At 02:01 PM 6/22/99 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Oh, I flew a 172 last night. Holy cow- (no offense to you spam > drivers) but if it wasn't for the fact that I was flying I'd say it > was about as exciting as riding in the backseat of a station wagon.
Better be careful there.... ....there are those who would argue that the Ercoupe was the prototype for the 'Spam Can.' Consider what most aircraft looked like then, externally and structurally. Consider what they look like now. Gee, the 'coupe seems to have been the pioneer. Rermember, it was the Coupe where Fred Weick cut his teeth and ended up designing one of the great 'Spam Cans,' the PA18. People who talk about 'Spam Cans' (myself included) are forgetting one thing: just about every airplane is a beautiful thing, and lovely and endearing in its own way. > The controls felt heavy, the airplane sluggish, I couldn't see out the > side windows and had to lean way forward to see out for turns, taxiing > was a pain in the butt, and all in all it just didn't feel like > flying. Boy it'll be nice to get back to my Coupe!!!!! Well, yeah, but you might voice the same complaint going from a 150 to a 172. The Skyhawk feels like a bit of a slug compared to lighter birds (or just better ones, like the 177B). And a lot of them are getting a bit loosy-goosy, so that things like the nosewheel linkage starts to slop around. But the 172 can be flown precisely and with aplomb, it can be brought to a 'bird landing on a fence-post' full-stall landing, and it can be put just where you want to put it. It just takes some practice in the aircraft. And it takes a willingness to put some muscle and/or trim into the effort. But, say what you will about the supposed 'safety' of other aircraft (Ercoupe included) the Skyhawk kicks every other GA aircraft (Ercoupe included) around the block insofar as preserving the well-being of its occupants. Of course the NTSB doesn't keep stats on being bored to death... Greg
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
