Touring in my view doesn't necessarily mean flying IFR. If you want to tour, and see the sights, a PA28 or C172 is a good match for two people with bags so long as you don't plan on flying high and are in a hurry.
Maybe it's just me, but the idea of travelling in or above clouds in anything that has one piston engine is not so appealing anymore. I'd much prefer two engines, anti/de-ice and all the bells and whistles if I really need to fly IFR. On the other hand I now much prefer to fly low and see where I'm going, after all, the trip is supposed to be the fun part.
There was an episode on TV many years ago with two pilots flying a J3 Cub across America. Looked like one heck of a fun trip.
IFR is so... airline like...
It would seem to me that most "IFR Tourers" on the forum are travellers rather than tourers.
Complete agreement Krister - the view from 1500ft is so much better :)
I would agree re the view, but so much of the time there is a cloud layer at 2-3k, tops say 6k, so you have exactly 3 options
VFR below the cloud (outside the UK, often airspace hassles, and the planning can be fun)
VFR above the cloud at say FL085 (not usually possible in the UK, usually easy outside the UK)
Eurocontrol IFR (not possible very low down, and if - while VMC on top - you encounter rising tops you will "obviously" climb up)
I did loads of VFR touring - as far as Crete, Santorini, Malaga... but then, and in retrospect now also, I don't think those trips would have been doable VFR below the cloud other than as an "adventure spread out in time" over a week or two each way. Or via great luck!
Lots of people have done long trips VFR below the cloud but they tend to allocate loads of time to it.
It would seem to me that most "IFR Tourers" on the forum are travellers rather than tourers.
I hugely enjoy the scenery from high up (except N France) but I don't think I would enjoy it as much if I was flying a turboprop at FL250 - especially as the windows are not much good for taking photos.
Yes you're absolutely right about the time aspect. Planning is part of the trip, as is not making it to where you thought you were going and having tons of maps that turn out to be completely useless... :)
The original question was about suitability of the PA28 or C172 as a light IFR tourer, but I think I would consider them VFR tourers with basic IFR capability for getting out or getting home when options are few.
This has dawned on me lately, ever since joining those privileged with flying high and fast. It's a great way to travel, but I don't see much. So, now I'm back to VFR for pleasure.
It's a great way to travel, but I don't see much
What I was getting at is that there is a middle way: Eurocontrol IFR in the lower airways, which is about all one can practically do in most SEPs.
On a nice day you ask for a "stop climb" at FL100 or so.
That sort of flying can be done in a PA28-161. On my FAA IR we were flying at 11k in Arizona, in 0C i.e. ISA+7.
Certainly you can see more detail at 1500ft but you also see far less of what is around you. You don't get such great scenic views.
And the pilot workload is not even comparable between the two - unless you can plan the whole route in Class G.
Whether an IR is worth doing if you fly a PA28-161 is another matter.... it is a pretty significant project and always will be.
The original question was about suitability of the PA28 or C172 as a light IFR tourer, but I think I would consider them VFR tourers with basic IFR capability for getting out or getting home when options are few
Concur.
Great trip Shorrick!
Peter, you're right again about workload, and yes there is some validity to flying IFR from a comfort point of view, both turbulence and clearances are easier to handle. Perhaps i should revise it to say IMC rather than IFR, but I still find IFR introduces a Travel mode as opposed to Touring. As you say, one can crisscross in G space and up here in my neck of the woods that is a very viable option. Germany and France are a different story.
PiperArcher, good post.
It's really only useful for practicing procedures in CAVOK conditions and not much more.
I hope you wrote that to start a discussion ;-)
I've done VFR and IFR touring with friends in both PA28-181s and C172s since 2005, both day-trips and longer trips to southern Europe (Croatia, Italy from Sweden). We are of course more weather dependent than SR22s and TB20s, so the flying season will be shorter IFR (icing) and the dispatch rate will be lower, but it's very doable and enjoyable (as long as WX cooperates).
It's all about which type of flying you do I guess.
Let me say it slightly differently: over the last years, I have - in numerous occasions - been in situations where (flying the SR22) I thought "gosh, I wouldn't want to be in a 160hp spamcan now".
You think that is because I was in bad weather too much? Not at all, I don't fly in bad weather. But even on most "nice" summer days, sooner or later, some clouds form, often with tops between FL100 and FL140, and the only way to have a nice ride is to go above it. And a 160hp aircraft with fuel, baggage and pax will simply not make it up there in summer. Stay below it and the ride will inevitably be bumpy, hazy and overall uncomfortable for passengers. Fly in the clouds and your pax will outright hate it.
Passenger (i.e.: non-pilot) comfort plays an important role in my flying. That's why I like to get on top a quickly as possible and stay there until it's time to descend. Not spectacular, but it has proven the test of time.
In the five years that I have flown the SR20, I have definitely spent more time in IMC than in the eight years that I've been flying the SR22.
I hope you wrote that to start a discussion ;-)
I quoted that from boscomantico, and I disagree with that statement in its simplest form. In the UK I regularly exercise my IMCr privileges and being in the UK, one rarely has an all day CAVOK TAF ;-) My point is that you can use it for touring but you have to accept the limitations and inconveniences of a PA28 type machine compared to a TB20 or a Saratoga or something.
