Choosing The Right Cessna 172
06-03-2009, 10:51 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by SkyHigh
I would pick one with original paint. Even if it looks bad. New paint can hide a lot of stuff. If you were to buy a plane with old and faded paint it tells you two things. First it has not been in an accident. And second, whoever owned it put more priority on the engine and radio stack.
A lot of stuff can happen to a plane that does not make it into the logbooks. New paint can be a sign of hidden sins. Even if there is no hidden damage some people care more about how a plane looks rather then its mechanical soundness. You can't fake faded origional paint. To me it is a good sign. Also you can use it to negotiate a lower price due to the condition of the old paint.
My plane has old paint and I love it.
Do a pre-buy and have a professional title search (insurance) done. It can be difficult to find airplane liens. You don't want a bank to pop out of the blue demanding money.
Oh yea, I would like to make a plug for the Cessna 150/152. They really are a great plane that can do almost everything that a 172 can do at a third the price. Most of the time pilots fly alone or with one other person anyway.
Fuel is not cheap. It is easy to get into a big plane right now that would break the bank every time you want to do touch and goes. Parts are easy to find. Insurance is way cheaper. You can get an autogas STC.
Why not start out with a 150 and move up later? Cheap, safe, fun, guilt free flying.
Skyhigh
A lot of stuff can happen to a plane that does not make it into the logbooks. New paint can be a sign of hidden sins. Even if there is no hidden damage some people care more about how a plane looks rather then its mechanical soundness. You can't fake faded origional paint. To me it is a good sign. Also you can use it to negotiate a lower price due to the condition of the old paint.
My plane has old paint and I love it.
Do a pre-buy and have a professional title search (insurance) done. It can be difficult to find airplane liens. You don't want a bank to pop out of the blue demanding money.
Oh yea, I would like to make a plug for the Cessna 150/152. They really are a great plane that can do almost everything that a 172 can do at a third the price. Most of the time pilots fly alone or with one other person anyway.
Fuel is not cheap. It is easy to get into a big plane right now that would break the bank every time you want to do touch and goes. Parts are easy to find. Insurance is way cheaper. You can get an autogas STC.
Why not start out with a 150 and move up later? Cheap, safe, fun, guilt free flying.
Skyhigh
, nothing wrong with the 150/152 but a tailwheel airplane will make you a better pilot.
06-03-2009, 03:51 PM
#12
Self Employed.
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
Better how?
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
Or you could man up and buy a Cessna 140 for less, nothing wrong with the 150/152 but a tailwheel airplane will make you a better pilot.
, nothing wrong with the 150/152 but a tailwheel airplane will make you a better pilot.I would rather enjoy the comfort, low cost and sturdy utility of a 150/152 myself. One of the biggest reasons I sold the taylorcraft was that the insurance has been creeping up over the years. My 150 costs less than half to insure, maintain and enjoy.
Skyhigh
06-03-2009, 04:15 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by SkyHigh
I owned a taylorcraft for 13 years. I can not say that there is any benefit to learning to fly a tail wheel in the modern world. However owning an old and rare plane will make you better at scrounging for parts and patching up old stuff.
I would rather enjoy the comfort, low cost and sturdy utility of a 150/152 myself. One of the biggest reasons I sold the taylorcraft was that the insurance has been creeping up over the years. My 150 costs less than half to insure, maintain and enjoy.
Skyhigh
I would rather enjoy the comfort, low cost and sturdy utility of a 150/152 myself. One of the biggest reasons I sold the taylorcraft was that the insurance has been creeping up over the years. My 150 costs less than half to insure, maintain and enjoy.
Skyhigh
06-03-2009, 04:15 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: KC-135T
Posts: 274
Tailwheel and you
I own a RV-8(read not nose dragger) and my crosswind proficiency in even the tanker has gone up exponentially. Now maybe I was a crappy x-wind guy before, but it definitely made a man out of me. Oh, and the flying the -8 is often compared to flying a fighter, I mean it does handle like the T-6 Texan II (which I did fly) which is said to handle like the P-51 (I wouldn't really know). So by my strange deductive reasoning the -8 handles like a P-51.
If you are mechanically inclined I wouldn't pass over the experimental world. Much better technology and you can work on it yourself, even if you didn't build it.
Here is who that 172 got repo-ed from
N-Number Results
If you are mechanically inclined I wouldn't pass over the experimental world. Much better technology and you can work on it yourself, even if you didn't build it.
Here is who that 172 got repo-ed from
N-Number Results
06-06-2009, 10:17 PM
#15
New Hire
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by Ewfflyer
Wow, there's a 1978 172N with 415 TTAF in there, that's impressive, and also sad. I'd be worried that because it hadn't been used enough you might have issues in that department!
