Cessna 172 vs. Mooney vs. ?

[pjbphd]

I'm in the process of taking lessons for my Private Pilot Certificate. I'll
be eventually using my certificate to commute from Tucson to Flagstaff and
will purchase a plane. My training is in a Cessna 172.



Although I'm a way off, I'm beginning to consider planes for my commute. I'
ll be flying from around 3500 ft up to 7000 ft. I was given a good
suggestion that I fly into Sedona which is about 1500 ft. Lower than
Flagstaff. I may also do some recreational trips to the Reno-Tahoe area.
The bottom line is I need a plane that can handle mountains.



My budget is $40K - $50K. Looking at www.aso.com I see that puts me in the
late 70s to early 80s Cessna 172. Alternatively I could go with a 1960 era
Mooney M20. I'm sure there are options with Cherokees as well. I'd like to
stay away from kits and experimentals, at least until I get more experience.



Soooo. what's the deal? Go with a later model 172 or the earlier Mooney?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? What other airplanes I
should consider?



Thanks in advance



pjbphd




--
Too many spams have forced me to alter my email. If you wish to email me
directly please send messages to pjbphd @ cox dot net

[H.P.]

A bit off topic. I'm also a newbie and I'm thinking about buying a plane as
well. My dilemma is that I just can't bring myself to buying an older plane
'cuz I just get jittery about safety issues. I'd rather get a fractional
share in a newer machine than full-time privileges (which I might not use)
in an older plane.

I, too, am training in Cessna 172s - and newer ones at that - but I recently
had a demo ride in an older Piper Warrior and let me tell you that the Piper
was oh so tasty smooth, responsive and panoramic (damn the single starboard
door). For me, piloting a Cessna seems like I'm driving a Chevy Vega -- if
you're old enough to appreciate the comparison.

Bottom line is that I'd rather purchase a share in a newer Piper, Tiger or
(gulp$) Mooney than slug along in an older Cessna. My 2 cents.



"pjbphd" > wrote in message
news:CATWc.132424$sh.9312@fed1read06...
> I'm in the process of taking lessons for my Private Pilot Certificate.
I'll
> be eventually using my certificate to commute from Tucson to Flagstaff and
> will purchase a plane. My training is in a Cessna 172.
>
>
>
> Although I'm a way off, I'm beginning to consider planes for my commute.
I'
> ll be flying from around 3500 ft up to 7000 ft. I was given a good
> suggestion that I fly into Sedona which is about 1500 ft. Lower than
> Flagstaff. I may also do some recreational trips to the Reno-Tahoe area.
> The bottom line is I need a plane that can handle mountains.
>
>
>
> My budget is $40K - $50K. Looking at www.aso.com I see that puts me in
the
> late 70s to early 80s Cessna 172. Alternatively I could go with a 1960
era
> Mooney M20. I'm sure there are options with Cherokees as well. I'd like
to
> stay away from kits and experimentals, at least until I get more
experience.
>
>
>
> Soooo. what's the deal? Go with a later model 172 or the earlier Mooney?
> What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? What other airplanes I
> should consider?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
>
>
> pjbphd
>
>
>
>
> --
> Too many spams have forced me to alter my email. If you wish to email me
> directly please send messages to pjbphd @ cox dot net
>
>

[Mike Adams]

"pjbphd" > wrote:

> Although I'm a way off, I'm beginning to consider planes for my
> commute. I' ll be flying from around 3500 ft up to 7000 ft. I was
> given a good suggestion that I fly into Sedona which is about 1500 ft.
> Lower than Flagstaff. I may also do some recreational trips to the
> Reno-Tahoe area. The bottom line is I need a plane that can handle
> mountains.
>
>
It's true that Sedona is somewhat lower than Flagstaff, but if you're
really going to be commuting every day, I think you'll get tired of the
drive from Sedona up to Flagstaff. It's a very scenic drive up Oak Creek
Canyon, but it's not quick by any means, and is subject to weather delays,
and also traffic in the busy tourist season. Sedona is also high enough
that it can be challenging for an underpowered airplane in warm weather.
Sedona or Cottonwood would be a good alternate when Flagstaff weather is
down, however.

Will your commuting flights be solo? If so, a 172 should not be a problem
in all but the hottest weather. If you can find a 180 hp 172 or
Cherokee/Archer, that would be ideal, but maybe difficult in your price
range.

Good luck,
Mike

[Andrew Sarangan]

A good 172 should be able to handle Flagstaff just fine. Yes the density
altitude is high, but not it is not beyond a 172's performance. The
flight from Sedona to Flag is very short, but driving could take a long
time due to the windy roads through the mountains, and is really not
necessary.




