Planes that should NOT have been built

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-11-19 at 3.12.53 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2020-11-19 at 3.12.53 PM.png
    411.2 KB · Views: 16
All I can say if you can literally sense the CG change when trimming a 172 then you have Dolly Parton bewbs or an overly sized cranium. :p
 
Tantalum said:
Actually, the m600 is more expensive believe it or not.. looking at new versions of each on controller the M600 is more expensive

But as with anything, I think a big part of the sales success of the sf50 is the "cool it's a v-tail jet with a chute!" factor.. and they feel huge inside, like a little spaceship

With people moving up from the SR22 to small jets Cirrus was smart to offer something. The COPA magazine has a lot of turboprop ads. Cessna already has a jet lineup and Piper had the Malibu/Meridian, etc
Click to expand...
The Culver V.......worst of the worst.
 
Ron Stowell said:
The Culver V.......worst of the worst.
Click to expand...
N305718L.jpg
 
Pilawt said:
I would only add that for most of the 172's estimable 55 year production run (excluding the 10-year Cessna factory hiatus 1986-96) it was marketed as a personal, family and business airplane. Only since the 1996 restart, after the demise of the C-150/152, has it been marketed primarily as a trainer.

View attachment 91945
Click to expand...

I like the irony in that ad:

'Talk about time saving ! I go when I am ready....get there faster....and my clients and associates are often there to meet me when I arrive.'

So in other words: 'you usually arrive late and the crew that traveled by ground beat you to the jobsite'
 
X3 Skier said:
Only real thing I disliked about the 172 was the electric flaps. Give me the Johnson bar every time.

Cheers

Edited to change trim to flaps:confused:
Click to expand...

When I was getting my PPL, I didn’t mind the ones with notches (so that you can select the various common inputs), but I couldn’t stand the ones with the “hold until desired deflection is reached” type.

Ironically, when I bought my 182, it came with the latter...I eventually got used to it.
 
weilke said:
I like the irony in that ad:

'Talk about time saving ! I go when I am ready....get there faster....and my clients and associates are often there to meet me when I arrive.'

So in other words: 'you usually arrive late and the crew that traveled by ground beat you to the jobsite'
Click to expand...
Irony? The clients/associates are there to meet him when he arrives . . . the implication being his associates had to leave significantly earlier to arrive at roughly the same time he did.
 
Plus, if you are important people wait for you.
 
weilke said:
I like the irony in that ad:

'Talk about time saving ! I go when I am ready....get there faster....and my clients and associates are often there to meet me when I arrive.'

So in other words: 'you usually arrive late and the crew that traveled by ground beat you to the jobsite'
Click to expand...
I took that to mean, especially with the photo, that he can fly into small airports and meet with them right there. Flying airlines, they won't be there in the terminal to meet him.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
ateamer said:
I took that to mean, especially with the photo, that he can fly into small airports and meet with them right there. Flying airlines, they won't be there in the terminal to meet him.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Back then they could have been at the gate to meet him... or maybe even on the ramp.
 
Pilawt said:
Yeah, Cessnas seem to have that problem ... :p

View attachment 92147
Click to expand...
Secret from the Tweet driver. This is exactly how you cram more fuel into a T-37 than it should hold. One guy sits on the tail while fuel goes in the wing. Cap the tank and let the nose down. And, as an eye witness observer, if you get off the tail before the gas cap is on, you get a small fountain of Jet-A coming out the fuel filler port.
 
Tantalum said:
It really is though. Despite our disagreements on certain planes named after high altitude clouds N1120A and I are in strong agreement here. Just because Cessna stamped out thousands of these things doesn't make them "good" - had they not been produced we likely wouldn't have such a steep learning curve from a 172 into a real plane, which results in lots of banged up metal. Sure, good instruction can teach discipline, but at the end of the day if you learn to drive manual on a Jeep you're in no position to hop into a Celica/any BMW/really anything else that has any modicum of performance. At some point Cessna built good piston planes, and their twins are solid. But that whole high wing line post 180/185/190/195 is a throw away. They gave up and said "let's make cheap trash to train people on and build slightly less cheap trash to upsell them into after. Hopefully they never fly in any low wing or have a need to fly somewhere that isn't a dirt strip"

But here are some reasons why it's awful. I genuinely abhor the 172 in every possible way, but the more "objective" reasons are here
(1) ridiculous fuel sump options.. some have up to 13 drain points, others you can't actually adequately drain the gascolator without having ridiculous arm length, or just assuming there's no sediment/water and letting the plane pee all over the ground, which in most places is frowned on, and in some actually illegal and will get you yelled at

