Top 5 airplanes with useful load for low time pilots!

[Mtns2Skies]

Cessna 152
Cessna 172
Piper Arrow
DA40
Cessna 182
Citabria
Carbon Cub

Every time I take a plane that isn't a Cessna on a trip I regret it and wish I took a Cessna.

For all you Grumman lovers. I flew a Yankee a couple times. Didn't like it, it felt flimsy to me.

 

[Xcfire]

I owned a 172N great plane loved it I was sad to see it go. Replaced with a Grumman Tiger will never go back constantly 15-25kts faster sport car feel, and visibility that can't be beat! Back seats fold down like a 70's station wagon plenty of room for my clubs or my mountainbike. Not to many made hold there value well. Fun plane all around

 

[OkieAviator]

I see a lot of people taking this route as their first airplane... I'm curious, what's your usual mission?

I don't really have a usual mission. I do everything from 30 mins flying around an airport to 700 nm family trips through the mountains. It's been a fantastic learning airplane and given that it doesn't have autopilot I've become pretty solid at stick and rudder type stuff. I really like the plane but also looking forward to finishing this RV-10. Will do more of the same, minus STOL stuff.

 

[ChiefPilot]

Learned in a 152, transitioned to a 172, then flew a Warrior. Haven't flown a Cessna single since.
The Arrow is a nice "good enough for most things" single with just enough performance to go serious distance. I *really* liked the Twin Comanche and that'd be my choice for a twin. The Falcon 50 was also a gas, but I could never afford it for a personal aircraft

Nothing, however, puts a smile on my face like my RV-6A. It does it all, from hand-flown ILS approaches to mins, aerobatics, mock ACM, and more. It's economical and efficient (6.2GPH for 155KTAS, or 7.9GPH for 170KTAS - both at 10k-ish). Depending on your social perspectives, having one extra seat may be an advantage or disadvantage.

 

[GRG55]

Never really understood the tubular wing spar... there was a thread on here a while ago about it. In my mind I just don't see a round tube as being as strong as just a straight beam, at least for the type of application with bending forces. I keep picturing a straw snapping in half... but I'm sure the engineers had their reasons

It's an elegant solution to creating a strong but light spar.

Each "beam" or spar is designed to a specific load carrying criteria. A generalised statement that this spar is "not as strong" as some other design of spar is specious reasoning. If Grumman had used a more conventional spar configuration, engineered to the same design criteria, the two spars would be exactly the same strength. The issue then boils down to which is lighter and more easily & economically manufactured.

 

[FormerHangie]

Cessna 152
Cessna 172
Piper Arrow
DA40
Cessna 182
Citabria
Carbon Cub

Every time I take a plane that isn't a Cessna on a trip I regret it and wish I took a Cessna.

For all you Grumman lovers. I flew a Yankee a couple times. Didn't like it, it felt flimsy to me.

That's like having flown a Cessna 150 and saying that a 182 isn't any good. Different aircraft.

 

[Pilawt]

It's an elegant solution to creating a strong but light spar.

Jim Bede's original idea was that the tubular spar would save weight by doing double duty as the fuel tank (as it did in the two-seat AA-1 series). He also envisioned the BD-1 (which morphed into the AA-1 prior to certification) would have removable wings for towing the airplane home, and the tubular spar purportedly would have made made for easier assembly/disassembly.



When the four-seat AA-5 series was developed, the tubular spar did not provide for enough fuel capacity for the larger engines, so conventional metal tanks were used.

 

[Pilawt]

How fuel efficient are the 180hp Skyhawks?

About like a Piper Archer; a little better than a C-182. Any difference in NMPG with a retractable would likely be offset by the difference in the insurance and annual inspection bills. The retractable, 180-hp C-172RGs I flew back in the 1980s were only 7-10 knots faster than my fixed-gear C-172N/180.

I had a 160-hp, 120-KTAS Grumman-American Cheetah; then sold it and bought a 260-hp, 155-KTAS Bonanza. The Bonanza actually used less fuel on long trips than the Cheetah, but that doesn't mean it was a cheaper airplane to own.

 

[coach]

Learned in a C182 and flew it for almost 10 years, great plane

 

[DavidWhite]

125 in a fixed gear 172? Hell, no. Maybe in a rapid descent or in mountain wave conditions. 110 I'd believe.

Those 180 conversions are nice, but they aren't that much faster than unconverted 172s. They have the same prop, same airframe, and same RPM limits. They do climb a bit better, and the useful load is the real reason to use them.

I ran my 172/180 at 2450 and averaged about 120KTAS. It had wheel pants, not sure how much difference they made though.

