Is a 172 D model and newer a capable X-country plane?

steingar said:
The M20J is really the sweet spot of the Mooney line. 160 knots is nothing to sneeze at out of an I0360.

I went for a short bodied Mooney for a couple reasons. The biggest was the Johnson bar gear. Easily the most carefree gear system. The hydraulic flaps were a big plus too. Not a big fan of flap motors that break at inopportune times. Even so, I'll bet my maintenance costs are a great deal high than a trainer like a Skyhawk. More systems to inspect, more to break. But at least with the J-bar Mooney those systems were pretty stone simple. The M20E runs a 200 hp fuel injected engine, which I really liked, otherwise it was identical to the M20C I acquired. Problem was I couldn't find and M20E that really fit my bill, and the M20C I bought most certainly did.

The short bodied Mooneys are the least expensive entry into the world of complex aircraft. Biggest bang for the buck by far.
Click to expand...

I really need to get in a Mooney to see how snug it's going to be.
 
midcap said:
I really need to get in a Mooney to see how snug it's going to be.
Click to expand...
There is one in Central Ohio in which you can sit and make airplane noises to your heart's content. During the coming week it will be in Oshkosh Wisconsin, where your airplane noises will be happily drowned out by the real thing.
 
steingar said:
There is one in Central Ohio in which you can sit and make airplane noises to your heart's content. During the coming week it will be in Oshkosh Wisconsin, where your airplane noises will be happily drowned out by the real thing.
Click to expand...

lol, while that would be awesome, Ohio is a little ways away from me.
 
FastEddieB said:
Not that it's snug, but I never personally cared for the reclined position, nor the proximity of the panel.

It's not terrible, but not my cup of tea.
Click to expand...

hmmm...that's interesting because that's how my seats are in my cars unlike the 172, which I don't prefer.
 
Nothing like trying one out - next time you see one pull into an FBO or on the ramp, ask the pilot if you can try test seating it for a bit... I have had people ask me that before and I was perfectly happy letting them sit in the plane and make airplane noises as steingar says!
 
RudyP said:
And in fairness, Keith, the two seats that you do have are not huge! But that is a very cool little rocket you have there. Are you still at Lincoln Park? I stopped in a few weeks ago and had a burger at the Sunset Grill while waiting out some storms/congestion in the NYC B on my way to a wedding on Long Island.
Click to expand...

Great to see ya Rudy. Yes, the seats are small, but it works. The Venture is a sweet airplane, too. I love seeing them at OSH each year. Yep, still at Lincoln Park, in one of the old T hangars on the SE corner of the airport.
 
I'm thinking if I want to buy an airplane anytime soon, I should just stick with a 172. I really don't want to bite off more than I can chew.
 
midcap said:
I'm thinking if I want to buy an airplane anytime soon, I should just stick with a 172. I really don't want to bite off more than I can chew.
Click to expand...

Nothing at all wrong with a Cessna 172. If they weren't good all-around airplanes, they would not be so popular. I can tell you that there are a lot of based airplanes at our airport that are more capable (faster, bigger, twins, etc.), but they are a LOT more expensive to buy and maintain and require more proficiency on the part of the pilot. I have from a very reliable source that only about 20% of the based aircraft fly regularly. Some haven't flown in years! A big factor is the cost. Fuel, maintenance, too complex an airplane to be comfortable, etc. Just like cars, each person has to pay his or her money and make their choice. Not particularly sexy or fast, but a C-172 will do a lot of things well.
 
somorris said:
Not particularly sexy or fast, but a C-172 will do a lot of things well.
Click to expand...

The 145hp version? The 150hp version? The 160hp version? The 180hp version? The 195hp version? The one with 38, 40, 53 or 68 gallon tanks?
 
midcap said:
I'm thinking if I want to buy an airplane anytime soon, I should just stick with a 172. I really don't want to bite off more than I can chew.
Click to expand...

You won't go wrong with a 172, but, you may outgrow it.

The premium for a 182(or similar) vs a 172 may not be that much ($10-15k??) and, if you never have to buy/sell again, that may be worth the amount.

