Ideal replacement to the 172?

Well I’ll concede the point about hangars. In any event SnF is hopping and it ain’t a bunch of old rich white guys either. Now I have no idea how sales are going but the vender presence is the best I’ve seen in the past 5 years. To paraphrase Mark Twain, “the rumors of GA’s demise have been greatly exaggerated”.
Fact. Every year, there are more and more people in their 20s and late teens, and an increasing number of young women. I’ve noticed the same at multiple airshows in different states.
 
That's because so many airports have closed there are less hangars to go around.
And the remaining ones are mismanaged leading to further closures.

Local townships mostly own/operate airports and management is usually a 'good buddy' type arrangement.... they have no interest or ability in growing the airport.

My old hometown airport is in a constant state of financial woe... but do you think they would lease land for hangars? NOPE. Getting aircraft on the field brings AnPs, CFIs and other economic activity. They asked me if I would open a shop there last time I flew in... they have 10 hangars and less than half have airworthy aircraft. Had to politely decline.
 
Generally I’m not buying airport closures as a significant factor in overall GA health, at least not yet as there are still over 5000 public use and 14000 private airports in the US. Localized effects, sure, but not generalized. We may well end up with geographic GA dead zones but I’m not calling that the end of GA by any stretch. And saying all open airports are mismanaged IMO is silly. Yes some are without a doubt, but I’m of the belief like with any business, that’s the exception and not the rule.
 
I’m surely in the minority these days, but I’d rather train in as simple a plane as possible for the lowest cost. Paint, upholstery, and electronics don’t contribute anything toward stick-and rudder skills, pilotage, and svisually scanning for traffic and other hazards. The former two just drive the cost up for students who are probably on a tighter budget than at any other point in their flying career, and avionics can be a significant distraction to a low-time pilot.

Plus the more complex they are, the more opportunities there are for a checkride bust. Do private and commercial with a single navcom and steam gauges, and IFR with dual navcoms and DME. Go advanced afterward, when there is no chance of failing a test and (there should be) less pressure to learn it in a given time frame.

I understand that this might not apply the same to students who are training solely to become professional pilots, but even then getting private in a mid-60s 172 or Cherokee 140 with faded paint, sagging seats and one radio saves money and time.
Back in the 90's when I started instructing that was exactly the philosophy of the flight school I worked for. Before LSA rules they figured out the could pick up old 7AC Champs for next to nothing. They were easy to maintain, no electrical systems, minimum instruments. We would solo our students in the Champ and then transition to the Piper Tomahawk or Cherokee for the Cross Country, ATC, Night and Instrument training.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Now I have no idea how sales are going but the vender presence is the best I’ve seen in the past 5 years.

Really? I was there today, and it seemed the opposite to me. Many vendors that I've seen in the past were absent from the hangars and the outdoor area. The vendors who used to be in the grass area behind the hangars were in the paved area in front this year, or inside the hangars, and the area out back was empty. Adventure Pilot (iFly EFB) was absent this year. Several other vendors seem to have downsized; for example, Don George Engines has a much smaller booth than usual, and only one person was there today. The FLYING magazine franchise downsized to a couple of tables in the hangar instead of the large tent they've had in prior years. The AOPA tent and presentation area seemed smaller than in the past.

There also seemed to be fewer warbirds, especially on the flight line.

And so on.....
 
Really? I was there today, and it seemed the opposite to me. Many vendors that I've seen in the past were absent from the hangars and the outdoor area. The vendors who used to be in the grass area behind the hangars were in the paved area in front this year, or inside the hangars, and the area out back was empty. Adventure Pilot (iFly EFB) was absent this year. Several other vendors seem to have downsized; for example, Don George Engines has a much smaller booth than usual, and only one person was there today. The FLYING magazine franchise downsized to a couple of tables in the hangar instead of the large tent they've had in prior years. The AOPA tent and presentation area seemed smaller than in the past.

There also seemed to be fewer warbirds, especially on the flight line.

