What's wrong with Cessnas?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Jim Gandee

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
81
Location
USA
Vessel Name
Fire Escape
Vessel Make
Bayliner 3888
TF Site Team Note: This thread has been split from the "What's Wrong with Bayliners" thread.


Brand bashing is nothing new. I have a Cessna which routinely gets bashed by the brand B owners, who btw, paid a lot more for their birds. Buy what you can afford any enjoy the experience to the fullest no matter what brand you have. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brand bashing is nothing new. I have a Cessna which routinely gets bashed by the brand B owners, who btw, paid a lot more for their birds. Buy what you can afford any enjoy the experience to the fullest no matter what brand you have. :)

Beechcraft owners are the worst...until they meet Gulfstream Owners. It's all relevant. In most cases, it's more about looking down one's nose at another perceived lesser plane/boat/car/truck than it is about the actual quality of the object. It's a reflection of the man, not the object.

BTW, I was a Cessna guy throughout my training and CFI days and still have a soft spot for just about every model I flew (which was almost every post-1970 single and twin recip model). Just wasn't a fan of the straight-leg Cardinal due to poor performance for its class.
 
still have a soft spot for just about every model I flew (which was almost every post-1970 single and twin recip model). Just wasn't a fan of the straight-leg Cardinal due to poor performance for its class.
My experience with Cessnas was very similar except I flew a lot of the pre 1970 models. I agree with the Cardinal (177) comments but I did manage to cram a few hours in them. I must admit that the omission of the wing strut was nice. (Nothing in the way to hinder boarding and deplaning.)
 

Attachments

  • C-177.jpg
    C-177.jpg
    77.5 KB · Views: 116
I do appreciate the cantilever wing on the 177 Cardinal but I like the T210 wing even better! :)
 
Got my Private in a Piper, got the rest of my ratings in Cessnas, flew a 1968 Cessna 206 for a number of years for work and pleasure in Hawaii, moved here, got a seaplane rating and then got checked out in the de Havilland Beaver.

That plane was near perfection for me and my wife and we've not flown anything else since other than a Turbo Beaver, a bit of time in the Vazar Dash-3 (turbine conversion of the single-engine Otter) and a checklout in a Cub Crafters Top Cub on floats for a magazine review.

I prefer the look of low-wing planes but high wing is where it's at for floatplanes.
 
Wow guys! I feel bad

I flew a Taylorcraft BC12D4-85 on factory EDO 1320 floats out of my home in Alaska for a solid decade!

That little plane saved me, my family and my house during the 1996 Millers Reach forest fire.

Ever do a night landing on floats, in a plane with no electrical system?

That'll put hair on your chest!
 
I do appreciate the cantilever wing on the 177 Cardinal but I like the T210 wing even better! :)

I heartily agree!! Even better was the Robertson Conversion kit on the T210 wing. My chief flight instructor at our FBO taught me how it'll fly out of ground effect with the airspeed needle just barely coming off the peg...I think it pegs at 40 kts. It's an amazing performance kit on an already great performing airplane!! One of my single-engine favorites.

My uncle and godfather owned one of the last 210s built. I think it was 1986. It was normally aspirated since he lived and flew in the Midwest. The unusual aspect of that plane was the upturned wingtips rather than the downturned cambered wingtip. It looked cool and reportedly enhanced the performance more than the cambered tips. Not too many were made like this before production was suspended in 1986. Another favorite 210 model was the pressurized P210. It was quiet, fast and comfortable, but the visibility was reduced due to the smaller windows.

Of the Cessna recip line, I never had the opportunity to fly the 340 or 421 twins, but liked the 310 and 402. Got a couple of flights in the 303 Crusader, but was not impressed. Surprisingly, the 337, pressurized and non-P, was a fun and fast flying plane. The T182RG was also an impressive performer. We flew a lot in AZ, so I liked the 172XP for its hot and high capability improvements over the 172. And the 152 acrobat was just plain fun!

I never owned an airplane. Never had the resources to afford it, but flew them professionally for most of my 40 years of flying. Each upgrade was a flight full of discovery and new experiences and I almost always liked the latest airplane the best.

