C172 crashed - Looking for Replacement

[talkingbob]

What are most of your club members doing in the 172? Training for PP? IR? Flying to the beach for the weekend?

That answer will drive the airplane choice.

The 172 was the ORIGINAL airplane in the club, so many members simply kept flying it for all their "missions" - whether local or weekend.
No IFR training, but used for private pilot training, since any student/instructor combo could train in it without worrying much about being overweight. I was the one who would routinely take the 172 on multi-day cross-countries. Most of the other members took other aircraft, like the Piper 180 for the weekend.
Also, I forgot to mention that the club has a Bonanza (V35 I think), but has monthly minimums. That is almost exclusively used for cross-country, multi-day flights by club members who have more capital than me and think going cross-country in a 172 is "slow".

 

[brcase]

What are most of your club members doing in the 172? Training for PP? IR? Flying to the beach for the weekend?

That answer will drive the airplane choice.

This was what I was going to post. What do the members want out of the airplane?
if mostly doing training or just local 1 hour flights giving rides and hamburger runs. Stick to the 172 or Cherokee options. i.e. cost per hour.
If going places is the thing then the 177, 182, Options might make more sense. i.e. cost per Passenger miles.
Do member do instrument training? are you located at a location that having an IFR capable airplane makes sense?

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[talkingbob]

I explained the intended use above.
The 172 was a ****-poor IFR platform and no one I ever talked to really seemed to care. The IFR guys in my area are super rich and can afford to just own their own IFR platform and not fly in a club.

 

[SoonerAviator]

So, you have a 152, a Piper 180, and a V35 Bo. You have a decent private trainer/cheap 1-2 person aircraft, a decent private trainer/IFR platform, and a true XC aircraft (despite the minimums needed). I still don't see why a 172 is needed, there's enough overlap between the C152 and the PA28. A tiger makes little sense, either, since it will only be marginally faster than the Piper and the V35 Bo is already there if you want speed/payload.

I vote Citabria or a Supercub. Something you can do basic acro in, or tailwheel training.

 

[Caramon13]

So, you have a 152, a Piper 180, and a V35 Bo. You have a decent private trainer/cheap 1-2 person aircraft, a decent private trainer/IFR platform, and a true XC aircraft (despite the minimums needed). I still don't see why a 172 is needed, there's enough overlap between the C152 and the PA28. A tiger makes little sense, either, since it will only be marginally faster than the Piper and the V35 Bo is already there if you want speed/payload.

I vote Citabria or a Supercub. Something you can do basic acro in, or tailwheel training.

It's probably comfort factor. A 172 is so "bread and butter" these days for training. I agree though, the planes on the field are actually fine. I'd rather train in a 180 now that I've owned one. I much prefer the feel and visibility vs a 172. And a V35 Bo? That's awesome!

Get a taildragger and you are set, something you can do your spin endorsement for CFI in it for example along with basic acro as said above..

 

[labbadabba]

It's funny that you mention a Symphony - one of the CFIs in the club has one and was looking for partners! Not sure if he would be open to putting it in the club or not. Personally, I did take two people in the 172 on occasion, so the back seat is nice and the club already has a 150 for local, two-person flights.

On the flip side, you also have a PA28 for your four-seater...

 

[Skyrys62]

I vote Citabria or a Supercub. Something you can do basic acro in, or tailwheel training.

+1

 

[Brad Z]

A 172 with a 180hp conversion and a 2550 gross weight is a good club plane. Cheap enough to insure inexperienced pilots, yet capable enough to fill the seats and take a nice weekend trip. There’s a reason why 172s are so popular.

Honestly, I don’t have an issue with the club having two planes in the same class, particularly if that is the most desired class or airplane. I’d probably rather see two of the same model, but a PA28 and a 172 are a good combo. Also, the PA28 is on lease back so that could disappear at any time if the owner chooses.

Advice: make sure the replacement 172 is equipped with an IFR GPS.

 

[Ghery]

A 172 with a 180hp conversion and a 2550 gross weight is a good club plane. Cheap enough to insure inexperienced pilots, yet capable enough to fill the seats and take a nice weekend trip. There’s a reason why 172s are so popular.

Honestly, I don’t have an issue with the club having two planes in the same class, particularly if that is the most desired class or airplane. I’d probably rather see two of the same model, but a PA28 and a 172 are a good combo. Also, the PA28 is on lease back so that could disappear at any time if the owner chooses.

Advice: make sure the replacement 172 is equipped with an IFR GPS.

Amen on the 180 hp C-172. Our club has one and it is great. Actually has a significantly higher full fuel payload than our C-182P. Yes, you can trade fuel for payload, but our club rules require us to put the planes away full (not that the 172N had full fuel when I went flying last week), so you have to plan on full tanks. I took both my PP and IR rides in that 172 (about 10 years apart). A nice, solid, simple airplane. And, you do need the IFR GPS. Our 172N has a Garmin 430W. The 182P has a 650 stack. The C-172P, on the other hand, is still /A and will need an ADS-B upgrade. The other two already have it.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Amen on the 180 hp C-172. Our club has one and it is great. Actually has a significantly higher full fuel payload than our C-182P.

