2 ms·

172s are typically MORE expensive for what you get. The training commonality causes their price to go up on the resale market and the new ones cessna still mak

172s are typically MORE expensive for what you get. The training commonality causes their price to go up on the resale market and the new ones cessna still makes are ludicrously expensive. Just about any other aircraft in its class will be just as good or better but cost substantially less. I should also add, the 172 is terrible for just about every mission set outside of training. They can barely only carry 3 people safely (2 with bags) but are very slow, heavy, and expensive to operate compared to a dedicated 2 seater. If you want 3+ seating and bags go buy a 182 or something :)

freerobby 6y ago
The problem is the same is true about 2-seaters, except they only really seat 1. :) I have a '78 172 w/ 180HP STC, and I think it's a pretty good sweet spot. You can take a friend, a ton of bags, full fuel on long range tanks, and still climb easy on a humid day. You can also travel light, dial back the throttle and cruise around at 5.5GPH, making it similar in cost to operate to a 152 (still a 2000 vs 2400 TBO though). Your main point is well-taken: you definitely pay a performance-per-dollar premium for using the world's most popular training platform. But you also get some benefits: the most familiar and one of the most forgiving airframes ever made; a platform that every A&P knows inside and out and every supplier stocks parts for; and a plane that can very easily get in and out of any strip you can spot.