When Does 172 vs 152 Break Even?

kimberlyanne546

kimberlyanne546

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
7,726
Location
California
Display Name
Display name:
Kimberly
Question:

I love the 152. More than words can describe. I don't "hate" the 172 but it does feel like a truck to me. I will ALWAYS rent the 152 if I can (one passenger or less, who is short / skinny of course).

All other times (more than one passenger, passenger is tall or fat, etc) I will rent the 172.

When does it make sense for me to rent the 172 to save money?


Details:

The non member rate for the 1978 152 is 103.50 after fuel surcharges.

The non member rate for the "1980 Skyhawk II" 172 is 124.20 after fuel surcharges.

I flew a cross country of more than 110 nm yesterday (one way). Would the 172 have cost less? I spent 3.1 hours hobbs in the 152 but some of that was due to the 8,000 foot taxi they made me do and my "interesting" navigation (read: incorrect) and climbing too high on the way home. So perhaps I could have done it in 2.9 or 3.0

Sorry if this topic has been explored before, but if it is only a few bucks, I'm sticking with my beloved 152. If it is more significant, I might consider the switch.

Kimberly
 
A key point is the "interesting navigation" variable.

A 110 mi flight in a 172 should be about an hour, maybe a little less; maybe a little more than an hour in a 152, so that might be academic in comparing.

But, that's on a straight-line. Obviously, if you spend more time in the 172 navigating around, the trip will be more expensive.

I'd stick with the 152, or any cheapest vehicle to navigate in until I could navigate consistently in straight lines, then consider speed/fuel/cost, etc.

That's what the x/c practice is for.
 
Truck? if you think a 172 is a truck try a 180 or 185.

remember the number behind the C is the amount of force required to flare ,,, yes it is a joke based on experience.
 
nosehair said:
A key point is the "interesting navigation" variable.

A 110 mi flight in a 172 should be about an hour, maybe a little less; maybe a little more than an hour in a 152, so that might be academic in comparing.

But, that's on a straight-line. Obviously, if you spend more time in the 172 navigating around, the trip will be more expensive.

I'd stick with the 152, or any cheapest vehicle to navigate in until I could navigate consistently in straight lines, then consider speed/fuel/cost, etc.

That's what the x/c practice is for.
Click to expand...

I REALLY SUCK at navigating. I will probably get yelled at when I go home tonight and post my long xc writeup with photos, for all the navigation mistakes I made, but like you said that is how we learn.

Kimberly
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
The non member rate for the 1978 152 is 103.50 after fuel surcharges.

The non member rate for the "1980 Skyhawk II" 172 is 124.20 after fuel surcharges.
Click to expand...

The 172 is 20% more per hour than the 152. If the 172 is more than 20% faster than the 152, then the 172 is the plane to fly.

I've found that the real-world speeds of the ones I can rent make the 152 cheaper per mile flown (flying at "rental" power.)
 
catmandu said:
'Zactly. Calculate cost per mile vs. cost per hour. It's just math!
Click to expand...

My indicated airspeed (keeping the power right around the 2400 rpm recommended in the POH) varied from under 100 kts yesterday to sometimes as high as 120 but that was usually when descending. Also, though it may not be how you fly, I try to stay out of the yellow arc. Perhaps I should venture into the yellow arc, the skies are pretty calm around here with little to no turbulence.
 
Jim Logajan said:
The 172 is 20% more per hour than the 152. If the 172 is more than 20% faster than the 152, then the 172 is the plane to fly.

I've found that the real-world speeds of the ones I can rent make the 152 cheaper per mile flown (flying at "rental" power.)
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll try to dig up the POH and find out. And again, for safety, I pretty much stay in the green arc.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
I don't have access to the POH at the moment (the 152 POH I have at home in a binder but the 172 POH is in the plane itself at the airport, though I might have made copies).
Click to expand...
Kimba- when you get home, do this:
10*$103.50/(Speed C152)= Cost C152

10*$124.20/(speed C172)= cost C172

For the first equation, I used 90 knots to get $11.50 for every 10 nautical miles

For the second, I used 120 knots and got $10.35 / 10 nautical miles. Assuming the planes fly at those speeds, the C172 is cheaper
 
Last edited:
If I ever took the time to calculate the economics, I would wind up driving to most places. If you like flying the 152 better I would fly that even if it was more expensive. I would take the 172 when I had to carry a larger payload.

