Cessna 172 engine out while on the ground.

It depends, but you'll usually pay $30-40 less an hour then a rental for a comparable plane, even when you factor in the monthly dues (you'll hopefully be flying at least 10 hours a month, so it spreads out well). Some clubs even have student memberships that limit you to a certain plane but it's cheaper. Also, almost every club out there charges tach time, not hobbs time (real time). Which means all that time spent at 2000 RPM in the pattern really saves you a ton of money as well.

I'll give you an example. I was in a club at GAI when I lived there. They had a student membership that was $500 to buy in (refundable), $90 a month for dues, and $104 an hour for a very well equipped Piper Warrior.

Now compare that to paying $160 an hour for a G1000 172 or even $130-140 an hour for a steam gauge 172 at most schools.

Also, most independent CFIs are cheaper then schools because there's no middle man. I had one check me out in that club one time and it was $30 an hour.
 
Yeah, the only thing you can really do is price them. There is A LOT of variability.

Around me, I can get a G1000 172S for $170/hour, a steam gauge 172R with the same autopilot and a KLN94 GPS for $130, and a whole bunch of 172Ns and Ps with Garmin IFR GPS's (most GTN650, a few GNS430W) for $125. One even has a standby electrical vacuum pump, real nice for IFR.

Frankly, I wouldn't recommend a student start with G1000 for a number of reasons, not the least of which is they weigh a lot. For the 182s I have ready access to, the weight difference between G1000 and steam is just over 170 lb. It's a lot. And the glass is not at all necessary for VFR; the airplane flies the same with glass except you can fit one less person in it.

Right now, I'm being asked to fly two 182 exercises across the state -- a search and rescue exercise, and a bunch of intro rides for kids. I'm debating whether to take glass or steam. Glass is nice to have for SAR. Kids in glass tend to play the computer game. And that 170 lb comes in.
 
MAKG1 said:
Frankly, I wouldn't recommend a student start with G1000 for a number of reasons, not the least of which is they weigh a lot. For the 182s I have ready access to, the weight difference between G1000 and steam is just over 170 lb. It's a lot.
Click to expand...

No way that's an apples-to-apples comparison. Are you comparing a 182P or 182Q to a 182T? The weight difference between most 172SP-steam and 172SP-G1000 is around 45lbs for the planes I see. Ditto between the 182S and 182T.
 
asicer said:
No way that's an apples-to-apples comparison. Are you comparing a 182P or 182Q to a 182T? The weight difference between most 172SP-steam and 172SP-G1000 is around 45lbs for the planes I see. Ditto between the 182S and 182T.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's apples to apples. The OP is not limited to airplanes less than 10 years old.

A 172SP isn't a good choice either. They are fat pigs. A 172N has better power/weight even with the smaller engine. And 40 deg flaps.

The steam gauge 182 I have access to is an R model. It has extra equipment in it, such as two GPS's, direction finder, tactical radio, engine monitor, fuel totalizer, even a useless ADF. What it doesn't have is an autopilot. While you can get steam airplanes with no autopilot, G1000s just didn't come that way.
 
MAKG1 said:
Sure, it's apples to apples. The OP is not limited to airplanes less than 10 years old.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand the meaning of apples-to-apples comparison.

An injected Lycoming 540 adds about 100-130lbs over a carb'ed Continental 470 (plus 26g seats, vents that don't pop open on their own, a fuselage that rusts less, etc). A 182R has a Continental O-470 and a 6pack. A 182S has a Lycoming IO-540 and a 6pack. Most 182T's have a Lycoming IO-540 and a G1000. Therefore, apples-to-apples a G1000 plane is ~45lbs difference.
 
asicer said:
I think you misunderstand the meaning of apples-to-apples comparison.

An injected Lycoming 540 adds about 100-130lbs over a carb'ed Continental 470 (plus 26g seats, vents that don't pop open on their own, a fuselage that rusts less, etc). A 182R has a Continental O-470 and a 6pack. A 182S has a Lycoming IO-540 and a 6pack. Most 182T's have a Lycoming IO-540 and a G1000. Therefore, apples-to-apples a G1000 plane is ~45lbs difference.
Click to expand...

G1000 stuff is heavy. I've had it out. It adds up quickly, and the lead-acid standby battery ahead of the panel isn't light, either.

