Even Cessna' own site notes a 2,450 gross with about 750 in useful load. A 172 is not a 170 with nose gear

Oh but it is!

The Cessna 172 started life as a tricycle landing gear variant of the taildragger Cessna 170, with a basic level of standard equipment. In January 1955 the company had flown an improved variant of the Cessna 170, a Continental O-300-A powered Cessna 170C with a larger elevator and more angular vertical tail. Although the variant was tested and certified, Cessna decided to modify it with a tricycle landing gear and the modified Cessna 170C flew again on 12 June 1955. To reduce the time and cost of certification the type was added on to the Cessna 170 type certificate as the Model 172. Later the 172 was given its own type certificate 3A12.

GT

An EARLY 172 is more or less a 170B with a tricycle landing gear. There are several minor differences other than the straight tail, I believe the stabilizer mounting parts are different, and probabbly a dozen other tiny little things the 170 experts know about.

A later 172 with a rear window is not that close to a 170, and I believe it got further away as time went on. Heavier, more compelx, more room, more power, etc. etc.

I took a ride in a 2000 172, with the de-rated O-360 and all the bells and whistles... seemed a world apart from my old '56 model.

This guy is comparing a PA-22 to a 172. And I think its a safe bet he's not looking at a 2012 172. No doubt the empty weight has increased over the years and the usefull load has been reduced. The first 172's had a empty weight pretty comparible to a 170.

Yep, he is definitely comparing to a much newer 172 than mine. I don't have the W&B close by but I seem to remember my useful load being over 900 lbs.

This quote was on another site:
"I then noticed on 172guide.com that many of the older models had a roughly 2300 lb gross weight with an empty weight of around 1300 lbs, giving a roughly 1000 lb useful load.

Even with 39 gallons of gas aboard, it would leave over 700 lbs available, enough for four 170 lb adults. Am I reading something wrong? I was always under the impression that 172s were unable to carry four plus full fuel.

If an older 172 can carry 1000 lbs, it would fit my needs and I wouldn't need or want a 182."


Keith

WWhunter wrote:Yep, he is definitely comparing to a much newer 172 than mine. I don't have the W&B close by but I seem to remember my useful load being over 900 lbs.

This quote was on another site:
"I then noticed on 172guide.com that many of the older models had a roughly 2300 lb gross weight with an empty weight of around 1300 lbs, giving a roughly 1000 lb useful load.

Even with 39 gallons of gas aboard, it would leave over 700 lbs available, enough for four 170 lb adults. Am I reading something wrong? I was always under the impression that 172s were unable to carry four plus full fuel.

If an older 172 can carry 1000 lbs, it would fit my needs and I wouldn't need or want a 182."


Keith

That's an interesting post taken from the other site Keith. The writer it seems may never have flown either airplane? "I wouldn't need or want" would require much discussion around these campfires. We are power junkies here I think.

We have a '69 172K. It weighs 1450 or so empty and has an 850 useful load. We have the longer range tanks. We put the 0-360 on it with the powerflow and vg's. On pavement it will take off in about 400 feet and land in about the same. Crusing at 2450-2500 I can get 130mph cruse. Sometimes as high as 140. Ofcourse this is with the 180hp lycoming. And it's a fixed pitch prop. It does everything we need it to. I think the next upgrade is going to be bigger tires.


Tom

Thanks for the replies. I'm definitely not looking at a 2012 172! A couple of weeks ago I had to leave my 150 at a close by airport (KGFL) because I couldn't get back into where I flew out of due to ice on the runway and wind off the lake (4B7). The FBO wanted $50 for a combustion type preheat as I don't have a plug-in system. I asked if I could bring my own combustion preheater and they said OK. When I got back the next morning there was a new looking Cirrus SR20 right beside my 1967 150G. I pushed mine away before I lit up my MSR stove system, put it under the airplane and threw an old sleeping bag over the top. Must have looked like the Beverly Hillbillies.

From what I see from your replies it looks like there is not any appreciable difference in backcountry capability between a PA22 and an older 172 in high DA conditions, is that a safe assessment?

Again, thanks for the replies.

Great site.

