C172 V Cherokee

[Capt Wally]

Ok guys gals would like to hear from those of you out there that own either of the subject headings so I can be more informed as to which I should purchase. Am thinking of becoming poor by owning a plane:bored:
I don't want the ex to get another cent !:E
I've been out of touch for a while as to their operating costs so what better way than to start here to be learned!:)
I've flown both types over the years & found both have their + & -'s.
Would like to know what a basic 100 hrly is costing those owners these days & insurance costs. Fuel costs are not a problem as that you can't get around.
Say spending around $70K for either.
Tnxs bro's:)

CW

[Jabawocky]

Wally

PM me with your email address, I have some interesting spreadsheets that are easily updated.

Might have some other thoughts for you too....:uhoh:

J:ok:

[Stationair8]

Capt Wally,

Rule #1 Flies, floats or is female rent it.

Rule#2 Tits or tyres it will end in tears.

Rule #3 Refer to rule #1 and then #2.

[lostwingnut]

I will remember that one Stationair - Classic :D

[Bevan666]

Well I love my Tobago! :E

[XRNZAF]

Go low wing.... cherokee/archer is my pick:ok:

[VH-XXX]

Is this aircraft to be used for Private use or will it be placed online?

[Lasiorhinus]

How many doors do you want?

[sprocket check]

XRNZAF:

Why do you prefer low wing?

sc

[XRNZAF]

Sprocket Check, I guess my main reason for preferring low wing aircraft is visibility, you always seem to be peering out from under the wings all day in a cessna. I fly a mixture of high and low wing aircraft on a daily basis and would choose an archer/warrior over a 172 any day if I had the choice. Each to their own though I suppose....

[Capt Wally]

Ok guys interesting thoughts so far, tnxs.
Not for private hire, just my own 'toy'. Time for "ME" time!:)
I am aware of the 3X 'F's, but I'm now happy to hand over money to a different 'mistress':E

I like the C172 for outback flying 'cause of the high wing, good for shade good for viewing. I also like the low wing 'cause they feel more rugged, would be ablt to take more punishment I feel. I used to work as an AME about a hundred years ago on both types & found the Cherokee simpler in some area's. I like two doors, but once yr in makes no diff. I like the mech flaps of the cherokee for 'instant' lift off should it get 'tight' at the last minute.
'Bev' I too like the Tabago in fact I used to assit in getting them flight ready back in the late 70's when they came into this country when I did a stint with Exec's at YMEN. But there a little over priced for what they are, personal choice that's all.

Ok 'jaba' shall pm you, hope it don't hurt tho !:E

So shall continue the research via here & other places

again tnxs so far


CW

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Wally, Wally, Wally! When ya gonna learn?

Get yourself a Bonza and learn to overcome your aversion to SE-IFR!

Dr :8

[Capt Wally]

hey Dr who said anything about going IFR?, too damn scarey for me buddy:)
I want a plane to have fun with not to have to own the Wells Fargo Co.just to start her up!:ok:

But ty for yr kind thoughts there Dr, am sure you would hire me yr Bo if I where closer & for very little !:E
I used to fly a Bo for it's owner a few times to reposition it for him when it was IFR conditions. In those days i was just too naive to know better but at my more mature age I have a choice now !:)



CW

[Walrus 7]

High wing vs low wing ... the only older argument in the world is who didn't get the council permit for Noah's Ark!

C172s are, as noted previously, great for cross-country because you can see more below you, but an Archer will generally do the trip in shorter time. Don't be scared off by thoughts that an Archer is less rugged; I've operated Archers into some goat tracks and never had a problem provided I didn't botch the landing. The nice big wing on the Archer helps generate heaps of lift when you're facing hot, heavy and short - such as on the north/south runway at Noccundra.

In the so-often unstable air of inland QLD, the extra diherdral on the low wings helps with the stability and makes for a more comfortable ride. One area where the C172 has it over the Archer is ventilation. Taxiing to the far end of BDV in 37 degrees in an Archer is sweaty stuff even with the pax holding the door open. On the C172 you just open the windows and enjoy the breeze from the fan. Not so good with the dust, though.

My general opinion is that the PA28-180 is a beautiful tourer in most respects ... if you don't have a Bonza, of course.

Walrus

[VH-XXX]

2 Seater - Practically anything from the RV range.

4 Seater - RV10 or J430.

If it's yours, don't bother paying LAME's rates for no reason.

Interested to see J430's spreadsheet....

[Jabawocky]

XXX

I think I have sent it to you ages ago....but its on its way to ya:ok:

J

[BrazDriver]

The Archer -181 is the best single fixed pitch I have flown. Good payload too!

[Mr Milk]

On a serious note wal, see if you can find an older 172 (a to h) with a lycoming fitted (best of both worlds)
the older cessnas corrode way less than say an m or n. (n have a h2ad piece o **** up front as well) you might pick up a nice d model with good time to run on a converted lycoming for around 50k.

On the cherokee side try a 180 or 235 for about 60k (mid time donk)

From an engineering perspective a cherokee will be a tad more expensive to maintain than a cessna, but this is hardly a significant factor to consider when purchasing an aircraft,
Rule #1 MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE AIRCRAFT YOU BUY LOOKED AT BY THE LAME THAT WILL BE MAINTAINING IT.

[Cap'n Arrr]

Famous aviation quote no. 674

"I suggest you either take up parachute jumping, or stay out of single engine aircraft at night!"

Can also be applied to IMC. Solution... Cirrus (CAPS)

My personal choice would be a PA28 airframe, but I don't have much 172 time. Any reason you're after a fixed gear fixed pitch? I reckon the Arrow is probably the nicest piston single I've ever flown.

