172 replacement

UngaWunga said:
I have an offer on my plane I wasn't trying to sell, so I find myself in an odd scenario. I like the 172. Very easy to fly, 7-8 gph, and gets in and out of the 2000' home base easily enough. Has a 430w and adsb in/out. Was starting to use it as my IFR trainer. The question is what should I replace it with? I'd of course like to go a little faster, but don't want to greatly increase my fuel burn. A little more useful load sounds great as well, but I mostly fly with either me + a bunch of stuff, my wife and I and stuff, or just me screwing around the local area. I do fly down to VA and NC occasionally from NH, which is why the faster would be nicer. Being able to easily make it to Oshkosh in a day would be nice.
Click to expand...
If you like your 172, why sell it? sure it isn't as fast as you like but is the speed really worth the added costs?
 
asicer said:
Not all 2000ft strips are the same. For example one on the coast will be near sea level, rarely get hot and frequently has a reliable headwind component versus one in the plains.
Click to expand...

winds depends on the time of day. Around 11-noon, wind changes due to cooler ocean right next door.
i-3TCJxrb-L.jpg
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I'm well aware of Brian Painter and his epic flying skills. For the average pilot, however, a Mooney is a bit too aerodynamically clean to be comfortable flying in and out of 2000' fields. Add fuel weight, bags, density altitude and people and that comfort level even goes further down.
Click to expand...

A PC-12 can get in/out of my home field....
 
Another vote to just keep the 172. It's safe, simple, relatively inexpensive to insure, operate and maintain, and you've already been through the gremlins and equipped it like you want it.
 
Add me to the "keep the 172" crowd. Sounds like you have no real reason to sell it.. sounds like it fits the mission well, and may continue to do so

asicer said:
Archer? Tiger?
Click to expand...
I'm a fan of the low wings, but after flying in planes with two doors for my last 80 or so hours (Cirrus, Tiger, 182) it feels really "old school" to climb into an Archer with one door (which is on the occasion I safety). The Tiger is a cool and fun plane, but if he's using it for instrument flying.. seems like the Tiger is more of a VFR-fun plane than hard IMC plane. It's nimble controls may also be a little less forgiving

denverpilot said:
I wouldn’t if it fits your mission. Not unless they’re offering above market value. It’s yours, fly the crap out of it.

That said if you go to a 182, it’ll be 11-13 GPH and carry a bit more stuff. Really that’s about it.
Click to expand...
Totally! Keep the 172.. or if you are hungry for an upgrade I was surprised how much more comfortable and "substantial" the 182 felt.
 
Tantalum said:
Totally! Keep the 172.. or if you are hungry for an upgrade I was surprised how much more comfortable and "substantial" the 182 felt.
Click to expand...

The funny thing someone else here pointed out to me a while ago, is the wing on them is identical. The 182 just has more horsepower and weight.

Which means it burns more gas, goes a little faster, and flies more like an overloaded Skyhawk with a big ass engine and fatter cabin. :)

The whole “nose feels heavier” thing and needing to trim it properly comes from it actually having a bigger chunk of prop flinging metal hanging from the engine mounts. Go figure! :)

It also makes the whole sticking some weight in the tail to get nicer landings out of it thing, make sense. You’re just moving the CG back where you were used to it being in a Skyhawk. :)
 
Ohhhhh I almost forgot.

If you’re buying a Skylane, find one with 40 degrees of flaps.

None of that 30 degree pansy stuff!!!! :)

Besides the STOL kit (which isn’t much in play other than the stall fences at flap 40 in mine since the droop ailerons come back UP as the flaps go down to keep them effective at lower speeds) the full flap available at 40 is my favorite feature of our P model!

None of that silly lawyerese about “slipping with flaps not recommended” in the POH either. You can make a 40 flap Skylane damn near fall out of the sky like an Arrow does naturally but then still have some lift at the bottom. Hahahaha.