Frank

fshaw wrote:..From what I see from your replies it looks like there is not any appreciable difference in backcountry capability between a PA22 and an older 172 in high DA conditions, is that a safe assessment?...

if it's a 320 powered Tripacer, it's gonna have 150 or 160 horsepower (but a smaller wing-160 sq ft or so) compared to the Cessna's 145 horsepower (and bigger wing-about 175 sq ft). Kind of a trade-off in that one aspect sorta compensates for the other. I've had people tell me that high DA performance is more wing-dependent than at low altitude, but I don't know if that's necesarily true.
There are also 125 & 135 powered Tripacers, don't let them scare you off-- if kept light they can be good performers also, esp the 135 (O-290-D2).

Frank
Just think, you were going to be flying through the same air as that Cirrus, just for about $200,000 cheaper!!
And if you park where there is no power, that's just how you have to heat these things up!!
Just think of the places you can fly that that Cirrus can't
I'm sure it will make you smile!!
How many engines and gallons of gas can you buy for the difference!!
Have fun
GT

Hi Frank,

I’ve spent some time in Pacers and little time in 172’s so my comments are bias. I went with PA-22 and PA22/20 because of price and then found out what a great plane it really is. I’m sure 172’s, stock and modified, perform quite well. I’ve found the Piper PA-22 and especial the PA-20 or PA-22/20 are great performers. With some basic mods like squaring off the wing and adding tips, will adds more wing area. This improves the short take off capability and density altitude performance. Simple vortex generators add a great deal to slow speed performance/STOL. PA-18, Cub tail feathers add to slow speed control and STOL also. Then of course HORSE POWER makes every airplane a performer. Every time I talk to friends with Cessna’s and they bring up the cost to improve them, I shudder. The modifications I’ve mentioned on a PA-22 aren’t cheap but they are less expensive then a Cessna.

So from my perspective The PA-22 is cheaper to buy, Cheaper to modify and I thing it out performs the 172. Boy is that statement going to draw flack. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Rick

P.S. If you go with the PA-22 let me know.

The difference is in performance with a heavy load.

The 172 does have a better climb gradient without question with 800# of pax n gas. A bit lighter, and the difference is really not worth worrying about and favors the -22.

The glide ratio of the 172 is better. My -22 was around 8.5:1 as far as I could figure (others claim slightly better, but I doubt it), and the 172 is pretty solid at 9.5:1 or better.

This fact means the -22 needs more hp to maintain level flight at Vy than the 172 (about 11% more, actually), and those are hp you don't have to climb with.

The 172 is roughly 300# heavier right out of the chute. That means that with relatively light loads and roughly the same hp up front, the -22 does better even though it is less efficient, while at heavy loads, the efficiency of the 172 edges out the -22 for excess climb hp (and you'll notice it at high DA). I honestly don't think most folks would really care about the slight differences for most of their 2 person, bags, n fuel missions.

I had my -22 into more strips than I've visited in a 172 or my 182, mostly for reasons of ruggedness. It is really fun to fly with- the roll rate and maneuverability is really something I enjoyed. It was also easier to keep looking great, easier to work on (dead simple), and frankly I like the looks and the better leg room.

When you get the PA-20 Just make sure the Landing gear is dialed in correctly, as a crooked gear or bent makes them a handful.
Good luck, Have fun.
GT

M6RV6 wrote:When you get the PA-20 Just make sure the Landing gear is dialed in correctly, as a crooked gear or bent makes them a handful.
Good luck, Have fun.
GT

I'll bet that crooked or bent landing gear would be a hassle in any airplane.......good point though.

Some times when 22 are being converted to 20's they don't always track real well!
Then there are sometimes just a little twang on one side from an encounter of some kind??
Caster and camber make a big difference!

