152 vs 172

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:04 pm

I see most flight schools have Cessna 152s and 172s, although some have abandoned the 152.

If you had your ppl training to do over again, would you choose one over the other? If so, why?

C-GWTF · Post by **C-GWTF** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:06 pm

While I havn't finished my PPL training I would still choose the 152 over the 172 anyday. Im not swiming in money or anything here and the 152 is cheaper and is a great aircraft.

mikegtzg · Post by **mikegtzg** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:44 pm

I started training on a 150 & 152 and switched to the 172. Even though I had to pay a little more. I truly believe that not having being as crunched up in the cockpit was a big plus in my comfort and learning curve. Being fairly large in the shoulders, having my left arm mashed against the door made it harder to control.
Now it's been a while since I've flown in a 150/152, but likely this wouldn't be as much of a factor now. But I believe the discomfort was just one more obstacle to overcome during my initial training.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:41 pm

You do the "training" in the 150/2 including the flight test.

You do your long cross-countries, 100 and 300 in the 172.

As for how you want to build your time, if you're going to take people up, the 172 even if it's just 1 pax because it doesn't matter if you're comfortable, they will not be, unless it's a short 30 minute trip.

If you're building time alone locally, 150. If you're going to do some XC assuming the school is "good" you'll find more "goodies" in a 172, dual navaids, gps, radio, so you can practice for your IFR.

PPL - 150/52 maybe the 172 for the XC
CPL - 150/52 for the exercises, 172 for IFR, 300XC and other excursions.

my 2 pesos

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:53 am

I'd have to agree 100% with cyyz on what he said.

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:45 am

cyyz wrote:You do the "training" in the 150/2 including the flight test.

Ok, so why? A simple case of lower expense and little difference in the equipment?

Tango01 · Post by **Tango01** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:13 am

I say go to a school that has Pipers available too.

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:44 am

Tango01 wrote:I say go to a school that has Pipers available too.

Why's that?

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:15 am

I'd say fly everything you can possibly get your hands on, AFTER you hold the PPL. Stick with one machine for your Ab Initio training because you will maintain a steeper learning curve. Worry about flying ONE particular type of aircraft expertly before worrying about the differences between two. While I agree that switching will make you a better pilot, getting the PPL completed as quickly and affordably as possible should be the priority. First flight after your ride should be a checkout in a 172, Pa28, Lr35, whatever blows your hair back!

whitey3205 · Post by **whitey3205** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:59 am

As a flight instructor and flying both of the a/c then I would have to say the 172 for various reasons. One that yyz already metioned in his reply and also a few more. In the winter months the 152 are not too bad but when you look at the summer time and its 152 feet per minute climb ( I think that is where the name orginated from) then such exercise as forced approaches, stalls, spins and spirals which required climbing each time then the 172 would be more economical. Considering you are doing a run up, taxi and time to the training area then you may as well get more time in the training area as possible and this is where the 172 also shines. I know it is only 10-15 knot difference but makes alot of difference in the long run.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:59 pm

Getting more time in the trainning area is where an F-104 shines! Not a 172! I'd go with the 150/152...unless youre just too big...or want to take a buddy? An hour.....is an hour!

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:02 pm

I'm 5'10", 165 lbs., so the fit in a 152 wouldn't be a problem.

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:22 pm

I think the question is why would you spend more money if you don't have to. There is no appreciable difference in flying a 172 and a 150/152, other than the weight of the plane oin the controls, which takes all of 1 hour to get used to.

There is an exception to using a 150/152 to save money, and that is if your training area is far away. If it takes 30 minutes just to get there and back, it might be worth using a 172 if you can trim that time down to 15 minutes. Especially in the summer, the time it takes to climb back up to altitude after a foced approach, or enroute to the practice area, is significant. But the dense air of winter treats 150s and 152 well.

BTD · Post by **BTD** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:42 pm

Doc wrote:An hour.....is an hour!

Yeah but in the example in an hr you might be able to get 4 forced appchs in in a 152 but 5 in a 172. If forced appchs are what you are working on its more about how many you can get in not how many hrs you do.

That being said, either is fine in my opinion.

5x5 · Post by **5x5** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:49 pm

Every plane is a bit different, so check with the school you're thinking of flying with about the speed differences. Our 152 performs very well even at max weight and isn't that much different from the 172s.