 

[Tantalum]

I ran my 172/180 at 2450 and averaged about 120KTAS

That's pretty good... I'm getting a little under that 112-117, I've been close to gross though. Next time I'm up alone I'll see what I can get

 

[Tantalum]

Long term costs vs up front costs are always an interesting dynamic. I often hear people disparage $200K-$300K multis because of the higher ownership costs... and then later sing the praises of a $400-$500K single because of lower ownerhsip costs. Depending on the time frame and mission I guess that depends.

When you guys bought your first planes what were you looking for? Something low cost and easy to maintain, or was the decision making process a little deeper. Despite its trainer roots a 172 is really not a bad plane. An older plane with a conversion has a great useful load, parts are everywhere, etc. Seems like a logical first choice for many people. My only worry is you would outgrow that speed pretty soon

 

[azblackbird]

Seems like a logical first choice for many people. My only worry is you would outgrow that speed pretty soon

I think it all depends on what your mission statement is. I see many people who are perfectly content owning a 172 for many years, and who have done nothing more than hamburger runs, breakfast fly-ins, and maybe the occasional XC one or twice a year to see the family or attend an aviation event.

 

[cweinacker]

...Jesus...the Piper Cherokee Six 260/300...is the only...only plane that fills this billet!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cgrab]

Trained in a 172 (now I always recommend people train in a cheaper 150); bought a 177 Cardinal with a 150 hp engine. Enough UL for me and my wife and the dogs and luggage for a couple of days.

 

[Pilawt]

Despite its trainer roots a 172 is really not a bad plane.

Funny how GA marketing has evolved over the years. The C-172 (and its predecessor C-170), along with the Cherokee 150/160/180/Warrior/Archer, were designed to be the entry-level family and business traveling airplanes in their respective product lines. Both manufacturers had smaller trainers, sold at artificially low, loss-leader prices, for flight schools to equip their fleets and establish brand loyalty in their students. Cessna figured they could lose a few bucks on each 150 sold, and make it up later when those students eventually bought new Skylanes or 310s. Now the Skyhawks and Archers are the smallest models in the catalog, and for the most part only the big flight schools, here and abroad, are in the financial/tax situation to be able to buy them new. So by default, the Skyhawks and Archers are now "trainers". The increasingly-portly student population over the years probably has something to do with it, too.

My only worry is you would outgrow that speed pretty soon

I think it all depends on what your mission statement is. I see many people who are perfectly content owning a 172 for many years, and who have done nothing more than hamburger runs, breakfast fly-ins, and maybe the occasional XC one or twice a year to see the family or attend an aviation event.

I'm one of them, it seems. Over the past 17 years I've gone from a 120-knot Grumman-American Cheetah, to a 155-knot Bonanza, to a 90-knot Sport Cub, to a 125-knot C-172/180hp. The 172 doesn't draw any crowds on the ramp, but it's a darned good compromise of utility and economy, and I think I'll keep it.

 

[Tantalum]

but it's a darned good compromise of utility and economy

...and it's honestly a fairly comfortable plane to travel in. With the front seat pushed back my wife has plenty of legroom, and I'm tall and even with a headset and the sun visors tucked back I still have decent headroom. And the 1K useful load is good to have, even it is 2-3 people that helps on hot days

I still don't understand though why new Skhawks and Archers are so expensive. You don't need G1000 in these planes and they're arguably less capable planes now with reduced useful loads. Cessna must have recouped their costs on these things long ago that each plane now must be straight profit after the actually assembly costs are taken out. There's no RD and other initial dev costs that need to be paid down

 

[Pilawt]

...and it's honestly a fairly comfortable plane to travel in.

The "cabin width" dimension that's usually quoted in light aircraft comparisons, is measured at the elbows. Yes, the 172 is a couple of inches narrower at the elbow than most of its competitors. But the 172's doors, windows and roof pillars are essentially vertical up to the cabin roof, while the upper halves of the fuselages of low-wing airplanes have a near-circular cross-section, and curve inward toward the occupants' heads. The net result is that a lot of low-wingers are narrower at eye level than is a 172. Also, the 172's windshield is relatively far forward from the pilot's head. That's in contrast to a lot of low-wingers, notably the early Mooneys, in which the windshield seems close enough to your face that you could fog it up by exhaling (a slight exaggeration). The first time I flew a Mooney M20C it reminded me of a DC-3 in that regard.

