Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

airplane vs helicopter cost

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

airplane vs helicopter cost

Old 10th Aug 2014, 22:04
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 27
airplane vs helicopter cost

Hi Guys,

I am at the moment trying to do my ppl for airplane .

while doing this at my school, my attention was caught by the fact that the school also has helicopter training.

I am currently paying 180 per hour for piper or censa 172 but helicopter is around 300 per hour. does anyone know why it is much more expensive to do helicopter while it costs less to buy them .

for instance r22 is around 150k where as cesna is around 270k

also my instructor said I should do my training in low wing air plan such as piper or high wing such as 152 and not 172.

the reason been 172 is way more complicated to land.
i appreciated your input re above.

thanks
stranger12 is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2014, 02:22
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Posts: 4,230
Helicopters cost more to run. Robby 22s have ~2200 life before being required to be overhauled. Not just the engine, but the whole thing. They use more fuel/hr & many more parts with life limits. Rotor blades are not cheap! A brand new R22 is ~US$290k and can only hold 2 people. A new C172R (in 2012, the latest year I easily found a price) was ~US$275k & a C172S ~US$308. And that's for a a plane that could fly about ~600nm or hold 4 pax. Not exactly the same range or useful load as a Robby. You pay a *lot* for the ability to dispense with a runway!

I must take exception to your instructor's comment about aircraft typesl. C172 is not 'way more complicated to land'. You will learn to land in whatever you choose. Perhaps your instructor's comment is more indicative of an instructor with limited experience & comfort in type?
Tinstaafl is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2014, 12:26
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 27
thanks for your advice
stranger12 is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2014, 17:20
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: EBZH
Posts: 2,442
The reason R22/R44 are less expensive to buy is their good market acceptance - helo's are "sexy" so many are buying one. They are also harder to fly than the average spam can so that more crash, and helo crashes are generally more destructive, so there is a good replacement market, too.

Over here in BE, a 2-seater microlight is rented out by clubs at some 80-120 € per hour, a C172 will go around 140-200 €, largely dependent on choice of engine, an R22 rumoured (!) at least 300 € per hour.

Rumour only !!! Will accept correction - but this is a rumour forum.
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2014, 19:31
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,416
The 172 is a little harder to land than the 152 if you approach too fast.

It's equally easy if you approach at the correct speed.

From that particular point of view it's probably better, therefore, to learn in the 172, as you don't end up accidentally learning the false non-fact that "the approach speed doesn't seem to matter too much". (There are other criteria to take into account of course, including cost.)
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 02:17
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,197
Your average 150/152 with 2 up and full tanks is usually a tad over gross; so book approach speed (based on full gross) works pretty good, even solo.

A 172 2 up is well under gross -- solo even more so. Add to that the CG is close to forward limit.

A few knots off the approach speed helps:

Vapp(actual weight) = root(actual weight)/root(gross)x Vapp(gross weight)
RatherBeFlying is online now  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 08:16
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 877
I'm lucky and get to fly both for a living. Check out the life of parts on a helo and see just how many are lifed which aren't even fitted to a fixed wing, then take a look at insurance costs, regular training, fuel (not so much a carbon footprint, more a carbon stamp). I've only flown a very limited time in a Robinson (a few minutes in the last 10 000 helicopter hours) but 150 000 seems incredibly cheap, the Robinson website quotes 168 000 for a basic R22 Beta, so a day VFR VERY basic aircraft is still a fair chunk of cash, while a new 172 is a very well equipped machine.


The fixed and rotary types I currently fly work out around the same price an hour to fly, approx. 2 600, both are twin engine, full IFR, one goes about 150nm in an hour, one about 500nm, both are highly capable, but my Condor at 85 per hour is just so much more fun, and all mine.


People often ask me which helicopter I'd buy give a chance and the answer is none of them, unless you are lucky enough to hold an ATPLH/IR you can never get the use you can get out of a fixed wing (no single engine helicopter is cleared for any type of IFR/IMC, and twins are mind bendingly expensive). If you do a PPL/H and hire rather than buy you will often find that hirers ban PPL's from landing off airfields to protect their income and investment thereby negating the value of the helicopter anyway. Finally a lot of people don't realise that legislation actually bans single engine helicopters from landing at a lot of sites without specific CAA approvals for the pilot. Many ignore it, some don't know about it and just go, but in the event of an accident/incident they may find themselves in front of a judge without much in the way of a defense.


SND
Sir Niall Dementia is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 11:00
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYYC (Calgary)
Posts: 4,829
The 172 is a little harder to land than the 152 if you approach too fast.

It's equally easy if you approach at the correct speed.
I hate to disagree with a fellow float-plane pilot, but ANY aircraft is more difficult to land if flown too fast.

I once had to land off an ILS in a 172 where to help out ATC, I flew the approach at full-throttle and came over the fence at 130mph. It took a long time to slow down. A good job the runway was 13,000' long!

I have often noticed that instructors who are checking me out, often recommend approach speeds that are higher than those in the handbook. So it pays to check the book.
India Four Two is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 13:30
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 27
so in a way the hevier you are the sooner it stops and lighter the later , common sense I guess as there is not much load on 172 when landed compared to when it is loaded.

if you had a choise of piper 28 151, 152 and 172 which one would you have picked and why ?
stranger12 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 14:22
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 267
It's a more intriguing question than you might expect. Training aircraft should IMHO not necessarily be the easiest to fly and I would tend towards aircraft that demand good rudder and speed control.

The three aircraft you mention are pretty docile and can be hacked around the sky and generally re-used after arrival. Of the three, the C172 prefers a little more thinking ahead but none will demand the finesse that many of those on this forum exercise as a matter of routine.
worrab is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2014, 14:56
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYYC (Calgary)
Posts: 4,829
Cessna every time for me.

Two doors, better view of the ground for passengers, cockpit doesn't get wet when entering in the rain, no grovelling in the mud when checking the fuel for water, better flaps, particularly the older models with the 40 degree setting.

Drawbacks? Restricted view when turning - lean forward. Gymnastics or ladder required to check the tanks and filler caps.

I have to say I find Cessnas much easier to land than Pipers.
India Four Two is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.