GT

Twitchy Pacers are the result of toe in or toe out problems. Piper drawings do not allow for any toe in or out, only neutral. Most Pacers are converted PA-22’s which means the two front mounts were welded on during the conversion process. I have repaired more than one Pacer with mounts as far out as 3/8 of an inch. Mount with is important but square in just as important so the main gear not only have neutral toe but are parallel to the center line of the fuselage.
Rick

pacerpilot wrote:Twitchy Pacers are the result of toe in or toe out problems. Piper drawings do not allow for any toe in or out, only neutral. Most Pacers are converted PA-22’s which means the two front mounts were welded on during the conversion process. I have repaired more than one Pacer with mounts as far out as 3/8 of an inch. Mount with is important but square in just as important so the main gear not only have neutral toe but are parallel to the center line of the fuselage.
Rick

Off topic! Off topic! This is a frequent topic over on the Biplane Forum. Pitts gear must be rigged exactly neutral or they have nasty ground habits. As you were.

Flew my first pacer the other day. Had a big smile the whole time. It was a PA-22/20 150. Slight wing extension as mentioned. Skylight! Flew with half tanks. 60 gal capacity. Ground handling was solid with no need for brakes. It is clearly short coupled and required attention to detail, but didn't have any poor handling characteristics. I have a Citabria and a PPonk 180. I have flow Cessna 170s, Maule 7s and 4s and Luscombe 8 (thanks John!) as well as many other tail wheel aircraft. Of all these, it seemed the Pacer was the more responsive in yaw on the ground and likely the least tolerant of poor skills. While the skywagon may require more "effort" to control in some aspects, the short coupled pacer would have more problems with over control and quick oscillations on the runway. I wouldn't recommend it as a tail wheel trainer. I didn't feel it was poorly rigged or twitchy, but as was said earlier, I think you would quickly see if the pilot was twitchy! Recency may have some effect on my comparison with the other aircraft.
The OP was asking about the trigear and the plane itself was nice. The left front door would be high on the list of desires, but I understand it requires replacement of the fuselage structure which would be the front door post. This plane had the hinge above the door and swung up to the wing, which I also really liked for ease of entry.
Handles BEAUTIFULLY in the air. The roll rate was great, but likely less than standard for the type, in this plane with the wing tip extensions. The skylight may have contributed, but visibility was good. In the Maules I always feel like the windshield is short and I'm sitting too far back from it, looking through a slot. If the windshield isn't any taller in the Pacer? I certainly felt like the seat was closer and vis was better. Again, the skylight was a plus.
Power off stalls were not possible as the wing only mushed with no shudder. I couldn't even get it to break with full aft yoke and full rudder. Application of a larger PA-18 tail would change this characteristic. Addition of some power gives the tail force enough to get the wing stalled, barely, and still there were no poor qualities and recovery was a non event.
At 2500 elevation with 400lbs of pax and 200lbs fuel we were able to land in 275 ft and take off in 300ft. Wind was ~4-6 knots sweeping around,but usually directly across runway, so no help there. Use of the flap handle to goose the take off did not really help at all like with the Cessna's.

My brother has been wanting a tail wheel he can get his wife and 2 kids into. He has been looking at Maules and 180s but I feel this would be a good economical and capable alternative to consider.

Matt 7GCBC wrote: Power off stalls were not possible as the wing only mushed with no shudder. I couldn't even get it to break with full aft yoke and full rudder.

The elevator stop is set for +14 degrees. It can be modified (not legally). I talked to a guy when I was curious about looking into it who modded his to go to +17 degrees- and he said after all that trouble he went right back to stock after having cheez whizzed his britches. It apparently is set where it is for a good reason.

Oh but it is!

The Cessna 172 started life as a tricycle landing gear variant of the taildragger Cessna 170, with a basic level of standard equipment. In January 1955 the company had flown an improved variant of the Cessna 170, a Continental O-300-A powered Cessna 170C with a larger elevator and more angular vertical tail. Although the variant was tested and certified, Cessna decided to modify it with a tricycle landing gear and the modified Cessna 170C flew again on 12 June 1955. To reduce the time and cost of certification the type was added on to the Cessna 170 type certificate as the Model 172. Later the 172 was given its own type certificate 3A12.

Found this browsing ebay today.

That is an interesting photo for sure... the main landing gear does not look like early 172. The early 172 main gear is swept forward, and comes out of the fuselage further aft than that photo seems to show. So this actually looks like a 170 with a custom tricycle gear, not a 170 modified with a 172 gear.