172

I bet this aircraft model is listed in more pilot logbooks than any other. More learned to fly this model than any other (non military), thus its impact to GA is one that can’t be ignored.

Who doesn't love MU2 landing gear!!

That is a great picture, thanks for posting that.

TJ

Yes, indeed, found a great guy near by.

It isn't hard to work on actually. It's just built a lot different than the 40+ year old aluminum aircraft. It's more like modern automotive in how the interior comes apart. The composite structures require direct knowledge of materials and methods, but I've not had issues with structures, so no big deal.

A&P's working on Cirrus and high-end composite experimentals, especially Lancair, would find it familiar.

Actually the US Air Force used a version of the 172 as their primary screening trainer; I think its called a T-41. That said I bet the 150/152 has trained more pilots.

B-55P2. It will go about 135-140 kts on one engine.

I'm a big fan of the Columbia/TTX. In fact, I almost bought one 15 years ago before I bought my A36. Two factors led me to the A36. We travel with a large dog so loading it onto the wing and into the back seat was not ideal. More importantly, my wife is known to pack half the closet on longer trips.

Doesn't the TTX have a full fuel payload of less than 500 lbs? That seems tight for 3 people and bags.

You may have forgot the F105

Lancair ES, from which the TTX was borne. 170-175 ktas at 10.6 gph (faster at higher burns; faster if turboed), 1200+ nm range (Truckee to Cumberland, WI, 1298 nm, in one shot several times); load hauler; climbs like a scalded cat even with fixed gear; fly's beautifully, lands beautifully. 420 hours in 2 1/2 years. It's a bit lighter than the TTX, which also think flies beautifully. TTX went a little overkill with utility certification, or you'd be able to haul even more. Among certified fixed gear singles, I'll also cast my vote for the TTX. (Sure, I'm biased, but I like it better than the Cirrus, which tried to copy the flowing lines of the ES).

For retractable's, Lancair IVP. That'l raise hackles. People think it's dangerous. Strongly disagree It has higher wing loading than most single engine pilots are used to. If it's not flown the way it should be flown, it's dangerous just like every other plane in the sky flown differently than it should be. Fly it properly and it's beautiful.

Happy and safe flying,
Dan

One disadvantage of the high wing 182 in the hangar is that pilots who are not height challenged seem to accumulate those odd horizontal zipper marks on their foreheads from running into the trailing edges of the flaps and ailerons.

A worthless column. Not worth reading because we all have different needs and desires.

It’s a pity you feel that way. Whilst of course the question of what is best is entirely mission dependent, as I am sure every poster knows, the question was rhetorical. The original poster listed his criteria and answered the question by reference to that criteria. He then invited others to chip in with their thoughts. Those thoughts can clearly be based on different criteria.

If you bother to read the thread you will find that there is lots of interesting information. Reading this thread was not time wasted.

Yet you took the time to not only read at least some of it, but waste your time to comment!

And will probably out climb a 172 while doing that!

Again,

NA 550 fixed gear 182.

For that mission, depending on how big the three people are, the Mooney Acclaim would be somewhat faster. My FIKI plane has just under 900# of UL, climbs to the high teens at 12-1500 FPM (310 HP STC), and is very comfortable for us.

It would not be enough faster for me to switch from one to the other.
That distance is probably pushing 4 hours on average, which is a lot to inflict on non-pilot passengers.

A Vitatoe P210 or Malibu would not be faster, but either would be a significant increase in comfort.

-dan