I despise cessna 172's

[draccent]

I hate them! they are pieces of crap. Im too short for them, the damn armrests make it hard to flare because I have to move the seat so far forward.........PIECE OF CRAP!!! why can't they be like my (personal favorite) the 152? Which fits me like tailored suit? My back kills after flying these poor excuses for a chef boyardee can of soup! ok...that is all, Im just mad cuz Im short. All I need is an inch!! :mad:

[Henry Hallam]

Wear stilts?

[draccent]

well actually...Ive been thinking of this. The POH clearly states that rudder pedal extensions are available. Ive never seen them but I'm guessing its like some kind of rubber overlay thing? Where do you find these anyway? And can I just swap them within a couple minutes into a rented aircraft?

[S-Works]

The 172 is one of the finest aircraft ever made. If you are to physically challenged to fly one.......... :p

[Shunter]

You could always get a 177, the seats go up and down. Perfect for short people. And I'm sure you're not the only one who could use an extra inch.

[Caullystone]

How short are you??

I am 5'7" and I find them fine...

I find that some 172 seats go nearer to the peddles than others...

[Whirlybird]

I'm 5ft 3ins and find most C172s horrible; I either can't see or can't reach the pedals or both. In fact I came fairly near to crashing one on landing very early in my flying career because of this. I was sitting on one cushion and had another cushion behind me, and one slipped. Didn't make for an easy landing! I didn't fly a C172 again for years.

However, the newer 172s have seats which adjustforwards and back, and also up and down, and are just fine. :ok:

You can also buy two piece cushions from some company in the USA; they have a part you sit on, and a part that goes behind you, and come in various thicknesses. They look rather good, though I haven't tried one. Bit pricy though. Can't remember who makes them, but you could always do a search.

But the other alternative is....fly something else!!! There are loads of other nice aircraft around. Leave this ridiculously designed, ultimately boring aeroplane for...those who want to fly it.

[DX Wombat]

If you can find one which still has a diesel engine which is still in hours, try a DA40. It's a nice aircraft and has four seats. I'm shorter than Whirly and can reach (just) everything. I still also fly a 152 - they're great! :D :D :D

[gcolyer]

So let me get this right.

Because you are short and cannot cmfortably adjust the seat the "Aircraft Type" is a piece of crap.

That totally makes sense.:\

[rodthesod]

Quote: 'All I need is an inch!!'

That's all most pilots have, but a black-faced watch and a fat cheque-book always used to make up for the deficiency.

rts

[Mr Person]

Its small man syndrome again

[scooter boy]

C172s are truly the Ford cortina of the air. Great for those who have not quite mastered the ability to grease the wheels on at every landing, and also as a generic club trainer. They are as imperfect as a mass produced car also and have many minor gripes - but Mr Cessna still gets my vote.:ok:

Somebody once told me (and this may well be a myth) that there has never been a C172 lost due to in flight structural failure - which is reassuring considering how much they get bashed around.

C172s are very forgiving aircraft and I am sure your little C172 will forgive you all the bad things you have written about it.

SB

[M609]

I like the 172, however, I hate it when some short whippersnapper ( ;) )has jacked the seat up so high, my head almost touches the roof! :D:D:E

[sternone]

they are pieces of crap

You have no idea how much that says about you. The 172 is a great bird to learn to fly. It's just not made for gnomes.

[172driver]

why can't they be like my (personal favorite) the 152?

Simple, really - because the 152s were made for dwarfs !

[Pilot DAR]

Hey draccent,

bose-x, gcolyer, scooter boy, and sternone have it right in my opinion, so I’ll try not to waste space repeating their wise words. Clyde Cessna started something for which the entire world owes appreciation, and he was well over 6 feet tall. After having my head planted firmly into the ceilings, and knees into the instrument panels of many types. I appreciate the proper allocation of space in a 172. I will agree that rudder pedals can be hard to reach for some people, when the aircraft is not equipped with the Cessna clip on rudder pedal extensions. These well designed parts clip on and off in seconds, and add about 3” to the rudder pedal position. They are hardly detectable when installed, and I have flown a 172 with them installed with no difficulty, just a different seat position (I’m 6’3”).

