Is a 172 D model and newer a capable X-country plane?

A 172D, with two people is a fine airplane. I have basically the same performance with bigger fuel tanks. Flew 1600 miles (two days out of a 10 day trip) and would do it over in a heartbeat. No its not fast but was still cheaper than flying commercial (for two pwople and the bags we had).

My brother has had a 172D for about 8 years, that came with an aux fuel tank in the baggage compartment. He flew it loaded to the brim with his 6'2 self, a light weigh wife and two kids from Seattle Washington to Valparaiso Florida and had a great time.
 
midcap said:
I can't afford a Turbo Cirrus though.
Click to expand...

I know, I'm not suggesting you do, I think 172 is a fine plane for what you want to do with it... that's what I fly, I was simply stating that they are not all the same when it comes to weather planning.
 
genna said:
I think we are reading different things here. 500nm trips. 172 has 40 gal tank and will use about 8gph or more. 5 hours endurance. That's not enough to go 500nm . SR22T(turbo) can fly at 213ktas at 25000 feet if needed... http://www.nextgen.aero/EN/Cirrus SR 22T/ Most people wouldn't do it as it taxes the plane and wallet, but it CAN be done. 172 will max out at 130 ktas or less
Click to expand...

I have never seen or heard a SR22 at FL250, I have never seen a track of a SR22 anywhere near 200kts.

Maybe with a professional driver on a closed course ;)

Ether way, doesn't matter, OP doesn't want a cirrus.



Back on point, OP, go get your CFI friend to take you up in that PA24, 5 bucks says it ends this debate
 
James331 said:
I have never seen or heard a SR22 at FL250, I have never seen a track of a SR22 anywhere near 200kts.

Maybe with a professional driver on a closed course ;)

Ether way, doesn't matter, OP doesn't want a cirrus.



Back on point, OP, go get your CFI friend to take you up in that PA24, 5 bucks says it ends this debate
Click to expand...

I'll work on that, I need to sit in it at least. :D
 
Another vote for the Comanche. You'll appreciate the added range/speed. A 172D will still be fine though - my uncle has one and routinely flies 200+ nm with it and has a blast doing it.
 
genna said:
You have to stop for fuel in 172, doesn't have the range. That can be an hour.
Click to expand...
So you make a stop. A lot of people are ready to get out and stretch legs after two to two and a half hours anyway.

Admittedly, short range is my biggest frustration with my airplane. The original 40 gallon capacity isn't really enough, especially with the 180 hp STC -- that's barely three hours plus one-hour reserve. Some 172s were built with optional extended-range tanks, and there are a couple of aftermarket solutions for increased fuel capacity as well. On a long trip being able to skip a fuel stop would likely save more time block-to-block than an extra 20 knots of airspeed.

Now Piper Warriors (150/160 hp) and Archers (180 hp), with nearly identical performance to like-powered 172s, all have 50-gallon fuel capacity. A 180-hp Grumman-American Tiger also carries about 50 gallons, but is about 15 knots faster.
 
If you can do it in one day, 5 or 6 hours, the plane is fast enough for most. Fly 3 hours in the morning, stop for fuel and lunch for 2 hours and fly for 3 more hours and youre there. Sure faster is, well, faster, but if it goes to one day with faster but 2 days with slower, well then the faster plane has additional value. Keeps you from having to spend the night.

A 172 is a great plane. Has a good safety record. Forgiving but gives feedback. Fun to land...Good luck!
 
teejayevans said:
I don't think he wants to spend $70K, for about half of that he can get Mooney M20C...172D is inexpensive and easy to maintain.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind spending 70k on a Comanche. 150kts and all that. I don't want to spend 70k on a 172.
 
midcap said:
I'll work on that, I need to sit in it at least. :D
Click to expand...
The Cirrus is a very comfortable aircraft, for both pilot and pax.

For what it's worth, you should be able to file for 110kt true in a 172 easily.
 
