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. :*

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.

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.

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 :)

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

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

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

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

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:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...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??

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.

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;
http://www.itechnews.net/wp-content/.../Bede_BD-5.jpg
http://sfahistory.org/ncaBD5.jpg
Jet version:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...d5j/bd5j-3.jpg
Here is a website with a lot of info on these little rockets;
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0256.shtml

OMG!!!!!! I want one!

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... ;)

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

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....

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

"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.

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

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

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

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

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...

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

What a pathetic post
 

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:

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.

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

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;)

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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;)

Only in the hands of idiots :}

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

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.

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.

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.

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