Skyhawk

[FANS]

Has anyone bought a recent skyhawk, and can share their view on it or new alternatives I should be looking at for a basic SEP aircraft for personal, leisure use in the UK?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Skyhawks come in 3 generations

Classic 1956-1967: Powered by the 145 hp 6 cylinder Continental O 300 engine and with old fashion panel layout, and in the early years (pre 1960) straight tails and no back window (pre 1963).

Legacy 1968-1985: Powered by the 150-160 hp carburated 4 cylinder Lycoming O 320. Look very similar throughout the model years and closely resemble a new build but with a cheaper plasticy panel and interior, no corrosion proofing in the airframe, and some structural problems in higher time examples.

New Build 1996 - Present: Powered by a 160 -180 hp fuel injected Lycoming IO 360. Modern and very nice seats and interior, improved updated and corrosion protected airframe.

Prices (UK) range from 15K pounds (Tatty Classic) to 300 K (Factory new)

Which part of the market are you looking in ?

[FANS]

I was looking at a new one.

[Rod1]

FANS forgive me but lots of questions;

Have you owned an aircraft before?

Do you plan to fly IFR or at night?

Do you plan to fly 4 adults, 3 adults, just 2 or some other combination?

Where are you geographically and are you planing to keep the aircraft outside?

How many hours a year?

For your budget you have a huge choice.

Rod1

[S-Works]

BPF, you missed the Skyhawk XP 6 cylinder rolls Royce engine with a constant speed prop. 210hp. Also it's previous incarnation as a Reims Rocket.

[FANS]

Rod

I haven't owned or had a share before.

IFR capability would be positive but depends on cost.

Likely to be two people, or just me!

Based in northeast and can arrange a hangar.

Hours will be 70ish.

It's around flying old untidy machines that I ve had enough of, hence looking to bite the bullet. Equally second hand causes concern given you don't always save that much and I m looking for it to last 30 years.

[27/09]

the Skyhawk XP 6 cylinder rolls Royce engine

I almost fell off my chair laughing, do you mean the Continental IO-360 piece of junk?

I know some of the C150 O-200's had Rolls Royce rocker covers, that's about the start and finish of the Rolls Royce connection. Both engines are not something I'd be proud to put my name on.

FANS

Does it have to be a Skyhawk, what about a PA28? For my money a Piper is a better bet.

[S-Works]

I have the Original Rolls Royce IO360 engine in my Skyhawk XP, it's done 1900 trouble free hours (1300 flown by me) and still has near perfect compression.

A true 4 seat, short field performing aircraft that cruises at 128kts on 36lph. Full IFR.

Hardly a piece of junk and something I am proud to put my name on.....:ok:

[Rod1]

Ok - I would start by flying the following;

Vans RV7
Vans RV10
Robin DR400 180
Cirrus sr22
Diamond DA40

For sure you will not like all of them and that will shorten the list. The first two are home built but are very fast, there are many flying and will probably have very powerful uncertified EFIS tec. The others are all CofA and are all much higher performance than the typical 172.

Rod1

[27/09]

I have the Original Rolls Royce IO360 engine in my Skyhawk XP, it's done 1900 trouble free hours (1300 flown by me) and still has near perfect compression.

Your luck is much better than one I know of. This one aircraft had three totally separate in flight engine failures due to mechanical reasons that could not have been predicted. The last one at night in IMC killed the two occupants.

If I recall correctly there was a different engine fitted between at least one engine failure as an exchange overhaul and at least a bulk strip/overhaul on the other occasion. The failures couldn't be attributed to lack of maintenance

It also had numerous other "minor" engine issues, like sudden low oil pressure requiring an immediate landing.

You couldn't pay me to own one.

Yours must be a fast one, I never saw anything much over 120 in the ones I have flown, in fact they struggled to go much faster than a PA28-161.

[27/09]

Rod1

Whats the Cirrus like on short grass strips?

I still think you will go a long way to beat a PA28 for sturdiness simplicity and reliability.

[9 lives]

The Skyhawks as described all have their good and compromise points. The good points are solid, predictable, and repairable! For any of them, parts are obtainable.

Legacy PA28s are good planes as long as they don't need to be repaired. But if a legacy PA28 has corrosion or physical damage which requires replacement of structural parts, the owner could be in for a very nasty surprise - and have a grounded plane - forever. I know of two Arrows to which this has happened. Even hail damage could require skin replacement, where that same damage on a 172 would be declared negligible, and the aircraft allowed to remain in service as is. I fly them both happily - but I own a Cessna.

