Am I a Low-Wing Snob?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey land
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This entire thread is a bit like asking whether you prefer the colour orange, or the colour pink.
They both have their good points, and you can say rude things about both of them too.
For flight into a rough strip on a routine basis, your money would probably be on the Cessna. For easy flying in busy airspace with the need for good all round visibility, your money might be on the PA28.
There are better aircraft around than either of them, and for less money too. But I guess that would be a more interesting question.
They both have their good points, and you can say rude things about both of them too.
For flight into a rough strip on a routine basis, your money would probably be on the Cessna. For easy flying in busy airspace with the need for good all round visibility, your money might be on the PA28.
There are better aircraft around than either of them, and for less money too. But I guess that would be a more interesting question.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bristol and Forest of Dean
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF
I'm glad we agree, you are a good man! being a bit of a .. ahem.. Cub nut, I'm always quick to dispell some of the myths the aircraft has obtained over the years - lack of X wind capacity being a big one. Hell, even the Clacton PA18 check list has max Xwind at 8KTS... 8KTS! I'd never fly if that was the real limit....
Yours
Kingy (..keeping that wing down at all costs
)
I'm glad we agree, you are a good man! being a bit of a .. ahem.. Cub nut, I'm always quick to dispell some of the myths the aircraft has obtained over the years - lack of X wind capacity being a big one. Hell, even the Clacton PA18 check list has max Xwind at 8KTS... 8KTS! I'd never fly if that was the real limit....
Yours
Kingy (..keeping that wing down at all costs
)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spent around 30 hrs in a C172 and 80 in a PA28 (+25 in a C150 and 25 in other assorted varieties), I don't disagree with much of the previous.
My personal votes for / against PA28 and C172 are:
PA28
For
For
[edited shortly after posting 'coz the formatting of the bullet list looked cr@p once the vB code was translated and edited again to remove errors!]
My personal votes for / against PA28 and C172 are:
PA28
For
- Good visibility in circuit
- Low seating / High coaming
- Oleo legs (to minimise bounces)
- Ease of checking fuel visually
- Generally a nicely engineered aircraft
- Good upward visibility
- Poor 'ground spotting + camera ship' for passengers
- A bit rough on bumpy strips
- Reliance on fuel pump
- Single Entry Door
- Uncomfortable seat (I broke my back 13 yrs ago, so this is maybe harsh)
- Lack of rear passenger legroom
- (personal) I find them easy to get on the back of the drag curve
For
- Good for passengers who want view
- Pilot sits so he can see over coaming
- Good strong undercarriage for grass strips
- Two door access
- No reliance on fuel pump
- Good room for rear passengers / baggage
- Older ones can be draughty!
- Bit prone to post-landing relaunches!
- Cessna seat rail locking stinks (personal opinion)
- Can feel a bit 'tinny' and less solid than PA28.
- Poor visibility in circuit / above
- Bit tricky to do visual fuel checks
[edited shortly after posting 'coz the formatting of the bullet list looked cr@p once the vB code was translated and edited again to remove errors!]
Last edited by Circuit Basher; 31st Mar 2003 at 14:38.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Circuit Basher
I'm intrigued to know why you are against a good upward visibility????? I find it great especially when in a tight turn or looking for a/c descending deadside etc.
I'm intrigued to know why you are against a good upward visibility????? I find it great especially when in a tight turn or looking for a/c descending deadside etc.
Simplicate and Add Lightness
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSG, mainly
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
Thanks for all the considered advice guys. It certainly helped to put things into perspective... I'm going to go for it
Now I really will have to get a new PPRunE user-name.
Now I really will have to get a new PPRunE user-name.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that you're making the right decision. I don't know what your 'mission' is, but assuming that you just want a simple aircraft that will carry 3-4 people a reasonable distance at a reasonable speed, the 172 should work out fine. Of course, if you want something fancy with retractable undercarriage, c/s prop, etc., then the 172 won't suit; but you already know that.
When buying into a syndicate, I would be concerned about the overall condition of the aircraft, its general availability, and my compatibility with the other syndicate members. It sounds as though you're okay on those points, so I vote yes.
Two things are beyond debate: (1) the 172 is relatively easy and cheap to maintain; and (2) the 172 is a definite 'name brand' and if you decide to sell your share, it should be fairly easy to find a willing buyer [let's hope that you will be happy with the 'plane and the syndicate, but it's good 'insurance'].
P.S. Here is a link that you should read: http://home.tampabay.rr.com/flyer/owner.htm
When buying into a syndicate, I would be concerned about the overall condition of the aircraft, its general availability, and my compatibility with the other syndicate members. It sounds as though you're okay on those points, so I vote yes.
Two things are beyond debate: (1) the 172 is relatively easy and cheap to maintain; and (2) the 172 is a definite 'name brand' and if you decide to sell your share, it should be fairly easy to find a willing buyer [let's hope that you will be happy with the 'plane and the syndicate, but it's good 'insurance'].
P.S. Here is a link that you should read: http://home.tampabay.rr.com/flyer/owner.htm
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MLS-12D, that was the most sensibly written article I have seen for a long time about the pro's and con's of a/c ownership.
I've owned for 8 years now and have never regretted it, and I am by no means rich!
The benefits of ownership (as mentioned in the article) are all very real and if anyone out there is wondering whether they should go for it or not just make sure you buy something "normal" such as a Piper or Cessna and I guarantee you will not lose money on it. If you show it some TLC you will actually make money, I have done on 3 a/c now.
Think of it as an investment like a house, thats the kind of appreciation you might well see if you're lucky.
I've owned for 8 years now and have never regretted it, and I am by no means rich!
The benefits of ownership (as mentioned in the article) are all very real and if anyone out there is wondering whether they should go for it or not just make sure you buy something "normal" such as a Piper or Cessna and I guarantee you will not lose money on it. If you show it some TLC you will actually make money, I have done on 3 a/c now.
Think of it as an investment like a house, thats the kind of appreciation you might well see if you're lucky.