So if you have chosen to fly an aircraft without the manufacturer’s recommended equipment installed, to make the aircraft safe for the intended flight, what does that say about you? Perhaps the aircraft should be criticizing you, rather than the other way around!

When you have come around to accepting different people and different aircraft for their various strengths and weaknesses, you might try a Mooney. They have many strengths, but I have found that ceiling to pedal total distance is not one of them.

Pilot DAR

[DX Wombat]

Pilot DAR :) thank you! You may have just solved the problem for me. :ok: I really like the 152 but I can only take one other friend with me if I fly it so I did the conversion to the DA40 knowing that I couldn't reach properly in a Cessna bigger than a 152. Now, do you know where these clip-ons are available and an approximate cost?

[PH-UKU]

Have you thought about one of these ? (http://www.little-wonders.com/baby-119896.html) - perhaps as a Pitts Special substitute ? :E

You might even be able to get extra cushions AND the pedals are non-slip ? :ok:

No worries either about getting bugs on the windscreen - just don't smile too much or you'll get them in yer teeth. :}

[gcolyer]

What about ....
Have you thought about one of these ? (http://www.little-wonders.com/baby-119896.html) - perhaps as a Pitts Special substitute ? :E

You might even be able to get extra cushions AND the pedals are non-slip ? :ok:

No worries either about getting bugs on the windscreen - just don't smile too much or you'll get them in yer teeth. :}


Totaly priceless:eek:

Draccent...do you feel welcome yet:ok:

[Captain Smithy]

Hmm, yet another typically important, mature and fact-filled discussion on Proon. :rolleyes:

So if the 152 is your favourite aircraft, then what's the beef? Why moan about the 172? Plenty of other aircraft out there to fly. Like your 152.

[DX Wombat]

PH-UKU - you're wicked :D How is your little River Rat doing? :E

[Pilot DAR]

DX Wombat,

The Cessna part number is: 0501020-1 "Pedal Extension Assembly". You might check with you local Cessna parts seller for price and availability. That part clips on to the cast aluminum pedals (1970's and early 80's). It would not fit the eariler pressed aluminum, or later plastic ones.

Good luck...

[draccent]

thanks! Ill check on the pedal extension things. As far as my bitching about 172's goes, its just that everything is JUST and I mean JUST out of reach....its like I can fly it but it never feels right. The school Im at doesnt have 152's.....the place I used to fly at did and I loved it. I really think its the seats. I just don't understand, that as much as theses planes cost, they cant afford to put decent seats in them. Ive seen jump seats in king cab trucks that look better. I'm guessing you can have bucket seats in an airplane right?? Im totally ignorant.....so bear with me please?

[toolowtoofast]

with a bucket seat weighing in at 20kg, and a 172 seat at about 5, there's the reason that bucket seats aren't fitted into aeroplanes

[FullyFlapped]

Whirly :

Leave this ridiculously designed, ultimately boring aeroplane for...those who want to fly it.

Whirly, you really surprise me. You're normally a beacon in a landscape of ill-considered crap, but this ...

Hey ho. Perhaps you'd just come home from the pub like I have ...

I was about to launch into a serious defence of the 172, a plane which took me all over Europe, and which provided the platform for some fantastic fun. But on reflection, if you're too short to ride the rides at the funfair, I guess you're too short ... but I don't think it's particularly grown-up to blame the ride !

