New 20 ounce tumblers available now! Forum donation credit with purchase. https://www.wildguzzi.com/Products/products.htm#Tumbler
My glider club has it's big brother, the very first 182. Our tow plane was originally an 180, but was the the test airplane for 182, moving from tail dragger to tricycle landing gear. It was literally saved from the landfill. I joined the club in 1985 and the plane at that time had logged over 26,000 take off/landing cycles and I was told many more were not logged. It is still going strong but not very pretty. GliderJohn
The aforementioned Tri Pacer was shithouse at best for that, but pretty none the less.
I beg to differ. The tripacer was a good airplane as far as hauling a load and good control authority and feel, light years ahead of a 172 in those areas. But was an airport airplane with it's higher approach speeds, 80mph was a number to remember. Basicly it was a pa15, pa17 vagabond that weighed 400 lbs too much and had a nose wheel. Short farm strips were a bit of a challenge, but could be handled with experience, and best avoided by low time city slickers. As others said a 172 is a boring thing.
what speed do you tow at on climb ?
The tripacer was a good airplane as far as hauling a load
What I said was..The visibility in the Tri Pacer was shithouse, what point do you differ on there ?
Oh - never mind then. Must be the translation.And Chuck- That is very true, that would be asking for trouble- 36 gallons and 4 people is too much to ask for a 1050 empty weight short winged airplane. Eventually the laws of physics would catch up with you with bad results.
though you could push this up to 185mph at a pinch – but the manufacturer would rather you didn’t.
The 172's design was so clean and aerodynamic that Cessna’s
Anybody�s got stick time on the �fork-tailed doctor killer�I�d like to know how that felt.
Oh - never mind then. Must be the translation.
:bow:Would you have preferred a language other than English ?The visibility was not good
Two good friends have a Klemm KL107 each (a "B" and a "C"). There the visibility is - well - different from the Cessna. In the front seats you can look downward nearly directly, because you sit practically on the leading edge of the wing. And upwards - well, think glider.
US light plane manufacturers have always given up visibility for a little streamlining. Speed sells, I guess. I prefer being able to see out, though
When I went for my check ride.. uh..50 years ago (gulp) the only thing available was a 135 tri pacer. The examiner told me, "I want you to plan a flight from here to Cincinnati. 3 normal passengers and full fuel." So, I went through the whole thing, laid out the course on the chart, solved the wind triangle on the plotter, etc.. did a weight and balance and found I would need to drain a bunch of fuel. He just smiled and said, "Good. Let's go fly." I'll never forget that check ride. He was a great examiner, an old "stick and rudder" guy, and believed that the check ride should be a learning experience for the soon to be new pilot.