Skyhawk
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Lycoming 360 engine is a bit of a disaster, at 70 hours a year it will not make TBO needs 40 hours a month. The camshaft will rust out first, does need the roller follower option and it will suffer with sticking valves. Then there is the Wrist pin centering aluminium blanks that roll and damage the piston and cylinders.
Then there are the overheating problems which can aneal the oil control rings causing them to roll over and break. Plus uneven cylinder wear due to shaving off the cooling fins down one side of the cylinders.
Finally according to Lycoming any problems with their engines is down to the operator not their lousy design, yer right.
Then there are the overheating problems which can aneal the oil control rings causing them to roll over and break. Plus uneven cylinder wear due to shaving off the cooling fins down one side of the cylinders.
Finally according to Lycoming any problems with their engines is down to the operator not their lousy design, yer right.
Odd, not my experience at all with the Lycoming IO360. Have some hours behind one in a PA28, C172, and an S2A. Also have some time in front of one in an F28A. Maybe we only export the bad ones.
The general industry consensus is that the Lycoming 320 and 360 series engines are among the most bullet proof engines ever made. My flying club has approval to fly them 3500 hrs between overhauls and they all make it, and that is 3500 hard hours being abused by students.
lack of use is a killer for any aviation piston engine. If you fly your lycoming at least every other week and change the oil regularly than there is no reason it will not go to and even well past TBO.
lack of use is a killer for any aviation piston engine. If you fly your lycoming at least every other week and change the oil regularly than there is no reason it will not go to and even well past TBO.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hours will be 70ish.
From an engineering perspective I do wonder what the effects will be of flying an aircraft for around an hour or two a week (and possibly a lot less in Winter?). Are you planning to lay the plane up properly when it's not going to be used? Perhaps I'm unduly pessimistic, but it does appear that there will be a huge amount of work for a relatively limited upside.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newer 172...
I understand that this would be your first aircraft, it also seems that money may not be an objection.
I owned a 2000 172S, nice airplane as a training aircraft but that is where it ends.
In that category, but with a much better performance for the same fuel consumption you could get a 2007 or newer Diamond DA40, the XL can be had for about 200K US, it has a 145knot TAS performance and it does it in about 9 gallons.
I have a 2005 DA40, same engine but a lousy A/P
buy the plane that fits the mission, your mission now is training I think! Rent dont buy for know.
Good luck
I owned a 2000 172S, nice airplane as a training aircraft but that is where it ends.
In that category, but with a much better performance for the same fuel consumption you could get a 2007 or newer Diamond DA40, the XL can be had for about 200K US, it has a 145knot TAS performance and it does it in about 9 gallons.
I have a 2005 DA40, same engine but a lousy A/P
buy the plane that fits the mission, your mission now is training I think! Rent dont buy for know.
Good luck
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buy the plane that fits the mission,
Any of the foregoing will make a C 172 look like the nicest plane on earth!
Before choosing, also ask the hard questions, of things you would rather not have to think about, so if you ever have to, you don't get the surprise then!
(I've owned a Cessna for 27 years - zero surprises, 99.9% dispatch reliability!)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm... great discussion...
I have never owned an aeroplane, but I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I fee qualified to comment...
Ha Ha.
Actually, I'm just going to relay some thoughts that were given to me by friends who own aeroplanes.
1. If you've never owned an aeroplane before, start out easy, reduce your risk.
2. It never costs as little as the brochure says it will cost.
3. The plane is never as available as a rental (hire) plane will be. (this applies more to share schemes, but every so often the plane is in for minor repairs, inspections, etc., and when this happens at the "club", you can rent/hire a different aeroplane)
4. If you're flying less than about 200 hours per year, then being the sole owner of an aeroplane is an indulgence, and it will cost more per hour than you expect (double your expectations), because the engine will run out faster, it will require more maintenance work during the "off" season, etc.
My suggestion, based on what I've learned from others, is that with only 70 hours per year, and you want to have a "newer" plane, then find a club with newer planes for hire, and hire those instead. Or, if you have to be an owner, then get into a share scheme on a newer plane.
Of course, if you've got money to burn, then you could either send me some, so I can fly more, or you could buy a new plane and be prepared for down-time for the maintenance required due to flying it so little.
That said, I don't think fixing up an older 172 comes close to what a new one is like. Having hired newish 172's, I find them quieter, smoother, more comfortable, and cleaner, all of which lead to a more comfortable flight, and also help passengers to feel more comfortable (particularly on their first few flights).
I have never owned an aeroplane, but I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I fee qualified to comment...
Ha Ha.
Actually, I'm just going to relay some thoughts that were given to me by friends who own aeroplanes.
1. If you've never owned an aeroplane before, start out easy, reduce your risk.
2. It never costs as little as the brochure says it will cost.
3. The plane is never as available as a rental (hire) plane will be. (this applies more to share schemes, but every so often the plane is in for minor repairs, inspections, etc., and when this happens at the "club", you can rent/hire a different aeroplane)
4. If you're flying less than about 200 hours per year, then being the sole owner of an aeroplane is an indulgence, and it will cost more per hour than you expect (double your expectations), because the engine will run out faster, it will require more maintenance work during the "off" season, etc.
My suggestion, based on what I've learned from others, is that with only 70 hours per year, and you want to have a "newer" plane, then find a club with newer planes for hire, and hire those instead. Or, if you have to be an owner, then get into a share scheme on a newer plane.
Of course, if you've got money to burn, then you could either send me some, so I can fly more, or you could buy a new plane and be prepared for down-time for the maintenance required due to flying it so little.
That said, I don't think fixing up an older 172 comes close to what a new one is like. Having hired newish 172's, I find them quieter, smoother, more comfortable, and cleaner, all of which lead to a more comfortable flight, and also help passengers to feel more comfortable (particularly on their first few flights).
Before anyone's comments put you off the Cessna 172 please read this- also off Pprune 2011: see sheet three of the thread and read the story this guy leads you to.
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...th-pole-3.html
A full report with lots of pictures is available.
"At the pole ....... on the 17th of July 2011, at 15.20 GMT, a little Cessna 172took off from Eureka (Canada), and set course North. After 6 hours of flying, at 21.25 GMT, this little Cessna was over the geographic North Pole, all alone, in a vast white emptyness. 6 hours later, the little Cessna made a safe landing back in Eureka."
mike hallam.
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...th-pole-3.html
A full report with lots of pictures is available.
"At the pole ....... on the 17th of July 2011, at 15.20 GMT, a little Cessna 172took off from Eureka (Canada), and set course North. After 6 hours of flying, at 21.25 GMT, this little Cessna was over the geographic North Pole, all alone, in a vast white emptyness. 6 hours later, the little Cessna made a safe landing back in Eureka."
mike hallam.
12 hours crammed into a Cessna 172
. My butt hurts just thinking about it 
. My butt hurts just thinking about it
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re fears about low hours, I'm sure there must be loads of planes privately owned that do less than 70 hours a year without undue mechanical problem. Mine is one.
I suppose though that there is a difference between outlaying £10K-20K of the typical 150/152/vintage 172 and the circa £250K for a new 172
I suppose though that there is a difference between outlaying £10K-20K of the typical 150/152/vintage 172 and the circa £250K for a new 172
