When Does 172 vs 152 Break Even?

[denverpilot]

Truck? if you think a 172 is a truck try a 180 or 185.

remember the number behind the C is the amount of force required to flare ,,, yes it is a joke based on experience.

ROFL! I like that one.

 

[Anthony]

Really ??
the 152 will true out at around 100-105, the 172 will true out at 110-115
run your numbers again.

This has been my real world experience flying both these planes.

 

[jesse]

Kimba- when you get home, do this:
10*$103.50/(Speed C152)= Cost C152

10*$124.20/(speed C172)= cost C172

For the first equation, I used 90 knots to get $11.50 for every 10 nautical miles

For the second, I used 120 knots and got $10.35 / 10 nautical miles. Assuming the planes fly at those speeds, the C172 is cheaper

Don't forget about wind.

Using the same TAS values of 120 and 90 you provided above:
A headwind of 20 knots:
10*103.50/70 = 14.78
10*124.20/100 = 12.42

So with that 20 knot headwind, the C172 is even cheaper yet.

95 knots and 115 knots would be better values based on my time in each.

 

[Old Geek]

If it is that small I might not fit. I had to squish (sort of) into the Long EZ I got a ride in. My hips were wider than the seat and my head hit the top. But I would love to try regardless.

You would have any problems. It has way more shoulder room than a 152.

 

[Sac Arrow]

For me it's easy - I don't fit in a 152. Certainly not comfortably. Even a 172 feels a tad cramped but it's reasonable.

 

[somorris]

Without running the numbers, I suspect the 152 is less overall cost. There is quite a bit of time with the engine running when you won't be flying. That time will likely be about the same with either airplane, but one will be costing you more. I agree with Dan -- if you like the 152 better, fly it. I agree with you that it is more fun to fly.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Without running the numbers, I suspect the 152 is less overall cost. There is quite a bit of time with the engine running when you won't be flying. That time will likely be about the same with either airplane, but one will be costing you more. I agree with Dan -- if you like the 152 better, fly it. I agree with you that it is more fun to fly.

Too bad it is not an Aerobat.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Don't forget about wind.

Using the same TAS values of 120 and 90 you provided above:
A headwind of 20 knots:
10*103.50/70 = 14.78
10*124.20/100 = 12.42

So with that 20 knot headwind, the C172 is even cheaper yet.

95 knots and 115 knots would be better values based on my time in each.

Jesse- you are absolutely correct about the wind. As we generally sign up for a plane ahead of time, it is probably better to assume a certain amount of headwind. Even with the wind directly abeam, we need to crab into it and lose some ground speed. We don't get a point free until the crosswind is somewhat behind us- I think someone posted an analysis on this a few months ago.

As for the airspeed, I was just throwing numbers out. I'm used to the beater 150s/152s I flew out east and 90 knots worked good for flight planning. They also had a hard time getting above 8000' too.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Really ??
the 152 will true out at around 100-105, the 172 will true out at 110-115
run your numbers again.

Tom- the math works out just fine. I used those numbers as merely as examples. Running them again gives the same answers.

I generally see 90 knots on a C152/C150 no wind. The C172 probably does run at 115 knots. Even at 110 knots, the C172 is slightly cheaper.

 

[schmookeeg]

Truck? if you think a 172 is a truck try a 180 or 185.

remember the number behind the C is the amount of force required to flare ,,, yes it is a joke based on experience.

I hadn't heard that one before.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Jesse- you are absolutely correct about the wind. As we generally sign up for a plane ahead of time, it is probably better to assume a certain amount of headwind. Even with the wind directly abeam, we need to crab into it and lose some ground speed. We don't get a point free until the crosswind is somewhat behind us- I think someone posted an analysis on this a few months ago.

As for the airspeed, I was just throwing numbers out. I'm used to the beater 150s/152s I flew out east and 90 knots worked good for flight planning. They also had a hard time getting above 8000' too.

I always use 90 knots to plan. I've never been above 4500 (only once).

 

[BrianR]

Given the small cost delta, I'd fly whichever one you prefer, absent the need to haul more weight/bodies, which would necessitate the 172.

That being said, my take is just the opposite of yours: I LOVE flying the 180 hp 172. The 150 is tolerable...if nothing else is available. I like the Warrior too, though at 160 hp it's noticeably underpowered with passengers compared to the 172.

Regarding LSAs, early in my training I had the chance to fly a new-ish LSA. Don't recall the brand...some Polish thing. It was all glass, and a stick. At the end of a 45 minute flight, I was reasonably comfortable with both the glass and the stick. Of course, I was flying VFR on a clear day, and it might be different for IFR operations, but I was left with the impression that the transition just wasn't that big of a deal for a VFR pilot.

