The 152
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That does not make it a very economical plane.
As for operation cost: if you call the C172 " very inexpensive to operate", I suppose you call the MCR 4S "very very very inexpensive to operate" ?
And yes, C172's are cheap to acquire these days. When approaching a small aerodrome, you can better be on the lookout or you might get one thrown at you. If it isn't a PA28. Ever wondered why?
And yes, C172's are cheap to acquire these days. When approaching a small aerodrome, you can better be on the lookout or you might get one thrown at you. If it isn't a PA28. Ever wondered why?
It doesn't burn much fuel
A better comparison might be to a Jab3300-powered BD4, perhaps. But a BD4 isn't available factory-built, AFAIK.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever wondered why?
Only double of an MCR 4S.
The MCR4S advertises 20 litres/hr for fuel burn (five gallons an hour), while the 172 does about six to eight gallons per hour. Not really double, is it?
The MCR 4S advertises 236 kph at 8,000', which is 146 mph, which is 127 knots. The 172 averages around 110 knots. It hauls about the same load. It goes about the same speed. It burns about the same amount of fuel.
Of course, you can buy the 172 for less than it will cost you to build the MCR, and you have a proven airframe with parts availability, a well established mechanical history, which is not experimental, and which you don't have to build.
The MC-whatever runs about sixty four thousand euros for a kit, and that doesn't include engine, propeller, avionics, instrumentation, wiring, etc. A working, running, certified and operating 172 can be purchased for less than the MC-whatever's raw parts and materials. Not a bad deal, considering that purchasing the 172 means one gets to fly home, rather than take a crate home that might one day, years later, become an airplane.
The point was economy of operation. I never denied the low cost of acquisition of old-yet-not-antiques. And I did point out that the MCR is in quite a different ballpark from the C172's. I still maintain that, for its capacity and performance, the C172 is not particularly inexpensive to operate. Let alone "very inexpensive" .
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I did point out that the MCR is in quite a different ballpark from the C172's.
The 172 wins.
I still maintain that, for its capacity and performance, the C172 is not particularly inexpensive to operate. Let alone "very inexpensive" .
Far better that you buy the 172, and save yourself for the final dance night. It's Ravel's Bolero; you'll thank me later.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy
If you slow the MCR down by so it is going at the same speed as your 172 it will burn 14lph of MOGAS, so the fuel cost will be less than ½ the 172 – just as Jan Olieslagers said. If you then take maintenance into account, the MCR is likely to cost you around £5k per year less than your 172. In the UK people are abandoning the 172 / PA28’s due to the high cost of ownership, which is why the price has collapsed.
Rod1
If you slow the MCR down by so it is going at the same speed as your 172 it will burn 14lph of MOGAS, so the fuel cost will be less than ½ the 172 – just as Jan Olieslagers said. If you then take maintenance into account, the MCR is likely to cost you around £5k per year less than your 172. In the UK people are abandoning the 172 / PA28’s due to the high cost of ownership, which is why the price has collapsed.
Rod1
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are comparing apples, oranges, bananas and mouldy socks here. Personally i think the 152 is a fine training aircraft and hard to beat. Some of the youngsters (Tecnam 2002 etc) come very close as far as handling and operating costs are concerned. Of course, they are also far more shiney and attractive to the new student. It is too early to tell if any of these take over from the 152 - on handling terms, there is no reason why they shouldn't.
Looking a little further ahead, I believe the 162 should not automatically take over from the 152. Undoubtedly it will be well built and have a good support network but the figures appear to describe a decidedly average aircraft, doing no more than the 152 and far less than other LSA/VLA. I fervently believe that Cessna have made a mistake shoving a Continental in the front ahead of the Rotax. Maybe they know something about future fuels that the rest of the world doesn't? Either that or there is a Rotax driven 162 hidden in a hangar somewhere.
One final thought. Someone previously waxed-lyrical about the 172 - I agree. The 172 is a fantastic all-round, 'economical' aircraft (although I would still choose the 152 first for PPL training), most definitely deserving its place in history.
Looking a little further ahead, I believe the 162 should not automatically take over from the 152. Undoubtedly it will be well built and have a good support network but the figures appear to describe a decidedly average aircraft, doing no more than the 152 and far less than other LSA/VLA. I fervently believe that Cessna have made a mistake shoving a Continental in the front ahead of the Rotax. Maybe they know something about future fuels that the rest of the world doesn't? Either that or there is a Rotax driven 162 hidden in a hangar somewhere.
