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