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

midcap

midcap

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
1,513
Location
South Louisiana
Display Name
Display name:
midcap
I know there's that guy who took his 172to Cali but I am curious if a 172 is going to be ok for a 550nm trip twice a year and a 250nm trip 4 times a year? I am trying to see if I really need a 150kt plane.

I checked the useful loads and I am good there with full fuel. I would only fly in flat areas near sea level.
 
Last edited:
No one can answer this question except you. Can it be done? Of course it can. Would I want something fast? Yes sir. Do you want something faster? I don't know. For reference, I took a 172 from FRG-PIT which is 310 miles direct. It took about 3-3.5 hours.
 
jordane93 said:
No one can answer this question except you. Can it be done? Of course it can. Would I want something fast? Yes sir. Do you want something faster? I don't know. For reference, I took a 172 from FRG-PIT which is 310 miles direct. It took about 3-3.5 hours.
Click to expand...

ok, what you posted matched the calculations I was making. So my numbers are in the ballpark for time.

I'm still a student pilot and the more I think about it the more I feel I should build time in a 172. I mean I would love to do 200kts but my skills and net worth won't let me do that. Either way, It's waaaaay faster than taking a car. I am not talking about faster because you can always just fly (the weather will prevent you from that) I mean faster when you are actually moving.

Worse case I have to stay on vacation 1 or 2 more days waiting out weather before flying home. Tough pill to swallow I know :D
 
For what it's worth, I'm planning to leave next weekend for Phoenix and San Diego in my 172, the second 2000-nm+ round trip in as many months. It won't be fast, and I'll be stopping for fuel more often than folks in higher-performance airplanes, but it's certainly do-able.

My wife is flying by airline to PHX on Tuesday. Her estimated time enroute, including parking, TSA lines, layover for a connecting flight at SFO, and so on, is about the same as mine.
 
250nm is just about an ideal trip for a 172. Within a single tank range, much faster than a car, not long enough for commercial. Literally, it's the best XC range for that plane.

You would have to get into something significantly faster and more expensive to make a noticeable dent in your flight time

500 is another story though.
 
A 172 for a 550 nm trip twice a year? That works fine. You in any hurry?
 
I used my 172 for cross country flights between Florida and mass. For several years. It's all about the time,you have to spare. I now use my liberty ,which is a little faster than a172 ,and have taken it to Alaska and back.do Florida to mass twice a year.
 
Local couple flew their 172 from Mich to Alaska and back. Also summer sight seeing tours, covering most of the coast line of the USA over the years.
A fella who made a living flying a T-Craft in airshows flew his T-Craft all over the USA at 85 knots to get it to the shows. There was not a speck of electronics in that plane and as far as I know he never missed a show.
Whether or not a plane is capable of XC is mostly in your mind. If a plane can fly a 100 mile trip on a Sunday afternoon, it can fly the continent.
Now, a 24/7 all weather flying machine is a different ball game. It requires deicing, lots of electronics, and two engines, preferably turbines, in my mind.
 
It can be done, but you'll soon want something faster. Don't let it scare you, during the transition to a faster aircraft one learns the relevant issues and how to account for them.
 
We travel in our Sundowner for vacations. This past year Ocean city MD to Dubuque IA, Rapid City SD, Kansas City then home. Been to Florida and back, Gulf Shores Alabama and back. NO lines checking in, pack what you want...can't beat it.

Helps to have your instrument ticket.
 
Your mission is similar to mine. I plan 95 to 100 knots. Most of my flights during the year are about 1 hour each way as all the fun stuff is relatively close. I take a few longer flights during the year. While not fast, it is very comfortable and easy to pack for two people. But as someone above said, are you in a rush, otherwise enjoy the view and log more hours.
 
What's the hurry? I thought we liked to fly?
 
I've got a friend who has a 172A and flies it everywhere. What's a good XC ship is a matter of perception. I flew an N model for a few years before I got the Navion.
 
Years ago, my cessna 140 delivered to buffalo n.y. New , was logged to have flown to Florida and back over eight times, once each year, going to Florida in the fall , returning in the spring. No GPS, just a Few maps and a pencil or two. This occurred from 1946 on.
 
Pilawt said:
For what it's worth, I'm planning to leave next weekend for Phoenix and San Diego in my 172, the second 2000-nm+ round trip in as many months. It won't be fast, and I'll be stopping for fuel more often than folks in higher-performance airplanes, but it's certainly do-able.

