Hi thanks!
It's not just me, but a consensus in the club among all of us under 6 foot that the later models - both of them, one with new seats- sit lower. I certainly feel that way.
Jim: You do have it right. Next time you sit in a 66 though consider it's not the rounded panel alone giving you all that visibility. I would like the light in the wing for longevity, and for the fact that it illuminates some of the plane which could be useful for whatever reason I may need to look at the airframe while flying (or see if I'm flying through clouds at night). I haven't had any issues with right visibility at night with the wing light. Round panels just don't appeal to me, and the majority of planes with round panels also have very old instruments. Or so says my trending.
I also agree with Reg on the round panel, and later panel, comments.
Also, I am keeping my eyes peeled for an IFR panel. So something standardized is nice.
None of this is the be-all end-all but man you guys always have great points! What I've listed is my criteria. I'm 5'8". And I am not buying my airplane to accomodate my tall, "portly" friends. I'll still maintain my club membership so I'll rent the 172 for the people who can't fit in my 150.
Really, the seat being lower (to me, among two 150m's) is the most important and would negate everything else on my list. I can guarantee you I'd be sitting on a cushion for the life of the plane if I got one of those. I can't stand flying it and will only do so if both of the G's are rented out. Sure, once I flew in it a bunch I'd get used to it. But if circuit breakers, different flap retractions, and a cowl light are the only compelling reasons for a newest 150...it's not enough of a reason for me.
As I said before, if I am going to part with more than $19.95 (plus s/h) I'm going to get what I want and I'll wait for it. And there are alot of 67-70 examples on barnstormers. BUT I am not closing my ears so please keep the comments coming it's why I'm doing this.
