Excellent vis from a Cessna?? - agreed if you are sightseeing.


But for seeing other aircraft??? ----- 'kin joking. They scare the **** out of me. Might just as well be sitting in a letterbox looking out of the slit.

Poppycock. I have thousands of hours in cessna's and have never had a problem looking out the window and avoiding traffic.

OK then, but how do you see where you're going in a turn? (and I'm not taking the p***, it's a serious question).

lift the wing before the turn, look out the window. It's pretty simple stuff.

Good on yer then, you're the first Cessna driver I've come across that actually looks.

Then the Cessna drivers you are flying with need some remedial training in airmanship I would guess........
I have an inbuilt survival instinct, a simple check could save my life. When I am teaching I ingrain it into the student.

Bose,

The AAIB have criticised the vis of the Cessna range, for example it the case of the Tornado and the 152 over Wales. In a more modern low wing design it would have at least been possible to see the Tornado coming.

Uses for a Cessna 172 (generically, no ones personal aircraft you understand)

Hen house

Example of corrosion and its impact on structural integrity

A classic design icon in a museum

An example of how inefficient 1950’s design is compared to the current day

An example of truly appalling handling

A comparison between 1920 engine tec and how far we have come with the modern diesel version.

An example of a really bad investment as thay become more and more undesirable as the modern replacements take over.

Rod1:E:E:E:E
(No I do not work for Cirrus)

Ah! Yes I see. A cessna hit by a Tornado at several hundreds knots, the pilot would not have had a problem in say an MCR01..... :E

More uses for a 172, Night flight, night in Instrument conditions, over flight of towns.......

As opposed to the "replacements" being DAY/VFR only permit aicraft. You know what I prefer........ :p

Meet another one then. Then there are also the FIs I flew with when doing my PPL, not to mention those since then. Every single one of them lifted the wings before turning. You must have met a particularly dim bunch.

Well as a humble glider pilot I spend most of my airtime looking out of the window.

In my job I spend a lot of time being hauled around parts of Africa and S America in light aircraft, mostly Mr Cessna's products, driven by what are supposed to be "commercial" pilots.

And I've never known any of them to look properly before turning. And sorry guys, but in a high wing single, (for that read Cessna) it will always feel to me like I'm in a flying letter box.

Sorry Bose & the boys who do look out, but that's the way it is. I'm a lot happier in something like one of Mr Piper's flying devices. At least I can look for myself then.

Bose-x
 

We are all still waiting with baited breath to find out if this 11 hour endurance long range fuel tank is a factory option?

The AAIB have criticised the vis of the Cessna range, for example it the case of the Tornado and the 152 over Wales. In a more modern low wing design it would have at least been possible to see the Tornado coming.

How good was the viz from the Tornado? How come it flew into the Cessna?

“How good was the viz from the Tornado? How come it flew into the Cessna?”

The pilot and the Instructor had banked Tornado to admire a red telephone box when they tripped over the 152, which was circling and taking pictures. The angle the Tornado hit the 152 made it impossible for the pilot to have seen the Tornado, even if he had been looking. In a DA40 / Cirrus / low wing VLA etc you would not have had the blind spot, which was pointed out at the time.

Rod1

Rod1 the Tornado hit the Cessna from approx th37 o'clock position whilst travelling in excess of 250 metres per second. Now tell what civilian aircraft the Cessna pilot could have been flying that would have allowed him to see the mil jet and take avoiding action. It is interesting to note the official BOI gave the cause of the accident as "The failure of the 2 pilots to see each other". How the hell do you see something coming up your *rse at that speed?

?

Sorry I had no idea that WE were waiting with baited breath, if you were that keen to get an answer you could have PM'd me.

It is a cessna Ferry tank, goes in the baggage bay at the back. Bought it to go Oshkosh next year. Is even approved for an external filler cap.

Not wishing to be pedantic but there have been two accidents between military aircraft and 152s.

#1 was a JAGUAR and a 152 with the Jaguar hitting the Cessna from behind.

#2 was a TORNADO and a 152 in the Gamston area where the (inexperienced) Tornado student was head down in the cockpit selecting switches.

WorkingHard

I have not had time to look the exact details up so I have been relying on memory.

Not sure what “th37 o'clock” is but IF I remember the details then any bubble canopy aircraft would have had a chance to see the Tornado. Most modern low wing VLA types allow you a full view of the tail. I never mentioned anything about avoiding action!

Rod1

bose-x
 

OK so not a factory option, what I was trying to get a grip on is what the C172 can do as a production aircraft.

We can all fit aftermarket bits of kit but I suspect that the tank you have is a ferry tank that is only cleared for ferrying the aircraft, not as in the case of the Robin suplimental tank that is a standard factory option.

I have no objection to Cessna aircraft they are a very workmanlike And rugged bit of kit (I own two of them) but in pure performance terms the fact is that the 172XP is out classed by an aircraft built out of something that looks like old tea chests with a fixed pitch prop and 20HP less power in the engine department.

As me if the Robin is a realistic rental aircraft and I will tell you that I would take the Cessna each tme!

Hmmmmm..... so I take it then, they also come fitted with rearview mirrors :}

Oh no! Not again - I thought this very silly subject had been done to death before.

DAVE W - Since nobody seems to have answered your question, I shall.

In the UK and english speaking world generally, a Stall Turn is a vertical climb continued until flying speed no longer can be maintained, full rudder is applied to swing the aircraft about its "Z" axis to then face vertically downwards. A Hammerhead involves going backwards, erect or inverted (positive or negative).

However, in the USA things are a little different. There the Stall Turn is known as a Hammerhead. Why this should be so I am unable to say but they refuse to acknowledge our terminology on the basis that a stall is a condition pertinent to an aerofoil section only under load and since there is no load applied to the wing in this vertical manoeuvre, it cannot stall and in consequence the term is inappropriate. Pedantic perhaps but nevertheless correct.

For this reason it is prudent to get things clear with trans-Atlantic types. I once was teaching basic aeros in a Victa Airtourer to an American who was insistent that I showed him how to perform a Hammerhead and was quite upset at my refusal since the aircraft was not cleared for same. Back on the ground it became clear that he wanted to do Stall Turns - not "Tailslides" which is the American version of the Hammerhead.

GQ.