Cessna 172 or 172SP for trainer? Thoughts

[integra144]

Which is better trainer Cessna 172 or 172SP the price difference is negligible so would one recommend the SP? Also the SP has GPS not sure about the 172 didn’t see the inside of that model?
Thanks

 

[rottydaddy]

Do you really think the price difference is negligible?
In my area they average $30-$50 more per hour. That adds up.

I've flown both, although I did my training in an assortment of 172s and 150/152s... the SP is cushier (leather; better ventilation, nicer seats) and has better avionics, but it certainly doesn't perform better than the older 'hawks. It's a bit heavier, and although there's nothing wrong with that, I find them a bit piggish compared to the older 172s I've flown. Mind you, that's a very subtle difference, but don't have any illusions- the SP is just the same old airplane with more stuff on it.

There are 13 fuel drains to check vs. the three or four found on the older ones, and although the fuel-injected SPs leave you free from worry about carb ice, you do have to worry about vapor lock, and they can be tricky to start when the engine is hot or warm (well, maybe only for someone who's used to the older ones). For some reason I've found the batteries very easy to run down when I've failed to hot-start them properly... that is of course my own fault, but I've flown crusty old 70s Skyhawks that would let one crank the starter all day long if needed (exaggerating of course but you get my drift).

The whole idea of using a boost pump for nothing other than priming the engine is, to me, idiotic. More weight than a primer tube and just another gizmo to break or cause electrical problems.

But hey, if you have the money and intend to move up to even more sophisticated craft and really want to start right away with the more modern avionics, I certainly wouldn't discourage you from sticking with the SP... I prefer the older ones, but the S and SP series Skyhawks are still good trainers.

PS- older Skyhawks can be found with a wide variety of avionics suites, including many with GPS of some kind. You probably won't find a G1000 suite in an old Skyhawk, but you may be pleasantly surprised at what you may find installed in one.

 

[kevin47881]

Which is better trainer Cessna 172 or 172SP the price difference is negligible so would one recommend the SP? Also the SP has GPS not sure about the 172 didn’t see the inside of that model?
Thanks

Which does the CFI recommend? Why does he recommend that one over the other?
Some CFI's prefer a primary student use only steam gauges while others prefer starting their students off with GPS as that is most likely what will be encountered once you earn your ticket to learn.

 

[integra144]

just Kevin: I was told that this type of 172SP is what the school will be utilizing and 172, but mainly the 152 are being phased out (EOL). Not sure if EOL (End of Life Cycle) is used in the aviation industry, it just means technology that is too old, unsafe or no longer cost effective. The school recently also fazed out there 152 which were the cheapest rentals for classes. I am also scarred I will train on something that will be phased out and have to relearn everything. Kind of like computers with the new Windows and stuff.

rottydaddy: my first flight was yesterday, so I don’t know much about planes yet other then the cosmetics of how they look. Thanks for the info though about its specs.


I think I will pay the premium for the SP as it seems like a better model with more advanced features, comfort, etc.

 

[nddons]

The SP has 180 hp while most other 172s have 160 hp. The extra 20 isn't needed during training, but I believe the 180 hp version will require more right rudder on takeoff and go-arounds than a lesser horsepower version. (I could be wrong but that was my impression. I have more time in the SP than the non-SP.)

 

[CJones]

Personally, I would recommend going as cheap as (safely) possible when starting out. During your initial training, you won't be screwing with fancy doo-dads in the cockpit - you'll be focusing your attention outside the cockpit and learning the basics of how to control in a 3-axis system. Why pay for doo-dads and fancy options inside the cockpit when you won't really be paying attention to them anyway - you can use the $$$ you save on extra flight time down the line.

Later on, possibly even in the later stages of you PP training, you can transition into the 'fancier' aircraft. Sure, you'll have to spend some time learning the new systems, but the cost-benefit of flying a cheaper a/c in earlier stages will pay off with being able to afford extra hours logged in the long run (which is what you will need if you want to make a career out of flying).

I did my PP training in a 152 renting for $35/hr. Got checked out in a 172 ($55/hr) and Cherokee-180 ($65/hr) toward the end of PP training, followed by Piper Archer ($67/hr) and 177RG ($76/hr) post-PP. The basics I learned while flying the 152 were easily applied to all of the 'more advanced' a/c in later stages.

