Selling 150L buying 172x your thoughts?

rbhankins001

rbhankins001

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
126
Display Name
Display name:
Rob
Selling 150L buying something a *little* bigger your thoughts?

Due to a recent job offer I reluctantly accepted I will have to hire someone to manage my lodge and fishing charter business in Alaska.

That being said I am thinking about selling my little C150 in Alaska (I would only be able to go to Alaska maybe 4 weeks out of next year) and buying a 172 (or other similar plane) down south in Louisiana/Mississippi/Florida (that is where I'd be flying it).

So I have done a little searching, and I'm partial to a 172. I do prefer a high wing, and would just like a little more capacity than a 150 has. It will mainly be a toy for me, but I will use it to fly to our condo in Florida (about 200nm one way) and possibly to Venice, LA where I fish if i could find a place to land.

So I am looking for advice on what year models, "extras" to look for and price range. I probably won't spend over $50k for a 172 so let's use that to start. I'd like to be closer to $40k or less but if it's the right plane I have the cash. Otherwise I'd look for a good deal on a 182. Concentrating on 172 right now though.

I'm also open to other makes/models . . . so help me out guys!

Thanks

-Rob
 
Last edited:
If you think there's a snowball's chance in hell that you will ever want to fly to AK, I'd seriously consider the 182.

rbhankins001 said:
Due to a recent job offer I reluctantly accepted I will have to hire someone to manage my lodge and fishing charter business in Alaska.

That being said I am thinking about selling my little C150 in Alaska (I would only be able to go to Alaska maybe 4 weeks out of next year) and buying a 172 (or other similar plane) down south in Louisiana/Mississippi/Florida (that is where I'd be flying it).

So I have done a little searching, and I'm partial to a 172. I do prefer a high wing, and would just like a little more capacity than a 150 has. It will mainly be a toy for me, but I will use it to fly to our condo in Florida (about 200nm one way) and possibly to Venice, LA where I fish if i could find a place to land.

So I am looking for advice on what year models, "extras" to look for and price range. I probably won't spend over $50k for a 172 so let's use that to start. I'd like to be closer to $40k or less but if it's the right plane I have the cash. Otherwise I'd look for a good deal on a 182. Concentrating on 172 right now though.

I'm also open to other makes/models . . . so help me out guys!

Thanks

-Rob
Click to expand...
 
If you are not going to use the plane for hire then scrap the certified planes and buy an RV. For just a few bucks more you can go 180 mph @ 8 gph burning mogas, do all the work yourself in you want to. And that trip to Alaska? A breeze. ;)

RV 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 would all work. If you and not into areobatics the 9 is the best side by side.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion and experience, the 172M was the best of the line. Previous models had the old non-cuffed leading edge and the N model had that terrible H2AD engine. There were few P or Q models built, I think, and they gave up ten degrees of flap. Pre-1968 models had Continentals that so often need valve work by midlife.

The R had endless SBs on it. They started making 172s again in 1996 and had to hire a lot of off-the-street guys that made mistakes on the production line, and the engineers had "improved" a bunch of stuff that didn't like being improved, and suffered cracks and so forth. The S is much better but now we're into serious money. In the restart models many of the weaknesses of the pre-'86 airplanes are fixed, but at a weight penalty. Such weaknesses included lower aft doorposts that crack, forward stab spars that crack, and so on.

Dan
 
A C-172N with the Penn Yan 180 hp upgrade eliminates the engine problem, but gives you a 250 bump in max gross (with the flaps limited to 30 degrees). Makes it a very nice plane.
 
Dan Thomas said:
In my opinion and experience, the 172M was the best of the line.
Click to expand...
More of the 'M' model (1973-76 model years) were built than any other 172 version.

Ghery said:
A C-172N with the Penn Yan 180 hp upgrade eliminates the engine problem, but gives you a 250 bump in max gross (with the flaps limited to 30 degrees). Makes it a very nice plane.
Click to expand...
As an owner of a 172N with the Air Plains 180 hp upgrade, I agree.

Not sure about Penn Yan, but the Air Plains 180 hp STC is also available for the 172M. A separate STC limits the flaps to 30 degrees, enabling the 250 lb MGW increase.
 
