Planes that should NOT have been built

WDD said:
I've heard that from others, and am puzzled. The C172 RG can carry more, flies faster than the standard Skyhawk. People don't hate the Skyhawk, why the hate for the RG version?
Click to expand...
Probably because most people flew rental 172RGs that were clapped-out pieces of junk by the time the 90s/00s came around. They also seem to be only painted in that lovely brown/orange color scheme that only Cleveland fans will appreciate. Panels are almost never updated in them either, so you get to enjoy the best of what 1980 had to offer, lol.
 
Pilawt said:
The new owners decided the aircraft was too heavy (200 pounds over target) and too slow for the projected market (300 knots should be the target, according to the new owners). .”
Click to expand...
Only 200? Muller would be thrilled with only being over by 200.
 
It’s not old. It’s mid century classic.
 
Tantalum said:
that's right.. TarBes Mooney as I've been told
Click to expand...
There was another joint venture that didn't pan out for Mooney ...

Remember when the MU-2 turboprop was assembled and sold by Mooney for the US market? That was a natural, because the number ‘2’ is pronounced ‘ni’ in Japanese … MU - ni … Moo - ney. Mitsubishi took over Mooney’s San Angelo TX facility when Mooney’s management ran the company into the ground around 1969.

Mooney Mitsubishi.jpg
 
Polarisguy said:
Well, the original Citation opened up turbine powered aviation to a whole new array of otherwise piston powered flying and you have to admit it has come a long way since. Had to start somewhere
Click to expand...
True, but it felt like a step down from a King Air 90 to me when I started flying them.

of course, I claim never to have flown an airworthy one. ;)
 
Cessna 172
Cessna 162
Beech Sundowner/Sierra
Cirrus Vision Jet
Piper Tomahawk
 
NordicDave said:
Cessna should not have built the 172? Really. The marketplace has spoken strongly about this aircraft.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean it isn't pretty awful in every way. The King Air is also inferior to the 441 and Cheyenne IV
 
N1120A said:
Doesn't mean it isn't pretty awful in every way. The King Air is also inferior to the 441 and Cheyenne IV
Click to expand...
Meh it's the Piper Cub of today. I'm sure Cubs weren't that special when they were so ubiquitous as trainers. One day when we're all training in SR20's and DA40's we'll reminisce about the classic aluminum 172, like we reminisce about the classic fabric Cub.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Meh it's the Piper Cub of today. I'm sure Cubs weren't that special when they were so ubiquitous as trainers. One day when we're all training in SR20's and DA40's we'll reminisce about the classic aluminum 172, like we reminisce about the classic fabric Cub.
Click to expand...

No. I think Cherokees are excellent trainers.
 
A lot of airplanes models seem redundant. Just look at how many horsies they have vs what performance they achieve.

How many different models are powered by a 150/160 horse Lycoming? They all carry similar loads and go similar speeds.

The same goes for 180 horse, 200 horse, 300 horse etc.

Oh sure there are homebuilt exceptions where one may be 50% faster than the average but for production built airplanes...
 
Anything at that can't burn plain old 91 octane or lower ethanol-free car gas.
 
N1120A said:
Doesn't mean it isn't pretty awful in every way. The King Air is also inferior to the 441 and Cheyenne IV
Click to expand...

I don't really see how it's "pretty awful in every way". The premise of the thread is planes that shouldn't have been built, not "list every aircraft that isn't the epitome of its class". The C172 isn't awful, but it's nothing spectacular, either. It's a Toyota Avalon/Camry (to borrow from another recent thread). It's benign in handling and cruise speed, has no major flaws aside from the 13-freaking fuel sump drains on the restart models. It's just a plain, uninspiring aircraft, but it fits the entry-level trainer/1st aircraft just fine. I also don't see how the Piper Cherokee is any better, lest we get into high wing vs low wing.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Probably because most people flew rental 172RGs that were clapped-out pieces of junk by the time the 90s/00s came around. They also seem to be only painted in that lovely brown/orange color scheme that only Cleveland fans will appreciate. Panels are almost never updated in them either, so you get to enjoy the best of what 1980 had to offer, lol.
Click to expand...

I was lucky enough to get to fly the Cutlass demonstrator that Cessna flew around the country pimping, uh, I mean showing off to flight schools.

The 28 volt electrical system made the gear retract in three seconds and the six cylinder engine and CS prop was an obvious improvement from the Skyhawk.

It was painted red, white and blue!
 
SoonerAviator said:
I don't really see how it's "pretty awful in every way". The premise of the thread is planes that shouldn't have been built, not "list every aircraft that isn't the epitome of its class". The C172 isn't awful, but it's nothing spectacular, either. It's a Toyota Avalon/Camry (to borrow from another recent thread). It's benign in handling and cruise speed, has no major flaws aside from the 13-freaking fuel sump drains on the restart models. It's just a plain, uninspiring aircraft, but it fits the entry-level trainer/1st aircraft just fine. I also don't see how the Piper Cherokee is any better, lest we get into high wing vs low wing.
Click to expand...

Cherokees are faster and land more like more advanced aircraft, now allowing the speed indiscipline that the 172 does.
 
C 172s are the most produced model of aircraft ever made. It’s the DC 3 of GA world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
Tantalum said:
Fine, after vacillating on this all morning, the 182
Click to expand...

Crazy talk!

The 6 place Cherokees are fine airplanes, but you don't see many of them operating out of bush strips, or short backwaters. The 260 HP versions are underpowered for 6 seats, and the 300HP examples don't exactly sip gas either! Meanwhile, my 182Q can take a 1230lb useful load into the shortest strips. It has performance to fly IFR with great margins. It's comfortable, stable, and as safe as a piston single can get. Just that at 130kts true burning 10.5 GPS, it's not fast...
 
IK04 said:
I was lucky enough to get to fly the Cutlass demonstrator that Cessna flew around the country pimping, uh, I mean showing off to flight schools.

The 28 volt electrical system made the gear retract in three seconds and the six cylinder engine and CS prop was an obvious improvement from the Skyhawk.

It was painted red, white and blue!
Click to expand...

I thought you guys were talking about this Cutlass... Now THATS a plane that shouldn't have been built..
Hard to believe the Blue Angles flew them.

Vought_F7U 10.jpg
 
upload_2020-11-17_16-46-57.jpeg

XB 70 Amazing innovative aircraft with stunning capabilities that didn't have a mission.
 
X3 Skier said:
The only reason there is an F-35 of any type is the USMC was running out of AV-8B’s. The result is the proverbial family of Camels.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Exactly. And to that end, the F-35B is very much an improvement on the Harrier. The problem with the F-35 isn't the B model. It's that they tried to sell the airframe as a one airplane for USAF/USN/USMC which resulted in the suboptimal A and C models. You could argue that it may not have been worth the cost, but the B model is not a bad airplane at all when you consider what it was intended to do.
 
N1120A said:
Cherokees are faster and land more like more advanced aircraft, now allowing the speed indiscipline that the 172 does.
Click to expand...

Lol, kind of picking nits about Cherokees being "faster". Like a whopping ~5kts is going to make any difference at all. C172s have a second door, which is infinitely more useful than 5kts of cruise speed. Still not a reason for either of them to fall into a category of "shouldn't have been built".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top