I have asked this before but bailed out and went for the Commanche.
I urgently need something sublime and tranquil for pootling around Unalakleet, Nome and Homer, and possibly Narvik and Hammerfest.
So, 172 or 182 ?
On Saturday 1200 zulu, my decision will be made in accordance with the results herein.... if anyone actually gives a hoot ..... lol lol lol !
Cheers
Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
i7 7700k (4.5 GHz) / GTX 1080 8GB - Gigabyte Windforce OC 3X / 32GB DDR4 2400 Hz (CL15) / Samsung EVO 970 plus M.2 nvme (1TB) / BeQuiet 650W PSU 50amps 12v rail -- (with P3Dv4, AS + ASCA / REX Texture Direct)
Re: Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
182. Does everything the c172 can do but with more power
Andrew
ASUS ROG Maximus Hero X, Intel i7 8770K, Nvidia GTX 1080, 32GB Corsair Vengeance 3000 RAM, Corsair H90i liquid cooler.
All Accusim Aircraft
Accu-Feel, 3d Lights Redux
ASUS ROG Maximus Hero X, Intel i7 8770K, Nvidia GTX 1080, 32GB Corsair Vengeance 3000 RAM, Corsair H90i liquid cooler.
All Accusim Aircraft
Accu-Feel, 3d Lights Redux
Re: Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
The 172. It does all that the 172 does with equal power.
No, seriously. Get the 172. It’s fantastic, and it’s a fixed pitch prop which is in itself worth getting to know well through AccuSim. It’s also slower, so you will have more time for navigation/sightseeing. Simpler operation - no cowl flaps, no shock cooling.
Also, the characteristics are actually quite different. The 182 feels heavier, and is more unforgiving on the trimming.
Get the 172 first. I have and operate all the AccuSim aircraft a lot, but I’ve found a new love for the 172 and have spent literally hundreds of hours in it since December. It’s a fantastic plane.
No, seriously. Get the 172. It’s fantastic, and it’s a fixed pitch prop which is in itself worth getting to know well through AccuSim. It’s also slower, so you will have more time for navigation/sightseeing. Simpler operation - no cowl flaps, no shock cooling.
Also, the characteristics are actually quite different. The 182 feels heavier, and is more unforgiving on the trimming.
Get the 172 first. I have and operate all the AccuSim aircraft a lot, but I’ve found a new love for the 172 and have spent literally hundreds of hours in it since December. It’s a fantastic plane.
Erik Haugan Aasland,
Arendal, Norway
(Homebase: Kristiansand Lufthavn, Kjevik (ENCN)
All the Accusim-planes are in my hangar, but they aren't sitting long enough for their engines to cool much before next flight!
Arendal, Norway
(Homebase: Kristiansand Lufthavn, Kjevik (ENCN)
All the Accusim-planes are in my hangar, but they aren't sitting long enough for their engines to cool much before next flight!
Re: Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
I think over time I have realised I prefer low wing aircraft, however when I switched to P3Dv4 I did re-purchase the 172 but not the 182.
While I don't fly the 172 that often, when I do I feel it has a very specific charm about it so when I do fire it up again it's like I re-discover it each time. I think I have around 80 hours in the 172.
For whatever reason the 182 has never quite grabbed my attention-span, to be absolutely fair I have probably really not done it justice and I would be surprised if my flying hours were into (or far into) double-digits.
Flying speed or rather the ability to cover ground has also been a factor to me coupled with my low-wing preference probably explains why the Comanche has received most of my attention.
I would vote 172 personally, but suggest consideration is given to how you like to fly and what you like to get from it. i.e. low and slow or covering ground quicker.
While I don't fly the 172 that often, when I do I feel it has a very specific charm about it so when I do fire it up again it's like I re-discover it each time. I think I have around 80 hours in the 172.
For whatever reason the 182 has never quite grabbed my attention-span, to be absolutely fair I have probably really not done it justice and I would be surprised if my flying hours were into (or far into) double-digits.
Flying speed or rather the ability to cover ground has also been a factor to me coupled with my low-wing preference probably explains why the Comanche has received most of my attention.
