Choosing The Right Cessna 172
06-08-2009, 06:13 AM
#21
Self Employed.
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
Land
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
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.
Rudder skills are still needed but most any tricycle gear plane can provide that.
Skyhigh
06-08-2009, 06:47 AM
#22
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by SkyHigh
I could land my taylorcraft in the same 30Kt winds that my 150 could though I couldn't taxi back to the hangar. I have seen and done some fairly incredible stuff in tail draggers however they are a novelty at best.
Rudder skills are still needed but most any tricycle gear plane can provide that.
Skyhigh
Rudder skills are still needed but most any tricycle gear plane can provide that.
Skyhigh
I think he wants a C-172!!
Furthermore a 172 has alot more capability(well at least some more) than a C-150.
06-08-2009, 06:51 AM
#23
Self Employed.
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
My Point
Originally Posted by Phil1111
This thread is way off topic. Vagabond states that he wants a C-172, his "Position" below his avatar is "C-172".
I think he wants a C-172!!
Furthermore a 172 has alot more capability(well at least some more) than a C-150.
I think he wants a C-172!!
Furthermore a 172 has alot more capability(well at least some more) than a C-150.
My point is that a 172 costs nearly three times more for just a little more performance. A 172 would be nice but the added expense should be considered.
Skyhigh
06-09-2009, 04:44 AM
#24
Flying Farmer
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
Originally Posted by Phil1111
This thread is way off topic. Vagabond states that he wants a C-172, his "Position" below his avatar is "C-172".
I think he wants a C-172!!
Furthermore a 172 has alot more capability(well at least some more) than a C-150.
I think he wants a C-172!!
Furthermore a 172 has alot more capability(well at least some more) than a C-150.
Honestly, I don't think a 172 costs 3-times as much as a 150/152, but that could just be in how you fly the 172 also. We figured 8gph in the 172N for bouncing around, etc.. Normal speed of 100kts on 2300rpm or less. X-C we'd bump it to 10gph for safety, same power settings(I'd remind students they were there building time, just as much as the actual experience). In the long run it was easier on the equipment, and kept costs down for everyone.
06-09-2009, 06:10 AM
#25
Self Employed.
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
Fuel
Originally Posted by Ewfflyer
You are honestly suprised that SkyHigh has an alternate opinion that sways from the norm? It's "my way, or the SkyHigh-Way?" Something like that right!
Honestly, I don't think a 172 costs 3-times as much as a 150/152, but that could just be in how you fly the 172 also. We figured 8gph in the 172N for bouncing around, etc.. Normal speed of 100kts on 2300rpm or less. X-C we'd bump it to 10gph for safety, same power settings(I'd remind students they were there building time, just as much as the actual experience). In the long run it was easier on the equipment, and kept costs down for everyone.
Honestly, I don't think a 172 costs 3-times as much as a 150/152, but that could just be in how you fly the 172 also. We figured 8gph in the 172N for bouncing around, etc.. Normal speed of 100kts on 2300rpm or less. X-C we'd bump it to 10gph for safety, same power settings(I'd remind students they were there building time, just as much as the actual experience). In the long run it was easier on the equipment, and kept costs down for everyone.
I just brought up an alternative is all. Others came out to attack my position so I naturally have to defend it. Thanks by the way. I do sway from the norm. I am not one to join the herd.
Skyhigh
06-09-2009, 08:18 AM
#26
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Tiki bar
Posts: 2,633
Originally Posted by Phil1111
This thread is way off topic. Vagabond states that he wants a C-172, his "Position" below his avatar is "C-172".
I think he wants a C-172!!
Furthermore a 172 has alot more capability(well at least some more) than a C-150.
I think he wants a C-172!!
Furthermore a 172 has alot more capability(well at least some more) than a C-150.
06-09-2009, 12:44 PM
#28
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by SkyHigh
Purchase price, insurance and operating costs are more. A good mid 1970's 150 is around 22K. The same in a 172 is around 64K. Almost three times more for essentially the same plane.
I just brought up an alternative is all. Others came out to attack my position so I naturally have to defend it. Thanks by the way. I do sway from the norm. I am not one to join the herd.
Skyhigh
I just brought up an alternative is all. Others came out to attack my position so I naturally have to defend it. Thanks by the way. I do sway from the norm. I am not one to join the herd.
Skyhigh
.I do think that you are confusing 1/3 more with three times more
.I won't get my tie in a knot as its only a Cessna.
150 http://www.planequest.com/operationc...nfo.asp?id=102
172 http://www.planequest.com/operationc...info.asp?id=95
My apologies to Vagabond as "she" knows whats best and four seats trump two!
Last edited by Phil1111; 06-09-2009 at 04:43 PM.
12-11-2012, 10:16 AM
#29
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
(Thread revival)
Pal of mine is selling this 1961 Skylane, he is not a businessman and this was his personal plane. It is well cared for and flies well, I flew it once myself. An expensive annual was recently completed on it and I talked to the mechanic personally. AOPA says it's worth $46k. It would make a nice family airplane or trainer for someone.
1961 Skylane 182D
Pal of mine is selling this 1961 Skylane, he is not a businessman and this was his personal plane. It is well cared for and flies well, I flew it once myself. An expensive annual was recently completed on it and I talked to the mechanic personally. AOPA says it's worth $46k. It would make a nice family airplane or trainer for someone.
1961 Skylane 182D
01-03-2013, 01:24 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Stick Monkey
Posts: 300
The 172 is a great plane to own- try to keep it in the 70s or 80s if you can afford it.. The 14 volt system is cheaper than the 28 volt, as well as the model with the AD on the cam in the late 70s if you can find one that is sitting around try to get a good deal on em and put the superhawk 360 in there on overhaul!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MDT06
Regional
46
09-26-2008 06:59 AM