One exception was in an airplane that I liked and was very reliable and efficient, but it wasn't well suited for our mission of NAVAIDS flight inspection throughout the western United States. I had been flying a Rockwell Saberliner 80 (similar to the 75A) in the late 1980's when Congress, at the direction of DOT Secretary Elizabeth Dole, approved the purchase of 19 King Air 300s which were the end of the production run for Wichita, KS based Beechcraft where she and her husband, Bob Dole, practiced their own brand of politics. Beechcraft was eager to move onto the King Air 350 with Part 23 certification instead of the 300's Special Part 41C certification and needed to unload these albatrosses from their neck. So the FAA got these 300's crammed down their throats for a mission for which it was ill-suited. These planes were outdated when purchased and have been money pits for the FAA since then. They are now spending more than $1M per plane to bring the cockpits and navigation systems up to date.

When we moved to the Learjet 60 in the mid-1990's, we returned to being able to fly to any destination in our area of responsibility and conduct the 2+ hrs flight inspection mission without refueling during our lunch stop. Our speed, efficiency, comfort (ie less fatigue, turbulence effect and noise) and full nav capability returned and exceeded that of the Saberliner. That was the plane I flew until I retired from the FAA after flying it for 17 years. It's still my favorite!

I like to say that I used to cruise at 8 miles per minute and now I cruise at 8 miles per hour... and I'm still having loads of fun!
 

Attachments

  • Learjet001.jpg
    Learjet001.jpg
    158.4 KB · Views: 110
I am not sure why, I owned a 1968 C182 with Robertson Conversion kit for almost three years. I LOVED that plane! It was not the sexiest, or speediest, or most efficient...but it was one safe, rugged, "go just about anywhere" truck-luck plane I could have asked for.

Damn I miss it...but boy I do not miss the cost of owning!
 
The last plane we owned was a Turbo Saratoga. I have to second I like the look of the low wings better.

But i do think for initial training the reduced ground effect of a higher wing is probably advantageous more most.
 
I've flow the 172 and 152. Enjoyed both and found them very forgiving for a new pilot. However, my favorite was always the Piper Warrior that our club owned. There is something about low wing planes that I find very attractive.
 
There is something about low wing planes that I find very attractive.

I agree. Before switching to a flight school that was all-Cessna, I got my Private in a PA-28 Cherokee 140, and then moved up to a Cherokee 180 and finally a Cherokee Six. I liked all of them although the earlier versions of the Cherokee (like the ones I flew) make a poor choice as a trainer because of the interconnected rudder and differential ailerons. I had to learn to use a rudder properly when I moved over to flying Cessnas for my Commercial and other ratings.

I also flew a Mooney Chaparral and a Rockwell Commander 114 for awhile in Hawaii. The Rockwell had been a factory demo so besides the rather loud orange and black paint scheme it also had all sorts of then-state-of-the-art goodies like a three-axis autopilot. Very nice plane to fly and having an entry door on each side of the fuselage was a lot more convenient than Piper's single, crawl-over-the-seats door.
 
Last edited:
My last plane:

bishopramp.jpg


Just cruising a little lower and slower now.
 
Surprisingly, the 337, pressurized and non-P, was a fun and fast flying plane. !
My partner and I owned a 336 SkyMaster & replaced it with a 337P, which is my all time favorite. Later, the flying bug really bit and we sold the 337, stepped up to a P Navajo, then a Piper Cheyenne II, a Cessna Citation IIP, a Citation 1, another C-1 with thrust reversers and finally a Citation 5. Those were some fun years.
 
Last edited:
The old family sled, a Learjet 31. My dad was the pilot so I couldn't tell you much about it other then what a waste of money they are. Better off buying a boat.
ImageUploadedByTrawler Forum1425097491.411104.jpg
 
QB. Is that a Thorpe? Looks like one, but can't make out the wing in the pic.
 
FlyWright, I was at the Air Force Flight Standards Agency in the late 90s. We worked with you flight check guys a lot.
 
That little plane saved me, my family and my house during the 1996 Millers Reach forest fire.

I remember that fire. I was living out on Knik Road in Wasilla, Settlers Bay. Loaded all the photo albums and some clothes into my much-too-small car. Had to decide what to save and what to let burn if it got that far. Ultimately of course it never did get that far, but that was a rough time. Spent one night with friends in Anchorage but eventually snuck back home around the evacuation barriers on a dirt road and decided to try to save my house and stuff if necessary. That was a bad one.
 
