To buy or not to buy

[Matt C]

Keep in mind for 20k you can get a REALLY nice C150, Grumman AA1, Aeronca chief, and a few others.

Better to have a pristine 2 seater, than a ragged out quasi 4 seater. Also lower fuel burn, more fun to fly, cheaper to work on, again unless you're fat, buying a 172 is silly, and even when you're fat, better to just stop eating and get a 2 seater

I see where you are coming from and I thought about the same. My brother is too wide for a 150 and my Dad is too tall - literally can't fit his legs in. I don't know much about the Grummans and I'm not good enough for a tail dragger yet.

Thanks

 

[Matt C]

By the way, Matt, we had a C-172G for almost four years. It had the O-300 engine, which was mid-time when we bought it. The only problem we had with the engine was the tendency to foul a plug while taxiing if we didn't lean it. It was a great airplane. Our home airport is 6,000', but we flew into 2,600' strips. It was never a problem with just my wife and I aboard. It had the Horner wing tips and gap seals to help a little. I think (based on talking with other pilots) you could add VG's fairly inexpensively and it would improve slow speed performance a lot.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

I saw this one today too. I'm intrigued but still not excited about the one entry door.

How does everyone else feel about relying on a passenger to exit the plane in a hurry should it be necessary?

Thanks for the tip.

When flying cherokees in the mountains I have a plexiglass window breaker strapped to my leg just in case that door becomes inop in a crash.

 

[mscard88]

Keep in mind for 20k you can get a REALLY nice C150, Grumman AA1, Aeronca chief, and a few others.

Better to have a pristine 2 seater, than a ragged out quasi 4 seater. Also lower fuel burn, more fun to fly, cheaper to work on, again unless you're fat, buying a 172 is silly, and even when you're fat, better to just stop eating and get a 2 seater

 

[Matt C]

Why did older planes have such funky yokes?

Great question - I think it keeps the "tire kickers" away. You have to be serious to be willing to hold onto that...

 

[mscard88]

Great question - I think it keeps the "tire kickers" away. You have to be serious to be willing to hold onto that...

Styles change and evolve. Look at the steering wheels on cars in the 40s-50s.

 

[James331]

I see where you are coming from and I thought about the same. My brother is too wide for a 150 and my Dad is too tall - literally can't fit his legs in. I don't know much about the Grummans and I'm not good enough for a tail dragger yet.

Thanks

In that case, I'd really look into tripacers, really great value for the money, haul a good bit, simple and good performers.

Yeah, I'm way off by saying buying the absolute bottom rung when it comes to a 172 is a bad idea

 

[Matt C]

When flying cherokees in the mountains I have a plexiglass window breaker strapped to my leg just in case that door becomes inop in a crash.

Smart. I didn't think of that. Thanks

 

[Matt C]

Great discussion everyone. I appreciate it and my wife does too - she gets tired of listening to airplane stuff. Many helpful insights for a low timer like me.

 

[mscard88]

InYeah, I'm way off by saying buying the absolute bottom rung when it comes to a 172 is a bad idea

Yeah I agree with that! Not everyone has the same taste as you.

 

[James331]

Smart. I didn't think of that. Thanks

One of these too

http://www.paragear.com/skydiving/10000061/K16910/BLACK-JACK-THE-RIPPER-HOOK-KNIFE


I carry a pair a trauma shears in mine.

Yeah I agree with that! Not everyone has the same taste as you.

Taste?

Didn't realize some people had a taste for bottom rung airplanes, maybe it's like how people started buying new expensive jeans which were already faded and ripped?

Trendy "boyfriend jeans"

Trendy "boyfriend 172"??

Different tastes eh?





I just stated a fact, you can get a really nice 2 seater (or tripacer or a few others) for the price of a worn and faded 172.

 

[German guy]

I saw this one today too. I'm intrigued but still not excited about the one entry door.

How does everyone else feel about relying on a passenger to exit the plane in a hurry should it be necessary? [...]