Ah yes and the Tobago, the only aircraft I can think of where I have never seen a RoD less than 1000fpm in BEST GLIDE:sad:. That's clean too.:eek:

[Mr Milk]

if you think cirrus are the answer you need your head examined.
just cause you parachute to earth dont mean you survive.
what a heap of $hit

[Capt Wally]

ok boys lets keep it nioce please:)

Not keen on anything that's more complexe than it needs to be for basic casual flying, IE R/G, don't need the extra headache for a few knots more. Am in no hurry to be anywhere these days. At my age it's a pleasure just getting there !:)
Actually I would buy a PA18 Cub but it's a little too slow & can't carry enough, great plane for shear fun tho!

Some are comparing the Archer with the C172, that's not the same really. The Archer although a great load carrier & a good all round performer has more gee gees than the stock Cessna so the tapered wing Cherokee Warrior is the match I believe.

'walrus 7' you bring good points to the chat here, tnxs.


CW

[VH-XXX]

You wouldn't waste your money on a 20, but you would on a 22, however most of us don't have that kind of cash.

Surprised everyone is stuck in the dark ages talking about 172's and other corroding metal crap boxes. It's the 21st Century and there's heaps of other options out there.

Most of the newer plastic stuff at MTOW will out perform your 172's and the like, empty.

[gassed budgie]

(n have a h2ad piece o **** up front as well)


That issue was sorted long ago. The H2AD is just as reliable as anything else out there.

[strim]

Someone mentioned the Arrow? Certainly not the IV. Man the Arrow IV is the ****est aircraft I've flown. Many a hairy moment with a stude at the controls on a hot day in crosswind...Glad to see the back of its stupid T-tail.

I'd buy a C172. Easier to get in and out, easier to spin and theres a million 172 spare parts lying around.

[Walrus 7]

VH-XXX,

Yes, the "plastic fantastics" will out perform the traditional metal skins in terms of speed, but they don't cope so well with goat-track runways ... and there are a hell of a lot of those in the outback! It is so easy to crack spats and tail cones. I actually drew a comment from the Cirrus distributor a couple of years ago that they really are a sealed runway aeroplane. No nosewheel steering doesn't help when you're trying to keep her straight on shifting gravel, either.

And these days the wing area is much smaller, resulting in a higher wing loading and less lift for airspeed. In that aspect, a very important one on short gravel runways, the Archers and C172s of the world leave the plastics for dead.

Walrus

[27/09]

From an engineering perspective a cherokee will be a tad more expensive to maintain than a cessna,

Actually the other way round. Cherokee is a cheaper and simpler airframe to maintain, i.e. simple mechanical flaps, no convoluted routing of aileron cables etc. Then you look at things like throttle and mixture cables that have to be replaced every 1200? hours on the Cessna, no requirement on the Piper. The Cessna requirement to replace/overhaul the elevator trim jackscrew at great expense etc.

[Capt Wally]

Tnxs 27/09 that's exactly the sort of info I'm after. Although there are pro & cons to all makes & models.

'strim' same thing with the "T" lance, hot day full load = UGLY ! Out of YMEN for Eg one would hope that they have their "E-Tag" paid up for the FWY can be handy for extra TODA:E

CW

[Mach E Avelli]

It's many moons since I flew either, but what I remember. All of the older Pipers I looked at appeared to have corrosion proofing (looked like zinc chromate) done at the factory. Maybe some LAME's out there could comment. Also, I found the low wing Pipers were better in really strong crosswinds but maybe that's just 'cos back then I was a student. The Cherokee wing span is less than the Cessna, which could influence where you hangar it.

[Cap'n Arrr]

strim - allow me to elaborate... the straight tail, naturally aspirated PA-28R-201 Arrow III is my personal favourite piston single:ok:

Capt Wally - Have you had a word to the local engineers? They often know which models are plagued with problems, and which ones are fecking awesome!

[Capt Wally]

Yes am starting to go beyond just asking here 'cap'n Arrr'. I know a few LAME's but wanted to ask real owners their opinions first. So far it's more a personal choice as far as looks go 'cause out of the two (C172 & Cherokee) their similar in many ways. Might & I say this loosly might go for an Archer (beyond my original concept here) if I can find a good one at a fair price. I've done about 700 hrs on Cessna singles & about 200 or so on Cherokee's so am comfy in either. I plan to do some outback touring so the Cessna might be good for shade & viewing but like the ruggedness of the stumpy low wing. Decisions decisions!


CW

[jamsquat]

From a maintenance side of things each type has pro's and cons.

Early 172's( 1960's), as mentioned earlier, do appear to fair better as far as corrosion is concerned. Possibly due to worldwide alluminium quality during the 70's being low as quite a few aircraft manufactured during this decade have very severe corrion issues. (P68's, beech spar caps and the M,N,P 172's to name a few).
The old 0-300 that these beasts are coupled to is a downside, they seem to convert fuel to noise and not much else but the upside to this is it's reflected in the aqquistion price. Manual flap on the A-D models eliminates the flap motor problems aswell as allowing for the aformentioned 'boost'of lift as the fence approches!!!!

Early cherrokee's(stub wing) have their issues as well. Lack of inspection panels in the wings can mean that corrosion in the main spar is invisible unless the fuel tanks are removed. This is a must when carrying out a pre-purchase on these early models. The shorter wing also struggles a bit on a hot day and glides like a brick with the power off.
All cherokees and in fact all pipers(not so the new ones) have steel fittings riveted to bare alluminium which makes for very nasty corrosion if not inhibited regularly.

My advice is the money spent on a thorough Pre-purchase by an experienced LAME known by you or recomended by someone you trust is money in the bank when the first 100hrly rolls around as you wont have bought a bucket of bolts and any issues there are can be expected and planned for.

JS:ok:

[kreugers]

Captn Wally,

The Grumman Cheetah/Tiger series are sensational to fly and very reasonable to maintain if you're open to straying from the vanilla flavoured cessnas/pipers. Expect about 50K for a Cheetah and 70+ for the Tiger (70s models).

