172B's / O300-D

[EdFred]

Call me crazy but I swear my G model has better climb than an M I would rent. It felt like a pig when I switched back to it. I feel the difference between the O-300 and the 320 is greatly exaggerated online.

Yeah I would like a faster plane. But mine does it current job well.

My student planned for 100mph cruise. That is not a "regional cross country" machine in my book.

 

[bnt83]

Call me crazy but I swear my G model has better climb than an M I would rent. It felt like a pig when I switched back to it. I feel the difference between the O-300 and the 320 is greatly exaggerated online.

Yeah I would like a faster plane. But mine does it current job well.

Were the fuel loads the same?

That same thing was said about 1968 150 horse 177 which holds 48 gallons usable stock, so topped with gas its only logical the airplane with the largest tanks is going to climb the worst.

The 1968 172H holds a whopping 36 gallons usable (stock standard range). With a 36 gallon load the 177 150 horse performs the same or better.

My Dad hated the 172P he rented locally, said it was too heavy on the flight controls. IDK if the cables were too tight or what. He much rather fly an old 172 than a newer one.

 

[Todd82]

If you go get your TW endorsement, you may feel different. Honest- not snarky. I fly a 172m with 180hp and a Cessna 140, except if I need those other two seats I’ll take my TW any day... it’s just more fun . Though I’m not advocating A 140 for you as they are not easy in and out- but there are other TW that may be great. The Stinson 108 is roomy and very benign in her handling...

With all the insurance rate increase horror stories on POA lately I'm trying to stay simple as a low time guy so fixed tricycle. Maybe a taildragger down the road, I have dreams of my own strip someday anyways.

 

[sirday11]

I recently returned to flying after a 5 year break. Prior to that I spent about 5 years flying a 172D and it was a joy to fly, the handling, was light and crisp. I planned for about 120mph in cruise and about 7gph in cruise (a straight tail B, would be a hair slower). Recently having flown a 172P, I had forgotten how much heavier the controls are on newer 172s. They take a little bit of the fun out of it and I miss the 40° mechanical flaps (Piper got this one right). The newer 172s climb better and cruise a few knots faster but I prefer the older ones. That being said, the best thing you could do would be to go find someone to take you up, plenty of good flying examples around, you might find you just don't like it.

 

[Todd82]

Cessna didn't build 27,000 of them because they were bad.

I'm not saying they're junk, but personally I've always preferred the sight lines from a low wing and the majority of my time was PA28 time with also some 172 and 150 time (when I was skinnier) mixed in.

But there's also the old saying "If mama ain't happy ain't nobody gonna be happy" and she says she can see the scenery better in a high wing and doesn't like climbing on wings, so my conundrum.

That said she also likes "parachute planes" and when she saw a Cirrus a few weeks ago thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. But I'm not that rich.