Which Airplane do you Prefer for Training?

Which airplane would you prefer for flight training/inexpensive rental?

  • Cessna 172

    Votes: 34 39.5%

  • Cessna 152

    Votes: 29 33.7%

  • Piper Warrior

    Votes: 16 18.6%

  • Piper Archer

    Votes: 7 8.1%
  • Total voters
    86
B

bwarren

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
1
Display Name
Display name:
Benjamin
I'm considering buying an airplane that I will rent out. However, before I do any purchasing, I need to get people's input about which airplane would be the most popular.

Whether you that are a pilot, a pilot in training, enthusiast, instructor, owner that rent out planes, etc.. Please vote below, on your favorite basic training aircraft (an aircraft that would be inexpensive to rent, and would be used for a first-time flyer, or someone training for their PPL).

Thank you.
 
They are all far too forgiving and easy to fly, do you send your kids to the easiest college or go for the best education?

How about a glider, J3, 7ECA, C120, 8A, etc.


If I had to pick out of your options, I guess a 152, it's the most sensitive and can be spun.
 
Some heavier folks can't appreciate them, but it's hard to beat a 150 for efficiency. Not dragging around extra seats and more fuel burn per-hour.
 
C152 all the way. The others are a bit too stable, IMO, though I would agree with James that a J-3, 7AC, etc is best.
 
As a former student and instructor, a C152 without question is the easiest airplane to fly. The transition to a 172 is a big one IMO.
 
They're all good for training and just fun flying. 152s can be easily overloaded so one has to leave off some fuel, the others are better for W&B. As mentioned 152 good for spins.
 
They will all get the job done,if money is a consideration,the choice is usually the 152.
 
I had a lot of fun training in the 152.
 
Trained in a 172 and flew 152's and 172's now for over 250 hours. The 172 is the better plane to train in. The 152 feels like you are strapped to a kite and is so placid in stalls you can barely feel them. One instructor also referred to the 152 as the "land o matic" because it practically lands it self. Between these two, a 172 will make you a better pilot!
 
I learnt in two 172s, with 150 and 160 hp. Didn't like the feel of the 150 hp plane even taxiing, so I flew the other one much more (even though it flew crooked). Worked for me! Took the crooked one on my first post-PPL long XC, 180 nm along the spine of the Appalachians and back again. Probably wouldn't have made that trip in a 150/152.

Many people train in Cherokees, too. But most of us just use what is available . . .
 
All the same to me. I'm indifferent. If I had to choose, I'd go with the cheapest one which is probably the 152.
 
I learned in a 172 and I am a freaking amazing pilot.

Sure. Maybe I don't know what Vx is or a yolk but when it comes to stick and rudder, I know what both of those are.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I learned in a 172 and I am a freaking amazing pilot.

Sure. Maybe I don't know what Vx is or a yolk but when it comes to stick and rudder, I know what both of those are.
Click to expand...

A yolk is the yellow part of an egg... But I know you know that. :D
 
150/152 for me. I soloed in a Cherokee 150 but finished my private in a brand new 1973 172.

As a high time CFI I still feel the 150/152 give the student the best feel of flying.

I'm also a CFIG & had several glider students that started in a sailplane. Those students were fantastic pilots when they went on to power aircraft. Basic stick & rudder skills are best taught in a glider or a old taildragger.

It drives me nuts when I fly with people that don't know how to use a rudder & fly around uncoordinated.
 
Not exactly how to say this without p.....ing people off, but really the only people who should vote in this poll are folks who flew all these airplanes as a student, and more than one. Of course, an instructor may be the best judge.
 
I've flown them all and appreciate each of them for various things. I actually really love the Tomahawk, too. The 150 is just what I would pick of the lot if I was starting a small flight school for private pilot again. It's not too far off from the 120 I have. I've instructed on all of those listed. Other factors are insurance costs - less for a two seater.
 
Last edited:
I'd go with a Tomahawk, if I had to do it over again; the 150 handled nice, but the vis is truly awful, and it's cramped. The 172 is better on bumpy days, roomier, but handling is inferior to a 150/152.

The Traumahawk has superior vis, is much roomier, and handles as well as a 150/152. zit is awful easy to land. . .
 
I trained about 13 hrs and soloed in a 172P, then the family bought a 150B. I flew that 150B in just about any wind South Dakota could throw at me while I was somewhat fearless in my high school days.
 
I trained in 172s. Really liked the 1961 B model with the fastback and johnson bar the one in my Avatar. Wasn't as fond of the 1968 K model with the electronic flaps :rolleyes2: progress I guess. I fly a 1976 172M mostly now. Flys like every other 172.

This last summer did my tailwheel endorsement in an 1947 Aeronca Chief 11cc. You will figure out what a rudder is for in that plane and I am not just talking about landing and taking off. Honestly wish I could have done all my training in a Chief or a Champ.
 