The Continental engines are fine if well maintained. The rare Lycoming suddenly stops too....

[dont overfil]

Hi FANS,

Some of the posters here have not picked up that you are considering a new (or new'ish?) C172.

All C172's now have the Lycoming engine and the 180 is fuel injected. Performance is about the same as an Archer but the economy is slightly better than the carb equipped Pipers. No risk of carb ice! Hot starting problems don't exist on the new Cessnas.

G1000 glass is now standard and has been an option since 2004. If you decide to go for one just a few years old with the conventional instruments make sure it has the optional KMD550 moving map. Great for situational awareness. G1000 can have traffic and many other options.

Fit and finish is outstanding and is a world away from the older models. There is more room in the Cessna over the Piper and having two doors is more convenient.

Before anyone jumps to the defence of the Piper, I have nothing against them. I owned an Archer for a while but Piper have not moved with the times as well as Cessna.

D.O.

[FANS]

Thanks

Is the archer still in production and how does its pricing compare?

Build quality is key to me.

[27/09]

FANS

Yes the Archer is still in production, and are very well equipped and finished.

In my experience having operated both types, that is C 172 and PA28, the PA28 is cheaper to run

DON't OVERFILL

The new 172's are very nice, however I don't agree that Piper hasn't moved along as far as Cessna.

I'll think you'll find an Archers cruises faster than the C172, and for the same power settings the fuel burn is the same. Fuel injection is good but doesn't give better fuel consumption. With the faster cruise the Archer will have a better mpg than the Cessna.

True, fuel injection offers advantages so far as carb icing goes but then I've never had a carb ice problem when flying an Archer IFR. So far as hot starting goes I've seen many many people have problems hot starting an injected C172. The problem in most cases is incorrect technique but is still there just as it can be for poor technique on a carby engine.

STEEP TURN

I'd suggest the corrosion problems you talk of can apply to any aircraft not just Piper. Older Pipers were generally better corrosion proofed than the same vintage Cessnas. There's more than one or two Cessnas that have been abandoned dues to the costs of complying with the SIDS programme.

Your hail damage comment is hard to fathom. I don't see why the outcome should be any different based on the makers plate fitted to the airframe. Plus hail damage, no matter the aircraft type can be "repaired" just by filling the dents and repainting.

[9 lives]

Indeed corrosion can attack any aircraft, and Cessnas which are not primed inside (most American ones) are particularly susceptible. However, my experience developing approved repairs for corrosion damage has shown that generally, Cessna parts can be made or repaired, and Cessna provides ample data as to how. That data is approved data for those repairs. I have found that Piper is very much less likely to make that data available, and to make matters worse, where Cessna defines "negligible damage" (meaning that you don't have to repair it) Piper seems not to - so any damage must be repaired.

Then you look a the structure of a PA-28 series. Some very important parts (like the wing spars) are special extrusions. Piper will not sell them, and there are no others "out there" so if yours are corroded, the plane is scrap. I have declared two Arrows scrap for this, and one still sits three years later, un moved from the same tiedown spot I inspected it in. Were it to have been a Cessna, if Cessna could not sell you the parts, their manual already told you how to make them, and they are mostly folded sheet metal - many fewer extrusions.

I was asked to develop a repair for a corroded Seneca II. Piper refused to support the plane with parts, and told me so directly: [Piper to me]"Sir, that's a 40 year old plane. We have not seen it for forty years, and we don't want it in the air any more, so we will not be selling any parts for it". With that, I would not buy a legacy Piper - it could really be stuck in the future.

As for hail damage, I can assure you that filling dents is not approved for some parts of the plane. Repair (skin replacement) on a Piper would be required. I was able to save a PA-28-161 from being scrapped for hail damage, by developing a "repair". Some skins replacement and allowance for leaving some dents un repaired. It cost 35% of the value of the aircraft to return it to service following the hail damage - but I did it for the client.

I like planes which have a great future in being repairable, if necessary.

[27/09]

STEEP TURN

I know of one Piper that had the hail dents legally repaired by filling and repainting. I also know of Piper making new parts for 40 year old Pipers.

Things are not as grim as you indicate.