Not good. Even when not in hurry, some of the older / better fed people I took for rides in our Mooney struggled to get in and out without hurting themselves or the plane. That the pilot has to get in first and can't really help the passengers, doesn't help either.

Still, we accepted it, when we bought our Mooney. With the exception of a Cirrus, all go-fast SEP aircraft only have one door.

Now, a PA-28 is not a go-fast plane, I therefore guess this is more a question of your personal risk assessment. Another disadvantage of low-wing aircraft is that they don't make very good sightseeing planes / photo ships, as the wings block quite a bit of the view. Then again, when turning in the pattern, the runway remains in sight, in a low wing aircraft. Again a question of personal preference...

 

[German guy]

Keep in mind for 20k you can get a REALLY nice C150, Grumman AA1, Aeronca chief, and a few others.

Better to have a pristine 2 seater, than a ragged out quasi 4 seater. Also lower fuel burn, more fun to fly, cheaper to work on, again unless you're fat, buying a 172 is silly, and even when you're fat, better to just stop eating and get a 2 seater

We had the same thought, before we bought our 172, but figured that it actually doesn't make much sense. True, the acquisition costs are a few thousand $$$ lower and the fuel burn is also less. However, all the other costs remain on a similar level: Hangar, insurance, annual, maintenance. Not much difference between a 150/2 and a 172.

A 172 (or any basic 4 seater) offers in my opinion much more capability for only marginally higher costs. We always considered our 172 a comfortable and spacious two seater with a nice and big baggage space, into which we could easily fit folding bikes, luggage or a third person for a local scenic ride.

I think that if the mission is to poke holes in the sky, mainly without a passenger, a two seater will be fine. If the plane is to be used for traveling or if it will most of the time be flown with a passenger, a 4-seater is a much better choice, for not much more $$$.

 

[Blueangel]

I dislike the Cessna doors complete pain in the ass to open and close and they break super easy! Piper doors much easier to open and close. Then again, I prefer low wing to high wing planes.

 

[Matt C]

A 172 (or any basic 4 seater) offers in my opinion much more capability for only marginally higher costs. We always considered our 172 a comfortable and spacious two seater with a nice and big baggage space, into which we could easily fit folding bikes, luggage or a third person for a local scenic ride.

My mindset exactly.

 

[iflyvfr]

Didn't realize some people had a taste for bottom rung airplanes, maybe it's like how people started buying new expensive jeans which were already faded and ripped

I just stared a fact, you can get a really nice 2 seater (or tripacer or a few others) for the price of a worn and faded 172.

My bottom rung airplane has been all over the United States from Florida to Mass, to Wyoming, the Outer Banks, and most recently the UP. It suites me fine, although I admit for lusting for more speed from time to time. My wife won't generally fly with me and the 6 cylinder is economical as heck as well as renowned for its smoothness. So, with 10 years of ownership in one, I respectfully think you're opinion is worth exactly what I paid for it.

 

[Matt C]

I dislike the Cessna doors complete pain in the ass to open and close and they break super easy! Piper doors much easier to open and close. Then again, I prefer low wing to high wing planes.

I learned in a high time 150 with a number of other students and I have yet to see a broken door or difficult door. Is there a reputation that I'm not aware of or is this personal experience?

 

[JoseCuervo]

One of these too






Taste?

Didn't realize some people had a taste for bottom rung airplanes, maybe it's like how people started buying new expensive jeans which were already faded and ripped?

Trendy "boyfriend jeans"




Trendy "boyfriend 172"??



Different tastes eh?





I just stared a fact, you can get a really nice 2 seater (or tripacer or a few others) for the price of a worn and faded 172.

My tastes are utilitarian.



I prefer 1100 lb useful load over a nice paint job.

I prefer 4 seats over nice carpet and plastics.

I prefer 1000' grass runways over "a really nice 2 seater".





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James331]

My tastes are utilitarian.



I prefer 1100 lb useful load over a nice paint job.

I prefer 4 seats over nice carpet and plastics.

