Anyone never been in a Cessna?

[James_Dean]

I was given some grief today for never having been in a Cessna. I've got 300ish hours and time in Archers, Warriors, Saratogas, Seneca, Baron, SR20, M20J and a Tri-Pacer. I've been in the right seat(not logged) of a Cheyanne, Navajo, Mooney Bravo, Bonanza, and a DA40.

I've never even ridden in a Cessna product. I'm curious if any of you are in the same position?

My FBO has a 150, but I'm a big guy and so is my instructor. Any W&B legal takeoff would be an exercise in potential engine out procedures. I'm sure I could seek out a checkout in a 172 somewhere close, but don't really have a need to.

James Dean

 

[ErikU]

That does seem unusual.. though it looks like your FBO rents mostly pipers? For your hours you have flown an amazing variety of aircraft. I have about 700hrs and have only flown half as many. How did you manage that?

 

[Flyboy]

The tri pacer is a high wing. That's close enough.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I don't particularly like Cessnas. I did all of my primary training in a 152, then started flying various PA-28s, Socatas and Beeches. When it came time for my instrument rating, I used a 172, and bought my Mooney about the same time. Took the checkride in the 172. Since then, I've flown about 60 different models of airplanes, from a Murphy Moose to an SR-22. The only time I've voluntarily flown a Cessna has been when nothing else was available.

To me, it's not a high-wing/low-wing thing, although I do prefer the look of low wings. It's a matter that the Cessna singles I've flown, ranging from beater 152s to fresh out of the box 182s and T206s, are flat out uncomfortable. I don't like the seating position, I don't like the panels, I don't like the control feel, I don't like the ergonomics, I don't like the visibility.

So, Eggman, in my opinion you haven't missed anything.

 

[James_Dean]

That does seem unusual.. though it looks like your FBO rents mostly pipers? For your hours you have flown an amazing variety of aircraft. I have about 700hrs and have only flown half as many. How did you manage that?

Shameless begging.

I also do business with several companies that have owner operators of small aircraft. We always seem to find an excuse to do a "business meeting" somewhere. This meeting usually requires a little white ball. The construction company I use flies the Cheyenne.

The FBO rents a Warrior, Saratoga, and does training in a Seneca.

 

[Anthony]

To me, it's not a high-wing/low-wing thing, although I do prefer the look of low wings. It's a matter that the Cessna singles I've flown, ranging from beater 152s to fresh out of the box 182s and T206s, are flat out uncomfortable. I don't like the seating position, I don't like the panels, I don't like the control feel, I don't like the ergonomics, I don't like the visibility.

So, Eggman, in my opinion you haven't missed anything.

I somewhat concur with Ken. However, while Cessnas don't really do anything wonderful, they do lots of things well. If you want a good balance of safety, short/soft field, ease of flying and reasonable speed, they are tough to beat. I trained in a 152 and later flew 172's before switching to Pipers then Grumman. I thought the Cessnas were excellent trainers and good aircraft for gaining experience.

 

[poadeleted3]

I somewhat concur with Ken. However, while Cessnas don't really do anything wonderful, they do lots of things well. If you want a good balance of safety, short/soft field, ease of flying and reasonable speed, they are tough to beat. I trained in a 152 and later flew 172's before switching to Pipers then Grumman. I thought the Cessnas were excellent trainers and good aircraft for gaining experience.

I find the new Cessnas to be among the most comfortable small aircraft out there. Even more so than the Tiger. The seats are truly fantastic, the ventilation is great, with four directable nozzels for the front and two for the back, plus big windows that can be opened on the ground or inflight. The panel layout is easy on the eyes, and everything is in a place that makes sense, and the avionics are great. I really like the KMD 550/KLN 94 combo. I'm simply not as hyped on the Garmin 430 as others are. There control feel is nothing special. Slow and stodgy, but also very stable and predictable. Not even close to being as much fun to fly as the Tiger. Visibility out the top is obviously nothing to write home about, but that's made up for by being able to see beneath you. There are things to see on the ground worth looking at, and while low wing pilots talk about visibility in the pattern, they seem to forget planes can be under them also. I really like being able to keep an eye on final for the instrument pilot on the 100 mile final when I'm on the base to final turn. In a Piper or Tiger, all I can see is my own wing. Last week when I took Sean flying in a 152, it started raining. When we landed, we stood under the wing, dry and happy while I unhooked and packed headsets and unloaded the plane. Try that in a low wing plane

 

[Eamon]

Last week when I took Sean flying in a 152, it started raining. When we landed, we stood under the wing, dry and happy while I unhooked and packed headsets and unloaded the plane. Try that in a low wing plane

I used to HATE getting in & out of the Grumman in the rain. All my charts & papers would be wet along with the seats. But I do miss the Visablity. Everything is a trade off. Do you want to get there fast & be wet, or slow & dry

 

[gkainz]

I used to HATE getting in & out of the Grumman in the rain. All my charts & papers would be wet along with the seats. But I do miss the Visablity. Everything is a trade off. Do you want to get there fast & be wet, or slow & dry

sounds like someone needed a bumbershoot...

