Top 5 airplanes with useful load for low time pilots!

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
When you first got your PPL what did you fly as a newbie pilot? If you have flown quite a few airplanes what were your top 5, (Doesn't have to be in order...just your favorites). Just want to spark dialogue.


Thank you!
 
First check out after my Private was a Cherokee 180. Great airplane!
 
I bought an O-300 powered 172 about two months into training for my PPL. I got my ticket and flew that plane for 3 years, then bought a 182 which I have flown for over 3 years now.
 
Kinda sad because everyone in my family is 240-250. I have to explain to them no family trips unless we all loose 20 pounds or I get more training and experience until we can get a bigger plane. Personally the latter is probably the only option.
 
172 for all of my training so far (45hrs). About to buy a 300hp 182
 
Got my ticket about 3 years ago and immediately went out and bought my 172n with a 180 hp conversion. Over 1,000 lbs useful load. That's enough for myself and 3 200 lb adults with full fuel.
 
Stingray Don said:
Got my ticket about 3 years ago and immediately went out and bought my 172n with a 180 hp conversion. Over 1,000 lbs useful load. That's enough for myself and 3 200 lb adults with full fuel.
Click to expand...

Did the exact same thing on about the same timeline. It's been a fantastic little airplane!
 
Probably the 172N with the 180hp conversion... it climbs really well and will true out somewhere between 110 and 125 depending on conditions and how aggressively you run it. A useful load over 1,000 lbs is great too, means you can actually fill four seats.

Other planes where Warrior, Arrow, Seminole, SR20, Archer II

Did my initial training and PPL on a Warrior, I liked it, I liked the low wing... but was just too slow and anemic to really use once licensed, so moved to the 172N and the performance felt far superior

I really liked the SR20 but hated the electric trim... and ones around here rent for about double the 172N... since you're not going twice as fast and I don't think it is "twice as comfortable" I can't really justify spending twice the money on it.

The Archer II is a great plane as well, in my experience it is just a little more stable and sure footed than the 172, but the one door thing and climbing over the wing means my passengers generally didn't like it. If it had two doors and maybe 2 inches more width in the cabin that would be the plane for me. As a side I feel like in hot climates the wing on top also helps keep the cabin just a tad cooler, and for sightseeing you can't beat having the wing on top

Arrow I wasn't a fan of. It felt "heavy" and was surprised at how slow it was despite being an RG. It was a club beater though, so...

The time in the Seminole was cool, made me really want me want to get multi-engine rated. I know we've chatted a lot about single vs multi, retract vs not, and BRS... but if I had $300K-$500K I'd be looking at some multi's. Just something cool about having two engines on wings turning.. and I feel like if you really want a proper cross country machine you can't beat a 414 or 421, or 340
 
125 in a fixed gear 172? Hell, no. Maybe in a rapid descent or in mountain wave conditions. 110 I'd believe.

Those 180 conversions are nice, but they aren't that much faster than unconverted 172s. They have the same prop, same airframe, and same RPM limits. They do climb a bit better, and the useful load is the real reason to use them.
 
MAKG1 said:
125 in a fixed gear 172? Hell, no. Maybe in a rapid descent or in mountain wave conditions. 110 I'd believe.

Those 180 conversions are nice, but they aren't that much faster than unconverted 172s. They have the same prop, same airframe, and same RPM limits. They do climb a bit better, and the useful load is the real reason to use them.
Click to expand...

I typically cruise between 115 and 120 KTAS. Just today I saw about 125. I usually back off 100 RPM or so which yields the 115 to 120. I believe the prop is usually replaced with a more aggressive prop during the conversion (at least mine was). Air Plains claims as much as 130 KTAS but I've never seen more than 125.
 
MAKG1 said:
125 in a fixed gear 172? Hell, no. Maybe in a rapid descent or in mountain wave conditions. 110 I'd believe.
Click to expand...
I see between 117 and 122. If I am alone and cruising around 6,500 then 2,500 RPM will easily get me into 117 to 122 range. The one I fly I also believe has a different prop pitch on it to give just a little more bite. But I'll usually cruise at around 2300 to 2400 RPM, even that will get me around 110. The engine sounds far happier at that speed so I leave it there

According to the supplemental AFM it shows that at 6,500 you can get 75 power at 2,650 RPM. I've never ran it that high... but if I'm seeing 117 to 122 alone at that altitude and 2500 RPM then I have to believe 125 is theoretically possible with the extra RPM

Stingray Don said:
Air Plains claims as much as 130 KTAS but I've never seen more than 125.
Click to expand...
Same... I've seen much higher GS, up to about 155... but that actual KTAS in cruise for me is 117-122


As a side note, this plane has aftermarket wheel pants and all sorts of little speed mods on it, so it's more slippery than a typical trainer 172
 
MAKG1 said:
125 in a fixed gear 172? Hell, no. Maybe in a rapid descent or in mountain wave conditions. 110 I'd believe.

Those 180 conversions are nice, but they aren't that much faster than unconverted 172s. They have the same prop, same airframe, and same RPM limits. They do climb a bit better, and the useful load is the real reason to use them.
Click to expand...

