I'm renting a plane to fly to Austin this year since mine will still be in the testing phase and I want to bring my wife and daughter. The place I rent from has 160HP M models which are their money makers for $114 an hour wet. I can also take the 180HP SP that I did my instrument rating in for $158 which tend to not get rented nearly as much. The flight school obviously wants me to take the SP. They said the difference in cruise would make up for it over the course of 4-5 hours. I have a hundred hours or so in 172's but not a lot of time cruising anywhere it's all training. The autopilot, 430, and traffic would be nice. Curious if anyone here has enough time in both to make me feel better about the price difference. Austin is 232 NM direct from here.

Rent the 182!

Twin Oaks, where I rent here in the Portland area, has 160hp and 180hp 172's. Fortunately they're the same price hourly, as I've never even bothered with the 160hp aircraft. The O-360 in the 172 makes a world of difference. Of course, the SP models are pigs to begin with so the extra horsepower may not be as noticeable. You're headed to Austin, NV which is fairly high elevation, temps may be a little warm that time of year...go for the extra ponies to haul your family.

Z

Grab the HP and the nice plane... if only to please the wife with something "new".

However, don't expect any real speed difference in between the two. The main difference is the climb speed.

Owned an "M" with a cruise prop & my friend had an "SP." I flew both here in Honolulu and would choose his "SP" just because it was newer and it flew faster. Both aircraft need lots of room to climb, so keep that in mind.

The 0360 ("SP") is currently the best selling engine at Lycoming. The 0320 ("M") proved to be a little under powered.

I've flown both of their SPs and one of their other 172s. I say take one with the O-320, the SPs aren't going to be significantly faster but it sure will cost a lot more money to rent. I bet it wouldn't save you more than 10 minutes on the 230+ NM flight. Is that worth it for the extra $44 an hour? And I think they charge an extra $5 if you take 3ME because it has some fancy MFD I don't know how to use. Also I believe at least some of their 0-320 powered 172s have Garmin 430s... Not that that matters much for VFR flying. Plus you always have your 395 you can take. I wouldn't be worried about the 20 less HP. I've flown my 170 (145hp) over the Sierras at gross weigh several times, just fly early. I believe one of their O-320 172s has a powerflow exhaust, go for that one.

ya take Victor.....the one with a puke tail. It has a good GPS and a little extra power cause the powerflow. It's a good plane!

Thanks I was thinking the same thing. I've always been impressed with 9904V. I flew it this week and was doing 1000 fpm on upwind and still having to pull the nose up to keep it from redlining. It has a 430 as well. I went ahead and booked it. I've spent more than enough money at the school to cover it for a weekend. I figure we'll put around 5 hrs on the hobbs.

AvidFlyer wrote:Thanks I was thinking the same thing. I've always been impressed with 9904V. I flew it this week and was doing 1000 fpm on upwind and still having to pull the nose up to keep it from redlining. It has a 430 as well. I went ahead and booked it. I've spent more than enough money at the school to cover it for a weekend. I figure we'll put around 5 hrs on the hobbs.

good call!

In case it helps, the XP Skyhawk cruises at about 120 KTAS at high altitude. That's 210hp in theory, maybe closer to 200 with an old engine

I have flown 160 hp and 180 hp M models on the pipeline for thousands of hours. Other than having a heavier nose and using more gas, the 180 didn't impress me. We didn't climb, except in the mountains.

I climbed to 13K in ours this morning at max gross with a 60F surface temp and it was still going. I'm not sure the O-320 could have done that. The book says it will but climb rate really becomes dismal.

Zzz wrote:I climbed to 13K in ours this morning at max gross with a 60F surface temp and it was still going. I'm not sure the O-320 could have done that. The book says it will but climb rate really becomes dismal.

I tend to concur...

"There is NO replacement for displacement." O360 will kick a$$ on an 0320. Can't do anything about it.

Zzz wrote:I climbed to 13K in ours this morning at max gross with a 60F surface temp and it was still going. I'm not sure the O-320 could have done that. The book says it will but climb rate really becomes dismal.

I went to 15k once at gross weight in Charley But yes climb rate was terrible, I was still impressed though.

I'm surprised that there's such a difference ($44 / hr) in rental rates. Is the improved climb needed, or desired enough to be worth an extra $200 or so in rental fees?

The flying club I used to be in had a M model as well as a SP. the M model did about 105 KIAS on 6.5 gph and the SP did 115 KIAS on 8.5 gph. The difference in time, as mentioned above, was minimal...10-15 minutes at most depending on the length of the flight. The SP's empty weight was roughly 300 lbs more than the M model. When we threw the powerflow exhaust on the M model, it's performance was nearly identical to the SP...maybe even better in some phases...but on a couple gallons per hour less.

I don't buy their claim that you'll save money by taking the SP. They just want it there because they know it will fly more.

robw56 wrote:

Zzz wrote:I climbed to 13K in ours this morning at max gross with a 60F surface temp and it was still going. I'm not sure the O-320 could have done that. The book says it will but climb rate really becomes dismal.

I went to 15k once at gross weight in Charley But yes climb rate was terrible, I was still impressed though.

Yeah, but that is Charley. He has special powers.

Zzz wrote:

robw56 wrote:

Zzz wrote:I climbed to 13K in ours this morning at max gross with a 60F surface temp and it was still going. I'm not sure the O-320 could have done that. The book says it will but climb rate really becomes dismal.

I went to 15k once at gross weight in Charley But yes climb rate was terrible, I was still impressed though.

Yeah, but that is Charley. He has special powers.

Hahaha, very true!... At least when compared to 172s!

By my (admittedly potentially faulty) calculations, you'll save $67 with the M vs. the SP. If $67 makes that huge a difference, and being as nasty as I can be under the circumstances, you have no business in aviation!

Putting my nice hat back on, however, I'd go for the SP if only because in the warmth of the summer, regardless of where you're flying, those few extra ponies do indeed make a difference, not so much in speed, but in climb ability. Realistically, you're comparing 105 knots to 115 knots, but depending on load, a very noticeable difference in climb rate. I have gobs of time in 172s of all ilk, 145hp through 210hp, and a little more power can make all the difference in whether there are puckers or not in all the wrong places.

Cary

Cary wrote:By my (admittedly potentially faulty) calculations, you'll save $67 with the M vs. the SP.

I bet the real savings will be more like $150+. In my opinion that's a substantial savings for a 464NM round trip. Even given the high elevations Joey will have to cross and the relatively high field elevation and DA at Austin, the 172M can handle it just fine. Especially in the particular 172 with a power flow exhaust and an empty weight of (I'm guessing) 200lbs+ less than the SP that he's planning to rent. Joey, how many hours can you fly in your Avid with an extra 150 bucks?