Perhaps there are different interpretations of the rules in various administrations. It's my understanding that, in some jurisdictions at least, repairs can be made under Part 43 or equivalent that allow fabrication of parts using the originals as patterns.

I also find it hard to believe there were no second hand wings or spars that could not have been used to repair those Arrows.

However as the OP seems to be focusing on a new or near new aircraft this discussion on old aircraft is a moot point.

[Dan Winterland]

BPF, you missed the Skyhawk XP 6 cylinder rolls Royce engine with a constant speed prop.


And this one.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTz6cmHjVCWk2pjCg-zWiLH2-CVOtZQN1CV3IWsYjGYcKsTDszmpQ

[FANS]

Thanks for all of the replies. I m focusing on the newer end but the replies around the older frames are still interesting given this will be an older frame at some stage.

I've also picked up on some points that a year's worth of magazine reading wouldn't have flagged, especially when those mags need the advertising £.

[27/09]

If you buy new or near new in good condition and look after it, i.e keep up the maintenance, keep it clean and keep that paint in good nick i.e keep the salt spray from being on the airframe for extended periods (you are in a maritime environment) and ideally keep it hangared or at least have a cover for it, no matter what you buy it will last you well.

I'd also consider regular (every three years or so) treatment with something like ACF 50.

By and large most horror stories come from aircraft that have been unloved and left outside to slowly rot away.

Remember also that both Piper and Cessna are unlikely to make radical airframe changes to the PA28 or C172 series. Both Piper and Cessna made major airframe changes to these series over 40 or more years ago but with the number they sell today it's very unlikely they'll make any further major changes. So long as these aircraft remain in production they will still be making parts for aircraft that go back 40 years or more.

[ChickenHouse]

Almost all true, but don't forget the venerable Reims F172, which are just C172 built in France and they are all anti-corrosion treated (in contrast to the US built, where that was a paid option).

One thing surprises me - if you compare say a 1966/1967 F172, G or H, with a brand new C172SP, what do you get?

It is 180hp 4-cyl. IO360 vs. 145hp 6-cyl. O300 - the old one definitley runs a lot smoother.
It is 108kts cruise vy 98kts cruise - 10 kts advantage for the new one.
It is 35LPH vs. 27LPH - 8LPH, or 2GPH for only 10kts faster.
It is Avgas mandatory vs. Mogas possibility - advantage the old one.
It is G1000 vs clocks - is the blingbling world really an advantage?
It is about 100kg carry load less on the new one.
It is 270k real money vs 30k if you go for a GNS430 equipped old.

Is there enough benefit in a new one to justify + a quarter of a million? This is about the equivalent of the Total Costs of Ownership for a whole one TBO for a O-300D.

[dont overfil]

Any C172SP 180 I've flown cruised at 115Kts at 8usg/hour low level.

M,N and P models I've flown struggle to manage 100KTS at 8 imperial GPH so there is a substantial difference. Of course most of the older ones are only 140-160BHP.

There must be other differences because I have some time in the Cutlass which can only manage 120kts. It is a C172 180 with retracts and constant speed prop. It used nearly 10 USG/Hr.

Fuel injection definitely improves economy. On the C182 I've been flying recently it is worth 2 Imperial GPH. This will be partly due to being able to lean it more aggressively without it shaking itself to pieces!

D.O.
Edited to add:- The C172SP's I've flown all had around 850lbs useful load. 6 hours and 515lbs for bodies or cargo.

[ChickenHouse]

I don't know the newer M,N,P Lycosaurus and their 160hp conversion.

I was referring to the older Continentals O300 compared to the SP. I just digged out the real numbers - usually fly my F172H 145hp Continental at 2.450 rpm (climb prop) with 6.8GPH Mogas at about 95-98KTS. I also frequently fly our C172SP 180HP Lyco at 2.200 rpm (cruise prop) with 8GPH Avgas and at about 108-110KTS. Both settings give about 65% power according to POH. Never saw 115 with 8GPH on the SP's our club have, that would be more like 9-9.5GPH for 115 - one is 2003, the other 2009 (heavy, due to G1000).

So my personal experience is, that spending 200k EUR more give me a 10KTS advantage, but 94kg less load (the 6-cyl is the far better lever for W&B) and about 5 EUR higher fuel costs per hour (roughly 1.2GPH less with 1 EUR/L cheaper Mogas) - ok, I admit also a much louder plane, but isn't the old roaring 6-cyl sexier compared to the rattling 4 ... ?

