Grumman lovers, you just got fragged.
Low-wing hater...
Grumman lovers, you just got fragged.
Have you ever flown one of the early ones? The only thing that flies sweeter than a O-300 straight tail 172 is a 140 or 170. Not barn burners by any means, but great planes with a proper Johnson bar for the flaps.
no biggie.....it's just like the plastic plane you fly....cept a lil naked with no chute.Never been in a Grumman.
Well 0deg is pre-selectable on the 172M
Bryan- Tom hates Grummans. He and Cap'n Ron used to go at it "back in the good ole days". Especially over that old glue issue.
And throw Timmy in that mix of Grumman h8ters too
Like "Holy crap dude. Avoid the G model it was made from a combination of Kryptonite, asbestos, and herpes!!"
There are no real stinkers, other than that some folks are wary of the O-320-H2AD engine (172N, 1977-80). But a lot of 172Ns out there have had engine swap STCs done anyway.And to reiterate, this was not a what plane is best for me thread so much as a "If I had determined that a 172 fits 80% of my mission already, are there things to know about them?"
And to reiterate, this was not a what plane is best for me thread so much as a "If I had determined that a 172 fits 80% of my mission already, are there things to know about them?"
Like "Holy crap dude. Avoid the G model it was made from a combination of Kryptonite, asbestos, and herpes!!"
Since when do you get to determine how the threads play out???
I would not buy one before the M or N model year. The 172N are solid aircraft.
Most everything else is just cosmetic.
And to reiterate, this was not a what plane is best for me thread so much as a "If I had determined that a 172 fits 80% of my mission already, are there things to know about them?"
Since when do you get to determine how the threads play out???
I don't hate grummans at all. I think theyre pretty sweet little rides (with emphasis on little...but if little suits your mission...). I was simply making him aware of known issues. You don't think that's important?
There are no real stinkers, other than that some folks are wary of the O-320-H2AD engine (172N, 1977-80). But a lot of 172Ns out there have had engine swap STCs done anyway.
Otherwise the choices are basically chocolate/vanilla:
6-cylinder Continental engine? 172H (1967) or earlier. 4-banger Lycoming? 172I (1968) or later.
Manual flaps? 172E (1964) or earlier. Electric? 172F (1965) or later.
14-volt electrics? 1977 or earlier. 28-volt? 1978 or later.
Flat spring steel main gear? 172K (1970) or earlier. Tubular MLG? 172L (1971) or later.
Most everything else is just cosmetic.
160hp from the 100LL engines starting with the 172N (1977?) is somewhat significant.
And although cosmetic, i do find the tailcone baggage shelf handy starting with the 172M (1974?).
You haven't missed much. a twitchy little aircraft that loves long runways. The only aircraft that I know that you must own a hat. You can't operate in the rain with out getting every thing wet.
Ant the list goes on.. Grumman lovers, you just got fragged.
Twitchy? I'd argue otherwise. And I've only seen them love long runways if you're afraid of flying final on speed...
You can also put a chute on the > 1974 models right?
This isn't another "Hey, you don't want a crappy 172, you want THIS!" thing, because I actually like Cessnas. Maybe I'm too new, maybe it's because I prefer driving a truck ... I don't know, I just like Cessnas.
Normally, though, one locks in on a 172 vs. a Cherokee because they are a dyed in the wool high-wing person. Clearly, you have done mostly low wings, so I was curious what the thought process was to lock in on the 172, and not also consider the Cherokee?
My dad, a private pilot for 40 years, suffered from claustrophobia, bad. He had to have a door next to him. Not that he would use it in flight, of course; it just had to be there.It is a "2 doors" thing
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77225&highlight=recording
My dad, a private pilot for 40 years, suffered from claustrophobia, bad. He had to have a door next to him. Not that he would use it in flight, of course; it just had to be there.
He was fine in the 172 he owned for 20 years (which I inherited and still fly). But a low-wing with the door on the wrong side, wasn't gonna happen.
Same here. I feel trapped.
I know it is psychological and silly to some extent.
And that ATC recording Troy posted reinforces it a bit.
Psychological, yes. Silly, not in the least.I know it is psychological and silly to some extent.
It is a "2 doors" thing
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77225&highlight=recording
If you ever find yourself in that situation, some planes have an inner release mechanism for the baggage door so that you can use it as an emergency exit in a pinch.
Yeah, apparently Brian with a Y decided all of them are to be avoided.Holy necrothread, Batman!!