 

[dell30rb]

I always use 90 knots to plan. I've never been above 4500 (only once).

I use 95 in the "no pants" trainer 152's, 105 in the go fast 152 with wheel pants, properly rigged, and a new sensenich prop

And your best TAS is going to be somewhere between 6k and 8k feet. Remember 75% power is throttle firewalled at 8k feet.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

I use 95 in the "no pants" trainer 152's, 105 in the go fast 152 with wheel pants, properly rigged, and a new sensenich prop

And your best TAS is going to be somewhere between 6k and 8k feet. Remember 75% power is throttle firewalled at 8k feet.

I never climb that high. My gosh it would take hours. I guess I could lower the nose, do a cruise climb so I could see better, and go that high but so far my flights have been sight seeing more than "getting there fast".

 

[MN_Flyer]

Hey Kimberly...

Doesn't matter what you fly as long as you're out there exercising your PPL privileges.

Those rates seem pretty steep on the 152, but then again, I live in MN. Have you looked into joining a flight club? I joined a club after getting my PPL and wish I had done it earlier. I am now flying a pretty nice Piper Arrow for cheaper than I was renting a beat-up Warrior from the FBO. I can take a plane out for 2 or 3 days and only put a couple hours on it and no one says a word. You can normally find club instructors who will spend time with you for about half the price you'd pay to an FBO as well.

Happy Flying!

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Hey Kimberly...

Doesn't matter what you fly as long as you're out there exercising your PPL privileges.

Those rates seem pretty steep on the 152, but then again, I live in MN. Have you looked into joining a flight club? I joined a club after getting my PPL and wish I had done it earlier. I am now flying a pretty nice Piper Arrow for cheaper than I was renting a beat-up Warrior from the FBO. I can take a plane out for 2 or 3 days and only put a couple hours on it and no one says a word. You can normally find club instructors who will spend time with you for about half the price you'd pay to an FBO as well.

Happy Flying!

Thanks but I expect to go 1-2 months at a time without flying. Which means I don't want to pay monthly dues. Eventually I will look into switching schools, but no it will not get cheaper. I'll ask tonight at the EAA meeting - which is supposed to have over FORTY PILOTS in attendance - who they recommend. I don't know of any "clubs" at KSTS or O69 or even Healdsburg or Cloverdale so perhaps they are secret and don't advertise.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Straight from the C-172M and 1985 C-152 information manuals:

At 4000 ft, standard temperatures, highest shown throttle settings in cruise performance table (assumes C-152 with wheel fairings; subtract 2 KTAS if not so equipped):

C-152: 2450 RPM, 78% BHP, 104 KTAS, 6.4 GPH
C-172: 2600 RPM, 75% BHP, 116 KTAS, 8.3 GPH

On average I would expect the various ratios of "real world" machines to be similar even if the manuals are optimistic. So less than 12% difference in speed. Any rental premium above that for the C-172 must be for its longer range[*] and larger carrying capacity.

[*] Ironically, a C-152 with the larger 39 gallon tanks has a sea level range of over 600 nm, while the C-172 with 42 gallon tanks has a sea level range of about 490 nm - and both fly at about the same 86 kt speed. (45 minute reserve in both cases.)

 

[TMetzinger]

Just as:

There's no crying in baseball (Major League)
There is no Try (Empire Strikes Back)
There's no place like home (Wizard of Oz)
.
.
.
There's no economy in aviation.

In general, the cost per mile of faster planes is higher, unless the faster plane is older and otherwise not comparable.

With that said, however, the faster plane might also have bigger tanks, meaning non-stop versus fuel stop (and that can mean it's cheaper since in the faster plane you only climb once). Or things like more seats/room/payload can be important.

Of my current rental options, a DA-20 is the cheapest on a cost-per-mile basis. But it's got limited legs, not IFR, and only two seats. There's a DA-40 that's next up, because it's older than the recent 172s available. So I fly the DA-20 for my night currency or other basic proficiency stuff and use the DA40 for my "mission" flights, and mix a Redbird and the DA40 for my instrument work.

 

[MSPAviator]

I never climb that high. My gosh it would take hours. I guess I could lower the nose, do a cruise climb so I could see better, and go that high but so far my flights have been sight seeing more than "getting there fast".

It doesn't take THAT long.

I plan for 95kt in a 152 with no pants on.

 

[skidoo]

I always use 90 knots to plan. I've never been above 4500 (only once).