One final thought. Someone previously waxed-lyrical about the 172 - I agree. The 172 is a fantastic all-round, 'economical' aircraft (although I would still choose the 152 first for PPL training), most definitely deserving its place in history.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna and Piper trainer lineup
Hi Guys,
Back in the 70s, both Cessna and Piper had a complete lineup of reasonably modern and visually attractive training aeroplanes, in each case starting from a two seat basic trainer and moving up by degrees to decent small twins.
These days, apart from Cessna's C162 Flycatcher and the so-called Pipersport, (which is really a Czech design), neither of these companies has a complete or genuinely modern lineup of small training A/C.
I can't help thinking that they have both lost interest in the bottom end of the market. I expect there is little profit in small trainers and much more money to be made from exec-twins and biz-jets.
I think we shall end up looking elsewhere for our next generation of small trainers; probably to the newer European manufacturers such as Technam, Aquila, Mission and similar.
BP.
Back in the 70s, both Cessna and Piper had a complete lineup of reasonably modern and visually attractive training aeroplanes, in each case starting from a two seat basic trainer and moving up by degrees to decent small twins.
These days, apart from Cessna's C162 Flycatcher and the so-called Pipersport, (which is really a Czech design), neither of these companies has a complete or genuinely modern lineup of small training A/C.
I can't help thinking that they have both lost interest in the bottom end of the market. I expect there is little profit in small trainers and much more money to be made from exec-twins and biz-jets.
I think we shall end up looking elsewhere for our next generation of small trainers; probably to the newer European manufacturers such as Technam, Aquila, Mission and similar.
BP.
And Piper aren't doing the Pipersport any longer.
Soaringhigh, you did make me laugh:
Laughed until I cried, well, sobbed actually. 
Soaringhigh, you did make me laugh:
That's totally crazy! Why are you guys in Europe happy to pay so much?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,201
Received 3,048 Likes
on
1,287 Posts
the so-called Pipersport, (which is really a Czech design),
Piper abandons the PiperSport ( aka Sportcruiser) - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you then take maintenance into account, the MCR is likely to cost you around £5k per year less than your 172.
Let's see how well the MCR holds up to the rigors of several thousand hours of student training. And charter, and...no, wait a tick. You can't charter it, and student training will be limited to non-existent. Not enough of them out there, and it's not a certified design built to known production standards by a reputable manufacturer.
You can go build your MCR, and have a one-of-a-kind airplane, or you can buy a much less expensive airplane, be ready to go, with something that can actually earn it's keep. It's up to you, of course.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LKBU
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy,
I tend to take your side in the C172 vs. kitplane dispute, but when it comes to "volcanoes and rough fields" and other off-aerodrome work, would your aircraft of choice really be a C172, and not, for example, a C180?
Our profit margin on that airplane was substantially higher than any other, and we used it for all sorts of utility work, including a landing on volcanos, rough field work, hauling freight, passengers, just about anything. Great utility airplanes. The venerable 172 is hard to beat in terms of cost for the utility it provides, especially at the price they can be had.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 172 worked just fine. A 180 is more to insure, more to operate, can be flown by less pilots (and flown well by even less), is more expensive to buy, and in much lower supply.
Looking a little further ahead, I believe the 162 should not automatically take over from the 152. Undoubtedly it will be well built and have a good support network but the figures appear to describe a decidedly average aircraft, doing no more than the 152 and far less than other LSA/VLA. I fervently believe that Cessna have made a mistake shoving a Continental in the front ahead of the Rotax. Maybe they know something about future fuels that the rest of the world doesn't? Either that or there is a Rotax driven 162 hidden in a hangar somewhere.
Personally I thought that this was a hugely retrograde step - until I had a frank conversation with somebody senior at Cessna about it. No, I'm not going to reveal details of a private conversation - other than to say that it suddenly made very great sense and in their position I'd have gone with the Continental as well. And I am a very well known Rotax fan.
The LSA and VLA classes also have a very substantial disadvantage to these old FAR-23 ships like the PA28 and C172: in most countries they are limited to day-VFR. That will limit their market very substantially because schools want to be able to do night / IFR / commercial training, which they can't in these. So they are restricted to PPL use and PPL training only. That said, it's well within the ability of companies like Piper and Cessna, as competent manufacturers, to change that. Whether they will, remains to be seen.
