Cessna 172 vs. Mooney vs. ?

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

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

"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

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

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/

"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

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.

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)

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)

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)