But, a 172 will be adequate for you.
 
JoseCuervo said:
You won't go wrong with a 172, but, you may outgrow it.

The premium for a 182(or similar) vs a 172 may not be that much ($10-15k??) and, if you never have to buy/sell again, that may be worth the amount.

But, a 172 will be adequate for you.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you brought this up because I was thinking about it.

If I bought a 182 RG, for example, then I wouldn't need to buy another plane again.
 
Sometimes, like tonight as I pack for a 900-mile trip in my 172 tomorrow, I wonder if I did the right thing when I sold my Bonanza nine years ago, and think about how nice it would be to cruise 500 nm at 160 knots again. Then I get out my old expense records and see how much I paid for repairs on things that the 172 doesn't even have.

Then I feel better.

:)
 
midcap said:
I'm thinking if I want to buy an airplane anytime soon, I should just stick with a 172. I really don't want to bite off more than I can chew.
Click to expand...
If you're planning to stick with a Cessna, I'd strongly suggest looking into a 182. Basically the same flying characteristics but you will get a decent bump in speed and payload, depending on the model, for not that much more $$.
 
Ryanb said:
If you're planning to stick with a Cessna, I'd strongly suggest looking into a 182. Basically the same flying characteristics but you will get a decent bump in speed and payload, depending on the model, for not that much more $$.
Click to expand...

even if it's a fixed gear?
 
midcap said:
Looks like an 182R cruises at 140kts?
Click to expand...

Careful, it's easy to get Cessna's model numbers mixed up; they weren't always consistent in their format.

The retractable Skylane is the Model R182. It has a 235 hp Lycoming, and cruise speed is in the 150-155 KTAS range. Add a turbocharger to it and it's a Model TR182, with higher cruise speeds if you go up to higher altitudes. (Here, the Cessna model numbers get really confused, as the retractable 172 and Cardinal are Models 172RG and 177RG, respectively.)

The Model 182R is the fixed-gear version, with 230 hp Continental, that was built between 1981 and 1986 (i.e., after the 182Q and before the 182S). 140 KTAS cruise is about right for this one, if the wheel and brake fairings are installed. There was also a turbocharged fixed-gear variant, though rare, the T182R - with the same 235 hp Lycoming as the TR182.

There will be a quiz.

:)
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
The Model 182R is the fixed-gear version, with 230 hp Continental, that was built between 1981 and 1986 (i.e., after the 182Q and before the 182S).
Click to expand...

Given that the R182 was introduced in 1978 and the welded gear 182 went from 182Q to 182R in 1981, wouldn't it follow that there was an R182Q and a R182R? Or did the retracts get different designations?
 
Go fly a NAvion. Lot's of space, good speed, good load, and very docile. Mine has a contenental E225, moves along at 135K, a true 4 seater. NAvions run from an 185hp to 300hp which gIves ground speed from 135-200. You can find some inexpensive ones. I have 40 gallons internal and another 40 on the wing. I burn about 10gph. I'll get tired of sitting long before I run out of fuel.
I have 100 hours in Cessnas, 500 in Pipers, 100 in helicopters, and 30 or so in the NAvion. It's the best I've flown. Owners are very devoted.
http://www.ruidosonews.com/story/ne...on-slated-ruidoso-municipal-airport/85867936/
 
Last edited:
midcap said:
even if it's a fixed gear?
Click to expand...
Yes even fixed gear. Just thinking if this were me, I've seen older model 182's for around the same price as a nice 172. It would get you closer to your 150kt cruise speed than a 172, while having a higher useful load, to better suit your mission. Plus that added power will be a bonus come summer time in Cali.
 
midcap said:
If I bought a 182 RG, for example, then I wouldn't need to buy another plane again.
Click to expand...

Amen to that.....150 knots + all day with a nice load at 13 gph (leaned conservatively), very roomy, and 88 gallons of gas. IMHO the best airplane Cessna ever quit making. But I may be prejudiced.... :)

JIm
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top