Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: 172 vs 150/152
Billy Hammond #113808 09/27/07 12:48 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,657
Member/2500+posts
Offline
Member/2500+posts
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,657
Bingo! That's a plan, and I can tell you from experience, it works.

Good luck with your search, and if you have any technical questions, I am sure that the folks here will give you more information than you can imagine. grin


Pat

Never run out of altitude, airspeed, and ideas at the same time.
Re: 172 vs 150/152
Patrick_Norris #113854 09/27/07 09:00 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 263
Likes: 1
Member/250+posts
Offline
Member/250+posts
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 263
Likes: 1
Another great response from the club.

I was in the same spot you were in Billy...everyone was telling me to buy anything other than a 150.

Their response wasn't based upon the "mission" of the aircraft, but on the economics of a 150 - a engine timed out 150 isn't worth very much...a timed out 172 is.

That made a lot of sense to me...but in the end, the initial capital cost premium of the 172 wasn't worth it once I factored in my mission of put-putting around. (Thanks Lionel!)

Oh ya...this club helped make my decision as well. I figured a new owner of an old airplane (1959) was going to need a lot of help (in more ways than one!)


1959 150
Re: 172 vs 150/152
Rob DettaColli #113857 09/27/07 09:16 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,627
G
Member/2500+posts
Offline
Member/2500+posts
G
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,627
Originally Posted by Rob_DettaColli
Oh ya...this club helped make my decision as well. I figured a new owner of an old airplane (1959) was going to need a lot of help . . .


That's an excellent, excellent point Rob.

Re: 172 vs 150/152
Billy Hammond #113859 09/27/07 09:38 PM
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,054
Likes: 99
Member/5000+posts!
Offline
Member/5000+posts!
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,054
Likes: 99
Some instructors in my neck of the woods are refusing to instruct in 150s and 152s. Too small.

Of course, there are plenty of instructors who will still instruct in 'em.

At today's prices, renting a 172 can be downright expensive, especially a fancy new one. $125 per hour and more wet.

Last edited by Mark_vanWyk; 09/27/07 09:39 PM.

==>> Looks like I'm "stepping away" from aviation after all. Bye, folks!
----------
Visit the CalDART website:
www.caldart.org [caldart.org]
Visit the South County Airport Pilots Association website:
www.southcountypilots.org [southcountypilots.org]
Re: 172 vs 150/152
Mark van Wyk #113868 09/27/07 10:38 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,962
Likes: 2
Member/15,000 posts
Offline
Member/15,000 posts
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,962
Likes: 2
I suspect most of those instructors whom refuse to instruct in 150's and 152's have never flown a 150 or 152! shocked

The majority of young instructors nowadays trained in plastic pigs! smirk

Re: 172 vs 150/152
Billy Hammond #113873 09/27/07 11:23 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,969
Member/10,000+ posts!
Offline
Member/10,000+ posts!
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,969
Originally Posted by Billy_Hammond
Thanks all, Patrick you hit the nail on the head.. The way I see it. Owning the 150-152 will be exactly what I want. And if I ever need to on occasion, I'll just rent the 172.


Here we have owned a 150 for almost eight years now. And maybe only once or twice in that entire time have we desired a back seat. When we were looking to upgrade from our 100HP 150, I naturally started eyeing the older, square tailed, 172's. But, numerous people pointed out that we would not be gaining any real significant performance going that route. The Lycoming equipped 172's definitely had a better reputation. But there was no way we could even think about affording one of them.

Now, I would have considered a 170B. I would have sacrified some performance for just the looks of a 170. What a sexy looking airplane!! Unfortunately, just too pricey!! frown

Re: 172 vs 150/152
Carl Chitwood #113875 09/27/07 11:36 PM
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,054
Likes: 99
Member/5000+posts!
Offline
Member/5000+posts!
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,054
Likes: 99
Originally Posted by Carl_Chitwood
I suspect most of those instructors whom refuse to instruct in 150's and 152's have never flown a 150 or 152! shocked

The majority of young instructors nowadays trained in plastic pigs! smirk


Actually, one of the instructors is a fat guy (and getting fatter all the time), and another one is an older guy with bad knees who says the cramped legroom hurts too much since he needs to keep his feet off of the pedals. They both have MANY hours instructing in C150/152's.

The old guy does make an exeption for me, and still agrees to go up for biannuals and such.

Let's face it. 150s/152's are a bit challenged in the interior space and power departments with two grown guys. A 172 is a lot more roomy, comfortable and has more power.


==>> Looks like I'm "stepping away" from aviation after all. Bye, folks!
----------
Visit the CalDART website:
www.caldart.org [caldart.org]
Visit the South County Airport Pilots Association website:
www.southcountypilots.org [southcountypilots.org]
Re: 172 vs 150/152
Mark van Wyk #113880 09/28/07 12:02 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 68
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 68
Fat..hey, I resemble that!!!
Originally Posted by Mark_vanWyk
Originally Posted by Carl_Chitwood
I suspect most of those instructors whom refuse to instruct in 150's and 152's have never flown a 150 or 152! shocked

The majority of young instructors nowadays trained in plastic pigs! smirk


Actually, one of the instructors is a fat guy (and getting fatter all the time), and another one is an older guy with bad knees who says the cramped legroom hurts too much since he needs to keep his feet off of the pedals. They both have MANY hours instructing in C150/152's.

The old guy does make an exeption for me, and still agrees to go up for biannuals and such.

Let's face it. 150s/152's are a bit challenged in the interior space and power departments with two grown guys. A 172 is a lot more roomy, comfortable and has more power.

Re: 172 vs 150/152
Mark van Wyk #113891 09/28/07 12:39 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,962
Likes: 2
Member/15,000 posts
Offline
Member/15,000 posts
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,962
Likes: 2
Those crybabies! cry

I'm 58, I have a bad back (very bad back), bad knees (recommended I have total knee replacement surgery), stand 6' tall (when I can stand up straight) and weigh 250 lbs! I logged 50 hours cross-country (coast to coast) in a 152 last year! shocked

Not once did I wish I were in a "roomy and comfortable" Cessna 172! wink

WIMPS! smirk

(just kidding)

Re: 172 vs 150/152
Mark van Wyk #113894 09/28/07 12:48 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,657
Member/2500+posts
Offline
Member/2500+posts
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,657
My solution:

My IFR instructor is 23, about 120-140 pounds, and she is cute!

She had never flown a 150 before taking me on, but I thikn she likes taken my plane out for the lessons. And, the next lesson, we are going to include chandelles and lazy eights, just because we can do them in a 150. grin Who said more horsepower is always better? grin


Pat

Never run out of altitude, airspeed, and ideas at the same time.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4