which has better flying characteristics? DC 3 or Cessna 172? as in better control and stability.?

Answer 1

As I am reading all other answers it seems like that they misunderstood your question. You were asking about the control and stability reagardless if its a twin or single engine.

C172 has better control and stability that is one of the reason why a lot of pilot trainees uses Cessna series from C150 to C182. Stability is almost perfect (But of course you have to consider weather conditions) Comparing to the DC-3 stability is still questionable since its a twin engine u still have to propperly trim both engines to achive the stability that we are talking about. for controls still C172 is better.

Answer 2

Well, two very different animals, as has been stated by others. The 172 is a light aircraft design first flown in 1956, developed from the 170, which first flew in 1948, with major airframe upgrades in 1950 and 1952, and the 172 has gone through so many changes since 1956 it is impossible to even list them in a reasonable length post. Gross weight varies between 172 models, but is, as I recall, around 2,200-2,400 lbs (it's been a while since I flew one, probably about 10 years). The DC-3, on the other hand, is the first "modern" airliner, a 35,000 lb (+/) gross weight aircraft on conventional landing gear (taildragger to you kids) designed in the 1930s. Having flown both, I can't say one is "better" than the other, just different. The 172 takes much less effort to fly (control inputs on the DC-3 are large and take a bit of strength, and response is slower than the 172; the 172 requires relatively small and light inputs, with somewhat more rapid response), both are stable; however, the 172 is more easily "upset" by turbulence, whereas the DC-3, while still reacting to turbulence, is less so. In the -3, if you put it in an attitude, it will usually stay there (as long as it is trimmed for it in all three axes). The real difference is on landing - the 172, on its tricycle gear, is a piece of cake, with no apparent desire to surprise the pilot. The DC-3, however, has conventional gear, with the center of gravity behind the main gear - as a result, you have 30,000 - 35,000 pounds of airplane effectively trying to pass itself on the landing roll, with that characteristic greatly increased by the effects of any crosswind. That is the reason for the large vertical stabilizer and, especially, the large rudder, on that airplane. The pilot has to really "stay on his toes" and use a great deal of skill to control the airplane throughout the landing roll and taxi to and from the tiedown in the DC-3. Rudder, differential power and differential braking are all used by the pilot to control the bird on the ground (oh yes, the brakes are "expanding drum" types, and fade relatively rapidly, and often get "grabby" when they heat up, another fun factor to deal with). Oh yes, I forgot the adverse yaw - this is hardly noticeable in a 172, but it is definitely there in the -3, as in all older aircraft - you can't fly this airplane with your feet on the floor, you must use the rudder pedals in all phases of flight. Frankly, I find the 3 to be a lot more fun to fly than the 172, partly because you have to use a great deal more skill (in all phases of flight), as well as flying around in a working antique!

Answer 3

on account that it is an opinion question, i'm going to declare the 172. the reason being is the Tomahawk has extra classified ads than the different comparable craft. they're forbidden to spin, there have been cracks discovered interior the fuselage in the back of the cabin. At one factor they have been grounded by way of the FAA for recertification, using fact something became into replaced on the plane that affected the spin characteristics. between the unusual quirks of the plane is the reaction once you push the throttle forward in flight, as an occasion , once you spot you're a splash short on landing, the tail is purely out of the propwash and rigidity is utilized to the backside of the tail. while that occurs the craft is going nostril down relatively of nostril up as in others. not stable. All this could be seen while observing cost. notice how much less costly Tomahawks are. once you're a low wing pilot, get a Beech Skipper relatively. even if the comparable clothier designed the two, all the undesirable characteristics of the Tomahawk have been engineered out.

Answer 4

Wow! This is like asking, "which do you like better; steak or cheesecake?" These are incredibly different classes of aircraft. You ask about control and stability, also distinctly different topics, especially when talking about such diverse airplanes.

If by "control" you mean agility, it would of course be the Skyhawk, being much smaller and more responsive. The DC-3, being extremely heavy, is going to have a lot of inertia, keeping it flying quite stable. Of course, it doesn't take much to be more stable than a 172; even that and a 182 are night and day.

Answer 5

He's right, two very different animals here. I have, however flown the 172 for a number of years and think it flies very well. Stable at low speeds, hands off when trimmed out, predictable in any attitude, and advertises a stall very early. Have never had an issue with any of its flight characteristics, but I prefer a Warrior because of the better visibility.

Answer 6

This is not easy to answer. You're comparing apples to oranges. The DC-3 is a twin engine, commercial aircraft that has been used for passenger and freight service. The Cessna 172 is a single engine, four seat, light aircraft designed for private pilots. See the links below.

Answer 7

The C-172 is more stable. but what in the hell do I know, I have never flown a DC3! But the 172 is a TRAINER,Me thinks this is because of the more docile characteristics of the 172

Answer 8

If you are a drug smuggler, you want the DC-3, since you can carry more drugs in it, and you can take off from jungle airports.

If you want a plane to fly around on Sunday afternoon and buzz your neighbor's house, the 172 is probably what you want.

Answer 9

The Cessna.

Answer 10

The DC-3 flies somewhat better when one engine fails.