"psyshrike" wrote in message
om...
Howdy,

My Requirements:
3 Humans, 4 hours, VFR, ~ 100 knots.

Put these in order of preference:

Piper Tri Pacer:
Pros: Low acquisition Cost, Tri gear
Cons: Often neglected. Ground Handling, old panel, parts support.

Stinson 108-x:
Pros: Most beautifull of the bunch, good performance.
Cons: Conventional gear, old panel, parts support.

Cessna 175 GO-300
Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna.
Cons: Short engine lifespan, parts support, old panel.

Square Tailed Cessna 172 (as in 58-59 models)
Pros: Aluminum, tri-gear, it's a Cessna
Cons: Probably more AD's than a 737, old panel


Am I ever in love with the 172! I have worked on several of them and been
in on the restoration of two, both of which I fly regularly. These are
just wonderful airplanes and great for flying locally or cross-country.
No, not that many AD's, and I love those old O-300 engines and the 150-horse
Lycoming. The nose-gear struts are miracles of engineering, and I always
look forward to rebuilding one--- at least six O-rings in that sucker. As a
matter of fact there's not one system on a 172 that's not fun and easy to
work on, except having to change out the O-rings in the fuel valve. Where
in the hell is the weak spot on a 172? There just isn't a weak spot.
Take care of one, treat it against corrosion, keep it hangared if you can,
know how to pamper it and keep your engine happy, and it will last you 20
years, guaranteed.

There is nothing wrong with your other choices. I respect them too, but
they can't hold a candle to a 172.

You're going to love how it flies too, and how versatile it is in short
fields and out in the bush. Don't get me started. I'm just about to jump
up and shout.