has it's big brother, the very first 182. Our tow plane was originally an 180, but was the the test airplane for 182, moving from tail dragger to tricycle landing gear. It was literally saved from the landfill. I joined the club in 1985 and the plane at that time had logged over 26,000 take off/landing cycles and I was told many more were not logged. It is still going strong but not very pretty.
GliderJohn
what speed do you tow at on climb ?
-
You guys can diss the 172 , but they are a helluva an aircraft .
Dusty
-
I was an air traffic controller for 37 years, and I've seen a many brutal manoeuvre that this little plane has endured.
-
The only thing the Cessna 172 really needs are two small windows above the front seats. And the only bad thing about this plane is it allows people to populate the air who rather shouldn´t.
-
Alternative title company that has a monopoly on market segment doesn't bother to innovate for 60 years because it doesn't have too. Otherwise known as a Ces-pit yes not a fan Richard Hammond was right, it has all the style and grace of a washing machine :P
-
The Cardinal, (I think it was the 177) was great because you could see past the leading edge in a turn.
The 172 variants required loosening your shoulder straps, especially when turning onto base and final.
(If you wanted to stay alive...)
Glider pilots that are still alive, LOVE to have good visibility.
The aforementioned Tri Pacer was shithouse at best for that, but pretty none the less.
-
Two good friends have a Klemm KL107 each (a "B" and a "C"). There the visibility is - well - different from the Cessna. In the front seats you can look downward nearly directly, because you sit practically on the leading edge of the wing. And upwards - well, think glider. In comparison you feel encased in the Cessna.
-
The aforementioned Tri Pacer was shithouse at best for that, but pretty none the less.
I beg to differ. The tripacer was a good airplane as far as hauling a load and good control authority and feel, light years ahead of a 172 in those areas. But was an airport airplane with it's higher approach speeds, 80mph was a number to remember. Basicly it was a pa15, pa17 vagabond that weighed 400 lbs too much and had a nose wheel. Short farm strips were a bit of a challenge, but could be handled with experience, and best avoided by low time city slickers. As others said a 172 is a boring thing.
-
I beg to differ. The tripacer was a good airplane as far as hauling a load and good control authority and feel, light years ahead of a 172 in those areas. But was an airport airplane with it's higher approach speeds, 80mph was a number to remember. Basicly it was a pa15, pa17 vagabond that weighed 400 lbs too much and had a nose wheel. Short farm strips were a bit of a challenge, but could be handled with experience, and best avoided by low time city slickers. As others said a 172 is a boring thing.
What I said was..
The visibility in the Tri Pacer was shithouse, what point do you differ on there ?
-
From Huzo:
what speed do you tow at on climb ?
Depending upon the glider tow speeds will usually be in the 65-80 mph range. The speed determined by the glider not the capability of the towplane. In a two seat trainer with two people the climb rate will be around 500 feet per minute. Our 182 is stripped of anything not needed for safety.
GliderJohn
-
Before Cessna went to the high comp 160hp version of the O-320, the auto gas STC on a 172 made for some inexpensive (oxymoron) flying.
These days, if I ever got back into flying it would need to be something that can cover some ground quickly and efficiently. Mooney M20K-252, w/ updated radios and low time engine/prop. But the cost of overhaul on a 252.... oh no.
-
The tripacer was a good airplane as far as hauling a load
Not really. With full fuel you can't (legally) put 4 people in it. :smiley: It'll do it, of course.
-
Almost as long a production run as the C-130.
-
What I said was..
The visibility in the Tri Pacer was shithouse, what point do you differ on there ?
Oh - never mind then. Must be the translation.
And Chuck- That is very true, that would be asking for trouble- 36 gallons and 4 people is too much to ask for a 1050 empty weight short winged airplane. Eventually the laws of physics would catch up with you with bad results.
-
Oh - never mind then. Must be the translation.
And Chuck- That is very true, that would be asking for trouble- 36 gallons and 4 people is too much to ask for a 1050 empty weight short winged airplane. Eventually the laws of physics would catch up with you with bad results.
When I went for my check ride.. uh..50 years ago (gulp) the only thing available was a 135 tri pacer. The examiner told me, "I want you to plan a flight from here to Cincinnati. 3 normal passengers and full fuel." So, I went through the whole thing, laid out the course on the chart, solved the wind triangle on the plotter, etc.. did a weight and balance and found I would need to drain a bunch of fuel. He just smiled and said, "Good. Let's go fly." I'll never forget that check ride. He was a great examiner, an old "stick and rudder" guy, and believed that the check ride should be a learning experience for the soon to be new pilot.