I'm partial to the 172N because I taught in them for over a year and a half. I really enjoyed having the 40-degree flaps(which in normal circumstances aren't really needed). I had a lot of fun in those planes, and there are plenty of junkers and plenty of nice ones also. There's a guy on the same field that had one with the Pen-Yan Aero 180hp upgrade, Power-Flow exhaust, had the 50gal instead of 40 gal, and that thing would move! Definately was a gem of an airplane.
The only true way to find which ones are good or bad is to actually just go out and see them. Make some connections with a mechanic that when you do decide you are going to get one, have that mechanic do a Pre-Buy. ABSOLUTELY make sure you do a Pre-Buy inspection, and a title-lein search on the aircraft. I can't stress that enough. It's something we do every time we buy/sell/broker an aircraft through my company.
I'm partial to the 172N because I taught in them for over a year and a half. I really enjoyed having the 40-degree flaps(which in normal circumstances aren't really needed). I had a lot of fun in those planes, and there are plenty of junkers and plenty of nice ones also. There's a guy on the same field that had one with the Pen-Yan Aero 180hp upgrade, Power-Flow exhaust, had the 50gal instead of 40 gal, and that thing would move! Definately was a gem of an airplane.
The only true way to find which ones are good or bad is to actually just go out and see them. Make some connections with a mechanic that when you do decide you are going to get one, have that mechanic do a Pre-Buy. ABSOLUTELY make sure you do a Pre-Buy inspection, and a title-lein search on the aircraft. I can't stress that enough. It's something we do every time we buy/sell/broker an aircraft through my company.
06-07-2009, 04:15 AM
#16
Permanent Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,677
I used to own a mid 1960's C-172, and was very happy with it, although it was no speedster (Continental 6 cylinder engine, 145hp.)
A few lessons learned as a former owner:
Join the Cessna owner's club - great resource
The Aviation Consumer's Guide is worth subscribing to.
Get a recommendation for a good mechanic and make friends.
When you are ready to make an offer, your pre-buy inspection should be a FULL ANNUAL.
Do a title search.
Whatever you think your costs will be, add 30%.
Be cautious of planes that spent lots of time in high humidity (corrosive) environments. This can cause major problems with both airframe and electronics.
Be aware of insurance issues - higher premiums, limits on liability, etc.
Do not skimp on Maintenance. If you are not willing/able to pay for the (surprise) $5000 annual, don't buy a plane.
Avoid a plane with an engine with less than about 200 hours. Most problems after an overhaul occur within this period.
Good luck and have fun. I had a great experience as a Cessna owner, but it is not for the feint of heart (or wallet)
A few lessons learned as a former owner:
Join the Cessna owner's club - great resource
The Aviation Consumer's Guide is worth subscribing to.
Get a recommendation for a good mechanic and make friends.
When you are ready to make an offer, your pre-buy inspection should be a FULL ANNUAL.
Do a title search.
Whatever you think your costs will be, add 30%.
Be cautious of planes that spent lots of time in high humidity (corrosive) environments. This can cause major problems with both airframe and electronics.
Be aware of insurance issues - higher premiums, limits on liability, etc.
Do not skimp on Maintenance. If you are not willing/able to pay for the (surprise) $5000 annual, don't buy a plane.
Avoid a plane with an engine with less than about 200 hours. Most problems after an overhaul occur within this period.
Good luck and have fun. I had a great experience as a Cessna owner, but it is not for the feint of heart (or wallet)
06-07-2009, 11:59 AM
#17
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Nice post, Navigatro.
Sky, you are showing your age on how flight instructors regard tailwheel airplanes. I believe you are active primary instructor now again, you should be held to a higher standard.
It's completely accurate to say tailwheel trainers and piston singles are harder to handle on the ground because they indeed are. It's also fair game to say older piston singles, and probably all older aircraft, are a pain to fly in any of a number of ways because technology has marched on to make them safer and easier to fly over the years.
But you are remiss on a critical issue, SkyHigh, which is that tailwheel airplanes make for excellent trainers when used with lowtime pilots. There is no good substitute for a Cub, Champ, Decathlon, Citabria, or Taylorcraft when it comes to stick-and-rudder feel for small airplanes.
Case in point, an example from my actual daily life. I and several other flight instructors found ourselves in the back of a C206H landing near Denver on Friday past. To be fair about logable times, we had a lowtime pilot flying the last leg of the 400 mile trip. He had maybe 500 hours. But the guy nearly ran off the runway when he landed the airplane. This, on a 150 feet wide runway in mild crosswinds. I nor any of the other guys in the airplane had any doubt why this was the case. He had never flown a tailwheel airplane nor received a tailwheel endorsement. He not only showed poor technique on his landing it was wrong technique, and the only way you can do such an incompetent thing is you have never been trained to land a tailwheel airplane.