The restart airframes ('97 and on) are heavier because they were beefed up in some weak areas and had fancier interiors. A 172SP weighs 300 pounds more, empty, than a 172M. Some of that is G1000, some is the 26G seats, some is the bigger engine, some is thicker structure.
 
Give me a break... really? The number of hours dont make a pilot any better or worse of an instructor. Are you a flight instructor? i sure didnt come out of the womb with a few thousand hours, thats for sure.
Jimmy cooper said:
Trust no one. With six hundred hours he still a beginner. A ppl is only a license to learn. Try to find an experienced instructor with a few thousand hours at least. Your fault. Sorry.
Click to expand...
 
Usually the brand new instructor is the one who's up to date on all the new stuff that the Fuzz come up with. Nothing at all wrong with the young new guys.
 
Bobcat1 said:
Usually the brand new instructor is the one who's up to date on all the new stuff that the Fuzz come up with. Nothing at all wrong with the young new guys.
Click to expand...
There's plenty wrong with them! They often have just a few more hours than the student. Few if any will teach a stall spin scenario and many don't even like a full stall. Recovery from unusual attitudes also. There is nothing that replaces experience and that comes with hours and hours of flying. I was taught all this as a student long time ago in a champ on a 2000 foot runway. Was I a better pilot as a result? You bet I was ! Learning to fly a 172 on a 6000 foot runway is not comparable.
 
KA550 said:
Other than no real operational experience, you are correct.
Click to expand...
And flight instructing increases the operational experience? Only instructors with 400TT, 750TT are any good?

Time is just a number. 10,000 hours around the pattern isn't worth much.
 
VanDy said:
Give me a break... really? The number of hours dont make a pilot any better or worse of an instructor. Are you a flight instructor? i sure didnt come out of the womb with a few thousand hours, thats for sure.
Click to expand...
Are you any better of a pilot now than you were when you were brand new?
 
Somedudeintn said:
And flight instructing increases the operational experience? Only instructors with 400TT, 750TT are any good?

Time is just a number. 10,000 hours around the pattern isn't worth much.
Click to expand...
Flight Time is not just a number, it is a number that represents time operating an aircraft. Surely you won't argue that no knowledge is gained during that time?
 
Bobcat1 said:
Usually the brand new instructor is the one who's up to date on all the new stuff that the Fuzz come up with. Nothing at all wrong with the young new guys.
Click to expand...
I got my CFI with 280 hours. I'd still be there if no one gave me a shot at instructing!
 
Cooter143 said:
Flight Time is not just a number, it is a number that represents time operating an aircraft. Surely you won't argue that no knowledge is gained during that time?
Click to expand...
We had a 7000 hour ATP that failed CRJ training here and didn't even make it past ground school. Sure it's usually anomaly but it happens.
 
VanDy said:
Give me a break... really? The number of hours dont make a pilot any better or worse of an instructor. Are you a flight instructor? i sure didnt come out of the womb with a few thousand hours, thats for sure.
Click to expand...
This!
 
Cooter143 said:
Flight Time is not just a number, it is a number that represents time operating an aircraft. Surely you won't argue that no knowledge is gained during that time?
Click to expand...

I won't argue that. But I will argue that there are 300 hour TT instructors out there that are better than some 1400hr+ TT instructors.
 
Somedudeintn said:
I won't argue that. But I will argue that there are 300 hour TT instructors out there that are better than some 1400hr+ TT instructors.
Click to expand...
Not all flight time is equal, and not all pilots with equal flight time are equal, but flight time does signify something, namely experience. In general, more flight time should be a decent indicator of experience when the type of flight time is considered.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
There's plenty wrong with them! They often have just a few more hours than the student. Few if any will teach a stall spin scenario and many don't even like a full stall. Recovery from unusual attitudes also. There is nothing that replaces experience and that comes with hours and hours of flying. I was taught all this as a student long time ago in a champ on a 2000 foot runway. Was I a better pilot as a result? You bet I was ! Learning to fly a 172 on a 6000 foot runway is not comparable.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, you're conflating an engine failure on landing caused by an unknown reason -- on a discovery flight, no less -- with being new and afraid to teach a stall/spin scenario? And then because you're a Champ pilot who learned on a 2000 foot runway this silliness would never happen to you.