All the best on the purchase and it would be great to get updates on the process. I dare say there are many of us who are also keen to dip the toe eventually, despite the well worn three f's theory!

[flyitboy]

Who in their right mind would want a plastic plane? talk about no longevity! The old cessna's & pipers might be old & tired but their still going after 40 yrs or so. Shall see where the fiberglass 'toy's are in 40 yrs time, I'd say at the bottom of the tip ! Capt wally stick with the known, there are very good reasons as to why the likes of Cessna & Piper haven't gone down the rd of plastic & fiberglass for major structual sub assemblies as they could have years ago!

Yp simply can't beat a Piper & Cessna, their easy to repair, almost anybody with basic skills can fix 'em, fiberglass & plastic require special skills, don't do it CW:E The PA28 is a no vice plane & would still give many years service & even at 40 yrs of age unlike today's 'toys':ugh:
No doubt some shall get their noses out of joint with what I wrote above (personal opinions is all it is) but none of the above is directed at anyone one person, shall see how quickly the nasty ones amongst us respond here!


F

[Lasiorhinus]

Who in their right mind would want a plastic plane? talk about no longevity! The old cessna's & pipers might be old & tired but their still going after 40 yrs or so. Shall see where the fiberglass 'toy's are in 40 yrs time, I'd say at the bottom of the tip !

Which is precisely where they should be! How many 40 year old cars do you see driving around? Those that are are maintained lovingly by enthusiasts, and serve niche purposes, but the general public take advantage of the immense developments in technology modern designs use.

To twist your words slightly, who in their right mind would want a forty-year old plane? Old and tired is not a good point!

I'll take a modern, composite aircraft any day over an old, tired model of 40 years ago. I drive a modern car, and trade it in every few years when needed, so I don't see what the advantage is to struggling along with ancient technology.

[Jamair]

Wally - check yer PMs.

Horses for courses - personally have a few hundred hours in each (the C172 and the PA28) and prefer the Archer. First solo was in a 172.

[flyitboy]

'Las' next time yr wondering around a typical flight line at a modern flying school take a look at what's there lined up by the zillions (figure of speech) NOT plastic planes that's for sure ! Oh their there alright a few of them but for one single reason only "COST"!!!! If they where half as good as you reckon & others then there would be few if any old Cessna's & Cherokees' about, but there aint & for good reason. The Jumbo Jet Capt's of todays learnt in them (proper planes) & so they will for many years yet!:(
Plastic & fiberglass has it's place, in 'toy' planes !:E


F

[Lasiorhinus]

http://www.defesanet.com.br/rv/le_bourget_05/imagens/14_jun_05/B787.jpg

[Capt Wally]

hahahhahah good point there Lasiorhinus, I just saw what Flyitboy wrote but even tho the future is just that modern materials for now I think that the old 'buckets' will be around for a while yet!



CW

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hello Capt Wally,

Aye Aye Capt,

Have a look at 'Collision At Northam' by 'Unctuous' a bit further down the page.....

Could be very 'cheep' 172 going for the sake of a port mainplane, strut, u/c and associated fuselage damage...........

Price would be well under 'budget', and like the 'Commonwealth Bank'....they're everywhere...

Just a thought.......

And, yep. You get to fly 'in the shade'.....

Griffo..;)

[Stationair8]

Cessna C172N, seemed to be plagued with corrosion and had that horrible Lycoming engine that had some nasty AD's and poor engine life.

Cessna C172M, seemed to be a better aircraft all round.

Still plenty of the C172's with manual flap around from the early 1960's.

Piper's used to fly one of the original PA-28/140's in this country and never showed any sign of corrosion and it would well over 40 years old.

The old PA-28/180 always looked a good performer.

Pays to ask around, i know a guy who acquired a very nice one owner PA-28/180 that was bought knew in the sixties and the old guy used it on the farm and then when he lost his medical it was pushed into the farm shed and there it sat until the owner moved to the big airfield upstairs.

[VH-XXX]

I can't believe everyone can be so against "plastic" planes. Whilst they haven't been around that long, it's hard to suggest that they won't stand up.

Walrus, you're comparing fibreglass spats on a Cirrus to Cessna's in the outback that would rarely even have spats in those conditions and if they did, they would break off too. You can't compare a 172 to an SR20 and what evidence do you have to suggest that a Cirrus won't stand up to the rigours of the outback? What on earth are you referring to with tail cones? Are you referring to a certain tosser CFI who has a history of dragging Cirrus tails on the ground?

Jabawocky is on the money. On Saturday I was flying next to a J430 on trip. His all up weight was around 650kg's, had his Mrs, full fuel, STACKS of luggage, took off in about 300 metres if that, climbed out at 800+ fpm at 100 knots, burnt 23 litres an hour and absolutely blew away the 172 and Warriors that were flying with him. The Warrior kept up, sure, but it was 5,000 ft below because the J430 climbed like a homesick angel !

Metal Aircraft = Living in the dark ages with a $3000 100 hourly
Fibreglass = Living in the real world with a $500 100 hourly

The J430 is the go! (Jabawocky you are on a winner)

[Jabawocky]

Gooday guys, been offline for a couple of days, actually been flying around the place with FTDK and Chimbu Chuckles and a few other PPRuNer's so not been reading here.

Topic of discussion about REAL planes V say J430's came up at one point and I have to agree that flying the Bonaza the other day is far roomier smoother faster and has a more solid feel. However.....it comes at a very hefty price.

The J430 costs me 1/4 the running cost overall including the fact its slower, and including hangarge etc.

As much as the Chuckler is a big tall boy......he did get into the jab and well........at least mine is in one pice and flyable:E.

Horses for courses, but for private Day VFR touring at 110-120kts I really think its hard to beat a J430 or a fcatory built J230.

Now here is the option for the Alloy airframe and Lyc/TC engine boys.....look at an RV6/RV7.