(2) driving it on the ground is a combination of brakes and bungee steering, it's very annoying to steer. The PA28 goes where your feet point it, and pure differential brake planes ultimately teach good engine power and foot discipline

(3) the trim wheel is in a remarkably stupid and uncomfortable spot, you have to lean forward to roll the wheel, this is (a) uncomfortable and (b) causes a momentary change in CG.. this means you can't ever really get the plane trimmed well. I can fly a PA28 for hours without touching the yoke, just gently adjusting the wheel or using my feet.. same is true in really any other aircraft

(4) no good rudder trim. Some have some knob you have move in detents left and right, but the folks at Cessna actually expect you to bend a piece of aluminum to set the trim.. I'm sorry, what?! The PA28 gives you a great rudder trim, even if it's not aerodynamic it lets you gently "trim away" and consistent foot pressure

(5) the visibility sucks. People always talk about "great visibility!" .. yeah, you can see straight down out the windows to the left and right and that's about it. The view over the nose is awful and you can't actually see straight left, or anywhere more than -15* up to the left or right

(6) it just doesn't feel "happy" in the air, always feels like you're asking it to do something it doesn't really want to

(7) it feels loose when you fly it. Some will call this "forgiving, and a great trainer!" - I call it reclassifying a bug as a "feature" .. it's like giving people a PADI cert without ever putting them in the ocean

(8) no slips with flaps.. really?! This is like when you need to have the ability to slip the most!

(9) the biggest problem.. IT IS JUST TOO DAMN EASY TO FLY.. requiring extensive transition training in really anything else one would transition to.. even a 182 people have trouble with "gee Billy, the nose is much heavier.. be careful!" <- seriously?! Just trim the thing and actually fly it. No wonder people who transition to something else without training end up porpoising and bending metal. In my opinion, the Tiger is the best trainer and should be used for primary.. but people say "it's too squirrely" or "I wouldn't do my instrument on one" <- holy hell

(10) air vents.. this has to be the laziest design.. hard to actually point them where you want, and they fall out

(11) scream the "look at me, I'm a trainer" look

(12) if it snows they sit on their tail

(13) BOTH fuel..
(a) this teaches very poor fuel management and discipline, resulting in threads where people ask "why it is so hard to manage fuel?" - it's not, set up a timer and move a knob from one position to the other..
(b) the tanks never actually drain evenly because of a moronic vent design
(c) if you have an engine failure due to contaminated fuel good luck figuring out which tank has the issue
(d) because that switch never gets used it makes me question the actual mechanical integrity of it
(e) fueling the plane means you never really get a top off, by the time you walk to the other wing some of the fuel has already cross bled. I've never actually seen a Cessna with "full" tanks.. there's always about an inch missing.. UNLESS, you remember to switch the tanks to L or R (f)
(f) you have to fly around with a ladder or do "mount the plane" gymnastics and perform a lascivious show for anyone already inside the aircraft in order to check the fuel tanks, in the meantime you are getting wing grime all over your clothes
(g) if you do manage to run the plane dry and have an engine failure you are screwed. At least with a plane where you switch tanks you (hopefully) have 15-30 minutes of fuel left by switching to another tank.. might give you just enough time to land at the closest airport

--and I have at least two dozen different 172 in my logbook and a few hundred hours in them, it wasn't just one or two "out of rig clapped out trainers" - they are massive piles of steaming hot poo. But, it flies.. so I if there's nothing else available I'll take one up. And, until I was flying the Cirrus, lady friends always preferred them because of the two door thing (which doesn't make sense because the pax has their own door anyway)

Every 172 needs to go the way of a Skycatcher, crushed up and thrown unceremoniously in a dumpster

..sorry, my rant was not directed at you, it's aimed at the awful 172

#triggered
Click to expand...


I drive a manual Jeep, and enjoy it. But want to ask your opinion on what is wrong with them? It has been ultra reliable, oil changes, new filters, wiper blades, and nothing more. I am actually someone who truly offroads for fun, and it has taken every bit of abuse thrown at it. Tows my boat, utility trailer, and more fine. The first real money I will have to spend on it is coming soon, the original mud terrain tires are worn out.
 
Pilawt said:
Yeah, Cessnas seem to have that problem ... :p
Click to expand...
Last week we had the most snow I've ever seen in the Austin area. If it snows here, it usually falls and melts within an hour or two, but not this time. It was fun guessing which plane would become a taildragger next! The final toll was 4 Cessna 150/152s, 1 Cessna 172, and 1 Piper Tomahawk.
138063830_3639811976064730_5582736659846551840_n.jpg

138051467_3639811996064728_3236065670383989651_n.jpg

138113798_3639812199398041_8517194980522382517_n.jpg
 
YKA said:
I drive a manual Jeep, and enjoy it. But want to ask your opinion on what is wrong with them? It has been ultra reliable, oil changes, new filters, wiper blades, and nothing more. I am actually someone who truly offroads for fun, and it has taken every bit of abuse thrown at it. Tows my boat, utility trailer, and more fine. The first real money I will have to spend on it is coming soon, the original mud terrain tires are worn out.
Click to expand...