G
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,201
Received 3,048 Likes
on
1,287 Posts
Problem is a lot of the Pro 172 people on this thread are based States side where economics are on its side, however ship it to Europe and the spares are almost double the price, virtually a straight Dollar Sterling equivalent or worse.......Add Europes higher fuel prices and the costs then are totally different.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy
Do you actually know anything about this subject?
I did not bring up the comparison between an MCR and a 172, but to suggest a 172 is economical is a joke.
“It's not my 172, but if it were, I'd be flying it for several years while you're building your MCR, assuming you ever finish your airplane, which many homebuilders never do.”
In the UK all the original owners finished their aircraft. There are about 700 flying (WW), kit completion ration is very high. It took me 3 years to build my MCR, but I save £10,000 a year over operating a 180hp 172 (UK pricing). That saving is rising fast as fuel escalates and will probably be up around £15000 in just a few years.
“Let's see how well the MCR holds up to the rigors of several thousand hours of student training.”
Highest hour MCR I am aware of is a French club machine used for training, which is now 7-8000 hours of operation. The difference in cost of operation will mean that it has probably paid for itself many times over compared with a 172.
Lets look at some numbers.
Fuel (at current prices)
For 2000 hours
MCR £46,000
172 £137,000
Saving to the MCR £90000
Maintenance – over 10 years the 172 will cost about £50,000 more.
This is at current pricing; expect the real saving to be much larger as the cost of fuel increases. It is now so expensive to operate a 180hp machine in Europe that prices have crashed. Many machines are being mothballed and some are already being scraped or left to rot. MCR’s have gone up in value.
Rod1
Do you actually know anything about this subject?
I did not bring up the comparison between an MCR and a 172, but to suggest a 172 is economical is a joke.
“It's not my 172, but if it were, I'd be flying it for several years while you're building your MCR, assuming you ever finish your airplane, which many homebuilders never do.”
In the UK all the original owners finished their aircraft. There are about 700 flying (WW), kit completion ration is very high. It took me 3 years to build my MCR, but I save £10,000 a year over operating a 180hp 172 (UK pricing). That saving is rising fast as fuel escalates and will probably be up around £15000 in just a few years.
“Let's see how well the MCR holds up to the rigors of several thousand hours of student training.”
Highest hour MCR I am aware of is a French club machine used for training, which is now 7-8000 hours of operation. The difference in cost of operation will mean that it has probably paid for itself many times over compared with a 172.
Lets look at some numbers.
Fuel (at current prices)
For 2000 hours
MCR £46,000
172 £137,000
Saving to the MCR £90000
Maintenance – over 10 years the 172 will cost about £50,000 more.
This is at current pricing; expect the real saving to be much larger as the cost of fuel increases. It is now so expensive to operate a 180hp machine in Europe that prices have crashed. Many machines are being mothballed and some are already being scraped or left to rot. MCR’s have gone up in value.
Rod1
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LKBU
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod1,
£137,000 worth of fuel at £1.63 (see Gengis's post) for 2000 hours is equivalent to 42 litres per hour. I guess either this 172 is only used for circuit training, or there is something wrong with the engine, or someone needs to learn proper leaning
£137,000 worth of fuel at £1.63 (see Gengis's post) for 2000 hours is equivalent to 42 litres per hour. I guess either this 172 is only used for circuit training, or there is something wrong with the engine, or someone needs to learn proper leaning
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used £1.80 per L inc vat (the cost at my local airfield) 38lph. You can fiddle with the numbers but I used current pricing, the real saving will be several times the numbers I quoted due to 10 years of fuel price increases.
Rod1
Rod1
You can get some very realistic numbers, in the UK at-least, simply by comparing syndicate share adverts, since they are not run at a profit.
Let's assume 400 hours per year, and looking at adverts in AFORS, I get the following figures
C172N: £3250, £65/month & £75/hr, 12th share = £39k.pa (£98/hr) for a £39k aeroplane
Jodel D120, £2000, £69/month & £48/hr, 6th share = £24k.pa (£60/hr) for a £24k aeroplane
C152, £2250, £30/month & £45/hr, 20th share = £25k.pa (£63/hr) for a £45k aeroplane (seems a bit overpriced to me!)