180hp S or converted P I fly get to 110+ indicated... That should translate to 120ish true.
 
I bought a Hawk XP on Peekay B2300 floats before I finished my private. Took my check ride in a rented 150hp 150 and started on my float rating in my own plane on the same day. Float training doubled as the 10 or 15 hours of instruction required for insurance. A 210hp constant speed prop'd 172 is a fun airplane.
 
OkieAviator said:
Did the exact same thing on about the same timeline. It's been a fantastic little airplane!
Click to expand...
I see a lot of people taking this route as their first airplane... I'm curious, what's your usual mission? 50 to 100nm burger and lunch hops, or have you taken it on longer trips? I have a major itch to buy a plane. The delusional part of me says to wait 3-5 years and get something to keep for the long haul, the other half says to get a late 70s 172N. As much as I like that little plane I am not sure if it would be the right plane for 300 nm weekend trips

Bit of a side topic, but this has been singing the siren song to me: https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1464169/1990-socata-tb-20-trinidad

The performance is decent and the cabin is 50.4 inches wide... so it's got to be comfortable as it's considerably wider than most piston singles, including the mighty Bo!

The modular cockpit is also pretty cool. But I get that it's wierd... but that makes it kind of special? This guy loved his:
 
Grumman Tiger: useful 960#, a true 130kts, can lean to 9. -9.5 gph, good support, can taxi w canopy open on warm days, sexy low wing. Fold down rear seats gives 6' plus flat cargo space one can actually sleep in. Control responsiveness often compared to a sports car (vs 172 Buick like handling) What's not to like?
 
wrbix said:
Grumman Tiger: ... What's not to like?
Click to expand...
Delaminating surfaces. Engine cooling issues. Runway hogs. Poor prop clearance. ;)

Edit I like the grumman line-up. But EVERY plane has pluses and minuses.
 
Last edited:
Mtns2Skies said:
Delaminating wing spars.
Click to expand...
Never really understood the tubular wing spar... there was a thread on here a while ago about it. In my mind I just don't see a round tube as being as strong as just a straight beam, at least for the type of application with bending forces. I keep picturing a straw snapping in half... but I'm sure the engineers had their reasons
 
"Delaminating wing spars"? - huh?, a few AA5's came from factory with purple glue on wing surfaces - well known, probably all fixed now. Known by serial numbers. How could a SPAR delaminate?
Cooling issues are from letting th baffles deteriorate
What, 50-60 foot takeoff roll difference w 172? I live at the shortest paved public runway in FL and have no issues. It's hot here sometimes too
Prop clearance? Never heard of this being an issue.
I've also never heard of a wing spar failure in an AA5 - round sewer pipe notwithstanding.
Yes all models have relative strengths and weaknesses, I simply expressed some of the AA5's strengths as widely recognized. We all are our own planes' fanboys- otherwise wouldn't we switch?
 
wrbix said:
"Delaminating wing spars"? - huh?, a few AA5's came from factory with purple glue on wing surfaces - well known, probably all fixed now.
Click to expand...
Delaminating wing surfaces* sorry misspoke. Fixed in original.
wrbix said:
Yes all models have relative strengths and weaknesses, I simply expressed some of the AA5's strengths as widely recognized. We all are our own planes' fanboys- otherwise wouldn't we switch?
Click to expand...
Absolutely! :)
 
I always thought the sliding canopy was cool. Everyone seems to be going with the gull wing doors in a pseudo Lambo fashion... but the sliding canopy is pretty cool... wish more new planes had that to be frank
 
Got my PPL and immediately bought my 182P. Useful load and cabin size were two of my biggest criteria and it fits my mission perfectly which is regular 250nm XC trips.

It had been prefect for me!
 
MAKG1 said:
125 in a fixed gear 172? Hell, no. Maybe in a rapid descent or in mountain wave conditions. 110 I'd believe.

Those 180 conversions are nice, but they aren't that much faster than unconverted 172s. They have the same prop, same airframe, and same RPM limits. They do climb a bit better, and the useful load is the real reason to use them.
Click to expand...

The 172 SPs will do an easy 120 knots true in cruise.
 
mondtster said:
The 172 SPs will do an easy 120 knots true in cruise.
Click to expand...
Which is funny because I feel like many new pilots (including myself) prefer low wings since they look sportier... but I found I was getting better performance from the "trainer looking" 172's that I did from the Warriors... so I switched, plus the Skyhawks are more comfortable :)
 
First plane I got checked out in after my PPL (all done in a Cherokee 140), was an 180 Arrow. Then a C172, not sure what will be next but the wish list is long!
 
Tantalum said:
Which is funny because I feel like many new pilots (including myself) prefer low wings since they look sportier... but I found I was getting better performance from the "trainer looking" 172's that I did from the Warriors... so I switched, plus the Skyhawks are more comfortable :)
Click to expand...

Late model Archers will also do about the same speed if you're really wanting a low wing.
 