Just my 2 cents worth.... YMMV..

 

[gprellwitz]

Some points & questions.

The SP has about 80 lbs more useful load than the R model. During my training, that 70 lbs made the difference between full tanks being legal or not. Both are fuel injected. You didn't say which model(s) the non-SP is, so I don't know if you have a FI vs. carb decision here.

How many of each are there? If there's a preponderance of either, that can provide better availability, which is always nice. And if the school is phasing out the older models, as it sounds might be happening, you're facing a dwindling supply of one compared to a (hopefully) growing supply of the other. (Not that you can't switch between them occasionally during training, but that tends to be sub-optimal from a training perspective). Do some or all of the SPs have the G1000? The same logic I used above shows that you don't want to be switching between the steam gauges and the G1000 during training. And I'll take rottydaddy's statement a little further and tell you that you won't find ANY 172 with a G1000 except the SP.

So I think your decision to go with the SP certainly has some merit
, but neither would be "wrong."

 

[gprellwitz]

Integra,
You were unsure in the other thread whether the SP you flew was G1000 or not. Here are pictures of the G1000 (big rectangular panels) and steam gauge (circular dials).

 

[integra144]

Thanks Grant Prellwitz for the upload f the two models I got the stream guage, they had a image of the G1000 advertisment, but he said since I was learning I should first stick with the basics to learn the guages and stuff, what do you guys think about the 182? Would that be excessive? I like the way it looks it seems more streamlined and the wheel covers are nice.

 

[gprellwitz]

I got the stream guage, they had a image of the G1000 advertisment, but he said since I was learning I should first stick with the basics to learn the guages and stuff, what do you guys think about the 182? Would that be excessive? I like the way it looks it seems more streamlined and the wheel covers are nice.

A 182 will be a nice plane to step up to after you get your certificate. Given the option, I would NOT recommend it for the initial training. It's a heavier plane, has additional controls and complexities, and a little less forgiving. Not to mention that it's more expensive!

It's not particularly better streamlined; it has a lot more power to get the additional speed. The SPs have wheel fairings too, though the school may have opted to remove them. That's probably because students have made hard landings during training and cracked them, to the tune of $1000 or so each.

 

[RMCN172RG]

If it's a R vs an SP the major difference is the interior. The extra 20HP gives you a higher gross but the plane weighs more so useful load is about even. I never noticed any difference in rudder on takeoff and I have about 60 hours in each. For a long trip the SP is nicer and cruises a few knots faster.

IF the other 172 is a P or earlier you have the carb difference and either older or a unique set of avionics.

I would start in the 172 if its a) cheaper and or b) has different avionics then the SP. Once comfortable with that, funds permitting, try the SP since it will have a GPS and Autopilot to play with. There will be more than enough to learn early with the basic avionics that they will be of little or no benefit to you in the early training.

I only have about five hours in 182's and for the cost difference and ease of flying it would train in the 172 and get the 182 HP endorsement after the PPL. For a long trip or for more than 2 people and fuel you'll want the 182.

my .02, Good Luck.

 

[rottydaddy]

Some responses here have brought a coupla other things to mind... I'm not bashing SPs at all; they're fine... but:

There are plenty of older 172s with the 180-hp powerplant... known as "Skyhawk II"s or "Superhawks".
I used to fly one often, and it was wonderful. Even with the lighter airframe it was a pussycat on takeoff; not much "extra" right rudder needed at all. And in economy cruise it was just about as fast as a SP, and got better mileage per gallon.

So again, the SP is fundamentally nothing new, nor is it fundamentally better.

As for the useful load: that is a good point, but I know a flight school owner/operator who will not fly his SP at book GTW on a hot day... for (deep South) summertime ops he never fills it higher than the filler flanges if he's going to have full pax and baggage.

 

[KennyFlys]

I got the stream guage, they had a image of the G1000 advertisement, but he said since I was learning I should first stick with the basics to learn the guages and stuff, what do you guys think about the 182? Would that be excessive? I like the way it looks it seems more streamlined and the wheel covers are nice.

