172 or Citabria? - Page 2

Tim Hancock · 07-08-2007, 06:47 PM

Richard, a Cherokee or a Cessna 172 will end up being boring if you fly a lot in your first few years, but if you only fly maybe 25 hours a year, they will be fine for a few years as a new pilot. If you make the mistake of attending Oshkosh however, I am afraid you will find yourself looking at various other types.

Lycoming 150 hp (O-320) engines can get the auto gas STC, Lycoming 160 hp (same basic engine as the 150 hp but with higher compression ratio) and Lycoming 180 or 200 hp (O-360) engines cannot run auto gas due to the the higher compression ratios. Older 172s often have the Continental 145 hp six cylinders whereas some of the slightly newer ones use the Lycoming. I am pretty sure most of the lower compression Continentals can also use the auto fuel STC.

As Joe stated, engine TBO times are just guidelines. An engine that has been run often, typically has a better chance of getting close to TBO time whereas an engine that took 25 years to reach TBO, may not have as good of a chance. My advice would be to buy an airplane with 1000 hours or less since the last engine overhaul. If you have to overhaul the engine while you own it, you will NEVER get the money back out of it.
It has to be done by a liscensed mechanic or overhaul facility and it will end up costing you in the neighborhood of $15,000+ by the time you are done. A $40,000 172 will not be worth $55,000+ a few years later even with a feshly overhauled engine.

A pre purchase inspection by a GOOD mechanic is pretty important unless resale value is not important to you.

Good luck. PM me if you want to discuss further by phone.

bigchillcar · bigchillcar's Garage

since richard mentioned hangar space isn't an option, sounds like metal is what he'll need. i still very much enjoy toolin' around in a good 'ol reliable c-150 or c-172 - not boring, guys!

(taildragger snobs)

tim gives good, accurate advice. i've owned a few airplanes and after the first, i wound up rolling the dice with higher timed airframes and engines to save pennies and fortunately, didn't get burned. definitely call a guy like tim when you think you've found some aircraft options. he may spot red flags by phone or in reading an online ad that could quickly steer you clear of someone else's problems..

Tim Hancock · 07-09-2007, 05:38 AM

No snob here Ryan

After learning in mainly a C150, my first plane purchase was a Grumman Yankee.....under powered on takeoff on hot days with
two aboard from a 2000' grass strip, but fun as hell in the air. Probably as responsive of an airplane as you can get in basic small cheap airplanes.

Sluggish controls scale as I view it:

Cessna 172 = schoolbus
presently owned Piper Pacer = station wagon
Grumman Yankee = 924

There are modified Grumman Yankees out there with 150-180 hp Lycomings out there that other than the reduced range, would qualify as a 911 on my sluggish airplane scale above.

Only problem with Grumman Yankees are that they are a bit less tolerant of sloppy airmanship and often require a bit more skill/concentration when taking off and landing.

I have friends with 172s that I do annual inspections on and I fly them occasionally. Not bad airplanes, just not all that fun compared to some other choices out there once the initial thrill of flying/owning your own airplane wears off.

Doesn't Richard own a Ferrari? Of the guys that I know who fly that could afford a Ferrari, none of them own 172s.

bigchillcar · bigchillcar's Garage

lol..no doubt the skyhawk is one docile bird. whenever i'm required to teach spin entry/recovery techniques to new cfi students, i have to carry at least 2,000 rpm's of power or put a case or two of oil in the baggage compartment..then of course if you don't apply anti-spin controls, they simply quit rotating after a couple of turns, you recover from the dive after full forward elevator to break stall.

what about this grumman yankee? i'm not familiar..only seen the tiger and cheetah. does it have a fast roll rate? large ailerons? something unique about the wng? the control surfaces? on take-off, does it exhibit a greater left-turning tendency, needing more right rudder or just a pig for available climb rate with a magnetic affinity for trees?

