C172 V Cherokee
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: North of the 26th and not above FL010
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by airmuster; 18th Mar 2008 at 05:00. Reason: Extra info
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?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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?
you owe me a new monitor. This one's got coffee stains all over it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
'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
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
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?
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: qld (if you couldn't work that out from my name!)
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'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 !
CW
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 !
CW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ! 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
. 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
)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 !
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
. 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
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!)
(Then again, when the bills and the aggro come, there's not much like that either!)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
plastic vs metal
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the Hangar
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Step out brush yourself off and walk away.
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.
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.
Step out brush yourself off and walk away.