CT vs Cessna 172 article

[Cluemeister]

AVWeb has an article today comparing the costs and benefits of owning a late model/new CT vs a glass cockpit used 172. I believe it's a reprint from Aviation Consumer in 2014, but I had not seen it before.

 

http://www.avweb.com/news/features/LSA-vs-Standard-Sacrifice-for-Savings-226151-1.html

[gbigs]

AVWeb has an article today comparing the costs and benefits of owning a late model/new CT vs a glass cockpit used 172. I believe it's a reprint from Aviation Consumer in 2014, but I had not seen it before.

 

http://www.avweb.com/news/features/LSA-vs-Standard-Sacrifice-for-Savings-226151-1.html

 

They are not comparable aircraft. 

 

The 172 is about the same cruise speed but yet costs more than a used CTLS and has a clumsier and more complicated G1000.  The plane has a far more cramped cockpit, has wing struts which are both ugly and obstruct view, and requires a 3rd class medical and current PPL to fly.  The 172 requires triple the fuel costs because it needs 100LL and has a 15gph fuel burn.  And has no BRS parachute.

 

But the 172 does have two more seats...whoopie-do.

 

The idea that composite is somehow more costly to maintain is a myth.

[FlyingMonkey]

They are not comparable aircraft. 

 

The 172 is about the same cruise speed but yet costs more than a used CTLS and has a clumsier and more complicated G1000.  The plane has a far more cramped cockpit, has wing struts which are both ugly and obstruct view, and requires a 3rd class medical and current PPL to fly.  The 172 requires triple the fuel costs because it needs 100LL and has a 15gph fuel burn.  And has no BRS parachute.

 

But the 172 does have two more seats...whoopie-do.

 

The idea that composite is somehow more costly to maintain is a myth.

 

I don't think you can make a 172 burn 15gph at WOT and sea level.  The "cramped" cockpit can take four people instead of the roomy CT's two people.  Those "whoopie-do" extra seats mean 410lb more useful load than your CTLSi.  (890lb vs 480lb)...not insignificant.

 

The point of the article you apparently missed, was to compare choices of somebody spending $90-150k on an airplane with a glass panel, and what the advantages/disadvantages are of buying a certified airplane vs. an LSA in that price range.

 

There are benefits to both.  The CTLS is a great airplane.  So is a 172.  There is no wrong answer here.

[Craig]

They are not comparable aircraft. 

 

Did you read the article?  They perfectly explained the context of the comparison (completely legitimate), and all their arguments and pro's and con's were relevant.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I remember burning 9 gph in our old 172 with 180hp lyc.  It was a good mountain plane, fast compared to our 180hp Cherokee and slow compared to my CTSW.

[Rich]

Fuel burn on the C-172 P model 180 conversion was 8 GPH cruise.

7 GPH at 80 Knots search speeds with 10* flaps, CAP.

 

I enjoyed the comparison and the same can hold true for some other SLSA's.

Sting S4 anyone  ?

[gbigs]

Did you read the article?  They perfectly explained the context of the comparison (completely legitimate), and all their arguments and pro's and con's were relevant.

 

They did not mention BRS, the drastic difference in cockpit size, the strutless versus strutted wing, or the difference and similarities between Dynon/Garmin touch and the G1000.  They did go out of their way to repeat the unfounded myth that carbon fiber has some special and more expensive maintenance problem over the tin-foil-riveted Cessna. 

 

A 1960s 172 has an 8gph burn.  The comparison is with newer 172, say from the 80s and those burn 10gph plus (2x expensive 100LL versus 91E10).   http://flighttraining.aopa.org/learntofly/articles/0110.html

[FlyingMonkey]

1)  Cessna 172S has a cabin width of 42".  Not exactly a "drastic difference" with a CTLS at 49".  

 

2)  10gph is NOT 15gph.  And I doubt even a 172SP has a fuel burn above 8-9gph unless you are running flat out.