I like your instructor, already!

As far as appearance, some schools attract customers by having nice looking, airplanes. But, you'll learn just as much if you flew a 1960 172A model or prior (Manual flaps can be a useful learning tool!). My point is don't let the flashy new stuff make your decision for you.

First, flying is expensive enough. So, go with the cheaper aircraft to learn. A 172 is a 172 is a 172 as far as weight and handling. You're not going to see a difference in how they feel short of the much older planes that have 40° of flaps available (Another lesson in itself).

The most common older Skyhawks are M and N models. They are analog (steam or round) gages with no GPS. At least their wasn't when they were built. Go with those if they are there. You'll save money and you're learning to fly. Worry about the high tech stuff later on. Become a certificated pilot first.

When you do move to an R or S model, if you find yourself reaching for the carb heat during a checklist flow on approach, you've picked up a good habit. My own personal suggestion is stick with analog gages until the end of working on an instrument rating. You'll appreciate it in the end and pick up some good learning on "needles." My old school has CFIs who didn't see a GPS until they began multi-engine and they are dang good instructors. It's a good path that will benefit you.

I'll cause a little a little ruffling from some on that issue but that's ok. It's an area I firmly believe in.

As far as the 182, unless you weigh 300 pounds and have a heavy instructor, leave it until you're a certifcated pilot at the very least. Since you can complete an instrument rating on the Skyhaw, stick with it. Save the money on a 182 until it's time for a commercial ticket, assuming it's a retractable.

 

[gprellwitz]

As far as the 182, unless you weigh 300 pounds and have a heavy instructor, leave it until you're a certifcated pilot at the very least. Since you can complete an instrument rating on the Skyhaw, stick with it. Save the money on a 182 until it's time for a commercial ticket, assuming it's a retractable.

He's 5' 6", so 300 lbs is unlikely. I concur that a 182, even for instrument training, is likely excessive. Do the training in a trainer! That's not to say that you shouldn't get the HP endorsement and start flying the 182 soon after you get your private. It makes a great XC ship, especially if you want to bring a couple friends.

 

[poadeleted20]

If the price difference is truly negligible, and you are aiming for an airline career, then go with the glass panel SP model -- the airlines are moving in that direction very fast, so the more time you get earlier in your training on glass panels the better (Laws of Exercise and Primacy).

 

[KennyFlys]

If the price difference is truly negligible, and you are aiming for an airline career, then go with the glass panel SP model -- the airlines are moving in that direction very fast, so the more time you get earlier in your training on glass panels the better (Laws of Exercise and Primacy).

If directly airline bound, I agree with that. I was thinking he was leaning toward a college education in accounting which puts airlines or other aviation career down the line. Hence, my leaning toward lesser costs for the duration.

I don't know pricing is all that close, however. I'm seeing $105-110 for the M and N models. R models are at $125+ and S models with Nav II are running around $140-155. S models with Nav III are hitting $150-165. Those are club and prepay rates. A walk-in rate jumps another 10% or more.

 

[deafsound]

If directly airline bound, I agree with that. I was thinking he was leaning toward a college education in accounting which puts airlines or other aviation career down the line. Hence, my leaning toward lesser costs for the duration.

I don't know pricing is all that close, however. I'm seeing $105-110 for the M and N models. R models are at $125+ and S models with Nav II are running around $140-155. S models with Nav III are hitting $150-165. Those are club and prepay rates. A walk-in rate jumps another 10% or more.

At the place where our new flight student is renting, a 172 is 103/hr, a 172SP(some are g1000) is 124/hr and the 182 is 155/hr

 

[KennyFlys]

At the place where our new flight student is renting, a 172 is 103/hr, a 172SP(some are g1000) is 124/hr and the 182 is 155/hr

That's pretty dang cheap. Ya got a good deal there. But, what about fuel surcharges? Those can be a gotcha.

 

[deafsound]

That's pretty dang cheap. Ya got a good deal there. But, what about fuel surcharges? Those can be a gotcha.

Not too sure anymore. I haven't rented an airplane in a while. It used to be around 7 bucks/flight, but that was when fuel really started going up in price.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Whoa... Lots of assumptions happening here.