That's a fact that should have about zero-consideration given to it for aircraft purchasing. The rule for your club makes sense in theory, but in practice would be a PITA. Nothing like showing up to rent a 182 and needing to fill all 4 seats. Oops, tanks are filled, so I'm going to spend 20 minutes offloading fuel instead of just adding a bit of fuel as needed. I'd think it'd be more practical to just require that the aircraft be returned with at least half tanks and let the next pilot add fuel if needed. If you need to offload fuel below half-tanks in a 182, I'd think you probably have a specific mission in mind that requires that much payload and probably rarely occurs.

 

[bnt83]

Actually has a significantly higher full fuel payload than our C-182P.QUOTE]

I'd much rather have the fuel capacity of the 182 especially when it burns mogas (Currently $2.44 a gallon here) it will go a long ways with 70+ gallons of cheap gas. There are a few things don't feel quite as cheap about the 182 vs the 172 also, like the larger diameter yoke shafts don't feel flimsy cheap. 182s can be a lot quieter, just slow the prop via the blue knob. The 6 banger is typically smoother than the 4 banger.

Depending on model years of course but I like to compare data too.

182L 79 gallons useable (factory long range very common) / 230 horse = .34 gallons per engine horsepower and 2800 pound gross weight / 230 horsepower = 12.173 pounds per horsepower.

177 48 gallons useable / 150 horse = .32 & 2350 gross / 150 = 15.667

172D w/180 conversion and Gross weigh STC 39 usable / 180 = .216 & 2500 gross / 180 = 13.889

I have flown many models of 172, an 172A, 172C, 172D, three different 172Ps, and even a 172XP and enjoyed every minute of them. But the economy of the 180 horse conversion is questionable to me.

 

[Ghery]

That's a fact that should have about zero-consideration given to it for aircraft purchasing. The rule for your club makes sense in theory, but in practice would be a PITA. Nothing like showing up to rent a 182 and needing to fill all 4 seats. Oops, tanks are filled, so I'm going to spend 20 minutes offloading fuel instead of just adding a bit of fuel as needed. I'd think it'd be more practical to just require that the aircraft be returned with at least half tanks and let the next pilot add fuel if needed. If you need to offload fuel below half-tanks in a 182, I'd think you probably have a specific mission in mind that requires that much payload and probably rarely occurs.

Not as bit a pain as it would be if you were departing before the FBOs opened on the field and needed full fuel. No self-serve gas at KOLM. Now, we have modified the rules a bit to say that if you start out with full tanks and don't fly at least an hour you don't need to gas it up. The FBO we use doesn't like to run their truck over to the hangar if you take less than an hour's worth of gas.

I'd much rather have the fuel capacity of the 182 especially when it burns mogas (Currently $2.44 a gallon here) it will go a long ways with 70+ gallons of cheap gas. There are a few things don't feel quite as cheap about the 182 vs the 172 also, like the larger diameter yoke shafts don't feel flimsy cheap. 182s can be a lot quieter, just slow the prop via the blue knob. The 6 banger is typically smoother than the 4 banger.

Depending on model years of course but I like to compare data too.

182L 79 gallons useable (factory long range very common) / 230 horse = .34 gallons per engine horsepower and 2800 pound gross weight / 230 horsepower = 12.173 pounds per horsepower.

177 48 gallons useable / 150 horse = .32 & 2350 gross / 150 = 15.667

172D w/180 conversion and Gross weigh STC 39 usable / 180 = .216 & 2500 gross / 180 = 13.889

I have flown many models of 172, an 172A, 172C, 172D, three different 172Ps, and even 172XP and enjoyed every minute of them. But the economy of the 180 horse conversion is questionable to me.

The 180 hp conversion is nice in that it provides (with limiting the flaps to 30 degrees) a 250 pound bump in max gross. That's what makes it very worthwhile.

We have long range tanks on both the 172N (50 gal) and the 182P (75 gal).

 

[SoonerAviator]

Not as bit a pain as it would be if you were departing before the FBOs opened on the field and needed full fuel. No self-serve gas at KOLM. Now, we have modified the rules a bit to say that if you start out with full tanks and don't fly at least an hour you don't need to gas it up. The FBO we use doesn't like to run their truck over to the hangar if you take less than an hour's worth of gas.



The 180 hp conversion is nice in that it provides (with limiting the flaps to 30 degrees) a 250 pound bump in max gross. That's what makes it very worthwhile.

We have long range tanks on both the 172N (50 gal) and the 182P (75 gal).

“Needed full fuel” in a 182?! Who needs 5+ hours of endurance except on rare occasion? I’d rather start with half tanks and make a stop 2 hours later to fuel up and use the facilities. I guarantee most passengers don’t want to get much past 2-3hrs before they need to use the restroom.

