Plane You Do NOT Like

Ken Ibold said:
I do not like Cessna 172s or Cessna 182s. I also do not like either Cirrus model.

In the case of Cessnas, there's just something about the seating and ergonomics that bug me. I have hundreds of hours in them, but have never really, well, liked it. In the case of Cirrus, the sidestick geometry feels unnatural.
Click to expand...

The 172 is what I rent when I need to do a quick local flight. I'm looking to pick up a Kitfox on Amphibs and I'll teach my dad to prove to my mom to lighten up, he's doing just fine cognitively. She thinks Alzheimer's and I saw that in my ex wife's grandpa, my dad has none of what I saw there. Driving in traffic he's not good for but flying a short circuit there at 100' over the water, no worries.
 
Ken Ibold said:
I do not like Cessna 172s or Cessna 182s.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Have lots of time in both, but don't care if I ever fly one again. I would if somebody tossed me the keys and a gas card because flying is flying though. The 172 is an OK work horse trainer and the 182 is just a work horse. Maybe they're both OK as float planes, haven't tried them like that. Seems like an economical way to have a float plane.
 
I trained in Cessnas, and thought they were good for that, but never really enjoyed flying them to go places. Bouncing around hanging under a wing just ain't my thing. Sorry, I know they are popular, they just bore me to tears.
 
I'm not a big fan of the 172SP, just don't enjoy flying it. C172 in general is a good plane for what it was meant to be, but putting a G1000 in it is just too much. A 1950s aircraft should not have modern super cool computers in it. Also the G1000 is too big for the 172 making everything around the G1000 almost inaccessible.
 
Which plane do I not like - the one I want to, but cannot afford to fly. A Mustang. A Texan. Anything with the word "turbo" in it.
 
Skylane81E said:
If I could fit I'd fly the hell outta one...

And in that same thought 150/2s, if I need a shoehorn to get in and out they just aren't for me.

Otherwise a fine airplane
Click to expand...

If you want a similar experience, Sonex is now wrapping up flight testing on their SubSonex jet, kits should be available soon. 250mph, single seat, +6/-3 aerobatic, 1 hour endurance. Looks like a miniature F/A-18:

http://www.sonexaircraft.com/press/releases/pr_071912a.html

SubSonex_air-to-air_8382-300.jpg
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
If you can get around the looks, performance, quality and comfort, what's not to like?
Click to expand...

:confused: It looks good, performance is fine for an airplane of it's price, and I'd say quality and comfort completely depends on the condition of the aircraft.

One of the most enjoyable planes I've ever flown was a Cherokee from the 70s with all the original avionics.
 
Last edited:
Glad you enjoyed it. The market is quickly moving towards you if you want another one.

MachFly said:
:confused: It looks good, performance is fine for an airplane of it's price, and I'd say quality and comfort completely depends on the condition of the aircraft.

One of the most enjoyable planes I've ever flown was a Cherokee from the 70s with all the original avionics.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
If you can get around the looks, performance, quality and comfort, what's not to like?
Click to expand...

I have to assume you don't like any trainer.
 
79572_1199033339.jpg



Metroliner.. The most uncomfortable, unergonomic POS. Oh, and LOUD.. David Clarks doubled up with ear plugs and it still wasn't enough loud. The guy to invent ANR headsets was probably a metro pilot.
 
Do I detect a little bit of "The 172 was more money so I cheaped out and bought the Cherokee?"

bartmc said:
Do I sense a little bit of Cessna fanboi'ing going on?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Do I detect a little bit of "The 172 was more money so I cheaped out and bought the Cherokee?"
Click to expand...

Same price, Cherokee had better radios with an O-320 (a better engine IMHO). Why overpay for a lesser machine? :stirpot:
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
The market is quickly moving towards you if you want another one.
Click to expand...

Well I don't want it that bad, especially looking at what I currently fly. But every time I get a chance to go up in one I'm usually happy.
 
MachFly said:
I'm not a big fan of the 172SP, just don't enjoy flying it. C172 in general is a good plane for what it was meant to be, but putting a G1000 in it is just too much. A 1950s aircraft should not have modern super cool computers in it. Also the G1000 is too big for the 172 making everything around the G1000 almost inaccessible.
Click to expand...

If it is the trainer for the 182 & 206 with G1000, why would you not recommend it be in the 172? There are many people who choose not to fly without this type of equipment, and it is being installed in all sorts of stuff.

My recommendation for someone starting today to start on tech from the beginning so they have 40hrs of working with the architecture to get the buttonology down. There is a skill set of its own involved in using technically advanced avionics; may as well start in the primacy. With 40 hrs use in the airplane, BTW you have the option to just dial frequencies same as simple gear, you'll know what's there and how to use; you have 100hrs of ground study on it to do. You get to fiddle with it on some cross country and you get your hood time intro to instrument flight. This is where flying the SVT trainer is going to pay off because with 3hrs on SVT, you'll be fine to switch to instruments and make an approach should mother nature toss you a hard high one.
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
Do I detect a little bit of "The 172 was more money so I cheaped out and bought the Cherokee?"
Click to expand...

I got my ppl in a 172 (albeit with 10hrs in a warrior - horrors!), did most of my IR in a 140.

I much prefer the 140 to a 172 for instrument flying.
 
Yep. Nobody is going back to steam gages. Learning earlier is better than transitioning later.

Henning said:
If it is the trainer for the 182 & 206 with G1000, why would you not recommend it be in the 172? There are many people who choose not to fly without this type of equipment, and it is being installed in all sorts of stuff.

