Newer C-172SP?
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
- FenderManDan
- Rank 6
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:40 am
- Location: Toilet, Onterible
Newer C-172SP?
There was a topic on this forum recently about the old trusty 172 and how not much had changed. Well recently I flew a newish C-172SP sans G1000. It looks nice and has a very comfy butt holders.
I noticed it feels a lot heavier on the controls than the seventies clones. In the stall nose drops like a rock as well it descends almost like a chopper with the 30 degree flaps and in a slip on final.
One weird thing was when I did a few circuits in it, was that it always buffets/vibrates (similar to stall bot not quite) when peeling off the in ground effect for a second or two. When landing I did not notice any buffet even before the stall horn went on.
Is this buffet or vibration a normal behaviour for newer ones or something particular for this one?
I did not see any modifications in the log book. When the instructor was on board for the checkout he did not seem disturbed by it even though he felt it too.
Thanks
Dan
I noticed it feels a lot heavier on the controls than the seventies clones. In the stall nose drops like a rock as well it descends almost like a chopper with the 30 degree flaps and in a slip on final.
One weird thing was when I did a few circuits in it, was that it always buffets/vibrates (similar to stall bot not quite) when peeling off the in ground effect for a second or two. When landing I did not notice any buffet even before the stall horn went on.
Is this buffet or vibration a normal behaviour for newer ones or something particular for this one?
I did not see any modifications in the log book. When the instructor was on board for the checkout he did not seem disturbed by it even though he felt it too.
Thanks
Dan
Re: Newer C-172SP?
Well they are a lot heavier than the 1970s 172s that's why they have the factory installed 180hp windmill in the front end instead of the 145-150hp of the 70s.
Re: Newer C-172SP?
Unbalanced wheel spinning down? If it happens shortly after the mains leave the ground, could be? Could try tapping the brakes if airborne when it does it.... I don't recall any particular vibration/buffet on new 172s vs old ones...
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:52 pm
Re: Newer C-172SP?
I'd bet on an unbalanced wheel spinning after lift off.
I've never really thought of the S controls as being heavy, but they do feel different than the older examples I've flown. That said, depending on what flavour of old 172 you're used to, the increased empty weight and extra fuel of the S could add up to over 300lbs. Those new seats are heavy.
I've never really thought of the S controls as being heavy, but they do feel different than the older examples I've flown. That said, depending on what flavour of old 172 you're used to, the increased empty weight and extra fuel of the S could add up to over 300lbs. Those new seats are heavy.
- Colonel Sanders
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
- Location: Over Macho Grande
Re: Newer C-172SP?
Yeah - check the ramp weight. Bet it's heavier. Also,
a forward C of G will make the elevator feel heavier.
a forward C of G will make the elevator feel heavier.
Re: Newer C-172SP?
Are they still a bitch to start when there hot?
Also is it there or their? My wife and I are debating!
Also is it there or their? My wife and I are debating!

Re: Newer C-172SP?
It's they're.burhead1 wrote:Are they still a bitch to start when there hot?
Also is it there or their? My wife and I are debating!

- Colonel Sanders
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
- Location: Over Macho Grande
Re: Newer C-172SP?
I always found the older, carbureted Lycomings easier toAre they still a bitch to start when there hot?
hot start than that frikken Lyc fuel injection, which I suspect
does not respect me very much.
Heck, the kid used to light the fuel-injected Pitts on fire so
often when he hot started, I was seriously considering putting
the name "Pyro" on the side of it

- FenderManDan
- Rank 6
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:40 am
- Location: Toilet, Onterible
Re: Newer C-172SP?
I have snagged it twice so far and I was the first flight for the day, so don't have that experience. Starting a cold engine in 10 c was a breeze with 3-4 sec aux. fuel pump prime.
Re: Newer C-172SP?
They aren't that bad to start when they're hot, but they can flood easily. Flooded start procedures cure that quickly. As to how it flies, the S model aircraft i've been around have always shown a desire to remain airborne. Even the forward slip with 30* on doesn't produce a loss of altitude in too great a hurry and no buffeting in ground effect
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:52 pm
Re: Newer C-172SP?
There's a high speed starter available for this plane. It's reeeeeaaaly worth it.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8133
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Newer C-172SP?
The SPs are quite a bit heavier than the older 172s (2550 gross weight IIRC vs 2300), and have a heavier engine (360 vs 320) with 20 more horses. It's a 172 starting its progression to a 182. I never found them to be especially good at descending.... I'm used to 40 flaps on my 172M that can almost hover me down in a stiff breeze with no slipping.
I did some of my training on the SP (steam driven, it was the early naughties), but other than the new plane smell, leather, and swoopy paint job I didn't really like it. In addition to being more expensive, it felt awkward and their was so much crap on the panel I didn't know how to use. Starting it wasn't a big deal, but it sure wasn't as fool proof as the good old carbureted O-320 or the fuel injected Continentals where you can purge the system with the fuel pump and the mixture in ICO.
I did some of my training on the SP (steam driven, it was the early naughties), but other than the new plane smell, leather, and swoopy paint job I didn't really like it. In addition to being more expensive, it felt awkward and their was so much crap on the panel I didn't know how to use. Starting it wasn't a big deal, but it sure wasn't as fool proof as the good old carbureted O-320 or the fuel injected Continentals where you can purge the system with the fuel pump and the mixture in ICO.
Re: Newer C-172SP?
I would second the vibrating spinning wheel as the likely cause.
Also, if I remember right, the controls felt odd to me in the S because the yoke doesn't turn 90 degrees like an older N for example, so that made it feel unusual to me.
Also, if I remember right, the controls felt odd to me in the S because the yoke doesn't turn 90 degrees like an older N for example, so that made it feel unusual to me.
- Beefitarian
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6610
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
- Location: A couple of meters away from others.
I've had the vibrating wheel on the classic 1979 N models. Tap the brakes once you're in the air and it stops. Makes you wonder how hard someone landed to cause it. Then again it might be the flat spots from hard braking on landing. Not sure why you'd use the brakes if you're not doing one of those short landing contests.
I only noticed the short throw yoke during my control checks.
I only noticed the short throw yoke during my control checks.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8133
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Newer C-172SP?
The vibrating wheels are particularly bad on the tubular spring gear (every 172 since the mid 70s) since they can flex forward and aft as well as up and down. I always tap the brakes after takeoff.
Most tires aren't perfectly balanced in the first place, since we don't statically or dynamically balance light aircraft tires. We just put the valve stem next to the light spot (red dot) of the tire to try and keep it from being too bad. It's not like it spends a lot of time at high speed.
Most tires aren't perfectly balanced in the first place, since we don't statically or dynamically balance light aircraft tires. We just put the valve stem next to the light spot (red dot) of the tire to try and keep it from being too bad. It's not like it spends a lot of time at high speed.