"pjbphd" > wrote in
news:CATWc.132424$sh.9312@fed1read06:

> I'm in the process of taking lessons for my Private Pilot Certificate.
> I'll be eventually using my certificate to commute from Tucson to
> Flagstaff and will purchase a plane. My training is in a Cessna 172.
>
>
>
> Although I'm a way off, I'm beginning to consider planes for my
> commute. I' ll be flying from around 3500 ft up to 7000 ft. I was
> given a good suggestion that I fly into Sedona which is about 1500 ft.
> Lower than Flagstaff. I may also do some recreational trips to the
> Reno-Tahoe area. The bottom line is I need a plane that can handle
> mountains.
>
>
>
> My budget is $40K - $50K. Looking at www.aso.com I see that puts me
> in the late 70s to early 80s Cessna 172. Alternatively I could go
> with a 1960 era Mooney M20. I'm sure there are options with Cherokees
> as well. I'd like to stay away from kits and experimentals, at least
> until I get more experience.
>
>
>
> Soooo. what's the deal? Go with a later model 172 or the earlier
> Mooney? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? What other
> airplanes I should consider?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
>
>
> pjbphd
>
>
>
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article <CATWc.132424$sh.9312@fed1read06>,
pjbphd > wrote:
>Although I'm a way off, I'm beginning to consider planes for my commute.

Something like an M20E (if you like the ergonomics of the M20 series)
would be great for a single-person commute. Fast and economical to
operate.

If you have a side goal of building time then you might want to get
something slower. I've found that it's hard to resist going as fast
as possible even when you're not in a hurry.

Commuting isn't a very demanding task -- you should figure out what
else you want to do with the plane. There are planes in your price
range that could also land in the back country, or do acrobatics.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Peter Duniho]

"H.P." > wrote in message
om...
> A bit off topic. I'm also a newbie and I'm thinking about buying a plane
as
> well. My dilemma is that I just can't bring myself to buying an older
plane
> 'cuz I just get jittery about safety issues.

(r.a.student removed...I don't see how it's relevant at all)

You have two issues to think about: age, and aircraft type.

IMHO, age is pretty much a non-issue with respect to safety. If you want
the latest and greatest avionics, or you want that new-plane smell, or a
warranty, or any of the other things available only in a new plane, then get
a new plane. But if the only thing that concerns you is safety, there's
nothing wrong with an old plane that's been properly inspected and
maintained, and a new plane won't have had all of the kinks worked out of it
by the time you take delivery.

> Bottom line is that I'd rather purchase a share in a newer Piper, Tiger or
> (gulp$) Mooney than slug along in an older Cessna. My 2 cents.

Just depends on what you want to do with the plane. Personally, having the
wing block my view of the ground drives me up the wall. Other folks, they
hate having the wing drop into their view when they turn. Thankfully, the
airplane I actually own has a mid-mounted wing, well aft of the front seats
(and even a bit aft of the rear seats), and I get an excellent view all
around. :)

I think it's interesting that you put the Tiger in the same category with
the Pipers and Mooneys. I haven't flown a Tiger (or Cheetah), but from what
other pilots tell me, they are a lot sportier than the typical GA airplane,
low or high wing.

Anyway, your decision between low-wing, high-wing, sporty or trucky doesn't
really have anything to do with your decision of new or used (other than a
requirement of "new" limiting what's available).

Pete

[AJW]

>
>>Although I'm a way off, I'm beginning to consider planes for my commute.
>

You'll want to make a realistic estimate of how much flying you'll be doing.
Airplanes like Mooneys are 'slippery' as well as complex. It's more likely to
bite you than is a 172.

If you expect to take longer trips, or do a reasonable amount of actual IFR,
the M20 series has the legs to be useful. In the esatern seaboard at least the
C172s range had been a problem for me w/r/t IFR alternates. I think with equal
flying experience -- take that to mean pilot prudence - 172s are probably
safer.

But it terms of flying pleasure (I'd better get flame proof pants on here) it's
pretty hard to wipe the smile off most Mooney jock's faces. They are a
responsive airplane, you think the thought and the airplane does it, just like
that.

But man, checking for water in the gas when it's been raining is a PITA, in
addition to smiles you can tell a Mooney pilot because his suit pants sometimes
have dirty knees.

Oh yeah -- the route you'll be most often flying -- be sure to get a handle on
what winds aloft are likely to be. 150 kts TASmaakes is a lot more difference
than 110 kts than you might think.

[Thomas Borchert]

H.P.,

> My dilemma is that I just can't bring myself to buying an older plane
> 'cuz I just get jittery about safety issues.
>

While I can fully understand and share your desire for a new aircraft,
I am pretty sure the statistics don't give any support to your worries.
Older planes are not less safe than new ones - but they are, well, OLD.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Pjbphd,

You're really talking about different classes of planes here. The M20
is a complex retract, quite fast and very efficient. The 172 is much
slower, probably better on rough fields and a little more forgiving.

That said, the altitude difference is not really an issue if you will
commute on your own since you will be way below max gross weight.