I think you are a check instructor for an outfit in rural Washington. Do us a favor and ask to do the checkflights or stagechecks on some primary students at the school. And insist they do their checks on windy days. Be ready to take the controls... and get back to us on why tailwheels are useful in flight instruction.
Sky, you are showing your age on how flight instructors regard tailwheel airplanes. I believe you are active primary instructor now again, you should be held to a higher standard.
It's completely accurate to say tailwheel trainers and piston singles are harder to handle on the ground because they indeed are. It's also fair game to say older piston singles, and probably all older aircraft, are a pain to fly in any of a number of ways because technology has marched on to make them safer and easier to fly over the years.
But you are remiss on a critical issue, SkyHigh, which is that tailwheel airplanes make for excellent trainers when used with lowtime pilots. There is no good substitute for a Cub, Champ, Decathlon, Citabria, or Taylorcraft when it comes to stick-and-rudder feel for small airplanes.
Case in point, an example from my actual daily life. I and several other flight instructors found ourselves in the back of a C206H landing near Denver on Friday past. To be fair about logable times, we had a lowtime pilot flying the last leg of the 400 mile trip. He had maybe 500 hours. But the guy nearly ran off the runway when he landed the airplane. This, on a 150 feet wide runway in mild crosswinds. I nor any of the other guys in the airplane had any doubt why this was the case. He had never flown a tailwheel airplane nor received a tailwheel endorsement. He not only showed poor technique on his landing it was wrong technique, and the only way you can do such an incompetent thing is you have never been trained to land a tailwheel airplane.
I think you are a check instructor for an outfit in rural Washington. Do us a favor and ask to do the checkflights or stagechecks on some primary students at the school. And insist they do their checks on windy days. Be ready to take the controls... and get back to us on why tailwheels are useful in flight instruction.
06-07-2009, 12:25 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Lying Groaning in the Wreckage
Posts: 130
Stay w/ 172!
Stick with the 172, Vagabond. It has the lowest fatality rate per hour flown
than anyone else - an average of 5 million hours occur between any 172
fatalities due to mechanical failure. Not miles- hours. I landed mine in 250 feet
once, and it would take all you could stuff in it. A wonderful airplane.
than anyone else - an average of 5 million hours occur between any 172
fatalities due to mechanical failure. Not miles- hours. I landed mine in 250 feet
once, and it would take all you could stuff in it. A wonderful airplane.
06-07-2009, 02:23 PM
#19
Self Employed.
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
Tail wheel
Originally Posted by Cubdriver
Nice post, Navigatro.
Sky, you are showing your age on how flight instructors regard tailwheel airplanes. I believe you are active primary instructor now again, you should be held to a higher standard.
It's completely accurate to say tailwheel trainers and piston singles are harder to handle on the ground because they indeed are. It's also fair game to say older piston singles, and probably all older aircraft, are a pain to fly in any of a number of ways because technology has marched on to make them safer and easier to fly over the years.
But you are remiss on a critical issue, SkyHigh, which is that tailwheel airplanes make for excellent trainers when used with lowtime pilots. There is no good substitute for a Cub, Champ, Decathlon, Citabria, or Taylorcraft when it comes to stick-and-rudder feel for small airplanes.
Case in point, an example from my actual daily life. I and several other flight instructors found ourselves in the back of a C206H landing near Denver on Friday past. To be fair about logable times, we had a lowtime pilot flying the last leg of the 400 mile trip. He had maybe 500 hours. But the guy nearly ran off the runway when he landed the airplane. This, on a 150 feet wide runway in mild crosswinds. I nor any of the other guys in the airplane had any doubt why this was the case. He had never flown a tailwheel airplane nor received a tailwheel endorsement. He not only showed poor technique on his landing it was wrong technique, and the only way you can do such an incompetent thing is you have never been trained to land a tailwheel airplane.
I think you are a check instructor for an outfit in rural Washington. Do us a favor and ask to do the checkflights or stagechecks on some primary students at the school. And insist they do their checks on windy days. Be ready to take the controls... and get back to us on why tailwheels are useful in flight instruction.
Sky, you are showing your age on how flight instructors regard tailwheel airplanes. I believe you are active primary instructor now again, you should be held to a higher standard.
It's completely accurate to say tailwheel trainers and piston singles are harder to handle on the ground because they indeed are. It's also fair game to say older piston singles, and probably all older aircraft, are a pain to fly in any of a number of ways because technology has marched on to make them safer and easier to fly over the years.
But you are remiss on a critical issue, SkyHigh, which is that tailwheel airplanes make for excellent trainers when used with lowtime pilots. There is no good substitute for a Cub, Champ, Decathlon, Citabria, or Taylorcraft when it comes to stick-and-rudder feel for small airplanes.