Do you really think the price difference is negligible?
In my area they average $30-$50 more per hour. That adds up.

If the non-SP is a 172R, the price difference may be as little as $5/hr.

There are 13 fuel drains to check vs. the three or four found on the older ones, and although the fuel-injected SPs leave you free from worry about carb ice, you do have to worry about vapor lock, and they can be tricky to start when the engine is hot or warm

Both the 172R and 172SP are fuel-injected.

But hey, if you have the money and intend to move up to even more sophisticated craft and really want to start right away with the more modern avionics

Again, R and SP have the same avionics, and older models may have been upgraded with even better stuff. (Not that it matters, as has been pointed out.)

I certainly wouldn't discourage you from sticking with the SP... I prefer the older ones, but the S and SP series Skyhawks are still good trainers.

172S = 172SP. Same thing.

Some CFI's prefer a primary student use only steam gauges while others prefer starting their students off with GPS as that is most likely what will be encountered once you earn your ticket to learn.

Again, there are 172R's and 172SP's that have steam gauges, while others (2004/5 or so and later) have glass. "172SP" does not imply either. There are no 172P or earlier models with glass, though many have been upgraded with GPS.

There, I feel better now.

 

[kevin47881]

Again, there are 172R's and 172SP's that have steam gauges, while others (2004/5 or so and later) have glass. "172SP" does not imply either. There are no 172P or earlier models with glass, though many have been upgraded with GPS.
There, I feel better now.

Glad you feel better. Nowhere did I state the SP was glass. I am confident the one I flew a few years ago had steam gauges. The comment was made to make an "all possibility" statement.

 

[deafsound]

Because I know the place that our new friend is training, I'll give you the lowdown on what they have for planes:

A few 172 classics. Some are bare bones, with only VORs, one has a Loran, and two have some sort of VFR only GPS. One of the classic 172s is an IFR plane.

There are several 172SPs, most of which are steam gauges. Two of them are g1000

Two or three 182s. Two of them are g1000

When I trained there, they had a fleet of 152s, which is what I used for my PPL. They have since sold them all.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Glad you feel better. Nowhere did I state the SP was glass. I am confident the one I flew a few years ago had steam gauges. The comment was made to make an "all possibility" statement.

And I was just trying to clarify that. No worries.

 

[gprellwitz]

Again, there are 172R's and 172SP's that have steam gauges, while others (2004/5 or so and later) have glass. "172SP" does not imply either. There are no 172P or earlier models with glass, though many have been upgraded with GPS.

They offer the 172R with glass? I did not know that. Thanks!

 

[Henning]

Which is better trainer Cessna 172 or 172SP the price difference is negligible so would one recommend the SP? Also the SP has GPS not sure about the 172 didn’t see the inside of that model?
Thanks

Well, you get some better performance from the SP, and at this point in your training, GPS is completely irrellevant so don't bother factoring that in yet. Are we talking about 2 airplanes fron the same school? If so, then I suggest you train in both of them interchangeably (and any other planes they have) so you have greater chances of having an aircraft available to meet your schedule plus you'll end up checked out in all of them. All planes "fly" and are controlled the same, the difference is in the details.

 

[Henning]

Thanks Grant Prellwitz for the upload f the two models I got the stream guage, they had a image of the G1000 advertisment, but he said since I was learning I should first stick with the basics to learn the guages and stuff, what do you guys think about the 182? Would that be excessive? I like the way it looks it seems more streamlined and the wheel covers are nice.

Don't waste the money yet. There will be no advantage to using the 182 at this point, however after you get your ticket, it'll be a good thing to get checked out in.

 

[Henning]

Because I know the place that our new friend is training, I'll give you the lowdown on what they have for planes:

A few 172 classics. Some are bare bones, with only VORs, one has a Loran, and two have some sort of VFR only GPS. One of the classic 172s is an IFR plane.

There are several 172SPs, most of which are steam gauges. Two of them are g1000

Two or three 182s. Two of them are g1000

When I trained there, they had a fleet of 152s, which is what I used for my PPL. They have since sold them all.