I've flown all over the Midwest on long runways, short runways, grass runways, rain-soaked runways, icy runways, and snowy runways. I have had an engine fail on landing due to a mechanical issue, despite following a checklist to a tee and having the mixture and all other controls set appropriately. It can happen to anyone.
 
jordane93 said:
We had a 7000 hour ATP that failed CRJ training here and didn't even make it past ground school. Sure it's usually anomaly but it happens.
Click to expand...
And the airlines count on that being an anomaly. That's why there are hiring minimums, and typically a logbook review for the hiring process. As for a high time pilot flunking out, it can happen. But there are a lot of factors that can contribute to failure besides lack of skill.
 
Harold Rutila said:
Just to be clear, you're conflating an engine failure on landing caused by an unknown reason -- on a discovery flight, no less -- with being new and afraid to teach a stall/spin scenario? And then because you're a Champ pilot who learned on a 2000 foot runway this silliness would never happen to you.

I've flown all over the Midwest on long runways, short runways, grass runways, rain-soaked runways, icy runways, and snowy runways. I have had an engine fail on landing due to a mechanical issue, despite following a checklist to a tee and having the mixture and all other controls set appropriately. It can happen to anyone.
Click to expand...
Dear gold seal instructor. You have arrived late in the conversation and seemed to have missed how the statements made progressed to the point I made this statement. I have also had engines fail , both in a Stearman and a mooney, ( at teterboro) My point is that an instructor with high time in the air is in most cases far better than a low time CFI trying to build time. Low time to me for instructing would be a pilot with under 2-3000 hours total time , not simply flying the pattern as one silly comment implied. . My early training and experience flying off and on for fourty years saved me in both instances. They were due to lousy mechanics which are another threat to today's GA which is in slow decline.
 
Cooter143 said:
And the airlines count on that being an anomaly. That's why there are hiring minimums, and typically a logbook review for the hiring process. As for a high time pilot flunking out, it can happen. But there are a lot of factors that can contribute to failure besides lack of skill.
Click to expand...
Yep and the reality is that there a few ways to get experience other than instructing. You'll always find that person who landed right seat in a biz jet with a wet commercial multi but for the most part a lot of people will have to flight instruct in order to start their career.
 
I personally would not fly it.

Most of the time my final leg of the pattern is at idle, or nearly so. What if I have to do a go-around just as I am about to put the mains down? Will the engine stall because it was at idle during the approach to land?

I wouldnt feel all that good about that.
 
Bobcat1 said:
Usually the brand new instructor is the one who's up to date on all the new stuff that the Fuzz come up with. Nothing at all wrong with the young new guys.
Click to expand...

Does the FAA have new regulations yearly?
 
FloridaPilot said:
Does the FAA have new regulations yearly?
Click to expand...
It's not just regs. Things do change.

One current example is that the practical test standards have recently been expanded to include the written test.

CFIs have to get continuing education to keep their certification, so the out of date statement is a red herring.
 
MAKG1 said:
CFI have to get continuing education to keep their certification, so the out of date statement is a red herring.
Click to expand...
This might be a surprise, especially on PoA, but old people are usually very stuck in their ways and resistant to change.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
This might be a surprise, especially on PoA, but old people are usually very stuck in their ways and resistant to change.
Click to expand...

I believe that is a generalization, I have seen many younger people who are set in their ways as well, It really comes down to personality. To a 20 year old, I'm considered "Old" but I love to learn new things and adapt to a quickly changing world.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I believe that is a generalization
Click to expand...
Yes this is very much a generalization. Just like:
Jimmy cooper said:
Trust no one. With six hundred hours he still a beginner. A ppl is only a license to learn. Try to find an experienced instructor with a few thousand hours at least. Your fault. Sorry.
Click to expand...
is a massive generalization.

The real answer is, has been, and will always be "it depends". Yes, even with checklist usage.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
There's plenty wrong with them! They often have just a few more hours than the student. Few if any will teach a stall spin scenario and many don't even like a full stall. Recovery from unusual attitudes also. There is nothing that replaces experience and that comes with hours and hours of flying. I was taught all this as a student long time ago in a champ on a 2000 foot runway. Was I a better pilot as a result? You bet I was ! Learning to fly a 172 on a 6000 foot runway is not comparable.
Click to expand...

