Another airplane question

[dar636]

I only have an opinion (of course) - the 172 is the best all around aircraft of the bunch, generally does everything asked of it within reason and when you need a part you can pick up the phone and order it.

All of the mentioned aircraft are pretty simple but none are still in production. I have owned five aircraft so far, two have been Cessna's including the one I have now. Check out the Cessna Pilots Association for general support similar to this forum. Cessna Pilots Association

Glad to help if you have questions, GA needs new blood. Good for you.

Pilot, A&P, IA, DART, DARF, Bermuda DAI.

[dmcummins]

Thanks everyone, primarily the plane will only be hauling my wife and I. But we want the ability to take friends on some short trips, and the son and his wife to the relatives 200 miles away for the day. The 500 mile trips would just be the wife and I on vacation. And since I can be at the airport in 5 min. there would be quite a lot of just me buzzing around. I do think that I will want to continue and get my IFR training, but that's still down the road.

[MauleM5-235]

Consider looking into the nosegear versions of a Maule. Although they have the reputations for having fit and finish that is a little on the rough side, they are extremely sturdy, you get a lot of airplane for the $ and they fly well. The parts cost is much less than w/ a Cessna or Piper. An added bonus is you can actually call the factory and talk to people there.

Get one w/ the Lycoming O-540 and you will be amazed at the climb rate/angle. We sold our Maule M5-235 several years ago and I regret it everyday.

[304065]

Originally Posted by dmcummins

Thanks everyone, primarily the plane will only be hauling my wife and I. But we want the ability to take friends on some short trips, and the son and his wife to the relatives 200 miles away for the day. The 500 mile trips would just be the wife and I on vacation. And since I can be at the airport in 5 min. there would be quite a lot of just me buzzing around. I do think that I will want to continue and get my IFR training, but that's still down the road.

The trouble with Aviation is that 200 miles, at the 80 knot groundspeed of a 172 (I'm assuming some winds aloft), followed by a ground stop and a return, is enough time for weather to move in.

The vast majority of Aviation-related deaths are caused by VFR into IMC. I think Embry Riddle did a study that showed that the average duration before loss of control following inadvertent penetration of IMC (in the simulator) by VFR private pilots was like 90 seconds.

So what I'm saying is, the practicality of a VFR-only airplane for the mission you describe may limit you to high pressure days with a long and predictable weather window, with frequent weather checks to verify that you're still OK. EVERY pilot has had an episode where the ceiling was falling and he or she pressed on- and only the lucky ones are the ones who survived to tell about it.

On the other hand, getting your IFR ticket is a great idea that will slightly expand the mission capability of the airplane. I say slightly, because the ability to penetrate IMC and not die from an upset then introduces a whole myriad of new threats: icing, systems reliability and redundancy, convective turbulence, etc. The means of buying yourself time to get out of these situations requires very, very expensive capital equipment, and even the Ancient Pelicans here (you guys know who you are!) will concede that they give thunderstorms a very wide berth indeed. An IFR rating should increase your safety margin, even for VFR flying, and will dramatically expand knowledge and awareness of the weather, air traffic control procedures, precise navigation and situational awareness.

Sorry for the lecture but I'm basically sharing my own conclusions that led me to buy a Citabria for fun and fly commercial when I had to get somewhere. Hope this is food for your own thoughts on the subject.

[944Larry]

Cessna 172, without a doubt. Are there other planes I like better, hell yeah. The Grummans mentioned above really turn my crank. But for the most bang for the buck, easy to work on and maintain, parts are everywhere, every A&P knows them inside out, will haul whatever you put in them and are easy to fly and stable, you get the point, 172!!!!! If you want to spend a little more, look at a 182. Get an IFR certified plane and work on that instrument ticket as you go along. You won't regret it.

[dmcummins]

Thanks again guys, I am planning at this time to go ahead and do the IFR training after my PPL. My instructor say's it shouldn't take to long for me to get my PPL at the rate I'm going. I am set up for 3 days a week. So far we have not had the weather to do 3 day's, and I'm taking 2 weeks off in January, but I'm working on it.

I'm thinking that I'll just stick with the plane I'm renting now, 172, till I get my PPL. Then hopefully really start the search for a plane of my own. Then do the IFR training in it. Unless of coarse a deal that I just cant pass up presents itself.

Hopefully by then I'll have a better idea on what my mission will be with a plane. If its just going for a joyride on a pretty day I kind of like the old piper pacers, ect. The wife likes the idea of getting somewhere fast and likes the Mooneys, ect.

[MauleM5-235]

The 172 is a great trainer, but can be surprisingly limited in terms of range, payload, speed and rate of climb as a personal plane. The 182 solves all those problems. Most people who have just gotten their PPL will not "outgrow" a 182s capabilities for many years, if ever.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

An instrument rating will certainly help your skills and confidence as well as mitigate the possibility of an incident due to continued VFR flight into IMC but it will NOT substitute for sound judgement.