In fact CW may only need a 2 seater and if you can find a nice RV6 or 7 (tail wheels for those who want one) that would be the go!

Cheers
J:ok:

[Capt Wally]

Hi Jab

I hope yr time away with the Dr & Cimba was nice, now it's back to business here mate:ok:

I've seen a few of the metal homebuilts, nice, If I had tio have a homebuilt it would be on of them RV etc. It is still amazing how much plastic planes haven't convinced everynbody, why is that? I am still seeking a 'real plane':ok: for a whole heap of reasons some just personal pref, old school again I guess:-)

VH-XXX even tho the plastic planes fly loops around any of today's real planes (no denying that) the old tested & proven birds are still around in their hundreds, why is that?
Yr right with yr statement that the Bo is roomier & more solid, that feeling you will never get in a 'toy plane' but like you said you pay a high price for that, would be nice if we where all "Dr's":E

Anyway am still looking for a Cessna or Cherokee, the plastic planes simply don't grab this old bloke:bored:!

If ever you guys get down to 'Mexico' let me know, I can see if we can park yr Jab at the model field, should blend right in there buddy:E


CW

[Lasiorhinus]

Wally, it seems part of the reason old planes are still around is the mentality that they are "real planes" and modern designs are "toys".

This attitude is common in aviation, where anything new is considered to be inferior to old technology, simply because it is different. Comments above relating to "today's 747 pilots trained on 172s, therefore new aircraft are not any good" make this clear. Remember the fuss kicked up by old-timers who refuse to accept that GPS is a good tool for navigating, instead preferring the NDB. (This includes some management types).

While it remains to be seen just how composite aircraft hold up after forty years flying around the outback, I still believe that that doesn't matter. Aircraft should be traded up to something more modern well before forty years.


I'm sure cost is a huge factor, too, because a clapped-out 172 can be bought far, far cheaper than a brand new Cirrus, but then again, a brand-new hybrid Camry costs a lot more than a 1991 Holden Commodore. I know I'd much rather the new car, too: despite the old car still performing it's function as a car perfectly well, there are improvements in technology that I find useful.

[Capt Wally]

hey 'Las' yr right what you say, but human nature after many years of being exposed to the one type (metal commercially built planes & they worked well as they still do) is hard to dissguard over night.
Cost is pretty much what drives the new platic planes onto the flight line for training these days & for good reasons. I don't know but every time I see one taxiing in after landing the people inside just look funny peddling away madly and they also appear to have been built-in during construction 'cause they look so 'toyish' !:ok:

Still progress is constantly happening/evolving, I guess one day the only real planes still flying will be owned by the rich & famous, EG. "the DR":E, the rest will be pedling harder than ever!:ok:


CW

[SCE to Aux]

Capt. Wally,

I'm not going to enter into the debate over plastic vs aluminium, but I thought you might be interested in my real-world experience. I have a Cessna 172 M. It has over 15,500 hours on the airframe and is currently doing around 400 hours per year with a flying school. A 100 hourly costs me around $1600 on average and that includes IFR inspections. Insurance is around $3700 per annum again for flying school use, I expect it would be lower if it were not on line.

I seldom fly it myself, but I have flown it on trips around the outback and I'm very happy with it's performance on those trips. I did consider a warrior when I bought the 172, and the most significant factor that helped me decide on the C172 was the market - the particular school I got it for has students and private hirers who like the Cessna, they say the high wing gives passengers a better view and they get some shade.

I rent the aircraft to the school and, while it's not much, by any accounting method, I make money from it.

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm... low wing vs high wing...

How many birds you see with the wings mounted on the bottom of the fuseulage?...
IMHO I think it is 'un-natural' to have wings mounted on the bottom of the fusulage...

[Walrus 7]

VH-XXX,

I base my comments on having done an outback trip in an Archer in company with an SR20. When the chips were really down, flying the Archer was a breeze compared with the SR20.

Case 1: Landing at a station with a crosswind runway, the fully-loaded Archer got down on the mark and taxied off at the crosswind. The SR20 also got down on the mark but overshot the turn and then had battle through a 180-degree turn on shifting red stone and backtrack to the crosswind runway. Not good for the prop at all.

Case 2: Short 600 m runway, 27 degrees, fully loaded. The Archer got off with 200 m still in front of it. The SR20 used 100% of the runway and then had to dip down into the valley beyond to get up airspeed. I admit that the pilot of the SR20 made a mistake, but it shows that the Cirrus is unforgiving if you don't fly it right on the numbers.

With regard to the spats. Yes, they don't have them on Cessnas in the outback because they have the option of removing them. The nose spat on the Cirrus cannot (should not) be removed because it is aerodynamic. The "rudder" on the back of the spat keeps the nose wheel straight for landing. Not having nose wheel steering is a real setback on unsealed surfaces. I have been in an SR20 doing "doughnuts" on a gravel taxiway because one wheel got caught in a pothole. We had to get out and push it out of the hole.

I don't know of any CFI who has cracked a tail cone ... a couple of PPLs, yes, but no CFI, therefore I am not referring to the person you know of.

Walrus

[troppont]

Capt Wally,
Flown both a lot, done many outback flights in the crappy Arrow II/III. The good old Cherokee Warrior (160) will almost match the speed of the S*it Arrow. It looks like no one has mentioned the worst aspect of the C172 for long distace flying. C172 - NO RUDDER TRIM, Cherokee - Rudder Trim. Ask many a C172 pilot how big the calf muscle on the right leg is after flying the thing for 4hrs or more.

[First_Principal]

C172 - NO RUDDER TRIM

Good point, but FYI I have flown a 172 with rudder trim - it's a very nice machine all round and the trim control just topped it off. I don't know how many have it but there must be a few?

FP.

[VH-XXX]

Interesting Mr. Walrus that the front wheel fairing is an OPTION on the base Cirrus! Hardly there for aerodynamic reasons!