And so on.....
Yes really. Concur on the Warbirds but don’t care either. Can’t comment on booth space size but all of the real estate is occupied except for like one booth in hangar C so vendors big and small are here in force. Also Paradise City at least a third bigger than last year. This is just my observation being out here for the full week since 2019 and our second year camping next to Paradise City.
 
Yes really. Concur on the Warbirds but don’t care either. Can’t comment on booth space size but all of the real estate is occupied except for like one booth in hangar C so vendors big and small are here in force. Also Paradise City at least a third bigger than last year. This is just my observation being out here for the full week since 2019 and our second year camping next to Paradise City.

The hangar space is fully occupied because some of the vendors who were previously outdoors are now inside, and the outdoor areas where they were previously is now vacant.

I didn't go out to Paradise City this year so I can't comment on that.
 
I walked through the hangars and the adjacent areas and not seeing vacant space. I think we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree. I stand by my assertion it’s a banner year. YMMV…..
 
Fact. Every year, there are more and more people in their 20s and late teens, and an increasing number of young women. I’ve noticed the same at multiple airshows in different states.
I've noticed the same, but usually where I see them are the job fair and/or airline recruiting booths. That doesn't do much long-term for GA.
 
I've noticed the same, but usually where I see them are the job fair and/or airline recruiting booths. That doesn't do much long-term for GA.

I’ve said this many times: recruiting young people isn’t going to help private flying. We need to aim for an older demographic. Young people are looking for a career. Older folks are looking for recreation and personal travel.
 
I’ve said this many times: recruiting young people isn’t going to help private flying. We need to aim for an older demographic. Young people are looking for a career. Older folks are looking for recreation and personal travel.
Disagree. I was looking for recreation and personal travel when I got my cert at 28, and there are younger folks getting into it. If you wait until after they have families with kids, you might as well forget about it for another 20 years. I could never do it today, but because I'm already trained and have a decent amount of experience, I can use GA to fly my family around the country for all of our travel. My 8 year old has literally been to Washington state and Florida and never set foot on an airliner nor been in a car more than one state away from home here in WI. And that means I have two kids who are already airplane nuts and very GA positive, even if they never learn to fly themselves.

Yes, we should be targeting older folks with time and money. However, we should also be targeting younger folks with time and enough money to get started.
 
I'll say that if we can lure younger folks in with affordable but perhaps unsightly aircraft, they may grow into wealthier folks with the means to purchase newer and nicer airplanes. I recall my flight school had a fleet of ugly ducklings around $60/hr wet but also had a new Trinidad on leaseback. I never considered renting that one.
 
I'll say that if we can lure younger folks in with affordable but perhaps unsightly aircraft, they may grow into wealthier folks with the means to purchase newer and nicer airplanes. I recall my flight school had a fleet of ugly ducklings around $60/hr wet but also had a new Trinidad on leaseback. I never considered renting that one.
This. The younger crowd will be happy to drive to the airport in their high school/college beater and be able to learn in a clapped-out 1970s Cessna. The older crowd that's driving to the airport in a Lexus or BMW would rather fly a Cirrus. Ideally, if you own a flight school, you do both. Number of flight schools I know of that do both: Zero.
 
At least in my area... The GA community is bifurcating across the people who own 40-50 year old spam cans and new aircraft like SR-22's or DA-42's. None of the Cirrus guys socialize with anyone else at the airport. Their hangars are bare walls with maybe a tug, a case of oil, and window cleaner with a couple of rags.

Seems like people who can afford more than $1M for an airplane are operating at level fully consumed with operating a business or high-end career.
 
About as close as I’ve seen.

OMG those prices. :o $495 dry for SR22, $395 dry for SR20, and the old 172s are $175! :o

When I got my private in 2003, I paid $69/hr for a 172N. Supposedly that equates to $95/hr today. Even correcting for the difference in fuel prices, that would be about $135.
 
