Thinking of buying a C-172...

[Frank N. O.]

Not to go too far off-topic but where does a late-model 3-blade Cardinal II RG fit in vs the other small planes in terms of relibility, price vs performance and service problems?

This topic sure has a lot of interesting reading and information in it 

Frank

[Mike]

Mike, don't let us get you to far off track...

Your original idea of a 172 or the like will fit the bill nicely.  If you can find one with a 180 hp conversion, that would probably be ideal.  Don't count out the Archer, it's got the semi-tapered wing and 180 hp so it'll perform better at the alititudes we run out here in the west and it's got more fuel than the 172.

One trip to OSH a year doesn't justify a fire breathing six seat retract, and the flight from So-Cal to Vegas isn't going to be that much faster anyway.   

Ask 12 different pilots what the perfect airplane would be and you'll get 12 different answers.  There's a reason Cessna sold 30 some thousand 172's... they get the job done.

You're the one who used to own the straight tail 182, right?
(I hope I remembered that right)

How would that compare to a C172 and/or the one with the 180hp conversion?
also Pricewise?

[fireflyr]

Ask 12 different pilots what the perfect airplane would be and you'll get 12 different answers. There's a reason Cessna sold 30 some thousand 172's... they get the job done.

I concur with Sleek---your original idea was good!

[Sleek-Jet]

You're the one who used to own the straight tail 182, right?
(I hope I remembered that right)

How would that compare to a C172 and/or the one with the 180hp conversion?
also Pricewise?

There is no comparison... I had my 182B to 15500 on several occasions, and she trucked right along.  I could be off the ground and climbing at 1000+ fpm at sea level in under a thousand feet of runway.  Shoot, I operated a couple times out of a 1/4 mile dirt strip in Colorado, in the summer time, just for grins.  I don't care what the guys on AOPA forums say, the straight tail 182's are a hell of an airplane.

If you could find a clean, no corrosion, never been wrecked straight tail 182, you'd be in high cotton (I had one, and it was the dumbest thing I ever did selling it...  ). The problem is that 182's of that vintage tended to be abused since for quite a few years they weren't worth very much.  Alot of them ended up as jump airplanes or photo ships, stuff like that.  I lucked out when I bought my bird. 

They are out there, but you'd have more luck finding a newer 172 with the 180 hp conversion I would think. For your average trip length, 2 people and bags, the 182 will get there about 10 minutes earlier and burn about 10 gallons more.  Keep your eyes open though, you never know whats lurking in a T-hanger somewhere...

[madpilot44]

here's the info mike. sorry for the delay. this is an estimate on what it cost us to operate the C-172. this was a year and a half ago, so prices have upped a little.

Hangar space/month       $   165.00
Insurance/month            $3,096.77
50 hour maint.               $   103.23
100 hour maint.             $   419.35
Overhaul                       $18,064.00

adding fuel (8 gal/hour @ $3.35/gal) it would end up at $50.59/hour if it flew 50 hours a month and $  46.36/hour if it flew 100 hours a month (the plane was used for basic training and it easily flew some 70 hours a month)

Hope that helps in your decision 

[Mike]

here's the info mike. sorry for the delay. this is an estimate on what it cost us to operate the C-172. this was a year and a half ago, so prices have upped a little.

Hangar space/month       $   165.00
Insurance/month            $3,096.77
50 hour maint.               $   103.23
100 hour maint.             $   419.35
Overhaul                       $18,064.00

adding fuel (8 gal/hour @ $3.35/gal) it would end up at $50.59/hour if it flew 50 hours a month and $  46.36/hour if it flew 100 hours a month (the plane was used for basic training and it easily flew some 70 hours a month)

Hope that helps in your decision 

Thanks, mad44! I really appreciate it.
One thing though:
Insurance/month            $3,096.77        
This can't be!!
We almost pay that much for our ships....and they fly into fires!!
That's close to $40k a year !!! (actually we pay $90k but still...)
Is this liability AND hull??

Is this a California insurance company ??