Last edited:
Sundancer said:
I'd go with a Tomahawk, if I had to do it over again; the 150 handled nice, but the vis is truly awful, and it's cramped. The 172 is better on bumpy days, roomier, but handling is inferior to a 150/152.

The Traumahawk has superior vis, is much roomier, and handles as well as a 150/152. zit is awful easy to land. . .
Click to expand...

Tomahawk, and Skipper, comfortable planes for sure, but I liked the 152 better for maneuvers.
 
Last edited:
I bought a Cherokee 140 after I had about 10 hours in a 172. I have never flown a 150, but I still fly 172s and Archers. Cherokees can be bought for not much more than a 150 and have a much better useful load (it will get flown more). Insurance follows hull value. At the end of the day, these trainers all fly about the same. I think a Cherokee will be your best bang for e buck.
 
John221us said:
I bought a Cherokee 140 after I had about 10 hours in a 172. I have never flown a 150, but I still fly 172s and Archers. Cherokees can be bought for not much more than a 150 and have a much better useful load (it will get flown more). Insurance follows hull value. At the end of the day, these trainers all fly about the same. I think a Cherokee will be your best bang for e buck.
Click to expand...
And seats - because they potentially have to pay for four injured people instead of two. I think there's a good likelihood that you are right about bang for the buck, but for profit margin I'd suspect a 150/152/Tomahawk would be pretty hard to beat. The Tomahawk's useful load if I remember correctly is a bit better than the 150 and it is roomier for the big guys. The flight school I was at a while back seemed to have a lot more "problems" with renters than with students also, so an aircraft that is mostly a trainer might be less likely to have weird maintenance issues.
 
172 is better for roping in suckers on the discovery flight. "Look at the pretty view of the ground. And getting aboard is just like a car." Also, no taking your hands of the throttle/yoke to switch tanks which distract from the feeling of "Oh my gosh I can't believe I'm actually flying an airplane!"
 
saddletramp said:
I soloed in a Cherokee 150 but finished my private in a brand new 1973 172.
Click to expand...
mscard88 said:
Hmm thought I had flown just about all the GA stuff, guess not. :wink2::D
Click to expand...
Cherokee 150 was built from 1961 to 1967. Same engine as the later Cherokee 140, but same cabin as the Cherokee 160 and 180, with baggage door.

piper_line_1965_10_zpslahqpunm.jpg
 
Well I'll be! Who knew, not me, but you. Thanks never knew there were such an animal.
 
"This subject comes up frequently."
 
I trained in a 172, so that got my vote. I like both the Pipers and I don't fit in the 152.
 
There is no one best trainer. Different airplanes have advantages for different segments of primary training. My preferences:

Basic airwork: Champ, Cub, etc.

Short VFR cross-country and basic navigation: C-150/152

Instrument: PA-28​
 
Hmm, if you had asked which is the best trainer, I would suggest a Tomahawk, particularly for those who are planning on transitioning to something bigger. The aircraft I'd most liked to have flown as a trainer is the Grumman Cheetah. But since you're wanting to rent it out, I think you'll find you get the best response from having a 172 for rent, they seem to be the standard these days.
 
Correct answer is missing: The one easiest to schedule.

You listed 4 good trainers. 2-seats vs 4-seats matters not. Fuel is relatively the same, and rents on the 2's are relatively the same, as are the 4's

So, with those 4 options I'd pick the one with the most available calendar space.

Edit: thought the 2 Pipers were Tomahawk and Cherokee... you only had 1 2 seat plane in your mix.
 
Last edited:
My experience with my local market indicates that whatever airplane has the cheapest hourly rate will be the one that is rented and used the most. I instruct part time for a local FBO that rents out a 152, which happens to be the cheapest thing to rent in the area. As such, we get a lot more of the primary students than the other options in the area simply due to price difference.

So, if I was going to buy an airplane to lease back or rent out I'd be inclined to buy one that could be operated cheaply and put it on the line at a reasonable rate. My guesstimate is that you'll probably need to see somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-500 hours use per year to make it worth your while.
 
I would love to fly a 152, but I have not found the 65 pound CFI to do the checkout.
 
I would look for a Warrior II, or an older 172 with a good useful load.

Love my 150/152's but you are cutting your potential customer base significantly, there are a lot of pilots who won't fit.

I've flown them all. The Warrior II seems to have a good useful, very inexpensive to maintain and probably 15-20% less expensive than comparable 172's
 
dell30rb said:
I would look for a Warrior II, or an older 172 with a good useful load.

Love my 150/152's but you are cutting your potential customer base significantly, there are a lot of pilots who won't fit.

I've flown them all. The Warrior II seems to have a good useful, very inexpensive to maintain and probably 15-20% less expensive than comparable 172's
Click to expand...


Yeah, if you're aiming for a price point, it looks like you can get more Cherokee for your dollar than Skyhawk.
 
Trained in a 172... G1000.

Wish I trained in a 152.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top