FF :ok:

PS : Whirly, if you're Sheffield based as I think you are, you can shout at me in person soon, I'm coming you're way for a trial lesson ... :eek:

[draccent]

well Im like 5 foot eight inches so I dont think Im all that short. I dont know, its just that everyone Ive seen who flies seems to just be comfortable as can be in the plane. I dont know if its inexperience or what, just nothing seems.....like it fits? I mean is this going to go away as I get more time? One thing that gets me is if I really go as far as I need to forward, the yoke is up in my knees...obviously dangerous. Just back from that...its OK and I can fly fine. Its all I can do to read those little hash marks on the altimeter when Im setting it...just little things like that that drive me nuts.


But my biggest question for all: I always feel like the plane is flying me and not the other way around. My instructor told me I try too hard. It surely seems to fly just fine without much effort. Ive only learned that recently. Does that "touch" required come with time, or is this something I need to teach myself? And how does one do that?

[POBJOY]

Buy A Turbulent,and Quit Moaning.
Pobjoy

[draccent]

whats a turbulent? if your suggesting an ultralight......:yuk:

[BeechNut]

Well the good ol' 172 is a pretty reliable and solid machine, but I find them rather boring to be honest. And significantly overpriced in N. America, especially used ones; I have a Beech 180 hp, aerobatic-capable Sundowner that I picked up for less than a Lycoming-powered C-172 (the older Continental versions are significantly cheaper).

I've never had trouble flying the Skyhawk, pretty much trim it and go. Bit heavy in the flare with full flaps but that's the only vice I can think of.

But I'd still rather fly my Beech: quicker ailerons, better in-flight visibility, wider cabin, more stable in turbulence, better x-wind landing, lighter controls.

[training wheels]

well Im like 5 foot eight inches so I dont think Im all that short.

:confused: I'm way shorter than you and I have about 230 hours in C-172 .. no cushions, no rudder extensions either. And you say you can't reach anything in the C-172? :confused:

[digital.poet]

Hey! Everyone lay off the poor 172! I am 6'7" so I need something with a little more room to squeze my legs into. Everything else at my club is an incredibly tight fit.

[sternone]

Im totally ignorant....

What were you thinking ? Comming on PPrune and posting 2 messages and then without any arguments (besides your midget sized sheath) telling that one of the most sold planes in the world is crap ?

Try to think before you do something in life please, what happend now was that you did something and now you are thinking about what you did...

[Whirlybird]

Whirly, you really surprise me. You're normally a beacon in a landscape of ill-considered crap

Ooooo...I've never been called a beacon in a landscape of crap before!

FullyFlapped, I wasn't 100% serious...or not in the way it came over. I personally don't like the C172; I struggle to fly it because I can't reach things, and I find it rather boring when I do. So I just appreciated a whole thread designed to rubbish it; what fun. :ok::):):)

But being serious and adult and with my "beacon in a landscape of crap" hat on, of course there's nothing wrong with it. Loads of people fly it, so there can't be. I'd just rather not be one of them, that's all. ;)

I'm no longer at Sheffield, so why not come to Tatenhill for your trial lesson so that I can yell at you there!

But my biggest question for all: I always feel like the plane is flying me and not the other way around. My instructor told me I try too hard. It surely seems to fly just fine without much effort. Ive only learned that recently. Does that "touch" required come with time, or is this something I need to teach myself? And how does one do that?

Ah, yes. This often happens when you convert to a different aircraft. The trouble with converting from the C152 to the C172 is that it looks the same, it feels the same, people will tell you it's the same...and it isn't! It actually flies a bit differently and you need a conversion course and a bit of practice. Well, you do if you really, really want to fly it, anyway. ;)

As you can all see, I can't seem to stop putting down the C172..but I'm trying, honest! :)

[gcolyer]

Draccent,

I am 5 foot 9. I find with the seat fully forward it is just right in a 172.
You need to remember you are used to a 152 where with the seat fully back you are probably comforatable and the seat fully forward you are ready to impale yoruself.

I learnt to fly in a 150/2 and I found it strange in a 172 at first. The other thing to keep in mind is the 172 is a heavier more powerful (don't laugh everyone) aircraft, and that will throw you off for a while and make you feel that you are not properly in control. In fact as you move from type to type you might have similar feelings.