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/sr20/overview_srv.aspx

[Stationair8]

Interesting article on the PA-28/140 in this months Australian Aviation.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'day "Wally",

I really can't remember whether the "OLD" 172's had a rudder trim or not.

Its just too bloody long ago.

However, I do remember a very 'nice' trip in one VH IAO, a very old 172 for its time - ex Illawarra Flying School - BK to JT one way in June '68 - and I didn't have any probs at all!!

My leg was NOT sore.....

Now, that was one 'OLD TIME' acft!

Maybe I just flew it as it was meant to be flown........

RELAXED!

However, 'tis true, the PA28-180 did an honest 120kts vs 100 for the 172.

So, take your pick.

But in 'outback OZ, I still prefer to fly 'in the shade'...........

Best Regards,

Griffo :cool::cool:

ps HELLO Sonja if you read these threads.........

[gassed budgie]

I really can't remember whether the "OLD" 172's had a rudder trim or not


The rudder trim was on the options list. If the box wasn't ticked, no rudder trim.

[Jabawocky]

Another thought, how about the Commanche!:ok:

Nice machine to fly.....yeah I know its retract and CSU......but I think out thread starter is more than endorsed on these widgets!

J:ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Wally

Give yourself a thrill - takea look at a Mooney 201/205.

4 place, 160 kts, 35-38 L/hr, 6 hrs endurance, built like a brick sh*thouse.

Nice SE IFR platform!

Dr :8

[slackie]

Considering trading the FTDK eh Doc??

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Nah Slackie, it would be hard to wean me from the Bonza. However, I had an alternator failure in the Bo on the weekend and borrowed my Brother's newly acquired Mooney 205. Re-aquainted myself with the type after a 10+yr absence.

Dr :8


http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1966/planes1bo9.jpg

[Capt Wally]

Some great idea's here guys, tnxs. This thread is very interesting and has been an eye opener in some ways.

hey 'jaba' I have a few hrs on the 'twin-can' did my initail IFR rating in one in TW during January, damn hot ! But even tho I think they outlfy anything else in their class I don't need nor want 2 engines for day vfr. The 12v elect system along with the somewhat ordinary U/C system would stick me up out the back of bourke for sure !:bored:

Forkie only ever flew a Mooney a couple of times, back when I only had a 1000 hrs or so, green as back then. Slippery beast & seemed flash at the time. In fact remember one guy doing a paper run in a 201 back in the 80's to a strip nth of TW when he landed downwind with around 20 kts, thru the fence, over a ditch & there she sat for a while. Nah not keen on the Mooney, feels like yr sitting UNDER the panel rather than in front of it!:ok: Forkie remind me to tell you about me, an RAAF Herc & an A36 at coonabarbran during the winter back in the 80's:)

Good point about the no rudder trim in some early C172's on a long flight. Could always land & bend the tab a little I guess !
The Archer must be the best all round machine but too damn hot in the outback. C172 although 'squeak' their way around on the ground is probably my best bet, like someone said here, shade ALL the time, good to see out, easy to escape if need be & the fuel runs with only the help of mother nature. But I like the Cherokee as well even tho I have learnt on cessna's & flown them the most in the SE scene. decisions decisions:)

Still am enjoying the camaraderie here


CW

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Wally

In a former life I used to fly both a C172 and a PA28 Warrior quite a bit.

The biggest issue for me was range!

I could generally go out and back in the PA28 with good reserves, but often had to refuel the C172 to get home.

My recollection is that early C172 had about 3 hrs endurance plus VFR reserves while the PA28 could better than by several hrs.

Dr :8

[airmuster]

Great thread this so have to have a go.

I like both aircraft to fly and both are reasonably easy on the pocket for 100hrlys, engine changes etc etc. My preference would have to slightly bend to the C172 for all the reasons pertaining to keeping a "cool" head. There is nothing worse than sweltering in a cockpit whilst honking along, and the Cessna allows you to open up to the elements whilst in flight. (Take the door off if needed) The pax also can be relieved also, and believe me when your mates find out that Capt Wally is about to set sail for the Races at Birdsville, then your phone will run hot....... and for the trip home.... Cessna for me.

Nothing like a high wing for negotiating bushes on a bit of flat ground in the outback too.

FTDK..... most 172's have LR tanks 5 hrs plus

[Lasiorhinus]

How many birds you see with the wings mounted on the bottom of the fuseulage?...
IMHO I think it is 'un-natural' to have wings mounted on the bottom of the fusulage...

Binghi, Binghi, Bingi, how many birds do you see who fly with their wings out straight the whole time, and get their propulsion from spinning their head around on their neck at 2400rpm?

[notmyC150v2]

Lasiorhinus - Binghi, Binghi, Bingi, how many birds do you see who fly with their wings out straight the whole time, and get their propulsion from spinning their head around on their neck at 2400rpm?


:D:D:D:D you owe me a new monitor. This one's got coffee stains all over it.

[Capt Wally]

if only we where birds in real life & not trying to emulate them constantly ;)

'airmuster' you reminded me of my first real trip away (with yr comments of myself & BDV) when I was a low pvt pilot. That was to the BDV races in the early 80's when I hired a C172 from EN and on the day there was 40kt H/W's so a stop at MIA for fuel then BH, total flying time was 16 hrs return, got pretty used ot it at the end of that fun trip ! Glald it was a C172 'cause of the permenant shade!

Dr:8 I think you are right the very early C172 & C150's had around 3 hrs safe but I know 5 hrs is common now for both "holden & ford types"!:)
5 Hrs in any plane is a looooooooong time ! I often hear people say geeeee 4 hrs in a tiny C150 is a long time, well 4 hrs in a LearJet feels even longer 'cause you need a chiropractor after that ride !

