[simpits-tech] This is too cool...

[Matt Bailey]

On Sunday 21 March 2004 07:05 am, Bubba wrote:
> Matt Bailey wrote:
> > Awesome. :) I'd shoot for something a little less boring though, like
> > a
> > Tiger or similar low wing sport plane. :)
>
> Part of me (the part that thinks I NEED a motorcycle with 180 horsepower)
> says 4 place Grumman, or maybe a T6. The sane part says "self, you have a
> wife and 2 kids, get a 172, 182, 210..."

	Hey, the Grummans are tricycle, faster than 172's by a little, and the 
Tigers (and possibly other models have bigger engines than 172's, so better 
all-around performance, but still sip under 10 GPH normally in cruise! Come 
on dude, it's a nearly ideal combination of performance, fun, and 
practicality. :) In fact as I understand it, the newer 172's are so limited 
on payload that you'd probably find you have better load carrying capability 
in a Grumman.
	I will warn you though, if you test fly one, you'll never want to go back to 
a 172. :) Tigers feel light and responsive, and after flying one, 172's just 
seem so cumbersome and difficult to manuever. Aside from the noticeably 
lighter and snappier handling, it also has *excellent* visibility.....the 
huge windshield and sliding canopy help (unfortunately it's not a true bubble 
canopy, there is still plenty of solid ceiling above you), plus the panel is 
down low, not slammed up in front of your face like in 172's. Also I find the 
lever style engine controls (which are in at least some models) a lot nicer 
to use than Cessna's slider type, especially if you need to be doing 
relatively quick and large changes in throttle settings (like for stalls and 
other manuevers). I just wish they made a version of the Tiger that was tail 
dragger and had sticks instead of yokes. Actually I guess I just want an 
RV-3. :)
	Question: planning on doing much IFR?

	-Matt Bailey