-
I earned my PP, instrument and SES ratings in 172s (the SES behind a 180 hp O360 engine). Trained at Truckee, elev 5900 feet (at which elevation a 152 can't climb out of its own shadow with two big people aboard). At altitude the 150-hp 172 is a two-place airplane and crossing mountains it must be flown like a glider, using ridge lift as available but certainly avoiding lee slopes. The article cited by OP is wildly optimistic. The 150 hp planes I flew cruised at 110 knots max (125mph).
Then I flew a 182 for 500 hours in CAP. Rule for mountain flying is 60 hp per crewmember, so even the 182 is a three-place airplane for search/rescue.
-
Hadn't read the post except to see it was about a 172.
though you could push this up to 185mph at a pinch – but the manufacturer would rather you didn’t.
Bwwwaaahha.. no manufacturer wants to see their airplane in a vertical dive.. :grin:
Uhh.. this is what it does.
Cruise (90-105 Knots). Vno. Maximum structural cruising speed (yellow) (129 Knots). Vne. Never exceed speed (redline) (163 Knots)
The 172's design was so clean and aerodynamic that Cessna’s
Where did they get this guy? Clean?? The reason they padded the instrument panel was if a pilot suddenly reduced power, he wouldn't hurt his head because it slowed down so fast. :evil:
Further proof that you can't believe everything you read on the internet. It *is* a solid very easy to fly airplane..
-
And with those big fowler flaps, if you know what you're doing you can touch down at 40 knots.
-
Anybody’s got stick time on the
“fork-tailed doctor killer”
I’d like to know how that felt.
-
Anybody�s got stick time on the
�fork-tailed doctor killer�
I�d like to know how that felt.
Sure. Sweet fliers. *I* don't notice the tail wagging, but I've never been in the back seat. Some say they do, but I'll bet they are chasing it. <shrug> *really* good load carrier and can operate out of a short field. Will smoke a Cessna with the same powerplant. What's not to like?
-
:bow:
Oh - never mind then. Must be the translation.
Would you have preferred a language other than English ?
The visibility was not good
-
:bow:Would you have preferred a language other than English ?
The visibility was not good
Quote from Roscoe Turner. Speed isn't everything, it's the only thing.
US light plane manufacturers have always given up visibility for a little streamlining. Speed sells, I guess. I prefer being able to see out, though.
-
Two good friends have a Klemm KL107 each (a "B" and a "C"). There the visibility is - well - different from the Cessna. In the front seats you can look downward nearly directly, because you sit practically on the leading edge of the wing. And upwards - well, think glider.
Neat planes. Ask your friends why their airplane was made by a company called Waggon- und. Maschinenbau GmbH :grin:
(the name means a company that makes railroad boxcars and machinery)
US light plane manufacturers have always given up visibility for a little streamlining. Speed sells, I guess. I prefer being able to see out, though
Take a look at the forward visibility of the recent Pipistrel Panthera, not a US design, and wonder at the design priorities for a supposed production prototype.
Re the C172, its design was exactly the right compromise for its market and has made many lives better. I don't think any more needs to be said, and no I don't own one.
-
When I went for my check ride.. uh..50 years ago (gulp) the only thing available was a 135 tri pacer. The examiner told me, "I want you to plan a flight from here to Cincinnati. 3 normal passengers and full fuel." So, I went through the whole thing, laid out the course on the chart, solved the wind triangle on the plotter, etc.. did a weight and balance and found I would need to drain a bunch of fuel. He just smiled and said, "Good. Let's go fly." I'll never forget that check ride. He was a great examiner, an old "stick and rudder" guy, and believed that the check ride should be a learning experience for the soon to be new pilot.
Just to be clear, did you drain the fuel ?
And...
If not, what did you learn ?
-
I beg to differ. The tripacer was a good airplane as far as hauling a load and good control authority and feel, light years ahead of a 172 in those areas. But was an airport airplane with it's higher approach speeds, 80mph was a number to remember. Basicly it was a pa15, pa17 vagabond that weighed 400 lbs too much and had a nose wheel. Short farm strips were a bit of a challenge, but could be handled with experience, and best avoided by low time city slickers. As others said a 172 is a boring thing.
Did you adhere to an approach speed of 80 mph ?
That's not much under twice stall speed..!
Was there a reason for the excessive speed ?
-
Anybody�s got stick time on the
�fork-tailed doctor killer�
I�d like to know how that felt.
What's the fork tailed doctor killer ?
-
The fork tailed doctor killer was the early V-tailed Beach Bonanza. It got IMHO a reputation for the V-Tail configurations failing way out of proportion to actual problems. For years now it has had a conventional tail. The V-tail was known for it's speed, handling and looks. The actual Bonanza series has been in production for 70 years. Imagine a 70 year old motorcycle or car with improvements that still looks the same and is still in production. Okay, I guess some H-D models come close.
GliderJohn
-
Hate flying , can't just stop and get off . However , if it became necessary to fly somewhere , like from here to Cedar Vale , a 172 with Chuckie or Kirby at the stick would be the only way to go .
OK , you also Peter :grin:
None of those fancy planes , and absolutely no helicopters , choppers don't fly , the ground just rejects them :shocked:
Dusty
-
Flying in and out of West Virginia airstrips, (maybe 15 feet wide in the snow drifts) you want high wings, solid landing gear, and a means to land slowly. The 150 and 172 variants fill the bill. As a low time pilot, (I'm dumb, I paid for my own time) I have flown the little Cessnas, Cherokees, and a Colt (Tri Pacer lite ;) ). Not much experience, but I'll take the Cessnas every time. The Colt seating was even tighter than the Cessnas. I also did not care for the extra approach speed needed on the Flying Milk Stool.... :grin: I would like to try my hand at a Citabria. That looks like big fun.
In this youtube clip, a guy in a rental flies over my home field, but cannot land because he rented in a big airport and is not permitted to land on a short field, so he flies over, lol: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHlo1Oi2wM Yep, that is a county road crossing the runway.
-
None of those fancy planes , and absolutely no helicopters , choppers don't fly , the ground just rejects them :shocked:
Dusty
Would you try a glider with me or cloudbase at the controls? At least you know you are out of gas when you take off. If it looks at all reasonably safe I will fly it or fly in it. Probably the most out there for me has been a side x side two seater ultralight. Like flying in a lawn chair. It also gets kind of exciting when you forget the roll rate is much quicker than a glider.
GliderJohn
-
Would you try a glider with me or cloudbase at the controls? At least you know you are out of gas when you take off. If it looks at all reasonably safe I will fly it or fly in it. Probably the most out there for me has been a side x side two seater ultralight. Like flying in a lawn chair. It also gets kind of exciting when you forget the roll rate is much quicker than a glider.
GliderJohn
Well sure John , gliders I understand , they at least look like they should fly . However , those lawn chairs with motors are too much like helicopters , have I mentioned how much I despise helicopters and parachutes ? :shocked: :evil:
Dusty
-
Well sure John , gliders I understand , they at least look like they should fly . However , those lawn chairs with motors are too much like helicopters , have I mentioned how much I despise helicopters and parachutes ? :shocked: :evil:
Dusty
I don't have the level of licence that Kirby has Dusty.
I made it as far as a 172 RG with CSU and retract. Apart from that, it's almost all Pawnees and Super Cubs towing and ferrying Gliders cross country. You'd be better off with Kirby or Chuck.
My gliding history is more extensive. Couple of thousand hours and instructor for 10 years.
Just like bikes, they're all good on a lovely day...
-
"Neat planes. Ask your friends why their airplane was made by a company called Waggon- und. Maschinenbau GmbH :grin:
(the name means a company that makes railroad boxcars and machinery)"
In fact, that is an error. Before WWII there was the "Hanns Klemm Leichtflugzeugbau", they made the prototypes and a few serial models of the 107 up to 1941, until the cruel and stupid was stopped all that. From 1958 a revamped version (KL107 A and later the "B") was build by Bölkow Flugzeugbau. Later on the successor BO 207 followed.
The waggon works made completely different warplanes, as did the shipyard Blohm & Voss.
The planes in my club: http://www.flugplatz-uelzen.de/motorflug
-
Just to be clear, did you drain the fuel ?
And...
If not, what did you learn ?
No. There were only the two of us on the check ride. I learned many things on the flight. One of the biggest was after we had been doing unusual attitudes under the hood for a while. Needless to say, I was lost by then. He said, "Ok take off the hood and tell me where we are." I had a general idea of where we were.. we had been going generally South for a half hour or so. Looked down and there was an interstate underneath us. Looked and looked on my chart (this was well before GPS) :smiley: No interstate anywhere. He asked, "What would you do?" I said, "See that little town? I'd buzz that water tower and see what it says." He just laughed and said, "They're just building that interstate, it's not on the charts, yet. That's Spiceland. Take us home."
-
Did you adhere to an approach speed of 80 mph ?
That's not much under twice stall speed..!
Was there a reason for the excessive speed ?
Yes, 80 was the best speed for approach to a real city folks airport as any thing below that and it has a sink rate similar to a brick. 70 worked for farm strips with added power, but not fun. As you say you have flown a Pawnee, it would be similar if you had to land with some load in the spray tank-- not recommended. Heavy airplane, short wings need airspeed. The Pawneee flys great empty, but with a load of spray, not so much. Better keep the airspeed up. Kind of an extreeme example, but that is the situation with the PA-22. This thread about the 172 seems to have strayed a bit, sorry Dusty.
-
You never have to worry about floating off the end of the runway with a Tri Pacer. :smiley:
What it *will* do, however, is a great short field landing. Drag it over the threshold with full flaps and power at 60. Cross the threshold, pull power, flare, and thump you're there with a very short roll out.
-
"Neat planes. Ask your friends why their airplane was made by a company called Waggon- und. Maschinenbau GmbH :grin:
(the name means a company that makes railroad boxcars and machinery)"
In fact, that is an error. Before WWII there was the "Hanns Klemm Leichtflugzeugbau", they made the prototypes and a few serial models of the 107 up to 1941, until the cruel and stupid was stopped all that. From 1958 a revamped version (KL107 A and later the "B") was build by B�lkow Flugzeugbau. Later on the successor BO 207 followed.
The waggon works made completely different warplanes, as did the shipyard Blohm & Voss.
The postwar KL107s were made in Laupheim by Bolkow, and the subsidiary of Bolkow in Laupheim (and also Donauworth) was called what I mentioned during that period, WMD was the short version of that subsidiary name. The same factory was before Bolkow where Focke Angelis helicopters were built and today makes composite airliner cabin interiors for Airbus - they stopped building Bolkow aircraft at Laupheim in 1972 but had by then learned composite fabrication building Bolkow Phoebus sailplanes. See page 6 of this link for the history from then to now, including the period during which WMD was the name:
http://www.altairatc.com/europe/EHTC2011-Abstracts/EHTC-Presentations-2011/Keynotes_Tuesday/Vortrag%20HTC%202011%20DAc%20Kuhnla%2020110613.pdf
A Laupheim built 1969 Bolkow Phoebus aircraft data plate, showing the WMD manufacturer name if you look closely:
https://victoriancollections.net.au/media/collectors/4f729f8097f83e0308601955/items/510864832162ef0e30380f35/item-media/510868382162ef0e303810e5/VictorianCollections-large.jpg
https://victoriancollections.net.au/items/510864832162ef0e30380f35
You never have to worry about floating off the end of the runway with a Tri Pacer. :smiley:
What it *will* do, however, is a great short field landing. Drag it over the threshold with full flaps and power at 60. Cross the threshold, pull power, flare, and thump you're there with a very short roll out.
Just hope the engine doesn't quit on short final when dragging it in like that, or your Tri-Rock will live up to its nickname :grin:
-
Just hope the engine doesn't quit on short final when dragging it in like that, or your Tri-Rock will live up to its nickname :grin:
Yep.
As much as I hate it, the FAA is now teaching maintaining power on all approaches. Their reasoning is the short landing because of engine failure is much less common than floating off the end of the runway. <shrug>
Tommy always taught me power off landings.. except for the occasional need to get in to a short field. He said, "If you always land power off from the first power reduction, you'll always know where you can land if the engine quits." That has served me well on 3 different occasions.
-
I learned landing at "idle." Actually, I first soloed in gliders so I was taught precision dead-stick approaches. My power instructor started with pulling the throttle on downwind opposite the numbers and no flaps -- basically a glider landing.
-
Propellers are only there to keep the pilot cool, because they really begin to sweat when it stops in the air.
-
I learned landing at "idle." Actually, I first soloed in gliders so I was taught precision dead-stick approaches. My power instructor started with pulling the throttle on downwind opposite the numbers and no flaps -- basically a glider landing.
This. I noticed that people trained at large airfields seem to do what I call "airline" landings, long gradual approaches. I guess it's because they plan to move up the training ladder to flying IFR approaches, or their instructors were city boys.... :grin: I don't think they do a whole lot of full stall slipped landings.