I prefer 1000' grass runways over "a really nice 2 seater".





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

4 seats and nice carpet are not often found in 20k 172s

useful load? I can find you a mechanics special with more load than that, it would be great for your mission, I wouldn't fly it, but I'm sure youd be fine

lolz, most of the 2 seaters I have found will take a 1k grass runway much better than a beater 172, and the tripacer recommendation, that actually fits all your parameters better than a beater 172.

My bottom rung airplane has been all over the United States from Florida to Mass, to Wyoming, the Outer Banks, and most recently the UP. It suites me fine, although I admit for lusting for more speed from time to time. My wife won't generally fly with me and the 6 cylinder is economical as heck as well as renowned for its smoothness. So, with 10 years of ownership in one, I respectfully think you're opinion is worth exactly what I paid for it.

Hey man, it works till it doesn't,

after enough hours and flying enough airplanes in enough weather, 2 full engine failures without any damage (one a off field), I just don't have any desire to fly beater bottom rung airplanes.

Buying a beater 172 for 20k ish, instead of a pristine PA22, or C150, or..., its just not a good value, it'll cost more, hopefully just in mx money and not in medevac fees.

But hey, maybe you'll luck out, if you believe in such things, most 172s in the 20k range are really not something Id saddle up in, but that's just from someone whos been through engines taking dumps and flys everyday for a living and for pleasure. YMMV

 

[Tom-D]

4 seats and nice carpet are not often found in 20k 172s

useful load? I can find you a mechanics special with more load than that, it would be great for your mission, I wouldn't fly it, but I'm sure youd be fine

lolz, most of the 2 seaters I have found will take a 1k grass runway much better than a beater 172, and the tripacer recommendation, that actually fits all your parameters better than a beater 172.

Until you must re-cover.

 

[James331]

Until you must re-cover.

If its modern fabric, not cotton, paint intact, you have a AP that knows how fabric works and what a punch tester ISNT for, that'll be a long while.

 

[JoseCuervo]

4 seats and nice carpet are not often found in 20k 172s

useful load? I can find you a mechanics special with more load than that, it would be great for your mission, I wouldn't fly it, but I'm sure youd be fine

lolz, most of the 2 seaters I have found will take a 1k grass runway much better than a beater 172, and the tripacer recommendation, that actually fits all your parameters better than a beater 172.




Hey man, it works till it doesn't,

after enough hours and flying enough airplanes in enough weather, 2 full engine failures without any damage (one a off field), I just don't have any desire to fly beater bottom rung airplanes.

Buying a beater 172 for 20k ish, instead of a pristine PA22, or C150, or..., its just not a good value, it'll cost more, hopefully just in mx money and not in medevac fees.

But hey, maybe you'll luck out, if you believe in such things, most 172s in the 20k range are really not something Id saddle up in, but that's just from someone whos been through engines taking dumps and flys everyday for a living and for pleasure. YMMV

Never seen a Tri-Pacer with 1100 lbs useful Or 1000 lbs..... or 900 lbs.....

Never seen a Tri Pacer or 152 be able to fill 4 seats and fly in and out of short strips. With any fuel load.

Again, your tastes can be more cosmetic. Other people prefer actual utilitarian and working planes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom-D]

If its modern fabric, not cotton, paint intact, you have a AP that knows how fabric works and what a punch tester ISNT for, that'll be a long while.

Big IF. how would the buyer have any idea if the tubes were protected with Lin-seed oil?
paint is very forgiving a hides a lot.
Ray Stitz system, OEM system, Polly fiber system, AirTech system, Tell us how you tell them apart?

 

[mscard88]

I learned in a high time 150 with a number of other students and I have yet to see a broken door or difficult door. Is there a reputation that I'm not aware of or is this personal experience?

Nope, I don't believe there is. I have thousands of hours in SE Cessnas, and don't ever recall door problems. And they were mostly rental Cessnas.