My wife is flying by airline to PHX on Tuesday. Her estimated time enroute, including parking, TSA lines, layover for a connecting flight at SFO, and so on, is about the same as mine.
Click to expand...

ok, so it's a non event given weather is good.

I really do hate dealing with commercial flying. I can still remember the first time I flew private, it literally was a life changing event. I don't remember the good old days of commercial aviation since all my flying was done post 9-11, so my only experience with commercial flying has been dealing with the modern day airport security.
 
I flew a 100kt plane across the country, as in from one side to the other.

A 172 is more the capable of flying coast to coast, it's just a matter of what you consider a acceptable enroute time.




As far as weather, unless you're talking a booted FIKI plane with onboard radar (not just XM or ADSB wx, but a radar pod), they are all the same when it comes to wx.
 
99% of my time is in a 172.. these days all of it is in a 172SP. I've flown up and down the east coast many times, and the biggest bang for your buck upgrade that I would highly recommend is getting your instrument ticket. Traveling 50 - 100nm, you're not likely to hit much change in the weather. I fly from the NE to SE 1 - 2 times a year, 400 - 600nm trips, and every time you are almost always guaranteed to either depart or arrive in sub-optimal conditions, or encounter them enroute. Can't do much about ice or t-storms, but those low scud days are not an obstacle when you can just file & fly.

I do dream of upgrading to a 182S, or maybe even an SR-22, but until I'm ready to commit to flying a _lot_ more than I currently do, a 172SP is the best fit for now.

edit: to clarify, I usually plan a fuel stop a little more than halfway on the longer trips. Even tho it may not save a lot of time, I'd rather have the comfort and experience of GA flying, with a nice stopover in the middle, than the pain and agony that goes with commercial flying.
 
Bobcat1 said:
A 172 for a 550 nm trip twice a year? That works fine. You in any hurry?
Click to expand...

lol nope not in a hurry and much better than a dang 13 hour car ride. Last time we left google maps said like 10 hours, between the bathroom breaks, lunch and traffic it was 12 hours. That's pretty much 2 days lost for me if I drive.
 
GMascelli said:
We travel in our Sundowner for vacations. This past year Ocean city MD to Dubuque IA, Rapid City SD, Kansas City then home. Been to Florida and back, Gulf Shores Alabama and back. NO lines checking in, pack what you want...can't beat it.

Helps to have your instrument ticket.
Click to expand...

I will most definately get my instrument ticket, I just won't fly in IMC because the risk are too high IMO, but I will be glad to have the knowledge and training.

I figured VFR with flight following would be the way I would want to go.
 
You build time faster in a slow plane... But consider trying an airplane like an arrow before you commit to purchase. Not that big a step up and at least 30kts faster...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
DFH65 said:
What's the hurry? I thought we liked to fly?
Click to expand...


James331 said:
I flew a 100kt plane across the country, as in from one side to the other.

A 172 is more the capable of flying coast to coast, it's just a matter of what you consider a acceptable enroute time.




As far as weather, unless you're talking a booted FIKI plane with onboard radar (not just XM or ADSB wx, but a radar pod), they are all the same when it comes to wx.
Click to expand...

yeah unless I have a plane that can get well above any weather I have no intentions of flying around that nasty stuff. :eek:

Being on the seas my whole life gave me a great respect and appreciation for the brute force of mother nature specifically thunder storms and fronts.
 
DeckardTrinity said:
99% of my time is in a 172.. these days all of it is in a 172SP. I've flown up and down the east coast many times, and the biggest bang for your buck upgrade that I would highly recommend is getting your instrument ticket. Traveling 50 - 100nm, you're not likely to hit much change in the weather. I fly from the NE to SE 1 - 2 times a year, 400 - 600nm trips, and every time you are almost always guaranteed to either depart or arrive in sub-optimal conditions, or encounter them enroute. Can't do much about ice or t-storms, but those low scud days are not an obstacle when you can just file & fly.

I do dream of upgrading to a 182S, or maybe even an SR-22, but until I'm ready to commit to flying a _lot_ more than I currently do, a 172SP is the best fit for now.

edit: to clarify, I usually plan a fuel stop a little more than halfway on the longer trips. Even tho it may not save a lot of time, I'd rather have the comfort and experience of GA flying, with a nice stopover in the middle, than the pain and agony that goes with commercial flying.
Click to expand...

that is a good point
 
Topping the bad stuff is tuff even in a turboprop with a 30k ceiling.
 
