|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 6, 2020 21:03:15 GMT 12
Last month on the 12th of June was the 65th anniversary of the first flight of the Cessna 172.
I just counted up how many Cessna 172's are still on the New Zealand register all these decades later and I am pretty sure there are 272 examples there (unless I miscounted).
There cannot be many civilian pilots flying in New Zealand now who has never flown a C172 I'd think.
They are iconic, and ubiquitous with general aviation and have been for most of our lifetimes. They are up there with the Tiger Moth, and the Dakota for legendary aeroplanes.
I am wondering, which was the very first Cessna 172 to arrive in New Zealand? And when? And who owed it? And where was it based? Is it still extant or still flying? And if it's not that one what is the oldest flying C172 in NZ now?
Have you any special memories about flying the Cessna 172? Any special flights? Or any incidents? Or stories that stand out? Which was your favourite 172? Or have there been any infamous ones on the NZ scene? Let's hear you memories and stories please.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Jul 6, 2020 22:48:32 GMT 12
The most prolific of all aeroplanes, and perhaps one of the most forgiving with that iconic wing... Cessna got a very good balance in their use of the NACA 2412/5 aerofoil - from the 120, 140, 150, 152, 170, 172, 180, 185, 206, 305 (Bird-dog) et al. Efficient and forgiving. I've logged time in the following: ZK-EKG 172N ZK-DXI 172M ZK-ETK 172N ZK-DOL 172M ZK-EWA R172K ZK-VCT 172P ZK-WKU 172N ZK-EZF R172K ZK-DHS 172M ZK-RMX 172M ZK-CXN 172K ZK-KVB 172N ZK-CQF 172G ZK-BPS 172A ZK-DXJ 172M ZK-CEO 172S ZK-NAC 172RG ZK-WHY 172N ZK-BPT 172A ZK-DRW 172M ZK-JAZ 172N ZK-DAT 172L ZK-DNT 172M ZK-DUH 172M ZK-DXF 172M ZK-EKE 172N ZK-EWB 172RG ZK-JCL 172RG  CXN
 EWA |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jul 7, 2020 8:37:42 GMT 12
1957 & 1958 models that live in the Waikato.   |
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Jul 7, 2020 10:04:59 GMT 12
I am proud to say that I have owned one of Cessna's finest.......... the mighty VH-JZJ !
|
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Jul 7, 2020 10:14:16 GMT 12
According to the logbook I have time in:
ZK-ETA 172N
ZK-JAF 172N
ZK-DXP 172M
ZK-EJS 172N - immaculately presented and a pleasure to fly
ZK-JGP 172M
ZK-NPA 172R - I flew it after it's conversion to diesel power
ZK-NPJ 172R
ZK-WAM 172R
ZK-WKF 172S
Although I went solo in ZK-WAM my favourite 172 must be ZK-JGP which I call the Millennium Falcon because it doesn't look like much but is pretty quick for a fixed pitch 172 due to it's light weight and big prop. It'll happily cruise along in the yellow arc if you let it.
Other than a mag letting go after takeoff my 172 flights have been rather uneventful. A testament to Cessna's engineering I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 7, 2020 10:15:43 GMT 12
I guess the most infamous C172 incident in NZ would be its use as a bomber during the 1981 Rugby War...
|
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Jul 7, 2020 11:43:09 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyingKiwi on Jul 7, 2020 20:44:10 GMT 12
I'm not sure how many 172s I've flown but I think at least 50, ranging from a C model to the retractable Cutlass and the 210hp Hawk XP. Also logged my first ever flight, my first solo, my PPL flight test and my CPL flight test in one. Wouldn't be my choice if I was buying an aeroplane (sorry Mustang51!) but they really are excellent aeroplanes. Never really had a significant mechanical misadventure in one either, of which I can't say the same for some of the other aircraft types I've flown.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwi172 on Jul 7, 2020 22:46:46 GMT 12
I'm thinking that ZK-BQG c/n 28480 was the first on the Kiwi register on 01-05-1956 with Rural Aviation Ltd of New Plymouth. Listed to the North Otago Aero Club from 28-03-1957.
It is still current with Ray Patchett at Blenheim.
Two earlier production airframes in NZ are ZK-MGR c/n 28108 registered here on 05-11-2014 and ZK-BUZ c/n 28138 registered in NZ on 20-11-1957.
Two that remain strong in my tiny brain are ZK-BWW with its smooth Continental O-300 engine and the ill fated ZK-CGA - both Wellington Aero Club.
(Incidently - Kiwi172 has no connection to Cessna 172's).
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jul 7, 2020 23:10:26 GMT 12
The Toyota Corolla of the air.
Worst 172 I have flown - ZK-WGE. Did just one circuit and declared "I'm never flying that piece of s*** again!"