I would vote 172 personally, but suggest consideration is given to how you like to fly and what you like to get from it. i.e. low and slow or covering ground quicker.
- Killratio
- A2A Spitfire Crew Chief
- Posts: 5785
- Joined: 29 Jul 2008, 23:41
- Location: The South West of the large island off the north coast of Tasmania
- Contact:
Re: Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
I vote the C172. IRL the R doesn't quite have the charm of the older models but it is way ahead of the C182 for "feel" and "charm". The C182 is a Clydsdale, the C172 is a good solid riding pony. Now if you want Thoroughbred ... of the two, I'd choose the third option (Spitfire )
FWIW.
FWIW.
Re: Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
172 has a charm of a compact, tight trainer, its a plane you come back to time and time again to relearn the basics (ideal for a sim i'd say, you'll always find a reason to fly it), its an iconic learning machine, 182 is a go anywhere with whatever in the back type of plane, but with less of a feeling of personal connection i would say. A"real life" mission ready type that gets the job done in the face of adversity
Re: Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
Thnx Gents.... I was secretly hoping for a 172 swing. So far pretty much a consensus.....
My secret is that I really don't like prop pitch controls ! Don't really see the need and to be honest - and no doubt due to ignorance - don't really see any difference !
In my Comanche I just keep it maxed out... reducing pitch does not really seem to have an noticeable effect.... maybe it's just me.
I guess in real life it may help the engine run smoother, or quieter or prolong its life, but in the sim I do not notice any significant effect on flight.
My secret is that I really don't like prop pitch controls ! Don't really see the need and to be honest - and no doubt due to ignorance - don't really see any difference !
In my Comanche I just keep it maxed out... reducing pitch does not really seem to have an noticeable effect.... maybe it's just me.
I guess in real life it may help the engine run smoother, or quieter or prolong its life, but in the sim I do not notice any significant effect on flight.
i7 7700k (4.5 GHz) / GTX 1080 8GB - Gigabyte Windforce OC 3X / 32GB DDR4 2400 Hz (CL15) / Samsung EVO 970 plus M.2 nvme (1TB) / BeQuiet 650W PSU 50amps 12v rail -- (with P3Dv4, AS + ASCA / REX Texture Direct)
Re: Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
In accusim the difference is visible, less wear, less fuel, less vibrations, less heat, better economy, different turning tendencies, different sound etc. Its as if you drove your car all the time at low gear and high speed.
I fly mostly strong lop until engine hesitates, as much throttle as is safe (more the higher i am, best at wide open, in some planes it can mess up fuel distribution though and therefore mess with lop at some altitudes) and lowest possible green rpm. Per savvy aviation vids. if its 172 or cherokee then some 2450 rpm set with throttle.
I fly mostly strong lop until engine hesitates, as much throttle as is safe (more the higher i am, best at wide open, in some planes it can mess up fuel distribution though and therefore mess with lop at some altitudes) and lowest possible green rpm. Per savvy aviation vids. if its 172 or cherokee then some 2450 rpm set with throttle.
Re: Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
Ah.... so is this where the 21 / 21 rule comes from in cruise... ?Caldemeyn wrote:In accusim the difference is visible, less wear, less fuel, less vibrations, less heat, better economy, different turning tendencies, different sound etc. Its as if you drove your car all the time at low gear and high speed.
I fly mostly strong lop until engine hesitates, as much throttle as is safe (more the higher i am, best at wide open, in some planes it can mess up fuel distribution though and therefore mess with lop at some altitudes) and lowest possible green rpm. Per savvy aviation vids. if its 172 or cherokee then some 2450 rpm set with throttle.
.... essentially smoothing out the engine and reaching an optimum balance for speed and fuel use ?
I clearly don't pay enough attention. Think I'll read the manual...
i7 7700k (4.5 GHz) / GTX 1080 8GB - Gigabyte Windforce OC 3X / 32GB DDR4 2400 Hz (CL15) / Samsung EVO 970 plus M.2 nvme (1TB) / BeQuiet 650W PSU 50amps 12v rail -- (with P3Dv4, AS + ASCA / REX Texture Direct)
Re: Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
I like the 182 a lot; it's nice for sightseeing but also has pretty decent performance. And I don't think constant-speed props are hard to fly, plus you already are used to it from the Comanche.