That being said, I love my 172n with the 180hp engine.
 
One scenario: When you want to carry more than person with you. Yeah, I know it's obvious.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Kimba- when you get home, do this:
10*$103.50/(Speed C152)= Cost C152

10*$124.20/(speed C172)= cost C172

For the first equation, I used 90 knots to get $11.50 for every 10 nautical miles

For the second, I used 120 knots and got $10.35 / 10 nautical miles. Assuming the planes fly at those speeds, the C172 is cheaper
Click to expand...

Really ??
the 152 will true out at around 100-105, the 172 will true out at 110-115
run your numbers again.
 
152 is cheaper. That said the 152 rental rate seems really high, while the 172 rate seems decent.

Get mo pax and fly the 172


And Tom is right about the speeds. Do they both have wheel fairings?
 
Jim Logajan said:
The 172 is 20% more per hour than the 152. If the 172 is more than 20% faster than the 152, then the 172 is the plane to fly.

I've found that the real-world speeds of the ones I can rent make the 152 cheaper per mile flown (flying at "rental" power.)
Click to expand...

Okay, using your math and the POH's I found searching my email since I'd sent them to myself (I don't think it is the exact 172 POH from my plane but it seems correct):

152 "green arc" equals 40 KIAS through 111 KIAS

20% of 111 is (rounded up) 23 knots. So to be "cheaper" than the 152, I'm going to need to see an increase of 23 knots on the green arc. (134 knots max green arc)

The 172 does not meet this. It is 47 KIAS through 128 KIAS.


Kimberly
 
dell30rb said:
152 is cheaper. That said the 152 rental rate seems really high, while the 172 rate seems decent.

Get mo pax and fly the 172


And Tom is right about the speeds. Do they both have wheel fairings?
Click to expand...

Good point, the 172 has wheel pants while the 152 does not. That could give me a few more knots.
 
They may be pricing the a/c based upon demand + operating expense, not just the latter.
 
dell30rb said:
152 is cheaper. That said the 152 rental rate seems really high, while the 172 rate seems decent.

Get mo pax and fly the 172


And Tom is right about the speeds. Do they both have wheel fairings?
Click to expand...

My school is one of the very cheapest in the Bay Area.

This competing flight school has the same prices as my flight school (notice they don't list the fuel surcharge and when I called the CFI said he didn't even know what it was, since it fluctuates):

http://petalumapilottrainingcenter.com/prices.html


These schools costs MORE than mine:

http://www.northcoastair.com/Rentals.htm

http://dragonflyaviation.com/Training_Rental_Rates.html

http://www.napajetcenter.com/aircraft-rentals
 
The 152 is cheaper but not by much.

type tas price dist time 1-way cost
152 107 $103.50 110 1.03 $106.40
172 120 $124.20 110 0.92 $113.85

Your navigation will get better. Last week I did a 145NM trip in a 152. Total time, round trip, was 2.7 hrs. That same trip took me 2.9 last year as a student, and I was in a Warrior then.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
They may be pricing the a/c based upon demand + operating expense, not just the latter.
Click to expand...

I gave the "true" total. The total on the board at the school is listed as much cheaper looking:

$80 per hour club rate

$90 per hour non-club rate

(They don't write about the fuel surcharge which is 15% and does not change)

I decided to quit the club since I wanted the $100 deposit back and figured at $25 per month dues, I'd have to fly at least 2.5 hours each month to break even, and didn't know if I would be able to afford that or if I would switch flight schools soon. I will revisit my decision after about 6 months of flying and see if it is worth it to join again, but then they will want another $150. I don't mind paying when I fly more than 2.5 per month since in the months I do NOT fly I don't pay anything.
 