Surprised no one has mentioned Diamonds yet. DA40s are odd looking but some of the people at Plus One have flown them and they seemed to really like it and wish there more out there to rent. I have no time in Diamonds though

But to answer the OP's questions, here is my order:

1.) 172SP
2.) 172N with 180 conversion
3.) SR20 (this may take top slot but I'm biased because it cost twice as much to rent, and it's definitely not "twice as good" to fly)
4.) Archer II
5.) Warrior II
6.) Warrior III (yes it's nicer inside than Warrior 2, but the plane is virtually unusable on a summer day with more than 2 people... even at a sea level airport)

*Didn't include the Arrow or Seminole since only have about an hr in each*
 
mondtster said:
Late model Archers will also do about the same speed if you're really wanting a low wing.
Click to expand...
There is an Archer II at the club I've flown and it felt very similar... a little more stable maybe
 
FloridaPilot said:
When you first got your PPL what did you fly as a newbie pilot?
Click to expand...
My primary training (this was in the late 1960s) was in a Champ 7EC, Cessna 150s, and a couple of Cherokee 140s. Got my PPL in a C-150H in 1968, and an hour later was checked out in a spankin' new 1968 C-177 Cardinal (150 hp). Loved it; guess I was too stupid and inexperienced to to appreciate all the horrible things the "experts" would later say about the original, unmodified Cardinals.

If you have flown quite a few airplanes what were your top 5, (Doesn't have to be in order...just your favorites).
Click to expand...
In no order, because I consider them as favorites for very different missions and attributes. But they would include K35 Bonanza; Grumman-American AA-5 series; CubCrafters Sport Cub; C-172; Piper Saratoga. Mooney M20J is a close runner-up.

MAKG1 said:
125 in a fixed gear 172? Hell, no. Maybe in a rapid descent or in mountain wave conditions. 110 I'd believe. Those 180 conversions are nice, but they aren't that much faster than unconverted 172s. They have the same prop, same airframe, and same RPM limits. They do climb a bit better, and the useful load is the real reason to use them.
Click to expand...
Actually, yes. My 172N has the Air Plains O-360 conversion, long-stack Power-Flow, Maple Leaf exhaust stack fairing, full factory wheel and brake fairings, and flap gap seals. Normal cruise is between 125 and 130 KTAS. Here's a panel photo from a few weeks ago. 5500' MSL, 65 deg.F (Arizona), 6912' density altitude; 22" MP and 2550 rpm (it's a fixed-pitch prop), right around 70% power; 114 KIAS = 126 KTAS.

I don't need the extra useful load, so although we purchased the MGW-increase STC, we haven't yet installed the flap limiter. So it's still 2300 lb MGW and 40 degrees of flap.

P3160134.jpeg
 
Last edited:
After twelve years of renting mostly 172s, 150s and the occasional flight in a 177RG and 182, I just purchased a 1999 DA20-C1 for 40k$ usd. I will need to put 10k$ on it so that it's up to my standards. With a new MT cruise propeller, that plane easily cruises at 120-125 ktas at 3500 ft on 6 gph. The major downsides of this model are, it`s only a two seater with a maximum of 44lbs baggage, and it`s not IFR certified. So think of it as a much faster C152 with a much better view out, for twice the price.

My mission includes de weekend hamburger run (100-140nm round trip), and a few 600nm 3-4 day trips per year. I travel light. And my significant other and myself are both under 170 lbs.

If I had more money, I`d probably go for a 182 or a DA40. Maybe someday I will.
 
Private was in a Cherokee 180
Sign offs (in order)
C172
Turbo Arrow
C177
Cherokee 6
Then bought the RV-6A
 
wrbix said:
Grumman Tiger: useful 960#, a true 130kts, can lean to 9. -9.5 gph, good support, can taxi w canopy open on warm days, sexy low wing. Fold down rear seats gives 6' plus flat cargo space one can actually sleep in. Control responsiveness often compared to a sports car (vs 172 Buick like handling) What's not to like?
Click to expand...

I flew a Cheetah, still my favorite of everything I flew. A Tiger is a Cheetah, just 30 hp better. Nothing better in the flying world than getting off the ground on a hot summer day, climbing to altitude and cracking the canopy open for some cool air.
 
How fuel efficient are the 180hp Skyhawks? My Mooney runs 140 knots on 9 gph, giving easily 1/3 more speed (or more) that the 160hp versions, and using 10% less fuel for the same trip.

I bought half of it 5 weeks after my PPL checkride, having trained exclusively in two 172s.

Useful load is 970 lbs, or full fuel, me and my favorite 470 lb of people and stuff.
 
Learned to fly in a 7AC
Built hours in a 172XP on straight edos
Bought and built the rest in a S108
First job in a turbo arrow IV
 
Trained in a 172, bought a beech Debonair before the checkride. It's been 5 years now and very happy. Useful load of 1060 and cruise around 150 knots.
 
Diamond 20
C-172
TB-9 (worst useful load ever but at least it was slow)
SR22
Flew a cardinal once loved that.
I'm very biased toward the cirrus. It is just a great plane.

I'm very fond of grumman as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top