 

3)  Carbon fiber IS more expensive.  Knock a hole in the wing of a 172 and a CTLS, I bet the CTLS costs 4-10x more to repair.

 

4)  In my area, premium unleaded (93 octane) is ~$2.89/gal, 100LL is $3.49/gal (at KJCA).  Hardly "twice as expensive".

 

Repeating propaganda often enough doesn't make it true.

[Tom Baker]

1)  Cessna 172S has a cabin width of 42".  Not exactly a "drastic difference" with a CTLS at 49".  

 

2)  10gph is NOT 15gph.  And I doubt even a 172SP has a fuel burn above 8-9gph unless you are running flat out.

 

3)  Carbon fiber IS more expensive.  Knock a hole in the wing of a 172 and a CTLS, I bet the CTLS costs 4-10x more to repair.

 

4)  In my area, premium unleaded (93 octane) is ~$2.89/gal, 100LL is $3.49/gal (at KJCA).  Hardly "twice as expensive".

 

Repeating propaganda often enough doesn't make it true.

 

Having both training in aluminum repair and carbon fiber repair, I would much rather repair the hole in the carbon fiber.

 

If you want it to be look like new you have to replace the whole section of skin. This can be quite labor intensive and it might require jigging. In addition you will have to paint all the metal you replace.

 

The same small hole in the composite structure will typically only need to be a couple inches larger than the hole. No need for large scale replacement. This area can then be painted and blended into the surrounding area making an almost invisible repair.

 

The big problem with carbon fiber repair is the lack of people trained to make the repairs, because of this it will be easier to find someone to do metal repair. Those who perpetuate the myth that carbon is harder to repair don't know how to do carbon repair. It is the fear of the unknown.

[Anticept]

In addition to what Tom said:

 

For many types of repairs, aluminium takes more labor hours, but composite takes more wall clock time (due to curing). This gap only grows for large scale repairs; it takes a HUGE amount of very skilled labor and machinery to do complex metal shapes, and one screw up requires the project to start over. Composites can be done with scraps of foam and clay (although critical parts still require a lot of skill to make and inspect), and for the most part, minor mistakes don't scrap the project.

 

Composite materials are stupidly expensive and generate a lot of waste though, so there's definitely those costs.

 

For something small, composite is definitely quicker.

 

Aluminium does have the failure mode and elasticity advantage though... a minor dent in aluminium isn't a big deal as it's still strong (unless it's a pressure vessel)... in composite it's definitely a big deal as the strength is very likely compromised. It's also a bit easier to engineer if you are trying to cut at much weight as possible...  but for the same extreme in composites, you need to be familiar with tensile calculus and have a pretty beefy computer hardware for the simulations.

[FastEddieB]

The 172 requires triple the fuel costs because it needs 100LL and has a 15gph fuel burn.

Biggest number I see is 8.7 gph.

 

 

As far as the "whoopie-do" over twice the seating capacity, that's just bizarre. Can you relate to the fact that some pilots need to carry more than one passenger?

 

Probably not.

[FlyingMonkey]

BTW, how many seats does an SR22T have? And what is the fuel burn, 18-20gph? Does it require 100LL?

 

Oh, the huge manatee!!!

[GravityKnight]

I don't think you can make a 172 burn 15gph at WOT and sea level.  The "cramped" cockpit can take four people instead of the roomy CT's two people.  Those "whoopie-do" extra seats mean 410lb more useful load than your CTLSi.  (890lb vs 480lb)...not insignificant.

 

The point of the article you apparently missed, was to compare choices of somebody spending $90-150k on an airplane with a glass panel, and what the advantages/disadvantages are of buying a certified airplane vs. an LSA in that price range.

 

There are benefits to both.  The CTLS is a great airplane.  So is a 172.  There is no wrong answer here.