Good to know. What do they have for a multi? Anyway, for our young guy headed for the airlines my suggested plan of action:

Old 172 through Solo and the first X/C. After that switch to the G1000 172 for the completion of PP and for the IR. If the place doesn't have one, find somewhere to do your Multi Commercial in a DA 42, then get your SE Com in the G1000 182.

 

[deafsound]

Good to know. What do they have for a multi?

They have a Piper Seminole.

 

[KennyFlys]

They offer the 172R with glass? I did not know that. Thanks!

The R came out in 1996. The 172R traffic plane I fly was built in 1998. The first Cessna single-engine, glass panel I'm aware of was in 2005.

 

[rottydaddy]

Whoa... Lots of assumptions happening here.



If the non-SP is a 172R, the price difference may be as little as $5/hr.



Both the 172R and 172SP are fuel-injected.



Again, R and SP have the same avionics, and older models may have been upgraded with even better stuff. (Not that it matters, as has been pointed out.)



172S = 172SP. Same thing.



Again, there are 172R's and 172SP's that have steam gauges, while others (2004/5 or so and later) have glass. "172SP" does not imply either. There are no 172P or earlier models with glass, though many have been upgraded with GPS.

There, I feel better now.

The OP never mentioned the R model; having never flown one myself, I thought we were looking at a comparison between pre-Rs and SPs (or S).

My main point was: fuel injection and leather plus a higher book GTW is not really worth the extra money for a pre-ticket student, unless he's really found an S or SP that's not much more than a K, M, P, or other older type, even when fancier avionics are available in a given newer 'hawk.

 

[gprellwitz]

The R came out in 1996. The 172R traffic plane I fly was built in 1998. The first Cessna single-engine, glass panel I'm aware of was in 2005.

But the 172R is still made, concurrently with the 172SP.

Just checked the Cessna website:

New G1000 option.
Presenting the revolutionary Garmin G1000 glass cockpit - the most intelligent flight-deck package ever to fly on this class of aircraft. the G1000 integrates all primary flight, engine and sensor data to provide intuitive, at-a-glance situational awareness. Real-time, flight-critical information is presented on two big, colorful 10.4-inch active-matrix LCD displays - bringing new levels of safety and confidence to your Skyhawk. Available on both the 172R-GA and 172S models, the G1000 creates the irresistible combination of the future of flight with the world's most-embraced, most-flown aircraft ever.

Garmin GA Equipped Skyhawk 172R: $234,500

 

[KennyFlys]

But the 172R is still made, concurrently with the 172SP.

Just checked the Cessna website:

Garmin GA Equipped Skyhawk 172R: $234,500

Gosh, I hadn't looked at the Cessna site in a while. I thought it was narrowed down to the S with with or without the Nav III option along with a few other options. But, I'm noticing some different performance numbers as well. Same engine, but an extra 20HP and an inch difference in the prop for the SP.

I would think it would be more cost effective to have more of a base model like the R and just allow options as desired.

 

[t0r0nad0]

Even if the cost is "negligible", I'd say save the money by flying the older steam gauge planes and get checked out in the fancy ones later. I learned to fly in 3 different 172N models and I paid ~$107.50/hr for those planes (incl. fuel surcharge). Were I to do the same thing in the SP models at my school, I would have paid ~$140.00/hr, which gives me a difference of about $32.50/hr. Multiply that by the 50 hrs that I flew at that school before getting my PPL, and that's a total savings of about $1,625.00. Now, if I want to transition to the newer planes, I'll just need an hour or two with an instructor, which should be $350.00 or less, and I can fly those planes as well as the 172N's that I currently fly. I'm not sure the price difference at your school, but every little bit adds up to a significant savings over time, which can be used to buy more flight time later .

 

[Ted]

The 172 is a great plane to learn in, but if you're like me you'll probably get tired of it and want to start flying something else by the time you're done with your private. In my flying club, we have the 172 and an Archer II. The Archer is by far the nice plane, and the one I prefer flying, at least from the right seat time I've gotten. What people have said now about the GPS not being part of your training is absolutely correct. You won't even consider using it until your cross countries, and even then you are really better off practicing navigation by VORs or pilotage (looking out the window). Most 172s will get you through instrument anyway.