Your options in your budget certainly include other aircraft like the
Piper Warriors, possibly the Cessna Cardinal, possibly the Tiger et
cetera. It's really a matter of which planes you like best, what your
mission is and how old it is allowed to be. The Mooney, for example,
will have higher maintenance cost due to the retractable gear and the
constant speed prop. OTOH, speed will probably matter a lot for you on
a daily (or at least frequent) commute.

IMHO, the 172 is the most boring and unelegant choice you could
possibly make - but that's just me.

Aviation Consumer magazine is an excellent resource on used aircraft
reports. Their used aircraft guide can be ordered online at
www.aviationconsumer.com

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Ajw,

> But man, checking for water in the gas when it's been raining is a PITA,
>

Tucson, Flagstaff, rain - which of the three doesn't belong? ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> I, too, am training in Cessna 172s - and newer ones at that - but I
recently
> had a demo ride in an older Piper Warrior and let me tell you that the
Piper
> was oh so tasty smooth, responsive and panoramic (damn the single
starboard
> door). For me, piloting a Cessna seems like I'm driving a Chevy Vega --
if
> you're old enough to appreciate the comparison.

I agree with your assessment (my best friend had a Vega!), but I'll throw
this out for you to chew on:

In the price range mentioned ($40 - $50K) you can get a mid-70s Warrior or
Skyhawk.

Also in that price range, you can get a late '60s Cherokee 180. You might
be able to stretch into a Challenger (the 180 hp predecessor to the Archer),
but it'll be rough and high time.

I bought a '75 Warrior as my first plane, and loved it. However, it was no
speed demon, and it was huffing and puffing at high density altitudes. 150
hp will only take you so far, so fast.

Were I to do it over again, I'd have started with a 180 hp Cherokee,
preferably a post-'72 model. They stretched 'em 5 inches in '72, giving the
Cherokee an actual, usable back seat. I know the original poster said he'd
be solo most of the time, but every now and then it's nice to be able to
actually carry four real people in your 4-seat plane.

Had I done this, I probably would not have needed to sell our plane when my
kids got too big for the Warrior to lift.

Although we truly love our '74 Pathfinder (Cherokee 235 -- there's no
substitute for horsepower!), it cost more than twice as much as our Warrior
did. 33% more performance (in both speed and lifting capacity) cost us 100%
more money.

IMHO, if you can stretch your budget to the 180, you'll be way ahead in the
long run. It's a great half-step up from the 150 horse birds, without
breaking the bank, and you may never want to sell it.

Good luck!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

The automotive equivalent of this question is a little like, "Should I get a
BMW Z4, a Chevy Caprice, or a Ford Expedition?"

For your purpose I would go with simple and cheap, which means the Cessna
172. Complex airplanes will eat you alive in maintenance. With just yourself
on board the Cessna 172 should be able to handle Flagstaff easily.

[fuji]

H.P. wrote:

> I, too, am training in Cessna 172s - and newer ones at that - but I recently
> had a demo ride in an older Piper Warrior and let me tell you that the Piper
> was oh so tasty smooth, responsive and panoramic (damn the single starboard
> door).
>

There's always the Beech Sundowner if you want a 2 door low wing.

[Ken Reed]

> I'm in the process of taking lessons for my Private Pilot Certificate. I'll
> be eventually using my certificate to commute from Tucson to Flagstaff and
> will purchase a plane. My training is in a Cessna 172.
> My budget is $40K - $50K. Looking at www.aso.com I see that puts me in the
> late 70s to early 80s Cessna 172. Alternatively I could go with a 1960 era
> Mooney M20.


I'm partial to the Mooney, then again I have one. I'm based out of AVQ -
Marana Northwest. Let me know if you want me to take you up in the
Mooney so you can see what they're about.
---
Ken Reed
http://www.dentalzzz.com

[Ken Reed]

>>Although I'm a way off, I'm beginning to consider planes for my commute.

> Something like an M20E (if you like the ergonomics of the M20 series)
> would be great for a single-person commute. Fast and economical to
> operate.

The 'E' model is probably beyond his budget of $40-50K. He's looking at
a 'C' for that kind of money.
---
Ken Reed
http://www.dentalzzz.com

[Big John]

My Mark 20C (180 HP) had an after market normalizing turbo (Ray-Jay)
which I basically just used for high altitude take offs.

Worked fine getting sea level power at the high altitudes.

Would let you have the Mooney speed and also ability to carry a load
out of high altitude airports.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 05:23:22 GMT, (Ben Jackson) wrote:

>In article <CATWc.132424$sh.9312@fed1read06>,
>pjbphd > wrote:
>>Although I'm a way off, I'm beginning to consider planes for my commute.
>
>Something like an M20E (if you like the ergonomics of the M20 series)
>would be great for a single-person commute. Fast and economical to
>operate.
>
>If you have a side goal of building time then you might want to get
>something slower. I've found that it's hard to resist going as fast
>as possible even when you're not in a hurry.
>
>Commuting isn't a very demanding task -- you should figure out what
>else you want to do with the plane. There are planes in your price
>range that could also land in the back country, or do acrobatics.