IMHO the most dangerous pilot out there is one with the ink still wet on his/her instrument temp certificate, their own airplane and a plane load of family members, coworkers or friends with "get-home-itis".

Once you're in the soup it's a lot easier to end up in bad stuff (turbulence, convection, icing, etc). Make sure that your instrument training spends just as much time (more!) on meteorology and aeronautical decision-making as on practice approaches and mechanics.

Being IFR rated can certainly keep you out of some trouble, but it can land you in much worse trouble if you're not careful.

Fly safely!

[Tim Hancock]

I never got my instrument rating for two reasons.

One is that the type of airplanes I have been able to afford are not well suited for flying IFR. Yeah, legally one can do it, but hand flying small light aircraft for extended periods in actual IFR is not pleasant even for experienced high time commercial pilots.

The second reason is that knowing myself, I would likely end up flying in weather that I should not be flying in. Commercial pilots keep themselves current by flying in real IFR conditions quite often. The average private pilot is likely not going to get much weekly/monthly real IFR experience and a year or two down the road will be very rusty when faced with making an actual IFR flight to get home.

Now "if" I had enough dough to buy and operate a nice twin with auto pilot, radar, ice boots, etc..... I would definitely obtain an instrument rating and likely use it often.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by MauleM5-235

The 172 is a great trainer, but can be surprisingly limited in terms of range, payload, speed and rate of climb as a personal plane. The 182 solves all those problems. Most people who have just gotten their PPL will not "outgrow" a 182s capabilities for many years, if ever.

Totally agree and would have gotten a C-182 except for one thing... fuel burn. Love the airplane and what it will do but it burns another 5 or so gallons per hour over a C-172 or my favourite, the Cardinal C-177. The C-182 is the pickup truck with wings on it, and carries just about anything you can get in the cockpit.

If its 2-3 people on trips 3-400 miles long, might look at a Cardinal. Fast, roomy, fuel burn is good and sexy looking. Only issue I can see with them is that they went out of production years ago. They have really large doors that allow you to get in and out easily. Its really a C-210 downsized a bit and cheaper to operate.

Joe A

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by rattlsnak

this is from aerocontroller:
WHICH AIRPLANE IS RIGHT FOR YOU?
One of the toughest decisions will be to honestly explore what your airplane will be used for. Many of us do a lot more $100 hamburger runs than serious “business” travel. Do you have a vacation home or other frequent destination? Who and what do you normally take with you on a trip? How important is speed? Do you need to fly in weather? Your logbook is a great place to start. Once you have a good grasp on the mission, it will be easier to choose the right airplane.


Unless you are extremely fortunate, price will be a factor. While the purchase price may seem to be a large number, other costs can end up being more important. That’s why knowing your total cost of ownership is so important. For example, older light twins can often be purchased for less than a newer single, but the higher cost of training, insurance, fuel and maintenance can quickly eat up any savings in purchase price.

You should also have a serious discussion about your skills and experience with your instructor before purchasing any airplane. You should also talk with an insurer early on to see what requirements or additional training they have before writing you a policy. The most important aspect of safety is the pilot, but the planes do make a difference. Ease of use, dependability, safety features and crash worthiness vary from model to model. You should consider the safety features and records of the models you are comparing.

Desirability is a final consideration. Owning an airplane is often the fulfillment of a dream. You want to buy an airplane that you are proud to own. Don't get so caught up in all the numbers that you buy a plane that lacks appeal. Remember, the most expensive airplane is one that sits in the hangar unused.

All great advice, methinks. Jimbo, my buddy in the RV7a pictured, USES his. Retired USAF (F-111) and American (737's mostly) pilot, he has homes in both Reno and Yuma. He commutes between the two, sort of an airborne snowbird.

[MauleM5-235]

"Totally agree and would have gotten a C-182 except for one thing... fuel burn. Love the airplane and what it will do but it burns another 5 or so gallons per hour over a C-172 or my favourite, the Cardinal C-177. "

If you pull the throttle back on a 182 so that you fly at 172 speeds you will be surprised at how low the fuel burn falls. When I would fly in our O-540 equipped Maule and go places w/ a friend in his 172, I had to pull the power back to about 15 inches of manifold to stay w/ him. Fuel burn per hour would then be in the 8 - 10 gal/hr range.

It also gets interesting when you compare fuel burn per hour to speed to get a miles per gallon figure. The larger engine in a 182 will burn more fuel at the same speed than the engine in a 172. OTOH, there are times when the climb rate or speed of a larger engine are invaluable. I will avoid flying a 172 into our airpark because it simply does not have enough power to comfortably clear the obstacles in all conditions.