Sounds like you want to fly some long distances. Droning along, hour on end at 110 knots or much less ground speed with a headwind isn't my ideas of fun.

If you want to stick with a fixed gear consider a Grumman Tiger or DA40 and actually get there in this millenia.
 
Well I appreciate all the comments so far so thanks for that guys!

The longest trip I will be making, and it will only be a few times a year, is 202 nm one way. So even at 110kts it's not bad. I would fly about an hour, stop and stretch legs etc, then fly the rest of the trip. The bottom line is it's a 5 hr drive, or 2+ hr flight at "putt putt" 150/172 speeds.

I am not "locked in" to getting a 172. I've wanted one for a while tho (in the boating world we call this "two-foot-itis" as in you always want a boat 2 ft longer).

It is just what I'm used to. High wing Cessna's ruled in my area in Alaska (unless you go to tundra tire taildraggers, or floatplanes, I'm talking paved runway stuff).

I also figured it would be an easy and natural progression from flying a 150 to 172. I have spent a good bit of time with a friend in his older model 172 (IDK what year it is but manual flaps and pull start).

That being said next week I'm going to look at a Mooney M20 to see how it "fits".

So I am definitely open to other makes/models.

Worst case scenario I will go fly in all of them and see what I like :D.

The budget is around $50k, would like to stick closer to $40k.
 
Ok so I'm gonna try and find a Grumman Tiger to look at/fly. That is a possibility as well.

It looks like a DA40 is well over the budget I have at this time.
 
rbhankins001 said:
That being said next week I'm going to look at a Mooney M20 to see how it "fits".

Worst case scenario I will go fly in all of them and see what I like :D.

The budget is around $50k, would like to stick closer to $40k.
Click to expand...

Which model M20? Out of the pre-201 models that would be in your budget range, you could look at the M20F that has the extra leg room in the back seats when compared against the M20A-E and G models. My preference has always been for the manual gear and flaps. No surprises on the maintenance side and annuals have been in the $1K range (owner assisted), knock on wood....

Having said that, trying one on is a smart move as some like them, and some not so much. It's a love/hate thing.... :rofl:

If you decide to pursue it later, I can give you a run down on the "gotchas" with the Mooney that need to be watched out for...

Good luck. I loved looking at planes when I was searching for mine a few years ago.

Brian
 
The one I'm going to look at is a M20C Mark 21.

Thanks for the heads up. Is the M20F going to be same seats in front as far as width?

I am really gonna need to find a Tiger nearby the more I look into it, it's sounding better and better.

But I also found what *appears* to be a good deal on a C172 180HP.
 
flight2000 said:
Out of the pre-201 models that would be in your budget range, you could look at the M20F that has the extra leg room in the back seats when compared against the M20A-E and G models.
Click to expand...
The 180 hp M20G Statesman had the same cabin and leg room as the M20F, and 201 for that matter. But its performance with that engine/airframe combination was anemic, and not many were sold.

rbhankins001 said:
The one I'm going to look at is a M20C Mark 21.

Is the M20F going to be same seats in front as far as width?
Click to expand...
All M20s are the same in width. They might vary a tad from year to year because of upholstery and trim changes, but that's all.

I am really gonna need to find a Tiger nearby the more I look into it, it's sounding better and better.
Click to expand...
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. :wink2:

But I also found what *appears* to be a good deal on a C172 180HP.
Click to expand...
That's a good choice, too (I have one).

Isn't this fun? :)
 
rbhankins001 said:
The one I'm going to look at is a M20C Mark 21.

Thanks for the heads up. Is the M20F going to be same seats in front as far as width?

I am really gonna need to find a Tiger nearby the more I look into it, it's sounding better and better.

But I also found what *appears* to be a good deal on a C172 180HP.
Click to expand...

Mooneys are not popular with mechanics. Stuff is really tight and hard to get at.

Dan
 
Does that mean the maintenance costs will be higher? Or just less guys willing to wrench on them?

I am not sure about the "fit" issue. I'm a "wide shoulder" kind of guy. 5'10" 195 lbs but wide shoulders and thick neck (my reward for years of offshore work lol).