I suppose part of it depends on what your budget and overall intentions are for aviation, both personal and professional. One CFI posed the rhetorical question to me of "What do you plan to do with your license once you get it?" I've figured out what that answer is for me, and so I have a clear path that I want to take. Unless your answer involves flying that will include sticking with the 172 for a long while, I can't say I see a point in buying a nicer one. The old clunkers will teach you the fundamentals just as well, and that is what you will be focusing on.

Ron makes a good point about the glass cockpit experience if you want to go to the airlines, but that's the G1000, not the combination Garmin/gauges like you said the SP you were looking at had.

Seeing as my eventual goal is for a twin, a lot of people have made the suggestion about a progression that involves something like 172 -> 182 -> 210 -> 310 (this is using Cessna products, you could make a similar progression with Pipers). That's probably not a bad route to consider. In either case, the Cessnas have changed so little over the years there really are marginal benefits to the newer one. You don't need leather seats in your first trainer.

 

[jwriteclub]

I am going to be disagreed with:

1) I agree that there is little/no reason to spend even a few extra dollars for the 172SP, as long as the classics are in good shape. I actually prefer the "Skyhawk II" or "Superhawk", as they are peppyer than the 172SP IMHO. In addition, I tend to think that the SP, full front seats and fuel (almost at the foreward CG) has a very unpleasant nose heavy takeoff characteristic and a very heavy elevator on T/O (and I'm a piper guy, so I'm used to the "heavy" tail feel).

2) While I agree that GPS is a distraction until X-C, I would strongly, strongly advise that the student get GPS training as part of the X-C syllabus and perform some of the navigation using GPS. I know that a number of the older guys scorn GPS, but look at the comments in the 50th Anniversary AOPA magazine -- comments about "omnis" and how cushy they were. As far as I'm concerned, GPS is a fact of aviation life, and the CFI does the pilot a disservice if they do not provide some training in it as part of navigation training.

The only downside to all this, of course, is that different GPSs operate differently. Still, I think that a student with a firm grounding in a particular GPS can easily transition to any new model with just a little time once they get their ticket, as opposed to someone who is not aware of the uses of GPS technology.

3) 182 is complete overkill for primary training. In addition, I always find them a bit top heavy with full fuel (Piper guy), and think that a student without my undeniably landing finesse (anyone who's flown with me can laugh now) might well get themselves into trouble practicing crosswind maneuvers. Not that I don't like the 182, I just really don't think it's appropriate for low time students.

~ Christopher

 

[rottydaddy]

I am going to be disagreed with:

1) I agree that there is little/no reason to spend even a few extra dollars for the 172SP, as long as the classics are in good shape. I actually prefer the "Skyhawk II" or "Superhawk", as they are peppyer than the 172SP IMHO. In addition, I tend to think that the SP, full front seats and fuel (almost at the foreward CG) has a very unpleasant nose heavy takeoff characteristic and a very heavy elevator on T/O (and I'm a piper guy, so I'm used to the "heavy" tail feel).

You're dead on about the "peppier" thing with those good ol' 180-horse 172s, but yes, I think your Piper-centric experience is tainting your assessment of the new Skyhawk's takeoff feel... it's not just heavier in the nose, it's heavier all over.

And all those damn fuel drains... I asked the owner why that was: plumbing related to the injection system, maybe?
His answer?

"Lawyers".

 

[KennyFlys]

And all those damn fuel drains... I asked the owner why that was: plumbing related to the injection system, maybe?
His answer?

"Lawyers".

I had that same thing thrown at me when I returned to flying in 2005 and my first airplane after 19 years was the 172S.

I have a more logical reason...

"Bladders"

Or, lack of. We now have wet wings without a bladder and must also drain in the low points between ribs and spars.

 

[jwriteclub]

Theyr'e up to what, 13 fuel drains?

Uggh!

~ Christopher

 

[KennyFlys]

Theyr'e up to what, 13 fuel drains?

Uggh!

~ Christopher

If you owned a Skyhawk... would you rather pay handsomely to replace the bladder or hit a few extra drains during preflight?

 

[Henning]

If you owned a Skyhawk... would you rather pay handsomely to replace the bladder or hit a few extra drains during preflight?

??? 172s had bladders?