Thinking of buying a C-172...

[Plthijnx]

that's right! i totally forgot about the grumman line! i used to traverse texas and louisiana in a Tiger....

[Frank N. O.]

GV?

Frank

[Gulfstream Driver]

That is a good looking bird...especially the interior.  Not bad for being 30 years old.   

[Sleek-Jet]

GV?

Frank

Gulfstream V executive jet.  The Gulfstream line was originally built by Grumman, so they are still called that today by some people.

[Mike]

Good Input.
I am not sure about the Tiger. I've flown one couple if times before and it's a nice little plane, but I remember they have some sort of problem with the fuel tanks (I think it was sealing them was impossible if there ever had been a hard landing before because of the spar running right through the middle) and a bubble like that out in the dessert (the plane will live in Vegas) I am not sure about. (remind me about updating my "what have you flown" list I forgot the Tiger.
Don't they make a 2 seater as well??

I guess I am looking at this more as an A&P than a pilot. It's like buying a house, you have to try not to "fall in love with it" because it's so cute and in, case of a plane, flies really nice...
Here are the thoughts that go into it on my side:
*Cessna because I have a lot of time working on them and flying them.
*High Wing because I would like to take it to Oshkosh and turn the whole plane into a Chicken Wings booth using   the wings as shade so I don't have to bring my booth tent..
*Cessna 172 because everybody and their mother has parts for them and knows how to work on them
*172 because everything is sheet-metal and I am a sheet-metal guy
*Lycoming engine because I like them better than Continental and they seem to have less problems and the ones they do have I can work on myself
*It should be able to carry about 800lbs and have some sort of a cargo compartment.

the one thing I don't like is the speed..
The plane is mainly meant to be transportation for me and help me get my ASEL-IFR and commercial
Deep down I'll always be a rotorhead BUT I have never owned a plane and I am getting excited thinking about it...maybe I'll drift back over to the dark side...

My first choice would be a Cessna 182 (one of the last models they made in the late 70s) but I just can't afford them...

Oh!!
I just realized Chuck is flying a 172 while I was writing this, so I guess it would just have to be one of them huh?!
 

[Sleek-Jet]

I just have got to throw this in here... because deep down I lust for one...

Tri-Pacer...    

Sounds like you've made up your mind Mike.  You're going to be hard pressed to get anything more than 120 kts out of a 172, and that's with pants and a cruise prop.  110 is more like it.  That's still only a couple hours from Cali to Vegas though, beats driving.

But, like you said, they are honest, dependable, simple airplanes.  I say start looking.

[Gulfstream Driver]

Good Input.
I am not sure about the Tiger. I've flown one couple if times before and it's a nice little plane, but I remember they have some sort of problem with the fuel tanks (I think it was sealing them was impossible if there ever had been a hard landing before because of the spar running right through the middle) and a bubble like that out in the dessert (the plane will live in Vegas) I am not sure about. (remind me about updating my "what have you flown" list I forgot the Tiger.
Don't they make a 2 seater as well??

That was the Yankee, both an A and a AA, I think.  Never flown one, but I've heard they're squirelly.  You've got about 5 kts between cruise and stall speed.  If you have less than full tanks, a spin is nearly impossible to get out of because the fuel tanks run the whole length of the wing.

[bayareaflier]

I did my primary in 172s and I'm doing my instrument in Archers. My recollection is that a 172M/N will true out around 90-100 KTAS, and the Archers true out around 120 KTAS. No idea about Archer fuel consumption, since I fly Part 141 and they fuel everything. The book claims around 9 gph. I think 172s suck down 8 gph, 10 if you forget to lean at training altitudes. I think that the Archers probably give you better performance for the fuel cost, but you'd have to compare specs against a 172SP to be fair.

Curious, how do you intend to tackle the mountains in a 172? Or is there a route to Oshkosh that I'm not familiar with?

[Gulfstream Driver]

Curious, how do you intend to tackle the mountains in a 172? Or is there a route to Oshkosh that I'm not familiar with?

We had a student that used to go from ND to NM or AZ in a 150 over the mountains.  It took him a while, but he would get that thing up to 14,500.

[Sleek-Jet]

Most flight school and rental 172's have climb props on them... so they tend to be a little slow.  I flew a P model that had a "climb/cruise" prop on it and it would turn about 110 at 8500 or so.  The M model that was so fast had a cruise prop, I reagularly saw 120, but it was one of those airplanes that was just "right", it flew hands off for hours and was always coordinated.  It was a little pathetic in climb though.

You can fly a 172 in the mountains, just go early in the morning.  You can transition over Southern/Central Arizona and Central New Mexico if you don't want to get real tall headed back east.  7500 east bound and 8500 west bound will clear most of the rocks.

You might look for a Hawk XP Mike, though it'll have a Continental.  I know people usually have pretty good luck with the normally aspirated IO-360 though, and you'd get fuel injection out of the deal.  

Man, I do love shopping for airplanes.  Trade a plane, here we come...  

[Mike]

Well, what I would be most concerned with is the takeoff and landing at high altitudes. Some of the airports I would fly into are at 6000ft. And in Nevada, even the ones below that will seem like 6000ft to 8000ft due to density altitude...

So would this be an environment for a climb prop?

I would like to stay away from fuel injection if I can. Again...maintenance and simpicity being my main concern...

[Sleek-Jet]

I flew that M model out of ABQ... if that gives you any idea of DA I was dealing with.  The other 172's I've flown around Colorado didn't really have to many problems.  You learn to use things like ridge lift and thermals to get where you're going if you have to.

I would go with a climb/cruise prop, gives you a little more speed in cruise.  Most prop shops can repitch a propellar for you in an afternoon.  I knew one guy that had his tweaked to the point of being able to pull redline on the runway.  The airplane wasn't all the fast, but man it'd climb.

[fireflyr]

In your quest for a little better performance and simplicity you might consider a 172 with the 0-360 Lycoming conversion.   Most have a C/S prop so they climb well and cruise speeds are quite a bit better then stock 172s plus the engine is almost bullet proof.   It's been a while but I have flown several and I was always pleased with the performance.   The 175/180 conversion is a tad slower because the original cowl which is made larger to cover the original geared engine is also dirtier then the 172 cowl.  The 172/180 Lyc conversion really is a bargain when you start comparing performance and cost---It will do as well as a late model SP for a whole lot less initial investment and engine maintenance will be lower too.   It's worth a look and a demo flight.

[fireflyr]

Just took a look at CONTROLLER website and there are 19 172/180 for sale there.

  http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=1098805&guid=455E0156FEE9402391046B1FADDDD969

You'd like a 182 performance?   These are almost as good for a whole lot less money!

[Sleek-Jet]

172/180's perform very nicely.  The AvCon STC has the constant speed prop.

If you decide to go that route, look for one with the longer range tanks, 36 gals doesn't go very far with the 0-360 up front.  Either that, or use the extra ponies to climb higher, and pull back the power to approximate an 0-320's fuel burn...