Then again who doesn't? But their author might like it a bit too much.
[color=red][b]Spoiler alert:[/b][/color] exaggerations ahead.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2017030 ... r-60-years
There is a good picture of the plane Mattias Rust flew to Red Square, seems to be in good shape in a German Museum. They talk about Hacienda. A pretty good article.
BBC loves the mighty Cessna 172
Of the 19,000 150's produced (he says) I have yet to find a fabric taidragger.
I'll keep looking.
I'll keep looking.
-
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 5:05 pm
[quote]The 172's design was so clean and aerodynamic...[/quote]
[quote] “The engine in the 172 hasn’t changed for 60 years…[/quote]
[img]https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Cereal-Guy-Spitting.jpg[/img]
[quote] “The engine in the 172 hasn’t changed for 60 years…[/quote]
[img]https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Cereal-Guy-Spitting.jpg[/img]
-
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
I warned you.
Why trade the Stinson Nark? Or were you planning an expanded fleet?
Why trade the Stinson Nark? Or were you planning an expanded fleet?
-
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 5:05 pm
I respect the legacy 172s in the same way I respect my old '99 Taurus wagon. Both are simple machines that knew their purpose and didn't try to be anything else. The Taurus was a comfy couch of a car that can haul a lot of crap. The 172 is a simple, humble airplane that can take a beating by generations of ham-fisted students and as long as you don't set out to break it you can be reasonably sure it'll bring you home again.
But to call it aerodynamically clean? Maybe compared to a Peitenpol...
But to call it aerodynamically clean? Maybe compared to a Peitenpol...
[quote author=Chris link=topic=5759.msg15126#msg15126 date=1488827359]
But to call it aerodynamically clean? Maybe compared to a Peitenpol...
[/quote]
The only planes I have flown in my short career other than the 150 and 172 are a Maule and a Zenair CH750. The Cessnas are a lot slipperier than either of those, although I don't remember either Cessna being at all difficult to slow down.
The Zenair in particular is so light and draggy that I don't think it would hit 100 knots if it was pointed straight at the ground with the power off.
But to call it aerodynamically clean? Maybe compared to a Peitenpol...
[/quote]
The only planes I have flown in my short career other than the 150 and 172 are a Maule and a Zenair CH750. The Cessnas are a lot slipperier than either of those, although I don't remember either Cessna being at all difficult to slow down.
The Zenair in particular is so light and draggy that I don't think it would hit 100 knots if it was pointed straight at the ground with the power off.
-
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
Oh yeah? $20 says I can get 105 knots indicated out of it less than an hour away from Springbank.
I'm not moving on quite yet, but if I do, it'll be a 4 seat taidragger that can haul 4 people.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 8 Replies
- 5289 Views
-
Last post by David MacRay
-
- 8 Replies
- 1599 Views
-
Last post by David MacRay
-
- 10 Replies
- 4061 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner