Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

172S or PA-28-161 as a practical light IFR tourer

In response to the Mooney thread..

In flat countries, maybe, but the pretty much absent climb above FL100 makes it a challenge to cross the alps.

Furthermore, don't try low drag approaches, you won't be able to configure without overspeeding the flaps. The approach controller will love you for the sequencing challenges.

Also, I don't know why they even put the back seats in, with so little payload. That would also solve the CG dropping out of the rear limit.

It's a strange aircraft, when you want it to fly (departure, climb), it doesn't want to, but if you want it to stop flying (for landing), it wants to keep flying forever.>

Richard Collins in the 1970's spent two years flying a Skyhawk II as a regular business asset with quite reasonable dispatch statistics and always filing IFR. He then moved on to 28 years of the P210 (with attendant maintenance agony).

The resurrected 172 with glass cockpit, improved electric system and gyro/AHRS redundancy, 26 g seats, fuel injected Lycoming and airbags is an updated version with nearly all the improvements coming in the form of safety enhancements. It also has 900lbs+ useful load which makes it a practical platform where you can either fly with four 1970's adults (of the 170lb type) 200 nm with reserves, or two adults and luggage over 500nm with reserves.

The touchdown speed remains below 45knots, with flaps, and the 172 type boasts possibly the safest accident record of the entire GA fleet (by a multiple). In large measure because of the low stall speed, simplicity of the systems, benign handling and if there is an accident (under control) the crash worthiness of the safety restraint systems/cabin structure results in a low injury rate. Compared to complex SEP or MEP the injury rate following an accident (percentage of fatal/serious) is a fraction of these types, in addition to a lower overall accident rate.

Taking the points from the Mooney thread drift above.

I would question flying IMC over the alps in an SEP, or for that matter an MEP - have done it many times but only solo. The 172S with a service ceiling of FL140 would not reach the MEA so correct that it would not be practical, if there is a need to fly above, say, FL100 in IMC. It is also un pressurised, and not FIKI: with a good proportion of airways in Europe above FL100, the light IFR definition does mean effectively only over low ground. Legally you also have to be conscious of flying SE IMC over congested population areas which requires an ability to either plan for these or fly at quite high FL.

Typically if you are flying in an approach environment which requires keeping your speed up you are landing on an ILS type runway and the FG SEP can comfortably fly the approach at 100 knots+, and land flapless.

Payload and CG range is quite OK, but correct, not really a four seat adult aircraft, more realistically a practical three adult aircraft. But technically it can fly missions with four average adults if fuel is limited.

Many are used in semi-bush conditions with reasonable STOL characteristics, while not being in Super Cub or Maule territory. Correctly flown they make perfectly good spot landing aircraft.

What they don't do is stroke our ego! But with some complex SEPs, and here the firebreathing margin might only be 30~50 knots (150~170 vs 120), having an accident rate three times higher, and a fatality rate even higher: my thesis is these legacy, updated, simple FG SEP costing less than $300k new are the future.

Also the training industry does a reasonable job of getting PPLs to not hurt themselves in these types. It self evidently does a less good job of preparing PPLs for complex SEP and MEP. The Cirrus is an excellent type but the training industry is not able to produce PPLs which operate Cirri to the safety standards of a 172 or Warrior.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

As much as I would like to be able to say "a 172 can be a very decent light-IFR tourer if you respect its limits", over time I have come to the conclusion that - just like all the other 160/180 hp four-seaters - it really can't even deliver that. It's really only useful for practicing procedures in CAVOK conditions and not much more.

Reason is the combination of mediocre climb, cruise and endurance. Many countries in Europe require at least FL100 for IFR in controlled airspace. And even when they don't, even on "nice" days, one very often needs FL100 or more in order to get on top, which is really the only way to enjoy a pleasant flight.

I know these aircraft can climb to FL100 eventually, but it takes a long time and that gives you best chances to pick up some ice in the climb just by flying through a few small puffies. And then you're done with climbing.

For useful touring, you need either one of the 230HP+ normally aspirated aircraft or a turbocharged one.

That said, if I had to choose between a 2013 C172 and a 2013 Warrior, I would definitely prefer the Cessna. The latter did undergo at least some innovation when they restarted production (fuel injected engine).

BTW, recent 172s have more like 800-850 lbs of useful load - way too little to ever use the 3ed and forth seat legally on any significant IFR flight. However, this istrue also for the Warrior.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

As a 20 year Piper Pilot i disagree :-)) Except for the better STOL capabilities, the more effective flaps and the two doors a PA-28 Warrior/Archer flies nicer than a Skyhawk. But that's just an opinion!

Personally I find the PA28 much more comfortable than the 172 - and our 235 is much faster as well :) but I wish I still had access to a Cherokee 6

EHLE / Lelystad, Netherlands, Netherlands

It's really only useful for practicing procedures in CAVOK conditions and not much more.

As a PA28-181 flyer, I am in two minds about it's use as a practical tourer. It cruises at 110kts more of less, depending on power setting and need to be fuel efficient. It has a service ceiling of around 12,000 ft. It has a range of 4 - 5 hours. Most have the minimum IFR equipment. So technically nothing stopping it being a tourer, albeit slower and with less luxury than a Saratoga or a Arrow or something of slightly better pedigree.

But risk management and convenience comes into play. If I compared my plane to Peters, mine has a basic A/P, it has no oxygen set up, besides the GNS430 most equipment is 1980's (so no HSI or even electronic HSI), there is little redundancy in the equipment, it wont out-climb weather at FL140, and even if it could it would take one heck of a long time to get there, it has no de-iced prop, I have no decent TCAS, no stormscope / weather radar, the speed is not so quick, and the endurance is probably half. So if I did trips like Peter's I have to take a lot more into account, maybe like he does compared to a flight Jason C does. It doesn't mean it's impossible though - just that there is more to consider.

Then again, compare a PA28-181 to a Piper Cub, and it looks much more capable and realistic as a tourer.

Also, look at Aussie Andy. Him and his mate are flying from the UK to Australia in a older PA28-180, and his current reports suggest he is making good progress. So practical or not, these machines certainly are tourers.

A -181 Archer should easily cruise with 120 ktas, no? My 150 hp -151 Warrior cruises with 105 @2400 rpm (8000 feet). My Warrior, i would say, is a nice tourer - i've been to Spain, Crete, England, Sweden in it ... and although it's slow compared to the SR22 i never cared (didn't want to land soon anyway!)

230 hp + I don't know. My aircraft (M20C) has 180 hp and a carburettor, same engine as the Archer incidently, but with 17000 ft service ceiling and 140-150 knots and 500 NM range I'd think it is quite capable of doing "light" IFR. That is without ice and with a limited range. I had it up at FL170 in high summer, DA of about 20'000 ft and it still flies happily up there. And it does not cost more than a 172 or PA28, actually it is cheaper on the per route calculation.

I used to own a Cessna 150 which was also IFR. That is 90 kts, no AP, max 12000 ft. Longest flight I did with it IFR was (in one day) LSZH-LFLY-LFPG-LFMV-LSGG... some 9 hours. Prime reason was I needed IFR time and also I did not want to scud run in Italy.

PA28, there are lots of them IFR. Why not. Yes, it is not very fast, but it is quite a load carrier (at least the 180 is) and has a decent range of about 500 NM.

But clearly, as it was said, the big thing for a tourer is speed. Speeed will actually make your flight cheaper in the end, as you might pay more per hour but spend considerably less time airborne. On my flight to Bulgaria, I had a total of 15 flying hours both ways with the Mooney, with a Cherokee 140 or Warrior that would have easily been 20-25 hours.

If I hear people who want a reasonable tourer which has both the advantages of speed and being a "non complex", then I'd have to point to the Grumman AA5 series. They are fast (the Tiger is around 140 kts and the Cheetah about 125 kts), have the same engines as the Archer/Warrior and deliver very good performance for the money. They are not however very good climbers, 12000 ft is about what you can get.

Otherwise, by all means consider a Mooney M20C preferrably or a 201. It can do most of what an Archer or a C172 can do but it does it 30-40 kts faster and with a better range. But it will be in the operating price range of the said Archer.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

The main issue is not aircraft performance (for recreational flying you can pick suitable weather, so it really comes down to the despatch rate) but the minimum levels for the Eurocontrol routings.

These vary according to country. The easiest I know of is France where you can fly down to FL070. It happens to be in Class E FL065-FL115, Class D above that up to FL195, but under IFR you don't really need to know that because the routes are all the same. But in most other places you can't file or fly that low, and FL100/110 is the minimum generally usable. FL120-140 is better for crossing some TMAs. And yes you need oxygen...

A PA28-181 Archer can do FL140 but will take a long time to get up there, which is OK for say crossing the Alps but not really for flying routinely up that high.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

A -181 Archer should easily cruise with 120 ktas, no?

It can, but that's nearer the 75% power band, but generally for a slightly more economical trip I set about 2350 RPM which is nearer the 65% power band and 110 ish knots. Some PA28's have slightly different props, and some perform better in a climb, and some perform better in a cruise.

Yes, I know. My Warrior flies 105 KTAS at 2400 rpm at 8000 feet. With a fuel flow of 30 liters/h, 7.9 gallons. The best difference between the two is the better climb of the Archer which makes a big difference when loaded.

Over flat land both can fly IFR ok, but FL140 is nothing you do would do often, besides that almost nobody has O2 in a Archer or Warrior. It's ok for flying IFR at FL80 or 89 though.

I did my complete IFR in a 180 hp C.172 RG. Worked okay

37 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top