I first flew the 172 early in my flight training. I was slow student and I was interested in whether my speed of progression had to do with my inherent lack of ability or a shortcoming of my primary instructor. This led me to try several other instructors and the airplanes they came with. Perhaps it was this early exposure to a variety of airplanes that has made me agnostic in the high wing/low wing debate, the metal vs. composite discourse and the pleasant ripostes exchanged over the importance of a glass panel. I am an enthusiastic member of the group that views any conveyance that can be made to become airborne, even if only briefly, is just a fantastic device, worthy of praise, admiration and constant use. I don’t remember much about that first Skyhawk, but it was a 180 hp carbureted version and my impression was that it was more powerful than my usual trainer. I know it sounds crazy, but I had not embraced the importance of horsepower at that point. I was so impressed at getting into the air that I would not have been able to tell an O-300 from a TSIO-550. That the 180 hp 172 was meatier than the 150hp P28A was a matter of feel rather than fact. Anyway, that plane is not the one I would write about when describing the Skyhawk because I own one and have since 2009.
 |
| My usual ride next to its refueling bird. The Ohio National Guard were at the edge of their ambit when I parked next to them at Boeing Field. |
I will not wax poetic about the bird just because I happen to have put a few hundred hours on it. I have no romanticized notion that it is the very best plane, or even the best plane for my mission. It is a good plane, moreover it has been an exceedingly inexpensive plane, and that my friends is an unusual characteristic worthy of thought. My bird is a 1968 172G with the original O-300 engine that has been field overhauled once. At 1800 hours the TBO is laughably short, and mine is now at 2150 and still looking good. I love my airplane, warts and all, mostly because it fulfills exactly the role that I had envisioned when I was pining for a plane. It is always there, ready to take me away. My headset is sitting where I left it. My sunglasses are on the glare shield. The spare batteries for the intercom are in the seat back pocket, or, if they are not it is all my fault. The tires are pumped because I pumped them. The oil is at 6 quarts because that is where I left it. This sounds a bit silly, but I rented for the first 380 hours and it was always a bummer to have to get set up…to learn a new set of squawks and a new set of instruments...often a new checkout to rent from a new place. I did 15 check rides in the first 4 years.
I can’t afford a plane, not on any reasonable grounds. Sure, it gets 14 miles per gallon and the straight line distance in these parts is usually about half the road miles. So really, it gets about the same mileage as my spouse’s VW Jetta. There are annual costs of about 1 AU ( Aeronautical Unit - $1000…very handy when speaking with other pilots in from of non-pilot parties interested in the monetary outflows associated with airplanes, especially as they relate to expensive sewing machines they might covet.) Oil needs changing, bits needs replacing, and there is the ever rising cost of Avgas relative to Mogas. So, even though I live on an island in one of the best places to fly in the whole world, I can’t really justify the airplane as a necessary expense. It is on the basis of recreation, obsession, and stress relief that I figure its worth relative to my professorial salary. On those grounds it is a complete steal.
It helps that I got a great deal on the plane and that I have a pretty hard nosed attitude about buying things for it. The engine is over time and that is fine with me. I hear and read about people repowering the plane at TBO. Replacing this particular sort of mechanical system on a time or use basis is a poor use of resources. There is very good data to support the concept that piston engines should be replaced and refurbished on condition. And furthermore, it is worth investing time and money to determine the very least invasive solution to the particular failure you are seeing. There are data to support this, it is not voodoo or faith but a firm belief in data that keeps me flying my family in a plane with an engine that’s older than my sister and a contemporary of my bother and I. I use oil analysis every 25-30 hours and an engine monitor to warn me of impending issues. When those problems show up I will attempt to deal with them in a calm and rational manner. This will be aided and abetted by an anemic checking account and a spouse who finds comfort in a quilting fabric stash sufficient to clothe the entire population of our island in the event of some catastrophe that leaves them in sudden need of knickers with mod patterns. Could I argue that a new ELT or even a good intercom system is a safety of flight issue? Sure, but it would be disingenuous and the fact that either improvement would cast more than 10% of the purchase price of the plane acts as a restraint.
