Looking for the first plane

On 31 Jul 2007 23:57:12 GMT, Blanche wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

[snip]

travelling plane. If you're "putt-putting around every
other weekend by yourself," then a Cessna 150 is more the class of
plane. A Cherokee 140 is a fair bit more plane than a C150.

I always considered our old Cherokee 180 the best plane for just put,
putting around. Good take off and landing characteristics including
short field. It's one of the most docile and forgiving planes I've
flown. Back off on the power to get 7 or 8 GPH

I did a photo session with a 140 and 180 one afternoon. I first shot
from the 180, then we landed at a relatively short, paved strip. It
was one I'd been in and out of many times in that 180 as the pilot.
Then it was out in the 140. I didn't think it was going to make it as
we used so much runway compared to the 180, although it really did
have room to spare.

The 180 also rides turbulence fairly well. I found the 150 to be like
a cork on a rough pond. I also think of it as a one person airplane.

The only exception to this that I can think of is if you fly out west
and need to safely go over 8000' DA with two people and
luggage.

DA this afternoon in Denver (6 pm MDT) is 8600. And that's
on the ground. New Mexico isn't much different. ABQ is just about
the same altitude as DEN.

Very good point which has long been a sore point when instructing or
personal flying in Piper product. Of course in my instructor role, I always
get a door, but from the left seat,,, it IS an area of concern. One of the
reasons I always make sure the baggage door is unlocked on the Pipers I've
flown (i.e. extra emergency door - simple latch, easy to kick out).

BTW,,, that 182 is one great machine... unfortunately I won't be spending
those kind of bucks when I get my plane - short of winning lotto!

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman

Certificated Flight Instructor
Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California

Member of:
National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

"Jon Woellhaf" wrote in message
. ..
My $0.02:

I've decided I can't stand the idea of a plane that has no door and/or no
operable window on the pilot's side.

Jon
C182Q

On Jul 30, 11:01 pm, tony roberts
wrote:
Of course there is always the venerable grin 172 but it would have to be
at least an N model.

In my opinion that would be a mistake.
The 0-300D is a far superior engine to the earlier 172 Lycomings.
Smoother, more reliable - a good engine that will always bring you home
if you look after it.

The 172 never used the earlier narrow-deck Lycomings. Those were
found in other airplanes. Cessna went to the Lyc O-320-E2D from the
O-300 in about 1969 and never looked back. The Continental had a
shorter TBO and the cylinders used on small Continentals often don't
make it that far. They're the same cylinders used on O-200s and often
need valve work about halfway through the engine life. We had 150's
with those engines and spent nearly as much money overall on the 150
as we do on the 172. Our Lycomings run nicely all the way to TBO, and
that's in a more abusive flight training environment. Any engine that
sits without flying frquently, or that is flown on very short flights
so that the oil never gets hot, will tend to rust out long before TBO.
We run three 172Ms. We won't touch the N model, because that
model had the O-320H2AD, a disastrous engine that has a long AD
history. The folks around here that run them say that they seldom
reach TBO. It has little relation to the E2D. The 172P corrected that
hassle with yet another engine model, the D2J. If we were rich we
would buy some new S models.
Any airplane you are considering should be checked against
possible ADs. You can find them on the FAA website. Check the engine
models, too; they have their own section. Propellers are also
separate, and there's an accessories section that can take a long time
to wade through. See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...e?OpenFrameSet
You don't want any nasty surprises after you buy an airplane.
There are plenty out there that have outstanding ADs.

Dan

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 30, 11:01 pm, tony roberts
wrote:
Of course there is always the venerable grin 172 but it would have to
be
at least an N model.

In my opinion that would be a mistake.
The 0-300D is a far superior engine to the earlier 172 Lycomings.
Smoother, more reliable - a good engine that will always bring you home
if you look after it.

The 172 never used the earlier narrow-deck Lycomings. Those were
found in other airplanes. Cessna went to the Lyc O-320-E2D from the
O-300 in about 1969 and never looked back. The Continental had a
shorter TBO and the cylinders used on small Continentals often don't
make it that far. They're the same cylinders used on O-200s and often
need valve work about halfway through the engine life. We had 150's
with those engines and spent nearly as much money overall on the 150
as we do on the 172. Our Lycomings run nicely all the way to TBO, and
that's in a more abusive flight training environment. Any engine that
sits without flying frquently, or that is flown on very short flights
so that the oil never gets hot, will tend to rust out long before TBO.
We run three 172Ms. We won't touch the N model, because that
model had the O-320H2AD, a disastrous engine that has a long AD
history. The folks around here that run them say that they seldom
reach TBO. It has little relation to the E2D. The 172P corrected that
hassle with yet another engine model, the D2J. If we were rich we
would buy some new S models.


RAM Aircraft has an STC to replace the H2AD with a D2G. Find a 172N with a
run-out H2AD and get the STC. $23,950 exchange for a new D2G engine,
McCauley prop and the paperwork.

On Aug 3, 10:05 am, "Allen" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jul 30, 11:01 pm, tony roberts
wrote:
Of course there is always the venerable grin 172 but it would have to
be
at least an N model.

In my opinion that would be a mistake.
The 0-300D is a far superior engine to the earlier 172 Lycomings.
Smoother, more reliable - a good engine that will always bring you home
if you look after it.

The 172 never used the earlier narrow-deck Lycomings. Those were
found in other airplanes. Cessna went to the Lyc O-320-E2D from the
O-300 in about 1969 and never looked back. The Continental had a
shorter TBO and the cylinders used on small Continentals often don't
make it that far. They're the same cylinders used on O-200s and often
need valve work about halfway through the engine life. We had 150's
with those engines and spent nearly as much money overall on the 150
as we do on the 172. Our Lycomings run nicely all the way to TBO, and
that's in a more abusive flight training environment. Any engine that
sits without flying frquently, or that is flown on very short flights
so that the oil never gets hot, will tend to rust out long before TBO.
We run three 172Ms. We won't touch the N model, because that
model had the O-320H2AD, a disastrous engine that has a long AD
history. The folks around here that run them say that they seldom
reach TBO. It has little relation to the E2D. The 172P corrected that
hassle with yet another engine model, the D2J. If we were rich we
would buy some new S models.

RAM Aircraft has an STC to replace the H2AD with a D2G. Find a 172N with a
run-out H2AD and get the STC. $23,950 exchange for a new D2G engine,
McCauley prop and the paperwork.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's not a bad deal, considering the engine exchange, new
prop and the R & D that went into the STC. Likely would pay for itself
the first time through TBO.

Dan

Good, informative post.

The 1968 model was the first to have the Lyc O-320. It was the C-172I.
One easy way to distinguish the models on the ground is to look for
the dual exhausts on the O-300's. They stick out a bit like fangs. The
O-320 has only one pipe breaking through the cowling.

The story I've read is that Cessna ordered a bunch of O-320's for the
new Cardinal and then discovered, oops, 150 hp was not quite enough for
that bird. They had to do something with engines, so they stuck them in
the C-172. Or maybe that was their backup plan all along. I never have
heard what Cessna did with the O-300's they must have had on order.

-John T.

wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:01 pm, tony roberts
wrote:
Of course there is always the venerable grin 172 but it would have to be
at least an N model.
In my opinion that would be a mistake.
The 0-300D is a far superior engine to the earlier 172 Lycomings.
Smoother, more reliable - a good engine that will always bring you home
if you look after it.

The 172 never used the earlier narrow-deck Lycomings. Those were
found in other airplanes. Cessna went to the Lyc O-320-E2D from the
O-300 in about 1969 and never looked back. The Continental had a
shorter TBO and the cylinders used on small Continentals often don't
make it that far. They're the same cylinders used on O-200s and often
need valve work about halfway through the engine life. We had 150's
with those engines and spent nearly as much money overall on the 150
as we do on the 172. Our Lycomings run nicely all the way to TBO, and
that's in a more abusive flight training environment. Any engine that
sits without flying frquently, or that is flown on very short flights
so that the oil never gets hot, will tend to rust out long before TBO.
We run three 172Ms. We won't touch the N model, because that
model had the O-320H2AD, a disastrous engine that has a long AD
history. The folks around here that run them say that they seldom
reach TBO. It has little relation to the E2D. The 172P corrected that
hassle with yet another engine model, the D2J. If we were rich we
would buy some new S models.
Any airplane you are considering should be checked against
possible ADs. You can find them on the FAA website. Check the engine
models, too; they have their own section. Propellers are also
separate, and there's an accessories section that can take a long time
to wade through. See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...e?OpenFrameSet
You don't want any nasty surprises after you buy an airplane.
There are plenty out there that have outstanding ADs.

Dan

On Aug 3, 11:38 am, "John T." wrote:
Good, informative post.

The 1968 model was the first to have the Lyc O-320. It was the C-172I.
One easy way to distinguish the models on the ground is to look for
the dual exhausts on the O-300's. They stick out a bit like fangs. The
O-320 has only one pipe breaking through the cowling.

The story I've read is that Cessna ordered a bunch of O-320's for the
new Cardinal and then discovered, oops, 150 hp was not quite enough for
that bird. They had to do something with engines, so they stuck them in
the C-172. Or maybe that was their backup plan all along. I never have
heard what Cessna did with the O-300's they must have had on order.

That's the story I've heard, too, but the Cardinal came out
in '68 with the E2D and they didn't change that 'til mid or late '69.
I think Cessna just decided to reduce parts inventory at the factory
by using the same engine, and I bet Lycoming gave them a deal they
couldn't refuse. The 172 was a huge market and a chance to boost
engine parts sales immensely. I don't suppose Continental was
impressed, but they were still selling a lot of engines for the
150/180/182/185/ 205/206/207/210 and many of the twins.

Dan

"Jon Woellhaf" wrote in
:

I've decided I can't stand the idea of a plane that has no door and/or
no operable window on the pilot's side.

Door???? I prefer a sliding canopy (everyone has a door) g

John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote:

BTW,,, that 182 is one great machine... unfortunately I won't be spending
those kind of bucks when I get my plane - short of winning lotto!

Very decent 182s can be had for sub-jackpot money these days. E. g.:

http://tinyurl.com/232koj

You will have very little trouble selling a Skylane, and mogas STCs are
available. Hard to beat.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message ...


You will have very little trouble selling a Skylane, and mogas STCs are available. Hard to beat.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM


Problem is, alcohol free autofuel is almost impossible to find anymore...