MadseasoN said:
The 152 is cheaper but not by much.

typetaspricedisttime1-way152107$103.501101.03$106.40172120$124.201100.92$113.85

Your navigation will get better. Last week I did a 145NM trip in a 152. Total time, round trip, was 2.7 hrs. That same trip took me 2.9 last year as a student, and I was in a Warrior then.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Add to that my passenger wanted to take pictures / fly the coast (not a straight line but avoids much of the Bravo airspace). He also wanted "lower" and that is not my favorite place to be. The headwinds, I'm sure, are different at different altitudes which affects my flight as well. The ATC folks gave me 3500 which was great but I did go lower at times and then lost them (no radar). On the way back I flew higher and got them again. I told my passenger sorry but I prefer flight following, radio contact, and radar contact, and more emergency "outs" of high altitude than picture taking any day. He of course does not understand (he is way more laid back than me about stuff).
 
I think the one thing this thread shows is that in your case, the rental costs roughly even out (within 5% of each other). Since that is the case, I personally would always fly the plane I like flying more.
 
If you think a 152 is nimble, you have to go flying with me in my Flight Design CTSW. I have 8 hours in the 152 and I thought it was a school bus compared to my airplane.
 
The 152 was my primary trainer too. After a few hours as a PP I "upgraded" to the 172. Never flew the 152 again... Still noticed that traffic on the Penn Turnpike didn't pass by in a blur. If there isn't a third soul, stick with your favorite machine. IMHO
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Okay, using your math and the POH's I found searching my email since I'd sent them to myself (I don't think it is the exact 172 POH from my plane but it seems correct):

152 "green arc" equals 40 KIAS through 111 KIAS

20% of 111 is (rounded up) 23 knots. So to be "cheaper" than the 152, I'm going to need to see an increase of 23 knots on the green arc. (134 knots max green arc)

The 172 does not meet this. It is 47 KIAS through 128 KIAS.


Kimberly
Click to expand...

Why does the green arc matter? The 152 does not cruise at 111 and the 172 does not cruise at 128.
 
DavidWhite said:
Why does the green arc matter? The 152 does not cruise at 111 and the 172 does not cruise at 128.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
Look at the performance charts for the airplane, not the markings on the ASI. They will usually also tell you what correction to make for lack of wheel fairings.
 
Last edited:
I'll guess you will see about 115 kts with the 172 and 95 in a 152, considering the wheel fairings
 
For a cross country the numbers won't be a lot different. For circuit work, the 150/152 suffers because the climb rate is poorer and it takes longer to get to circuit altitude especially at higher DAs, so fewer circuits per hour. Each circuit ends up costing more and the student doesn't get his money's worth. In Canada we also do much spin training, and the slow climb of the old 150s we had made those spins really expensive. But the 150 did spin a lot more readily than the 172.

Dan
 
152 @ $103.50 and call it 100 hrs = $10,305.
172 @ $124.20 = $12,420

Difference = $2,115 or a really good down payment on your own airplane.

From TAP:
'71 PA28-140/160, 4715TT, 1765 SMOH. NDH. Long Beach airport-LGB $18K
 
Old Geek said:
If you think a 152 is nimble, you have to go flying with me in my Flight Design CTSW. I have 8 hours in the 152 and I thought it was a school bus compared to my airplane.
Click to expand...

If it is that small I might not fit. I had to squish (sort of) into the Long EZ I got a ride in. My hips were wider than the seat and my head hit the top. But I would love to try regardless.
 
Dan Thomas said:
For a cross country the numbers won't be a lot different. For circuit work, the 150/152 suffers because the climb rate is poorer and it takes longer to get to circuit altitude especially at higher DAs, so fewer circuits per hour. Each circuit ends up costing more and the student doesn't get his money's worth. In Canada we also do much spin training, and the slow climb of the old 150s we had made those spins really expensive. But the 150 did spin a lot more readily than the 172.