OMG those prices. :o $495 dry for SR22, $395 dry for SR20, and the old 172s are $175! :o

When I got my private in 2003, I paid $69/hr for a 172N. Supposedly that equates to $95/hr today. Even correcting for the difference in fuel prices, that would be about $135.

Every 172 is equipped with dual G5s or equivalent and GNS530 or better and the planes are actually well maintained. This is tomorrow’s schedule and it’s an average morning there.

d5e7bfdddde035dde8f8ed05a4bba468.jpg


Back in the very early 90s I was paying $38/hr wet for a 172N. It is what it is.

A different airport nearby offers this Cherokees for $150/hr and up.


They’re just as busy.
330b09463b08abb4de19aa948b7050f5.jpg
 
Every 172 is equipped with dual G5s or equivalent and GNS530 or better and the planes are actually well maintained. This is tomorrow’s schedule and it’s an average morning there.

Back in the very early 90s I was paying $38/hr wet for a 172N. It is what it is.

A different airport nearby offers this Cherokees for $150/hr and up.
It's great that that place is doing so well.

Unfortunately, as airports and flight schools disappear and prices skyrocket like this, that also means more and more of that younger crowd is being priced out, and also that there are fewer people who have an airport within range that they can train or rent at.
 
And saying all open airports are mismanaged IMO is silly.

Well that would depend on what you are calling mismanaged. How many public airports have hangars or land available for GA? Most airports want an FBO to handle everything, not deal with GA owners. Airport admins are far to lax on hangars as storage.

And if your response is purely syntax and grammar related then I believe you don't understand the issue.

I chose my E/AB becuase it has removealbe wings so I don't have to deal with airport mismanagement. With any luck I'll find a private airport vs a public one to fly out of.
 
Well that would depend on what you are calling mismanaged. How many public airports have hangars or land available for GA? Most airports want an FBO to handle everything, not deal with GA owners. Airport admins are far to lax on hangars as storage.

And if your response is purely syntax and grammar related then I believe you don't understand the issue.

I chose my E/AB becuase it has removealbe wings so I don't have to deal with airport mismanagement. With any luck I'll find a private airport vs a public one to fly out of.
Well just because you say it doesn't make it so; it's just your opinion. Since I don't share it, we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
 
How many public airports have hangars or land available for GA?
Well if thats your definition of mismanaged then you may want to review that again. Most small airports I have experience with are managed to break even or operate at a profit. Part 91 GA recreational aviation is not known for its revenue generating abilities at that level. Commercial/business GA or airlines yes. And because of that, the trend as been for small airports to manage themselves toward the commercial side. Some can balance the two requirements, however, as the number of small airports decline and the numbers of commercial GA aircraft increase, you can see which group they becomed managed for.
 
Well if thats your definition of mismanaged then you may want to review that again. Most small airports I have experience with are managed to break even or operate at a profit. Part 91 GA recreational aviation is not known for its revenue generating abilities at that level. Commercial/business GA or airlines yes. And because of that, the trend as been for small airports to manage themselves toward the commercial side. Some can balance the two requirements, however, as the number of small airports decline and the numbers of commercial GA aircraft increase, you can see which group they becomed managed for.
Parks don't generate revenue, libraries don't generate revenue, fire departments don't generate revenue... see, that's called a public good. Spending tax dollars on things the public may benefit from. You never have to visit a park, or library, or have a fire truck show up, or go to an airport.

See, again, fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

No the people that MANAGE those public 'services' should do so in a manner that does generate the most public ROI. For a park that may mean a pagoda or swimming pool (ask a park manager how expensive a public swimming pool is) for a library that may mean free internet, for a fire department that may mean a thermal camera, for an airport that might mean allowing leased land for hangars.

Of those off the top of my head examples, all get gov't funding, yet only ONE is expected to 'turn a profit'?

The airport manager 'back home' was always under pressure to generate income. So much that they allowed a school to pave a giant chunk of land for (wait for it) A TRUCK DRIVING SCHOOL, ON AIRPORT GROUNDS. They kicked out a local SPCA shelter to make it happen. Also the local CAP chapter died out for reasons... but hey, you can now get your CDL from a for profit school on airport grounds!
 