(Shots fired! Send it! LOL!)
 
denverpilot said:
The funny thing someone else here pointed out to me a while ago, is the wing on them is identical. The 182 just has more horsepower and weight.
Click to expand...
I knew they were similar, but didn't know they were THAT similar
 
denverpilot said:
The funny thing someone else here pointed out to me a while ago, is the wing on them is identical. The 182 just has more horsepower and weight.
Click to expand...
Identical in dimensions, planform and airfoil yes; different in structure and construction.

There are basically two wing planforms among 1955-and-later, high-wing, strut-braced, piston Cessnas:

-- the 170B/172/175/180/182/185/205 and 1960-63 210; and
-- the longer-span flap with shorter-span, but wider-chord ailerons, on the 206, 207 and 1964-66 210. Overall wingspan is the same as the others.

The 150/152 wing is similar to the 172, with a shorter inboard wing section and flap.
 
Last edited:
I've realized that if I were ever to get another airplane it would likely be a tail dragger for low and slow flying.
 
Pilawt said:
Identical in dimensions, planform and airfoil yes; different in structure and construction.

There are basically two wing planforms among 1955-and-later, high-wing, strut-braced, piston Cessnas:

-- the 170B/172/175/180/182/185/205 and 1960-63 210; and
-- the longer-span flap with shorter-span, but wider-chord ailerons, on the 206, 207 and 1964-66 210. Overall wingspan is the same as the others.

The 150/152 wing is similar to the 172, with a shorter inboard wing section and flap.
Click to expand...

Yup. It’s the whole airfoil part that makes them fly so similar.

I really like how the 150/152 fly. Just wish they could be used at our altitudes year round.

A 150/150 conversion helps but still not quite “there” for up here.

They also spin better than all the others that allow it in Utility category loadings. :)

That’s one thing you do lose going from certain Skyhawks to the 182. No more spins... :)
 
denverpilot said:
Besides the STOL kit (which isn’t much in play other than the stall fences at flap 40 in mine since the droop ailerons come back UP as the flaps go down to keep them effective at lower speeds) the full flap available at 40 is my favorite feature of our P model!

(Shots fired! Send it! LOL!)
Click to expand...

I've got 15 hours in Dads L model, I have never been too high and I'm a newbie in that plane. I had some fun in a 205 giving 5 pax a ride at night about 1.5k above pattern altitude on a 1 ish mile final and still wasn't too high. That particular flight I did have full flaps, engine at idle and doing some shallow S turns with a pinch of headwind, worked out nicely.
 
UngaWunga said:
I'm starting to think the "ideal" situation is to get into a partnership for a faster plane and keep it at KPSM (11000' long) 20 minutes away and get a fun taildragger for the local field...
Click to expand...
And then you'll begin to wonder why you don't fly the faster plane much anymore...
 
2W2... neat looking place. I'll have to put that on the list of places to stop at when I head down to VA. They have an RNAV approach... lol
 
denverpilot said:
Yup. It’s the whole airfoil part that makes them fly so similar.

I really like how the 150/152 fly. Just wish they could be used at our altitudes year round.

A 150/150 conversion helps but still not quite “there” for up here.

They also spin better than all the others that allow it in Utility category loadings. :)
Click to expand...

All true ... but sometimes there are little surprises. Ever notice that the 150/152 and 207 were the only strutted models that didn't get the factory leading edge cuff in the early 1970s? It's understandable as to the 207, a low-volume item mainly for commercial operators, and thus didn't warrant the engineering and flight test expense for a gimmicky modification like that.

But the 150 was a different story. The factory fitted one with the cuffs. Flight tests went great ... until spins. A 1-1/2 turn spin took 13 turns to recover. They fiddled with several variations of the cuff, but none had the normal spin behavior of the original airfoil, so they gave up on it.

The company was also leery of the 150 hp conversions that put the battery in the tailcone, because, according to Cessna test pilots, the weight distribution created something of a bolo effect that delayed spin recovery and caused a flatter spin attitude.
 