Dan
Click to expand...

I got night current at 10pm a few weeks ago, alone at the airport, in the tiny plane. 3 full stop, taxi back landings and only $51 or so. 0.5 Hobbs I was fine with that.
 
Fly the 172 is cheaper if you have the passengers chip in a little :) But many don't like to do that including myself.
 
Jim Logajan said:
I've found that the real-world speeds of the ones I can rent make the 152 cheaper per mile flown (flying at "rental" power.)
Click to expand...
Last time I did this excercise, GX won even over 150. For a flight from central NM to TX coast (for Jay's grand opening that was weathered in):
GX: $645
150M: $720
Cherokee: $770
Arrow: $800
This presumes the maximum power cruise that is safe for the engine - the speed of a consciencious renter paying wet. In case of GX it's 5100 rpm and 4.2 gph. And it's a more pleasant airplane to fly. The downside is that it takes a bit under 8 hours to reach Jay (150 takes more than 8 hours), and Arrow covers the ground in 5 hours.

We clearly need to spoil Kim with airplanes that are nicer than her 152. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with North Bay and Santa Rosa. I know that they have some modern LSAs in Sacto area, and I rented a P92 N137LM from Ocean Air in Watsonville.
 
zaitcev said:
Last time I did this excercise, GX won even over 150. For a flight from central NM to TX coast (for Jay's grand opening that was weathered in):
GX: $645
150M: $720
Cherokee: $770
Arrow: $800
This presumes the maximum power cruise that is safe for the engine - the speed of a consciencious renter paying wet. In case of GX it's 5100 rpm and 4.2 gph. And it's a more pleasant airplane to fly. The downside is that it takes a bit under 8 hours to reach Jay (150 takes more than 8 hours), and Arrow covers the ground in 5 hours.

We clearly need to spoil Kim with airplanes that are nicer than her 152. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with North Bay and Santa Rosa. I know that they have some modern LSAs in Sacto area, and I rented a P92 N137LM from Ocean Air in Watsonville.
Click to expand...

I love LSA's. Since I spend my weekends near a towered airport up north called KSTS (Class D) there is a place where all the planes are either BRAND NEW or less than 10 years old, glass panel, and LSA (including my fave the Tecnam with open cockpit). They all cost $125 wet and it is my dream to get checked out in one. They will soon have TWO skycatchers and I think their site said they are getting a 182 as well. Not sure how fast they fly but it would be more "fun" for me. My intro flight was in a Tecnam.

Kimberly

PS - That $320 I spent going to Monterey yesterday could have been spent on the LSA checkout, I suppose. It is just hard for me to justify that. Especially since I'll have to convert from steam to glass, yoke to stick, deal with ATC, etc. My guess is it would be way more than $300.
 
A class d airport is about the easiest ATC you can deal with. I started flying out of a class d airport as a student pilot with not much more than a signoff from an instructor to go between 5C1 and BAZ. I had flown to New Braunfels twice and had almost no experience with ATC. It's a good way to get comfortable with them
 
DavidWhite said:
A class d airport is about the easiest ATC you can deal with. I started flying out of a class d airport as a student pilot with not much more than a signoff from an instructor to go between 5C1 and BAZ. I had flown to New Braunfels twice and had almost no experience with ATC. It's a good way to get comfortable with them
Click to expand...

Thanks, David. They are actually super chill there. I'd have to check my log book, but I'd venture a guess that I've landed there at least 5-10 times. My CFI took me there for stop and go's long ago because they are "relatively" unbusy.
 
Depends on what the purpose of the flight. 150 is cheaper if the main purpose it to stay aloft as longer. 172 can be cheaper if three or 4 persons need to travel.

And then, if the 150 is an Aerobat, then the 172 just won't do some of the stuff you may want to do in it. Just be sure the ceiling and floor are clean.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top