Best one flown - ZK-JAZ in its original pre 'write off and rebuild' status. Did my 172 rating and night rating in that. Flew it again several months ago (after the rebuild) and no, its not as good now.
By my count there have been 441 ZK registrations issued to 172s, but this includes re-registrations and the ones that never actually got here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jul 7, 2020 23:25:44 GMT 12
Last month on the 12th of June was the 65th anniversary of the first flight of the Cessna 172. I just counted up how many Cessna 172's are still on the New Zealand register all these decades later and I am pretty sure there are 272 examples there (unless I miscounted). I make it 269 still on the register, but hey that difference is minimal. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 7, 2020 23:34:15 GMT 12
Thanks Peter. Still a lot more than I had expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jul 8, 2020 8:45:57 GMT 12
......now spends her days shuttling back and forth to Motiti Island.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 8, 2020 10:05:51 GMT 12
I'm thinking that ZK-BQG c/n 28480 was the first on the Kiwi register on 01-05-1956 with Rural Aviation Ltd of New Plymouth. Wow, so New Zealand got in very early in the piece then, as the C172 only entered service in 1956. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 8, 2020 10:07:32 GMT 12
What exactly makes one a good one, or a bad one, please?
|
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Jul 8, 2020 11:24:31 GMT 12
What exactly makes one a good one, or a bad one, please? A good one regardless of age, is well looked after, i.e. hangared and kept clean and tidy inside and out. It is also well maintained as far as it's avionics fit and engine/prop combination. Bad ones have tatty interiors, a panel full of u/s avionics (only the ones legally required for the CoA work, sort of), an engine so tired you wonder if you'll ever get airborne or poorly rigged flying surfaces so it takes more effort to make it fly the way you want. I've flown aircraft with some of these traits but thankfully not all of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Jul 8, 2020 14:43:48 GMT 12
Flyinkiwi....how true. I was in one with a mate and as we turned finals into a setting sun we had no vis due to the microscopic windscreen cracks. They were not apparent during take of or on the trip. This also had a huge blob of silicone to seal the windscreen at the wing root....never flew in it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 8, 2020 15:15:28 GMT 12
I think the best of breed was the 1976 172M Skyhawk II, as it had the original light airframe, an improved wing with the drooped leading edge and lots of other nice improvements, but still had the O-320-E2D engine, before the terrible "blue streak" Lightweight O-320H2AD came in 1977 with the 172N. Most of these "H" engines have been replaced with better O-320s or 180Hp O-360s. 1970 - 1975 Models had issues with poor grade aluminium skinning, which meant corrosion was always an issue (Cessna did not corrosion proof their structures in this period unless by customer request). later 172s tended to be a bit heavier, as avionics fit changed. A well maintained, tidy 172M is a joy to fly.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Jul 8, 2020 20:00:10 GMT 12
I think the best of breed was the 1976 172M Skyhawk II, as it had the original light airframe, an improved wing with the drooped leading edge and lots of other nice improvements, but still had the O-320-E2D engine, before the terrible "blue streak" Lightweight O-320H2AD came in 1977 with the 172N. Most of these "H" engines have been replaced with better O-320s or 180Hp O-360s. 1970 - 1975 Models had issues with poor grade aluminium skinning, which meant corrosion was always an issue (Cessna did not corrosion proof their structures in this period unless by customer request). later 172s tended to be a bit heavier, as avionics fit changed. A well maintained, tidy 172M is a joy to fly. Quite right Bruce. I found the M model with a 180 HP O-360 Penn Yan conversion (reduced max flap limits to 30 degrees) is a very good performer with a higher MAUW - good for 1,000 lbs useful load and 120+ kts cruise. Better than the R172K; feeding only 4 cylinders, no cowl flaps, and no CSU. The lighter early 172s without the Omni-vision rear window were faster than the first of the type with it. I preferred the tactile control of their manual flap handles - to 40 degrees (instead of electric switch to 30) and the two I've flown with 4 adults on board happily went to 10,000 feet for mountain scenic (on 145 HP). Of course, well-maintained and cared-for airframes are much more likely to be a joy to fly especially if they haven't been bent in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Jul 9, 2020 12:43:31 GMT 12
I want to add a note about diesel 172s. I get the rationale behind them as they run just over half the fuel burn of an avgas model, so on paper are attractive to flight schools. But there are downsides, namely the drastically reduced useful load and subsequent extra care required for the weight and balance, it sits close to the forward c-of-g limit so you need to do your calculations carefully. When I did my rating we had to put 10kg of water ballast in the rear fuselage to bring it back within balance limits. In the air it behaves like a 172 with the exception of the single lever engine/prop operation (instead of 2 normally or 3 in the CSU models). I've never flown a turbine before but I would imagine the slow thrust response to small throttle changes must be similar. Certainly made for some sporty approaches in gusty crosswinds.
|
|
