Cessna 152 or 172?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
From: Between Galaxies
Cessna 152 or 172?
Hi, . . I'm just wondering which aircraft would be better to train on for getting a PPL. A Cessna 172 or a Cessna 152?
I'm thinking about this along the lines of "when I pass and I want to fly weekly, the Cessna 152 will be cheaper to fly"
Is this true? Is the 152 a cheaper aircraft to fly after the training stage when I fly alone, fuel etc?
Thanks in advance
Ian
I'm thinking about this along the lines of "when I pass and I want to fly weekly, the Cessna 152 will be cheaper to fly"
Is this true? Is the 152 a cheaper aircraft to fly after the training stage when I fly alone, fuel etc?
Thanks in advance
Ian
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
From: The Death Star
As Whipping Boy's says, do your PPL on the 152, then when you are qualified jump to the 172, it is an easy progression.
There is about £20 difference between the 152 and 172 per hour in terms of club rental rates I beleive, 45 times £20 equals £900 saving, forking out a few hundred for the conversion onto the 172 after you have got your PPL then isn't a problem. Also if you learn on the 152 you have something to look forward to when you qualify, I did that, and I enjoyed the conversion onto the warrior even more!
In terms of post PPL flying the 172 is a bit more stable than the 152, two more seats for potential cost sharing passengers and a bit more spacious for the pilot, usually more instrument kit in a 172 and its got a longer range for a small increase in fuel burn I think.
So I reckon, do yer PPL on the 152, then jump to the 172, if you want to fly weekly a share in a 172 might be worth looking at, then you are potentially going to be able to fly a 172 for cheaper than a club 152. But thats a long way off yet!
Enjoy the sun mate!. .Rusty.
[ 24 February 2002: Message edited by: Rusty Cessna ]
[ 24 February 2002: Message edited by: Rusty Cessna ]</p>
There is about £20 difference between the 152 and 172 per hour in terms of club rental rates I beleive, 45 times £20 equals £900 saving, forking out a few hundred for the conversion onto the 172 after you have got your PPL then isn't a problem. Also if you learn on the 152 you have something to look forward to when you qualify, I did that, and I enjoyed the conversion onto the warrior even more!
In terms of post PPL flying the 172 is a bit more stable than the 152, two more seats for potential cost sharing passengers and a bit more spacious for the pilot, usually more instrument kit in a 172 and its got a longer range for a small increase in fuel burn I think.
So I reckon, do yer PPL on the 152, then jump to the 172, if you want to fly weekly a share in a 172 might be worth looking at, then you are potentially going to be able to fly a 172 for cheaper than a club 152. But thats a long way off yet!
Enjoy the sun mate!. .Rusty.
[ 24 February 2002: Message edited by: Rusty Cessna ]
[ 24 February 2002: Message edited by: Rusty Cessna ]</p>
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
From: Between Galaxies
Hey,. . . .Thanks for the trusty replies everyone
'The Greaser', I'm a skinny little person who's nickname to my mates is "speedy pigmi" when playing rugby!
So that's no problem but thanks for the info
Ian
'The Greaser', I'm a skinny little person who's nickname to my mates is "speedy pigmi" when playing rugby!
So that's no problem but thanks for the info
Ian
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Yorkshire
I agree with the rest of 'em - go for the C152.. .My old instructor told me when learning you want the slowest cheapest thing you can find - if you are going somewhere on a pleasure flight then go for something with a bit of speed - especially if your passengers are contributing to the cost!
The C152 is good fun to fly although you will porbably find you are over the W&B calculations with a couple of reasonable sized blokes in it!. .Plus if the weather gets fun whilst you are up there its like riding a bucking bronco!!!!
Julian.
The C152 is good fun to fly although you will porbably find you are over the W&B calculations with a couple of reasonable sized blokes in it!. .Plus if the weather gets fun whilst you are up there its like riding a bucking bronco!!!!
Julian.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
[quote]Just a quick warning - if you over about 6'2" or 220lbs you will not fit into a 152. <hr></blockquote>
As a 6'5"er, I can tell you that size is no problem in either of the two spacious seats in a 152 . The real question is whether anybody else will be able to get in as well whilst still leaving you below MTOW and with adequate endurance to get to the hold and complete the power checks.
It has been suggested that more than 50% of 152 departure are above MTOW...