I was hoping 1k a year.... I'll check though (I am planning on liabilty only btw....)

[Sleek-Jet]

Yours won't be used for rental or instruction so it should be considerably lower. There's got to be something more to that insurance number... Hopefully...

[fireflyr]

I've priced a policy for myself last year, 1 million liability and 45K hull was only 11 hundred/Year.   That quote was from Avemco (I think)

[SkyKing]

Thanks for the very honest input again SkyKing.

I am totally with you and I would like a Skymaster and, like I mentioned before, a Skylane but cost is also an issue.
A C-310 is completely out of the question. Think "parts"!!

I am primarily a mechanic and intend to work on my own plane and I just don't want to deal with maintenance issues all the time. I can deal with something going slower and not being as much "fun" to fly if I get something that works every time and is easy to maintain. How much time am I really going to save?
It's 200nm to LA from Vegas and if I fly 130tks instead of 100kts...

And when it comes to "fun to fly".... come on! are you serious?
I fly helicopters into fires for a living!!

. . . This would be simply a commuter for me (AND as I mentioned a means for my girl to get her license too, so no Mooney, no Bonanza, no Taildragger.... even though I would like it)

I really love the way the Skymaster flies but I used to maintain them and let me tell you....the mechanics call it "Skybastard" for a reason.

I guess I could look at the Grumman though.
And no, I would never have that camo paint scheme

I would point out that a lot of guys and gals got started in taildraggers.  Like, uh, just about everyone who started before 1955 . . !   

And the Bonanza is just a T-34 with four holes instead of two (if you look at it the right way), and a lot of folks have been Mentored over the years.

So you buy the good plane, give your lady a lot of stick time, and then find a CFI who will train her in your bird to get her log time.  Then spend the thousand bucks to transition her down to the 172 or 182 for the checkride (the same idea as teaching her to drive a stick shift Mustang, then renting a Toyota with auto trans for her driving test).

If you start someone in Plane A, then they have to work up through Planes B, C, D, etc.  Start someone in Plane D, and they don't turn around and go back up through A, B and C.  Whatever you start someone at is where they assume they're supposed to start.  The ONLY major difference between a "high-performance single" and a Chickenhawk is retractible gear.  Speed is just "more of the same."  Power is just "more."  Cockpit management is just "more" (and not much more).  I was flying a Bellanca Cruisemaster at 10 because that's what the family had and nobody told me that it was "too much plane" for me.  Dad had to work the rudder for me, but the Cruisemaster steers really well as a "two-axis control" plane.  I remember that the Bellanca was easier to deal with than the Cessna 140 we had transitioned from, though it had retractible gear and variable prop.

The Mixmaster is almost as easy to fly as the 182RG, you just have to watch two engine temps and props, not just one.  And that damn Dutch roll goes away if you keep the screws tight on the tail boom.  Since my wife-to-be will probably be petite and slender, the Skymaster will be our twin of choice (centerline thrust).

So don't sweat the small stuff -- buy the right plane, and she'll learn to fly it more easily than starting with the wrong one and working her way up.

[SkyKing]

Ask 12 different pilots what the perfect airplane would be and you'll get 12 different answers. There's a reason Cessna sold 30 some thousand 172's... they get the job done.

I concur with Sleek---your original idea was good!

MacDonalds' has sold HOW many billion burgers. . ? 

. . .and not one was ever as good as anything from In-N-Out! 

Quality isn't the primary consideration in most sales.  It's what the customer is willing to accept. 

They sold 30,000 Chickenhawks because the 150 was too small to take the family flying and the 182 too expensive.  NOBODY buys the 172 thinking that it's the last plane they will ever want.  Back in the late '60s the 172 was considered "transitional" -- a newly-hatched pilot would buy one because they had trained in 150s, then after a year or two if they were still flying, they moved up to something else.  Nowdays, the 172 is considered a primary trainer (which is what USAF always figured).