This might be an awful off trk subject here but seeing as the plastic planes V real planes is getting a fair hearing I wonder what the survivability is of the plastic planes compared to conventional where metal tends to absorb energy at a rate that's survivable (obviously not when at high speed) & I would think that fiberglass & plastics would shatter into a million pieces along with it's occupants! Any thoughts on that guys/gals? Nice thoughst plz:)

CW:)

[Flying Binghi]

how many birds do you see who fly with their wings out straight the whole time, and get their propulsion from spinning their head around on their neck at 2400rpm?

Lasiorhinus, you got me there - I must remember not to drink-post...:hmm:


Capt Wally, watch out for the RVs, in an otherwise survivable hard hit, they tend to fold in the middle and crush legs - so I hear.

[landof4x]

Capt Wally,

I saw some BIG stacks in G115 aircraft, which would have ended in fatalities in aluminium planes - only to see the foreign pilot climb out and walk away. Absolutely amazed me, and I thought it nothing more than luck the first time round, until time after time they were stacked during a go-round and the pilot walked away uninjured. A four point aerobatic harness and a "built like the proverbial brick s*** house" composite airframe, I have no doubt, is the most durable and safest when it all turns pear shaped.

[Capt Wally]

'4x' I guess surviving can be possible in any craft. I have seen or heard over the years that what appears to be light damage at first glance glider pilot fatalities are often found to be from the fact that fiberlgass & the likes have little energy absorbing abilities therefore subjecting the body to sudden & almost instant stop forces that sever the main blood vessels to the heart & other vital organs. This is often the 'cause of death in such events. I feel that metal does have some cushioning qualities (obviously not if it's at high speed) not unlike water has when entered from a survivable height. That's why some cars are designed with crush zones to assisit the occupants in a sudden stop event. That crush zone although does consist of some plastics etc. has metal to take the main impact & not fiberlgass as in today's modern 'toy' planes. Still it's open to conjecture no doubt but it's what I believe to be true to some degree.
Tnxs to all those that put forward pro's & cons towards owning a plane, the jury is out at the moment as to whether I want to become poorer sooner !:bored:


CW

[PlankBlender]

CW, please share the deliberations of the jury, I am going through the same process and would be very interested to learn how others are making up their mind -- I find it very hard :rolleyes:

[Capt Wally]

Hi 'plankblender' (Ya gotta explain that one some day!:))

Well if I knew exactly what I wanted (who ever does anyway!) then I would be right now enjoying owning a plane & counting less money than ever before !:bored: But the 'jury' is still out!
I'm just a worker who earns money on a weekly basis (very 'weekly' actually) so buying a plane for personal use is a big step for me. Although If I am going to ever do it about now is the time before I meet another woman & again become destitute:E. I do hire one at times (not too often tho) that's $145 hr tacho (C172) & by the sounds of things from reading what some say here that's cheap compared to owning a plane. I would expect to fly PVT'ly around 50 hrs or so per year if I owned a plane so that's not much by an owners standard. What to do what to do? Am next off to chat with a LAME friend of mine about the concept of owning a plane so I can be more informed in that area.
For now I guess i'm fortunate to fly for a living but obvioulsy have constraints as to how why when & where I fly when doing it for that living.


CW

[Jabawocky]

CW

if you do 50 hours on that local C172 it costs you $7250 plus or minues a bit, hangarage and insurance on a half decent 172 will probably cost you $5000 or more, so what is left will only buy 37 hours of fuel, let alone maintenance and overhaul allowance etc.

Owning a plane is great, better if you can find a partner who is going to do the right thing by you. But at only 50 hours it will be less costly to hire the one you can hire. In fact at $145 thats well below market rates, so dont tell them too much!

I think if you do about 150 hours a year (I did last year) and in FTDK's case he did almost 200, it starts to become economical. Again if shared with another doing 50-70 hours a year it works well.

Look around.....the M205 that FTDK's bro bought is a great example of how to get a good cruiser, and if shared it would only owe you $70-90K and you would have a great machine thats economical to run.

By an RV6 or RV6A, only two seats.....good speed, great fun to fly, and cheap to run!

J:ok:

[flyitboy]

still at it I see?


F

[flyitboy]

I think at $145 an hr for a C172 CW would be mad to own a plane, that's cheap motoring.





F

[dudduddud]

I'm a Cessna man myself but I think the 172 would come out second best.

Depends where they hit.

[Clearedtoreenter]

50 hours per year is pushing the economics a bit, (although I'd suggest hiring @ $145 per hour for a 172 is a bit rare nowadays) - But there's nothing like going to your hangar, opening the doors pulling your plane out, jumping in and flying away - and knowing its all yours...

(Then again, when the bills and the aggro come, there's not much like that either!)

[sprocket check]

Interesting comment about the G115, where was that if I may ask?

My own laymans bit of understanding:

When a vehicle crashes, the goal is for the structure to crush in a relatively gradual, predictable way that absorbs much of the impact energy, keeping it away from the occupants in what is termed a “controlled crush.”

Fiber-reinforced polymer composite materials are characterized by a high absorption of crush energy per kilogram—100 kJ/kg, compared to steel’s 25 kJ/kg. On impact, carbon fibers can have four to five times higher energy absorption than steel or aluminum.

Carbon fiber has incredible strength, with a modulus of elasticity of about 70 million pounds per square inch. A carbon fiber rod just one half inch in diameter will support a weight of several tons, and a carbon fiber bar one inch wide, one foot long, and a mere three-sixteenths of an inch thick will completely defeat any strong man's attempts at breaking it. The B1 has a single Boron fibre spar as the main structural component along its length.

The trick in composites is how they are put together-the direction of the fibers and quality/type of materials that determine structural strength. In this lies the difference between a structure that holds and one that doesn't and one that is better than a metal one and one that isn't.

I would guess this is where the difference between the composite aircraft lies-the manufacturers understanding, skill and ability to get the best out of composite materials.

