I fly for fun. The analogy "GA and saving money" is considered an oxymoron in my opinion. But, saving money to fly more GA is completely rational. .

I understand the rationale behind "you've got to pay to play" and "aviation isn't cheap,"

BUT

If you've got two differently priced options and both will work just fine, and being as nasty as I can be under the circumstances, why the HELL would you choose to spend more money?!


Not to bash too hard here, but I think our collective opinion on somebody trying to save money having no business in aviation has gotten a little out of hand. I'm guilty, too. I understand the original intent of trying to keep someone from cheaping out on repairs or whatnot and potentially causing a safety hazard, but when choice A and choice B will both safely do the job why would you pay more for choice B? Unless you just wanted to, which is a personal choice and not one to be pushed on others.

robw56 wrote:

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?

The avid is down and doesn't have 3 seats!!!

piperpainter wrote:The avid is down and doesn't have 3 seats!!!

I know that, but it's almost flying again and when it is that extra $150 will buy a lot of time in the Avid.

CamTom12 wrote:I understand the rationale behind "you've got to pay to play" and "aviation isn't cheap,"

BUT

If you've got two differently priced options and both will work just fine, and being as nasty as I can be under the circumstances, why the HELL would you choose to spend more money?!


Not to bash too hard here, but I think our collective opinion on somebody trying to save money having no business in aviation has gotten a little out of hand. I'm guilty, too. I understand the original intent of trying to keep someone from cheaping out on repairs or whatnot and potentially causing a safety hazard, but when choice A and choice B will both safely do the job why would you pay more for choice B? Unless you just wanted to, which is a personal choice and not one to be pushed on others.

Well said. Being frugal isn't a bad thing, especially when money saved can be put towards more flying, aircraft upgrades, etc. Being frugal and good with money is also part of the reason I even have a plane.

CamTom12 wrote:I understand the rationale behind "you've got to pay to play" and "aviation isn't cheap,"

BUT

If you've got two differently priced options and both will work just fine, and being as nasty as I can be under the circumstances, why the HELL would you choose to spend more money?!


Not to bash too hard here, but I think our collective opinion on somebody trying to save money having no business in aviation has gotten a little out of hand. I'm guilty, too. I understand the original intent of trying to keep someone from cheaping out on repairs or whatnot and potentially causing a safety hazard, but when choice A and choice B will both safely do the job why would you pay more for choice B? Unless you just wanted to, which is a personal choice and not one to be pushed on others.

I agree. Very well said Cameron. Extra ponies are always nice, but if you can live without them and save money, then giver. For this reason I'll never have a Pponk on the nose of my 180 unless they get approved for moGas. The extra power just isn't worth burning more expensive fuel for me. I wouldn't be able to fly nearly as much if I had to run avgas.

If he's paying a fixed rate for a wet rental....

You are gonna keep all the knobs firewalled (to use a loose expression) - the cost of fuel doesn't need to factor in this particular decision. I realise that wasn't your intent, just saying.

In that case, personally I would always get the cheaper one if both are otherwise equivalent apart from power, and you're not doing short field or deep mountain ops.

Let's keep it simple: Use the 160 hp airplane. Cheaper and it'll get the job done nicely

MTV

I have been suitably whacked. Too bad there isn't a tongue-in-cheek emoticon! But were it me, I'd still go for the extra 20 hp, at the extra cost. There's no substitute for horsepower.

Cary

Cary wrote:I have been suitably whacked. Too bad there isn't a tongue-in-cheek emoticon! But were it me, I'd still go for the extra 20 hp, at the extra cost. There's no substitute for horsepower.

Cary

I hope I didn't come off as a jerk! It's something I've noticed among a lot of fellow pilots that's been bugging me for a little while now, and I catch myself doing it too! I was being tongue-in-cheek when I copied your text for my response

I have quite a bit of hours in both.

More horsepower is (almost) always safer.

That's all there is to it for me.

If the M model would do the job I'd take that. I don't see the correlation between more horsepower and safety if 160HP will do the job. Flying on minimal horsepower may be a challenge but can be done safely and builds a skillset and mindset that those more horsepower-privileged never had to think about until the engine quits. At least that is what I tell myself when taking of at gross weight in a 150HP PA22.

Having spent a fair amount of time in each, I always preferred the 172M to the SPs that I rented. Maybe it was just rigged perfectly or something, but just really sweet to fly.

Then I go out and buy a 172B, which handles beautifully and is comfy on cross countries but takes a little while to climb.

Thanks for all the replies. This particular plane with the powerflow exhaust does really well. The SPs have 20 more hp but weigh a ton more. Did the math from the POH and $180 over 4 hrs is not worth it. And to answer Robs question from way back that's 7 hrs of fuel in my plane. Couple hundered bucks to most of you is nothing but to the little guy flying the $15,000 snowmobile powered airplane in the backcountry it's pretty significant.