 

[mscard88]

A 172 (or any basic 4 seater) offers in my opinion much more capability for only marginally higher costs. We always considered our 172 a comfortable and spacious two seater with a nice and big baggage space, into which we could easily fit folding bikes, luggage or a third person for a local scenic ride.
.

Yup, agree.

 

[German guy]

[...] Never seen a Tri Pacer or 152 be able to fill 4 seats and fly in and out of short strips.

[...]

Again, your tastes can be more cosmetic. Other people prefer actual utilitarian and working planes. [...]

Well, 4-people in a 2-seat 152 might indeed be a bit of a stretch. I don't think anybody suggested this. I don't even think that anybody even discussed the performance of a 172 / PA28 / Tri-Pacer with 4 people in it. The discussed mission is 2 people + luggage + full fuel out of a 2,600 ft. airstrip. Any of the discussed 4-seater would work just fine for this. A 152 would, with two average real-world adults and full tanks already be at max. gross if not over. This is even without any luggage.

Talking about Pacers (Tri-Pacer with the third wheel currently mounted) - they make pretty capable backcountry planes:

Not sure, though, what your definition of a utilitarian working plane is...

 

[mscard88]

Not sure, though, what your definition of a utilitarian working plane is...

Oh now ya done it! James will be along shortly.....

 

[James331]

Big IF. how would the buyer have any idea if the tubes were protected with Lin-seed oil?
paint is very forgiving a hides a lot.
Ray Stitz system, OEM system, Polly fiber system, AirTech system, Tell us how you tell them apart?

Log book entry?

Never seen a Tri-Pacer with 1100 lbs useful Or 1000 lbs..... or 900 lbs.....

Never seen a Tri Pacer or 152 be able to fill 4 seats and fly in and out of short strips. With any fuel load.

Again, your tastes can be more cosmetic. Other people prefer actual utilitarian and working planes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PA22s are quite the backcountry planes, someone posted some videos above.

As far as my tastes not being utilitarian or working planes, meh, what do I know about backcountry planes

with a weeks work, she paid for her annual, fuel and a couple upgrades this year, and I still have a few bucks in reinvest before the tax year is up, she may look classy, but shes a working girl

 

[somorris]

Hi Matt.

I really like flying a C-150 for the fun factor. However, you already said it would not work for you, so the C-172 sounds to me like the direction you should go. I agree with James that $20,000 for a 172 seems awfully cheap (I would expect more like $35 thousand), but if it has been flying regularly, and the cheap price is just because of paint, etc., I would go for it. Good luck and enjoy the journey!

 

[Tom-D]

Log book entry?

You can hope, but would you know if the entry was correct?

 

[James331]

You can hope, but would you know if the entry was correct?

Well how do you know if the TT, TSMO, annuals, or anything else was correct.

 

[Tom-D]

Well how do you know if the TT, TSMO, annuals, or anything else was correct.

you don't, that is why the only thing that matters is the material condition.

 

[Matt C]

Hi Matt.

I really like flying a C-150 for the fun factor. However, you already said it would not work for you, so the C-172 sounds to me like the direction you should go. I agree with James that $20,000 for a 172 seems awfully cheap (I would expect more like $35 thousand), but if it has been flying regularly, and the cheap price is just because of paint, etc., I would go for it. Good luck and enjoy the journey!

I like the 150 as well - sort of sentimental for me as it was my first

It does need an interior make over and the overhaul to consider in the next few years.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[James331]

you don't, that is why the only thing that matters is the material condition.

So might as well toss all logs in the trash eh?

 

[Tom-D]

So might as well toss all logs in the trash eh?

How would you show AD compliance ?
The FAA believes the log books are correct, me? not so much. I've seen way to many wrong entries. I see way too many Annuals signed off that should considered wasted space.
MY new 172 owner is going thru this, The aircraft is really a nice one, but the books are a mess.

 

[James331]

How would you show AD compliance ?
The FAA believes the log books are correct, me? not so much. I've seen way to many wrong entries. I see way too many Annuals signed off that should considered wasted space.
MY new 172 owner is going thru this, The aircraft is really a nice one, but the books are a mess.

So when I buy, why would I care, its ether all lies or a mess right, might as well just keep what shows compliance to the feds and file 13 the rest of the logs.

For me, I go through the logs, match it to what the FAA has on file (CD), match it to whatever I can or cant find on the NSTB, match it to the plane, talk to folks who have signed it off over the years, look at the actual logs themselves, I don't think many of the planes out there are being sold by the Rembrandts of log fraud, doesn't take too much sniffing to find BS if its there, and once you sniff that, youre walking regardless if youre smart


The best ones are planes that have recently been imported and went through that audit, Ill take a plane with missing old logs but a recent import, over a Pt 91 plane with full logs which have been signed off by Jo Blow APs over the years and never audited.

 

[Tom-D]

So when I buy, why would I care, its ether all lies or a mess right, might as well just keep what shows compliance to the feds and file 13 the rest of the logs.

For me, I go through the logs, match it to what the FAA has on file (CD), match it to whatever I can or cant find on the NSTB, match it to the plane, talk to folks who have signed it off over the years, look at the actual logs themselves, I don't think many of the planes out there are being sold by the Rembrandts of log fraud, doesn't take too much sniffing to find BS if its there, and once you sniff that, youre walking regardless if youre smart


The best ones are planes that have recently been imported and went through that audit, Ill take a plane with missing old logs but a recent import, over a Pt 91 plane with full logs which have been signed off by Jo Blow APs over the years and never audited.

Like I've said many times here. Inspect the aircraft for material condition, If it is great shape, and the price is right buy it. every thing else is just paper.

 

[James331]

Like I've said many times here. Inspect the aircraft for material condition, If it is great shape, and the price is right buy it. every thing else is just paper.

Unfortunately I don't think the market agrees with you

 

[mondtster]

Like I've said many times here. Inspect the aircraft for material condition, If it is great shape, and the price is right buy it. every thing else is just paper.

Tom, I agree for the most part, with one exception. If there are any modifications to the airplane I really want the paperwork for the modification to be at least reasonably complete and legal, since buying STCs can be expensive and field approvals are getting hard to obtain. Other than that, as you said, the current condition of the physical airplane is the most important factor.

Unfortunately I don't think the market agrees with you

My opinion is that some buyers don't agree with Tom's approach because they don't understand what they're looking at. How many threads have been started on this website alone stating how valuable logs are to an airplane? How many of those people stating that logs are valuable are actually mechanics and/or even know what the logs should say? I'd venture to guess not too many.

It would be wise for owners and prospective owners to actually read part 91 and see what documents need to be retained, and for how long they need to be retained. I think the answer may surprise a lot of people.

 

[James331]

Tom, I agree for the most part, with one exception. If there are any modifications to the airplane I really want the paperwork for the modification to be at least reasonably complete and legal, since buying STCs can be expensive and field approvals are getting hard to obtain. Other than that, as you said, the current condition of the physical airplane is the most important factor.



My opinion is that some buyers don't agree with Tom's approach because they don't understand what they're looking at. How many threads have been started on this website alone stating how valuable logs are to an airplane? How many of those people stating that logs are valuable are actually mechanics and/or even know what the logs should say? I'd venture to guess not too many.

It would be wise for owners and prospective owners to actually read part 91 and see what documents need to be retained, and for how long they need to be retained. I think the answer may surprise a lot of people.

What the bare mins are is one thing, what is desired is another.

Caring about logs form 50 years ago, aside from the plane having some crazy provenance or wanting to make a scrap book, I could care less, the logs from the past 5-10 years are quite important to me, not just the bare legal mins, but getting a idea of how the airplane was cared for and giving me enough information for the seller to hang himself if the he was BSing the logs.

Also, I could care less about damage history, IF, it was repaired properly and completely and you can back that up, now if I find something in the NTSB or google about some metal getting bent, and you didn't already disclose or I don't find anything in the logs, 337s, etc about it, well I'm tossing my BS flag and me and my money are walking.