I wouldn't think there would be too much difference between a metal and a composite aircraft made properly-each will last if cared for appropriately.

sc

[Capt Wally]

yr right 'clearedtoreenter' $145 ph is rare but not at the aero club I'm in. Am not too sure how long it will stay that cheap but for now it's cheaper than owning one.(Then again, when the bills and the aggro come, there's not much like that either!)
This bit I liked, probably why I haven't considered buying a plane 'till now.
The idea of having yr own plane to do pretty much what you want to do, that's the attraction to me at this stage, it's just whether I want to 'pay' for that 'want' & if so back to my original question C172 or Cherokee?

CW

[Lasiorhinus]

If you want someone to decide for you, I say buy a 172.:ok: Two doors versus one gives it the edge, on what is otherwise a matter of pure personal preference.

[kingtoad]

I think that this Cherokee vs Cessna thing is really neck to neck. I like the shade of the C172 but the flying qualities of the PA28. Which have I got? - a C210.

How about finding out which type your local LAME looks after more of and go that way because;

1. He'll know the type better which translates to cheaper maintenance.
2. He's more likely to have spares for it in stock.

[gaunty]

Simple really.

Which one is still in production with the original manufacturer?

Get one with the "long range" tanks. The standard tank versions were for domestic US market.

In its purest form did you ever see a low wing bird.

Stepping into and out of rather than climbing over and down.

Try taxiing through the farm gates in both types before you buy.:O

Single engine IFR in a 172 is waaaay safer than almost any other single or twin for that matter. Just look at the stall speed. And if that doesn't work for you there is the tried and tested routine............when you think you are getting close to the ground turn on the landing lights and if you don't like what you see turn them off and continue concentrating on getting as slow as possible without losing control and continue to fly the aircraft until the noise stops.:eek::p Step out brush yourself off and walk away.:\

[GoDsGiFtToAvIaTiOn]

For generally stooging around and going places it hard to go past a C172.

There is a very good reason why Cessna have sold a squillion of them!

GGtA:E

[Walrus 7]

Gaunty,

Why does it matter whether or not the plane is in production with its original manufacturer? Both are still offered for sale new with enhancements over the original models (which, incidently, makes the new ones less desirable than the older ones performance wise). True, New Piper isn't selling many Archers compared with Cessna's 172 figures, but then again I don't think they're selling much of anything these days. Anyway, I don't think CW is talking about buying new (?) and so therefore it doesn't matter so much.

Personally, I think the Archer would give the C172 a decent run for its money if they took out all the sound-proofing and lost 100 kg from the BEW.

Following your logic, is the Cessna 350 condemned to be a worse aircraft than the Columbia 350 because it won't be made by the original manufacturer?

VH-XXX,

Sorry for taking so long to reply. I did a quick ring-around of SR20 pilots and most were under the impression that the front spat was mandatory. Of course, the website proves that wrong. Interesting then that the main spats aren't offered as an option because they have been known to cause vibration problems on the 22.

Walrus

[Capt Wally]

Ah I see this thread is still alive & well:)

I think comparing the C172 to the Archer is a little unfair seeing as the two have different sized engines. I was sort of looking at the two 'twin's of the pvt world, the C172 & the Cherokee Warrior, now their the same thing power wise. The Archer would have to be my fav out of the two makes for load but I don't need that capability all the time to carry 4 bums full gas @ 120 kts., would be nice tho:-)
Best high wing I've flown was the C182Q, now that plane you can drag off the rwy with the doors bulging fuel dripping from the vents & stall warning blaring away! Trouble is I don't own an oil Co.:bored: the C210 nice machine, can't be dragged off the rwy as easily tho when heavy but oh boy not much can keep up with them & carry 6 bums.

Yr right 'Walrus' new is way out of the question.

As I mentioned for now am gojng to hire the clubs C172 but am leaning towards a C172 for it's obvious benifits such as easier access & shade always:-)
Still it's a big tnxs to those that are keeping this thread alive.:)


CW

[Walrus 7]

CW,

We went down the Archer track rather than the Warrior track, I suspect, because the Archer is a better tourer. It's faster and will carry more load. Realistically, Cessna has no equivalent to the Archer because it falls in between the C172 and the C182. Given the choice between a C172 and a Warrior, I would go the C172.

Walrus

[Cap'n Arrr]

front spat is std on the 20. I think its an option if you buy the VFR "SR-V".

[gassed budgie]

Realistically, Cessna has no equivalent to the Archer because it falls in between the C172 and the C182


You can by a new 172 with a 180 horse lycoming bolted to the front of it. When Cessna shut down the XP line in '81 they introduced the 172Q (Cutlass) with the 180hp engine. There are also many 172's out there with STC'd O-360 lycomings in them. They compare directly with the Archer.
For every one Warrior that Piper rolled out the factory door, Cessna made five 172's. That should answer your question. They had to be doing something right.

[Walrus 7]

GB,

Again, when comparing the C172 to the Warrior, I would unhesitatingly go for the C172. The R series C172s did have a 180 HP motor, but it was de-rated to 160 HP to keep the cabin noise down. Did that extend across the S series as well?

Walrus

[Cap'n Arrr]

From looking at this thread, they're both fairly similar maintenance wise, but one is always better or worse in a particular area

If i was looking, which I can't afford to be at all:(, I'd probably just go for a burn in one of each, then pick it based on which one I would be happier to own.

Would I be correct in guessing that they more or less cost the same to own and operate?

[Capt Wally]

'Cap' seems that there would be little between the two rivals here maint wise, the C172 & the Warrior. I'm looking at buying a late 70's model so the latter ones (age wise) don't feature where I am concerned.

'Walrus' as mentioned here I guess the Hawk XP was somewhat of an equal to the Archer in it's day although the formentioned had a Conty 6 in it of 360 cubes compared to the Lyc of 4 cyl of the same capacity. The latter cheaper at top O/haul.

