The 152
 

Have been thinking about this for some time now, and havent been able to come up with an answer.

Most Cessna 152s are 30 years old or more and have served flying clubs/schools since the 70s, they are (in my opinion) the best light trainers around able to withstand elephant landings from heavy handed students and spins and other aerobatic maneuvers that most other trainers could not.

My question is: does anyone think Cessna will bring out another trainer version of the 152 with analogue cockpit instruments (not glass cockpit) and im not talking about the new 162 which is almost like a microlight with a flimsy stick and a seat that doesnt move back and foward, or from now on are Cessna just into 21st century aircraft with stick and glass cockpit, (not that i have any problem with glass) or do you think that they have something else up their sleeve? :E

Mr Cessna

Mr. Cessna,

I agree with you that the Cessna 152 is an excellent little trainer. I've got lots of happy hours tooling around in Cessna 150's and 152's with students, landing in fields, chasing deer, inspecting fields, and experimenting. They're great airplanes, and very economical, as well as easy to maintain.

I really don't think that you'll see them return to production. The modern student wants something that looks modern, and even cars have turned to electronic display screens for instrumentation. My mini-van has touch screen controls and all kinds of gadgets. I have no idea how to work them, but it sells, and my wife loves it.

Many today consider the 152 to be old fashioned. I disagree, and I think it could easily soldier on with little more than a face-lift, but Cessna won't go into production again based on what I think, or the hundreds of airplanes I can't buy to make it worth their while.

With airplanes such as the Katana and the Cirrus on the market, the face of new airplane sales is slowly switching to more modern designs, with more modern instrumentation, more advanced materials, and newer and more developed motors.

The 152's big drawback is it's size; it's not comfortable for many adults, and the straight-leg feature of sitting without sitting makes it even more uncomfortable for some. A natural step away from the 152 is the 172, which has an actual seat and a little more room than the 152. It also makes a good student trainer, and a very economical airplane in general.

I prefer the analog instruments, and the older airplanes. Of course, from an ownership point of view, when one is stuck with an expensive gyro replacement or instrument overhaul, the electronic gear with its' much greater mean times between failures looks very good. For now, airplanes with analog instruments and a few years and hours on the airframe are still available, and a whole lot less expensive than the modern tricked-out aircraft. They're getting harder to find as rentals, but it does mean that for some, they've become more available, affordable alternatives to the overpriced plastic junk that's on the market today.

Not to bash my Cessna brothers (i'm going to join you soon with a 172 rating) i find the PA-38 much more comfortable, a 'proper' seat and enought shoulder room for two big blokes (but not full fuel)

What i did like about the Cessna was the slow speed approaches and the feeling you could experiment with it and it wouldn't bite you.

I still remeber staring in disbelief at the ASI reading 45kts while happily wheels off drifting down the runway (yes it was a bad floaty landing but it showed me something)

A Tommie would be dropping through the sky at 45kts.

I may even conceed my issue about the view.....

Back on thread a 'modern' version of the 152 with the standard six would sell like hotcakes, i can see the flying schools queueing up!

Mr Guppy,
You are somewhat bewildering me by terming the C152 and C172 "very economical to operate". Isn't the economy of light aviation changing rapidly? The Cessna's are probably less expensive to operate than a Stearman or Staggerwing, but in today's G/A market they are on the expensive side.

The total cost of operating a plane is of course composed of fuel burn plus maintenance plus a few minor others, and all factors vary between places. For a 4-seater, the C172 has its merits and its place in the market, though the twin Rotaxen are loudly ringing the doorbell. And those prepared to spend big bucks on good looks will not go for a Cessna anyway.

The C152 is in my observation a poor alternative to today's LSA's, mostly single Rotax powered. It does make a solid rugged trainer, OK, but so does (to name only one that comes to mind first) the Rans S6 Coyote. And that one is cheaper to acquire and cheaper to operate, in most places.

Cessna saw good reason to explore the new C162 way - the C152 was no more going anywhere. No wonder, of course, after all those years. It has been a very fine aircraft in its day.

If the C162 hits success, we may hope to see a "next generation" C172 next. It had better be diesel powered from the beginning.

I spent about a thousand hours or so doing tours in 172's, plus some rough-field, back country work. Out of all the airplanes we operated, which were 172's, 206's, 207's, 210's, and the Super Cub, the 172 had the highest profit margin, because it was so inexpensive to operate. The 172 is very economical.

Likewise, the 152 is very economical. It's not an expensive aircraft to operate. Especially given the low acquisition costs compared to more "modern" aircraft, the 152 or 172 can be operated for a very long time before the cost differential catches up. Personally, I'd rather spend that time flying and for the person putting their airplane to work, I'd much rather have it paid off and making money, than hanging over my head as a major expense.