Case in point, an example from my actual daily life. I and several other flight instructors found ourselves in the back of a C206H landing near Denver on Friday past. To be fair about logable times, we had a lowtime pilot flying the last leg of the 400 mile trip. He had maybe 500 hours. But the guy nearly ran off the runway when he landed the airplane. This, on a 150 feet wide runway in mild crosswinds. I nor any of the other guys in the airplane had any doubt why this was the case. He had never flown a tailwheel airplane nor received a tailwheel endorsement. He not only showed poor technique on his landing it was wrong technique, and the only way you can do such an incompetent thing is you have never been trained to land a tailwheel airplane.
I think you are a check instructor for an outfit in rural Washington. Do us a favor and ask to do the checkflights or stagechecks on some primary students at the school. And insist they do their checks on windy days. Be ready to take the controls... and get back to us on why tailwheels are useful in flight instruction.
Tail draggers are neat and full of nostalgia, but it has been proven to me and to the rest of the aviation community that they are inferior to nose wheel planes. There hasn't been a modern commercial plane that I can think of that has been built with a tail wheel since the 1960's. I got tired of not being able to fly on windy days so I sold my Taylorcraft and got a 150. The 150 is nearly bomb proof in comparison. You can fly it in almost any type of wind. Insurance is nearly half. I could go on.
I really am well experienced on the topic of taildraggers and think that they are a nostalgic type plane that tries to kill you on every landing. Some people like the thrill of being out of control to some degree and a tail wheel plane meets those needs. Kind of like Harley guys like to break down once in a while. The uncertainty adds to the adventure. However there really is no need to put yourself through that if you don't want to. Nose wheel planes have put the tail dragger out to pasture and the yaw dampener is doing the same to rudder skills.
I understand how modern instructors might feel about flying a tailwheel but it is more about the thrill then about any valid reasons or benefits.
Skyhigh
06-07-2009, 05:19 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by SkyHigh
I have owned a tail wheel plane. I got most of my private pilot training in a taildragger. I was a tail dragger instructor for a well known flight school that specialized in that kind of thing. I have flown a c-185 off airport in the Alaskan bush as a charter pilot. During my time as a bush pilot in Alaska we were able to prove to ourselves that you can do more with the 206 than with a 185. I am sure that flying a tail wheel is good for something but I am not convinced by a long shot that the experience and added skills are really all that valuable to most pilots.
Tail dragger's are neat and full of nostalgia, but it has been pr oven to me and to the rest of the aviation community that they are inferior to nose wheel planes. There hasn't been a modern commercial plane that I can think of that has been built with a tail wheel since the 1960's. I got tired of not being able to fly on windy days so I sold my Taylorcraft and got a 150. The 150 is nearly bomb proof in comparison. You can fly it in almost any type of wind. Insurance is nearly half. I could go on.
I really am well experienced on the topic of taildraggers and think that they are a nostalgic type plane that tries to kill you on every landing. Some people like the thrill of being out of control to some degree and a tail wheel plane meets those needs. Kind of like Harley guys like to break down once in a while. The uncertainty adds to the adventure. However there really is no need to put yourself through that if you don't want to. Nose wheel planes have put the tail dragger out to pasture and the yaw dampener is doing the same to rudder skills.
I understand how modern instructors might feel about flying a tailwheel but it is more about the thrill then about any valid reasons or benefits.
Skyhigh
Tail dragger's are neat and full of nostalgia, but it has been pr oven to me and to the rest of the aviation community that they are inferior to nose wheel planes. There hasn't been a modern commercial plane that I can think of that has been built with a tail wheel since the 1960's. I got tired of not being able to fly on windy days so I sold my Taylorcraft and got a 150. The 150 is nearly bomb proof in comparison. You can fly it in almost any type of wind. Insurance is nearly half. I could go on.
I really am well experienced on the topic of taildraggers and think that they are a nostalgic type plane that tries to kill you on every landing. Some people like the thrill of being out of control to some degree and a tail wheel plane meets those needs. Kind of like Harley guys like to break down once in a while. The uncertainty adds to the adventure. However there really is no need to put yourself through that if you don't want to. Nose wheel planes have put the tail dragger out to pasture and the yaw dampener is doing the same to rudder skills.
I understand how modern instructors might feel about flying a tailwheel but it is more about the thrill then about any valid reasons or benefits.
Skyhigh
As usual you know more than anyone else and have to be condescending to every one else who thinks differently. I bet a skilled tailwheel pilot could fly and land in any wind you can in your 150. As far as rudder skills not being needed, no one was talking about yaw dampers. We are talking about rudder skills related to crosswind landings. I instruct for a major airline and I can tell you those skills are still needed.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MDT06
Regional
46
09-26-2008 06:59 AM
