Airspeed comparison table

[grubertm]

Our flying club has a large number of different trainers for rent at
varying prices, but I am not sure which planes are suited for what
missions. Is there any site that offers an overview in terms of max.
cruise airspeed and max. useful load (basic configuration), etc. ?
Maybe someone in this group could provide a quick rundown of how these
types compare to each other ?

C152,
C172N (160HP) ,
C172N (180HP) ,
C172SP (180HP) ,
PA28-161 (160HP),
PA28-181 (180HP)

The C152 is an obvious choice for touch&go practice or short local
single person flights. But what about single person long XC ? Would it
make more sense to use a 160HP vs. a 180HP plane in that case due to
increased airspeed ? Is it better to haul 4 people in a Cessna than in
a Piper ? Faster to move 3 people in an Archer than in a Warrior ?
My CFI recommended using a 180HP C172N as opposed to the 180HP C172SP
since the latter is heavier resulting in lower climb performance
despite similar brake HP.

Your thoughts are appreciated.
- Marco

[Seth Masia]

To some extent this depends on what part of the country you fly in. If
you're crossing mountains or operate in high density altitude situations,
you'll always feel more comfortable with more horsepower -- you have an
additional performance margin for climb and service ceiling. The 180hp
airplanes are therefore safer when you're heavy -- three people or more.

That said, the Cessnas are more comfortable on hot sunny days, because you
have more shade, and easier to load if you have little old pax or bulky
cargo. They're also the choice if your eager-beaver photographer wants pix
of the ground. The Pipers give you better visibility in the pattern (but
look sharp both ways before turing final so you don't descend on that
hapless C-150 below you).

Not much to choose on speed between the 160 and 180hp airplanes -- you're
not going far enough in any of these for it to make more than a few minutes'
difference. Your CFI is right about choosing the lighter airplane for
training: it will climb to pattern altitude more quickly, especially on
warm days.

Seth

"grubertm" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Our flying club has a large number of different trainers for rent at
> varying prices, but I am not sure which planes are suited for what
> missions. Is there any site that offers an overview in terms of max.
> cruise airspeed and max. useful load (basic configuration), etc. ?
> Maybe someone in this group could provide a quick rundown of how these
> types compare to each other ?
>
> C152,
> C172N (160HP) ,
> C172N (180HP) ,
> C172SP (180HP) ,
> PA28-161 (160HP),
> PA28-181 (180HP)
>
> The C152 is an obvious choice for touch&go practice or short local
> single person flights. But what about single person long XC ? Would it
> make more sense to use a 160HP vs. a 180HP plane in that case due to
> increased airspeed ? Is it better to haul 4 people in a Cessna than in
> a Piper ? Faster to move 3 people in an Archer than in a Warrior ?
> My CFI recommended using a 180HP C172N as opposed to the 180HP C172SP
> since the latter is heavier resulting in lower climb performance
> despite similar brake HP.
>
> Your thoughts are appreciated.
> - Marco
>

[Paul kgyy]

Trade-a-Plane has specs for a whole bunch of aircraft, but I think you
need a subscription to get to the data on their site.

[George Patterson]

grubertm wrote:
>
> C152,

123 mph.

> C172N (160HP) ,

138 mph.

> C172N (180HP) ,

I don't have book figures for this mod, but one I flew would make about 140 mph.

> C172SP (180HP) ,

143 mph.

> PA28-161 (160HP),

140 mph.

> PA28-181 (180HP)

148 mph.

All figures from Clarke except for the 180 hp Cessnas. Figures for the 172SP are
from the Cessna web site.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Darrel Toepfer]

grubertm wrote:

> The C152 is an obvious choice for touch&go practice or short local
> single person flights. But what about single person long XC ? Would it
> make more sense to use a 160HP vs. a 180HP plane in that case due to
> increased airspeed ?

Panted C152 is faster than a nonpanted C172/160 and probably the panted
version as well. Burns 5 gallons an hour at cruise compared to 8 for the
C172/160. The C172/180 just has better climb, probably equal at cruise
and 8+ in fuel burn...

A C172 is alot easier to climb in and out of than a C152/150. Controls
aren't so light in a C172 vs C152/C150. So if you've got alot of
crosswind on your crosscountry, a C172 presents less work load in my
opinion. Otherwise you'll get there quicker and burn less fuel using the
C152 and feel like you've been sitting up in a recliner the whole time...

> Is it better to haul 4 people in a Cessna than in a Piper?

More comfortable, both are marginal (at gross) for 4 realworld people...

[grubertm]

Thank you very much :)

- Marco

[Seth Masia]

Be aware that "book" airspeeds don't often happen in the real world, and
there are big differences in economical cruise speed between apparently
similar aircraft. In an old rental 172 160 without wheel pants, count on
100 knots TAS (115mph), less in a 152, not much more in a 172 180. Older
Cherokees have comparable airspeed to Cessnas with the same engines.

Seth

"grubertm" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thank you very much :)
>
> - Marco
>