-
Shorty, for what it's worth most of my early training -- gliders and power -- was in narrow valleys with no room for an extended final.
The only thing I've flown that required power on approach and touchdown was the C172 float plane. Oh, and the 747 simulator.
-
This. I noticed that people trained at large airfields seem to do what I call "airline" landings, long gradual approaches. I guess it's because they plan to move up the training ladder to flying IFR approaches, or their instructors were city boys.... :grin: I don't think they do a whole lot of full stall slipped landings.
Of course, there's the school of thought that says, with some power set, you can deal with overshoot/undershoot situations by application or removal of power.
For instance, if you are conducting a power off approach, you don't have as many answers for a gross overshoot. Being an old glider pilot, I know that ideally you should be within the approach envelope to adjust for overshoot/undershoot by manipulation of air brake ( or slipping) if you must.
There should be scope for manipulation of power to achieve your intended touchdown point.
-
I don't think they do a whole lot of full stall slipped landings.
Just for us budding Charles Lindberghs, what's a "full stalled" landing ?
-
Full stall landing = landing at slowest possible airspeed. In theory the wing quits flying just as the wheels touch. Could be a three-point landing in a taildragger. Obviously not recommended in jet aircraft.
-
Full stall landing = landing at slowest possible airspeed. In theory the wing quits flying just as the wheels touch. Could be a three-point landing in a taildragger. Obviously not recommended in jet aircraft.
Ideally, every landing should be fully stalled at 1" off the deck.
In a fully held off landing in a tail wheel aircraft the wing will be at or close to it's critical angle, (around 16 degrees). In the likes of a Cub or similar, if you don't touch down in a stalled condition, you will start a PIO that can end in tears.
Carrying airspeed above the stall means that if you touch down on the mains, the C of G will bring the tail down because it's aft of the wheels and increase the angle of attack and you will leave the ground again, the induced drag will then slow you to the point where you'll drop and hit the mains and if you've still got speed above the stall, it'll hapoen again..and again..and... :embarrassed:
A trike aircraft won't do this as readily 'cos as the mains touch, the C of G being forward of the mains, reduces the Angle of Attack and you'll be stuck to the ground like shit to a blanket ! :thumb:
-
"The postwar KL107s were made in Laupheim by Bolkow, and the subsidiary of Bolkow in Laupheim (and also Donauworth) was called what I mentioned during that period, WMD was the short version of that subsidiary name."
The company is the same, but the Klemm 107 was built in the subsidiary "Bölkow Apparatebau" in Nabern / Teck, about 25 km southeast from Stuttgart. This can even be seen on the nameplates and the paperwork of the airplanes (all is complete on both airplanes I know) The same applies to the Bölkow 207, which we have as basket case on the airfield since summer.
-
"The postwar KL107s were made in Laupheim by Bolkow, and the subsidiary of Bolkow in Laupheim (and also Donauworth) was called what I mentioned during that period, WMD was the short version of that subsidiary name."
The company is the same, but the Klemm 107 was built in the subsidiary "B�lkow Apparatebau" in Nabern / Teck, about 25 km southeast from Stuttgart. This can even be seen on the nameplates and the paperwork of the airplanes (all is complete on both airplanes I know) The same applies to the B�lkow 207, which we have as basket case on the airfield since summer.
Edited post after more research :wink: :grin:
This Wiki link explains it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6lkow_Bo_207
The earlier Kl 107s like your friend's B and C built at Nabern before they opened the Laupheim plant in 1961. The Kl 107Ds and all the B207 were built at Laupheim.
I'm actually interested in this stuff :wink: :grin: Did you go to the Bolkow Treffen at Genderkingen and Manching in September?
Best of luck rebuilding the B207.
-
"I'm actually interested in this stuff :wink: :grin: Did you go to the Bolkow Treffen at Genderkingen and Manching in September?"
No, I did not. Very interesting each year is the "Klemm-Treffen" (Klemm meeting) at Kirchheim / Teck, mere kilometres from the yard.
Beside, the Kl107D IS the Bölkow 207. A nice, capable aeroplane, more modern than the 107, pilots that flew both models prefer the 107. But 4 seats are better than 3. But I can assure you the place in the rear in the 107 is fantastic! On long flights sleeping there goes well....
-
The 172 is a simple, not really that fun, Gateway drug.