[Curlytips]

Find a good condition F172H with run out engine. Fit a replacement 0-360A4M using the Air Plains mod bought from USA. You get 180hp and still have 40 degree flaps - get in and out of anywhere, cruise comfortably at 110 knots, with flat out speed of 130 knots. Lift more than the new 172. Been there, done that (and still enjoying it)

[ChickenHouse]

OK, can't beat a 0-360A4M in a 172H - THAT is something! But it's a rare bird.

Or look for a T-41B Mescalero, or a French 172 Rocket, both with the same 210HP IO-360 H, or go even further with the 400HP conversion V8 Corvette engine from Quietaviation (C172 India N46240, does anybody know how many Experimental V8's are out there? Price was very reasonable.) - even runs on AutoFuel ... These will all be more like a little shrunk 182 and less 172ish.

[Curlytips]

Another plus with the Air Plains conversion is that everything firewall forward is brand new, so all is TBO'd to 2000 hours, and if you worry about Cessna SIDs that's a lot of the work done. There are more of these in UK recently, because there aren't any new Continentals available and it costs near same to zero - time. I've no interest in promoting Air Plains, but they are just really nice people and helped me turn my aircraft into exactly what I wanted. EASA mod is easy.

[27/09]

DONT OVERFILLFuel injection definitely improves economy. On the C182 I've been flying recently it is worth 2 Imperial GPH. This will be partly due to being able to lean it more aggressively without it shaking itself to pieces!

That's a significant difference, over 20%, a lot in anyone's book. Do you really believe fuel injection will make such a big difference?

I have flown several aircraft with fuel injected and carburetted versions of the same engine (all Lycomings) and I have never seen a measurable difference between either induction method.

I don't doubt you've seen a difference however I suspect it's more to do with the relative positions of the black and blue knobs. I've seen some manifold pressure and RPM readings that don't match the real world. A pilot thinks they have X amount of power set by the readings on the gauges when in fact he/she has Y amount of power set, which of course reflects in the fuel burn.

It may also be partly due the the make of engine. The Continental induction tubes are on the top of the engine in the cold cooling air and suffer from poorer fuel air ratio distribution especially for the longer tubes (Carby versions only) as the fuel doesn't stay in suspended in the airflow due to the atomised fuel condensing out. You may not be able to lean as much before you encounter roughness.

The Lycoming induction system comes from a warm plenum area below the sump and the induction tubes run nearby the exhaust system keeping them relatively warmer compared to the Continental. Therefore a carby Lycoming will not see as much variance in air fuel ratio between cylinders.

[27/09]

CURLY TIPSAnother plus with the Air Plains conversion is that everything firewall forward is brand new, so all is TBO'd to 2000 hours, and if you worry about Cessna SIDs that's a lot of the work done.

Are you saying that most of the SIDS involves the firewall forward? If so I'd have to disagree, most of the work is from the firewall back.

I agree the Airplanes conversion is a good one.

[ChickenHouse]

There may be more working hours on a C172 backwards the firewall, BUT one major cost driver is that bloody expensive engine mount inspection, if applicable. So yes, more labor aft firewall, but often more bucks in front.

Anybody an idea what Air Plains conversion would cost for a D-E reg? A friends O300 is reaching TBO and he was quoted an incredible price for OH.

[Curlytips]

Try Home (http://www.airplains.com) for the basic kit info. Your engineer will need to quote for the work, but probably around 2k Euro or less? I had it done at same time as annual was due - always helps to combine work. Remember your future costs will be less because everything is new (just coming up to my 500 hour magneto servicing). EASA mod 300 Euro. But once you do it, aircraft thinks it is a 182, so budget for a 182 paint scheme :).

Don't forget that what you take off the aircraft has value. I sold all my old stuff - engine, prop, engine mount etc. And the 5k went towards my costs. So overall cost was less than 0-300 zero timing - or close - but now have confidence of everything new and bulletproof A4M keeps turning.

[IFMU]

I sometimes rent one of the 1998 C172S's from my local FBO. They have fuel injected O-360's, 180 HP and round dial cockpits. They are great airplanes and I think if you don't mind the price, can't see how you could go wrong buying a new one.

I have flown 160 HP warriors and skyhawks, I have flown 180 HP Arrows and skyhawks. The skyhawk sure climbs better. Though I have a lot more piper time I prefer Cessna.

