c175 landing mountain strip, from the ground
Uploader Comments (Patrick0Elliott)
All Comments (10)
-
Typo Correction on the Full throttle at sea level.... 17 gph! That's 3 gph more than a C-182 would burn! Normally, at 3,200 rpm above 9,000 feet altitude, I'd burn about 12.5 gph leaned out. With the Lyc O-360 full throttle at 2,450 rpm, the burn was an average 10.4 gph at the same cruise speed as with the GO-300. The C-175 Skylark had a baggage door and a more modern instrument panel than the C-172 of the '58-'60 years. '61-'62, only the engine was different.
-
He could have used full flap at 60 mph IAS and not used up so much of that short runway. The ‘58-‘60 C-175 has a 175 hp geared Cont GO-300 with thin bladed 84-67 fixed F/P prop. The engine turned 3,200 while the prop turned 2,400 rpms. ‘61-‘62 used a C/S prop. It was a gas hog of an engine. The handbook said, “Full throttle at sea level…7 gph is considered normal.” I got rid of the GO-300 and replaced it with a Lyc. O-360 and C/S prop. Doubled the rate of climb, and cheaper on gas.
-
Cessna designed it in the 1950's to fit between the C172 and C182. Four seats, 6 cylinder, ~180hp O300 engine.
-
Cessna 175 Skylark. 2,106 Built from 1958-1962
-
Awesome!
-
Whats a C175?
-
Nice landing! Bet it was lots of fun to boot. Alas, couldn't try that in my Mooney. :-)
-
Nice landing :-)
-
i hear aimee! <3
Doug: I have a Lyc. O-360 and C/S prop in this plane. it's hard to see in the video, but the runway has a serious upslope and I didn't want a very steep approach, I was using 30 degrees of flaps and landed long because of runway condition at the bottom.. plus you want to be at the top to turn around, less gravel there..
Patrick0Elliott 1 year ago