Load the 182 with the same payload as a full fuel 172 and you’ll still have more range in the 182 by a decent margin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[talkingbob]

Amen on the 180 hp C-172. Our club has one and it is great. Actually has a significantly higher full fuel payload than our C-182P. Yes, you can trade fuel for payload, but our club rules require us to put the planes away full (not that the 172N had full fuel when I went flying last week), so you have to plan on full tanks. I took both my PP and IR rides in that 172 (about 10 years apart). A nice, solid, simple airplane. And, you do need the IFR GPS. Our 172N has a Garmin 430W. The 182P has a 650 stack. The C-172P, on the other hand, is still /A and will need an ADS-B upgrade. The other two already have it.

Our club is the same way - put plane away with full fuel, so if you wanna go half tanks, you best get yourself a bucket to dump fuel into!
We had a club-wide meeting tonight. Basically all bad news. The owner of the club screwed up and ended up getting a smaller insurance check than he should have. $50,000 is the budget. I tried my best to push for a 172-180HP - we will see.
I don't really have a dog in the fight any more though. The cheapest 4-place aircraft in the club just went up to $75/hr DRY Hobbs!
Dues may go up next year and I was told to expect $70/hr TACH dry rate for the new 172. For me, this is an almost 80% increase in the dry rate and fuel isn't dirt cheap either...

Thanks for the help guys.

 

[talkingbob]

“Needed full fuel” in a 182?! Who needs 5+ hours of endurance except on rare occasion? I’d rather start with half tanks and make a stop 2 hours later to fuel up and use the facilities. I guarantee most passengers don’t want to get much past 2-3hrs before they need to use the restroom.

Load the 182 with the same payload as a full fuel 172 and you’ll still have more range in the 182 by a decent margin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one talked about 182s and my guess is that they are above the budget in every way.

 

[SoonerAviator]

No one talked about 182s and my guess is that they are above the budget in every way.

There were several people suggesting a 182 over a 172 w/180HP and it was well within your original stated budget. It would be harder to find for your updated budget of $50K though, unless you found an earlier model.

 

[talkingbob]

There were several people suggesting a 182 over a 172 w/180HP and it was well within your original stated budget. It would be harder to find for your updated budget of $50K though, unless you found an earlier model.

Sorry. What I meant was that no club members at the meeting last night brought up 182s. The insurance check SHOULD have been for $70K, not $50, so my original post was on-point.

 

[apr911]

“Needed full fuel” in a 182?! Who needs 5+ hours of endurance except on rare occasion? I’d rather start with half tanks and make a stop 2 hours later to fuel up and use the facilities. I guarantee most passengers don’t want to get much past 2-3hrs before they need to use the restroom.

Still plenty of airports out there with AvGas, some of which can be fairly remote without another airport with fuel nearby. Doubly so if you're going south of the border; Mexican authorities have restricted access to fuel to combat the cartels and it can be quite a distance between airports with AvGas. Add to that the price of fuel varies widely and taking 5 hours of fuel and being able to get there and back without a fuel stop suddenly makes a lot more sense.

Plus to me, I'd rather start with an absolute known quantity of fuel than an estimated one which means either starting with empty tanks (uncommon) and adding fuel or starting with full tanks and offloading as needed.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Still plenty of airports out there with AvGas, some of which can be fairly remote without another airport with fuel nearby. Doubly so if you're going south of the border; Mexican authorities have restricted access to fuel to combat the cartels and it can be quite a distance between airports with AvGas. Add to that the price of fuel varies widely and taking 5 hours of fuel and being able to get there and back without a fuel stop suddenly makes a lot more sense.

Plus to me, I'd rather start with an absolute known quantity of fuel than an estimated one which means either starting with empty tanks (uncommon) and adding fuel or starting with full tanks and offloading as needed.

Lol, tankering fuel for trips to Mexico is now a significant concern? Gimme a break. As for measuring an unknown quantity, they make fuel tank dip sticks just for that purpose. If you’re trying to budget fuel usage with the margin of error on a dip stick, you’ve got bigger issues.

Stopping somewhere to get some fuel before takeoff or along the route isn’t a big deal for me as opposed to having to offload fuel from full tanks every time I go somewhere with 2 adult pax in a 172.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[apr911]

Mexico, the Caribbean, Canada, Alaska, Hawaii, much of Eastern California, Northern Nevada and Southern Utah between the Sierra Nevada's and the Rockies; again plenty of places where stopping off for fuel isn't an option and that's just a few quick ones. I also generally dont stop for fuel anywhere in the LA basin unless I'm absolutely forced to since AvGas in the region can run $2+ per gallon more too, though I do have the option.

Yes they have dipsticks but they dont make calibrated dipsticks for everything, the calibrated ones dont take any tank modifications into account and generic uncalibrated dipsticks require multiple measurements at somewhat known quantities to extrapolate a scale, one of which usually includes near to or at empty. If you own the airplane, that's one thing but a rental is still tough.

 

[talkingbob]

- UPDATE -
The owner of the club found a new aircraft to replace the 172n that crashed.
The new aircraft is... [DRUMROLL]

Another Cessna 172N.

Thank you all for your opinions and suggestions.

 

[hindsight2020]

Well that was anti-climatic.....coulda sold ya my Arrow for half