we operate a 172n and I have to say its a great aeroplane. it will make 12000. however as peter says it is a bit range limited.
however I am now starting to get alot of hanger experience from the 172 centurion operator who is based at our field. with it being turbocharged 14000 is no problem and the rate of climb doesnt drop off as you get up high. also with it being much more fuel efficent the problem with reduced range is also much reduced.
I suspect the biggest problem using a 172 or 28 as an ifr tourer is ice
That's correct Peter. It's a niche market so what better than using the experience one has to add an advantage. Sadly not possible with Part-FCL. Training is normally done on single engine turbines, so not quite as expensive as the twin option.
My own interest was in rescue or ambulance ops, but offshore could be of interest as well. Not gonna happen I fear...
IFR in helis requires a twin turbine in Europe. There are very few exceptions that sneaked in under the wire years ago (I believe 1 or 2 Jet Rangers in the UK).
So, if you can't afford €40k then ... 
Even in the USA there are almost no single turbines certified for IFR. A bloke I know who went around the world bought one of these just for the trip - a Hughes 500 I think. It is parked where I am based, painted bright orange.
I had thought about transitioning to helos with an IR, a relatively reasonable move in JAR-FCL. But with the new regs you're not credited for any time so to go from CPL/ME/IR fixed wing to rotor is like buying a Mansion with a Rolls-Royce and sugar on top.
What in the world are these legislators on? Meth? The FAA must be looking forward to tons of helopilots in the future...
Emigrate indeed.
By the way, has anyone taken notice of the requirements and resulting cost for a Helo IR? It's being advertized at around 40000 EUR in Sweden...
Its probably cheaper - and in the long run much more productive - to emigrate.
Krister,
interesting, have not heard that one yet. If they indeed wanted that, boy have they reversed their stance. First they want to ban the IR and now they are largely responsible for EASA to finally reckognize that IR is not something which requires rocket science...
It could well be one reason however why the French GA scene basically voted with their feet and went predominantly FAA/N-Reg. That in itself now more and more proves like a very useful protest and seems to produce at least some results. I am not holding my breath but maybe if the momentum now gained via the IR-NP can be held up, we might see more of the same.
Rumour has it that when JAR was introduced "the French" wanted a ban on PPL+IR requiring at minimum CPL or preferrably ATPL level through University to be allowed IFR...
Don't know of it was true, I did mine just before the transition anyway, but that would've spelled the end for sure! Perhaps we should be glad it isn't any worse than it is already.
By the way, has anyone taken notice of the requirements and resulting cost for a Helo IR? It's being advertized at around 40000 EUR in Sweden...
So I think it is mainly Europe's screwing over of IR holders that has driven more capable GA here into the ground
Absolutely.
The next segment is populated by a rapidly dwindling population of experienced middle aged pilots flying older legacy more capable aircraft
That's a good analysis (the comment makes me smile ) but I think it is specific to Europe, where a capable plane is a chocolate teapot unless you have an IR, but the private pilot IR process has been thoroughly shafted by regulation and FTO revenue creation.
In UK airspace, you have the IMCR but you don't need a 150kt FL200 IFR plane to use that, given that you spend much of your time cloud hole drilling at 2400ft/3400ft/etc. You can do it with anything that is stable, preferably has an autopilot, and with ILS and a decent GPS which can be a handheld because there is no BRNAV etc equipment carriage requirement.
But in the USA, Cirrus for example sold best part of 10k planes. I am sure many of them fly only VFR (which is viable in the USA, due to the 18k Class A base) but that sales figure could have never happened in Europe where an SR22 is poor value without an IR. And not all US based SR22 pilots are in their 50s or older. Many are a lot younger.
So I think it is mainly Europe's screwing over of IR holders that has driven more capable GA here into the ground. Of course there are other factors like a lack of airports...
Thank you for the replies and good to see simple FG SEP being used for IMC. My thesis is that these aircraft with a $300~350k new price point have such a statistically significant safety advantage record (two to three times safer than retractable gear aircraft, heavier complex FG SEP and an even higher factor for MEP), that it is difficult to see a volume re introduction of retractable gear aircraft in the industry.
In effect Darwin has led to a segmentation with FG SEP like these having a less than 0.5/100,000 hour fatality rate and providing OK dispatch for 300~350nm missions. The next segment is populated by a rapidly dwindling population of experienced middle aged pilots flying older legacy more capable aircraft. Note the next price point for new aircraft is two or three times higher ($600k+) than the taper wing Warrior and 172S, with a more than doubling in the accident rate.
The kinetic energy of an accident in a more capable aircraft, combined with the benign flying characteristics (the taper wing Warrior perhaps has never had a loss of control stall/spin fatality) of the simpler FG SEP, suggests that these safety advantages are built in.
In effect the future outside Kitplanes/LSA is likely to be simple FG SEP for 300~350nm average missions, and multi crew commercial turbine for the rest. The Cirrus being the only volume contender that might provide medium range IFR capability.
A re-engined, updated Turbo Dakota (200HP turbo) or similar 172S might be an interesting development if they could be introduced at $400K, but this is unlikely.