Personal consideration: if Cessna were to bring back the 152 with minor facelift and option of glass or analogue cockpit, they would outsell the new 162.

Super 152
 

While I perfer the PA38 as an aircraft to fly the C152 has the most "sorted" airframe that I have ever seen, it is an aircraft that has few problems.

As I see it the issue is with the AVGAS burning engine, give the C152 a FADEC controled MOGAS burning engine and some more modern avionics and you will have an aircraft that will fly for another thirty years.

For private use, it wouldn't be that hard to take a pile of C152 parts, design an engine mount, and put a "C152 replica" with a Rotax 912 through the LAA. So long as you don't mind a day-VFR limitation anyhow.

G

A new-build C152 (much as I like that aircraft) would be far too expensive for a flying school to consider, particularly when considering the amount of used (and cheaper) C152's and C172's still around.

No need to have it on N-reg in Europe. I'm running my 150(with STC) on mogas whenever I can.

unless you are in Europe and fuel costs $9 per gallon...

I really wish it was.

Last week I bought 92 litres for £150, that's £1.63/litre, £6.31/us.gal, or US$10.21/gal. And it's not getting any cheaper.


MOGAS, or AVTUR/Diesel must be the future I think.

G

How much more economical than avgas/mogas is avtur/diesel ?

The pump price of diesel is 139.9 here this morning so unless there is a big economy advantage or you can use TVO (agricultural pink diesel) the saving isn't enormous. Don't know how much avtur is; Tesco's didn't have any :E

Here it is about €2.60/l, that makes it $13.7/ us.gal.:eek:

That's totally crazy! Why are you guys in Europe happy to pay so much?

We are just a happy bunch.

A diesel engine is inherently more energy efficient, so it consumes less fuel than a spark engine. Furthermore, as far as I understand, you can legally use red diesel in an aircraft, as long as you don't drive it on public roads :O

Yeah, we're really happy...unfortunately we have an enormous, badly run welfare state to fund so they pull in tax from wherever they can, waste half of it on incompetent bureaucracy, and then give the rest back out to the useless as benefits :ugh:

As in "a rhinoceros is lighter than an elephant" (or is it vice versa?). I'll agree a C172 is less uneconomical to operate than a 206 or 210. That does not make it a very economical plane.

Answer is No..........

The did a feasability study I believe when they were looking at re-introducing the singles range when the liability laws in the USA were capped...... They found that the cost would be prohibitive, indeed close to the price of the 172, hence why they went for the 172 instead... I believe it was rightly assumed that no one would pay the price of a 172 for the 152, that and also 60's man and 2010 man are a lot different in size, the 172 accommodates the extra girth.

Most of the cost in the construction is down to labour and the labour to produce a 152 will be close to that of a 172, after all a 172 construction wise is simply a 172 with a couple of extra feet of tin in every direction, still will be close to the manhours to build.

Hence the 162, only thing I can see on that which is a bit dodgy, at least with the 152 you had a strut to stop the student / passenger walking fwd into the prop..on the 162 you don't... it is behind them.

Actually, it does. It's a very inexpensive airplane to operate. It's requirements are low. It doesn't burn much fuel. 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.

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?

Only double of an MCR 4S. A monk's diet, almost. Even if it is only half as much more.
A better comparison might be to a Jab3300-powered BD4, perhaps. But a BD4 isn't available factory-built, AFAIK.

No.

You're comparing a certified production airplane with an experimental homebuilt?

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" .

Correct, which is why it's ridiculous to make a comparison.

The 172 wins.
Well, you could always go for a hang glider, but then you'd need a mountain from which to leap, and a stiff breeze, plus the cost of getting to the mountain, the fuel, the chips and dip, and a hotel somewhere along the way, to say nothing of the stitches, x-rays, and the full body cast that might just prevent you from finishing the community-education Tango class you've been taking on weeknights for the past month and a half.

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.

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

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.

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.

And Piper aren't doing the Pipersport any longer.

Soaringhigh, you did make me laugh: Laughed until I cried, well, sobbed actually. :{

Has been dropped by Piper, see

Piper abandons the PiperSport ( aka Sportcruiser) - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

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. I'll also own it for substantially less; I can afford a lot of years at five grand a year, to make up the difference, and I'll have a complete, flying airplane, whereas you'll receive a box of raw materials and parts.

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.

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?

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.

The prototype 162 did fly with a Rotax originally, then switched at the production prototype stage.

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

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.

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

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 :E

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

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