[WALSue]

I'm a smidge under 6 foot and quite happy in both the 172 and 150 and quite comfy in both.
Prefer the 172 but thats probably more to do with the ASI and one of the fuel gauges being bust in the other!

[B2N2]

The "new" model 172 SP has much better seats and adjustable in height also:

http://www.flightraining.net/images/172sp_int_hero.jpg

These are the rudder pedal extensions from www.aircraftspruce.com

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/thumbnails/rudderPedal.jpg

It might just also be that particular aircraft you are flying, over the years there have been many differences between the models of 172 and even 152.

Or you could try these:

http://www.pilotmart.net/amelia/search.asp?store=pilotmart&action=Search&ShowDetails=True&ShowImages=True&cat=163&subcat_22=163


They have;

http://www.pilotmart.net/cat_images/F302.jpg

[FlyerFoto]

Mmmm.....

http://paulcoulthread.fotopic.net/p45112635.html

http://paulcoulthread.fotopic.net/p45112639.html

Neither are going to win any beauty contests are they? (And, before anyone says anything, I believe the same may have been said about me.....)

Now this, on the other hand.....

http://paulcoulthread.fotopic.net/p45112645.html

However, whether or not the Diamond would be able to withstand over 30 years of flying school use, is another matter.....

[SkyHawk-N]

How about some lateral thinking?

http://www.heightgrowthshoes.com/

[B2N2]

Or really go overboard and try one of these:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/cricri/cricri1.jpg

There's a jet version:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/cricri/cricri-jet.jpg


Here's a little (no pun intended) video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZP6yyi9B5w

[Pilot DAR]

I tried one of those, but did not fly it, because at 6'3" I thought myself too tall. I'm not knocking it though.....

[DX Wombat]

However, whether or not the Diamond would be able to withstand over 30 years of flying school use, is another matter The way things are going with engine replacements they probably will still be around in 30 years time - still waiting for the original engine to be replaced. :* :* :*
How can you tell I'm not impressed with Diamond / Thielert? The DA40TDi is probably going to be grounded for several months as apparently there isn't a single replacement engine to be had anywhere in Europe. :*

[WorkingHard]

Beechnut said "better x-wind landing" Sorry BN but I will pitch my Hawk against almost anything in a strong cross wind. Our strip is a shade under 50 feet (yes feet) wide and the best I have done in over 20 years is a 25k wind at 90 degrees. Do you wish to have a go in a Beech to do that? Just asking 'cause I have never flown a Beech so cannot comment on performance.

[Bert Stiles]

My theory is that you can tell when you are at home in any aeroplane because it then feels like a 172.

I think it was Scooter Boy who thought they were good for those who had not quite mastered cross-wind landings. Agreed, they are tremendous practice for putting one main wheel smoothly on the surface, then the other main, then the one at the front.

The true car of the private aeroplane world has to be the PA28 - it is barely an aeroplane.

As for not knowing about a Turbulent (draccent?) - please look it up before you comment. It might weigh in close to an ultralight, but it is a respectable aeoplane and one which will add to your store of skills.

BS.

[BeechNut]

Beechnut said "better x-wind landing" Sorry BN but I will pitch my Hawk against almost anything in a strong cross wind. Our strip is a shade under 50 feet (yes feet) wide and the best I have done in over 20 years is a 25k wind at 90 degrees. Do you wish to have a go in a Beech to do that? Just asking 'cause I have never flown a Beech so cannot comment on performance.

Yes. Piece of cake. I have never scrubbed a flight in the Beech because of x-wind, nor gone around because of x-wind; well sort of. Once I was flying in a light crosswind that was shifting from slight nose to slight tail, and in the start of the flare, the wind shifted to a tailwind, I lost about 10 knots and started to drop like a rock; I applied full power and got the hell out of there.