I've always felt that the Piper range such as the Warrior was a more solid feeling plane, certianitly had less squeeks & rattles compared to the Cessna range but on the downside felt like a slug in the air, esspecially the early Cherokee 140's the forerunner to the Warrior.
Maybe buy both, that way when it's hot outside take the Cessna for shade, when it's a rough strip then the Warrior 'cause I like the instant mechanicl flaps for those 'tight' strips.

CW

[Walrus 7]

CW,

If you could wrestle a D model 172 away from any of the mustering companies you'd have mechanical flaps. The airframes are getting long in the tooth, though.

Walrus

[puff]

Walrus, the S model got the full power of the 180 HP that the R model didn't get, and that extra 20 HP makes one HELL of a difference to the a/c. I didn't like the R model esp hot and heavy, downright scary at times, S model goes very well in comparison

[Capt Wally]

Yes too true there 'walrus':)
I did fly an older model C172 that had mechanical flaps, God I was green at the time with I think only a few hundred hrs TT & thought this is agricultural!:) Am even thinking it had the Conty O300?
Smooth plane tho.


CW:ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Thought of you today Wally as I took ForkAir Flight 1 out of YBTL for YBMC. 3.5 hrs flying (had a 10 kt tail wind most of the way) - about 2 hrs in IMC.

Layover tonight at the Sheraton Noosa.

Lunch with Chuckles and Jaba tomorrow.

Then off the Can'tberra on Monday for a hot date with Julia!

Its a tough life but someones got to do it.

Dr :8

[Jabawocky]

And the truth is he is looking forward to the hot date with Chuckles and Jaba more than Julia!:}

Not more SE IFR there Forkie:eek:

J:E

[Capt Wally]

I don't know you blokes, fancy thinking of CW in yr spare time, ah how sweet is that!:p Somebody loves me afterall!

"Can'tberra' ? surely you don't mean our capital city? If so that's a long way in a SE buddy esspecially with a low freezing level!:bored: Must be code for a local strip where 'julia' awaits her man:)

'Jaba' I want all the juicy details (as I'm sure everyone else in here does too) with what the outcome is with the Dr:8 & Julia!:E

Hey Dr:8 speedo working is it mate?:E As long as yr not parked near any churches where there's likely to be deflated red balloons mimicking pitot covers on the ground then you ought to be safe;)
So I gather the Bo is all mended & ready to carry the Dr:8 anywhere day or night?



CW

[Howard Hughes]

Who in their right mind would want a plastic plane?

ME! (http://www.viper-aircraft.com/):E

Apparently the message I have entered is too SHORT!:rolleyes:

[Jabawocky]

HH

Count me in!


CW...........not sure I really want to know the details myself....Mind you the good Dr is an expert in Bovine fertility!:E

J:E

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Wally

Having a few issues with the Bo.

1) ADF went U/S a couple of weeks ago, so took the Bo to AF to have that looked at. Had the indicator serviced. Seemed to fix it.

2) Then Jaba and Chuckles broke the Nav/Omni function on the AP.

3) Then Jaba and Chuckles broke the alternator. Don't believe that fairy story about the alternator dying of a broken heart cause I took its GPS pals off in the Mooney.

4) Got the alternator fixed.

5) Flew the Bo home of Good Friday - ADF working - Nav/Omni functions on the autopilot not working.

6) Coming down today - AP is back with full function - I am laying down snail trails straight as a die again. Thank you ATC guys for "present position direct Murph" and "present position direct Gayndah".

7) About half way down today the digital fuel flow threw in the towel. At one point I went from 50L/hr to 95 L/hr to 0L/hr.

That last one got my attention! I thought "Oh no, Wally's prediction is about to come true"! Had myself all set up for a descent in IMC to a forced landing - when I realised that the engine was still running.

I didn't use any fuel at all for the last 1.5 hrs to Maroochydore!

Amazing!

Dr :8

[Capt Wally]

Oh Dr:8 to think that yr FF was zip with the consideration that death was close & you where still thinking of me !;)
So tell me, who is this Julia?......anybody can have a Bo (given enough money) but not everybody can have a 'julia' !:ok:
if you don't tell us yr jaba/chuckels mates will I'm sure !:E
CW

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Geez Wal, you're a bit slow this morning!

It was a joke!

"Can'tberra"
"Julia" - as in Gillard !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dr :8

[Capt Wally]

oh Dr:8 yes anything to do with Gillard is a joke yes, sorry I was hoping that this forum wouldn't go down that low to politics!:yuk: Remember she's "baron":E Besides am up at 4am for morning shift & it's a sunday! The only church i'll get to see today is the one you posted recently although it's difficult to look past the beauty in the forground, Mooney ain't too bad either!:E


CW

[ArcherCol]

CW

This has question "stirred the possum" and brought out all the old rivalries. :)

We went down the Cessna V Archer path a few years ago. Use the plane for a bit of touring a bit of mustering mostly working off bush strips and wanting to be reasonably priced. Ended up with an Archer II because of the ease of flying for the touring and the good payload. The undercarriage is good and sturdy although the odd spat is lost if you hit a bush etc, but this is not often and the cruise is good (110 kts full fuel 4 POB)

Mustering wise you are normally turning anyway so you just go a bit harder and get used to turns, (maybe I should get bigger paddocks?).

We have "droop tips" and these give us greater ground effect which is great for t/o but I remember my first landing with them and I couldnt get the bloody thing down onto the deck as is floated so much. They are meant to improve the cruise a bit too ( if you believe everything you read)

We use ours for about 150 hrs/yr and hire it to the local club also and we run it at about $135/hr wet and charge it out at a bit more.

Basically we are happy with the Archer as it is a forgiving plane which is easy to fly sturdy enough for bush strips and reasonably priced.

Hope this helps.

ArcherCol