C150/C152 or C172 - which one to complete GFPT in???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: World
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C150/C152 or C172 - which one to complete GFPT in???
Hi Everyone
I have made the decision to start my CPL and have there fore decided discontinue flying towards my RAA licence in a Jabiru.
I am now hoping to get a bit of advice on whether I should complete my GFPT in either a C150/C152 or similar or a C172 or similar.
The smaller C152 is obviously cheaper, however I am wondering whether I might be better off going for a C172 or similar from the start to avoid having to convert over to it in order to start my NAV training.
I have approximately 30 hours or so including some solo time, however as I haven't flown regularly for the past few years it may take me a few hours to get my hand back in.
Any advice you could provide would be much appreciated.
I have been told that the 172 is more stable, however as I haven't flown a 152 I'm not able to easily compare. I would assume that either would have to be more stable than the Jabiru though.
Many thanks!!
Chris.
I have made the decision to start my CPL and have there fore decided discontinue flying towards my RAA licence in a Jabiru.
I am now hoping to get a bit of advice on whether I should complete my GFPT in either a C150/C152 or similar or a C172 or similar.
The smaller C152 is obviously cheaper, however I am wondering whether I might be better off going for a C172 or similar from the start to avoid having to convert over to it in order to start my NAV training.
I have approximately 30 hours or so including some solo time, however as I haven't flown regularly for the past few years it may take me a few hours to get my hand back in.
Any advice you could provide would be much appreciated.
I have been told that the 172 is more stable, however as I haven't flown a 152 I'm not able to easily compare. I would assume that either would have to be more stable than the Jabiru though.
Many thanks!!
Chris.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: On the Rise to Conquer!
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172 and 152 are pretty similar to fly. Difference is pretty much 172 is abit bigger.
I reckon flying with the 152 to build your hours up. Then, later on. Get some hours on the 182, and 210.
Bush loves some 210 experience
I reckon flying with the 152 to build your hours up. Then, later on. Get some hours on the 182, and 210.
Bush loves some 210 experience
If you dont comfortably fit in a 152 (and this is pretty much anyone who is tall) - then just go straight for the 172.
If you do fit and dont mind it, then do as much as you can it in it to save costs. Hop into the 172 when you start your navs.
If you do fit and dont mind it, then do as much as you can it in it to save costs. Hop into the 172 when you start your navs.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm guessing your main consideration is $$$. If you haven't flown for a while then you'll probably take, maybe half a dozen hours or so (assumption) to get back in the groove. Once you get to nav stage the conversion is very quick. When I "upsized" for navs it consisted of 0.9 circuits (and that's because the new plane was very different to land).
So personally i'd look at the difference in hourly rates between the two a/c and multiply that by the number of hours you think you'll take to get from here to nav stage (be realistic in your best guess). That's the savings in using a C152 instead of a C172. If the savings is greater than an hour or so in a C172 then there is your answer. If the savings isn't much and you'll blow it in 1 hr in a C172 then start on the C172.
Without checking the rates for the 2 types i'd guess the first option is cheaper. Either way you can pocket half the difference and send the other half by money order to Bill the economist (that's Bill Lumbergh not Bill Evans), this pilot's gotta eat.
And if that just confused the hell out of you PM me
.
P.S. your flying school should tell you how many hrs they spend on type conversion but like I said mine was 0.9hrs.
So personally i'd look at the difference in hourly rates between the two a/c and multiply that by the number of hours you think you'll take to get from here to nav stage (be realistic in your best guess). That's the savings in using a C152 instead of a C172. If the savings is greater than an hour or so in a C172 then there is your answer. If the savings isn't much and you'll blow it in 1 hr in a C172 then start on the C172.
Without checking the rates for the 2 types i'd guess the first option is cheaper. Either way you can pocket half the difference and send the other half by money order to Bill the economist (that's Bill Lumbergh not Bill Evans), this pilot's gotta eat.
And if that just confused the hell out of you PM me
.P.S. your flying school should tell you how many hrs they spend on type conversion but like I said mine was 0.9hrs.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: YBBN
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm paying $5 cheaper Dual on a 172 than I used to pay on a 152 
Quality of instruction is really good too.
Look around though...
I'll say, I do prefer the 172, Just that bit bigger and faster.
Also, means you can cost share more effectively when you're flying around on a GFPT.
Quality of instruction is really good too.
Look around though...
I'll say, I do prefer the 172, Just that bit bigger and faster.
Also, means you can cost share more effectively when you're flying around on a GFPT.
All my pre-GFPT stuff was in the C152, great little aircraft.
But i did a 172 conversion before my GFPT Flight test, and actually did my flight test in the 172.
172's are easy to fly as are the 152's. Try every aircraft for a bit just to get a feel for the handling qualities etc. and see what you feel most comfortable in!!
Good Luck!
But i did a 172 conversion before my GFPT Flight test, and actually did my flight test in the 172.