 

[Anthony]

I used to HATE getting in & out of the Grumman in the rain. All my charts & papers would be wet along with the seats. But I do miss the Visablity. Everything is a trade off. Do you want to get there fast & be wet, or slow & dry

Ever hear of an umbrella? Especially in the spring/summer, I keep a golf umbrella in the Tiger. Only used it once. Of course, the time we really needed it, I didn't have it, but with a little quick maneuvering of the canopy nothing got wet inside the plane. Now us, on the other hand....

 

[sere]

The tri pacer is a high wing. That's close enough.

Now now don't go and be mean to all of us Short Wingers. We may have our wings on the top but that is about where it ends being the same as a Cessna. My only time in a Cessna was when I was using my GI Bill to get my Commerical and thus I was in a RG. I have owned a Tri-Pacer and a Colt for the last 6 years. But also I have lots of time in low wing Pipers and Beach's. Love them all. LOL

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I can relate, James. 500 hours in Warriors, Cherokee 180's, Archers, Arrows, DA20, Super Cub, Husky, R22, S-300CB, and even 0.5 hour in a Bell 407.

I think I have something like 3 hours in 172's. I forget why, exactly...

 

[silver-eagle]

I have about 250 hours TT; never flown in an F16 or SR71; and probably don't have a chance in hell of doing it. While I can't tell what I'm missing, I am fairly happy with what I fly.
It's all in what your FBO has around to rent and whether you are ever in the right place at the right time. I never pass up a chance to fly. 10 hours into my primary training, a guy I knew showed up with a Citabria. At the time, all I had to compare it to was a beat up C152. Made me want one.

 

[Jim Chumley]

I was given some grief today for never having been in a Cessna. I've never even ridden in a Cessna product. I'm curious if any of you are in the same position?

My FBO has a 150, but I'm a big guy and so is my instructor. I'm sure I could seek out a checkout in a 172 somewhere close, but don't really have a need to.

James Dean

No need? Then don't worry about it. A 150/152 is a tight fit for many folks. A tight fit, if you are a big guy. Your ride in an ubiquitious 150/152 will eventually happen, though. When the time comes....maybe not a 150/152, but a 172 wiil present itself for a checkride. They are everywhere.

Jim

 

[mikea]

You're not strange. You're just one of us on the P side.

I was in your position, with the exception of the Bonanzas and DA20. My first rides in Cessna's were in buddy's 172s. I've been in exactly 2. I flew one - for a total of about 2 hours. I think I could do good enough in a 172 or 182 if I had to under pressue.

I trained at a Piper shop, flying Warriors and bought a Cherokee.

I did figure out early on when seeing the discussions on places like this that "training" was assumed to mean "flying a Skyhawk." You know. Stuff like, "How do you operate the flaps if you have a power failure?" (Ummm, by reaching for the handle?) "Pull the throttle out a little more..." (Out?)

I heard how us Piper types don't know what the rudder is for, but when you fly a Skyhawk you learn right away. So when I flew the 172 I was looking for the marked adverse yaw that I'd never seen. I couldn't find it.

My DE said I was good stick and rudder guy. Who wouldda thunk?

 

[The Old Man]

My time has all been in a PA28-140 and a BE23. I have a few minutes stick time in a J3, yoke time in a C310 and stick time in a Stearman.

I assume that when you say Cessna, you are speaking about 150-170 series. If so, I have never been in one. I do prefer low wings and anyone who complains about visibility has never been in a BE23-24.

 

[John J]

Learned in T-Crafts, J-3s, PA 12 and the best; Aeronca Champ. Do have close to 150 hours in the C172 and got my instrument in one with Venturies on the side. It is a nice plane in smooth air but in the chop and turbulence it makes you work hard. I have owned a C-182 (700 hours)and that is a real nice plane. Great all around machine to fly. Interesting is that these two planes are so different in their flying personalities. The 182 is a great instrument platform and the 172 is a lot of work when the bumps are out.

John J

 

[PoAdeleted5]

Almost never. I flew in a 152 a couple of times almost 20 years ago and that was it until last spring, when I get in the very first 172 that I'd ever been in.