[madpilot44]

Is this a California insurance company ??

nope... that is a Guatemalan insurance company... flying is more expensive down here  . it's also high because it had full coverage for students starting with 20 hours (that was a good thought, because later on a student flew her nose in into the runway, and broke it)

[Sleek-Jet]

Ask 12 different pilots what the perfect airplane would be and you'll get 12 different answers. There's a reason Cessna sold 30 some thousand 172's... they get the job done.

I concur with Sleek---your original idea was good!

MacDonalds' has sold HOW many billion burgers. . ? 

. . .and not one was ever as good as anything from In-N-Out! 

Quality isn't the primary consideration in most sales.  It's what the customer is willing to accept. 

They sold 30,000 Chickenhawks because the 150 was too small to take the family flying and the 182 too expensive.  NOBODY buys the 172 thinking that it's the last plane they will ever want.  Back in the late '60s the 172 was considered "transitional" -- a newly-hatched pilot would buy one because they had trained in 150s, then after a year or two if they were still flying, they moved up to something else.  Nowdays, the 172 is considered a primary trainer (which is what USAF always figured).

Before we get into a complete pissing match here...

Mike never said this would be the only airplane he would buy, just something to get back and for to Vegas, with an occasional long trip.  Tell me where there's a need for a piston twin anywhere in there.  It's 250 miles or so, at most.  Sure, the 310 would be faster, at about 6 times the cost.  And an older 310 is going to take one hell of alot more maintenance, insurance, and fuel than a 172, with special emphasis on the maintenance part.

A 182 would probably fit his needs a little better, but the model he want is a little out of his price range.  A 172 makes sense as he'll get his feet wet with airplane ownership, and then be able to move up in a couple years.

Cessna sold 30,000 172's because not only are they a good trainer, but they make a nice basic VFR traveling machine.  They'll haul 2 people and bags at about twice the highway speeds, at a little more than it cost to run you car.  It's the same reason that Piper sold a pant load of Cherokee 140-150-160-180's... and Archers and Warriors. 

If we keep playing the "what you really need" game, Mike might as well jump to the head of the line and buy a Citation. 

[Inept]

If we keep playing the "what you really need" game, Mike might as well jump to the head of the line and buy a Citation. 

The Eclipse 500 is due for certification by the end of the year...

[Mike]

You're right with everything you said, Sleek! Thanks!

I respect SkyKing for his experience and I will try to remain courteous (which is something I don't see him do very often) as much as I can but it seems he's doing this on purpose.
Everytime we say "A", he says "B" or even "C" just to be argumentative, I think.

Of course an In-N-Out burger tastes better and has high quality meat, but with my one dollar I might just have to get the 99c special. That's just the way it goes...

I am not looking for a live-long investment nor am I looking into falling in love with my plane (which will probably change as soon as I have it sittn' on the ramp   )
Just like Sleek said, I am looking for a commuter for a few years.

Of course I love to fly the 337 or 310. But maintaining it? HELL NO!!! NO PARTS!! The SkyKing must not be an A&P.
Why two engines? double my cost and my headache on my first plane? screw that sh$%...

I wanted to get some REAL advice for what I am planning to do here and I want to thank you all for your input.

Our SkyKing is really frustrating me in this particular thread. "Get a PLANE"...that's something you tell a guy after a few beers. It's no real help.
If I had my choice, I'd get an AStar, but that one, together with 310's, 337's, Citations, and RG's, just doesn't fall into my parameters now does it? :
no turbo
no RG
no twin
little gas
little insurance
little maintenance
carry 2 people plus bags
no effort to get into (check outs, twin ratings, taildraggers)
I must have mentioned them before somewhere....
I just want to buy something I can climb into and fly away with.

The best ideas so far were:
M-model, and 180hp conversion-model
That's what I'll look into. Thank you guys with the real advice for that

[Mike]

nope... that is a Guatemalan insurance company... flying is more expensive down here  . it's also high because it had full coverage for students starting with 20 hours (that was a good thought, because later on a student flew her nose in into the runway, and broke it)

Oh, ok. You had me scared there for a second