Tim Hancock · 07-09-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bigchillcar

what about this grumman yankee? i'm not familiar..only seen the tiger and cheetah. does it have a fast roll rate? large ailerons? something unique about the wng? the control surfaces? on take-off, does it exhibit a greater left-turning tendency, needing more right rudder or just a pig for available climb rate with a magnetic affinity for trees?

Same wing as a Cheetah and Tiger except each panel is made of two sections instead of three.....short wing, VERY light controls, pretty fast roll rate. They were intially designed by Jim Bede and made by both American Aviation and Grumman. The Cheetah and Tiger were scaled up versions. Originally they were marketed as trainers, but the higher landing speeds and minimal float on landing coupled with very light Yoke pressures resulted in many damaged airplanes. They tend to porpoise/bounced severely when mashed in and the nose gear often would give up the ghost. The early ones, AA1 series (late 60's), had a hotter airfoil, but the later ones (AA1B and AA1C early to mid 70's) had a tamer airfoil. None of them are approved for spins because if allowed to develop, they often would spin in. The AA1 and AA1B's came with a 108 hp Lycoming O-235 and the later C models had a higher compression 235 with 125 hp. They require a bit longer takeoff distance than the average Cessna as the short wing/low hp engine requires higher airspeed to get the job done.

People still seek them out for training "Cessna drivers" prior to transitioning to "hot" experimental aircraft such as Lancairs and Glassairs. I wish I still had mine, but I needed a four seater with a family, so I sold it.

A few years back, you could find them all day long in the 20-30K range. I haven't looked at prices of them recently.

bigchillcar · bigchillcar's Garage

ahh... i see. short wings, light control pressures..higher landing speeds, porpoising, nose gear collapses. bet it is fun in more experienced hands.

304065 · 02:35 PM

I owned a Citabria for about four years. Best fun I've ever had in an airplane. PM me if you have specific questions.

It's not really underpowered for what you want to do, which is do a couple of basic inside manuevers and then climb back up to a minimum altitude of about 5000 AG. Even with a climb prop, it will take a while. Which is WHAT YOU WANT, it's easier on the upholstery.

I had 150 HP version which had an alarming climb rate, especially in the wintertime. Like 1200 FPM off the deck with a serious body angle. Loved it. The O-200 version was fine too.

Don't believe the doomsayers who say tailwheel is hard to fly. Like Joe says, it makes you a better pilot. After about a decade of flying Wichita Flak with a nosewheel, I finally learned what directional control was all about. Tailwheel aircraft, whatever type, are unforgiving of sloppiness, that's for sure.

rouxroux · 07-09-2007, 02:55 PM

Back when I was in college, an FBO @ SHV downtown had a couple of Grummans with camo paint jobs and dark tint. They were a hoot to rent!

Another fun alternative would to be to find a used 150/152 Aerobat. Much easier to see out of with the clear overhead panels!

Tim Hancock · 07-09-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rouxroux
Back when I was in college, an FBO @ SHV downtown had a couple of Grummans with camo paint jobs and dark tint. They were a hoot to rent!

Another fun alternative would to be to find a used 150/152 Aerobat. Much easier to see out of with the clear overhead panels!

Before I got my own strip, I used to hangar at a local grass strip where 3 of the 6 planes hangared there were Grumman AA1's. One was done in military motif. Mine was red with white stripes. We had a blast flying into fly-in events in a formation of three!

rouxroux · 07-09-2007, 07:02 PM

Tim, I bet that was a blast flying around with 3! If I remember correctly (been 30 years) there was a spin issue with the AA1. Was a cute little rig, the camo paint on these even had the black & white "D-Day stripes" and I think back then it was $25/hour WET!!!

Wickd89 · 07-09-2007, 07:40 PM

Hi Richard,
Looks like you have some open skis out here in God's country. You might want to PM Scott. He might have some fellow pilots that might know of some good deals.

By the way, I will be in Switzerland from Aug 8 to Sept 5th ( including little outings to London, Milan, Strassbourg, etc). If you guys are in the area, please let me know. It would be nice to hook up...

