A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

C177RG (1971)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 11th 03, 08:54 PM
Rich Ahrens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Newps wrote:
It was a big cabin in all respects expect the most important. It had
no headroom. I'm 6'1" and the top of my head hit the overhead. Not
just scraped it occasionally but so much that I had to conciously
scooch down to minimize it as best I could.


Did you not have vertically adjustable seats? I'm 6'4", my brother is
6'5" and both did fine in my B model. Just had to crank the seats
down.


Yeah, that's the damndest thing too. I had the adjustable seat, set it
as low as it would go. I have had people tell me the fixed seat was
actually lower, that that is what I needed. Which of course makes no
sense that the fixed seat would be lower than the adjustable, logic says
it would be somewhere in the middle.


I'm 6'5" and I find the headroom in the 177RG very tight, especially with a
tall headset on. Basically can't wear my Lightspeed in it. And that's with
the seat cranked down all the way and seriously reclined (to the point of
discomfort for any duration). Throw in turbulence and my skull has hit the
ceiling many times.

  #2  
Old August 11th 03, 09:46 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
.. .
I'm 6'5" and I find the headroom in the 177RG very tight, especially with

a
tall headset on.


6'4", Cardinal is very comfortable to me.

Even for people the same height, they will require a different amount of
headroom when seated, depending on their body proportions. I have a
relatively short torso and longer legs, so legroom is the problem for me.
For others, they have a longer torso and shorter legs, so headroom becomes
the issue. Total height is only part of the picture.

The Cardinal may be too small for some people, but I suspect that for those
people, many other planes are too. Want room? Go for the 182, Navion, or
something like that.

Pete


  #3  
Old August 11th 03, 11:09 PM
Rich Ahrens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
.. .

I'm 6'5" and I find the headroom in the 177RG very tight, especially with


a

tall headset on.



6'4", Cardinal is very comfortable to me.

Even for people the same height, they will require a different amount of
headroom when seated, depending on their body proportions. I have a
relatively short torso and longer legs, so legroom is the problem for me.
For others, they have a longer torso and shorter legs, so headroom becomes
the issue. Total height is only part of the picture.


Yep. I'm the opposite - long torso.

The Cardinal may be too small for some people, but I suspect that for those
people, many other planes are too. Want room? Go for the 182, Navion, or
something like that.


The 182 is quite roomy for me, especially in headroom. I enjoy flying both,
but when time came for a two-week trip last year, the 182 was the only
reasonable choice for several reasons. Comfort was a major one.

  #4  
Old August 12th 03, 05:36 AM
Snowbird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...

Even for people the same height, they will require a different amount of
headroom when seated, depending on their body proportions. I have a
relatively short torso and longer legs, so legroom is the problem for me.


Yep, exactly so. DH wasn't too comfy in the Cardinal. He's 6'1" but
it's all in the torso. His brother is the same height but when they're
sitting side by side, they look as though they're about 6" different
in height. Bro's height is all in the legs.

The Cardinal may be too small for some people, but I suspect that for those
people, many other planes are too.


Interestingly, our Grumman was roomier for DH. The Cardinal was
wierd -- it looked as though it should have great visibility, but
it has such a high instrument panel it blocked a lot of view for
me. And it looked as though it should have great room, but it
was a tight fit for DH. That's not to say our Tiger has headroom
to spare for him, but he can wear his Lightspeeds and sit up straight,
it has awesome vis. for me, and it can hold 2 full size mtn bikes
(believe it or don't, 'struth). If we're expecting a bumpy ride he
pulls the standard seat cushion and replaces it w/ 1" Oregon Aero.

Anyway, just goes to show the importance of actually *flying*
planes before one gets too excited about buying. Lots of little
details where what sounds great when you read about it doesn't
fit you, personally, as well as you expected.

Cheers,
Sydney
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"W" in 1971 (or 1972) [email protected] Naval Aviation 0 October 18th 04 05:11 AM
Kerry, in 1971, Admitted Writing Combat Reports Fred the Red Shirt Military Aviation 0 September 1st 04 08:57 PM
John Kerry 1971 on CSPAN Buzzer Military Aviation 2 March 29th 04 10:59 PM
1971 Cherokee 180F for sale, $55k Nathan Young Aviation Marketplace 0 February 18th 04 12:40 AM
ID Nov21 or 22 1971 S. Viet Naval A/C Loss? old hoodoo Naval Aviation 1 October 18th 03 01:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.