If you're seriously considering the jump all the way to Comanche you should also look at Mooneys C to J... I'd be worried about the cost of maintaining an old Comanche and getting parts.

Any Mooney does those distances without breaking a sweat, and is just about the most fuel efficient GA plane there is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Surprisingly, we've made it almost two pages without...just get a Bo and be done with it. So there it is. :D
 
The biggest time saver, by the way, it being able to not make a fuel stop. They take time.
 
For 2 long trips per year a 172 is fine, cheap to buy, cheap to own, relatively easy to sell. Plan your fuel stop to include lunch, still half the time of driving! And tons more satisfying!
 
I use a 172 for a 300+ mile trip a couple times a year. Even alone, that's about long enough to sit in a fairly confined space - tough to get your legs comfortable (six feet, 200 pounds). I mean, it's not bad, but that's about as far was I want to go without a break. We have a fuel flow monitor, which talks to the G-530, so I'm not "guessetimating" fuel reserve. And an autopilot. But neither makes the seat or leg room bigger.

If you go high(er), you can fly a looong time with standard tanks in a 172. I'm usually alone, which helps a bit - I can use the right seat for a handy junk-dump. . .But it'd be much more pleasant with A)better seat/leg room, or b) 150 knots

So, what you describe is tolerable in a 172, if it's just one or two people. . . .
 
gsengle said:
If you're seriously considering the jump all the way to Comanche you should also look at Mooneys C to J... I'd be worried about the cost of maintaining an old Comanche and getting parts.

Any Mooney does those distances without breaking a sweat, and is just about the most fuel efficient GA plane there is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I am just worried about the room with them and getting Mx done. I am not sure who will work on them locally.

Cessnas, Pipers, and Cirrus Im covered locally.
 
If you want to go on cross-country trips, and it sounds like you do, save yourself the headache and get a cross-country airplane. A 172 is a trainer, plain and simple. Will it go cross-country? Sure it will. So will a 150, or even a Cub/Champ. Is that what it's meant to do? No. It doesn't take much headwind for your 110kt 172 to be making 85kts across the ground.

If you already think you want a Commanche-type airplane, here's what'll happen if you buy a 172: you'll spend a good chunk of change on acquisition, "start up" costs, maintenance to get it up-to-snuff (for both you and your A&P), a few bucks for some upgrades, etc. Then you'll take the plane on a few 500+ mile trips. And on at least one of those trips, you'll have a leg where you're making 80kts across the ground. And you'll start to think, god damnit, why didn't I get the Commanche? And you'll start Commanche (or other higher performance single) shopping. Then you'll sell the 172, incur the costs associated with the sale, lose your early-on sunk costs in mx and upgrades, and you'll start the process over with the Commanche. In other words, buying a 172 when you really want a Commanche will do nothing but cost you time and money. It will be cheaper to buy a Commanche today than it will be to buy one next year after owning a 172 for a year.

Don't worry a bit about whether it's "too much" airplane. A good CFI, and some dedication on your part, can solve that problem.
 
midcap said:
I am just worried about the room with them and getting Mx done. I am not sure who will work on them locally.

Cessnas, Pipers, and Cirrus Im covered locally.
Click to expand...

Despite popular belief, any mechanic that can work on a Cessna, Piper or Cirrus can work on a Mooney. They're all airplanes with similar engines and (generally) similar systems. While it's nice to have a "specialty" A&P for your make and model, it's by no means an absolute necessity, especially on a (relatively) simple airplane like a Mooney.
 
midcap said:
I am just worried about the room with them and getting Mx done. I am not sure who will work on them locally.

Cessnas, Pipers, and Cirrus Im covered locally.
Click to expand...

Mooney is not unusual, never had a problem. Comanche may be more difficult...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
bradg33 said:
If you want to go on cross-country trips, and it sounds like you do, save yourself the headache and get a cross-country airplane. A 172 is a trainer, plain and simple. Will it go cross-country? Sure it will. So will a 150, or even a Cub/Champ. Is that what it's meant to do? No. It doesn't take much headwind for your 110kt 172 to be making 85kts across the ground.