As for size, I'm 6'1" and 200 lbs and don't have any trouble. With another 200 lb'er on board we leave a bit of gas behind but for training, we don't need full tanks anyway.

The biggest difference I find is the handling of the 152 is more responsive, not radical but noticeable. The rudder especially. Spins are tighter and rotation is faster on the 152. You'll likely use flaps sooner and more often, if not regularly, in the 152 as the nose sits a bit higher in your view and on approach it's easier to see the runway with flaps. Not as necessary in the 172.

During winter, both aircraft are stable since there is no convection. In the summer the 152 will be more affected by turbulence - again not radical but noticeable.

As for equipment, our 152 is set up with the same radio/gps equipment as the 172s. Again, check with your particular school.

My personal assessment is that the 152 is more "fun" to fly but the 172 is more comfortable.

A final note to check, and what may be the deciding factor, is relative availability - how many of each type and how many students contending for them. I'd pick the one that is most likely to be available when I want to fly.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:56 pm

I converted my C150 Aerobat to a Tail Wheel conversion thinking I was improving on it.

Now that I'm trying to sell it I'm having trouble finding anyone who can fly the thing because it is just to hard to control on the ground.

Guess I made a mistake by trying to make a better trainer out of a C150.

Cat

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:47 pm

BTD...nobody will ever ask how many forced approaches you did....just how many hours do you have?

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:45 pm

Doc wrote:BTD...nobody will ever ask how many forced approaches you did....just how many hours do you have?

Yeah but if you hope to actually learn something, it's better to practice it more. Not spend all the time climbing, or going to and from the practice area.

If hours are all you care about, you might make it to the check flight with the CP, but you won't know how to fly the plane to the level expected from your hours.

BTD · Post by **BTD** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:24 pm

Doc, how right you are.

But if I had an engine failure I'd rather have spent 1 hr practicing forced appchs (getting in as many as I can) then 100hrs flying circles over a field looking down on it not practicing even one.

WhatThe? · Post by **WhatThe?** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:40 pm

I did all my training on the 172, but now fly only pipers PA-28's 140 & 161, i love the low wing feel, and very wide cockpit. However i'm not a big fan of the "have to crawl into the cockpit" design. But i find the flying way funner and responsive.

Fly what you like, everyones got an opinion. Good luck in your training!

WRX · Post by **WRX** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:30 pm

150/152 if there are no obstacles(trees, lakes, etc) around airports.
172 if there is ANY obstacles around airports.

and I refuse to do night flying in 150.

Had an close call...

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:45 pm

WRX wrote:150/152 if there are no obstacles(trees, lakes, etc) around airports.
172 if there is ANY obstacles around airports.

I don't understand.

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:55 pm

TorontoGuy wrote:
WRX wrote:150/152 if there are no obstacles(trees, lakes, etc) around airports.
172 if there is ANY obstacles around airports.
I don't understand.

He's saying the 150/152 does not climb very well, at least not in the warm weather. Not too bad in the Winter. The 152 is better though than the 150.

A 172 can climb pretty well, especially if you're not fully loaded with fuel and passengers. So if there are any obstacles around the airport, the 172 will help you get over it.

That being said, the 150/152 does just fine, if you make sure you're not overweight, which is easy to do. You may have to fly 1/2 tanks if you're an average sized guy and so is your instructor. Alone is not usually a problem unless you're a big guy.

WRX · Post by **WRX** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:13 am

Sorry about the confusion....

150/152 at gross weight, it doesn't climb well... A few times, I and a student was flying a x-country flight and tower asked us to comfirm if we're clibing to 4500 feet (2000 AGL) and ended up not making it until we're clear of his space. (CEZ3 -> CYXD -> CEP3)

And also in 150/152, It doesn't matter if we're doing normal, short or short field take off, after the rotation, it's all the same. But in 172, you can really see how you're staying in ground effect and see the difference in attitude for Vx and Vy.

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:52 pm

OK. So, my goal is to get my licence for purely recreational purposes. To go flying, and invite friends to go flying with me.

Considering that, and the comments you've given me (thanks very much) about watching the $$, and that I'm doing this in two stages (rec permit in year 2006 and PPL in 2007) would this make sense:

1. Get my rec permit in a 152.
2. Upgrade to my PPL in a 172 -- the sort of thing I'd need to take up more than one passenger with me.

I'm judging the cost difference between that split and doing it all in a 152 to be perhaps $500-700.

?

152 vs 172

152 vs 172

152 /172

gotta say