What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV Excitement -vs- 172

150/172

I enjoyed flying the 150 and 172 planes. Cessna did a great job getting the wing right for its intended purpose. They are cheap to maintain and there’s a bunch around. However, like most things in life, they are mission oriented. Once I built my -9, I didn’t have a use for the 172. My comanche solved the 4 place need but the single engine didn’t. The -9 will remain in my stable as the cheapest funnest ride but for 3 plus people, I went with a twin. Having one plane is doable but hey, life is short. When Vans gets off their hiney and finishes up on the high wing design, then I’ll add another plane to the stable and unfortunately, the high wing certified market will implode given a couple of years. Until then, I’dfly a 172 to pancakes and waffles with pride if I had one.
 
Cessna v. RV-9A

What Ed describes below matches my experience in all material respects. A few additional notes:

1. The Supertracks canopy extension has done wonders for loading and unloading baggage in my RV. It doesn't look like it will make much of a difference on paper, but it's a shockingly useful upgrade in practice. The 172 probably still wins in that category though.

2. If you're buying a used 172, you're also likely to have access to a schematic for the electrical system, etc., that actually reflects the way the airplane is configured. This is not necessarily the case when buying a used RV. :)

3. I'd say ease of entry on a 172 is MUCH better than an RV-9A. The 172 seems to fit a wider range of people as well.

4. Flying two used experimentals (a Glasair Sportsman and now the RV-9A) has actually given me a new appreciation for the virtues of well-understood certified aircraft.

5. The 172 and Cherokee lines are REMARKABLY good aircraft. They just do so many things well. Including hand-flown hard IFR, as Ed notes. The RV-9A is not great for that.

6. If you told me all I could fly for the rest of my life was a 172 or Cherokee, I would still die happy. But there's no way I would give up the RV voluntarily. :) Speed is a huge part of it, but the thing is just SO much fun to fly.

Smooth air, putting fuel in the tanks, affordability, avionics, speed, RVs rock.

Hot, bumpy air, hand flying IFR, loading baggage, roominess, sightseeing, maybe ease of entry, pushing the plane backwards, Cessnas win.

And a Cessna 172 can be remarkable agile if you go for it.

No, I'm not looking to get rid of the RV-9A. No reason to give up 30 knots.
 
I have to chuckle when I read builders on VansAirforce who are maybe half way through their empennage kit are calling Cessnas “spam cans”. There are literally 1000s of RV owners who learnt to fly in 152s and 172s who are still alive today to enjoy their Experimental aviation because those Cessnas were so reliable and robust. In fact the statistics reveal quite clearly that the chances of serious injury or death are greatly magnified in amateur built aircraft such as RVs as opposed to factory built aircraft such as Cessnas. There have been over 44,000 Cessna 172s built over 60 years and the model is still being sold today. That’s over four times more aircraft than ALL flying RV models put together. A bit of perspective and a bit of respect is warranted.
 
Cessnas are lame

Ya'll just don't know any better because that's what you learned in and that's your reference point. Airplanes DO NOT have to fly like that. Airplanes are NOT SUPPOSED to fly like that. Cessnas suck so bad. They're sluggish, sloppy, heavy and unbalanced on the controls. They have absolutely terrible visibility - borderline dangerous in the pattern. They're slow and inefficient and until you get to the 182+ ridiculously, borderline dangerously, underpowered. In fact, a couple out-of-staters kill themselves in Cessna's every year in my area of the country because they can't climb on a hot day.

When you take the controls of a Cessna you're wrestling with a pig. You're not dancing on the clouds and enjoying the natural sensation and freedom of flight like in an RV or any other modern design.

The only reason people fly that junk is because they were the ubiquitious trainer back in the day (still are to some extent).

Thank goodness Van's is getting into the trainer game with the RV-12. Super smart. 50 years from now, a whole group of pilots will have grown up flying RV's and won't have Cessna Stockholm Syndrome.

I was so shocked by how terrible Cessnas flew the first time I took the controls I immediate set out on a mult-year journey to spend a ridiculous amount of time, energy, and money building my own plane so I wouldn't ever have to fly that miserable design again.

They are good looking airplanes, though, I'll give them that.
 
Ya'll just don't know any better because that's what you learned in and that's your reference point. Airplanes DO NOT have to fly like that. Airplanes are NOT SUPPOSED to fly like that. Cessnas suck so bad. They're sluggish, sloppy, heavy and unbalanced on the controls. They have absolutely terrible visibility - borderline dangerous in the pattern. They're slow and inefficient and until you get to the 182+ ridiculously, borderline dangerously, underpowered. In fact, a couple out-of-staters kill themselves in Cessna's every year in my area of the country because they can't climb on a hot day.

When you take the controls of a Cessna you're wrestling with a pig. You're not dancing on the clouds and enjoying the natural sensation and freedom of flight like in an RV or any other modern design.

The only reason people fly that junk is because they were the ubiquitious trainer back in the day (still are to some extent).

Thank goodness Van's is getting into the trainer game with the RV-12. Super smart. 50 years from now, a whole group of pilots will have grown up flying RV's and won't have Cessna Stockholm Syndrome.

I was so shocked by how terrible Cessnas flew the first time I took the controls I immediate set out on a mult-year journey to spend a ridiculous amount of time, energy, and money building my own plane so I wouldn't ever have to fly that miserable design again.

They are good looking airplanes, though, I'll give them that.

So... tell us how you really feel.
 
He has a point though. I did my last BFR in a C152 simply because my RV wasn't available. I'd never flown such an underpowered slug before and had the CFI take over and apply no less than full power on final as we hit sink and my judgement of power required wasn't even close to that actually required. :eek:

You live and learn, but had we been in the -9, we'd have made the aimpoint with power likely still at idle.

My takeaway from that? Don't do BFR's in s&^box Cessna's...Wait till the RV's available!.
 
Cessna? Love Em!

I don’t get all the hate on Cessnas.. I was out flying one today, a beat up old 172.. what a blast to fly! 25 knots about 70 degrees from runway heading, one wheel landings, full stalls, touch & goes on one wheel.. what a blast. And we picked up about 100 lbs of stuff from the next town over, saved me a few hours driving, the plane flew better with the weight! I can’t think of a better complement than an RV sharing a hangar with perhaps a 182.. high wing snuggles nicely with a low wing..
 
Ya'll just don't know any better because that's what you learned in and that's your reference point. Airplanes DO NOT have to fly like that. Airplanes are NOT SUPPOSED to fly like that. Cessnas suck so bad. They're sluggish, sloppy, heavy and unbalanced on the controls. They have absolutely terrible visibility - borderline dangerous in the pattern. They're slow and inefficient and until you get to the 182+ ridiculously, borderline dangerously, underpowered. In fact, a couple out-of-staters kill themselves in Cessna's every year in my area of the country because they can't climb on a hot day.

When you take the controls of a Cessna you're wrestling with a pig. You're not dancing on the clouds and enjoying the natural sensation and freedom of flight like in an RV or any other modern design.

The only reason people fly that junk is because they were the ubiquitious trainer back in the day (still are to some extent).

Thank goodness Van's is getting into the trainer game with the RV-12. Super smart. 50 years from now, a whole group of pilots will have grown up flying RV's and won't have Cessna Stockholm Syndrome.

I was so shocked by how terrible Cessnas flew the first time I took the controls I immediate set out on a mult-year journey to spend a ridiculous amount of time, energy, and money building my own plane so I wouldn't ever have to fly that miserable design again.

They are good looking airplanes, though, I'll give them that.

Your a funny guy....I'll give you that :D

When a person is first learning to fly they have absolutely no idea of what a nice flying aircraft actually flies like because they have no reference.

RV's are wonderful little airplanes but I wouldn't class them as good trainers. A good trainer should make you work a bit to get coordinated turns. It should be easy to train students in stalls and spins...I know spins are not part of a private license but the aircraft should be up for it. As an instructor you should be able to turn a student loose and let them make mistakes and the aircraft should be tough enough that it can take an ongoing beating hour after hour. In the training environment. I just don't think the RV's qualify in this role...they can do it up to a point and then your going to break something....there is a reason the Cessna trainers are in such demand in flight schools and it's not because they are stupid..:)
 
It's amazing to me how much more objective the folks who respect the Cessnas are than the Cessna-bashers.

In the last two days, I've given two hours of dual in a Cessna 172 and an hour in a 115 HP Citabria. We were flying the Expanded Envelope Exercises® (E3) at LeTourneau University, a most impressive place with personable and very sharp people, and with a deliberate Christian atmosphere.

E3 is a set of exercises, not maneuvers, to expand a pilot's personal flight envelope to include things like full aileron deflection at low speeds, stalls in turns, all kinds of exercises within normal category, no parachute limitations. Yes, the C172 roll rate is sedate and stately compared to an RV, but so what? Outside of aerobatics, who ever uses full aileron deflection in an RV? Can you go from level to 60° bank with full aileron deflection in an RV and not overshoot? Does anybody ever do it routinely? How many RV pilots rave about the light controls but then fly X-C, straight and level, for hours on end?

Coming in to Longview, TX, there was a lot of weather to dodge. When there was a cloud to fly through, I slowed down 30 knots so that I wouldn't get the tar pounded out of me by bumps. The autopilot did all the flying and I spent a *lot* of time with aeronautical decision making, changing the destination twice in the last 45 minute of the flight. A friend, now gone, used to say about his RV-6A that it was okay for IFR as long as you could spend full time on the gauges with no paperwork, meaning no paper charts or approach plates.

So today, I'm headed west toward Las Vegas to visit my nephew the fighter pilot (I gave him his first airplane ride), hours and hours of straight and level.

WIth back to back flights in a Cessna 172 and the RV-9A... The RV-9A is faster, less expensive than a new C172, and the G3X Touch is miles ahead of the (first generation) G1000. But previous comments about Cessna vs RV still hold, only more so.
 
Last edited:
It's amazing to me how much more objective the folks who respect the Cessnas are than the Cessna-bashers.

In the last two days, I've given two hours of dual in a Cessna 172 and an hour in a 115 HP Citabria. We were flying the Expanded Envelope Exercises® (E3) at LeTourneau University, a most impressive place with personable and very sharp people, and with a deliberate Christian atmosphere.

E3 is a set of exercises, not maneuvers, to expand a pilot's personal flight envelope to include things like full aileron deflection at low speeds, stalls in turns, all kinds of exercises within normal category, no parachute limitations. Yes, the C172 roll rate is sedate and stately compared to an RV, but so what? Outside of aerobatics, who ever uses full aileron deflection in an RV? Can you go from level to 60° bank with full aileron deflection in an RV and not overshoot? Does anybody ever do it routinely? How many RV pilots rave about the light controls but then fly X-C, straight and level, for hours on end?

Coming in to Longview, TX, there was a lot of weather to dodge. When there was a cloud to fly through, I slowed down 30 knots so that I wouldn't get the tar pounded out of me by bumps. The autopilot did all the flying and I spent a *lot* of time with aeronautical decision making, changing the destination twice in the last 45 minute of the flight. A friend, now gone, used to say about his RV-6A that it was okay for IFR as long as you could spend full time on the gauges with no paperwork, meaning no paper charts or approach plates.

So today, I'm headed west toward Las Vegas to visit my nephew the fighter pilot (I gave him his first airplane ride), hours and hours of straight and level.

WIth back to back flights in a Cessna 172 and the RV-9A... The RV-9A is faster, less expensive than a new C172, and the G3X Touch is miles ahead of the (first generation) G1000. But previous comments about Cessna vs RV still hold, only more so.


A good friend of mine, Cooper Bullard, is going to LeTourneau now. He could very well have been in one of your classes.
 
This has been a fun topic I didn't expect to get this many responses.

The original thought from us was how many protentional new aviators come in, get a lesson in a 172, are very bored and never come back. All this as my wife's introduction to aviation was "backwards" from most and at the airport everyone was asking how she liked the 172 after several hours in the 9 and in no way shape or form was she ready to sell the 9 and get a 172.

This isn't to take away from what the 172 does, and has done for many years though. Nor to say the RV can match it for training and abuse. Of course they had 2 different design objectives and requirements/constraints also.

To follow up on her training, she has not solo'd yet, but progress is being made and I think she has finally adjusted the amount of force required to get the 172 to do what you want it to do. She has also discovered how much trim in the 172 is a much more important control, vs the RV's where you could ignore and it still do OK.
 
She has also discovered how much trim in the 172 is a much more important control, vs the RV's where you could ignore and it still do OK.

Ultimately this will make her a better pilot. Getting into the habit of trimming for speed will pay dividends, especially in high workload situations like ifr or an emergency.

Regarding your other comment, I don't think people are being run off by how Cessnas fly, but based on the business our local Cirrus school is doing a lot people were getting run off by worn out spam cans with faded paint, cracked royalite, and 60 year old technology.
 
My local flight school has lots of business, and their primary trainers are straight tail C172s with “interesting “ glass panels. Hmm… might be something else going on…
 
It is all about the mission(s) and the money. I have an RV4 and a 182 and my total acquisition costs for the fleet were about half of what I could get a flying RV10 for. I can haul the family and do aerobatics. If I could only have one plane would it be the Cessna? No, but I wouldn’t quit flying if the Cessna was all that I had.
 
I guess what I keep going back to is for the money I just don't want to be maintaining a 60 year old airplane
 
true

That's a valid point...and you probably wouldn't want to instruct in your brand new RV, either...

It's ALL about mission...
 
Missions change sometimes

It's ALL about mission...[/QUOTE]

After 55 years of aviating, I now have exactly what I can enjoy and afford:
A comfortable IFR equipped cross country aircraft and a pasture hopping classic.
 
I thought of this thread last night whilst on the phone with a new student who will be taking her first lesson with me tomorrow.

We've got a fleet of 2 DA-40s and 7 172s at my school's location. 2 of the 172s are S-models with G3Xs, 4 are G1000S.

Then there's the L. A lonely outlier in a sea of more modern 172s.

To date, there are 22 unique 172 tailnumbers in my logbook, but this under-appreciated, O320H2D-powered L is the nicest-flying and handling 172 I've ever touched.

It's stupid simple to operate, has 40 degrees of flaps, and can be flown with three fingers in any attitude/power combination in the 172 envelope. I'd fly it to Alaska tomorrow if I had to.

It's got a worn interior, crappy seatbelts and a one-piece non-opening co-pilot side window. It's a little noisy, and drafty in the winter, but it's as friendly and welcoming as a golden retriever puppy.

Not every 172 is like that. Few are. It still amazes me how something as "standard" as a 172 can be unique. Every one of them seems a little different, and this one is a gem.
 
My brother and I are the proud owners of N79104, a 1969 172K. It's got 2400 TT, 400ish SMOH. It's a one owner, hangared all it's life airplane. It's the "hauler" when more than one other person wants to do the breakfast or burger run.

I have the bill of sale when it was purchased new ($12,600.00 :)). 2 of my dad's friends bought it new, they had another person "buy-in" a few months later, then my dad bought in in about 1971 or 2. Within 5 or 6 years, dad bought all the partners out and owned it ever since. Dad passed 6 1/2 years ago and my mother gave the 172 to my brother and me. We installed an IFR panel in it 2 years ago. I doubt, actually know, we'll never sell it. My daughter is next in line for it.:D
 
Not all students see it the same

... So 5 Hours in on the 172 and she has come to realize she hates that airplane, and once her PPL test is done if she never fly's in one again it will be too soon. It got me to thinking, how many people get introduced to aviation via a similar trainer and never come back for the same reasons?...
Jeff' idea of a higher rate of student completions based on exposure to something 'better' than a Cessna would only ring true if the vast majority of students held the same sentiments as Jeff's wife. In over 40 years of instructing, I have seen many variations on how the student feels about the airplane. (granted, 5000 hrs or so was in Cessnas). I suggest that for MOST people, the decision to discontinue training is due a variety of factors, LEAST of which being the make/ model of aircraft used.
For me personally, my spouse can fly the RV-6, or her 180hp 172. And, there is no doubt that if one airplane had to go, it would be the RV.
It's not a matter of one superior to the other, it's just that different airplanes have different characteristics, and different people like different things.
I've never met an airplane I didn't like, especially the Skyhawk.
 
The Cessna 172 is probably the safest aircraft ever built and if I had to do a forced landing in an aircraft I'd rather be in the 172 than an RV.
I agree 100% with this very astute statement. As I always say....I'd rather fly an RV but I'd rather crash a Cessna. :)

Having been in the situation of putting an airplane down and no airport close enough to make it. I can say 100% If I had to do it again I wish it was the trusty C-152 again. It's forgiving and took it like a champ. Heck they fixed the engine and flew it right out of the corn field. Nobody hurt or metal bent.

Are you sure your wife isn't just in the "confort zone" in the RV becuase of her 25h in it? There are certain airplanes I do not like to fly. But maybe if I gave them a chance for a few hours they would grow on me. You like what you know.

Don't get me wrong the RVs are hard to beat but in an off field landing... more often than not, the usual outcome is metal bent! There is a reason why the Cessna fleet is still the airplane that teaches most people. They are great planes. But again very biased here. There isn't a better 172 than the Reims Rocket with 210HP and CS. Loved that plane!
 
At this point the wife has several hours in the 172, and has flown solo twice now. She is excited but also excited to be back in the RV as a pilot when that time comes.
 
Considering the age of the C-172 design and the fact that they are still flying some 65 YEARS later, maybe you ought to be giving some respect to them...

Is it an RV? Absolutely not...but it is a fairly reliable, fairly inexpensive, and unquestionably durable machine.

It is also a great platform for flight training. After many thousands of hours in 152's, 172's, 175's, and 182's, I STILL enjoy flying them; maybe not as much or as often as my -10 but it is STILL flying...and as far as flight training goes, they are hard to beat...

Respect your elders!;)

Define fairly inexpensive. I just shelled out $37k a few months ago to upgrade a dead legacy panel in my 172.

I’m taking the experimental plunge to get A&P’s out of my pocket.
 
As a low-time student, I'm generally in the "wrestling-a-pig" view of the 150/170 series vs the RVs for now. :p
But don't get me wrong, the colorful phrasing is just good-natured tongue-in-cheek; I respect the Cessna for what it is, what it can do, and its long and distinguished track record.
I only have 17 hours in them, and even fewer in RVs. Given higher time in both, and changing missions, my views could change, but at this point I'm unlikely to get more time in any Cessnas as a sport pilot student.
I had a discovery flight in the now defunct 162 Skycatcher quite some time ago, and I don't remember it handling much better than the 152s in which most of my (low) hours are logged - could just be my memory.
Either way, for a brand new design that started production in 2009, I don't think it hit the mark.
My flying club/school had one for awhile and it soured them on the entire LSA category.
Meanwhile, students and flight schools seem to love the RV-12.
I will be doing the rest of my training in my 12 when it's complete, but maybe after building my confidence in the 12 I'll go back up in the 152 with my instructor and see if I'm able to transition and find a new respect for it.
 
Anyway... the real reason I'm posting in this thread again...

Opinions were asked for and opinions are being given.
I enjoy reading the diverse and even colorful opinions of everyone: students, builders, DARs, CFIs, ATPs, ex-military, Van's employees, etc.
What I don't enjoy is people being attacked for giving an opinion that was asked for, which happens way too often here.
We have forum members whose valuable and diverse viewpoints and experiences we are not able to benefit from as they refuse to contribute due to fear of being attacked or belittled, either overtly or passive-aggressively.

When someone gives a solicited opinion, no matter how colorful, it is simply THEIR opinion, they are NOT saying your opposing opinion is wrong.
Everyone is entitled to their own view and we are privileged to be able to express them here - CIVILLY.

Respect PEOPLE. Express your opinions without attacking or belittling others, and that includes passive aggressive comments.


I am not perfect, I consider the above message to be directed at me as well.
If anyone feels I have wronged or disrespected them in any way on this forum, please reach out to me in a direct message.
It could be a simple misunderstanding of tone or meaning due to different communication styles, or perhaps I felt attacked first for the same reasons.

Let's all try and work together to make this forum even better than it already is.
As a reminder to myself and others I have updated my signature to reflect the above message.
 
As a low-time student, I'm generally in the "wrestling-a-pig" view of the 150/170 series vs the RVs for now. :p
But don't get me wrong, the colorful phrasing is just good-natured tongue-in-cheek; I respect the Cessna for what it is, what it can do, and its long and distinguished track record.
I only have 17 hours in them, and even fewer in RVs. Given higher time in both, and changing missions, my views could change, but at this point I'm unlikely to get more time in any Cessnas as a sport pilot student.
I had a discovery flight in the now defunct 162 Skycatcher quite some time ago, and I don't remember it handling much better than the 152s in which most of my (low) hours are logged - could just be my memory.
Either way, for a brand new design that started production in 2009, I don't think it hit the mark.
My flying club/school had one for awhile and it soured them on the entire LSA category.
Meanwhile, students and flight schools seem to love the RV-12.
I will be doing the rest of my training in my 12 when it's complete, but maybe after building my confidence in the 12 I'll go back up in the 152 with my instructor and see if I'm able to transition and find a new respect for it.

Being a fan of the 150/152 aircraft I had high hopes for the 162. Never flew one and was disappointted to see it fail. What was the problem with it at your school? Just curious.
 
Last edited:
Being a fan of the 150/152 aircraft I had high hopes for the 162. Never flew one and was disappointted to see it fail. What was the problem with it at your school? Just curious.

I guess tail strikes were a big issue with the design. It was before my time, but I think my school had two incidents with insurance claims, first one was repairable, second was a total loss. (I don't think there were injuries) They elected not to replace the plane. :(
 
Define fairly inexpensive. I just shelled out $37k a few months ago to upgrade a dead legacy panel in my 172.

I’m taking the experimental plunge to get A&P’s out of my pocket.

Upgrading a panel in a legacy certified single and an EAB with equal equipment will more than likely have identical costs unless you take the dive and do your own install along with the commensurate training and planning along with specialized tools. That's what I did for as much the enjoyment of the process as the final product.

I see an EAB like an RV aircraft as a way to get better handling, fun, latest technology and a much newer airframe rather than a way to avoid A&P's. You don't mention if you will be building or buying a finished RV. But if you don't build it you won't get a repairman certificate and will still need an A&P to sign off the condition inspections. I have built, owned and fly multiple airplanes, some EAB and some type certificated. As long as we are talking about aircraft at a level from single-seat open cockpits up to just below a retractable complex single I find the costs of ownership very similar between an experimental and a type certificated aircraft equipped similarly (same engine, prop, and/or panel). True that AD's can be a surprise and PITA with certified aircraft. But if it's a killer AD on the similar equipment installed in an EAB like an engine or accessory part it would be more than wise to comply with it from a safety standpoint if nothing else. You might could cook up your own faux AMOC for it but at least address the issue even on a EAB. That type of approach also enhances the market value of the airplane during a pre-purchase inspection. Don't forget for your cost comparison you have to take into account the insurance premium costs between them. Ask the Rocket guys about that one.
 
Don't forget for your cost comparison you have to take into account the insurance premium costs between them. Ask the Rocket guys about that one.


Yeah, I insured a Rans S6S, although it's a factory built LSA, it's registered experimental. The insurance is $954.00, my C-150 was $600.00.
 
Don't forget for your cost comparison you have to take into account the insurance premium costs between them.

There seems to be no rhyme of reason to premiums anymore. My little Liberty XL-2 cost me about $1,500 per year while the RV-7A cost about $1,300 a year for nearly identical coverage and the same named pilots. The RV carries significantly higher performance and hull value. Both aircraft have the same number of seats.

Interestingly when I shopped premiums for the RV this year, quotes ran the gamut from $1,300 all the way up to just over $5,000 with the highest number having come from a VAF sponsor that professes to specialize in EABs. Another very popular agency was also at the higher end, but I've learned that that agency nearly always writes with AIG because they get a more generous commission that way.

It can pay to shop!
 
There's no comparison here...

If anyone feels I have wronged or disrespected them in any way on this forum, please reach out to me in a direct message.

The only thing offensive in this thread are Cessna's flying characteristics ;)

Also, let's compare apples to apples. A new C-172 costs $400k+. You can get like five nice RV-6's for that, or a brand new sweet -8 and AND a brand new decked out -10.
 
Last edited:
...and

...and as a very long time flight instructor, which airplane would I rather train primary students in?

I'll give you a hint...it is NOT the RVs...
 
Poignant post

As the proud, new owner of an RV7A, this is such a great topic. After years of stuck renting the usual dogs (172’s, 152’s, and some Arrows), I am ecstatic with my RV! Adios to High wing planes, high altitude slogs, crappy-*** performance, and sketch cross-wind landings with a high wing.

Okay, glad I got my IFR ticket in an 172, to put-put on the approach. But, c’mon, there’s no comparison!
 
...and as a very long time flight instructor, which airplane would I rather train primary students in?

I'll give you a hint...it is NOT the RVs...

I agree the 172 is an awesome training plane, and can take more abuse and learning than an RV can. My original point is that it isn't very exciting to fly.


On a similar note, my wife just did her 4th solo. After her flight yesterday she was in the FBO office filling out some paperwork and a CFI who obviously had a lot of ego mentioned the FBO's other 172 was 180hp vs 160hp, and was a better plane, but warned her she probably couldn't handle the extra 20hp. She was kind to him, even with the other 2 women smiling and silently laughing at his odd comments. I don't think he was even paying attention when she explained her first 20 hours were in a 180hp RV.
 
I agree the 172 is an awesome training plane, and can take more abuse and learning than an RV can. My original point is that it isn't very exciting to fly.


On a similar note, my wife just did her 4th solo. After her flight yesterday she was in the FBO office filling out some paperwork and a CFI who obviously had a lot of ego mentioned the FBO's other 172 was 180hp vs 160hp, and was a better plane, but warned her she probably couldn't handle the extra 20hp. She was kind to him, even with the other 2 women smiling and silently laughing at his odd comments. I don't think he was even paying attention when she explained her first 20 hours were in a 180hp RV.

Now that's funny.
 
...and as a very long time flight instructor, which airplane would I rather train primary students in?

I'll give you a hint...it is NOT the RVs...

I can see the value in that statement. My son is currently doing his PPL training in our 6A. While I am grateful that he will be competent to fly the RV once done, I suspect that his training would have been easier in a 172. It was a decent amount of work to get him to keep the nosewheel off the ground on each landing. We got lucky and found an instructor that had never flown an RV. He had a blast training in it. I am not sure they had many training sessions that didn't include a few rolls or high performance maneuvers (CFI is also an aerobatic instructor).

His biggest struggle was crosswind landings and the vertical rotors we get at our airport. Many students in our area have our airport excluded on Solo endorsements, due to the somewhat erratic wind behavior with a lot of vertical component. This would have been a LOT easier for him to master in a 172. That said, I am very glad that he gained this experience with a CFI on board in the 6 vs learning to do it in the short winged 6 on his own as a freshly minted pilot.

Larry
 
Last edited:
A comment from yesterdays BFR

I had not flown a 172 for 5 years and my 1HR BFR was exhausting. The controls were so heavy and lagging in response that it was embarrassing. That said, I agree that learning in a "hot rod" (the CFI called my RV) would be pretty stressful in the opposite way.
 
Training?

The RV-12 is the best trainer flying today. It's not even close. Especially when acquisition, mx, and operating costs are considered.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top