I despise cessna 172's
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, whether or not the Diamond would be able to withstand over 30 years of flying school use, is another matter
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: a home
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: a shoe....a giant shoe.
Age: 40
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hellfire Corner
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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;
Jet version:
Here is a website with a lot of info on these little rockets;
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0256.shtml
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;
Jet version:
Here is a website with a lot of info on these little rockets;
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0256.shtml
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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!
PS: the little jet does look pretty cool, but I'd want to have been diagnosed with a terminal illness before strapping one on...
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...
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!
PS: the little jet does look pretty cool, but I'd want to have been diagnosed with a terminal illness before strapping one on...
Ok all you Cessna fans:
http://www.machdiamonds.com/caproni.html
Time for a trade in.....
It at least looks safer then the Cri-Cri or the BD-5;
http://www.machdiamonds.com/caproni.html
Time for a trade in.....
It at least looks safer then the Cri-Cri or the BD-5;
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
I am however, quite sure the problem is somewhere in the LH seat....
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Fitting in a 152
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
...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
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.