I still don't understand though why new Skhawks and Archers are so expensive. You don't need G1000 in these planes and they're arguably less capable planes now with reduced useful loads. Cessna must have recouped their costs on these things long ago that each plane now must be straight profit after the actually assembly costs are taken out. There's no RD and other initial dev costs that need to be paid down

Look at the new airplane websites and brochures. They're not interested in selling Skyhawks and Archers to you and me (they can't compete with the glut of used airplanes on the market). They're selling to the airline-pilot puppy mills who can use the depreciation write-offs, and who need instrument panels that look and function like the CRJs and A320s that their students hope to be flying soon. Moreover, while high volume, robotics and foreign labor have driven down the cost of new cars, new Cessnas and Pipers are still as hand-built in the USA now as they were in 1962. That skilled (we hope) labor ain't cheap.

 

[labbadabba]

I'll also echo the 172 with the Air Planes 180hp upgrade. Easy to fly and has a useful load well over 1,000lbs. CAP is selling a bunch of them...

https://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/logistics__mission_resources/aircraft_for_sale/index.cfm

 

[Tantalum]

They're not interested in selling Skyhawks and Archers to you and me (they can't compete with the glut of used airplanes on the market).

I agree, they've basically thrown in the towel so to speak and left us to peruse the pages of controller and barnstormer looking for a 1970s bird that we'd feel safe putting our family in. But to your point about them not being able to complete with the glut of used planes: they kind of gave up once Cirrus came around. Cirrus get's a lot of hate around here, but I mean... those people don't seem to have any problem selling *new* planes... even today when there are something like 230 of them for sale on Controller alone... that's more than the number of 172 and 182 combined for sale on Controller right now, yet they're still selling them new

Cessna never should have wasted their time with the skycatcher... that unfortunately proved to them to stay away from buyers like us and stick to Embry Riddle. Would have been cool to see a clean sheet design from Cessna and Piper for the entry market. Oh well

 

[Pilawt]

Cessna never should have wasted their time with the skycatcher... that unfortunately proved to them to stay away from buyers like us and stick to Embry Riddle. Would have been cool to see a clean sheet design from Cessna and Piper for the entry market. Oh well

I think we're also seeing the "King Air Effect", first observed in the Beech dealer network in the 1960s. Beech had a heckuva time getting their dealers to put any time or effort into moving the entry-level Musketeers, when they could make a whole bunch more money selling just one King Air. It finally led Beech to come up with the "Beech Aero Club" concept, and transfer the little airplanes out of the dealer network altogether. Likewise, would today's Skyhawk tire-kicker get the time of day from a dealer with an inventory full of jets with eight-digit price tags?

 

[skier]

Not sure what you consider a lot of aircraft, I've flown about 25 different ones. Of those, my favorites have been:
1. RAF 2000
2. Citabria on floats (float flying is just fun)
3. R-22 (just for the challenge)
4. Velocity XLRG
5. Mooney M20C

 

[denverpilot]

Waaaay back then I was renting and looked harder for well-maintained and available aircraft than I looked for useful load. Almost anything would lift my butt and at least one other person aloft, just fine.

It was a mix of Skyhawks (both standard power and STCd ones with upgraded engines), a pristine 172RG, and a Mooney M20C for trips. Also had a little time in a nice Cherokee 180, but the owner who rented it out was just too quirky and weird.

Now that I've been a 182 co-owner for years, I wish I'd been involved in something that had one that was worth flying long long ago.

They're about as docile as a 172, you need to trim positively always, and other than that, you have a prop lever and cowl flaps to deal with, which is no big deal.

For hauling a few folks around or a couple folks and ALL of their stuff, the 182 fits the bill for me.

If I was a single owner, I'd probably be looking for a Piper.

Mostly because around here there's a bit of an unnecessary price jump on Cessnas that compare equally to Pipers -- folks want the high wings here.

But if I could swing it, I'd stay in a 182 for a personal aircraft if I needed a load hauler. For speed, I'd go with something completely different. It ain't fast.

 

[drotto]

I agree, they've basically thrown in the towel so to speak and left us to peruse the pages of controller and barnstormer looking for a 1970s bird that we'd feel safe putting our family in. But to your point about them not being able to complete with the glut of used planes: they kind of gave up once Cirrus came around. Cirrus get's a lot of hate around here, but I mean... those people don't seem to have any problem selling *new* planes... even today when there are something like 230 of them for sale on Controller alone... that's more than the number of 172 and 182 combined for sale on Controller right now, yet they're still selling them new

Cessna never should have wasted their time with the skycatcher... that unfortunately proved to them to stay away from buyers like us and stick to Embry Riddle. Would have been cool to see a clean sheet design from Cessna and Piper for the entry market. Oh well

It makes me wonder how Cessna or Piper would do putting out a more basic plane. Get a clean sheet replacement for the 172 or Archer, that like those old airframes were flexible enough to hold different engines, equipment, and be stretched etc to slightly bigger planes offering easy step up. Instead of everything coming with a G1000, offer a basic sixpack setup and make everything else optional. A solid basic VFR machine, and then offer several step up option packages until you get to the G1000.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Tantalum]

It makes me wonder how Cessna or Piper would do putting out a more basic plane.

