7 ms·
I think of planes as having a CAP Theorem like trade off between speed, safety, utility (can I take a family of 6), and price. A used 172 is pretty safe but gr
by base698 6y ago
I think of planes as having a CAP Theorem like trade off between speed, safety, utility (can I take a family of 6), and price. A used 172 is pretty safe but greatly lacks in other categories. A Lancair 4P optimizes for speed, but greatly sacrifices safety. a Pilatus maximizes all but price, yet it costs $3 million. Bonanzas are pretty good on speed, and utility but a bit more expensive than most piston singles, decent used ones cost $350k+.
I own a Mooney, which burns 10 GPH and does 160kts. Fits two people just fine and three if you sacrifice fuel. A good trade off over all. Definitely think the 172 is the least badass plane with almost no upsides other than being a good trainer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_M20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_M20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancair_IV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancair_IV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-12
- nopzor 6y agooverall i agree with you, i'd love a mooney, and would probably buy one (or a used cirrus) if i was in the market for an airplane. but i think the 172 does have some upsides: - docile handling - availability to rent, pretty much globally - availability of a&p who are super familiar with it - low insurance rates and superior safety record - landing gear can take a lot of abuse
- kitteh 6y agoRetract on any aircraft is going to drive up insurance.
- griffinkelly 6y agoThe number of gear up landings on Mooneys surprisingly high. As for cirruses, they are rather unforgiving, and I think people get some confidence with the parachute--every time I hear about an accident, I feel I'm reading about another Cirrus.
- freerobby 6y agoAnother reason there are so many Cirrus accidents is that in an effort to improve its safety record, Cirrus began advising its pilots to use the parachute whenever in doubt. I don't mean this as a knock in the slightest -- the statistics are very convincing that this is saving lives[1]. But a funny side effect is that you see a bunch of accidents where someone parachutes a Cirrus into a field that any other airplane would have just landed in. [1] https://airfactsjournal.com/2016/08/whats-right-cirrus-pilots https://airfactsjournal.com/2016/08/whats-right-cirrus-pilot...
- base698 6y agoYeah, I recently went through Cirrus training, I'm quite current for a GA pilot (150 hours a year, commercial and instrument ratings) and personally feel it's a lot of plane. Most of the avionics and checklists, while great if you are used to it could easily task saturate you. It could probably also lure you into thinking it's a Tesla and not an airplane.
- heelix 6y agoA Cirrus is an easy plane to get behind in. Jumping from a C152 that putters along at 90kts leaves you with a lot of time to work the checklists. When I started flying the high performance aircraft it was really easy to miss things because everything was faster. The cirrus was fun but you have to pay attention.
- mpweiher 6y agoYeah, this is not to be underestimated There was a huge difference in trying (and often failing) to stay ahead of the plane even moving from a 172 to a 182.
- griffinkelly 6y agoI've heard once you get down nearing stall speed, the Cirrus gets pretty difficult to control?
- ubermonkey 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kitteh 6y agoTotally agree with you it's all about what you are looking for (range, payload, power, efficiency). The 172 is a fine trainer, but it really doesn't excel in several dimensions. That may be fine for some folks missions, but for others you are going to have to spend a bit more if you want to be good in a few of those. When I got my private cert and started focusing on my instrument training and flying in hard IMC and potentially deal with icing, I had to step up my requirements. Disclaimer: A Mooney owner myself.
- freerobby 6y agoDoes your Mooney have the TKS system, or are you saying there's a general benefit to a M20 over a 172 in terms of icing?
- sokoloff 6y agoAny turbocharged airplane with a hot prop will be better than a 172 in icing. Turbo gives you altitude flexibility and power to get out of the ice (rarely more than 4000’ thick vertically) and the hot prop will help you pull through it. (I have a turbo and TKS on my A36. Almost never need the TKS.)
- freerobby 6y agoThank you! (PPL student here, still lots to learn).
- tjohns 6y agoIt’s worth noting that single engine FIKI is a little controversial. Having TKS (or boots) is definitely a safety benefit in case you end up in inadvertent icing, but remember that the system can still get overwhelmed. Avoiding icing conditions is still a good idea, even with TKS. :)
- VBprogrammer 6y agoAt a certain point you can question the suitability of the traditional twin engine piston IFR types for true commercial level FIKI. Not least because most of the examples are well into their middle age, most types are somewhat marginal on one engine, and single engine mishandling is rarely survivable. In reality most people who can afford to run a piston twin are moving down to a Cirrus or moving up to a turbine single.
- Buttons840 6y agoDoesn't a used 172 optimize both cost and safety? Are there any planes that are more affordable than a used 172?
- leecb 6y agoA used 150/152.
- batoure 6y agoyou know what always grinds my gears... the fact that everyone stops short of reminding the normals that litigation in private aviation lead to the fact that the final Cessna 152 was produced in 1985
- bb123 6y agoNormal here. Can you explain?
- freerobby 6y agoCessna ceased production of all light aircraft in 1986, citing increasing lawsuits and legal liability for things it could not control in any practical sense. This had a huge negative impact on the GA economy and culture, because until that point, Cessna was producing more aircraft than any other company in history, and its 152 and 172 models were the most widely used trainers and safest GA aircraft ever made. In 1994, Congress passed GARA[1], and two years later Cessna began producing new aircraft again. But having been out of the industry for a decade, Cessna lacked some combination of the means and confidence to bring back its entire fleet; so it focused on the 172 for the training market and abandoned the 152, which never saw production again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalizatio...