- Piper_EEWL
- Chief Master Sergeant
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 14:14
- Location: Germany
Re: Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
They’re both great. The 182 is more of a bush plane than the 172 but the 172 is a great trainer. I’d say just get them both
B377&COTS, J3 Cub, B-17G, Spitfire, P-40, P-51D, C172, C182, Pa28, Pa24, T-6 Texan, L-049&COTS, Bonanza V35B
Re: Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
The lower the rpm, the better the economy is, fuel is burned more throughoutly, less friction losses, less heat etc.
The engine works best while not being chocked out by the throttle, least resistance for the incoming air and by that more of it. Of course one has to remember about the additional fuel being injected at wot to keep the engine cool, but at agressive lean of peak operation you won't be able to produce such temps anyway especially at higher altitudes.
Lean of peak will aid in keeping low temps, lower your fuel flow dramatically, keep the engine from busting tbo etc. Its easiest to do with fuel injected engines like cessnas here have, becouse it allows for uniform fuel distribution within cylinders which in turn allows all of them to work at lop safely, the higher you fly, the easier it will be to do in carburated engines, becouse your total % of power will be lower and that will help keep cylinders away from harm if some of them have different amounts of fuel being introduced. After levelling off i lean to the onset of roughness, then enrich until it stops, i don't even bother with the egt gauge. In the 172 at 8000 or so i get 6-6,5 gph this way
Savvy aviation has some good vids on leaning and overall engine operation on youtube.
The engine works best while not being chocked out by the throttle, least resistance for the incoming air and by that more of it. Of course one has to remember about the additional fuel being injected at wot to keep the engine cool, but at agressive lean of peak operation you won't be able to produce such temps anyway especially at higher altitudes.
Lean of peak will aid in keeping low temps, lower your fuel flow dramatically, keep the engine from busting tbo etc. Its easiest to do with fuel injected engines like cessnas here have, becouse it allows for uniform fuel distribution within cylinders which in turn allows all of them to work at lop safely, the higher you fly, the easier it will be to do in carburated engines, becouse your total % of power will be lower and that will help keep cylinders away from harm if some of them have different amounts of fuel being introduced. After levelling off i lean to the onset of roughness, then enrich until it stops, i don't even bother with the egt gauge. In the 172 at 8000 or so i get 6-6,5 gph this way
Savvy aviation has some good vids on leaning and overall engine operation on youtube.
Last edited by Caldemeyn on 12 Sep 2018, 12:13, edited 2 times in total.
- Dreamsofwings
- A2A Mechanic
- Posts: 615
- Joined: 16 Aug 2015, 08:00
- Location: EGLK
- Contact:
Re: Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
[quote="Killratio"]I vote the C172. IRL the R doesn't quite have the charm of the older models but it is way ahead of the C182 for "feel" and "charm". The C182 is a Clydsdale, the C172 is a good solid riding pony. Now if you want Thoroughbred ... of the two, I'd choose the third option (Spitfire )
Well said old boy
Well said old boy
Dreamsofwings youtube channel https://m.youtube.com/c/Dreamsofwings
@dreamsofwings1 page on Facebook. Dreamsofwings1 on Instagram & Twitter
Re: Flash Poll URGENT ! Cessna 172 or 182
Thnx again guys. Learning never stops huh ?
I too have been eyeing the Spitfire... but where does it alk stop ? The Connie as well. I have to ration myself having recently succumbed to the QOTS v3... !
I too have been eyeing the Spitfire... but where does it alk stop ? The Connie as well. I have to ration myself having recently succumbed to the QOTS v3... !
i7 7700k (4.5 GHz) / GTX 1080 8GB - Gigabyte Windforce OC 3X / 32GB DDR4 2400 Hz (CL15) / Samsung EVO 970 plus M.2 nvme (1TB) / BeQuiet 650W PSU 50amps 12v rail -- (with P3Dv4, AS + ASCA / REX Texture Direct)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests