Sport Pilot Talk

Hello everyone,

I have been a private pilot for 5 years now and finally decided to purchase my own airplane. my question is should i buy a 1978 cessna 172n or a newer allegro lsa? The cessna is in really nice shape and just finished its annual for this year with no issues found. only has 800 tt and 60 hours on the engine. I know the cessna has more options for flying ie less restrictions but what is a better choice for my first airplane.

A word of caution. Just becuase an airplane just had an annual with no issues, doesn't mean anything. You need to find a good mechanic you trust and have a thourough pre buy inspection done.

When you say the engine has sixty hours, is that since a major overhaul, or since zero time. A big difference. I would like to know why an aircraft with just 800 hrs just had an overhaul or engine replacement.

zdc wrote:A word of caution. Just becuase an airplane just had an annual with no issues, doesn't mean anything. You need to find a good mechanic you trust and have a thourough pre buy inspection done.

When you say the engine has sixty hours, is that since a major overhaul, or since zero time. A big difference. I would like to know why an aircraft with just 800 hrs just had an overhaul or engine replacement.

The overhaul might be based on the fact that the airplane is 32 years old with only 800 hours.

Do you want an SUV @8gph, or a Miata @4.5gph? Talk about apples and oranges.

the engine was overhaulled or rebuilt due to age. outside of fuel consumption what would be a better aircraft to get the most enjoyment out of in the upper midwest (illinois)

garbageman wrote:Do you want an SUV @8gph, or a Miata @4.5gph? Talk about apples and oranges.

Miata please.

the other question is the engine in the allegro is a rotax engine is that a real engine? never heard of them before....

AB:

Yours is of course an apples vs. oranges question...and there's no 'real' correct answer.

To go back to front, first an A to your last Q: The Rotax is probably the most manufactured engine for piston single aircraft today. There are 3 major distributors in the USA to provide a supply chain, but being in the Midwest it would make sense to look at how many Rotax-certified repairman exist in your area. (An A&P that's well experienced in Continentals and Lycomings may not be your best choice for servicing your Rotax. OTOH you can complete a one-week course on Rotax servicing that will allow you to work on the engine...altho' to what degree is probably a function of your mechanical skills rather than the piece of paper you get).

There are many ways to slice your Q that no one answer is likely to have the answer for you. Here are two samples:

Allegro: no medical required (you didn't mention your age); you can complete seminars that allow you to do your own annual inspection and engine servicing (huge savings over time); 60% of the fuel burn; option (actually, it's preferred) to use mogas rather than 100LL, you might be able to share a hangar, depending on the other plane's size (LSA's are quite small compared to Part 23 a/c), all hardware, structures & instruments in the a/c are new, and so forth

172N: 'The' GA aircraft, easy to get repaired, parts available in KS, will be relatively easy to sell - everyone's flown a 172; no Euro exchange rate issues; your local A&P will know it well; surely you will want to take a friend from work, family member or neighbor for a flight...and they will want to bring their mate/friend/wife/husband; three's a crowd in an LSA; repairing composite structures is a bit of a black art (just what composites is it made of?) but repairing riveted aluminum has been widely understood since the 1940's; and finally, if you want to consider a partnership at some point (lots of good reasons to do so), finding partners for a 172 will likely be far simpler than for an LSA

Lots more can (and no doubt will) be said. In your shoes, I'd start with a very careful review of my family budget, the aviation part of it, and - most important - what I wanted to do long-term with the a/c.

Good luck to you!

allegroboy wrote:The cessna is in really nice shape and just finished its annual for this year with no issues found. only has 800 tt and 60 hours on the engine.

Although low engine hours would normally be considered a good thing, I'd be a little concerned about this. Why was a 2000 TBO engine overhauled or swapped at only 740 hours? Is there an underlying problem of which you should be aware? Study those logbooks carefully!

I know the cessna has more options for flying ie less restrictions

Actually, most of the restrictions would apply to the pilot, not the aircraft. For example, a Sport Pilot cannot fly at night or above 10,000 feet (unless within 2,000 feet of terrain). But since you're a Private Pilot, as long as you keep your medical active, those restrictions do not apply to you. If you have a properly night-equipped LSA, you can fly it at night with a PPL. If you have an LSA that can climb above 10,000, you can do so as a PPL. If your medical lapses, you can still fly an LSA, but only under Sport Pilot restrictions.

The 172 and most S-LSAs cruise at about the same speed. The 172 carries twice as many people, and burns twice as much fuel. You can easily get a repairman's certificate to work on and inspect the LSA -- for the 172, you'd need an A&P certificate to maintain (think two years fulltime schooling) and an IA rating to do annual inspections (another couple of years of study).

Rotax started out by building two-cycle engines for snowmobiles and jet-skis, many decades back. They graduated to four-stroke motorcycle engines (they make them for BMW under contract) about 30 years ago. The 912 series aircraft engines have been in production about 20 years, have a great maintenance and reliability history, and power something like 80% of the European light plane fleet. They have the best power to weight ratio in the industry. Rotax 912s are now a 2000 TBO engine, and make that easily (many go 1000 hours beyond it with no major maintenance requirements). They do require more routine service than Lycoming or Continental engines, but they cost a lot less (a new-in-the-crate 100 HP 912ULS is currently $19,000). Maintenance is a little different than it is for Lyco or Conti, so any mechanic who works on one (or any pilot who owns one) should really take the Rotax service and maintenance level courses (each runs one weekend, and costs about $500). There's also a heavy maintenance course for those who plan to split the case and do overhauls.

Whatever you choose, expect owning your own airplane to be twice as expensive as you anticipate (and three times as enjoyable). Good luck!

Having owned a Skyhawk and logged some time in an Allegro, normally I would say this is a no-brainer - flying the Allegro was the most unpleasant flying experience I can remember. However---what nobody has mentioned is that the 172N has the dreaded H engine that gave all kinds of problems when first introduced. If you choose to buy the Skyhawk, make very sure the engine had the T-mod when it was overhauled. If you do decide to buy a SLSA, IMO don't buy an Allegro!

KellyZ wrote:the 172N has the dreaded H engine that gave all kinds of problems when first introduced. If you choose to buy the Skyhawk, make very sure the engine had the T-mod when it was overhauled.

Kelly may have answered the issue I raised in my previous post (the reason the engine was rebuilt or replaced at such low hours). I'm not sure what the T-mod entails; maybe he can enlighten us.

If you do decide to buy a SLSA, IMO don't buy an Allegro!

I've never flown the Allegro, so can't comment on that. S-LSAs I've flown extensively include the Gobosh, SportStar, and SportCruiser (all very similar aircraft, that all fly quite well, IMHO). But whatever LSA you consider, try to get a couple of hours in it to see if it fits your flying style.

I have flown the allegro, it seems to fly nice and most trips would be a afternoon or day trip but i met someone at palwaukee now chicago executive airport that told me about his cessna, depending on weather the next few days here i will probably meet him today or tomorrow and fly it as well. I just dont want to get a plane i will not enjoy for the long term thats why im thinking about the cessna.

I would not focus on a specific airplane type, such as Allegro, based on rather shaky criteria. There was another poster a week ago who came in after already selecting down to two types, but he made complete sense about it (he was looking at LSAs that have greatest seat limits and have better pax boarding access). Here I do not see what makes Allegro special.

More Questions than answers. I have owned a 2006 Allegro for 3 years and have put about 300 hours on it. I had never flown anything before the Allegro and passed my checkride at age 59. My 19 year old son passed with about 1/2 the dual hours I had. Some tell me that if you are a C-172 driver that flying an Allegro 2000(or several other LSA's) is hard to adapt to. Mostly because you have to use you feet on the rudder and the low energy of the lightweight plane make it harder to learn how to land. Some questions!!

Do you think that you are going to be able to keep your medical for years to come?

How often do you want to have more that 1 passenger?

How light do you pack for short trips?

How far do you want to fly? Allegro 2000 14 gals = about 2.5-3 hours at 100 MPH 250-300 miles per leg. A few have the extra 10 gal wing tanks if your lucky enough to find one of those for sale.

What are the price differences between the Allegro 2000 and the C172 you are looking at??

Please PM me if you know want to know about Allegro 2000 ownership!!


Brian

ka7eej de n3fyp - More good Q's our OP should be trying to sort through. (I'm not sure I'd think in terms of 3 hr legs with a 14 gal tank & a 912 engine. OTOH the more typical endurance measure is bladder capacity).

One other point worth mentioning: These choices are not mutually exclusive. The OP can buy & fly the LSA, yet still rent a 4-pax a/c on occasion if carrying more weight or pax is needed. Being signed off on the 4-pax a/c and then flying actively will probably make the FBO comfortable with the only occasional rental of the 4-pax a/c.

OTOH I'm not sure the reverse makes any sense. If one owns the 172, it's hard to see how renting an LSA to enjoy its lower fuel costs makes any sense, given the overall ownership costs of the 172.