Tom-D said:
If you like your 172, why sell it? sure it isn't as fast as you like but is the speed really worth the added costs?
Click to expand...

Depends on how far your cross country trips are. 100 miles, no.
600 miles yes, especially since the 172 would probably need to stop for fuel.
 
teejayevans said:
Depends on how far your cross country trips are. 100 miles, no.
600 miles yes, especially since the 172 would probably need to stop for fuel.
Click to expand...

But that comes back to what was said further up. A marginal increase in speed like a 182 or Tiger is not going to change that 600nm trip all that much. A M20J or BE35 will.
 
Your budget allows for a nice early model Cessna 180, hard to beat for your all around mission. If you think flyin a 172 is fun, you'll grin ear to ear in a 180

A stock 0-470 will cruise at 135 knots. A Pponked or bigger engine will get another 5-10 knots. Thats with 8.50's on the mains anyways. Desser makes a nice set of 8.50 smoothies, those are the smallest tires I'd recommend!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
weilke said:
But that comes back to what was said further up. A marginal increase in speed like a 182 or Tiger is not going to change that 600nm trip all that much. A M20J or BE35 will.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.
The most important thing you need to do before buying an airplane is to know your mission. Once you do that, the possible choices become obvious, you could even write a program to ask few questions and spit out possible choices. If fuel efficiency is needed, M20J, if more load and a little more room, the BE35.
You can always rent a 172, renting a BE35 or M20J is much tougher.
 
I had a stock 172, a 180hp 172 and now my second 182. The 182 is a much more capable cross country plane. My family likes it for the room and that it rides the bumps better. I like that it hauls like a freight carrier and carries a ton of fuel. My superhawk was a great plane but had no range. We operate our 182 out of a 1900’ grass strip at our cabin and it does just fine. Lastly the O-470 “Harley” make me smile!
 
Last edited:
Duster said:
Your budget allows for a nice early model Cessna 180, hard to beat for your all around mission. If you think flyin a 172 is fun, you'll grin ear to ear in a 180

A stock 0-470 will cruise at 135 knots. A Pponked or bigger engine will get another 5-10 knots. Thats with 8.50's on the mains anyways. Desser makes a nice set of 8.50 smoothies, those are the smallest tires I'd recommend!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Can't argue with this :). I see 140KTAS with a 100% stock 1970 Cessna 180. It can also land and takeoff in 500 feet - also stock. Though, 180 prices are skyrocketing at the moment so it'll be tricky to get one for less than 100k.
 
There was a time on this forum that a thread titled '172 replacement ?' would have solicited two inevitable answers:

- 210 (Lou Betti)
- KA200 (Wayne)

I guess now the universal answer has changed to PC12
 
Anyone have a POH for a m20E? Those can be found with the johnson bar gear, correct?
 
An Archer/180 or Tiger sound like something made for you. An Arrow might also fit the bill - just do a short field take off.

UngaWunga said:
Anyone have a POH for a m20E? Those can be found with the johnson bar gear, correct?
Click to expand...

The vast majority have the johnson bar gear and electric flaps. Some have manual flaps, AFAIK.
 
Tantalum said:
Add me to the "keep the 172" crowd. Sounds like you have no real reason to sell it.. sounds like it fits the mission well, and may continue to do so


I'm a fan of the low wings, but after flying in planes with two doors for my last 80 or so hours (Cirrus, Tiger, 182) it feels really "old school" to climb into an Archer with one door (which is on the occasion I safety). The Tiger is a cool and fun plane, but if he's using it for instrument flying.. seems like the Tiger is more of a VFR-fun plane than hard IMC plane. It's nimble controls may also be a little less forgiving


Totally! Keep the 172.. or if you are hungry for an upgrade I was surprised how much more comfortable and "substantial" the 182 felt.
Click to expand...