[ 25 February 2002: Message edited by: 2Donkeys ]</p>
As a 6'5"er, I can tell you that size is no problem in either of the two spacious seats in a 152
. The real question is whether anybody else will be able to get in as well whilst still leaving you below MTOW and with adequate endurance to get to the hold and complete the power checks.It has been suggested that more than 50% of 152 departure are above MTOW...
[ 25 February 2002: Message edited by: 2Donkeys ]</p>
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
From: Chichester, UK
Talking about overweight Cessnas...
[quote]. .People who love sausage and airplanes shouldn't try to make one look like the other, as did the operator of a 172B in September in Florida. During the turn to crosswind, the airplane descended into the trees.
The pilot reported that the airplane's fuel tanks were filled to capacity just before the flight. Aboard were the pilot, who weighed about 250 pounds, the right front passenger at 300 pounds and the positively svelte rear seat passenger, a mere 200 pounds. A 50-pound bag of sand was found in the rear of the baggage compartment.. .<hr></blockquote>
From <a href="http://www.avweb.com/articles/stupid/" target="_blank">http://www.avweb.com/articles/stupid/</a>
[ 25 February 2002: Message edited by: Evo7 ]</p>
[quote]. .People who love sausage and airplanes shouldn't try to make one look like the other, as did the operator of a 172B in September in Florida. During the turn to crosswind, the airplane descended into the trees.
The pilot reported that the airplane's fuel tanks were filled to capacity just before the flight. Aboard were the pilot, who weighed about 250 pounds, the right front passenger at 300 pounds and the positively svelte rear seat passenger, a mere 200 pounds. A 50-pound bag of sand was found in the rear of the baggage compartment.. .<hr></blockquote>
From <a href="http://www.avweb.com/articles/stupid/" target="_blank">http://www.avweb.com/articles/stupid/</a>
[ 25 February 2002: Message edited by: Evo7 ]</p>
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: UK
Ian,. .Once you get to Cross Country stage you may want to upgrade to the 172. Some advantages are that you would be with your instructor anyhow so the check out ride is free, the adittional speed over distance can cancel out the extra cost and the 172 is more stable, allowing you more time to concentrate on nav and not keeping the thing level.
Regards,. .LF
Regards,. .LF
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: London
Ped
I'm a low hours PPL and have just converted from a Warrior to a 172. No problems you just need to get used to the poorer visibility in the turn and the slightly slower approach speed. The only other problem is forgetting that you have no fuel pump during your downwind checks!
I'm a low hours PPL and have just converted from a Warrior to a 172. No problems you just need to get used to the poorer visibility in the turn and the slightly slower approach speed. The only other problem is forgetting that you have no fuel pump during your downwind checks!
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
From: Chichester, UK
Doesn't the low-wing Warrior float more ... or am I being stupid? <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Only flown the PA-28, but I find it surprising that something can float *more* than a Warrior <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Only flown the PA-28, but I find it surprising that something can float *more* than a Warrior <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
From: what U.S. calls “old Europe“
I upggraded my gliding licence to a PPL A last year und was flying the 150 most of the time. My flight instructor uses the 150 for students who have glider or microlight experience, for absolute beginners he uses the 172 because it is more stable and much easier to land if the wind is stronger, gusty or cross. It also has a much shorter flare which seems to make it easyer to beginners.. .If doing cross country flights and not just collecting hours, the 172 is the cheaper one due to the much higher cruise speed.. .Try both and decide for your self which one feels better.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
From: Niort
Presumning that you are talking about a pa28 of Warrior or later vintage my preferance would be the pa28. If it is earlier than a Warrior forget it and fly the C172.
The warrior onwards are nicely trimmed, handle better and generally make you feel good. The C172 has heavier controls and much better flaps. Only the very latest C172s have internal fittings that approach the Piper
The warrior onwards are nicely trimmed, handle better and generally make you feel good. The C172 has heavier controls and much better flaps. Only the very latest C172s have internal fittings that approach the Piper
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
From: Between Galaxies
Hello again, . . Thanks for the info guys. Point taken about costs coming together if i'm doing more cross country. But i'm gonna be building hours so my application forms for sponsorship to the airlines look better
But then again, stable flight would be better so as you mentioned I can concentrate on navigation. . .Thanks for the info, i'll talk further with the flying school
Ian
But then again, stable flight would be better so as you mentioned I can concentrate on navigation. . .Thanks for the info, i'll talk further with the flying school
Ian