Later, Luis

Joeaksa · 09-04-2007, 09:52 AM

Richard,

Did you ever do anything on the airplane?

Joe

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

i wish you guys would leave these threads die...next I'll have to give up the track for the skies

Dantilla · 09-04-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rouxroux

Another fun alternative would to be to find a used 150/152 Aerobat.

I've got a little time in a 150A. Pretty sorry excuse for an aerobat compared to other airplanes available.

Still, it sure beats not flying! A joy to spin, and it does simple aileron rolls okay, but with little power, a draggy airframe, and more weight than a standard 150, don't expect much vertical performance. It ain't there.

Dantilla · 09-04-2007, 11:36 AM

Nostatic, if you were close to me, I'd be happy to take you up in my airplane.

It's kinda like the heroin dealer giving out freebies to get people hooked.

304065 · 09-04-2007, 11:58 AM

I have about two hours in a 150 Aerobat, the little engine (not the 150/150). It's the only airplane I've ever snaprolled. The good thing is it can be flown with the left hand while the right hand holds a ziploc bag. One-gallon size ziploc bags conveniently fit in the royalite plastic at the top of the a-pillar.

The thing is, you know it's got a thicker spar and is beefed up in MANY spots to handle the load. I can imagine Cessna deciding it was too similar to the regular 150 back in their products-liability days.

Todd: imagine the Porsche thing on overdrive. The only, and I mean the ONLY, cost-containment aspect of aviation is the fact that with certain VERY limited exceptions you cannot touch a nut or bolt on the airplane without a license. The fact that endless modifications are impossible SHOULD serve as a cost containment feature, except that the cost of OEM parts is 3x greater than Porsche parts so it ends up costing you more to have a mechanic maintain the airplane.

That said, it's more fun than cars. Period.

Joeaksa · 09-04-2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nostatic

i wish you guys would leave these threads die...next I'll have to give up the track for the skies

Not sure you could handle it. Yes that is a dare!

And yes you would like it!

Has every one heard that Steve Fossett, the adventurer has been reported missing in Nevada? He took off in a Citabria around 0800 yesterday morning and did not make it back.

Hope he is just down on some back road or pasture... A Citab is a tough airplane and hope it got him down safe.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

Not sure you could handle it. Yes that is a dare!

And yes you would like it!

I flew in my friend's 152 from Gillespie to Catalina and back. I did most of the flying coming back including setting up the approach into Gillespie but it was a hot summer day and the thing was all over the place.

I know I would like it. That's probably why I haven't done it yet. Looks like $10K to get licensed using a school here at SMO. Plus my boss is a pilot...would be bonding. Great...something else to spend my house downpayment money on

tabs · 09-04-2007, 12:28 PM

After reading through this thread and all the pros and cons of this aeroplane and that...Why doesn't Motion just fly the ones he is interested in to see which one he likes best!

Tim Hancock · 09-04-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nostatic

I know I would like it. That's probably why I haven't done it yet. Looks like $10K to get licensed using a school here at SMO. Plus my boss is a pilot...would be bonding. Great...something else to spend my house downpayment money on

I got my private in '93 for $2500 over a few month period. The key is to find a small airport with a young instructor who is working there strictly to build commercial time in a ratty old 150 or something or an old geezer who is giving lessons on the side just for fun. Taking lessons at an organized "flight school" flying brand new 172's is just like lighting money on fire.

Doing it in under six months, IMO, is the key to doing it in the fewest hours possible.

I got mine in around 45 hrs (the exact time is slipping my mind), the national average is probably up around 65 or so hours. Back then an old 150 was about $40 hr and the instructor was $20. I never paid for an official ground school as we kind of covered that prior to and after flights.

I would imagine a 150 could still be rented at $50-$60/hr and you might find an instructor in the $30/hr range if you do a bit of searching. OTOH, a newer 172 might be $100+/hr. For just your private rating, a 150 is just as good as a new 172 for learning to fly in.