All general statements are false.
Show me a master rod for a Warner 125 or 145. or a new cylinder.
That was going to be on my next list of good planes to have.
Only because P&W made a bazillion of them and the Beaver and Otter were so popular.
Well that was geared, so...Better than the twin propeller Wright Flyer?
Impossible!
So is this a general statement
That’s because P&W only wants to work turbines now.
You've owned how many? 4 or 5 ?
And that affects Jacobs and Continental how? There are bad models of Jacobs and I assume Continental. There are a lot of orphan radials as well. I seem to have heard there are a few Continentals and flat Lycomings that are hard to support too. I stand by my point: a generality about radials is silly.
That's because the factory gives you a new engine with 0 time.
want the best advise on old radials? contact the Curry Brothers at Radial engines inc. they have stopped rebuilding several engine because of part issues.
I had the D model for years, always wanted the R model 310, had the C model at the club to work on for years.
Nothing is impossible for the one that doesn't have to fix it.
Other than it being noisy, what's so bad about this plane? I often hear the 337 spoken of negatively.. but it's a cool airplane and having multi-engine redundancy without the whole asymmetric thrust thing doesn't, at least on paper, seem like a bad thing. Almost all of the ones on controller are under $100K, so obviously the market doesn't like them. Why not?
And a year later they stopped making R172Ks, 180s and 310s, and five years later they stopped making 152s and everything else but turbines. Non sequitur.
The original Yankee was primarily marketed as a personal runabout and fun flyer rather than as a trainer. Though a number of schools (including the one I worked for) bought them, the training role got only a passing mention in a few of the many ads for the Yankee. American Aviation didn't actively pursue the flight training market until 1970 when they brought out the Model AA-1A Trainer with modified wing leading edge and larger main gear tires, built side-by-side with the original AA-1 Yankee for a year or two.
I understand the poster's point, but I always wondered the obsession with 172/182 planes. Maybe it goes back to the whole high wing V low wing thing. But besides that I've never flown a high wing Cessna that flew nicer than even an old low wing. Maybe it has been just my luck renting, or there are a lot of people who like the back-country abilities of high wings, but all the high wings I've flown feel remarkably "clumsy" - that was a good way to describe it. Maybe "clumsy" is good for a trainer, but do we want to be training "clumsy" pilots as a side effect?
Mooneys escaped too. Most mechanics hate working on them, so they may well have made this list.