My recommendation for someone starting today to start on tech from the beginning so they have 40hrs of working with the architecture to get the buttonology down. There is a skill set of its own involved in using technically advanced avionics; may as well start in the primacy. With 40 hrs use in the airplane, BTW you have the option to just dial frequencies same as simple gear, you'll know what's there and how to use; you have 100hrs of ground study on it to do. You get to fiddle with it on some cross country and you get your hood time intro to instrument flight. This is where flying the SVT trainer is going to pay off because with 3hrs on SVT, you'll be fine to switch to instruments and make an approach should mother nature toss you a hard high one.
Click to expand...
 
I think eVMC or SVT-IR for non commercial privileges will become an endorsement in the great simplification scheme transitioning pilots to NextGen.
 
bullwinkle said:
If you want a similar experience, Sonex is now wrapping up flight testing on their SubSonex jet, kits should be available soon. 250mph, single seat, +6/-3 aerobatic, 1 hour endurance. Looks like a miniature F/A-18:

http://www.sonexaircraft.com/press/releases/pr_071912a.html

SubSonex_air-to-air_8382-300.jpg
Click to expand...

One hour endurance? What good is that? To stay legal, you'd have to land every 1/2 hour and fuel up even in day VFR. Night, every 15 minutes! And IFR, well, it'd take you the first 15 minutes just to shoot an approach so you can't go anywhere. :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
One hour endurance? What good is that? To stay legal, you'd have to land every 1/2 hour and fuel up even in day VFR. Night, every 15 minutes! And IFR, well, it'd take you the first 15 minutes just to shoot an approach so you can't go anywhere. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Local box work, truck it between shows, that's about it.
 
89464 on a hot day at full gross. Won't do that again.

and any airplane where myself and the CFI giving instruction aren't getting along.
 
That sonex would be really cool if they could get 3.5+ hours fuel in it and a GTN-650. A great excuse to go places and not drag my girlfriend along. Vegas here I come.
 
MBDiagMan said:
The guy who owned it was a two tour Vietnam Fighter pilot. I admired him for his total dedication to obeying the law and at the same time felt sorry for him, because the Challenger was all that he got to fly.
Click to expand...
If he's got big enough piggy bank, he could fly Phoenix on glider ticket.
http://www.phoenixairusa.com/
 
wabower said:
If you can get around the looks, performance, quality and comfort, what's not to like?
Click to expand...
Way better quality than Cessna 150, frankly. How many Cherokee pilots were killed due to defective seat tracks? Rudder stops?
 
LJS1993 said:
Hey guys first off let me say that I have learned a LOT about flying, planes, and aviation in general on this forum. However I have noticed that it seems like many of you haven't met a plane you didn't like so to speak. I have heard that all planes basically fly the same and type is all a matter of preference. Well with that said is there a plane that you simply do not like? Was there a plane that you tried out that you honestly will never fly again? Is there a specific design that you feel is inferior or downright hazardous?
Click to expand...

I like ALL planes... but.... the T tail Arrow below 80 kts is a pig, altho in cruise flight it behaves like a normal plane... :idea:
 
C-172N's with a 160HP engine

The C-182RG I rent now is great aside from the late 70's paint, interior and avionics. ;)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
One hour endurance? What good is that? To stay legal, you'd have to land every 1/2 hour and fuel up even in day VFR. Night, every 15 minutes! And IFR, well, it'd take you the first 15 minutes just to shoot an approach so you can't go anywhere. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Um, this was in relation to a BD5J. Its endurance is an hour or less. This is a fun toy, not a coast to coast hauler.

As for 3.5 hour endurance, not gonna happen. The engine burns 32 gph and it holds 32 gallons useable. You just can't get more into an airframe that size if you still want jet performance.
 
bullwinkle said:
This is a fun toy, not a coast to coast hauler.

As for 3.5 hour endurance, not gonna happen. The engine burns 32 gph and it holds 32 gallons useable. You just can't get more into an airframe that size if you still want jet performance.
Click to expand...

To me, "jet performance" means it goes somewhere fast. This one goes a couple times around the pattern fast, and then you have to land for fuel. And it's a single-seater, too, meaning I can't even give someone else a ride around the neighborhood for fun!

It'd be fun once or twice, and then I'd be sick of it - The whole fun of flying a fast airplane is being able to get somewhere! This thing's pretty pointless, if you ask me. :dunno:
 
bullwinkle said:
Um, this was in relation to a BD5J. Its endurance is an hour or less. This is a fun toy, not a coast to coast hauler.

As for 3.5 hour endurance, not gonna happen. The engine burns 32 gph and it holds 32 gallons useable. You just can't get more into an airframe that size if you still want jet performance.
Click to expand...

How much does it burn at altitude? Surely you could get that thing to 30k feet
 
Rusty said:
"Never really liked any Cessna (150,152,172,182 are all i've been in) I get that "honda civic" feeling when in them."


wabower said:
Probably the reason that Cessna sold so few of them and no longer produces any of the line.
Click to expand...


Seems to me that the 172 and 182 are still in production. If not, when did they suspend it again?

Dan
 
dell30rb said:
How much does it burn at altitude? Surely you could get that thing to 30k feet
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer. I know the factory says they have flown it to FL18, and said "it had a lot more in it". If you added wing tanks you might get another hour out of it...enough to climb up high and cruise a couple hundred miles, but your performance would suffer until you burned off some fuel.
 
Last edited:
Nah, they only made them for a few years. Sales were slow, and for some reason they never caught on. I think they discontinued production in 1979 or so. Too bad, I think they would have been pretty good planes.

Dan Thomas said:
Rusty said:
"Never really liked any Cessna (150,152,172,182 are all i've been in) I get that "honda civic" feeling when in them."





Seems to me that the 172 and 182 are still in production. If not, when did they suspend it again?

Dan
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top