grubbat
Well Known Member
150/172
I enjoyed flying the 150 and 172 planes. Cessna did a great job getting the wing right for its intended purpose. They are cheap to maintain and there’s a bunch around. However, like most things in life, they are mission oriented. Once I built my -9, I didn’t have a use for the 172. My comanche solved the 4 place need but the single engine didn’t. The -9 will remain in my stable as the cheapest funnest ride but for 3 plus people, I went with a twin. Having one plane is doable but hey, life is short. When Vans gets off their hiney and finishes up on the high wing design, then I’ll add another plane to the stable and unfortunately, the high wing certified market will implode given a couple of years. Until then, I’dfly a 172 to pancakes and waffles with pride if I had one.
I enjoyed flying the 150 and 172 planes. Cessna did a great job getting the wing right for its intended purpose. They are cheap to maintain and there’s a bunch around. However, like most things in life, they are mission oriented. Once I built my -9, I didn’t have a use for the 172. My comanche solved the 4 place need but the single engine didn’t. The -9 will remain in my stable as the cheapest funnest ride but for 3 plus people, I went with a twin. Having one plane is doable but hey, life is short. When Vans gets off their hiney and finishes up on the high wing design, then I’ll add another plane to the stable and unfortunately, the high wing certified market will implode given a couple of years. Until then, I’dfly a 172 to pancakes and waffles with pride if I had one.