Having many hours in C-150/152s, 172s, PA28s, Beech Skipper, the C23 is by far the easiest of the lot in an crosswind. Not to say you can't do it in a 172.

It will just be a hell of a lot more work :)

[Spruit]

Would you need a twin rating and a jet conversion for one of these :}

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/cricri/cricri-jet.jpg

[gcolyer]

I think you would need your head tested for one of those things :}

[sternone]

Would you need a twin rating and a jet conversion for one of these


Is that guy wearing a parachute ? Oh no, it's a plane!!!

[Gipsy Queen]

There was a time when manufacturers understood that moving the seat forward caused the yoke to get caught under your rib cage. That's why the pedals were adjustable and the seat stayed where it was. :bored:

[draccent]

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/cricri/cricri-jet.jpg

I'd fly it! Looks pretty cool...is this by chance a variation of the BD-4 or whatever jet? It was like this personal jet kit...company went bankrupt a while ago??

[ChampChump]

At about 5'7", I can empathise with our anti-hero, as I found the 172 a solid, insensitive beastie after the wonderful 150 (yes, really, I think it's an under-rated machine, far better than many common trainers). Strap on a 150 and go play; climb into a 172 and drive around as if you're a Pilot....

Of course the 172 is a very useful machine and in the right hands, capable of a great deal more than might be imagined from some of our comments.

When (rarely) separated from the Champ, I look for a two-seat tailwheel aeroplane, then for something different/affordable to rent/borrow. For training purposes, I'd choose the cheapest, unless money wasn't an issue and/or I had a clear idea of how my flying would progress after the certificate or licence issue.

[slim_slag]

Stock 160HP 172 did a great job for the market it was aimed at, at the time, but a bit underpowered. Put 180HP in front makes a big difference, then put a STOL kit on and it becomes quite a versatile machine. Will never be exceptional as the wheels are in the wrong place. Bit out of date now, the competition have overtaken it and I cannot see why anybody would buy one new, but they do....

[B2N2]

Yes, you will need a multi engine rating to fly the CRI-CRI (cricket in french).
It is not a derivative of the BD-5.
The BD-5 was a US design and used in one of the Bond movies;
Prop version;
http://www.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Bede_BD-5.jpg
http://sfahistory.org/ncaBD5.jpg
Jet version:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/bd5j/bd5j-3.jpg
Here is a website with a lot of info on these little rockets;
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0256.shtml

[draccent]

OMG!!!!!! I want one!

[kiwi chick]

I fly a 172 and think they are lovely!!

I'm 5 foot 6, and I use a cushion. I also use a cushion in the PA28, and I also use a cushion in the Hughes 300...

No problems! Except sometimes in a crosswind when ****loads of rudder is required... :ooh:

There was one comment I agree with - a lot of people that have learnt in a 152 tend to get in a 172 and "let" the plane fly them - or alternatively tend to fly with less power so that it behaves more like a 152!

A bit of time under the belt and a good type rating should allay these problems.

Peservere - and enjoy! :ok:

PS: the little jet does look pretty cool, but I'd want to have been diagnosed with a terminal illness before strapping one on... ;)

[B2N2]

Ok all you Cessna fans:

http://www.machdiamonds.com/caproni.html

Time for a trade in.....:ok:

It at least looks safer then the Cri-Cri or the BD-5;

http://www.machdiamonds.com/C221.jpg

[Mark1234]

Ok, I have to confess, having started out my powered flying on a 150 (which felt very natural, very quickly), I've just 'converted' to the 172, and I'm having a horrible time getting it down to my satisfaction... the 150 would dance, one wheel x-wind no problem.

I am however, quite sure the problem is somewhere in the LH seat....

[TheOddOne]

Simple, really - because the 152s were made for dwarfs !

...then I must be the tallest dwarf in the world. I'm 6'2" and 14 and a half stone. I did my FI course in 152s (legally, weight & balance-wise!) and had no problem getting in and out and operating the a/c in situ. I did my IMC rating years ago in 172s and it is more of a 'gentleman's aerial carriage' than the 152, which in my view is quite a dainty lady - easy to land but hard to land well.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[waldopepper42]

"Draccent - I want one"

I would have a good read at the accident statistics before going ahead! They are currently banned in the UK (too dangerous), and a recent article by Bob Grimstead extolling their virtues was somewhat negated when one of the two BD-5s featured in the article crashed the following week!!!

WP.

[sheesh123]

What would the minimum height be to fly a 172 in your opinion? With a cushion of course and seat fully forward?

[WorkingHard]

I would accept the CAA 500 feet if I were you!!!!!!!

[geos12321]

i'm freaking 6 foot and i'm to damn tall

[Ken Wells]

take up sailing..................................dingys:mad:

[Silvio Pettirossi]

I am less than 6 feet tall and I have no problems looking out of the 172. I also sometimes fly the bigger 206 and 210 without problems and they have even higher noses and glareshields. I remember that I needed a cushion to see enough when I first took flying lessons in the 152. In my experience, the more experienced you become, the less you need to see out to feel confortable...

[BeechNut]

In my experience, the more experienced you become, the less you need to see out to feel confortable...

Do you fly only IFR? In my humble 600 hours of experience, working in and out of a field that mixes jet, GA, ultralight and gliders, I rather think that one should keep one's head out of the cockpit as much as possible. It is after all our primary means of traffic separation.

Beech

[Aussie_Aviator]

You describe the C-172 as a "piece of crap" simply because of your own height disadvantage? I think this is more akin to a personality defect on your behalf, rather than a design problem with the aircraft.

Please seek to post something of some substance and sensibility in future please. :rolleyes:

[dont overfil]

Yes, the Cessnas have a high glareshield and like in an unfamiliar car there is a tendancy to wind the seat to the highest position. I am of average height but if I do this it prevents me from getting full rudder travel. About 5 turns down from the top works for me as a compromise, and I can then even move the seat back one notch.
DO.

[Katamarino]

I love C172's with a passion bordering on the inappropriate, so me and the OP cancel each other out :E

[BoeingBoy]

Draccent,

Don't listen to them. I agree with you.

22000 hours on everything from an Aircoupe to a 767. The 172 never fitted me either and it took Herculian proportions of elevator to keep the nosewheel off the ground on landing.

It's only saving grace was being able to open the window for aerial photography and taking more passengers and baggage than it was intended for.....

........but that's another thread;)

[SNS3Guppy]

I spend about a thousand hours flying them from rough fields, loaded to the gills in hot and high weather in the mountains. I'm short. Short enough that I've actually had to move seat rails to accomodate my ability to reach the rudders and make expanded seat cushions for some airplanes so I could comfortably fly them. The 172 never posed a problem.

It's a dirt simple basic airplane that's reliable, well made, easy to work on and repair, easy to maintain, easy to fly, and a good fit for nearly everyone who gets in one. This is the first I've ever heard anyone say they're heavy on the controls; it's a fingertip airplane with no bad habits. It's economical, and as straightforward and benign a design as you can get.

And...contrary to what some might believe, it does very well on rough fields, and flying in the mountains, too. I've even used them to tow banners and fly skydivers.

[Final 3 Greens]

Well said SNS3.

I've done most of my hours on various Pipers, but give me 172 anyday for a shorter runway.

Does exactly what it says on the tin.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Post #27

Whose knocking the Turbulent ? :=

I went from 747-300 to Turbulent in one fell swoop, removed the poncey canopy that had been fitted and bought some goggles - magic. My only gripe is having to hand start a 45 yr. old 1200cc VW Beetle engine, been trying for 8 yrs now, always manage to, but never really know what I did right that time, usually resort to squirting 20 ml of Avgas straight into the carb. - with a fire extinguisher close by ! No prob. with the 172 or 152, but find the 182 needs a cushion.