James331 said:
....
As far as weather, unless you're talking a booted FIKI plane with onboard radar (not just XM or ADSB wx, but a radar pod), they are all the same when it comes to wx.
Click to expand...

At its core, this is a true statement. However, 500nm in 172 is 6-7 hours of weather planning. Same in a SR22T is less than 3 hours. Added some ice protection(if equipped) and ability to climb higher and faster gives you more cushion if needed(or gets you in trouble faster)
 
gsengle said:
You build time faster in a slow plane... But consider trying an airplane like an arrow before you commit to purchase. Not that big a step up and at least 30kts faster...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I never really looked at Arrows. I will check them out. I figured that a lycoming 172 would be the lease expensive to fly per hour.
 
If you haven't flown any type of piper Cherokee, try em, who knows you might like even a warrior / archer better than a 172... Similar performance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
genna said:
At its core, this is a true statement. However, 500nm in 172 is 6-7 hours of weather planning. Same in a SR22T is less than 3 hours. Added some ice protection(if equipped) and ability to climb higher and faster gives you more cushion if needed(or gets you in trouble faster)
Click to expand...

Trying to avoid all that.
 
genna said:
At its core, this is a true statement. However, 500nm in 172 is 6-7 hours of weather planning. Same in a SR22T is less than 3 hours. Added some ice protection(if equipped) and ability to climb higher and faster gives you more cushion if needed(or gets you in trouble faster)
Click to expand...

Anything I couldn't take a 172 through, I wouldn't try in a SR22, its just not that much more capabible.

I also don't see the time diffrence you're talking about, that's half the time, a SR22 doesn't block cruise anywhere near 220kts, so how's it half the time?

For a comfy X/C plane, for not really much more than a 172, go look at PA24 Commanchies, simple, little faster, considerably more comfy for a long haul, crisp handling, just really a sweetheart plane and nothing else really touches them bang for the buck wise.
 
gsengle said:
If you haven't flown any type of piper Cherokee, try em, who knows you might like even a warrior / archer better than a 172... Similar performance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

well my heart was set on a Comanche, but walk before you can crawl right, then I was looking at 182 Rg's (gear too Mx sensitive), then I was looking at Cherokee 235's (dakotas are out of my price range at the moment) then I figured hell by just losing 10-15 kts over a Cherokee 235 I can get a 172 with a smaller engine and pretty stout fixed gear for less money and fly that thing for the cheap all over the place and then have no problems selling it when I want to upgrade.

So, that's kind of where I am at right now.
 
James331 said:
Anything I couldn't take a 172 through, I wouldn't try in a SR22, its just not that much more capabible.

I also don't see the time diffrence you're talking about, that's half the time, a SR22 doesn't block cruise anywhere near 220kts, so how's it half the time?

For a comfy X/C plane, for not really much more than a 172, go look at PA24 Commanchies, simple, little faster, considerably more comfy for a long haul, crisp handling, just really a sweetheart plane and nothing else really touches them bang for the buck wise.
Click to expand...

That is actually a dream plane of mine right now, look at the post above this one.

I like everything about it. There is actually a Comanche 250 in my CFI's hanger. The color screams 1960's but that profile is beautiful.

just things that worry me at this point, gear repairs, more expense on the larger engine and parts availability.

Me and the CFI were talking about the Comanche in the hanger and I asked him if it was a hard plane to fly and he said that learning the prop speed and gear issues was no big deal, he said you just have to keep the air speed up when landing and don't float it.

He made it sound like a non event to go from a 172 to a Comanche.
 
James331 said:
Anything I couldn't take a 172 through, I wouldn't try in a SR22, its just not that much more capabible.

I also don't see the time diffrence you're talking about, that's half the time, a SR22 doesn't block cruise anywhere near 220kts, so how's it half the time?

For a comfy X/C plane, for not really much more than a 172, go look at PA24 Commanchies, simple, little faster, considerably more comfy for a long haul, crisp handling, just really a sweetheart plane and nothing else really touches them bang for the buck wise.
Click to expand...


You have to stop for fuel in 172, doesn't have the range. That can be an hour. SR will do it in a single tank.. SR was just an example. SR22T max cruise is 213KTAS.. supposedly. :)
 
midcap said:
well my heart was set on a Comanche, but walk before you can crawl right, then I was looking at 182 Rg's (gear too Mx sensitive), then I was looking at Cherokee 235's (dakotas are out of my price range at the moment) then I figured hell by just losing 10-15 kts over a Cherokee 235 I can get a 172 with a smaller engine and pretty stout fixed gear for less money and fly that thing for the cheap all over the place and then have no problems selling it when I want to upgrade.