That can limit your options for travel. For example say if you made a trip to O16 and then needed to get to RDD. If you won't or can't get to 8000 ft or more in the C150, it may cost significantly more than a bigger aircraft by going around rather than a direct route. But, on the other hand, perhaps you would not want to go over any significant mountains regardless of if you could.

I you plan to stay within a 50 mile radius of the bay area, then the above is moot.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I plan for 95kt in a 152 with no pants on.

Flying in the buff gets you less speed??

Dan

 

[Geico266]

I never climb that high. My gosh it would take hours. I guess I could lower the nose, do a cruise climb so I could see better, and go that high but so far my flights have been sight seeing more than "getting there fast".

A buddy of mine testing out his RV-3 did a climb to 10,000' in under 5 mins. 14,500 in 3.5 mins more. Take a walk on the wild side.

 

[denverpilot]

I always use 90 knots to plan. I've never been above 4500 (only once).

Come on up for a visit. We're *only* 5885' sitting on the ramp. Pattern altitude 6885'.

And Leadville is a total hoot... 9934' on the ramp. Pattern altitude, 10,727' (if you get there... easier and faster to head down-valley to the South and let the terrain drop away than to struggle up).

I'm already missing pegging my VSI in the upward direction after visiting Jesse in Nebraska.

Vy climb with full long-range tanks and two big dudes tonight felt so wimpy under the hood...

 

[somorris]

Flying in the buff gets you less speed??

That's what I was wondering! Maybe if there are two of you in there, the flight path winds up not being exactly a straight line.

 

[dell30rb]

You should consider climbing higher... for a 1 hour trip (no wind) climbing from sea level to 5,000-6000 is probably pretty good, and if you have a tailwind it can be beneficial to climb wayy high.

It pays to research winds aloft before your flight and base your altitude on that.

Here is a screenshot of me in a 95 kt no pants 152. Note groundspeed and altitude.. and distance. It was worth it for me to make the climb all the way up there, on a relatively short trip.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

A buddy of mine testing out his RV-3 did a climb to 10,000' in under 5 mins. 14,500 in 3.5 mins more. Take a walk on the wild side.

I will. At the EAA meeting last night there were 40 - 50 pilots and they asked me to stand up and say who I was and who told me about EAA. During "intermission" a man gave me a photo of his RV12 and on the back wrote his phone number and name and said I could fly it. I am going to of course offer him some gas money, and it is in maintenance right now, but that was exciting!

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Come on up for a visit. We're *only* 5885' sitting on the ramp. Pattern altitude 6885'.

And Leadville is a total hoot... 9934' on the ramp. Pattern altitude, 10,727' (if you get there... easier and faster to head down-valley to the South and let the terrain drop away than to struggle up).

I'm already missing pegging my VSI in the upward direction after visiting Jesse in Nebraska.

Vy climb with full long-range tanks and two big dudes tonight felt so wimpy under the hood...

Darn it, I'm getting X's on POA everytime anyone posts photos. Not sure why. Couldn't see them from this computer. Sorry.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

You should consider climbing higher... for a 1 hour trip (no wind) climbing from sea level to 5,000-6000 is probably pretty good, and if you have a tailwind it can be beneficial to climb wayy high.

It pays to research winds aloft before your flight and base your altitude on that.

Here is a screenshot of me in a 95 kt no pants 152. Note groundspeed and altitude.. and distance. It was worth it for me to make the climb all the way up there, on a relatively short trip.

Thank you. In my training, my altitude was selected based on the terrain, airspace, cross country rules, etc. I never considered typing in different altitudes to research the winds aloft and then decide / plan. This real world information helps a lot.

Kimberly

 

[onwards]

I usually have a similar dilemma with the 172 vs 182... the former being $90/hr, the latter $127/hr.

Yet, I normally take the 182, because I usually "go somewhere" and the 10-15kn speed advantage is certainly noticeable, not to mention the ability to go higher and potentially gain from tail winds. In those times when all I'm doing is blowing holes in the sky, I pretty much always take the cheaper plane.

 

[MadseasoN]

You should consider climbing higher... for a 1 hour trip (no wind) climbing from sea level to 5,000-6000 is probably pretty good, and if you have a tailwind it can be beneficial to climb wayy high.

It pays to research winds aloft before your flight and base your altitude on that.

Here is a screenshot of me in a 95 kt no pants 152. Note groundspeed and altitude.. and distance. It was worth it for me to make the climb all the way up there, on a relatively short trip.

It's aviation, there's lots of variables we all know that. But...