If you already think you want a Commanche-type airplane, here's what'll happen if you buy a 172: you'll spend a good chunk of change on acquisition, "start up" costs, maintenance to get it up-to-snuff (for both you and your A&P), a few bucks for some upgrades, etc. Then you'll take the plane on a few 500+ mile trips. And on at least one of those trips, you'll have a leg where you're making 80kts across the ground. And you'll start to think, god damnit, why didn't I get the Commanche? And you'll start Commanche (or other higher performance single) shopping. Then you'll sell the 172, incur the costs associated with the sale, lose your early-on sunk costs in mx and upgrades, and you'll start the process over with the Commanche. In other words, buying a 172 when you really want a Commanche will do nothing but cost you time and money. It will be cheaper to buy a Commanche today than it will be to buy one next year after owning a 172 for a year.

Don't worry a bit about whether it's "too much" airplane. A good CFI, and some dedication on your part, can solve that problem.
Click to expand...

That's also a consideration.

I wasn't really planning on upgrading much of anything on a 172 though.
 
Everyone that has never owned a Comanche hates the Comanche and wants everyone else to hate the Comanche as well. Probably because deep down they want to buy one and if they trash talk them enough, they hope the prices drop.

I've had mine 7 years and had ZERO issue with getting replacement parts - granted the parts I've needed have been minimal, but all the important ones are out there. Plus if you own, there's the whole owner produced parts route.
 
EdFred said:
Everyone that has never owned a Comanche hates the Comanche and wants everyone else to hate the Comanche as well. Probably because deep down they want to buy one and if they trash talk them enough, they hope the prices drop.

I've had mine 7 years and had ZERO issue with getting replacement parts - granted the parts I've needed have been minimal, but all the important ones are out there. Plus if you own, there's the whole owner produced parts route.
Click to expand...

what does that mean?

Also, have you had any major issues with your Comanche?
 
If you fit, the Johnson bar Mooneys are the biggest bang for the buck in general aviation. I can fly all day at 140 knots burning eight to ten gallons an hour in my M20C. The Johnson bar gear is as simple as it gets, there isn't even an emergency release mechanism. Flaps are a hydraulic system, no motors to inspect, burn out or rebuild. You can fly 140 knots on Skyhawk gas spending Skyhawk money, so long as you aren't over enamored of a capacious back seat. I'm not.
 
midcap said:
what does that mean?

Also, have you had any major issues with your Comanche?
Click to expand...

It means you always see people trashing the Comanche for unfounded reasons. The only 2 major issues I have had with the Comanche were the tail AD - which everyone had, and I solved that by getting a brand new assembly (so much for parts availability) and the other was an engine issue which has nothing to do with it being a Comanche. I replaced some gear cabling a few years back but the repair including parts (again, brand new, and not an issue procuring) and labor was under $800 - and was actually an upgrade that should last the plane until it can't fly anymore.
 
steingar said:
If you fit,
Click to expand...

That's the key. I've been in a C an E and a J model, I didn't fit in any of them. I don't know how Kent flies for more than 20 minutes at a time in his.
 
EdFred said:
It means you always see people trashing the Comanche for unfounded reasons.
Click to expand...

Nothing whatsoever wrong with Comanche's. What attracted meet the Mooney was that it got its speed from being efficient. The Comanche gets it in part from those two extra cylinders in the nose. It has to burn gas in those, so you go through more fuel. That said, you do get about 20 extra knots, which is nothing to sneeze at.

The Comanche interior is also cavernous compared to most GA aircraft.
 
steingar said:
Nothing whatsoever wrong with Comanche's. What attracted meet the Mooney was that it got its speed from being efficient. The Comanche gets it in part from those two extra cylinders in the nose. It has to burn gas in those, so you go through more fuel. That said, you do get about 20 extra knots, which is nothing to sneeze at.