I said something similar in the "Make GA Great Again" thread from a few weeks ago. Every new design now wants to be the next greatest thing... but it doesn't have to be. Some of the best planes out there came out of a need for a simple, robust, and low cost machine. Rather than carbon fiber this, carbon fiber that, G1000 this, FIKI that, etc., just build a modernized, clean, light, simple aluminum plane. No - not a Warrior 3 or $400K C172, just a simple well made machine. Frankly, with a six pack and Foreflight you don't *need* G1000. Our cars have built in nav, but guess what, I use the Google Maps on my phone because it's more convenient

Imagine if every car maker was busy trying to build Lambos and Ferraris and assumed everyone else would be buying used, they'd all go out of business too except for one or two. Believe it or not but I bet there is an untapped market there. If $80K - $100K could buy you a decent new airplane (as it should be able to if we look at the original cost for a 172 adjusted for inflation) then I bet we'd see a lot more new planes being sold and the used ones either going down in value, thus opening up aviation to more folks, or eventually those planes would go to the recycler

 

[drotto]

I said something similar in the "Make GA Great Again" thread from a few weeks ago. Every new design now wants to be the next greatest thing... but it doesn't have to be. Some of the best planes out there came out of a need for a simple, robust, and low cost machine. Rather than carbon fiber this, carbon fiber that, G1000 this, FIKI that, etc., just build a modernized, clean, light, simple aluminum plane. No - not a Warrior 3 or $400K C172, just a simple well made machine. Frankly, with a six pack and Foreflight you don't *need* G1000. Our cars have built in nav, but guess what, I use the Google Maps on my phone because it's more convenient

Imagine if every car maker was busy trying to build Lambos and Ferraris and assumed everyone else would be buying used, they'd all go out of business too except for one or two. Believe it or not but I bet there is an untapped market there. If $80K - $100K could buy you a decent new airplane (as it should be able to if we look at the original cost for a 172 adjusted for inflation) then I bet we'd see a lot more new planes being sold and the used ones either going down in value, thus opening up aviation to more folks, or eventually those planes would go to the recycler

Basically make a new "172" with four or so avionics packages. For instance.....

1. Basic VFR sixpack with basic GPS
2. Basic IFR sixpack with GPS
3. G500 (or equivalent) with upgraded GPS
4. G1000 fully upgraded panel.

Even by offering a G500 as opposed to a G1000 is a massive price difference. Garmin lists the G500 at 16k, and the G1000 is 60K ( not on site but saw a few references to the price). You know the manufacturer pays less then that, but still just dropping one level in avionics would trim about 30 k off the price.

Then have a few engines availible for instance a 320, 360, and maybe a diesel in today's world.

This idea makes a world of sense to me. We might not get to a 100k plane, but could likely shave 100k off the price by not insisting on all planes being sold as essentially fully loaded as they are now.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

Cessna makes the 172 and 182 in the configuration they come in because their largest single engine fleet customer is buying with taxpayer dollars. Think about it. Individual sales are not keeping that production line open alone.

 

[Tantalum]

Individual sales are not keeping that production line open alone.

Exactly. Goes back to the point I made though about them abandoning "me" as a market. Cirrus didn't and that's why their sales are kicking butt, despite having a ton of used planes out

 

[Pilawt]

Tip o' the cap to Jim Richmond and his crew at CubCrafters in Yakima. They build innovative, quality products with excellent customer service. They are doing well, and deservedly so. They're not beholden to some multinational conglomerate boardroom.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

Only plane I've flown as a certificated pilot is my Piper Archer II. During my initial training, I flew in a Cherokee 140 for my discovery flight, trained in a few 172 versions (an M and some SPs) and flew a 152 twice (hated that plane). When I got back into my training 13 years later, it was only in Archers.

 

[Warlock]

OH-58A/C
UH-1H
AH-1 S/Mod S/Prod/F/Surrogate Trainer....S Cobra was by far the best flying fun aircraft ever...you could still have a hydraulics failure and land it
AH-64A
PA-28-180R...my favorite now as its what I now own and has 998 useful load ...have a Warrior II in leaseback as an experiment but put less than two hours on it personally in the last year..

 

[JustinD]

If we're talking useful load and not too difficult to fly I think the 182 takes the cake. Great performance for the value it is. Useful load on mine is 1076, and the older models have even more. I frequently take 250 mile or more trips with 4 people and bags no problem. I get about 140ktas in cruise at about 12.5-12.8gph

Got my initial training in a 172, while I liked it, it was just missing that little bit of umph and I think the 182 covers that