See, again, fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.
Exactly, since to you believe a local airport is managed the same as local parks, libraries, fire departments, etc. So what percentage of the local "public good" directly benefit from a local airport?

And if you look closely enough at the data, you'll find a number of those local airports that have the potential to grow are making moves for greater autonomy from those local governments for those exact same reasons. Unfortunately, as I noted above recreational Part 91 aircraft are not revenue generators like the commercial side of GA. Just follow what Signature has been doing. Regardless, on average 10 GA airports are closed every year, but not from a lack of need. Rather the collective local "public good" prefers their money spent on more libraries, fire stations, and even golf courses especially when you have a large open, former airport, to build one on. ;)
 
SLSA RV-12 comes close. Roomy cockpit, decent cruise speed, low stall speed, lower fuel burn, uses auto gas, even with ethanol, or 100LL if you don't mind higher MX expense. Doesn't cost half a mil even when equipped for instrument training. All the tires are the same size. No parachute though. I mean, you'd have to really try to kill yourself in one, but it's been done a few times nonetheless.
 
That's because so many airports have closed there are less hangars to go around.
I think it more has to do with more people willing to pay the premium for a place to store their plane inside and whatever other things they can fit inside. People used to be OK with tying down outside. Now it seems people just accept they have to
 
I think it more has to do with more people willing to pay the premium for a place to store their plane inside and whatever other things they can fit inside. People used to be OK with tying down outside. Now it seems people just accept they have to
The vans rv-12 has foldable wings to make it easy to trailer, but from what I read, you need 2 people, so people don't tend to store them off airport.
 
The vans rv-12 has foldable wings to make it easy to trailer, but from what I read, you need 2 people, so people don't tend to store them off airport.
Not foldable, removable. And it's definitely a 2-person operation. I considered storing off-airport, but it simply wasn't practical for a number of reasons.

I have seen a video or article (don't remember which) by one guy who built a wing removal/installation rig to do it single-handed, which was pretty cool, but I don't know of any RV-12s that regularly get their wings pulled off. There are four or five where ours is hangared.
 
Ideal replacement for a c172....I'd say an experimental c172 ..... it's really a workhorse airframe....its the engine that cost more to operate. not to mention avgas costs.

Our c172 has a V8 automotive engine, but there are other such power plant solutions that would fit well with some engineering skills. I would actually recommend repowering an old c182, as c172 airframes cost a premium these days, and you would have bigger plane.

Theresa a few companies out there selling turn key auto conversions, and likely have ability to fabricate engine mounts, etc.... as well as other mods needed.

our c172 cost about $22 hr to fly and was used as a trainer and for check rides by a few friends to get their ratings, at a fraction of the cost. Owners of other planes in my hanger say they can't afford to fly as often as they want in their certified planes (with one owner quoting his owner cost in his c172 being over $80/hr to fly), and jealous of our cost .

as others said. I would stay away from certified planes....way too expensive to own. unless somethong as simple as an Ercoupe. You can put a advance flat panel dash board in for a fraction of a comparable certified panel in experimental, mine was about $1k with same features of most certified units. ...getting rid of the old six packs actually saves you on cost as well.

if ever in COS stop in for a flight....I'm not advocating for you to convert a certified plane to exp, just know it has significant advantages and an option if you really want a c172.
 
Exactly, since to you believe a local airport is managed the same as local parks, libraries, fire departments, etc. So what percentage of the local "public good" directly benefit from a local airport?

