u*******m
发帖数: 3395 | 1 昨天本来想学light-sport的，结果风大，想想还是换到了Cessna172里面。
发现这飞机外面看起来不比152大多少，结果操纵起来重了好多好多。尤其
是降落时，触地拉机头，几乎要拉不起来，前轮落地太早。
还是喜欢152轻松操纵的感觉。 | p********r
发帖数: 1432 | 2 I'm debating to train on 152 or 172. It's very common to find a density
altitude of 6500+ or even 7000+ at field elevation in a normal summer day
here. Does 152 work for training purpose in this case? What happens if practice slow flight/stall etc at density altitude ~9000 in a 152? | u*******m
发帖数: 3395 | 3 To be honest, I don't know. But given the fact that airplane
flies in the air, the density altitude does not come into
play as far as slow-flight/stall training goes. In thinner air, the
airplane's stall speed is still referred to its airspeed, which
is the same regardless of altitude. But the corresponding ground
speed is a lot higher. Which is why you'll need a longer takeoff
ground roll.
I may be wrong though.
I didn't begin my training in a 172. 172 is definitely heavier
and slower to react | p**m
发帖数: 3876 | 4 For me 152 is >30 dollars/hour cheaper, but I did train in 172 when the
flight school was out of 152s for my time slot. yeah 172 does feel heavier
but it's more stable in turbulence.
152s climb pretty poorly at higher density altitude (unless you have one of
the modified versions with improved engine I think). | p********r
发帖数: 1432 | 5 You mean IAS vs. TAS? What worries me is that once lose altitude in a stall, it may take a long time for 152 to return to normal training altitude.
The other problem is XC. Suppose we are going altitude 3500AGL out. On the return leg, we take 4500AGL. That's about 9,500MSL here and density altitude may well exceed 10,000. Does it take for ever to get that altitude for a 152?
【在 u*******m 的大作中提到】
: To be honest, I don't know. But given the fact that airplane
: flies in the air, the density altitude does not come into
: play as far as slow-flight/stall training goes. In thinner air, the
: airplane's stall speed is still referred to its airspeed, which
: is the same regardless of altitude. But the corresponding ground
: speed is a lot higher. Which is why you'll need a longer takeoff
: ground roll.
: I may be wrong though.
: I didn't begin my training in a 172. 172 is definitely heavier
: and slower to react
| p********r
发帖数: 1432 | 6 Yeap. I have the same concern. 152 is much cheaper. Wish I could train in an
airport under class G at -500MSL instead of +5000.
Around my place, the fleet of 172 significantly out numbers 152.
of
【在 p**m 的大作中提到】
: For me 152 is >30 dollars/hour cheaper, but I did train in 172 when the
: flight school was out of 152s for my time slot. yeah 172 does feel heavier
: but it's more stable in turbulence.
: 152s climb pretty poorly at higher density altitude (unless you have one of
: the modified versions with improved engine I think).
| t****n
发帖数: 1347 | 7 Reminds me of this story (An Arrow has 180HP, however its wings are
optimized for speed, not climb rate; but still, 100fmp seems too low for an
Arrow at 10000ft):
"
A long time ago, bopping along in my 180 Arrow at 10,000 feet, IFR in
VFR conditions, from Boston to Kalamazoo. It had taken me 20 minutes to get
that high -- 10 of that for the last 2,000 feet. Then, Cleveland Center
asked me to climb to 11,000 feet for traffic...
Me: You mean it?
ARTCC: Sure do.
Me: Do I hafta?
| L*********r
发帖数: 1201 | 8 哈哈，这个太逗了
你牛
an
get
【在 t****n 的大作中提到】
: Reminds me of this story (An Arrow has 180HP, however its wings are
: optimized for speed, not climb rate; but still, 100fmp seems too low for an
: Arrow at 10000ft):
: "
: A long time ago, bopping along in my 180 Arrow at 10,000 feet, IFR in
: VFR conditions, from Boston to Kalamazoo. It had taken me 20 minutes to get
: that high -- 10 of that for the last 2,000 feet. Then, Cleveland Center
: asked me to climb to 11,000 feet for traffic...
: Me: You mean it?
: ARTCC: Sure do.
| D*****r
发帖数: 3241 | 9 lol
【在 L*********r 的大作中提到】
: 哈哈，这个太逗了
: 你牛
:
: an
: get
| D*****r
发帖数: 3241 | 10 @
of
【在 p**m 的大作中提到】
: For me 152 is >30 dollars/hour cheaper, but I did train in 172 when the
: flight school was out of 152s for my time slot. yeah 172 does feel heavier
: but it's more stable in turbulence.
: 152s climb pretty poorly at higher density altitude (unless you have one of
: the modified versions with improved engine I think).
| t*n
发帖数: 14458 | 11 t
f
an
get
【在 t****n 的大作中提到】
: Reminds me of this story (An Arrow has 180HP, however its wings are
: optimized for speed, not climb rate; but still, 100fmp seems too low for an
: Arrow at 10000ft):
: "
: A long time ago, bopping along in my 180 Arrow at 10,000 feet, IFR in
: VFR conditions, from Boston to Kalamazoo. It had taken me 20 minutes to get
: that high -- 10 of that for the last 2,000 feet. Then, Cleveland Center
: asked me to climb to 11,000 feet for traffic...
: Me: You mean it?
: ARTCC: Sure do.
| u*******m
发帖数: 3395 | 12 Now that I've flown three times in the 172, I am glad that
I trained in the 152, not because of the cost, but because
152 is much lighter and responds more quickly to control
inputs. Consequently one develops the seat-of-the-pants feel
faster. |
|