In my case it was going into the shop 9 times in the under 2 years, and the (manual) transmission eating itself at 28,000 miles. Tracked down the district (or regional, it's been a few years) manager, who told me to "just deal with it [going in the shop repeatedly] and f*** off." I have not, and will not own any Jeep/Chrysler/Dodge/Daimler whatever product since they were under the same umbrella at the time. Took it in two more times before going to GM and never looking back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
YKA said:
I drive a manual Jeep, and enjoy it. But want to ask your opinion on what is wrong with them?
Click to expand...
Oh there's absolutely nothing wrong with them, and I could have really put Tacoma, Pathfinder, really any bigger manual vehicle.. my point being that their clutch tends to be more forgiving with much more pedal travel and engines that generally have more low-end torque.. you're less likely to stall a Jeep or a similar vehicle, at least for a newbie stick shifter
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
Tantalum said:
It really is though. Despite our disagreements on certain planes named after high altitude clouds N1120A and I are in strong agreement here. Just because Cessna stamped out thousands of these things doesn't make them "good" - had they not been produced we likely wouldn't have such a steep learning curve from a 172 into a real plane, which results in lots of banged up metal. Sure, good instruction can teach discipline, but at the end of the day if you learn to drive manual on a Jeep you're in no position to hop into a Celica/any BMW/really anything else that has any modicum of performance. At some point Cessna built good piston planes, and their twins are solid. But that whole high wing line post 180/185/190/195 is a throw away. They gave up and said "let's make cheap trash to train people on and build slightly less cheap trash to upsell them into after. Hopefully they never fly in any low wing or have a need to fly somewhere that isn't a dirt strip"

But here are some reasons why it's awful. I genuinely abhor the 172 in every possible way, but the more "objective" reasons are here
(1) ridiculous fuel sump options.. some have up to 13 drain points, others you can't actually adequately drain the gascolator without having ridiculous arm length, or just assuming there's no sediment/water and letting the plane pee all over the ground, which in most places is frowned on, and in some actually illegal and will get you yelled at

(2) driving it on the ground is a combination of brakes and bungee steering, it's very annoying to steer. The PA28 goes where your feet point it, and pure differential brake planes ultimately teach good engine power and foot discipline

(3) the trim wheel is in a remarkably stupid and uncomfortable spot, you have to lean forward to roll the wheel, this is (a) uncomfortable and (b) causes a momentary change in CG.. this means you can't ever really get the plane trimmed well. I can fly a PA28 for hours without touching the yoke, just gently adjusting the wheel or using my feet.. same is true in really any other aircraft

(4) no good rudder trim. Some have some knob you have move in detents left and right, but the folks at Cessna actually expect you to bend a piece of aluminum to set the trim.. I'm sorry, what?! The PA28 gives you a great rudder trim, even if it's not aerodynamic it lets you gently "trim away" and consistent foot pressure

(5) the visibility sucks. People always talk about "great visibility!" .. yeah, you can see straight down out the windows to the left and right and that's about it. The view over the nose is awful and you can't actually see straight left, or anywhere more than -15* up to the left or right

(6) it just doesn't feel "happy" in the air, always feels like you're asking it to do something it doesn't really want to

(7) it feels loose when you fly it. Some will call this "forgiving, and a great trainer!" - I call it reclassifying a bug as a "feature" .. it's like giving people a PADI cert without ever putting them in the ocean

(8) no slips with flaps.. really?! This is like when you need to have the ability to slip the most!

(9) the biggest problem.. IT IS JUST TOO DAMN EASY TO FLY.. requiring extensive transition training in really anything else one would transition to.. even a 182 people have trouble with "gee Billy, the nose is much heavier.. be careful!" <- seriously?! Just trim the thing and actually fly it. No wonder people who transition to something else without training end up porpoising and bending metal. In my opinion, the Tiger is the best trainer and should be used for primary.. but people say "it's too squirrely" or "I wouldn't do my instrument on one" <- holy hell

(10) air vents.. this has to be the laziest design.. hard to actually point them where you want, and they fall out