And if you look closely enough at the data, you'll find a number of those local airports that have the potential to grow are making moves for greater autonomy from those local governments for those exact same reasons. Unfortunately, as I noted above recreational Part 91 aircraft are not revenue generators like the commercial side of GA. Just follow what Signature has been doing. Regardless, on average 10 GA airports are closed every year, but not from a lack of need. Rather the collective local "public good" prefers their money spent on more libraries, fire stations, and even golf courses especially when you have a large open, former airport, to build one on. ;)
Or you can have large recreational facilities (hike/bike trails, golf course, skate parks, etc.) and fire stations on the airport grounds. See KLUK. Though they did just close the shorter parallel 21/3 to build more aviation infrastructure.
 
This. The younger crowd will be happy to drive to the airport in their high school/college beater and be able to learn in a clapped-out 1970s Cessna. The older crowd that's driving to the airport in a Lexus or BMW would rather fly a Cirrus. Ideally, if you own a flight school, you do both. Number of flight schools I know of that do both: Zero.
Yeah, my local school has nothing that isn't from my high school days. And I'm retired. But time to "return to flight" for the first time since COVID hit (and that annoying prostate cancer, and the glaucoma, etc.) so off I go in a plane similar to the last one I flew.
 
How many are deregistered every year?

You don't even need a LOA, if the aircraft isn't provided by the CFI.
True. I've found several CFI's that would train me in an experimental. However, at the moment, it looks like my first plane will be a C177B Cardinal.
 
You live in the state where all the old people with money go (and take their planes).

It'd be interesting to see what the pilot population is by percentage in each state, but I would not be at all surprised if Florida is the highest, especially if you remove active airline pilots from the equation - They're going to skew any state that has a hub.

That's going to change the equation as far as whether airports close.
I always thought it was Alaska, with about twice the percentage pilots as in the lower 48.
 
This. The younger crowd will be happy to drive to the airport in their high school/college beater and be able to learn in a clapped-out 1970s Cessna. The older crowd that's driving to the airport in a Lexus or BMW would rather fly a Cirrus. Ideally, if you own a flight school, you do both. Number of flight schools I know of that do both: Zero.
I resemble being part of the older crowd and drive to the airport in my late model Lexus. However, I prefer to rent the plane with the lowest hourly rate that fits my mission.
 
A type certified RV-9A or RV-12.
Why would you ever want to leave the EAB area for certificated purgatory? The cost of parts would skyrocket (PMA) you could no longer perform ANY maintenance and the cost of acquiring one would near $300k-400k

Exactly what are the benefits of getting a TC?
 
Ideal replacement for a c172....I'd say an experimental c172 ..... it's really a workhorse airframe....its the engine that cost more to operate. not to mention avgas costs.

Our c172 has a V8 automotive engine, but there are other such power plant solutions that would fit well with some engineering skills. I would actually recommend repowering an old c182, as c172 airframes cost a premium these days, and you would have bigger plane.

Theresa a few companies out there selling turn key auto conversions, and likely have ability to fabricate engine mounts, etc.... as well as other mods needed.

our c172 cost about $22 hr to fly and was used as a trainer and for check rides by a few friends to get their ratings, at a fraction of the cost. Owners of other planes in my hanger say they can't afford to fly as often as they want in their certified planes (with one owner quoting his owner cost in his c172 being over $80/hr to fly), and jealous of our cost .

as others said. I would stay away from certified planes....way too expensive to own. unless somethong as simple as an Ercoupe. You can put a advance flat panel dash board in for a fraction of a comparable certified panel in experimental, mine was about $1k with same features of most certified units. ...getting rid of the old six packs actually saves you on cost as well.

if ever in COS stop in for a flight....I'm not advocating for you to convert a certified plane to exp, just know it has significant advantages and an option if you really want a c172.
You have a experimental EXHIBITION 172?

How do you rent it? Did this student own part of the AC? Did she fly for free? Pro-rata? How did a DPE allow a non-type certified AC to be used in a practical? An EAB cannot comply with its type design as it never had a TCDS.

The 2008 Witkowski letter tells us that in order to be airworthy it must comply with its type design 49 USC 1423 (c)

I hope the folks that got tickets in the AC don't want to be career pilots... they already put their licenses at risk.
 
Back
Top