I don't see how that was worth it. The 152 will take at least 21 minutes to get to 10K. That's IF you can get book performance and you don't mind staring at the sky and dodging clouds & airliners (climb at 67KT TAS).

According to your GPS you had already traveled 33 miles at this point. That's a GS of 90KT which means you had an average of ~23KT tailwind on the way up. The GPS says you have a 28 minute ETA at that GS. That's IF you descend at cruise speed and achieve 145KT GS - which you won't get but I'll give it to you (remember ~23KT tailwind?). 21+28=49 minutes trip time.

Had you went up to 2,000 and enjoyed a possible 10KT tailwind the trip would've been 51 minutes. You saved 2 minutes. Even with no wind you save a whole 10 minutes and ran that engine at full throttle for most of your trip.

 

[Jaybird180]

Kim,
Glad you're thinking about the variables. I've run scenarios for most anything I had access to or wanted to fly for my reasonable XC trips. I posted about a 500nm trip. From that, I got over my aversion to using excel and was able to run so many numbers/scenarios, etc that it could make your head spin. I even learned to make graphs and charts from the data.

I learned that in the end it doesn't matter much. There IS a small tradeoff in time and money, but in all the scenarios it would take MANY such trips for it to matter.

Considering you like the 152 better, I agree with the others that you should fly that but for another reason not previously mentioned...the risk is lower. You are more familiar with the aircraft. That is an intangible that doesn't get plotted on graphs.

But consider 61.113 when you rent with pax, otherwise your gut usually agrees with your pocketbook.

PS- My PC doesn't like Denver's photos either, so my 'Internet is broken too' (LOL)

 

[Henning]

It depends on the difference in rental price. There's about a 20kt difference between a 152 and 172. You work the problem easiest by figuring out how much it costs to go as far with a 172 at 152 speeds.

So, lets say the 152 is $80hr and does 90kts and the 172 is $100hr and does 110kts. That means the 172 will cover the same distance as the 152 in .82hrs or for $82. When you look at that you can see that for traveling, once you get much further than an hour out in the 152 or 100nm, you'll be cheaper taking the 172. This is why I did my PP XCs in a 182 and a 172RG, it ended up cheaper since they are distance regulated rather than time.

 

[Henning]

The 152 is gonna be cheaper.

Not necessarily. I can fly my 310 from Florida to California and home considerably cheaper than a 152.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

A new twist. I met a couple of pilots recently who scored a reduced rate (about $98) on a 172 with the 180hp conversion and small, older GPS built in. Out of PETALUMA!!! And for both pilots it was 0.7 combined for the checkout. Looks like I need to switch flight schools.....

Kimberly

 

[kimberlyanne546]

PS - They went to Tahoe which is exactly where I want to go. I can't wait. They did 10,500 the whole way or something.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I always use 90 knots to plan. I've never been above 4500 (only once).

Our airport is at 2975' ASL. To do upper air work (like spins) we used 6500' or better. The 150's performance for that sort of stuff is really marginal, so we dumped them in favor of the 172s. Summer days were intersting; one afternoon two of our guys, with the 150 at gross, couldn't get above 3500' (500 AGL). That gets dangerous.

You guys at sea level are lucky. But get mountain training before you do any high altitude operations.

Dan

 

[zaitcev]

Our airport is at 2975' ASL. To do upper air work (like spins) we used 6500' or better. The 150's performance for that sort of stuff is really marginal, so we dumped them in favor of the 172s. Summer days were intersting; one afternoon two of our guys, with the 150 at gross, couldn't get above 3500' (500 AGL). That gets dangerous.

Solution: morning takeoffs. Bode still has their 150M at AEG (5837 ft MSL). Also, scavenge some Indian wingtips somewhere.

 

[Henning]

Anybody know if that turbonormalized 150 still lives at Leadville? That was a cool little ride.

 

[BrianR]

A new twist. I met a couple of pilots recently who scored a reduced rate (about $98) on a 172 with the 180hp conversion and small, older GPS built in. Out of PETALUMA!!! And for both pilots it was 0.7 combined for the checkout. Looks like I need to switch flight schools.....

Kimberly

That is a pretty decent rate for that airplane. Have I mentioned I LOVE flying the 180 hp 172N? I pay the local flight school $120/hour for it. The one I fly has an older KLN 89B in-panel GPS, which is perfectly adequate for either VFR or IFR use. It's based at O69? I'd jump on that.

 

[Ddayle]

You break even when you add the second person. Solo a 150 is fun, if I have a passenger I want a 172. Dave