Looking for the first plane

[Cecil E. Chapman]

I won't be getting it for a couple of years and whatever I picked would be
an older plane. It will be for (or slightly before) my 50th birthday.

I wanted to ask what the group thought about a Cherokee 140 as a first
plane? In talking with my fellow CFI's most of them think I would find the
climb performance too much of a dog to be useful for even pleasure flying.
Some have suggested a Warrior, instead.

Of course there is always the venerable <grin> 172 but it would have to be
at least an N model. I'd like to head for a C-182 but it is a little more
out of the wallet than I was planning for, although I've flown them and
greatly admire their versatility in terms of power.

Ideas regarding the Cherokee 140 (which has a 150 HP I believe?) .????

Thanks in advance

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman

Certificated Flight Instructor
Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California

Member of:
National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote:

> I won't be getting it for a couple of years and whatever I picked would be
> an older plane. It will be for (or slightly before) my 50th birthday.

[snip]
>
> Ideas regarding the Cherokee 140 (which has a 150 HP I believe?) .????

Have you seen (I believe) Steve Foley has a 140 for sale?
Look in rec.aviation.marketplace or pictures at http://n6480r.home.att.net

I've owned a cherokee 140 since 1994.

The stock 140 has 150hp. Some have been upgraded to 160hp.
(mine has the same engine/prop combination of the pa-28-161).
In other words, it has the same climb/cruise performance when
using the warrior power settings.

A couple of important considerations wrt a cherokee 140 vs
other cherokees.

(1) The 140 can have limited useful load, especially the
later models. Earlier models can have useful loads exceeding
early warriors.

(2) Rear seat comfort can be, ahem, a problem.

Those are probably two main reasons why a cherokee 140 carries
a lower price than a warrior or 180. On the other hand, it also means
that you can have an airplane for less money. If you are only flying
with maybe one pax, then the 140 could be all you need.

Note that mainenance/operating costs for the 140 will be about the
same as the warrior.

Good luck.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Blanche]

Cecil E. Chapman > wrote:
>I won't be getting it for a couple of years and whatever I picked would be
>an older plane. It will be for (or slightly before) my 50th birthday.

Hm...a long-time reader/contributor to this group, and he forgets the
Number One question of all-time wanna-buyers? tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk.

"What's the mission?"

What are you going to do with it? Any plans to teach in it? Short-range
travel? Long cross-countries?

[Cecil E. Chapman]

<sheepish grin>..... Yeah I know,,, the mission is part of the determinant
and I've read and heard that 'till I thought my ears and eyes would fall off
<g>... .... It would be used for both local, intrastate flights and a once
a year long, interstate flight (as in across the U.S. to the other end
<Grin>). Instructing in one would not be an interest at all,,, both in
terms of liability/insurance costs nor would I likely be as good as an
instructor if it were my own plane I were using to instruct in (i.e.,
jumping in when it looks like a primary student is going to bounce my 'baby'
<g>).

Reason I didn't toss in the 'mission' use is that I've talked to others who
have the plane and they use it for just the variety I described. The few
I've heard lament about the slow cruise of the 140 when compared to aircraft
with more 'zoom',,, at least for me,,,, seem to miss the boat as to why I
fly anywhere anyway - that is,,,, the destination is nice,,,, but it is the
journey that makes it all worthwhile.

I've gone in a C152 for a full day of flying (with fuel stops) and enjoyed
every minute of the journey - poking along at a 'blistering' 90 knots...
always have. As I said before,,, persons who get fixated on the
destination,, imho,,, miss the point of the pleasure of being 'up there'....
:)

Am I forgiven now for my slip..... <grin>

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman

Certificated Flight Instructor
Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California

Member of:
National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Cecil E. Chapman > wrote:
>>I won't be getting it for a couple of years and whatever I picked would be
>>an older plane. It will be for (or slightly before) my 50th birthday.
>
> Hm...a long-time reader/contributor to this group, and he forgets the
> Number One question of all-time wanna-buyers? tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk.
>
> "What's the mission?"
>
> What are you going to do with it? Any plans to teach in it? Short-range
> travel? Long cross-countries?
>

[Dave[_16_]]

