FDCT vs C172

[Bill3558]

I had to drop off my CT a hundred miles away for its annual. A friend picked me up in a 172.  After 100 hrs in the CT the Cessna seemed so big and the low reving engine so quite.  It was so different.  Landing flare seemed way too high to me, but it was right for him. 
I love it. 
 

[okent]

I do like the lower rpm of older engines.  Space in the plane different but I feel like there's more general body room in the CT.

[AGLyme]

The new F2’s engine noise is more like a low rumble due to the farther forward engine placement.  

Since I have flown in all 3 planes, I would say comparing a 172 to an F2 is legitimate.  However, I cannot think of a thing the 172 does better than the F2 other than having seats in the back and a bit more airspeed.

comparing the 172 to the CT is like comparing the 172 to a Husky... just sayin’

[ct9000]

A bit more airspeed??????. 

A CT will beat the pants off a   C172 even a late model with the more powerful engine. there is no contest. As for the rear seats there is a limitation for mass the same as for a CT. A C172 is not a true 4 seat a/c. Noise is a different discussion they make good headsets for that. Please don't take this comment the wrong way, I have a few hours in C172/182's but the mission is not the same. lower engine speed is not the issue but prop speed is, gearbox means very much better efficiency and about the same prop speed.

My comments relate to the regs. in AUS where a C/S prop is ok on LSA 

There is not a C172 in the country that will catch my CTLS turbo.

 

[AGLyme]

 

10 hours ago, ct9000 said:

A CT will beat the pants off a   C172

Not my CT Mr Wonderful...; )

[UCFKnight1039]

I have owned both.  Currently have a CTLS.  I think they both have some distinct advantages over each other:

Advantage CTLS:

More efficient to fly and maintain. More shoulder room in cabin. Wider weight and balance envelope. Better avionics for less money, Better short field performance, Better rate of climb. Faster. More range. BRS Chute.

 

Advantage C-172:

2 more seats (kinda). Easier to establish controlled approach for landing. Easier to land. Better crosswind behavior. Better suited to be tied down outside.

 

Aside from missing the back seats about twice a year, I much prefer my CTLS over my old C-172. 

Gary

 

[Duane Jefts]

I currently fly a CTLSi and a Cessna 172. The 172 has 80 gal useful, a 180hp lycoming, steam gauges- Kings- (including ADF) plus glass (5 Garmin instruments)and is completely dual IFR capable including coupled GPS LPV’s or ILS app’s. Useful load is 950 pounds. When you upgrade to the 180hp motor, you gain 200 pounds useful and the motor is about 36 pounds heavier than the 150hp original motor in Larry’s 1969 C172K. With the Horton STOL kit, it is very capable on short strips.

When we flew to Panama City, Panama from Tucson in March this year, we took the Cessna. It was also handy when doing IFR around Guatemala’s Volcano’s.
 

When we flew from Tucson to St Johns Newfoundland last fall, we took the Cessna. Not always good weather in the NE.

 

Let’s not discount the C172 but having said that, The trip from Tucson to Point Barrow Alaska in the CTLS Over 6 Weeks was priceless.

 

Antigua, Guatamala and Skagway, Ak Photo;s

 

[AGLyme]

Nice pics.  The principal item I prefer over the 172 is the visibility.  

[207WF]

If I had my medical I would sell my CT and buy a 180 hp 172.  Then the dog could ride in the back instead of on my wife's lap!   

WF

[andyb]

Parachute is a big plus on CT.  It is available on a 172, but with a weight, cost, and storage space penalty.

Andy

[Duane Jefts]

1 hour ago, 207WF said:

If I had my medical I would sell my CT and buy a 180 hp 172.  Then the dog could ride in the back instead of on my wife's lap!   

WF

Good plan for the dog.  Winter flying out of Tucson is 95% CTLSi but I can fly with four folks if light on fuel.

[Farmer]

I checked a few weeks ago and we are still near the first on the list to receive the Flight Design C4 or equivalent. We would be flying that aircraft around the world if it were available to us. The next simple rugged and disposable aircraft we could find was a old Cessna 172. Whether we are lined up on final for Detroit metro or a 1400 foot gravel strip in the Yukon it seems to do the job. No we are not fast, but we are capable.  In the end it is all fun and after crossing Guatemala earlier this year at 100o feet AGL  the aircraft we are sitting in seems less important.

get out there and do it because about once a year you add to the birthday scorecard.

 

Farmer

[FlyingMonkey]

On 9/16/2020 at 3:35 PM, AGLyme said:

The new F2’s engine noise is more like a low rumble due to the farther forward engine placement.  

Since I have flown in all 3 planes, I would say comparing a 172 to an F2 is legitimate.  However, I cannot think of a thing the 172 does better than the F2 other than having seats in the back and a bit more airspeed.

comparing the 172 to the CT is like comparing the 172 to a Husky... just sayin’

I feel the same way about 172 vs my CTSW.  And does a 172 actually beat an F2 on speed?  Wikipedia lists the cruise speed of a 172R at 122kt -- I can get 130kt TAS out of my CTSW if I accept a high fuel burn (6+ gph) at 5500rpm...can a 172 go that fast?

 

The 172 is a lot easier to land and fly in gusty winds, without a doubt.

