Cessna 172C Performance

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Thales Coelho
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:43 am

Cessna 172C Performance

Post by Thales Coelho »

Hello,

Do anyone here have the performance tables of Cessna 172C?

I need to determine the performance penauties it will suffer operating from Carlos Prates Airport (SBPR), Brazil, with its 920m long at 3150ft runway. Average temp is around 26oC, but can reach up to 34oC or a little bit more at summer.

If someone can help me, apreciate!
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by PilotDAR »

The C 172H performance table shows take off data for 5000' field elevation, at 2300 pounds GW, & 41F temperature, zero wind, ground run 1255 feet, and total to clear 50' 2480 feet. Add 10% for each 25F warmer that then stated standard temperature.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by CpnCrunch »

PilotDAR wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:29 am The C 172H performance table shows take off data for 5000' field elevation, at 2300 pounds GW, & 41F temperature, zero wind, ground run 1255 feet, and total to clear 50' 2480 feet. Add 10% for each 25F warmer that then stated standard temperature.
My actual experience is about 1500-2000ft ground run and anemic climb at full gross with similar elevation and temperature to that posted. Of course it depends how much power your 50 year old engine is actually delivering. I'd certainly recommend trying below full gross, and/or on a cooler day first, and be careful if there are any obstacles.

Should definitely be doable, but I wouldn't believe the POH numbers too much (or at least, take them as an absolute best case scenario).
---------- ADS -----------
 
ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 6309
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by ahramin »

Also you can get a copy of the POH for your aircraft from Cessna:

http://txtav.com/en/service/technical-s ... blications
---------- ADS -----------
 
cap41
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:36 pm
Location: Oshawa (CYOO)

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by cap41 »

You could consider re pitch the propeller. 172 G climbs at 1100 FPM at 15C sea level
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5861
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

SBPR is 3044 MSL. 34 C there is going to be pretty marginal unless you are well below gross weight
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by CpnCrunch »

cap41 wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:13 pm You could consider re pitch the propeller. 172 G climbs at 1100 FPM at 15C sea level
I'm somewhat skeptical that you can get 1100fpm out of a 145hp 172 with a repitched prop, even with just one person on board.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by photofly »

I’m sure you can. If you don’t mind not being able to cruise faster than 80kts.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by PilotDAR »

I'm somewhat skeptical that you can get 1100fpm out of a 145hp 172 with a repitched prop, even with just one person on board.
Me too. One of my charges is a 172A taildragger with a 180 HP Lycoming, and a fine prop, and it can barely do that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by photofly »

I get 1100fpm from my underpitched Luscombe weighing 1400lbs on 100hp. That’s the same power to weight ratio as a 145hp 172 at 2030lbs (easily doable with one on board and half tanks), and the two aircraft have the very nearly same wingspan and aspect ratio.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by PilotDAR »

Yeah, but think of how sleek and aerodynamic a Luscombe is!
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by photofly »

All I can think of is that I should get a coarser prop!
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 6309
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by ahramin »

I changed from a 70" metal climb prop to a 72" wood cruise prop on mine a couple years ago. The difference was astounding. I used to get to 100 kts about 1500' down the runway, now it takes 4 times as far to get the same speed. I haven't actually tested the takeoff distance but it's way longer. Climb angle is less than half of what it used to be. Even in level flight the lack of acceleration is noticeable, I was shocked the first time ATC told me to keep the speed up and I opened the throttle all the way and it seemed to take forever to get to max speed. Cruise speed is 10% faster on 20% less fuel though so I'm happy. The real surprise was the climb. Vy is now 10 knots faster, and the climb rate at that speed is very close to what it used to do with the "climb" prop.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by PilotDAR »

And this is the challenge. More than most any other types, Cessnas can be operated within a range of configuration, particularly different props, and wheel fairings on or off. Yet to align the performance data with the configuration is difficult, if not impossible. The performance data usually does make a statement about the use of wheel fairings, but I have never seen Cessna data specify which prop was used. That said, Cessna has provided performance data when the design requirements did not specify that they must, and there will be a configuration (if you can figure it out) which will be accurate. I have found purported performance data for some other types, which was wildly optimistic. In one case, it turned out the the "Owner's Manual" was not the FAA approved flight manual anyway, just marketing I suspect.

Performance data should be taken with a grain of salt. Your 50 year old engine should be producing the specified power, if it is maintained according to its maintenance specifications. But, rigging, condition of the paint on the aircraft, reworking of the prop, and mods can affect performance, with no real data to rely upon.
---------- ADS -----------
 
black hole
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Ontario
Contact:

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by black hole »

you could just wail for a good headwind.

BH
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by photofly »

It’s quite unlikely the engine is 50 years old, even if the airframe is.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by CpnCrunch »

photofly wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:51 pm It’s quite unlikely the engine is 50 years old, even if the airframe is.
Most engines are original and have just had some kind of overhaul at some point in the past (which might have been a few decades ago for a privately owned plane).
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by photofly »

On my limited sample of two owned airplanes, whose ages are 78 years and 42 years, the engines are (I believe) 17 and 19 years old, respectively. If you have better sample data, I’m all ears.

Also maybe the OP could tell us how old his or her engine is!
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by CpnCrunch »

photofly wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:22 pm On my limited sample of two owned airplanes, whose ages are 78 years and 42 years, the engines are (I believe) 17 and 19 years old, respectively. If you have better sample data, I’m all ears.

Also maybe the OP could tell us how old his or her engine is!
My limited sample is similar to yours. Although I think your 182 has Peterson conversion, which includes a new engine.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
JasonE
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 837
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:26 pm

Re: Cessna 172C Performance

Post by JasonE »

My Cherokee has the original engine but it's been overhauled a few times. 6700 hours on the airframe.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Carelessness and overconfidence are more dangerous than deliberately accepted risk." -Wilbur Wright
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”