Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182

[ClipperLuna]

If you're looking for a more chill, laid back experience, I would go for the 172. Like the Cherokee (which would really be my own personal preference, don't count it out!), I find it helps me focus on the fundamentals of flying better than the 182 or the Comanche.

One of the advantages of a constant speed prop is you can get max rpm--and therefore max power--out of your engine from (almost) the time you throttle up to when you're ready to level off in the cruise. Fixed pitch props can't do this. With maintaining higher rpms comes better acceleration (shorter takeoff run) and a higher rate of climb. Pulling the prop control back when you're cruising will, amongst other things, help you save fuel. Next time you fly the Comanche, pull the prop lever back a couple hundred rpm and watch what happens to the fuel flow gauge.

There are some good things about a constant speed prop, though. One is, if you keep an eye on the tachometer when you're leaning, you can better see what leaning the mixture does to engine power. Another is there's no prop governor that needs to be maintained and possibly fail at some point.

[Gabe777]

Oh my, I hope I haven't inadvertently caused a heated debate about the pros and cons of constant vs variable pitch props !

If I have, then I apologise...

I think given that I already gave the Comanche I am going to go with the 172. Variety is good, but next time I take up the Ferrari - erm, I mean the Comanche, I'll make the effort to see what the prop pitch is all about !

Thanks again.

[bladerunner900]

I like to fly the older warbirds and of all the A2A GA I have, the only one I have installed in P3D is the 172. That's enough for me. The others are fine but I just keep going back to the good old 172.