I despise cessna 172's
 

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:

Wear stilts?

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?

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

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.

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...

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.

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

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.:\

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

Its small man syndrome again

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

What about ....
 

Have you thought about one of these ? - 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:

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.

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

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...

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?

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

Whirly :

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:

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?

c 172
 

Buy A Turbulent,and Quit Moaning.
Pobjoy

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

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.

: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:

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.

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...

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!

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! :)

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.

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!

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/catalo...udderPedal.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/sear...&subcat_22=163


They have;

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

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.....

How about some lateral thinking?

http://www.heightgrowthshoes.com/

Or really go overboard and try one of these:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ri/cricri1.jpg

There's a jet version:

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


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

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

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.....