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
> <sheepish grin>..... Yeah I know,,, the mission is part of the determinant
> and I've read and heard that 'till I thought my ears and eyes would fall off
> <g>... .... It would be used for both local, intrastate flights and a once
> a year long, interstate flight (as in across the U.S. to the other end
> <Grin>). Instructing in one would not be an interest at all,,, both in
> terms of liability/insurance costs nor would I likely be as good as an
> instructor if it were my own plane I were using to instruct in (i.e.,
> jumping in when it looks like a primary student is going to bounce my 'baby'
> <g>).
>
> Reason I didn't toss in the 'mission' use is that I've talked to others who
> have the plane and they use it for just the variety I described. The few
> I've heard lament about the slow cruise of the 140 when compared to aircraft
> with more 'zoom',,, at least for me,,,, seem to miss the boat as to why I
> fly anywhere anyway - that is,,,, the destination is nice,,,, but it is the
> journey that makes it all worthwhile.
>
> I've gone in a C152 for a full day of flying (with fuel stops) and enjoyed
> every minute of the journey - poking along at a 'blistering' 90 knots...
> always have. As I said before,,, persons who get fixated on the
> destination,, imho,,, miss the point of the pleasure of being 'up there'....
> :)
>
> Am I forgiven now for my slip..... <grin>
>
How about a nice Tripacer? pretty good speed, lots of ramp appeal and
can be had for a pretty good price.

[Blueskies]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message ...
>
> Of course there is always the venerable <grin> 172 but it would have to be at least an N model.

Why not an old 172? Why 'N' or later?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Cecil E. Chapman" > said:
>I wanted to ask what the group thought about a Cherokee 140 as a first
>plane? In talking with my fellow CFI's most of them think I would find the

Define your mission first, pick the plane to meet it second.

>--
1>=-----
2>Good Flights!
3>
4>Cecil E. Chapman
5>
6>Certificated Flight Instructor
7>Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
8>Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California
9>
10>Member of:
11> National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
12> Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
13> Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)
14>
15>Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
16>checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
17>Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
18>
19>"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
20>- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
21>
22>"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
23>this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
24>- Cecil Day Lewis -
25>
26>

Is it really necessary to have 27 lines of crap on the end of every post
you make? 4 lines is considered normal, some people go as far as 5 or 6,
but 27 is just obnoxious.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"He's overweight, uninformed, and litigious. That's an American
hat-trick" - Lewis Black

[Blanche]

Cecil E. Chapman > wrote:
><sheepish grin>..... Yeah I know,,, the mission is part of the determinant
>and I've read and heard that 'till I thought my ears and eyes would fall off
><g>... .... It would be used for both local, intrastate flights and a once
>a year long, interstate flight (as in across the U.S. to the other end

I've got the 180 because I live in Colorado. Even in the summer, it's
just about the minimum for high-altitude flying (altho Jer/ and a
few others might disagree but they all have high HP engines, too!)
If I were living at sea level I'd go for the lower HP also.

Unless you have one of the later model 172s (you already mentioned the
172N as the minimum, right) the PA28 line will give you a bit more
fuel (if your body can handle more time in the airplane), a bit more
stability in the bumps, and....oh well, you already know the
religious arguments...

Either way (172 or PA28) everyone knows how to fix them, everyone has
parts for them, and as long as you don't do anything really, truly
stupid, you'll live.

[George Young]

Blanche wrote:
> Cecil E. Chapman > wrote:
<snip>
> I've got the 180 because I live in Colorado. Even in the summer, it's
> just about the minimum for high-altitude flying (altho Jer/ and a
> few others might disagree but they all have high HP engines, too!)
> If I were living at sea level I'd go for the lower HP also.
>
<snip>
I'm headed to NM and it's higher elevations in a year or two, and like
bayareapilot, hope to become an owner. And like him, I've been
deliberating: Piper vs Cessna. A Cherokee 180 has gained prime
interest (a Comanche would be nice, or an Arrow, but mission doesn't
dictate and budget would be tight).

Blanche: a couple of questions, please, about the Cherokee 180:

What is your range of airports - elevation (or density altitude), runway
length, and load?

Do you stick to paved runways, or are you willing to use dirt or sod
strips? Do you find that there drawbacks to the low-wing Cherokee
compared to the high-wing Cessnas?

[Jon Woellhaf]

My $0.02:

I've decided I can't stand the idea of a plane that has no door and/or no
operable window on the pilot's side.

Jon
C182Q

[Cecil E. Chapman]

I've flown the M models,, don't like the clunky flap switch (really just a
toggle swtich ya hold for each increment of flaps) and it has a little less
HP.

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman

Certificated Flight Instructor
Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California

Member of:
National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Of course there is always the venerable <grin> 172 but it would have to
>> be at least an N model.
>
> Why not an old 172? Why 'N' or later?
>
>
>

[Blueskies]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message .. .
> I've flown the M models,, don't like the clunky flap switch (really just a toggle swtich ya hold for each increment
> of flaps) and it has a little less HP.

The 1960 A model I have uses the Johnson bar for flaps...no toggle switch there...

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blueskies ]
> Posted At: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:06 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: Looking for the first plane
> Subject: Re: Looking for the first plane
>
>
> "Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > I've flown the M models,, don't like the clunky flap switch (really
> just a toggle swtich ya hold for each increment
> > of flaps) and it has a little less HP.
>
> The 1960 A model I have uses the Johnson bar for flaps...no toggle
switch
> there...

....and your O-300 six cylinder runs so much smoother leaned out at
cruise too. I've never really understood the 145 vs. 150 or 160 horse
arguments. When you consider a 65% cruise power setting, it really boils
down to at most a 9 HP difference.



Kindest regards,
Jim Carter

Politicians fear most an armed, educated electorate.

[Steve Foley]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
...

> I wanted to ask what the group thought about a Cherokee 140 as a first
> plane? In talking with my fellow CFI's most of them think I would find
> the climb performance too much of a dog to be useful for even pleasure
> flying. Some have suggested a Warrior, instead.

> Ideas regarding the Cherokee 140 (which has a 150 HP I believe?) .????

Most of the Cherokee 140s came out as 150HP. I believe there were a few
140HP two seaters as well. When the Warrior came out, I believe it was also
a 150HP. The Warrior II was 160HP.

The conversion from 150 to 160HP is negligable when done at overhaul. The
difference between the two engines are pisting and wrist pins (whatever
wrist pins are).

When I had mine overhauled, I also had the prop rebuilt and repitched.

Flying to Oshkosh one year with two Warrior IIs and two C172s (160HP as
well - don't know the models) we all flew the same speed, at the same power
settings and same fuel burn. One of the 172s was a few knots slower, as it
had been flipped during a hurricane many years ago, and was somewhat out of
rig.

The 140 with the 160 upgrade is a great two seater, or even a three-seater.
Two full size humans cannot fit in the back.

As Bob wrote, mine is presently for sale. I have found out that this is not
a good time to be selling a plane. I've gotten one low-ball offer since I
started advertising. I'm asking $27, he offered $23.

[three-eight-hotel]

> Of course there is always the venerable <grin> 172 but it would have to be
> at least an N model.

Hmmm... as the owner of a very clean, stable, dependable "M" model,
I'm curious as to why your index of approval starts with "N"?

Best Regards,
Todd

[three-eight-hotel]

On Jul 30, 12:25 pm, three-eight-hotel >
wrote:
> > Of course there is always the venerable <grin> 172 but it would have to be
> > at least an N model.
>
> Hmmm... as the owner of a very clean, stable, dependable "M" model,
> I'm curious as to why your index of approval starts with "N"?
>
> Best Regards,
> Todd

Dohh! Just saw your post! Never-mind... :-))

Mine, however, doesn't have the notched flap switch, and has the 160
hp conversion... It's not a screamer, and not incredibly sexy, but it
sure is a great first plane!

[[email protected]]

I've got a Cherokee 140 with a 180hp conversion and a field-approved baggage compartment in
addition to the back seats, so my own personal performance specs are slightly skewed. A buddy of mine
has a Cherokee 150 (Same backseat as a 180, but with the same 150 hp engine as a 140) though, so I know
the difference in performance.

Bottom line: A PA28-140 is a great first airplane as long as you don't plan on taking 3 or 4
real people anywhere very far. It'll do 3 without any luggage and mostly-full fuel, but 4 would be kinda
a pucker factor anywhere other than sea-level DA takeoff with minimal fuel. My home airport (Southwest
Virginia) is at 2100' MSL and routinely gets over 4000' DA during the summer and does just fine (600-700
fpm to 6000' DA, 300-500 up to 9000' DA) with full fuel, two real adults, and 150 lbs of luggage.

The big advantage of a Cherokee 140 is the "oversized" tanks. Don't look too hard at the
"full-fuel payload" of different planes It's a ****ty measure of aircraft performance. If a plane has
bigger tanks, it's got more utility than one with smaller tanks... they don't have to be full. The
50-gallon capacity of the PA-28's tanks is what convinced me to get that over the Cessna 150 for cheap
flying. It's got range enough to go places. I just flew back from OSH, and have done the trip between
Milwaukee and Virginia about 20 times in the 5 years I've owned the plane. Even flew it to Alaska up the
highway.

It's tough to get anything much faster unless the wheels come up (Mooney, Comanche), it burns a
lot of fuel (Cessna 182, PA28-235), or costs a lot (Cirrus). A Grumman Cheetah or Tiger have about the
same market value of a 172 (5-10k more than a comparable PA-28).

Hope that helps. (You still haven't described your mission completely... how many people and
luggage?)

-Cory

Cecil E. Chapman > wrote:
: <sheepish grin>..... Yeah I know,,, the mission is part of the determinant
: and I've read and heard that 'till I thought my ears and eyes would fall off
: <g>... .... It would be used for both local, intrastate flights and a once
: a year long, interstate flight (as in across the U.S. to the other end
: <Grin>). Instructing in one would not be an interest at all,,, both in
: terms of liability/insurance costs nor would I likely be as good as an
: instructor if it were my own plane I were using to instruct in (i.e.,
: jumping in when it looks like a primary student is going to bounce my 'baby'
: <g>).

: Reason I didn't toss in the 'mission' use is that I've talked to others who
: have the plane and they use it for just the variety I described. The few
: I've heard lament about the slow cruise of the 140 when compared to aircraft
: with more 'zoom',,, at least for me,,,, seem to miss the boat as to why I
: fly anywhere anyway - that is,,,, the destination is nice,,,, but it is the
: journey that makes it all worthwhile.

: I've gone in a C152 for a full day of flying (with fuel stops) and enjoyed
: every minute of the journey - poking along at a 'blistering' 90 knots...
: always have. As I said before,,, persons who get fixated on the
: destination,, imho,,, miss the point of the pleasure of being 'up there'....
: :)

: Am I forgiven now for my slip..... <grin>

: --
: =-----
: Good Flights!

: Cecil E. Chapman

: Certificated Flight Instructor
: Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
: Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California

: Member of:
: National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
: Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
: Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)

: Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
: checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
: Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

: "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
: - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

: "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
: this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
: - Cecil Day Lewis -

: "Blanche" > wrote in message
: ...
: > Cecil E. Chapman > wrote:
: >>I won't be getting it for a couple of years and whatever I picked would be
: >>an older plane. It will be for (or slightly before) my 50th birthday.
: >
: > Hm...a long-time reader/contributor to this group, and he forgets the
: > Number One question of all-time wanna-buyers? tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk.
: >
: > "What's the mission?"
: >
: > What are you going to do with it? Any plans to teach in it? Short-range
: > travel? Long cross-countries?
: >



--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[kontiki]

wrote:
>
> It's tough to get anything much faster unless the wheels come up (Mooney, Comanche), it burns a
> lot of fuel (Cessna 182, PA28-235), or costs a lot (Cirrus). A Grumman Cheetah or Tiger have about the
> same market value of a 172 (5-10k more than a comparable PA-28).
>
> Hope that helps. (You still haven't described your mission completely... how many people and
> luggage?)
>

Defining the mission is really important. If put-puting around every
other weekend by yourself is the mission then a 140 is great. If you
want to actually go somehwere, not too far away with a passenger and
some luggage then that's another mission profile.... you need a 180
(or a 172 [180 hp]). If you want to go farther away with a passenger
and luggage and get there without spending hours droning along at 130
Kts then you need a retract (Comanche/Mooney).

Beyond that, if money is no object there are even more options.

[[email protected]]

: Defining the mission is really important. If put-puting around every
: other weekend by yourself is the mission then a 140 is great. If you
: want to actually go somehwere, not too far away with a passenger and
: some luggage then that's another mission profile.... you need a 180
: (or a 172 [180 hp]). If you want to go farther away with a passenger
: and luggage and get there without spending hours droning along at 130
: Kts then you need a retract (Comanche/Mooney).

: Beyond that, if money is no object there are even more options.

Don't think I can agree with that. A 140 is a solid, 2-place travelling plane. If you're "putt-putting around every
other weekend by yourself," then a Cessna 150 is more the class of plane. A Cherokee 140 is a fair bit more plane than a C150.
The only exception to this that I can think of is if you fly out west and need to safely go over 8000' DA with two people and
luggage.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[tony roberts]

> Of course there is always the venerable <grin> 172 but it would have to be
> at least an N model.


In my opinion that would be a mistake.
The 0-300D is a far superior engine to the earlier 172 Lycomings.
Smoother, more reliable - a good engine that will always bring you home
if you look after it.

FWIW

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 31 Jul 2007 23:57:12 GMT, Blanche > wrote:

>In article >,
> > wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>travelling plane. If you're "putt-putting around every
>>other weekend by yourself," then a Cessna 150 is more the class of
>>plane. A Cherokee 140 is a fair bit more plane than a C150.

I always considered our old Cherokee 180 the best plane for just put,
putting around. Good take off and landing characteristics including
short field. It's one of the most docile and forgiving planes I've
flown. Back off on the power to get 7 or 8 GPH

I did a photo session with a 140 and 180 one afternoon. I first shot
from the 180, then we landed at a relatively short, paved strip. It
was one I'd been in and out of many times in that 180 as the pilot.
Then it was out in the 140. I didn't think it was going to make it as
we used so much runway compared to the 180, although it really did
have room to spare.

The 180 also rides turbulence fairly well. I found the 150 to be like
a cork on a rough pond. I also think of it as a one person airplane.

>>The only exception to this that I can think of is if you fly out west
>>and need to safely go over 8000' DA with two people and
>>luggage.
>
>DA this afternoon in Denver (6 pm MDT) is 8600. And that's
>on the ground. New Mexico isn't much different. ABQ is just about
>the same altitude as DEN.

[Cecil E. Chapman]

Very good point which has long been a sore point when instructing or
personal flying in Piper product. Of course in my instructor role, I always
get a door, but from the left seat,,, it IS an area of concern. One of the
reasons I always make sure the baggage door is unlocked on the Pipers I've
flown (i.e. extra emergency door - simple latch, easy to kick out).

BTW,,, that 182 is one great machine... unfortunately I won't be spending
those kind of bucks when I get my plane - short of winning lotto! :)

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman

Certificated Flight Instructor
Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California

Member of:
National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
. ..
> My $0.02:
>
> I've decided I can't stand the idea of a plane that has no door and/or no
> operable window on the pilot's side.
>
> Jon
> C182Q
>

[[email protected]]

On Jul 30, 11:01 pm, tony roberts >
wrote:
> > Of course there is always the venerable <grin> 172 but it would have to be
> > at least an N model.
>
> In my opinion that would be a mistake.
> The 0-300D is a far superior engine to the earlier 172 Lycomings.
> Smoother, more reliable - a good engine that will always bring you home
> if you look after it.

The 172 never used the earlier narrow-deck Lycomings. Those were
found in other airplanes. Cessna went to the Lyc O-320-E2D from the
O-300 in about 1969 and never looked back. The Continental had a
shorter TBO and the cylinders used on small Continentals often don't
make it that far. They're the same cylinders used on O-200s and often
need valve work about halfway through the engine life. We had 150's
with those engines and spent nearly as much money overall on the 150
as we do on the 172. Our Lycomings run nicely all the way to TBO, and
that's in a more abusive flight training environment. Any engine that
sits without flying frquently, or that is flown on very short flights
so that the oil never gets hot, will tend to rust out long before TBO.
We run three 172Ms. We won't touch the N model, because that
model had the O-320H2AD, a disastrous engine that has a long AD
history. The folks around here that run them say that they seldom
reach TBO. It has little relation to the E2D. The 172P corrected that
hassle with yet another engine model, the D2J. If we were rich we
would buy some new S models.
Any airplane you are considering should be checked against
possible ADs. You can find them on the FAA website. Check the engine
models, too; they have their own section. Propellers are also
separate, and there's an accessories section that can take a long time
to wade through. See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet
You don't want any nasty surprises after you buy an airplane.
There are plenty out there that have outstanding ADs.

Dan

[Allen[_1_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 30, 11:01 pm, tony roberts >
> wrote:
>> > Of course there is always the venerable <grin> 172 but it would have to
>> > be
>> > at least an N model.
>>
>> In my opinion that would be a mistake.
>> The 0-300D is a far superior engine to the earlier 172 Lycomings.
>> Smoother, more reliable - a good engine that will always bring you home
>> if you look after it.
>
> The 172 never used the earlier narrow-deck Lycomings. Those were
> found in other airplanes. Cessna went to the Lyc O-320-E2D from the
> O-300 in about 1969 and never looked back. The Continental had a
> shorter TBO and the cylinders used on small Continentals often don't
> make it that far. They're the same cylinders used on O-200s and often
> need valve work about halfway through the engine life. We had 150's
> with those engines and spent nearly as much money overall on the 150
> as we do on the 172. Our Lycomings run nicely all the way to TBO, and
> that's in a more abusive flight training environment. Any engine that
> sits without flying frquently, or that is flown on very short flights
> so that the oil never gets hot, will tend to rust out long before TBO.
> We run three 172Ms. We won't touch the N model, because that
> model had the O-320H2AD, a disastrous engine that has a long AD
> history. The folks around here that run them say that they seldom
> reach TBO. It has little relation to the E2D. The 172P corrected that
> hassle with yet another engine model, the D2J. If we were rich we
> would buy some new S models.


RAM Aircraft has an STC to replace the H2AD with a D2G. Find a 172N with a
run-out H2AD and get the STC. $23,950 exchange for a new D2G engine,
McCauley prop and the paperwork.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 3, 10:05 am, "Allen" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 11:01 pm, tony roberts >
> > wrote:
> >> > Of course there is always the venerable <grin> 172 but it would have to
> >> > be
> >> > at least an N model.
>
> >> In my opinion that would be a mistake.
> >> The 0-300D is a far superior engine to the earlier 172 Lycomings.
> >> Smoother, more reliable - a good engine that will always bring you home
> >> if you look after it.
>
> > The 172 never used the earlier narrow-deck Lycomings. Those were
> > found in other airplanes. Cessna went to the Lyc O-320-E2D from the
> > O-300 in about 1969 and never looked back. The Continental had a
> > shorter TBO and the cylinders used on small Continentals often don't
> > make it that far. They're the same cylinders used on O-200s and often
> > need valve work about halfway through the engine life. We had 150's
> > with those engines and spent nearly as much money overall on the 150
> > as we do on the 172. Our Lycomings run nicely all the way to TBO, and
> > that's in a more abusive flight training environment. Any engine that
> > sits without flying frquently, or that is flown on very short flights
> > so that the oil never gets hot, will tend to rust out long before TBO.
> > We run three 172Ms. We won't touch the N model, because that
> > model had the O-320H2AD, a disastrous engine that has a long AD
> > history. The folks around here that run them say that they seldom
> > reach TBO. It has little relation to the E2D. The 172P corrected that
> > hassle with yet another engine model, the D2J. If we were rich we
> > would buy some new S models.
>
> RAM Aircraft has an STC to replace the H2AD with a D2G. Find a 172N with a
> run-out H2AD and get the STC. $23,950 exchange for a new D2G engine,
> McCauley prop and the paperwork.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's not a bad deal, considering the engine exchange, new
prop and the R & D that went into the STC. Likely would pay for itself
the first time through TBO.

Dan

[John T.[_2_]]

Good, informative post.

The 1968 model was the first to have the Lyc O-320. It was the C-172I.
One easy way to distinguish the models on the ground is to look for
the dual exhausts on the O-300's. They stick out a bit like fangs. The
O-320 has only one pipe breaking through the cowling.

The story I've read is that Cessna ordered a bunch of O-320's for the
new Cardinal and then discovered, oops, 150 hp was not quite enough for
that bird. They had to do something with engines, so they stuck them in
the C-172. Or maybe that was their backup plan all along. I never have
heard what Cessna did with the O-300's they must have had on order.

-John T.

wrote:
> On Jul 30, 11:01 pm, tony roberts >
> wrote:
>>> Of course there is always the venerable <grin> 172 but it would have to be
>>> at least an N model.
>> In my opinion that would be a mistake.
>> The 0-300D is a far superior engine to the earlier 172 Lycomings.
>> Smoother, more reliable - a good engine that will always bring you home
>> if you look after it.
>
> The 172 never used the earlier narrow-deck Lycomings. Those were
> found in other airplanes. Cessna went to the Lyc O-320-E2D from the
> O-300 in about 1969 and never looked back. The Continental had a
> shorter TBO and the cylinders used on small Continentals often don't
> make it that far. They're the same cylinders used on O-200s and often
> need valve work about halfway through the engine life. We had 150's
> with those engines and spent nearly as much money overall on the 150
> as we do on the 172. Our Lycomings run nicely all the way to TBO, and
> that's in a more abusive flight training environment. Any engine that
> sits without flying frquently, or that is flown on very short flights
> so that the oil never gets hot, will tend to rust out long before TBO.
> We run three 172Ms. We won't touch the N model, because that
> model had the O-320H2AD, a disastrous engine that has a long AD
> history. The folks around here that run them say that they seldom
> reach TBO. It has little relation to the E2D. The 172P corrected that
> hassle with yet another engine model, the D2J. If we were rich we
> would buy some new S models.
> Any airplane you are considering should be checked against
> possible ADs. You can find them on the FAA website. Check the engine
> models, too; they have their own section. Propellers are also
> separate, and there's an accessories section that can take a long time
> to wade through. See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet
> You don't want any nasty surprises after you buy an airplane.
> There are plenty out there that have outstanding ADs.
>
> Dan
>

[[email protected]]

On Aug 3, 11:38 am, "John T." > wrote:
> Good, informative post.
>
> The 1968 model was the first to have the Lyc O-320. It was the C-172I.
> One easy way to distinguish the models on the ground is to look for
> the dual exhausts on the O-300's. They stick out a bit like fangs. The
> O-320 has only one pipe breaking through the cowling.
>
> The story I've read is that Cessna ordered a bunch of O-320's for the
> new Cardinal and then discovered, oops, 150 hp was not quite enough for
> that bird. They had to do something with engines, so they stuck them in
> the C-172. Or maybe that was their backup plan all along. I never have
> heard what Cessna did with the O-300's they must have had on order.

That's the story I've heard, too, but the Cardinal came out
in '68 with the E2D and they didn't change that 'til mid or late '69.
I think Cessna just decided to reduce parts inventory at the factory
by using the same engine, and I bet Lycoming gave them a deal they
couldn't refuse. The 172 was a huge market and a chance to boost
engine parts sales immensely. I don't suppose Continental was
impressed, but they were still selling a lot of engines for the
150/180/182/185/ 205/206/207/210 and many of the twins.

Dan

[John Godwin[_2_]]

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in
:

> I've decided I can't stand the idea of a plane that has no door and/or
> no operable window on the pilot's side.

Door???? I prefer a sliding canopy (everyone has a door) <g>

John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote:

> BTW,,, that 182 is one great machine... unfortunately I won't be spending
> those kind of bucks when I get my plane - short of winning lotto! :)

Very decent 182s can be had for sub-jackpot money these days. E. g.:

http://tinyurl.com/232koj

You will have very little trouble selling a Skylane, and mogas STCs are
available. Hard to beat.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Blueskies]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> You will have very little trouble selling a Skylane, and mogas STCs are available. Hard to beat.
>
> --
> Dan
> T-182T at BFM
>

Problem is, alcohol free autofuel is almost impossible to find anymore...

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 30 Jul 2007 06:40:10 GMT, Blanche > wrote:

>Jon Woellhaf > wrote:
>>My $0.02:
>>
>>I've decided I can't stand the idea of a plane that has no door and/or no
>>operable window on the pilot's side.
>>
>>Jon
>>C182Q
>
>wanna know how fast the pilot's window in my cherokee becomes
>the 2nd door? I carry a 3 D-Cell maglite just for this purpose.
>Just in case...I've also been told that it will pop out if I hit it
>with my arm.
>
Easily...Even a small bird is sufficient. A few years ago a 140
landing at 3BS took a small bird through the prop which caused it to
loop around the windshield and into the window beside the pilot. It
basically removed the window. They said it got really drafty in
there. <:-))

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 29, 8:08 am, "Cecil E. Chapman" >
wrote:
> I won't be getting it for a couple of years and whatever I picked would be
> an older plane. It will be for (or slightly before) my 50th birthday.
>
> I wanted to ask what the group thought about a Cherokee 140 as a first
> plane? In talking with my fellow CFI's most of them think I would find the
> climb performance too much of a dog to be useful for even pleasure flying.
> Some have suggested a Warrior, instead.

I'm not sure what they are talking about. The P-140 is a great 2 place
plane as a first airplane. Its got better handling than the C-172 and
handles much more like a high performance airplane (not as sloppy in
the air as a Cessna).

-Robert, CFII

[Jon Kraus]

ugliest damn plane ever made...

Dave wrote:
> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
>
>> <sheepish grin>..... Yeah I know,,, the mission is part of the
>> determinant and I've read and heard that 'till I thought my ears and
>> eyes would fall off <g>... .... It would be used for both local,
>> intrastate flights and a once a year long, interstate flight (as in
>> across the U.S. to the other end <Grin>). Instructing in one would
>> not be an interest at all,,, both in terms of liability/insurance
>> costs nor would I likely be as good as an instructor if it were my own
>> plane I were using to instruct in (i.e., jumping in when it looks like
>> a primary student is going to bounce my 'baby' <g>).
>>
>> Reason I didn't toss in the 'mission' use is that I've talked to
>> others who have the plane and they use it for just the variety I
>> described. The few I've heard lament about the slow cruise of the 140
>> when compared to aircraft with more 'zoom',,, at least for me,,,, seem
>> to miss the boat as to why I fly anywhere anyway - that is,,,, the
>> destination is nice,,,, but it is the journey that makes it all
>> worthwhile.
>>
>> I've gone in a C152 for a full day of flying (with fuel stops) and
>> enjoyed every minute of the journey - poking along at a 'blistering'
>> 90 knots... always have. As I said before,,, persons who get fixated
>> on the destination,, imho,,, miss the point of the pleasure of being
>> 'up there'.... :)
>>
>> Am I forgiven now for my slip..... <grin>
>>
> How about a nice Tripacer? pretty good speed, lots of ramp appeal and
> can be had for a pretty good price.

[John Godwin]

Jon Kraus > wrote in
:

> ugliest damn plane ever made...
>
Naaaah, the PZL Wilga beats it. <g>


--

[Mike Noel]

I'm surprised anyone finds the Piper Tripacer ugly. I would go out of the
way to look at a nice one on the ramp and talk with the owner.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

It is not work that kills men; it is worry. Worry is rust upon the blade.
"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> ugliest damn plane ever made...
>
> Dave wrote:
>> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
>>
>>> <sheepish grin>..... Yeah I know,,, the mission is part of the
>>> determinant and I've read and heard that 'till I thought my ears and
>>> eyes would fall off <g>... .... It would be used for both local,
>>> intrastate flights and a once a year long, interstate flight (as in
>>> across the U.S. to the other end <Grin>). Instructing in one would not
>>> be an interest at all,,, both in terms of liability/insurance costs nor
>>> would I likely be as good as an instructor if it were my own plane I
>>> were using to instruct in (i.e., jumping in when it looks like a primary
>>> student is going to bounce my 'baby' <g>).
>>>
>>> Reason I didn't toss in the 'mission' use is that I've talked to others
>>> who have the plane and they use it for just the variety I described.
>>> The few I've heard lament about the slow cruise of the 140 when compared
>>> to aircraft with more 'zoom',,, at least for me,,,, seem to miss the
>>> boat as to why I fly anywhere anyway - that is,,,, the destination is
>>> nice,,,, but it is the journey that makes it all worthwhile.
>>>
>>> I've gone in a C152 for a full day of flying (with fuel stops) and
>>> enjoyed every minute of the journey - poking along at a 'blistering' 90
>>> knots... always have. As I said before,,, persons who get fixated on
>>> the destination,, imho,,, miss the point of the pleasure of being 'up
>>> there'.... :)
>>>
>>> Am I forgiven now for my slip..... <grin>
>>>
>> How about a nice Tripacer? pretty good speed, lots of ramp appeal and can
>> be had for a pretty good price.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
. ..
> I'm surprised anyone finds the Piper Tripacer ugly. I would go out of
> the way to look at a nice one on the ramp and talk with the owner.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Mike

No speaking for taste :~)

[Dave[_16_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Mike Noel" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I'm surprised anyone finds the Piper Tripacer ugly. I would go out of
>> the way to look at a nice one on the ramp and talk with the owner.
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Mike
>
> No speaking for taste :~)
>
>
It was my first airplane. Fun, Simple and classy. Having something
different makes it even more appealing.
Tons of fun to fly.
Thinking about trading in my span can bonanza and getting to the basics
again.
Tube and fabric is where its at.

Dave

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Dave wrote:
>>
> It was my first airplane. Fun, Simple and classy. Having something
> different makes it even more appealing.
> Tons of fun to fly.

We have a local Tripacer owner who gives wake turbulence warnings as he
starts his takeoff roll. <G>

Personally, I think they're cute.

[Cecil E. Chapman]

Thanks! A couple of my pilot friends have owned theirs for many years and
simply love it.

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman

Certificated Flight Instructor
Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California

Member of:
National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 29, 8:08 am, "Cecil E. Chapman" >
> wrote:
>> I won't be getting it for a couple of years and whatever I picked would
>> be
>> an older plane. It will be for (or slightly before) my 50th birthday.
>>
>> I wanted to ask what the group thought about a Cherokee 140 as a first
>> plane? In talking with my fellow CFI's most of them think I would find
>> the
>> climb performance too much of a dog to be useful for even pleasure
>> flying.
>> Some have suggested a Warrior, instead.
>
> I'm not sure what they are talking about. The P-140 is a great 2 place
> plane as a first airplane. Its got better handling than the C-172 and
> handles much more like a high performance airplane (not as sloppy in
> the air as a Cessna).
>
> -Robert, CFII
>

[Lou]

I'm a bit suprised that no one has suggested a Cessna 175
or even a Beech sport.
Lou

[Darrel Toepfer]

Dave > wrote:

> It was my first airplane. Fun, Simple and classy. Having something
> different makes it even more appealing.
> Tons of fun to fly.
> Thinking about trading in my span can bonanza and getting to the
> basics again.
> Tube and fabric is where its at.

Another one who'll need a new email address...