Unfortunately I haven't come up with any Tigers for sale anywhere in my area (New Orleans, LA area). I would really like to see one of those in person. They seem very interesting.

I'm gonna check out the Mooney, if for no other reason than to cross it off the list.

Thank you all for your input!

-Rob
 
Pilawt said:
The 180 hp M20G Statesman had the same cabin and leg room as the M20F, and 201 for that matter. But its performance with that engine/airframe combination was anemic, and not many were sold.

All M20s are the same in width. They might vary a tad from year to year because of upholstery and trim changes, but that's all.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. :wink2:

That's a good choice, too (I have one).

Isn't this fun? :)
Click to expand...

Duh, forgot the G was the same as the F except for the up front power. Haven't seen to many G's so I'm claiming ignorance on this one... :rofl:

Thanks for the catch.

Brian
 
rbhankins001 said:
Unfortunately I haven't come up with any Tigers for sale anywhere in my area (New Orleans, LA area). I would really like to see one of those in person. They seem very interesting.
Click to expand...


Go to http://www.aya.org to find a Tiger owner near you for a test flight, and/or one for sale.

I got hooked on a Tiger when I attended a weekend AYA fly in (they seem to have them almost every weekend) when I owned a Cherokee. Several owners offered flights, and I was able to learn a lot from them, especially our own Ron Levy here. Never looked back. (see sig line)

http://www.grumman.net is also a good resource. There is also an email list you can sign up for on this site, and ask questions, or find a Tiger near you for a test flight. T
 
rbhankins001 said:
Does that mean the maintenance costs will be higher? Or just less guys willing to wrench on them?

I am not sure about the "fit" issue. I'm a "wide shoulder" kind of guy. 5'10" 195 lbs but wide shoulders and thick neck (my reward for years of offshore work lol).

Unfortunately I haven't come up with any Tigers for sale anywhere in my area (New Orleans, LA area). I would really like to see one of those in person. They seem very interesting.

I'm gonna check out the Mooney, if for no other reason than to cross it off the list.

Thank you all for your input!

-Rob
Click to expand...

I haven't had any problems finding mechanics in the Kansas City area. There are Mooney Service Centers scattered across the country as well, some better than others. Local mechanics have their specific flavors that they would rather work on, just like pilots have their specific "brand" that they'd rather fly. :rolleyes:

Everything is tight for a reason (speed), but I haven't had anything out of the ordinary that I thought was impossible to change.

Sitting in one will help, but flying one on your normal mission profile is a little better (same as I would recommend with any airplane). Off setting the seats can help with two wide shoulder types up front. Typical useful load is anywhere from 875-1050 lbs and varies wildly by specific plane.

Brian
 
If I didn't already have a Tiger, and was contemplating some distance flying, I'd get a Mooney M20F or J. The F will be closer to the OP's budget.
 
Anthony would you elaborate on why you would get the mooney over the tiger at this point? After owning a Tiger you obviously have experience with it . . . but looking back would go mooney.

Thanks.
 
rbhankins001 said:
Anthony would you elaborate on why you would get the mooney over the tiger at this point? After owning a Tiger you obviously have experience with it . . . but looking back would go mooney.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

It depends on your mission, but for similar fuel burn, and maybe a bit more maintenance due to the Mooney being retracts, and C/S prop, you get another 20 - 25 knots true airpseed.

A typicaly Tiger cruises at 130 - 135 KTAS 65% - 75% power respectively at altitude. The M20F cruises at 150 KTAS, and the M20J at 155 - 160 KTAS, although the J is more expensive.

I like the quietness, and flexibility of the C/S prop, and while the Tiger is slick, it does not have the slickness of a Mooney retract, and the speed difference shows.

The Tiger is a good compromise, however, and truth be told, it really fits my mission well, and has done so for over ten years. We always want something better, faster, with more bells and whistles. :wink2:
 
Last edited:
Having spent only some limited time in our club's M20J's I'd advise you to buy one only if you fly long-distance x/c missions with some regularity.