Airplanes certainly are expensive but definitely not a waste!
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    96.9 KB · Views: 104
My partner and I owned a 336 SkyMaster & replaced it with a 337P, which is my all time favorite. Later, the flying bug really bit and we sold the 337, stepped up to a P Navajo, then a Piper Cheyenne II, a Cessna Citation IIP, a Citation 1, another C-1 with thrust reversers and finally a Citation 5. Those were some fun years.

Of the few twins that I have flown I thought that the 'push me pull me' was a lumbering truck of the sky. Slow, thirsty, noisy, leaks oil out the rear engine; but looks quite cool in a military sort of way.... :rofl:

...where as the twin com with the tip tanks is lively, twitchy, economical, fast and very sexy! (And very dangerous) :D

My tie down neighbour crashed his 336 into a mountain on a leg he had completed hundreds of times; unfortunately he was killed along with his two sheep Dogs; no reflection on the a/c.
 
My partner and I owned a 336 SkyMaster & replaced it with a 337P, which is my all time favorite.

As a kid I was a Cessna-kid with the 336/337 being at the top of my list. Once I started flying I found a really good mechanic - well, he was a Piper guy.

I went with Piper and never looked back. Never, ever give up a good mechanic.
 
I was just going to let let mechanic I have locked up in the basement go, I mean we don't have a plane right now anyways. Oh well, guess he'll stay there.
 
Wow guys! I feel bad

I flew a Taylorcraft BC12D4-85 on factory EDO 1320 floats out of my home in Alaska for a solid decade!

That little plane saved me, my family and my house during the 1996 Millers Reach forest fire.

Ever do a night landing on floats, in a plane with no electrical system?

That'll put hair on your chest!
Ever do a night landing on floats, in a plane with no electrical system?

Nope, and I hope I never have to! Yikes!!!
 
No, but I landed at night at a small private field in eastern PA surrounded by trees with no runway lights. Talk about a black hole approach! The subsequent takeoff was a piece of cake in comparison.

Good thing I was young and invincible back then!

I liked all of them although the earlier versions of the Cherokee (like the ones I flew) make a poor choice as a trainer because of the interconnected rudder and differential ailerons. I had to learn to use a rudder properly when I moved over to flying Cessnas for my Commercial and other ratings.

I don't remember any interconnect on the PA28-140 or 180. The Ercoupe had one which I never flew, but I thought all Cherokees were free rudder and aileron.

FlyWright, I was at the Air Force Flight Standards Agency in the late 90s. We worked with you flight check guys a lot.

Were you out of Scott AFB? I guess you were more focused on pilot standards and skills, right? Can't remember exactly when, but the Air Force Flight Checkers were merged into the FAA operation in Oklahoma City during budget cuts. Back then, they were flying Hawkers and brought them into OKC. They were later sold and horse traded for new Challengers with real world wide range capability.

They now have a strong contingent of active duty and reservists to fly the Challengers with defensive systems into war zones around the world. They can tell some harrowing stories about the comings and goings in places like Baghdad and Afghanistan.

Being based in Sacramento, I had limited encounters with the AF crews but we dealt a lot with all the military branches to inspect their military base nav systems. It was always interesting to a guy like me with no military time. Our security clearances gave us pretty good access to some very interesting ops. One of my favorites was Edwards AFB....especially during a Space Shuttle recovery there.
 
Last edited:
I don't remember any interconnect on the PA28-140 or 180. The Ercoupe had one which I never flew, but I thought all Cherokees were free rudder and and aileron.

From an instruction manual on flying the PA-28...


"In the PA28 series you cannot use ailerons normally without automatic rudder being applied. There is a linkage between the ailerons and the rudder that tends to keep the ball centred and a semblance of coordination."
 
Last edited:
From an instruction manual on flying the PA-28...


"In the PA28 series you cannot use ailerons normally without automatic rudder being applied. There is a linkage between the ailerons and the rudder that tends to keep the ball centred and a semblance of coordination."

Now I know why the pipers wander all over the sky in the cruise. :rofl:
 
From an instruction manual on flying the PA-28...


"In the PA28 series you cannot use ailerons normally without automatic rudder being applied. There is a linkage between the ailerons and the rudder that tends to keep the ball centred and a semblance of coordination."

