----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Okay Greg,
Since I must agree with everything yoiu said (below) let me add one
thing to it...
While taking lessons (and paying the extra fare) in a C172, by the time
she's a private pilot and gets
into a 'real' airplane (like a coupe) she'll be a better pilot.
I told her a long time ago that as long as she was taking lessons she
should not fly a coupe as it
would spoil her and interfere with her learning in the 172 that she's
satarted in.
I agree it's more expensive in the 172, but let's face it, if she can
manage a 4 place spam can
she'll be a breeze in a coupe. Then she can spend less money, have more
fun, and soon be able to get
her own coupe. (Priorities, Priorities, Priorities.)
Bob Saville
Greg Bullough wrote:
> ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following
any advice in this forum.]----
>
> At 08:12 AM 12/7/00 -0800, Paul Anton wrote:
> >----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following
any
> >advice in this forum.]----
> >
> >Hi Georgia:
> >
> >Don't worry about having your favorite thing bad mouthed here.
>
> I want to make it clear... ...my distaste for Skyshlocks is purely a
matter
> of personal taste. Intellectually, I *know* it's a great airplane (a
triumph
> of marketing over aerodynamics, the pinochle of mediocrity oops there
> I go again). I recognize the type's contribution to GA, blah blah.
>
> And there was a time when I could fly a 172 better than anything...
...put
> it right where I wanted it, land it on a dime and give 5 cents change,
all
> that, while dividing my time equally between PA-28s and 172s. Back
> then, it was a blast. I guess as a student driver I would have enjoyed
> a Buick Regal, too.
>
> With a bit more perspective from things like the Ercoupe, an Aeronca,
> Citabrias, a Bonanza, even a Cardinal, the 172 is at the bottom of my
> list of flying machines. The controls feel disconnected, too much force/
> deflection is needed for basic maneuvers, the plane is too slow in the
> pattern for its size, too much of a 'kite' in crosswinds, has too much
> 'play' in the controls (which age badly anyway), is too much of a
> kite in turbulence, and generally lacks the sort of 'feel' that makes
> flying something like an Ercoupe so much fun.
>
> Nowadays, flying a 172 feels to me like phoning it in.
>
> Now, intellectually, I also think that Cessna's success with the newer
> 172s is undeserved. Pretty upholstery and Royalite-free panels aside,
> the performance and load-carrying ability is off for the same
horsepower.
> If the new single-engine Cessnas weren't being bought as matter of
> habit (i.e., if they were a newly introduced type) they'd probably be
> out of production after the first year.
>
> Greg
>
> __________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe from this list please send
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
> Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
__________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from this list please send
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