[Silvio Pettirossi]

BeechNut;

The only times your view gets somewhat restricted in the 172 (and other single cessnas) is in high deck angle situations, like during the flare, its here where, IMO, your experience helps you. In the cruise and even more on approach, the 172 flyies in a nose-down attitude and you see enough out of it to spot your traffic.....

[DenhamPPL]

Not a big fan of the 172 either although the two 172SP models we own are a big improvement over the older ones for comfort. Still find them less easy to land compared to a PA-28 though. Also hate the plunger throttle!

DenhamPPL

PS: I'm 6'2" and headroom or viz is never a problem. Width-wise it's a bit squashed though with two pilots up front.

[TwoDeadDogs]

Hi there,
Less easy to land than a PA28??!! The mind boggles.A PA28 doesn't land, it collides with Mother Earth.The 172 is the best step-up from a basic trainer such as the 150/152 that you could get.
regards
TDD;)

[Final 3 Greens]

A PA28 doesn't land, it collides with Mother Earth

Only in the hands of idiots :}

[Genghis the Engineer]

Indeed, PA28s are more likely to float for ever than collide with the ground, strange thing to say!


Compared to what's out there, I'm afraid that I'm with my good friend Whirlybird. It's not so much a stature thing - although I'm only a little taller than her, I can at-least reach everything and just about see over the canopy. It's certainly not a safety thing - nor practicality, it scores pretty highly on both.

But it is incredibly boring, combined with a poor view over the nose, higher than necessary stick forces, and fairly average performance. This all of-course makes it the ideal aeroplane for the low hour club pilot, and best of luck to them, and I've no doubt that they get much satisfaction from it.

But there are few aeroplanes in my logbook for which I found the flying such a plain uninspiring experience. For sheer flying pleasure, I'd rather be in most microlights, even the smaller C150, or something a little more sporting like a Beagle Pup. For efficient cruise, the PA28 gives it a slight edge (certainly some models anyway) with more enjoyable handling and a bit more of a challenge on a short field.

Nothing actually wrong with it, but in most cases, I'd just rather be flying almost anything else.

G

[barit1]

I found that students starting out in a 172 had more trouble transitioning to the 150, than vice versa. They tended to overcontrol or let the 150 wander too much. The 172 is (IMHO) too stable to be a good initial trainer.

But it would carry a nice load for the horsepower.

[RatherBeFlying]

I can't say the C-172 is a fun a/c, but it's an honest a/c that happens to have the best safety record of SE a/c.

I've loaded in four people with full fuel and taken off from a soft sand strip -- lower the nosewheel to just off the ground when the airspeed comes live.

Being 5'9" I crank the seat all the way up before getting in and have no problem reaching the rudder pedals.

[Superpilot]

The latest generation of 172/182s are ergonomically sound. All the right cubby holes in all the right places. And everything is adjustable to your hearts content. They put Diamond and Piper aircraft to shame.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can't say the C-172 is a fun a/c, but it's an honest a/c that happens to have the best safety record of SE a/c.

I don't think that this is true, although it is certainly pretty good. If I recall the UK stats correctly, the PA28-161 and the C152 are both better in terms of fatal accidents per flying hour.

G

[dont overfil]

You just need to fly a C182 for a while to appreciate how light a C172 feels. It's all relative.
PA28 is OK but I know which I'd prefer to fly on instruments!
DO.

[172driver]

I found that students starting out in a 172 had more trouble transitioning to the 150, than vice versa. They tended to overcontrol or let the 150 wander too much. The 172 is (IMHO) too stable to be a good initial trainer.

While you're probably right re flying a 152 if one hasn't done so before, the second part of your argument doesn't really hold water. It's about the same as saying driving lessons should be done in some clapped-out 50s vehicle with no power steering and dodgy brakes, just because you 'learn more'. You don't.

In any case, every a/c type is different and has it's own idiosyncrasies. As other have said, if you fly a heavier type for a while, a 172 feels, well, almost ike a 152 ;)