The Tiger is a fantastic IFR platform. Way more stable in bumps than a 172 and the nimble controls mean you aren't wallowing into spirals, but can instead recover headings much more easily - much lighter touch needed. Also, Tigers tend to be equipped with good autopilots, whereas you usually have either nothing or junk in 172s and Cherokees. I don't mind single doors either. The only issue I have with Cherokees is they do get hot, but those window scoop things help - they fly a hell of a lot better than 172s do.
 
denverpilot said:
None of that silly lawyerese about “slipping with flaps not recommended” in the POH either. You can make a 40 flap Skylane damn near fall out of the sky like an Arrow does naturally but then still have some lift at the bottom. Hahahaha.

(Shots fired! Send it! LOL!)
Click to expand...

I've got 77.4 hours in an Arrow (no more for the foreseeable future as the club sold its Arrow a while back) and you couldn't be more correct. That Hershey Bar wing results in a plane that comes down NOW when you pull power. As my original CFI said, it has a safe mode glide. It glides like a safe.

swingwing said:
I had a stock 172, a 180hp 172 and now my second 182. The 182 is a much more capable cross country plane. My family likes it for the room and that it rides the bumps better. I like that it hauls like a freight carrier and carries a ton of fuel. My superhawk was a great plane but had no range. We operate our 182 out of a 1900’ grass strip at our cabin and it does just fine. Lastly the O-470 “Harley” make me smile!
Click to expand...

I won't argue with you there. For XC flying I greatly prefer the club's 182 over the 172s. However, sometimes payload counts, and in that case the 172N with the 180 hp conversion and flaps limited to 30 degrees beats the 182 by over 100 pounds (full tanks in both cases). If payload isn't the concern, however, the 182 is far more comfortable.
 
Ghery said:
I've got 77.4 hours in an Arrow (no more for the foreseeable future as the club sold its Arrow a while back) and you couldn't be more correct. That Hershey Bar wing results in a plane that comes down NOW when you pull power. As my original CFI said, it has a safe mode glide. It glides like a safe.
Click to expand...

I don't think the taper wing makes much of a difference for the Arrow either - the weight is what brings that sucker down. Bonus - you're never above glideslope! :p
 
N1120A said:
I don't think the taper wing makes much of a difference for the Arrow either - the weight is what brings that sucker down. Bonus - you're never above glideslope! :p
Click to expand...

I owned both types and this is incorrect. The tapered wing glides for days compared to the hershey bar. Night and day difference, so much so the power pull mechanics are different for landing.

As to weight, not sure what you're referring to either. Arrows are light aircraft compared to the Mooney and Beech peers. My arrow II is 1680# empty, and that's with retract components mind you. Try the empty weight of an SR20 or 35-(X)33, that's more akin to a weighted down airplane.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I owned both types and this is incorrect. The tapered wing glides for days compared to the hershey bar. Night and day difference, so much so the power pull mechanics are different for landing.

As to weight, not sure what you're referring to either. Arrows are light aircraft compared to the Mooney and Beech peers. My arrow II is 1680# empty, and that's with retract components mind you. Try the empty weight of an SR20 or 35-(X)33, that's more akin to a weighted down airplane.
Click to expand...

The weight relative to the aerodynamics of the airplane is what I should have said. Interesting that the taper wing glides better.
 
N1120A said:
The weight relative to the aerodynamics of the airplane is what I should have said. Interesting that the taper wing glides better.
Click to expand...

It's just basic aerodynamics. The wingspan is greater (+3 feet) for the same wing area (170 ft^2), ergo the taper wing is higher aspect ratio that the hershey. At altitude it of course behaves better, as the higher aspect ratio affords a lower induced drag coefficient per AoA. Which is an aero engineer way of saying it glides better. Large mean chord lines and spanwise flow are not your friends in lift efficiency. Alas, airplane design optimization is a matter of serving a dozen masters. You just gotta pick winners and losers on that front. All in all, the taper wing was an improvement to the Vero Beach offerings, and Saratoga prices bear this out. You wanna talk about a real greased brick? Look at the T-lance; at least the T-arrow was tapered wing to ameliorate the chitty aerodynamics of the control surface.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top