Not all are created equal... I'm not a CFI yet, but at 300 hours I was flying a J5 across the country in July.
Cooter143 said:
Are you any better of a pilot now than you were when you were brand new?
Click to expand...
I hope I'm better after every flight. I've had CFI's with less hours than me that still taught me a thing or two and were good instructors. And I've had the opposite too.
jordane93 said:
I got my CFI with 280 hours. I'd still be there if no one gave me a shot at instructing!
Click to expand...


Cooter143 said:
Not all flight time is equal, and not all pilots with equal flight time are equal, but flight time does signify something, namely experience. In general, more flight time should be a decent indicator of experience when the type of flight time is considered.
Click to expand...
That is right on, I don't care about hours, we have pilots at my home base that only fly with winds under 5mph, and ones that fly whenever they can.

Go fly and don't give any attention to the haters. Do you.
 
VanDy said:
Not all are created equal... I'm not a CFI yet, but at 300 hours I was flying a J5 across the country in July.

I hope I'm better after every flight. I've had CFI's with less hours than me that still taught me a thing or two and were good instructors. And I've had the opposite too.




That is right on, I don't care about hours, we have pilots at my home base that only fly with winds under 5mph, and ones that fly whenever they can.

Go fly and don't give any attention to the haters. Do you.
Click to expand...

I agree, with every flight you should learn as much as you can to get better. How do you determine if a CFI is for you and how would you determine if he/she is a SAFE and Competent pilot?
 
iWantWings said:
I personally would not fly it.

Most of the time my final leg of the pattern is at idle, or nearly so. What if I have to do a go-around just as I am about to put the mains down? Will the engine stall because it was at idle during the approach to land?

I wouldnt feel all that good about that.
Click to expand...

There's a reason the idle check is in the checklist. I'd return to the FBO if it failed the idle check on the second attempt. The one small bit of solace for the issue you raised about being at or near idle on final is that the prop wouldn't be as likely to stop turning with the prevailing wind helping keep it in motion. It might be enough to prevent the engine from dying completely, but it's not something I'd be staking my life on!
 
SoonerAviator said:
There's a reason the idle check is in the checklist. I'd return to the FBO if it failed the idle check on the second attempt. The one small bit of solace for the issue you raised about being at or near idle on final is that the prop wouldn't be as likely to stop turning with the prevailing wind helping keep it in motion. It might be enough to prevent the engine from dying completely, but it's not something I'd be staking my life on!
Click to expand...

Actually, the idle check is NOT in the 172N checklist. Almost all of us do it, though. It is in the 172S checklist.
 
MAKG1 said:
Actually, the idle check is NOT in the 172N checklist. Almost all of us do it, though. It is in the 172S checklist.
Click to expand...

I did not know that but I haven't had a chance to fly the pre-P models, I knew it was in my checklist for the R/S and the 172RG.
 
MAKG1 said:
Actually, the idle check is NOT in the 172N checklist. Almost all of us do it, though. It is in the 172S checklist.
Click to expand...
But, but but.... the checklist is infallible!!!!

It's not in my M checklist either. Nor are a lot of things. There's a reason it's a checklist and not a do-list, nor should it be treated as the instruction manual for the airplane. We're taught and trained to fly these airplanes. We're not just monkeys banging around here. The checklist is to make sure you didn't forget something super-duper-critical like a landing gear. Something like strobes may not show up because you won't die if you forget.
 
I've never seen it in a checklist.

While my list of flown planes isn't extensive, it includes Pipers, a Socata, Cessnas (182RG and 182P), and an M20J.

I guess it's pretty hit or miss depending on the plane and whether it's included.

I always do it though. My instructor drilled it into me early on when I started flying.
 
We have "below 1000 rpm" on the before takeoff checklist for the club 172s. N and P models. I do a full idle check. Always a good idea even if it isn't in the checklist.
 
MAKG1 said:
It's not in the 172P or 172RG checklists either. Once again, we all do it anyway.
Click to expand...

My SureCheck 172RG specifies throttle-full back/1000rpm on the run-up section. It's not the POH checklist, but I don't keep a copy of the Gutless POH.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top