PA28-161, £2850, £85/month & £75/hr, 12th share = £36k.pa (£90/hr) for a £34k aeroplane
PA28-140, £3600, £90/month & £60/hr, 6th share = £30k (£76/hr) for a £22k aeroplane
Jabiru, £5750, £55/month & £35/hr, 1/4 share = £17k.pa (£42/hr) for a £23k aeroplane
Sky Arrow, £10k, £60/month & £25/hr,1/4 share = £13k.pa (£32/hr) for a £40k aeroplane
Arrow, £6k, £97/month & £90/hr, 6th share = £43k (£107/hr) for a £36k aeroplane
PA38, £900, £40/month & £55/hr, 20th share =£32k.pa (£79/hr) for a £18k aeroplane
Zenair Zodiac £4950, £32/month & £23/hr, 7th share = £12k.pa (£30/hr) for a £35k aeroplane.
CTSW, £15k, £40/month & £80/hr, 5th share = £34k.pa (£86/hr) for a £75k aeroplane (the whole deal sounds overpriced to me!)
Dynamic, £8k, £59/month & £45/hr, 10th share = £25k.pa (£63/hr) for a £80k aeroplane (personally I'd say it's worth about £60k)
So, except for the very high performance ships (the CT and Dynamic) we seem to be looking at a substantially lower overall cost for the small "hot ships" like the Sky Arrow, Jabiru and Zenair (an average of £35/hr) versus an average of £67/hr for an old technology 2 seater, and £93/hr for an old technology 4-seater.
I couldn't find any numbers for a 4-seat Jabiru or Dyn Aero, but if the 2 seat comparison holds good (modern aircraft about 52% of older 2 seaters with similar performance), I'd anticipate around £48/hr.
The other interesting comparison here is that the older aeroplanes you seem to be paying about the purchase price, to annually fly 400 hrs. By comparison, the newer ones around half. So, the purchase cost will proportionally be much higher. On the other hand, I can't see any calculation not still showing these modern aeroplanes better value in the long run, so long as the hours get flown. On the other hand, for a sole owner flying 50-100hrs per year, almost certainly the old "heavy metal" aeroplanes will work out best value.
G
Let's assume 400 hours per year, and looking at adverts in AFORS, I get the following figures
C172N: £3250, £65/month & £75/hr, 12th share = £39k.pa (£98/hr) for a £39k aeroplane
Jodel D120, £2000, £69/month & £48/hr, 6th share = £24k.pa (£60/hr) for a £24k aeroplane
C152, £2250, £30/month & £45/hr, 20th share = £25k.pa (£63/hr) for a £45k aeroplane (seems a bit overpriced to me!)
PA28-161, £2850, £85/month & £75/hr, 12th share = £36k.pa (£90/hr) for a £34k aeroplane
PA28-140, £3600, £90/month & £60/hr, 6th share = £30k (£76/hr) for a £22k aeroplane
Jabiru, £5750, £55/month & £35/hr, 1/4 share = £17k.pa (£42/hr) for a £23k aeroplane
Sky Arrow, £10k, £60/month & £25/hr,1/4 share = £13k.pa (£32/hr) for a £40k aeroplane
Arrow, £6k, £97/month & £90/hr, 6th share = £43k (£107/hr) for a £36k aeroplane
PA38, £900, £40/month & £55/hr, 20th share =£32k.pa (£79/hr) for a £18k aeroplane
Zenair Zodiac £4950, £32/month & £23/hr, 7th share = £12k.pa (£30/hr) for a £35k aeroplane.
CTSW, £15k, £40/month & £80/hr, 5th share = £34k.pa (£86/hr) for a £75k aeroplane (the whole deal sounds overpriced to me!)
Dynamic, £8k, £59/month & £45/hr, 10th share = £25k.pa (£63/hr) for a £80k aeroplane (personally I'd say it's worth about £60k)
So, except for the very high performance ships (the CT and Dynamic) we seem to be looking at a substantially lower overall cost for the small "hot ships" like the Sky Arrow, Jabiru and Zenair (an average of £35/hr) versus an average of £67/hr for an old technology 2 seater, and £93/hr for an old technology 4-seater.
I couldn't find any numbers for a 4-seat Jabiru or Dyn Aero, but if the 2 seat comparison holds good (modern aircraft about 52% of older 2 seaters with similar performance), I'd anticipate around £48/hr.
The other interesting comparison here is that the older aeroplanes you seem to be paying about the purchase price, to annually fly 400 hrs. By comparison, the newer ones around half. So, the purchase cost will proportionally be much higher. On the other hand, I can't see any calculation not still showing these modern aeroplanes better value in the long run, so long as the hours get flown. On the other hand, for a sole owner flying 50-100hrs per year, almost certainly the old "heavy metal" aeroplanes will work out best value.
G