- 535188B17C93743 6y agoHow about Vans Aircraft? Homebuilt are often overlooked, but an RV-10/14 gives you some good options. Only downside with homebuilt IMO is lack of ability to train in them.
- base698 6y agoI wanted an RV7 when I started flying. Partly due to the price, it seemed like a good trade off to be practical. I've flown a few of them, but never long term. We saw several in the 2 years of shopping and one was pretty sketch in terms of build quality. My wife got her PPL and all the sudden had an opinion on what to buy. :) She's now a CFII so her opinion matters. I still would be into getting one if my wife was sold on home built.
- ryandrake 6y agoAnother benefit of E-AB category is that you can do your own maintenance and annual condition inspections (if you are the builder), saving you a gazillion in recurring costs. Plus the freedom to modify. In a Cessna, you can’t so much as run a USB charger out to the panel without the FAA coming down on you like a ton of bricks. On an experimental, if you want the latest electronics or if you want to swap in a different engine, go right ahead, sparky! (Disclaimer: I’m 3.5 years into a RV-7 build so I’m biased)
- ohazi 6y ago> you can do your own maintenance and annual condition inspections (if you are the builder), saving you a gazillion in recurring costs. You're not kidding. I think the cheapest annual inspection I've ever seen was around $2,000 for an old, clean 172 that needed zero actual work. More typical is ~$4,000-$10,000 for a modern-ish 4 seater, depending on what they need to do. Throw in $20,000 every several years for an engine overhaul. If you have a G1000 and they need to touch it, it's going to cost you at least half a car.
- rkochman 6y agoI have an RV-10, and it’s amazing. I can take 4 adults at 160kts burning 10gph, it’s easy to handle for a high performance airplane, and it’s such a simple design that maintenance costs are low.
- justanotherc 6y agoI've worked on Mooney's and sat in them but never flown one. They're slick but I find then cramped and difficult to work on. I'd take a Commache 260 over a Mooney any day of the week. Not quite as fast/economical, but much more comfortable, cheaper, and easier to work on. I owned a Twin Commache and it was a thing of beauty... but a different animal to the singles.
- davidgould 6y agoMy father flew a lot and owned a Comanche B and later a Twin Comanche turbo. I spent a lot of time in and around Comanches. Great looking airplane and nice to fly in.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoLancair 4P What does turbo-normalised mean in this context? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancair_IV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancair_IV
- lessthanseventy 6y agoIn aircraft engines, turbocharging is commonly used to maintain manifold pressure as altitude increases (i.e. to compensate for lower-density air at higher altitudes). Since atmospheric pressure reduces as the aircraft climbs, power drops as a function of altitude in normally aspirated engines. Systems that use a turbocharger to maintain an engine's sea-level power output are called turbo-normalized systems. Generally, a turbo-normalized system attempts to maintain a manifold pressure of 29.5 inHg
- TylerE 6y agoMany turbo cars can do this too. The turbos are not sized to the bare minimum to make rates powe at sea level, so they can compensate. His is one of the reasons why turbodiesels are valued for hauling. They can still make (near) rated power across the Rockies, where an NA engine might be down 30-40%
- KMag 6y agoMy best guess is turbocharged to bring pressure at the carburetor to atmospheric pressure at sea level (1 atm.). So, you're not putting much more stress on the engine than it would get without the turbo at sea level, but you get constant engine performance up to a good altitude.
- coryrc 6y agoDo you ever think you should stop spraying neurotoxin (lead) everywhere and poisoning our children or would that be too much inconvenience? Don't give me the sob story about the FAA "blocking" unleaded fuels -- it's the APA lobbying causing that.
- jokoon 6y agoWhat drives unit costs of those aircrafts? Low quantities built? I would guess safety standards are much higher too, but I generally don't understand why they're so expensive. I guess the piston engines are very different from the ones you find in cars.
- cjrp 6y agoLow quantities, certification costs, mandatory maintenance (engine and prop overhaul/replacement after {X} hours)
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoLiability as well. Aircraft used to be cheaper (in real terms). At some point the law changed so that aircraft manufacturers could be sued if someone died in a crash. I don't remember the specifics, but this caused several companies to go out of business and others to raise their prices. Edit: probably the manufacturer could always be sued, but the change made it easier. I can't remember the specifics.
- restalis 6y agoRegulations, it seems. Here's an article that provides some clues: https://generalaviationnews.com/2012/09/09/the-cost-of-certification/ https://generalaviationnews.com/2012/09/09/the-cost-of-certi... As I understand it, the most lenient certification to allow someone to sell planes to masses in USA is the (special) Primary Category¹, for the General Aviation, which Cessna's two-seat 152 model seems to be in. Cessna's four-seat model 172, however, is on another category, the so-called "Utility Aircraft", which required the more costly Standard Certification². With a broader (legally permitted) use, it's kind of natural to expect an appropriate price difference. ¹ https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/primary/ https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certific... ² https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/std_awcert/ https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certific...