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!!!!!!!