(11) scream the "look at me, I'm a trainer" look

(12) if it snows they sit on their tail

(13) BOTH fuel..
(a) this teaches very poor fuel management and discipline, resulting in threads where people ask "why it is so hard to manage fuel?" - it's not, set up a timer and move a knob from one position to the other..
(b) the tanks never actually drain evenly because of a moronic vent design
(c) if you have an engine failure due to contaminated fuel good luck figuring out which tank has the issue
(d) because that switch never gets used it makes me question the actual mechanical integrity of it
(e) fueling the plane means you never really get a top off, by the time you walk to the other wing some of the fuel has already cross bled. I've never actually seen a Cessna with "full" tanks.. there's always about an inch missing.. UNLESS, you remember to switch the tanks to L or R (f)
(f) you have to fly around with a ladder or do "mount the plane" gymnastics and perform a lascivious show for anyone already inside the aircraft in order to check the fuel tanks, in the meantime you are getting wing grime all over your clothes
(g) if you do manage to run the plane dry and have an engine failure you are screwed. At least with a plane where you switch tanks you (hopefully) have 15-30 minutes of fuel left by switching to another tank.. might give you just enough time to land at the closest airport

--and I have at least two dozen different 172 in my logbook and a few hundred hours in them, it wasn't just one or two "out of rig clapped out trainers" - they are massive piles of steaming hot poo. But, it flies.. so I if there's nothing else available I'll take one up. And, until I was flying the Cirrus, lady friends always preferred them because of the two door thing (which doesn't make sense because the pax has their own door anyway)

Every 172 needs to go the way of a Skycatcher, crushed up and thrown unceremoniously in a dumpster

..sorry, my rant was not directed at you, it's aimed at the awful 172

#triggered
Click to expand...


The old 172 holds a fond place in my heart... especially the N model...mainly because that's what most of my 172 time is in....
You make some fair points....& I know you said this isn't the case, but it seems like all your experience have been in dogs of the model....like an old F model I flew a bit...and an old worn out N model I flew that wouldn't taxi straight and had broken seats.... what a dog.
and the newer ones with all the extra sumps.... don't get me started and that nightmare of a set-up....
I've rented a few that were horrible in almost every way you've outlined

and the whole ladder issue can be at least partially corrected with the simple handle and strut step that some have. I'm left shaking my head at some I've rented that were missing these critical features.
but most were fine experiences in my opinion...

...and as for all the PA-28 and PA-44 variants that I've flown.... well put Mr George Mohr!

George Mohr said:
This is really silly. I get that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but for literally EACH of these points I can give you a counterpoint that suggests the exact opposite. Consider that I've owned both Cessna's and Pipers and love both of them, here's a few counterpoints.

1) One door, are you kidding? There's no single bigger downer for ergonomics of an airplane than the choice of a single entry door.
2) Low wing lack of shelter. No wet seats, no wet people. Standing under that wing for loading and unloading is a huge plus, even in nice weather when its hot out.
3) Oleo struts on the mains. 3x more seals to leak, more chrome to pit, more Mx expense.
4) That fuel system. Pumps fail, pilots forget them. Gravity has been known to be pretty reliable over the years. This eliminates an ENTIRE class of engine out failure modes.
5) Carb ice. If your premise is that the plane shouldn't be 'too easy' lest it breed lazy or uninformed pilots, I'd suggest a trainer that needs good carb heat management is 'better' than one in which carb heat is an afterthought (fyi, I don't like this stance, just using your assertions to draw this conclusion).
6) Pitch trim. Cessna's engineering is vastly better than Piper's on this system. It smoother, more precise, and more effective. That little barrel with cable wrapped around it is a constant source of Mx issues on older Pipers. As for the wheel, I've never had the slightest trouble reaching it. Perhaps some ergonomic issue here based on pilot dimensions, but I don't see it.
7) Vents... um... Pipers are terrible here. You have to taxi with the DOOR OPEN lol. Cessnas even have opening windows for Pete's sake.
8) No slips with flaps is a myth. People slip Cessnas all the time in all configurations. I've never seen a prohibition against it (point one out if I'm missing something here).
9) While were on the topic of flaps, PA-28 flaps are a bit of a joke compared to the barn doors on Cessnas.
10) Doesn't feel happy in the air? Not even sure how to address this, but I will say that my tapered wing PA-28 was less stable in yaw (particularly in slow flight) than any Cessna I've ever flown. I think when they tweaked the Cherokee planform they got the moments just a bit wrong.
11) Visibility... its a clear trade off. Up vs down. You choose which is better. Passengers love "down" btw.
12) Fueling. Got nothing here, ladders suck LOL :)

For clarity, not hating on PA-28's here. I loved mine! Just illustrating that all airplanes are compromises, and passionately labelling 172's (the most produced trainer in GA history) as trash is just silly.

-G
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top