[AGLyme]

When I was at the Midwest show a couple of weeks ago, I spoke with some folks who took demos in the F2.  They agreed that the F2 was an improvement in handling and landing... like a 172.

our models (SW and LS) are in a different class now.  Sportier as opposed to Docile.

The F2 with the 912i and the LS clock similar speeds.  Your SW is faster Andy.  

[Ed Cesnalis]

Yesterday I did an 'out and back'  out in a 172 and back in CTSW winds were not a big issue.

Out in the skyhawk was from Creswell to Alturas 182nm.  We never hit more than 108kts except in decent.  Climb to 11,500 was abandoned at 10,500 and took almost an hour.  Total flight time was 2.2 hours

Back in the CTSW was from Alturas to Florence 216.5nm.  Climb to the same 10,500 was 5 minutes and total flight time was 1.8 hours.

Night and Day when compared to a vintage 172

[cdarza]

43 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Climb to the same 10,500 was 5 minutes

Whacha got under the hood there ?!!  

[Ed Cesnalis]

I guess it was close to 7 minutes. field elevation was 4,300 plus I only weigh 165 these days

[AGLyme]

At cruise (95% throttle, burning about 4 gals hour) my LS clocks high 90’s knots.  
At 100% throttle, I’m burning 6 gals and clock 109 knots-ish.
 In my direct experience, the F2’s speeds are similar.  
obviously the 172 line has gone through tons of changes /improvements over the last several decades.  so one 172 is not another 172.
 

[Tom Baker]

1 hour ago, AGLyme said:

At cruise (95% throttle, burning about 4 gals hour) my LS clocks high 90’s knots.  
At 100% throttle, I’m burning 6 gals and clock 109 knots-ish.
 In my direct experience, the F2’s speeds are similar.  
obviously the 172 line has gone through tons of changes /improvements over the last several decades.  so one 172 is not another 172.
 

Your speeds don't sound right to me. I have flown a CTLSi some, and its speeds were faster as best my memory serves. Have you verified the airspeed accuracy with a GPS course? Every once in a while there will be one that is actually faster in the air, but normally it is an airspeed indication issue.

[AGLyme]

33 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

Have you verified the airspeed accuracy with a GPS course?

No I haven't.  I have compared it to it Flight Aware which seems to validate my comments above.  I have the Tundra tires which I assume is a big penalty.  I am going to have my prop balanced soon, I will see what pitch I have... power vs cruise.

Here is a pic of the panel flying from the Mt Vernon IL to Connecticut trip.  RPM's: 5060 @ 95% throttle, Fuel Burn: 4.0 Gals/hour, Alt: 5,500', Tape speed; 93, TAS: 102, GS: 105 knots... Variable winds (perfect flying day), a bit of a push.  I eventually climbed to 7,500 as per ATC suggestion... the flying was perfect... but for the layers below... PS, I was in the air for about 5.5 hours, covered 662 miles from KMVN to KSEG... with fuel to spare. 

[FlyingMonkey]

34 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

Your speeds don't sound right to me. I have flown a CTLSi some, and its speeds were faster as best my memory serves. Have you verified the airspeed accuracy with a GPS course? Every once in a while there will be one that is actually faster in the air, but normally it is an airspeed indication issue.

Agreed...it sounds like your prop may be way over-pitched.  I don't fly an LS but would think you should be able to hit at *least* 115kt somewhere in the power curve.  I hit 112kt at 5100rpm, and an LS is not that much slower than an SW.

[sandpiper]

If you can believe my Dynon, my CTSW makes 115 - 116 KTAS at 5200 RPM and 3500 MSL. Burning about 4.7 gph.

Roger Heller had a plane nearly identical to mine. When he was still alive, and when Rainbow was still at Corning, CA, we flew from Independence, OR to Orland, CA which is just south of Corning. Mostly in formation there and back. Some times tight but mostly loose. Our speeds and power settings were about the same. The purpose of the trip was for Roger Lee to install Matco's on Roger Hellers plane. My purpose was for a fun flight and to get up to speed for doing the same to my plane a few weeks later.

When leaving Orland with a formation take off, Tony, who keeps his plane at Orland, and provided hangar space for the conversion, took of behind us and passed us like we were still tied down! His plane is a 2006 and probably 80 pounds lighter than our 2007's.

Tony, and his wife Rose, were gracious hosts putting us up and feeding us for the overnight. Tony used to be active on this forum but I haven't seen him posting for quite a while.

Tony??

 

[AGLyme]

After I get the prop balanced, I will report back... thanks Tom, Andy and Sand...

[FlyingMonkey]

29 minutes ago, sandpiper said:

If you can believe my Dynon, my CTSW makes 115 - 116 KTAS at 5200 RPM and 3500 MSL. Burning about 4.7 gph.

 

I don't know about the fuel burn since I don't have fuel flow in my CTSW, but I totally believe your speed numbers.  I have the small wheels and see 117 KTAS at 5100, and 127 KTAS at 5400rpm at similar altitude to yours.  Those numbers are verified with GPS ground speed, though I think my SW is a bit of an anomaly and faster than most.

[sandpiper]

I don't have fuel flow either. My 4.7 is based on fill ups the few times I took off with full tanks and topped off upon return.

This has happened maybe 3-4 times in 13 years. Usually I don't fill beyond 25 gallons.