Bryan

[9 lives]

I quite support the idea of upgrading an older 172, which is in good shape. It does take planning, skill and contractor oversight, but you'll get every bit as good a plane (better in some ways) an probably for lots less that brand new. The brand new 172's are very nice, but at 5 to 7 times to price of a decent legacy one, you've really got to want new to spend the extra!

I've just finished completely redoing a 182, and it's magnificent. It ended up a bit more than a brand new one, but it is a glass cockpit amphibian with a reversing prop, and exactly what the owner wanted.

[dont overfil]

There's the numbers.
Fuel flow is the gauge middle left and proved accurate.

http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af44/dontoverfil/7bf68ca3-3f01-4e5e-a42a-7284181a7dfb.jpg (http://s992.photobucket.com/user/dontoverfil/media/7bf68ca3-3f01-4e5e-a42a-7284181a7dfb.jpg.html)

[thing]

If I had the dosh I would buy a 182 with the new diesel donk.

[9 lives]

So one can turn "dosh" into "donk"? I am going to have to learn English one day.... ;)

[thing]

Donk=donkey=engine. Keep up at the back Smith.

[PilotInPink]

Personally, I prefer the Pipers. (No numbers or science behind it, just the feeling). I did a few hundred hours in a relatively new Archer last year which was lovely to fly- but the air conditioning unit meant its useful load was 0.

But the Skyhawk has some definite advantages:

I always feel that the 172 has much better takeoff performance.

Two doors is certainly better- no need to unload a passenger or climb over someone when you've forgotten the chocks.

The 172 seems easier to get in and out of than a low wing aircraft, particularly when your knees and hips have started to go.

The C172S that I fly has built in cup holders. Enough said.


Something to be wary of though, all the aircraft I've flown that are fitted with G1000 have a much lower payload due to the weight of the avionics. And when something goes wrong, you'd better hope that someone nearby is qualified/ knowledgable in how to fix it.

[thing]

I always feel that the 172 has much better takeoff performance.
Strange that, I feel the same. If I'm going into a tight grass strip I will always take the 172. I have roughly the same time on both types and on paper there's not a lot in a 28-161 and a 172 with the 160 donk, but I always feel that the 172 is accelerating faster. Maybe it's due to the seating position, the fact that the 172 has a deeper windshield and also your peripheral vision is picking up the grass flashing past instead of wing.

[ChickenHouse]

I had the joy to test an Experimental JT-A (new 182 with SMA Diesel) in Kansas a while ago and yes, it is a remarkable plane. BUT, if you look at that price ... ;(

[thing]

The Euromillions Lotto here in UK for tomorrow night is currently standing at
£143,000,000...around 230 million US. I shall have one for weekdays and one for weekends. Or better still, one on floats as well.

[FANS]

Does anyone have the basic list prices of a skyhawk and an archer?

[jaycee46]

Check the websites!:ok:

[Rod1]

All available new

Robin New Aircraft - Constructeur des avions Robin - DR400 (http://www.robin-aircraft.com/)

Diamond Aircraft (http://www.diamondaircraft.com/)

Home - Piper (http://www.piper.com/)

Cirrus Aircraft (http://cirrusaircraft.com/sr22/)

Cessna Aircraft Company - business jet and propeller aircraft manufacturer (http://cessna.txtav.com/)

[horizon flyer]

The Lycoming 360 engine is a bit of a disaster, at 70 hours a year it will not make TBO needs 40 hours a month. The camshaft will rust out first, does need the roller follower option and it will suffer with sticking valves. Then there is the Wrist pin centering aluminium blanks that roll and damage the piston and cylinders.

Then there are the overheating problems which can aneal the oil control rings causing them to roll over and break. Plus uneven cylinder wear due to shaving off the cooling fins down one side of the cylinders.

Finally according to Lycoming any problems with their engines is down to the operator not their lousy design, yer right.

[IFMU]

Odd, not my experience at all with the Lycoming IO360. Have some hours behind one in a PA28, C172, and an S2A. Also have some time in front of one in an F28A. Maybe we only export the bad ones.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The general industry consensus is that the Lycoming 320 and 360 series engines are among the most bullet proof engines ever made. My flying club has approval to fly them 3500 hrs between overhauls and they all make it, and that is 3500 hard hours being abused by students.

lack of use is a killer for any aviation piston engine. If you fly your lycoming at least every other week and change the oil regularly than there is no reason it will not go to and even well past TBO.

