My 1976 C-172 insurance costs me ~ $500 per year.
That is ground & flight, liability coverage of $1M and hull coverage value at $28k

Tim's costs considerably more because it is fabric covered and a taildragger.
And has a higher hull value.

Lots of good advice here. Good luck with your endeavor. You can get your ticket pretty fast if you stick with it and fly a lot.

Go check out Creve Coeur airport. Lots of eye candy there.

Another thing to consider regarding high wing vs. low wing is ground effects. It has been my experience that the low wing will give you some training in that regard.

... and then there are the cross-wind landings.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TCUHQ_-l6Qg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Fantastic... shows just how far the B-52 gear bogeys can rotate to acommodate a crosswind landing.

I was inspired by this thread to try it out yesterday. I am moving my office next month to a space a block from the local airpark and after signing the lease I wandered over to inquire. I think it was a Cessna 172R and it was a beautiful day for it. Although it was a lot of fun and very interesting I am less inclined to pursue this after trying it out.http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1320858705.jpg

Its not for everyone, so anyone interested needs to do as you did and give it a try before diving in.

On glidepath, slightly right of center.

Good on ya' for trying! That photo is giving me an itch...

If you don't mind, can you expand on why you are less inclined?

Learning to fly is on my bucket list, but I have a wife and three bucket kickers that keep the bucket empty for now... so am a few years off from getting started.

I live in the DC area so there are many days of iffy flying weather, also there is a lot of restricted airspace around here. It was fun but not as thrilling as I thought it was going to be. Knowing myself I would probably end up buying a plane to learn on (the flight school's planes were really beat up) and end up not getting the use out of it. The cost/benefit ratio did not add up for me. That said I think if I lived in the southwest I would seriously consider this.
I think I am more interested in pursuits such as hiking, running, cycling rather than tracking my car for example.

Well I just got back from vacation. I'm set up to start December 5. I'm am starting out 3 times a week, weather permitting. I'll be starting in a Cessna 172.

Thanks everyone for the help. Now I just need to figure out which airplane to buy. The Cherokees look nice, but can you put 4 people in one? Can you put four people in a Cessna 172?

Neither airplane is a real "four person and bags" airplane. Two adults, maybe a kid if small and bags would work but am guessing not with full fuel. To get to something that will hold full fuel and three people it would take a C-182 or Piper Cherokee 180.

For two people, full fuel and bags, the C-172 is usually going to work fine. No bags would work as well but still depends on how large the people are and how far you are going.

I was afraid of that. Any older planes that we could stuff 4 grown adults for say a 200 mile trip? And say a $35,000 budget?

Joeakso is right....
 

Your basic Cherokee or C172 are not real 4 people aircraft plus bags plus full gas aircraft. I remember from some 30 thirty years ago. Both are pretty doggy but felt that the 172 had better performance overall. If you consult an owners manual from either of these aircraft, you should be able to figure out how much weight you can take. A flying instructor can help u figure this out. Plus hot weather and high elevation can further reduce weight carrying capability. If you want more then a Cherokee 180, or Cessna 182 can carry more but of course a lot more money. Of course like buying a Porsche get some prof. help if you do buy. Beware of high time engines - engine rebuilds are expensive(just like a Porsche). When I learned to fly, I rented anything from a Cessna 150 to a C172, for twin ratings/IFR-Beech Baron, Twin Commanche. After u rent, you walk away. If you buy, then of course yearly maintenance, fix radios , instruments etc. These repairs do not come cheap. I favour renting but if you buy, costs can be substantial. Hangar rental or tiedowns = more $. I still like the C172-better view with a high wing whether u rent or own.
Good luck!Hope this helps.If in doubt ask.SmileWavy

I got my medical out of the way today. He said my blood pressure was a little high and I should watch it, but I'm good to go.

I also ordered the Jeppersen private pilot manual.

And I paid for 10 hours of plane and instruction time.

Now I just have to wait till December 5 to start, hopefully the weather will be good.

And I'm thinking that maybe I could go for the Piper 180. But I'm going to wait a while as many have advised.

Thanks again everyone.

Good luck!!

I just got back from my first flight, completely solo.... Start to finish. Just around the pattern at VNY. Only 5 take offs and landings, but it's a start!

I was nervous today! Not only did I not have a shoulder to lean on, but a nice 10 knot crosswind, that was as so a bit of a tail wind. Not sure why the tower did not turn the landings around..

Red right, returning.....

Rules of boating

Aviation and boating is the same, right?

1976 PIPER ARCHER II Piston Single Aircraft For Sale At Controller.com

Nice Archer would carry 4 people for 200 miles. This one has a useful load of 1000 pounds.

The argument of high-wing vs low-wing will go on an on. I have never flown a high-wing so I am biased toward the low-wing.

Sure you would get a better view of the ground with a high-wing, but that view is blocked by the wing when you turn base and final. The low-wing is more stall resistant and more stable on the ground because of the wider wheel base. the low-wing has a wider cabin and a bit more comfortable. But then this is just my observations.

I've "skimmed" the posts for the past minute, and from what I can say there is a question about the Piper Warrior versus the Cessna 172. I have 250 hours in the Cessna, and 1700 hours in the Piper; I learned to fly in the Cessna, and it has lower stall speeds, and it is spinnable, in the utility catagory. But the piper "feels" better, it is tighter, and feels like a solid piece when you maneuver it. I think it is WAY more "Porsche". The response of the controls is slightly faster, and the visibility in the pattern is better.

Stall characteristics: If you stall a C172, it buffets, and then drops. The PA-28 has less buffet...but then just develops a sink. It is difficult to get the obvious stall with the Piper, and you should not try a spin with one of these.

-In my opinion, after operating both for extended periods, I prefer the Piper. It feels tighter, the difference in the stall means nothing, and the visibility during left traffic patterns gives it the advantage.

-Why they didn't put doors on both sides of the plane I do not know!

N!

PS: I've heard from mechanics that Pipers have lower maintenance costs.

DC,

Please fly both of them. The Piper Cherokee is no where near the Porsche in feeling as some people say, it flies like a truck compared to the C-172.

Give them a try and see which one you like...

Joe A