172's are easy to fly as are the 152's. Try every aircraft for a bit just to get a feel for the handling qualities etc. and see what you feel most comfortable in!!
Good Luck!
Cant see any reason why you would not do navs in the 152 as well. Navs involve a fair bit of flying time and therefore a lot of money to be saved. At the end of it start 4 seaters, c/s, retract etc. Fact is, if you can handle a 150/152 competently, then you can handle a 172. Dont waste any more money than you have to.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out the C150/C152
Suggest you select the C150/152 option as both are good basic trainers. Generally you should train on an aircraft that going to make you work!.... such as the C150. I currently instruct on the Grob G115A which will make you work hard........ in particular perfecting your landing technique and good judgment, Aircraft such as these have just about the right balance between Power and Performance, This will allow you to appreciate even more the upgrade to C172 and higher performance aircreaft in the future. Pilots transitioning onto the C172 from the Grob find they have a good grasp of the basics and safe aircraft control. The same can be said of the C150/152.
Wishing you Safe flying for the future.
Wishing you Safe flying for the future.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 43 S
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C152 / navs
my experience was that average student & instructor = not much fuel/not much nav time.
personally happier in pa28 or c172, fits 180cm/90kg much better.
May be worth doing the sums on hire rate/fuel burn versus TAS, you might find the balance in favour of the faster aircraft.
personally happier in pa28 or c172, fits 180cm/90kg much better.
May be worth doing the sums on hire rate/fuel burn versus TAS, you might find the balance in favour of the faster aircraft.
I think you will save money going to GFPT on a 152, that's what I did.
Then convert to a 172 (takes a few circuits) and then do the Navs. The 172 is very similar to fly, its just that control inputs are heavier and everything happens a bit faster.
I agree there won't be much saving doing navs in the 152 as the 152 is slower than the 172. Savings in the hourly rate will get eaten up by the extra time taken. The 172 has more space for charts kneeboard etc, and probably has better avionics.
Then convert to a 172 (takes a few circuits) and then do the Navs. The 172 is very similar to fly, its just that control inputs are heavier and everything happens a bit faster.
I agree there won't be much saving doing navs in the 152 as the 152 is slower than the 172. Savings in the hourly rate will get eaten up by the extra time taken. The 172 has more space for charts kneeboard etc, and probably has better avionics.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: neither here nor there
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's becoming common but I'll continue,
I did up to GFPT in C152 and I am 6'6" and 120kg, my instructor was rather stout too. I had the option of going straight on 172 due to my size but did the sums and there was a fair difference. half way through GFPT got onto the 172 and PA28 and would recommend the same for the navs for any size individual. generally better equipment on board too.
I did up to GFPT in C152 and I am 6'6" and 120kg, my instructor was rather stout too. I had the option of going straight on 172 due to my size but did the sums and there was a fair difference. half way through GFPT got onto the 172 and PA28 and would recommend the same for the navs for any size individual. generally better equipment on board too.
Who cares?
To a degree an aeroplane is an aeroplane. I reckon I'd make the choice on individual aircraft condition & for navs, the equipment on board. I also think that in the early stages having experience of multiple types is an advantage. So I'd vote for a shandy of the two.
To a degree an aeroplane is an aeroplane. I reckon I'd make the choice on individual aircraft condition & for navs, the equipment on board. I also think that in the early stages having experience of multiple types is an advantage. So I'd vote for a shandy of the two.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's another viewpoint: Whichever has the better availability 
If you spend all your time waiting for availability, it'll cost you more in the long run.
Seriously there's little difference, other than the 150/2 being a tad range limited for navs.
If you spend all your time waiting for availability, it'll cost you more in the long run.Seriously there's little difference, other than the 150/2 being a tad range limited for navs.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C152 and C172 are similar to handle.
At the end of the day, it is the differences between the specific aircraft (avionics, instruments, unservicabilities) that will determine how long it takes to do a 'conversion'.
You could even go to PPL in the C152 - however if you do then you should take the following into account:
* Aircraft availability and serviceability (is it always going into maintenance?)
* Will the instructors be happy to do nav's in that aircraft?
* Will the ATO be happy to do the PPL test in that aircraft? (There are a few ATO's out there who can be real time-wasters... hopefully there aren't too many of them around)
*Demonstrated crosswind maximum in the C152 is lower than the C172, which can occasionally ruin your nav plans...
At the end of the day, it is the differences between the specific aircraft (avionics, instruments, unservicabilities) that will determine how long it takes to do a 'conversion'.
You could even go to PPL in the C152 - however if you do then you should take the following into account:
* Aircraft availability and serviceability (is it always going into maintenance?)
* Will the instructors be happy to do nav's in that aircraft?
* Will the ATO be happy to do the PPL test in that aircraft? (There are a few ATO's out there who can be real time-wasters... hopefully there aren't too many of them around)
*Demonstrated crosswind maximum in the C152 is lower than the C172, which can occasionally ruin your nav plans...