So, that's kind of where I am at right now.
Click to expand...

Price wise it's not really much of a difference

As a CFI I'd have no problem taking someone from 0 time to a PPL in a PA24, they really don't have any bad habits that would preclude a low time guy PICing one.

As long as you're learning flows and backing them up with checklists, which you should be learning no matter what the airframe, you'll be fine in a PA24.
 
genna said:
You have to stop for fuel in 172, doesn't have the range. That can be an hour. SR will do it in a single tank.. SR was just an example. SR22T max cruise is 213KTAS.. supposedly. :)
Click to expand...

I really have no interest in a cirrus. They are pretty though.
 
genna said:
You have to stop for fuel in 172, doesn't have the range. That can be an hour. SR will do it in a single tank.. SR was just an example. SR22T max cruise is 213KTAS.. supposedly. :)
Click to expand...

Unless your bringing furniture with you and have a fat wife, you should have a lot more than 1hr endurance in a 172, most are over 4hrs at altitude, and frankly even as a young guy I don't like even sitting in 787 as a pax for that long without a break, let alone a light aircraft which I'm flying. Even if it's just to land and walk in a circle, as long as you can hit 3-4 hours of endurance you're fine.

All the cirrus drivers I know try to plan 170 in mixed company, but end up doing more like 150-160. PA24 does that for less than half the price ;)
 
I think Comanches are great airplanes. Hard to explain just how popular they were "back then" ! If you can find a nice one , I'd grab it. You won't have any problem in it if someone familiar with one checks you out carefully. It a docile, nice flyer. Good looking too!
 
James331 said:
Price wise it's not really much of a difference

As a CFI I'd have no problem taking someone from 0 time to a PPL in a PA24, they really don't have any bad habits that would preclude a low time guy PICing one.

As long as you're learning flows and backing them up with checklists, which you should be learning no matter what the airframe, you'll be fine in a PA24.
Click to expand...

all the time, safety is my #1 priority.
 
James331 said:
Unless your bringing furniture with you and have a fat wife, you should have a lot more than 1hr endurance in a 172, most are over 4hrs at altitude, and frankly even as a young guy I don't like even sitting in 787 as a pax for that long without a break, let alone a light aircraft which I'm flying. Even if it's just to land and walk in a circle, as long as you can hit 3-4 hours of endurance you're fine.

All the cirrus drivers I know try to plan 170 in mixed company, but end up doing more like 150-160. PA24 does that for less than half the price ;)
Click to expand...

I think we are reading different things here. 500nm trips. 172 has 40 gal tank and will use about 8gph or more. 5 hours endurance. That's not enough to go 500nm . SR22T(turbo) can fly at 213ktas at 25000 feet if needed... http://www.nextgen.aero/EN/Cirrus SR 22T/ Most people wouldn't do it as it taxes the plane and wallet, but it CAN be done. 172 will max out at 130 ktas or less
 
James331 said:
Unless your bringing furniture with you and have a fat wife, you should have a lot more than 1hr endurance in a 172, most are over 4hrs at altitude, and frankly even as a young guy I don't like even sitting in 787 as a pax for that long without a break, let alone a light aircraft which I'm flying. Even if it's just to land and walk in a circle, as long as you can hit 3-4 hours of endurance you're fine.

All the cirrus drivers I know try to plan 170 in mixed company, but end up doing more like 150-160. PA24 does that for less than half the price ;)
Click to expand...
Jimmy cooper said:
I think Comanches are great airplanes. Hard to explain just how popular they were "back then" ! If you can find a nice one , I'd grab it. You won't have any problem in it if someone familiar with one checks you out carefully. It a docile, nice flyer. Good looking too!
Click to expand...

that's what I heard, and I like about them.
 
genna said:
I think we are reading different things here. 500nm trips. 172 has 40 gal tank and will use about 8gph or more. 5 hours endurance. That's not enough to go 500nm with any safety margin. SR22T(turbo) can fly at 213ktas at 25000 feet if needed... http://www.nextgen.aero/EN/Cirrus SR 22T/ Most people wouldn't do it as it taxes the plane and wallet, but it CAN be done. 172 will max out at 130 ktas or less
Click to expand...

I can't afford a Turbo Cirrus though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top