So, who cares about flying the 172…it is reviewed everywhere, and besides, it is a boring plane with relatively crap performance. Hold on, oh purveyor of myths, buyer of old wives tales…there are things to love about this plane. There must be. It is the most produced general aviation airplane because it is just flat great at what it does, not because Clyde Cessna managed to sneak a trade restraining bill past congress. This airplane beat out every other manufacturer and the race was not even close. My airfield is blessed with more really smart, experienced aviators than any have ever hung out at. One of these characters was recently asserting that there were two perfect airplanes for the islands. One was not the 172. The other was an older (O-300 powered) Skyhawk that had been given a full IO-360 180 hp upgrade. The combination of the light airframe (relative to the later heavier 172s) and the powerful motor makes for a plane that can’t be overloaded and will nip along at 120 knots on 8.5 gallons of fuel. Folks who were listening did not shout him down. The plane is a solid, stable and sensible platform for VFR and light IFR flight.
After a year and a bit I had flown 200 hours in my plane. I was updating my logbook when I realized that I had not gone more than 100 miles from home, or above 5000 feet in that time. I immediately jumped in the plane and went to 10,500 and flew around Mount Baker. I still have not been more than 100 miles from home. For this short hop commuting type of flying the 172 is a great choice. I average 1.8 full seats an hour. That means there is no way I could be happy with a two seater and I probably don’t really need a six seater. I have even had five in the plane when one was a lap child.
In case you have been living in Vero Beach, the Skyhawk is a high-wing airplane. That has some advantages: good view below, less ground effect float when landing, a built in sun and rain shade when entering, exiting, or standing around the plane and a ‘both’ selector on the fuel tanks. It also has disadvantages: you can’t see where you are going when you turn, you have to climb a ladder to fuel the plane, and you will acquire a nasty gash from walking into a control surface at some point. The seating is close, maybe not as close as a Mooney, but the 172 just does not have much shoulder room. My smarter half likes to ride in the back because there is not enough room to knit while sitting next to me up front. This is not terrible as my daughter is getting into the whole radio call thing.
The plane taxis without any excitement and, at least in the case of my 145 hp powerplant, it begins a stately ground roll when the coals are put to it. At 65-70 mphyou can rotate, or, if you are not shy of runway and enjoy the sensation, you can let the plane fly away by itself when it hits 75 mph. The deck angle for a maximum performance (Vx) climb is too steep for passengers, visibility and engine cooling, and even Vy will leave my cylinders hotter than I like. I settle in at a 350-400 fpm climb at 100mph and count on the slowness of the airplane to get me to a respectable altitude before I have to leave the comfort of having land below me. I have flown a lot of airplanes where checklists are really important. In this plane the emergency checklist is vital, but the flying checklists are so short I have them taped to the panel. For descent you two things could kill you…you must put on carb heat (the O-300 has a bad reputation for ice) and you must enrichen the mixture. Everything else is optional or not applicable. The prop is fixed pitch, the gear is welded down, the turbocharger has been attached to a different airplane, and with the fuel knob on ‘both’ there are no fuel issues to contend with. This is an easy plane to fly from the point of view of remembering things and it is just as easy when it comes to aerodynamic manners.
The 172 has had a couple of wings and I have flown them. I have also flown every one of the possible power plants with the exception of the military 195hp version. Even the amphib 172 with the 220 hp Franklin engine is pretty much the same as the 145hp 172. This is a very stable beast. It has no bad habits - adverse yaw is minimal, it stalls benignly and lands easily. In short this is a great airplane. It does not go super fast or carry a foursome more than an hour or two, and I would be looking for new planes if I had to fly hard IFR, but for the short haul, family flier it is just as good as a plane can get. I take four big guys to the movies and we have gas to get there and back. With my wife we can hit Costco and fit a months worth of paper products. With my daughter I can go camping and just throw every dang thing she takes a fancy to into the back seat and luggage area. Why yes, that is a plastic kitchen, complete with microwave and sink. Why not bring that camping? A good 172, that you can put 200 hours on without spending more than 1 AU in upkeep and repairs, should run you less than $25,000. There is just no excuse not to own, the calculus for owning relative to buying has shifted down to about 65 hours a year if you are a frugal beggar like me. Go…buy a plane. Heck, for that price buy two.
No comments:
Post a Comment