If the most cross country you will do regularly is a 200 NM flight i'd disregard the Mooney. They are cool airplanes and awesome bang for the buck in a high speed long distance airplane. But there are sacrifices made to achieve this.
 
dell30rb said:
If the most cross country you will do regularly is a 200 NM flight i'd disregard the Mooney. They are cool airplanes and awesome bang for the buck in a high speed long distance airplane. But there are sacrifices made to achieve this.
Click to expand...


Which are?
 
I don't like flying with anyone except my wife and kids so I went with the E at a substantial discount over the F, but I can squeeze a little more TAS than the longer bodied cousin. :D

Brian
 
Anthony said:
Which are?
Click to expand...

Most notably they have small cockpits. Also, I don't know the performance data for the mooney but it does not seem like the airplane I would choose to fly to a small grass strip. The gear is kinda stiff with the rubber disc things.
 
dell30rb said:
Most notably they have small cockpits. Also, I don't know the performance data for the mooney but it does not seem like the airplane I would choose to fly to a small grass strip. The gear is kinda stiff with the rubber disc things.
Click to expand...

Old wives tail. Check the numbers against a Bonanza or Arrow and you'll see they are about the same. The difference is the cabin height, but you sit with your legs stretched outward so there is still headroom. With the others you sit in a more upright, legs bent position.

Aircraft Cabin Width Cabin Height
Mooney 201 43.5" 44.5"
V35 Bonanza 42.0" 50.0"
Cessna 182 42.0" 48.0"
Piper Arrow 41.0" 45.0"

Check out these videos for short field and unimproved airport landings with an M20C: http://wn.com/piperpainter

Trailing link gear just covers up poor airmanship if you ask me. Fly the numbers and you'll grease the Mooney every time.

Brian
 
Last edited:
flight2000 said:
Old wives tail. Check the numbers against a Bonanza or Arrow and you'll see they are about the same. The difference is the roof sits lower and you sit with your legs stretched outward. The others you sit in a more upright, legs bent position.



Brian
Click to expand...


Right.. kinda like a sports car. Which is how I'd explain it to someone.
 
flight2000 said:
Exactly, which to some gives the illusion that the cockpit is smaller, when in fact it isn't.
Click to expand...

I'm only 6' tall, and 175 lbs, but I've never felt cramped in a Mooney.

The nice thing about the Tiger is the bubble canopy. It actually bulges slightly at shoulder height to give a roomier perception, and actually is slightly larger than cabin width.
 
Anthony said:
The nice thing about the Tiger is the bubble canopy. It actually bulges slightly at shoulder height to give a roomier perception, and actually is slightly larger than cabin width.
Click to expand...
That, and the AA-5x instrument panel is quite low. Flying one gives you the sensation of sitting at a low desk on a mountaintop.

N116MC-06.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
That, and the AA-5x instrument panel is quite low. Flying one gives you the sensation of sitting at a low desk on a mountaintop.
Click to expand...


Yep. You an actually see over the instrument panel. Me likey. :wink2:
 
I have tried to change the name of this thread to no avail . . .

Anyways.

In my continuing search I have found that I do not want a Mooney M20 (although it wasn't due to any one single factor). It was more of a K.I.S.S. standpoint for me. I fit in it ok. The RG, and the tight maintenance access scared me away (I'm trying to keep costs within reason for me and the little use I will get from it). I actually liked the plane.

I have looked into C175, and C177, but I can't get away from the C172/180HP. It just keeps calling me (and my wallet).

I still want to find and look over a Tiger, that is a very appealing plane to me. Fixed gear, good speed, etc.

I'm trying to find a plane that is simple to fly and maintain and won't break the bank. Also a big plus is parts availability, mechanics etc. The 172 there are so many out there it's not an issue. When you get into 175, 177, tiger, etc you start limiting those options a little . . .

So, thank you for all the great advice so far, and keep it coming. I have most def. not made up my mind. I have ruled out the Mooney M20 at this point (nothing negative, just not for me). I am VERY interested in checking out a Tiger!

Thanks all!

-Rob
 
Rob, if you have any concerns about 100LL vanishing sometime in the future, a model A through M 172 can qualify for the autogas STC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top