Moving from Cessna 172 to Ikarus C42CS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Dublin
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moving from Cessna 172 to Ikarus C42CS
I'm looking to see does anyone have any experience of moving from the 172 to the Ikarus C42? I know that the regular machine is quite draggy and slow but the CS model is supposed to give us a slightly better cruise speed around 100kts? Our biggest problem with the Cessna has been the rising costs over the last couple of years for both fuel and servicing. I'd love to hear from those with experience particularly with the CS model.
Nothing very detailed to report, I'm afraid - I used to fly an Apollo Fox, more or less in the same category as the C42, but I never flew any SEP.
On a very general note, however, I should warn against considering the C42 a low-cost alternative to a C172, the step is bigger than that. It is not "changing from a big family car to a modest family car", as you seem to consider it; the better comparison is "changing from a modest family car to a middle class moped". It might be more challenging than you'd expect - depending on expectations, it might also be more fun.
On a very general note, however, I should warn against considering the C42 a low-cost alternative to a C172, the step is bigger than that. It is not "changing from a big family car to a modest family car", as you seem to consider it; the better comparison is "changing from a modest family car to a middle class moped". It might be more challenging than you'd expect - depending on expectations, it might also be more fun.
They're very different aeroplanes.
The C42 is much better handling, much cheaper to run, shorter field but needs greater owner engagement with maintenance. It also has a significantly lower wing loading making behaviour in turbulence poorer, payload is essentially two pilots and a toothbrush, and it'll be day-VFR only. The engine will be much more frugal, but is a totally different entity to use and look after.
In essence, it's a switch to a completely different form of flying. A thoroughly enjoyable one, but if you are all used to planning your flying around what a C172 can do, you are somewhat doomed to surprise and disappointment. If your plan is to simply cost save and carry on with the sort of flying you've done before, this is the wrong plan.
I'd suggest go to a microlight school and all get a few hours in one before taking the leap. It might work wonderfully for you all, but it might not.
G
The C42 is much better handling, much cheaper to run, shorter field but needs greater owner engagement with maintenance. It also has a significantly lower wing loading making behaviour in turbulence poorer, payload is essentially two pilots and a toothbrush, and it'll be day-VFR only. The engine will be much more frugal, but is a totally different entity to use and look after.
In essence, it's a switch to a completely different form of flying. A thoroughly enjoyable one, but if you are all used to planning your flying around what a C172 can do, you are somewhat doomed to surprise and disappointment. If your plan is to simply cost save and carry on with the sort of flying you've done before, this is the wrong plan.
I'd suggest go to a microlight school and all get a few hours in one before taking the leap. It might work wonderfully for you all, but it might not.
G
The following users liked this post:
Thank you very much, @GtE, I think you essentially confirmed my doubts, and duly elaborated on them.
I particularly like the "two occupants and a toothbrush" phrasing - the occupants needn't be pilots both, after all, but the toothbrush is quite right! Luckily there are light-weight toothbrushes available, these days.
I particularly like the "two occupants and a toothbrush" phrasing - the occupants needn't be pilots both, after all, but the toothbrush is quite right! Luckily there are light-weight toothbrushes available, these days.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Dublin
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve done a couple of hours on the older C42s the A model. Great fun to be had. This is a group aircraft and we don’t seem to have anyone that is happy regarding our current new price per hour. There is no IFR flying and most members take a 40 minute flight every two weeks, the average is 12-15 hours a year per member. My feeling is that there will be more airfields available to each member, and hopefully the cheaper flying, (half the price) will promote more hours by everyone. The back seats are never used and we left the country twice last year, each time with the same people on board.
Many thanks for the helpful information. We are a group and recently there has been a lot of complaints from the members that flying is becoming too expensive for them. Particularly over the last couple of years, costs of certified aircraft have risen dramatically, our maintenance costs are through the roof the cost of fuel would nearly run a C42 alone. The Cessna has hardly ever had someone in the back seats, in fact most of the flights have been to a nearby airfield about 40 minutes away which is a major Microlight center, our members are flying now only about 12-15 hours a year each, I'd love to see that number increase!
I was thinking that if we got something less expensive to run, they might enjoy some more hours of flying. Nobody is flying at night or in IFR. While we cruise at 110kts (we plan for 100kts) would the C42cs be nice to fly at 100kts, (plan for 90kts)? Most of our members are very much fair weather pilots (read very fair weather, don't like flying when the wind is over 15kts. At least that's what they say when they cancel at short notice.)
I have flown the earlier models of Ikarus, it is very stable, will take off and land as short as a Piper Cub, it is great in a cross wind, my only complaint was that it is cramped inside, although not more that a 172, and it is slow.
Many thanks for the helpful information. We are a group and recently there has been a lot of complaints from the members that flying is becoming too expensive for them. Particularly over the last couple of years, costs of certified aircraft have risen dramatically, our maintenance costs are through the roof the cost of fuel would nearly run a C42 alone. The Cessna has hardly ever had someone in the back seats, in fact most of the flights have been to a nearby airfield about 40 minutes away which is a major Microlight center, our members are flying now only about 12-15 hours a year each, I'd love to see that number increase!
I was thinking that if we got something less expensive to run, they might enjoy some more hours of flying. Nobody is flying at night or in IFR. While we cruise at 110kts (we plan for 100kts) would the C42cs be nice to fly at 100kts, (plan for 90kts)? Most of our members are very much fair weather pilots (read very fair weather, don't like flying when the wind is over 15kts. At least that's what they say when they cancel at short notice.)
I have flown the earlier models of Ikarus, it is very stable, will take off and land as short as a Piper Cub, it is great in a cross wind, my only complaint was that it is cramped inside, although not more that a 172, and it is slow.
The big money-saver is Certified to Permit.
Our Group was struggling to afford our Jodel DR11050 as a CAA aircraft, until EASA put us on Annex2, and we moved to LAA Permit. With increasing fuel prices, and no increase in hourly or monthly, we quickly built up a large fund.
Our Group was struggling to afford our Jodel DR11050 as a CAA aircraft, until EASA put us on Annex2, and we moved to LAA Permit. With increasing fuel prices, and no increase in hourly or monthly, we quickly built up a large fund.