The Comanche interior is also cavernous compared to most GA aircraft.
Click to expand...

They will kick you out of the Mooney group for saying such things.

The interior is really why I'm sold on it. I can put a 400lb person next to me in the front seat and we won't touch.
 
EdFred said:
They will kick you out of the Mooney group for saying such things.

The interior is really why I'm sold on it. I can put a 400lb person next to me in the front seat and we won't touch.
Click to expand...


I like that amount of room
 
I've flown 172s all over the country. Lots of 1000 mile plus trips. They are fine flying on trips. Easy to sell and get all or most of your money back out. Good plane to fly without a big expenditure of money. Cheaper insurance and maintenance. You can fly for few years and decide if and what you want to upgrade up to. 172 is nice to build hours. You can put around local for 6 to 8 gal per hour and even burn Mogas in some. Had early 172 my gas cost was around 18$ per hour burning Mogas. My Malibu which does all the fast and other things burns about 4 or 5 times that. Doesn't get flown as much either.
 
EdFred said:
The interior is really why I'm sold on it. I can put a 400lb person next to me in the front seat and we won't touch.
Click to expand...

I can't even fit a seatbelt around such an individual. But I am a scrawny little guy, so I like the Mooney. At least when it works, which hasn't been lately.
 
I'd suggest to also also look at Grumman Cheetahs or Tigers. Also non-complex, but faster than a 172. Lots of information about them here on PoA.

As others also said, nothing wrong with a 172, though. Just requires some patience.
 
steingar said:
I can't even fit a seatbelt around such an individual. But I am a scrawny little guy, so I like the Mooney. At least when it works, which hasn't been lately.
Click to expand...

I don't want to hijack the thread, but have a quick question...

At what point (height/weight) would a Mooney be considered "too tight" in your opinion - or anyone else's?
 
German guy said:
I'd suggest to also also look at Grumman Cheetahs or Tigers. Also non-complex, but faster than a 172. Lots of information about them here on PoA.

As others also said, nothing wrong with a 172, though. Just requires some patience.
Click to expand...

I looked at the Grumman birds and they are very cool but not for
FlyingIsGood said:
I don't want to hijack the thread, but have a quick question...

At what point (height/weight) would a Mooney be considered "too tight" in your opinion - or anyone else's?
Click to expand...

good question I am eager to hear the answers.
 
FlyingIsGood said:
I don't want to hijack the thread, but have a quick question...

At what point (height/weight) would a Mooney be considered "too tight" in your opinion - or anyone else's?
Click to expand...

Depends person to person, just like if you ask someone if a 2000sf house is too big or too small.
I'm 6'3" 200 34W 46jacket and I would never, ever, ever consider a Mooney after being in the 3 models I've been in.
 
James331 said:
I have never seen or heard a SR22 at FL250, I have never seen a track of a SR22 anywhere near 200kts.

Maybe with a professional driver on a closed course ;)

Ether way, doesn't matter, OP doesn't want a cirrus.


Back on point, OP, go get your CFI friend to take you up in that PA24, 5 bucks says it ends this debate
Click to expand...

I rarely, if ever fly into the FLs but my turbo SR22 will do those speeds. I have picture somewhere (will dig up at home) of 215KTAS at FL250. In more common practice mine does (and this is consistent with book) 190-198KTAS in the upper teens where I spend 90+% of my flight time. Over 400 hours of flying since I have owned this airplane, my G1000 tracked block GS is 186KTS (pavement to pavement) which I think is pretty good given the realities of climbing, headwinds, etc...

That said, agree with vast majority of your advice on this thread - just wanted to provide some real world data on SR22T performance.
 
This isn't FL250 pic I was referring to in previous post but more typical cruise profile for my plane. Ground speed 280+ KTS with that tailwind.
IMG_2991.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top