C152 or C162?
Alex
24lph is the order of the day. No difference to that of a good C152.
Would you spend $150k for a new C162 or spend $30-40k on updating and
overhauling a worthy used C152? The more cost conscious would still go
for the C152 option if it were just those two in the running -
wouldn't they? What do you think?
John Arnold
John Arnold
Sales Representative
Rick Savage
Alex
norm. I was just expecting more from the 162 that is brand spanking
new and with 3 decades of technological advances.
The 162 proposition is certainly reasonable and it's interesting to
appreciate different points of view.
On Mar 26, 7:55 pm, John Arnold <johntarn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex,
>
> Fuel burn is not the measurement in purchasing an aircraft. Fuel is the
> cheap part of owning an airplane :) The 152 is a favorite among pilots but
> is getting very old. The 162 gets you new technology in the cockpit with
> the Garmin 3X that works great and even includes synthetic vision! It also
> includes all new engineering. It is a clean sheet designed aircraft. The
> cockpit is wider for us bigger guys so you don't have to be in love to fly
> two people. The 162 also is factory new with factory warranties. This is
> a big plus to a flight school looking to determine costs.
>
> When students are determining what flight schools to attend a new aircraft
> always stands out. I think the students are getting smarter and realizing
> they don't want to fly in old aircraft anymore and are looking for schools
> that offer TAA aircraft for basic prices. The flight school near me rents
> the Skycatcher for $110/hr WET! That is a great price considering the
> 172G100 is over $170/hr.
>
> Sure the 152 can be dolled up with new paint, interior and avionics and
> still come in under the 162 for overall cost, but the opportunity cost of
> having a new aircraft vs. a 30yr old + aircraft is big.
>
> Does this help?
>
> Johnny
>
> > Looking at the basic fuel stats for the Conti 0-200-D, it would seem
> > 24lph is the order of the day. No difference to that of a good C152.
>
> > Would you spend $150k for a new C162 or spend $30-40k on updating and
> > overhauling a worthy used C152? The more cost conscious would still go
> > for the C152 option if it were just those two in the running -
> > wouldn't they? What do you think?
>
> --
> Best,
>
> John Arnold
> Sales Representative
>
Terry Savage
The C-152 doesn't qualify under the LSA rules, or I would have bought one when I bought my first LSA in 2008. It WILL be legal to fly a C-152 without a medical after the exemption proposal just dropped by EAA and AOPA gets passed, but there’s no way to know when that will happen. It’s hard to believe it will be passed this year, and even next year is probably optimistic.
But, whenever it passes, the choice between a C-162 and a C-152 becomes a legitimate question. And the answer, as always, depends on just one thing: the mission.
In other words, what does the owner want the plane to do?
1) Does having a plane made this century matter to you? If yes, then the 152 is not an option.
2) Are you big, or are you small? I’m still nailing down the official dimensions (there’s surprisingly conflicting information floating around), but a C-152 is about 35” wide inside, and a C-162 is about 45” wide inside. If you plan to fly alone the vast majority of the time, it doesn’t matter as much. If you are big, or if you ever plan to carry a big passenger, the difference in comfort is ENORMOUS! Indescribably enormous. The C-162 has about the same interior width as the C-206.
3) Good luck updating a C-152 to C-162 class avionics for $30K! Just adding the second screen cost $5K.
But, at the end of the day, the mission drives the decision. Obviously there are other additional factors beyond what I mention above. If cost is The Big Deal for you, then the old C-152 is probably the way to go. If comfort matters more, there’s no contest…the C-162 is the only choice. The best thing to do is to fly both of them, as I have. I learned to fly in a C-152.
If you want a demo flight (not free!) in a C-162, come on up to Reno and we’ll set you up!
J
Terry C Savage
General Manager, Light Sport Training
Flying Start Aero, Reno, Nevada
http://www.flyingstartaero.com/
Science Fiction Author
Amazon book listing: http://tinyurl.com/4og9uch
Blog: (http://jacksonsuniverse.blogspot.com/)
Twitter: (@Chaosrider2808)
Facebook: (Terry Savage, Incline Village)
-----Original Message-----
From: skycatc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:skycatc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 11:38 AM
Terry Savage
O-200, for a lot of reasons. One of those reasons is that the O-200 has been
around for a long time in American aircraft, and people are comfortable with
it (for good reason). The downside, if you want to call it that, of using
something that's been around for a long time is that you're going to get
about what you've gotten from it for a long time!
;-)
Terry C Savage
General Manager, Light Sport Training
Flying Start Aero, Reno, Nevada
http://www.flyingstartaero.com/
Science Fiction Author
Amazon book listing: http://tinyurl.com/4og9uch
Blog: (http://jacksonsuniverse.blogspot.com/)
Twitter: (@Chaosrider2808)
Facebook: (Terry Savage, Incline Village)
-----Original Message-----
From: skycatc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:skycatc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex
Robert DEBAULT
Sent from my iPhone
Terry Savage
a C-162 demo!
Excellent point about the TBO vs fuel burn question. Most people tend to
focus on operating costs instead of TCO, and TCO is what really matters. The
same thing happens with cars all the time.
Even though I'm strictly light sport now, I have 1000+ hours time, and
instrument and multi ratings. I don't have inside information to support
this, but I'm convinced Cessna designed the C-162 to be both instrument
certified and have a higher gross weight eventually.
I'm not instrument current, but if I was and it was legal, I wouldn't have
the slightest hesitation flying our C-162 IFR as-is. And there was PLENTY of
reserve power doing a full GW take-off from Reno at 4400' MSL.
Terry C Savage
General Manager, Light Sport Training
Flying Start Aero, Reno, Nevada
http://www.flyingstartaero.com/
Science Fiction Author
Amazon book listing: http://tinyurl.com/4og9uch
Blog: (http://jacksonsuniverse.blogspot.com/)
Twitter: (@Chaosrider2808)
Facebook: (Terry Savage, Incline Village)
-----Original Message-----
From: skycatc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:skycatc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert DEBAULT
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 6:47 AM
To: skycatc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: C152 or C162?
Robert DEBAULT
I have heard the same rumor and I can only hope it's true. The idea of
having a LSA for mild weather IMC conditions is great. With so many heavy
aviation communities located in coastal areas it would definitely increase
the demand for these airplanes. I live in North Texas and need to fly
down to South Texas regularly. Both North and South Texas is known for
haze and fog. The Gulf Coast is especially susceptible to fog. I am
currently obtaining my Instrument Rating so that I can make these trips
when necessary. Where the LSA aircraft are not really built for
turbulence, when properly equiped Fog and Haze should not be problem for
them. So many in fact seem to have higher G ratings then their larger
counter parts. If anyone has information on the future certification of
these aircraft I would love to know out it.
Robert K. Debault
Terry Savage
rating was the annoying frequency with which there was a low, solid overcast
over Torrance airport (home base), and clear skies above and all the way to
my destination. With the instrument rating, I was able to just punch through
that in a matter of seconds, and be on my merry way.
No inside info on a possible IFR C-162. One scenario that might be
interesting would be aircraft with "dual certification", as is sometimes
done with "normal" and "utility" categories. Some aircraft can be flown
"utility" with light loadings and tighter CG constraints, but only "normal"
beyond that.
It's not hard to imagine a C-162 that could be flown under LSA rules by
someone who was only flying SP, but could be flown as a "standard" aircraft
(night, IFR, higher gross), by someone flying under PP rules.
It would just be a paperwork change. The aircraft is fully capable of doing
that now.