[worrab]

Hours will be 70ish.

@FANS, it may be that owning a new aircraft is well within your means and is a part of the landscape of private flying. From a simple economic perspective it wouldn't appear to be the best option, but there is undoubtedly something pretty special about owning something pristine outright.

From an engineering perspective I do wonder what the effects will be of flying an aircraft for around an hour or two a week (and possibly a lot less in Winter?). Are you planning to lay the plane up properly when it's not going to be used? Perhaps I'm unduly pessimistic, but it does appear that there will be a huge amount of work for a relatively limited upside.

[star57]

I understand that this would be your first aircraft, it also seems that money may not be an objection.
I owned a 2000 172S, nice airplane as a training aircraft but that is where it ends.
In that category, but with a much better performance for the same fuel consumption you could get a 2007 or newer Diamond DA40, the XL can be had for about 200K US, it has a 145knot TAS performance and it does it in about 9 gallons.
I have a 2005 DA40, same engine but a lousy A/P
buy the plane that fits the mission, your mission now is training I think! Rent dont buy for know.
Good luck

[9 lives]

buy the plane that fits the mission,

Definitely. But if you are buying, rather that just using someone else's, your "mission" must also include maintainability, reparability, and dispatch reliability. Start asking around about spares/parts availabililty, how easy it is to maintain (getting at things), how often a "little thing" prevents you going flying, and importantly, if you have a hard landing, or someone dents the plane with a suitcase, or breaks a window, how easy is that to repair. And... how common is it to find a local shop capable?

Any of the foregoing will make a C 172 look like the nicest plane on earth!

Before choosing, also ask the hard questions, of things you would rather not have to think about, so if you ever have to, you don't get the surprise then!

(I've owned a Cessna for 27 years - zero surprises, 99.9% dispatch reliability!)

[darkroomsource]

Hmmm... great discussion...
I have never owned an aeroplane, but I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I fee qualified to comment...
Ha Ha.
Actually, I'm just going to relay some thoughts that were given to me by friends who own aeroplanes.

1. If you've never owned an aeroplane before, start out easy, reduce your risk.
2. It never costs as little as the brochure says it will cost.
3. The plane is never as available as a rental (hire) plane will be. (this applies more to share schemes, but every so often the plane is in for minor repairs, inspections, etc., and when this happens at the "club", you can rent/hire a different aeroplane)
4. If you're flying less than about 200 hours per year, then being the sole owner of an aeroplane is an indulgence, and it will cost more per hour than you expect (double your expectations), because the engine will run out faster, it will require more maintenance work during the "off" season, etc.

My suggestion, based on what I've learned from others, is that with only 70 hours per year, and you want to have a "newer" plane, then find a club with newer planes for hire, and hire those instead. Or, if you have to be an owner, then get into a share scheme on a newer plane.

Of course, if you've got money to burn, then you could either send me some, so I can fly more, or you could buy a new plane and be prepared for down-time for the maintenance required due to flying it so little.

That said, I don't think fixing up an older 172 comes close to what a new one is like. Having hired newish 172's, I find them quieter, smoother, more comfortable, and cleaner, all of which lead to a more comfortable flight, and also help passengers to feel more comfortable (particularly on their first few flights).

[mikehallam]

Before anyone's comments put you off the Cessna 172 please read this- also off Pprune 2011: see sheet three of the thread and read the story this guy leads you to.

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/441604-sep-north-pole-3.html

A full report with lots of pictures is available.

"At the pole ....... on the 17th of July 2011, at 15.20 GMT, a little Cessna 172took off from Eureka (Canada), and set course North. After 6 hours of flying, at 21.25 GMT, this little Cessna was over the geographic North Pole, all alone, in a vast white emptyness. 6 hours later, the little Cessna made a safe landing back in Eureka."

mike hallam.

[Big Pistons Forever]

12 hours crammed into a Cessna 172:eek:. My butt hurts just thinking about it :ugh:

[150 Driver]

Re fears about low hours, I'm sure there must be loads of planes privately owned that do less than 70 hours a year without undue mechanical problem. Mine is one.

I suppose though that there is a difference between outlaying £10K-20K of the typical 150/152/vintage 172 and the circa £250K for a new 172