 

 

^ this

 

 

 

Might be a big surprise for certain people, but there are actually quite a few really great airplanes out there 

[gbigs]

BTW, how many seats does an SR22T have? And what is the fuel burn, 18-20gph? Does it require 100LL?

 

Oh, the huge manatee!!!

 

The point is the 172 and the CT are not comparable (two seater non-certified Sport Pilot flown .vs. a four seater certified Private Pilot flown).  But the grim part is the 172 costs more to buy and suffers twice the fuel burn and doesn't go faster and is more cramped in the cockpit.  Why do people defend the 172?  Because it's likely what they learned in...there were zillions made and they are everywhere....a design much older than the more cost effective, newer designs now found in the CTLS.

 

If you want to compare the 172 certified four seater to the Cirrus SR22T certified four+1/2 seater it's more appropriate - yet still absurd....Why?  Because though both are certified the new SR22T is twice the price of the new 172.  But the SR22T is almost twice as fast and requires 80% higher fuel burn.   Also, the SR22T has built-in oxygen, a 25k foot ceiling, certified FIKI deicing, 1300 lbs useful, 3600 lb gross takeoff weight and has 12 inch displays versus the 10 inch displays in a standard G1000 setup.  The SR22T climbs faster, fly's farther (92 gallon tank), fly's higher, in all weather and with a wide comfortable cockpit.  And it has CAPS....the certified all-airframe parachute. 

[Doug G.]

So, what you are saying is that you can't compare one plane to another because they are all different??

[FastEddieB]

So, what you are saying is that you can't compare one plane to another because they are all different??

No, I think he's saying the main difference between a CT and a C172 is that the SR22T has built-in oxygen, a 25k foot ceiling, certified FIKI deicing, 1300 lbs useful, 3600 lb gross takeoff weight and has 12 inch displays versus the 10 inch displays in a standard G1000 setup. The SR22T climbs faster, fly's farther (92 gallon tank), fly's higher, in all weather and with a wide comfortable cockpit. And it has CAPS....the certified all-airframe parachute.

 

And somebody needs to seriously reconsider thinking "all weather" when discussing his small piston GA aircraft - or any aircraft, for that matter. Whoever gave him that idea needs a serious talking to.

[Doug G.]

Eddie, I am glad you respond to what I think I said rather than what I said! (Autocorrect manually corrected.)

[Tom Baker]

The point is the 172 and the CT are not comparable (two seater non-certified Sport Pilot flown .vs. a four seater certified Private Pilot flown). 

 

 

Airplane certification and pilot certification are two completely different things. The CT is not limited to sport pilots, any pilot can fly the CT. I am a commercial pilot with a second class medical and I fly a CT.

 

The Cessna 172 is the most popular airplane ever base on total aircraft that have been built. It is the standard for small personal aircraft that all other small personal aircraft are compared to. With similar cruising speeds I think it is a fair comparison.

[gbigs]

So, what you are saying is that you can't compare one plane to another because they are all different??

 

I am saying it's senseless to compare planes from different niches and vastly different missions and capabilities.  The article sadly did illustrate how lame the 172 is because it costs more but does not perform at a higher level.

 

Even as a trainer the 172 comes up short.  You only need two seats for that mission yet blow twice the fuel cost for each training flight.  Gotta wonder why the article was written at all....

[Doug G.]

I am saying it's senseless to compare planes from different niches and vastly different missions and capabilities. The article sadly did illustrate how lame the 172 is because it costs more but does not perform at a higher level.

 

Even as a trainer the 172 comes up short. You only need two seats for that mission yet blow twice the fuel cost for each training flight. Gotta wonder why the article was written at all....

I suspect it was because it wasn't written with you as the target audience. Most of the rest of us find it interesting.

I would even find it an interesting approach to compare the F-16 to the CT, if it was well written.

[Craig]

Gotta wonder why the article was written at all....

 

Right... so far everyone here except you found it interesting and legitimate.... troll much?