Thanks for that. I suppose it's something that could be overridden with rudder pressure for a crosswind landing in a slip since anyone who's flown a Cherokee has probably done that once or twice.

I flew the Cherokee 140, 180, 300 and Arrow. Don't remember that 'feature' in them...but that was a looong time ago. My last Cherokee flight was probably in the late 1970s.
 
Al-- Your memory is better than mine on this. The quote from the PA-28 instruction manual I posted is wrong. Something was bothering me about my original statement. I know the PA-28 series has differential ailerons which pretty much eliminates the need for rudder in normal turns because they eliminate or greatly reduce adverse yaw.

But the interconnect thing didn't seem quite right. So last night I dug out my owner manuals for the PA-28 Cherokee C and the PA-28 Cherokee 180 F. Under controls they both say the same thing. Differential ailerons, yes, but no mention of a mechanical interlock between the ailerons and rudder.

Reading more brought me to the interlock description I had remembered incorrectly. There is a mechanical, spring-centered interlock between the rudder pedals, rudder, and nosewheel. Which means that when a rudder pedal is pushed the rudder moves one direction while the nose-wheel pivots in the opposite direction. In the air or on the ground.

Where this can be problematic is doing a cross-controlled cross-wind landing. If the nosewheel touches the ground while the controls are still crossed it will cause the plane to immediately and sometimes rather violently slew off toward the side of the runway because the nosewheel will not be aligned with the runway even though the plane is.

A co-worker in Hawaii who was also a pilot sheared the nose strut off a Cherokee 140 when he had been a student and had done a crosswind landing on a grass strip and had touched down hard on the down-wing main gear and the nosewheel at the same time.

A Cessna- at least the fixed gear models I flew- lets the nosewheel drop down a bit when the weight is off it at which point IIRC it disconnects from the nosewheel steering mechanism and aligns itself with the slipstream.

Which means in a cross-controlled crosswind landing the nosewheel is aligned with the direction of flight, not with the rudder position as with the Cherokee. So accidentally touching the nosewheel to the runway with the controls still crossed does not send the plane slewing off toward the side of the runway.

The Cessna's nosewheel steering is also spring-loaded so there is a degree of shock absorbing in the side-to-side rotation.

I stopped flying landplanes in 1980 when I got my seaplane rating and have never flown a landplane since except one time when I flew a Cessna Caravan from Cour d'Alene, Idaho to Boeing Field in Seattle. So I'm not totally sure I'm remembering Cessna's steering system correctly, but I do know the nosewheel aligned itself with the slipstream when there was no weight on it as opposed to the Cherokee's hard interlock between the rudder pedals and the nosewheel steering.
 
Last edited:
To the best of my recollection, the Cessna nose gears did not turn in flight. There was a shimmy dampener mounted to control the nose wheel shimmy at speed. Landed many a Cessna in 30-40 kt direct crosswinds and never had a problem when the nose wheel touched down unless the student relaxed the controls...but that had nothing to do with the nose wheel system.
 
Current picture of my hangar.

Nothing wrong with Cessna. In fact, out of all the planes that I have owned or operated, The C-150 has been the overall "best" airplane. Nice to fly, safe, easy to work on, not one ornery trait.

The Bonanza has fantastic build quality and has wonderful cruise performance/comfort. It does not slow down/maneuver well for scud running. A crash into the trees will be very,very painful. Maintenance is strait forward but there is more complexity than is needed (for my mission).

The Pitts has absolutely fantastic flying qualities but is useless for anything but sport/aerobatic flying. High fatal accident rate (spinning in).

The Float plane is a Fisher Super Koala. It was my first airplane. I built it from a kit (full size prints and a big box of spruce sticks). The Floats are my own design (Okume plywood). It will fly two (smallish) adults off glassy water. 46 horsepower. Endless wonderful memories with this plane. I will never sell it (knock on wood).

For 10 years, I owned a Piper Apache (light twin) that I had a deep love/hate relationship with. Loved flying it. Hated working on it.

Had a Cessna 172 for 5 years. Worked it flying charters day in and day out. Never let me down. Was a great money maker. For some reason, I did not grow to love that plane.

Steve

2014%2BJuly%2B027%2BP%2BShop.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom