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

ty1295

Well Known Member
Bit of a backstory. I met my now wife, shortly before I bought my now flying RV9a as a project. At the time she had this unspoken word of "No way am I flying in that thing when you get it done". Fast forward to a year and a half ago when I got airworthy ticket, her 1st flight was a short one on a cold day. 2nd flight was 3 hours. After that flight she decided to get her license.

Since then she has been either instructed in or a passenger in a lot of RV activies, cross country flights, formation, aerobatics (in RV8), etc and been very excited. Her first 28 hours of student time was in the RV9A, and we recently switched to the 172 in order for her to get more consistent training and it opens up instructor time. Her written in done.

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?

Had the 172 been her first experiences she would never have been this excited.
 
I loved the Cessnas for the bulk of my 50 years a pilot, but as the fleet got older, as flying certified aircraft got more expensive, and the ability to use innovative avionics got increasingly ridiculous, I moved into Experimental aviation and bought an RV-9A. I don't hate Cessnas now, but I'm certainly not going back.
 
I know a couple !

I introduced 3 young low time pilots over the last few years (C-172/182 drivers) by giving them rides in my -4, one who just had a couple PPL lessons under his belt,.. all 3 now own an RV. 2 didn't have TW time and did their transitions in their new planes (-4 and -8), and the student pilot bought a -6A that was for sale on our home field, and has since solo'd and nearing check ride time. His instructor and long time friend of mine had 8K plus CFI time, but no RV time..he fixed that real quick and obtained the grin and now savors doing training in the RV's. RV's rock!, oh, and their spouses all have the grins too!
 
The logbook shows 750+ hours in my Cessna 175, basically a 172 with more power, 400+ hours in C172s, 300+ hours in the RV-9A and 500 hours in other RVs.

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.
 
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?

Had the 172 been her first experiences she would never have been this excited.

Your wife is very perceptive and it's great she's taken a liking to flying the RV.

I trained on Piper Warriors and only had a couple hours in a 150 eons ago for spin training. The pathetic ROC on a hot day turned me off right away and it seemed unnatural hanging below the wing after sitting on the wing in low winged planes.

I got to fly a 172 for the first time about 8 years ago after 400ish hours in my -6A. I found it horrendous. The roll response and control feel were terrible. If I had to fly a 172 for the rest of my days, I'd just hang up the headphones. Not enjoyable in any way.

I have some right seat time in 340s and those are fun- but they have the wings in the right place...;)
 
You’d have to pay me to fly any single engine Cessna. If the world went haywire tomorrow and 172s were the only airplane available, I’d quit flying. A friend has a 172 and sometimes asks me to pick him up in it at nearby airports. After the last one, I told him he needs to put me on the insurance for his RV8 because my A.D.D. won’t allow me to fly a 172 anymore!
 
Wow

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!;)
 
I still rent a 172 to take people flying as my 6A doesn't have the needed seats sometimes. I still enjoy it as it reminds me where it all started, I've also been flying a grumman cheetah and the controls feel really sluggish and not as near as enjoyable to fly as my 6A. I think over the past couple of years I just got used to the "total performance" aspect for flying and certified GA (ones I can afford to fly) just disappoint me in every day joy flying. As long as I can own an airplane it will be a vansaircraft, when its no longer economical I will go back to renting a 172.
 
Every time I have a strong headwind I thank goodness for not flying a 172.
Well, and maybe every other time I fly.
 
Respect the mission

I am relatively low time in fixed wing (~200hrs) with more than half in my RV-6A. I was fortunate to get training in a variety of aircraft, with very little high wing Cessna time. Like many here, I really embrace the "sport" part of flying.

I recently visited my elderly parents, and rented a 172 to give them a joy ride around their area. I really appreciated the fact that they could get into the plane and enjoy the view from the air. This flight would not have been possible in my RV-6A.

I recently completed a 5 hour cross country with a friend in my RV. At the 90 min mark of each leg, my hips and legs started burning, and we were both shifting legs all around trying to stretch and make it until we landed. After each landing I crawled out of the plane and had to walk around a bit to get my body fully comfortable walking again. Although I really enjoyed zipping around the air to get a great view, it was pretty challenging for me, in this RV, to stay comfortable for any length of time. Of course now I am investigating moving my rudder pedals, installing the "Almost a 14" mod, etc to improve the comfort of this plane. We would have been much more comfortable in a Cessna 172, although the fun factor would certainly have been reduced.

I respect people's individual choices, and I respect anyone who has put in the time, effort and discipline to become a pilot. I also appreciate that each plane is a mix of tradeoffs.

For me, I will adapt my RV to my needs so I can keep that RV grin!
 
The Cessna 172 is probably the safest aircraft every built and if I had to do a forced landing in an aircraft I'd rather be in the 172 than an RV. That said they are very different aircraft with different missions.
We love our RV as it's perfect for the flying space we are in right now.
As an aside my wife started her flying lessons in a 7AC Aeronca and ended up soloing in a Citabria. She then put many of her flying hours in a Piper PA20 Pacer. She had never flown in a tricycle gear aircraft. When we bought the 6A she flew it with the instructions to fly it like you fly the Pacer other than the take off.
Her first landing was excellent and as we taxied off the runway she said...I had no idea that they made aircraft so easy to fly, it just wants to go straight all by itself.:)
 
I am relatively low time in fixed wing (~200hrs) with more than half in my RV-6A. I was fortunate to get training in a variety of aircraft, with very little high wing Cessna time. Like many here, I really embrace the "sport" part of flying.

I recently visited my elderly parents, and rented a 172 to give them a joy ride around their area. I really appreciated the fact that they could get into the plane and enjoy the view from the air. This flight would not have been possible in my RV-6A.

I recently completed a 5 hour cross country with a friend in my RV. At the 90 min mark of each leg, my hips and legs started burning, and we were both shifting legs all around trying to stretch and make it until we landed. After each landing I crawled out of the plane and had to walk around a bit to get my body fully comfortable walking again. Although I really enjoyed zipping around the air to get a great view, it was pretty challenging for me, in this RV, to stay comfortable for any length of time. Of course now I am investigating moving my rudder pedals, installing the "Almost a 14" mod, etc to improve the comfort of this plane. We would have been much more comfortable in a Cessna 172, although the fun factor would certainly have been reduced.

I respect people's individual choices, and I respect anyone who has put in the time, effort and discipline to become a pilot. I also appreciate that each plane is a mix of tradeoffs.

For me, I will adapt my RV to my needs so I can keep that RV grin!

That's why Van's designed the RV-10 if you need 4 seats and more room. 170+ knots on 10-11 GPH at altitude and it still has nice control harmony. :)
 
I had no idea that they made aircraft so easy to fly, it just wants to go straight all by itself.:)

I thought the same thing my first time in an RV after 17 hours of training in 152s and 172s. Felt like you could fly the thing with your pinky finger. I can't wait to restart training in my 12iS when it's complete.
 
loading baggage, roominess, sightseeing, maybe ease of entry, pushing the plane backwards, Cessnas win.

If Vans produces a high wing RV that flies just as fast, or almost as fast as another comparable low wing RV, I am building that airplane. I hope it is the next RV15
 
Yup

If Vans produces a high wing RV that flies just as fast, or almost as fast as another comparable low wing RV, I am building that airplane. I hope it is the next RV15

Me too. You will be behind me in line for that tail kit. I can get to vans in Oregon with my Truck faster than you.
 
similar experience

I got my PPL in a 152 and enjoyed that quite a bit, then transitioned to Cherokees to haul more stuff. Plus, I prefer the low wing. I took my first ride in my RV when I looked at buying it in the beginning of January and fell in love with the handling. I've since spent the last few months flying my RV for fun and a 172 for my instrument rating and man, I dread having to fly the 172. It's just not very fun in any fashion. It does provide a pretty stable IFR platform, but that's about it. We're going to need 4 seats at some point, so we'll build an RV-10 for that.

I will say, however, that going back and forth between the RV and 172 has made me a more well-rounded pilot.
 
The only way you could make a Cessna 172 more durable is to build it out of Nerf. Seriously amazing aircraft.

That said, I've had my RV since late October, and while the relationship has been incremental toward love, it's definitely there. I still teach in 172s because that's primarily what flight schools operate. But to go places, it's the RV.

Planning a flight from northern VA to S. Texas in June. Should be fun. :)

-b
 
I once had a flight that went completeley wrong. Unintended (first) night flight in very bad weather with loss of orientation and all that. I am sure i wouldn't write these words here if i would have sat in an RV or other high performer that day (night).

I don't want to go into details but that flight was in the worst conditions i can imagine. But the good old 172 just didn't care about all that and kept flying. When you think you gonna die, your brain power goes down to 10 percent or so. Even then, at night in a thunder storm, it landed with no problems. The Cessna was just that forgiving.

Good pilots should appreciate the advantages of an aircraft design and be aware of it's downsides. I see no need to be snooty here.

The Cessna 172 is one of the greatest and well thought out aircraft designs engineers ever developed. There's a reason that it's the most sold GA aircraft world wide.
 
Last edited:
I’ll defend Cessna’s honor and say that it’s all about the mission.

I used to be a snob when I was a young pilot. I’ll admit it. I solo’d in a glider, then a J-3 and thought Cessnas were simply tolerated until one could get a ‘real’ plane.

Now I own one (and am partners in another), and can’t imagine a better all-around plane than what Cessna built. Sure, they fly like a truck compared to an RV or Bonanza, but they’re extremely tough, forgiving, reliable, can be worked on anywhere and have almost every performance level covered in their lineup.

Every year I take two trips with some buddies that would be impossible in any RV - short, soft, sometimes rough strips. And since I have the most room, I’m loaded with not only my gear, but a full Yeti cooler with food for everyone, the drink cooler, 60 lbs of water, tools, a bucket full of Duraflames, and twice now, an extra person who’s plane broke on day one, plus their gear. Truly amazing what it can legally carry.

On the other hand, I don’t think I’ll fly my 185 to Oshkosh again (too slow and expensive), but can’t wait to make the yearly trip in my RV-8.

Different missions, different planes. There’s plenty of room (and need) for both. I can’t wait to finish my RV-8, but I will never sell my 185.

Cessna 185 mountain takeoff
 
Bit of a backstory. I met my now wife, shortly before I bought my now flying RV9a as a project. At the time she had this unspoken word of "No way am I flying in that thing when you get it done". Fast forward to a year and a half ago when I got airworthy ticket, her 1st flight was a short one on a cold day. 2nd flight was 3 hours. After that flight she decided to get her license.

Since then she has been either instructed in or a passenger in a lot of RV activies, cross country flights, formation, aerobatics (in RV8), etc and been very excited. Her first 28 hours of student time was in the RV9A, and we recently switched to the 172 in order for her to get more consistent training and it opens up instructor time. Her written in done.

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?

Had the 172 been her first experiences she would never have been this excited.

You better start another build for "Your" airplane right now. Ask me how I know. In the meantime, start working on your thumb muscles for the impending thumb wrestling matches.
 
Well of course I am spoiled by my RV-6.
But I also occasionally fly a friend's C-182 and it's not beneath me to do so.
It's been a long time since I flew a 172 but they're solid airplanes, I wouldn't turn up my nose.
Heck those 152s can still be kind of fun. It's nice that you have all day to work out what to do next when flying one!
The point is, if it flies I'm good with it. Okay, I might draw the line at a Cherokee 140...
 
There's advantages to a 172. I have alot of time/memories in 172's.

1) engine cooling is generally never an issue
2) the wing makes a fantastic sun shade for outdoor events.
3) you can fit 3 people and alot of stuff for a day/weekend trip
4) better downward visibility for pictures/site seeing.

It's not all about going fast, there are times where I would prefer a 172. Just depends on the mission.

Here is an analogy: I have an old Chevy Chevelle with a V8. It's fun to drive, but sometimes my wife's Toyota Corolla is alot more practical/comfortable and makes alot more sense.
 
...

Here is an analogy: I have an old Chevy Chevelle with a V8. It's fun to drive, but sometimes my wife's Toyota Corolla is alot more practical/comfortable and makes alot more sense.
Well said! I have not flown that many different types of aircraft, but gotta say I loved flying them all!
 
I have a 172, 150, Rans S6S and my RV9A. Each airplane is for a specific mission. Heck.....I flew the 150 last night, just because I could. Yeah, the 172 is a real workhorse. If you can get something in the door, it'll probably fly.

Drop an RV in from 4-5' from a botched landing and see how you come out.....probably not as good as if it were a 150 or 172. I'll keep, and fly all of my airplanes without bias. :)
 
I’ll defend Cessna’s honor and say that it’s all about the mission.

I used to be a snob when I was a young pilot. I’ll admit it. I solo’d in a glider, then a J-3 and thought Cessnas were simply tolerated until one could get a ‘real’ plane.

Now I own one (and am partners in another), and can’t imagine a better all-around plane than what Cessna built. Sure, they fly like a truck compared to an RV or Bonanza, but they’re extremely tough, forgiving, reliable, can be worked on anywhere and have almost every performance level covered in their lineup.

Every year I take two trips with some buddies that would be impossible in any RV - short, soft, sometimes rough strips. And since I have the most room, I’m loaded with not only my gear, but a full Yeti cooler with food for everyone, the drink cooler, 60 lbs of water, tools, a bucket full of Duraflames, and twice now, an extra person who’s plane broke on day one, plus their gear. Truly amazing what it can legally carry.

On the other hand, I don’t think I’ll fly my 185 to Oshkosh again (too slow and expensive), but can’t wait to make the yearly trip in my RV-8.

Different missions, different planes. There’s plenty of room (and need) for both. I can’t wait to finish my RV-8, but I will never sell my 185.

Cessna 185 mountain takeoff

Well, when you bring a 185 to the discussion about a 172 you're comparing apples and fighter jets. :)

180s/185s are incredible machines. And if I had the dough for a second airplane, I'd be hard pressed NOT to buy a 180/182 for the sheer utility.
 
You better start another build for "Your" airplane right now. Ask me how I know. In the meantime, start working on your thumb muscles for the impending thumb wrestling matches.

That is a standing joke, and I just might have a prototype Pitts airplane project in a hangar, and the thought of starting on a 7 has crossed my mind more than 3 times.


Back to my original thread, we fully understand the 172 Advantage and part of the reason she moved to it for training. It is just obvious had that been her first aviation experience she would never have come back. I just wonder (not taking away from 172), of how many were turned away from aviation based on that exposure.
 
Cross country in a 172 is boring. Flying a STOL'd out 172 doing some extremely challenging landing... that's pretty exciting.
 
The 172 has the singular advantage of being so forgiving and easy to operate that just about anyone can learn to fly (and more importantly, land it). Parts are readily available. Thousands have been built, so the cottage industry of King Schools and the like were able to sprout with videos that used a common aircraft experience for students. Moreover, one can train in a 172 anywhere in the world and easily transition to renting and flying just about anywhere else. It is the workhorse of the GA training fleet and there are very good reasons why it is so ubiquitous.

That being said, no, it is not an "exciting" airplane, but as a CFI I can assure you that the process of PPL training is already "exciting" enough, certainly for the instructor in the pre-solo hours. That doesn't mean the OP's wife is wrong for being disappointed in the 172; I had a student years ago that insisted she couldn't fly 172's (not a physical limit, but an outright refusal) so despite my personal feeling that a good pilot should be open to challenging themselves and adapting to the aircraft, learning to fly is hard enough and it was more important that she feel comfortable first and expand her horizons later. She loved the DA-20 that was also in our school's fleet, despite the bubble canopy making the August heat nearly unbearable during her training, and got her license in it (and I lost ten pounds in sweat). But she didn't fly much after that, because the DA-20 was sold off, and she never did open herself up to learning how to fly any other type of aircraft. It still makes her more successful than the 50% or so of students who start training and don't complete for any number of reasons. But most students I knew didn't quit because it was boring, most gave lack of spousal encouragement and finance as their primary reason for quitting. Not just because of the cost of training, but once the glitter is off the experience of actually proving they could fly, they fully realized the cost of ownership or membership, rental, and currency afterwards.

The moral of the story is that if flying an RV is what makes the OP's wife enthusiastic about flying then that is fantastic. Maybe some day she will come to appreciate other aircraft types for what they offer, as well, but she doesn't have to if she has an RV to fly. Not everyone is so lucky.
 
Last edited:
You guys are making me want a 172.its a better plane for what I need/want most of the time.
 
Last edited:
Not to disappoint you, but some say the RV 9 A s easier to land and fly than the 172.

Yeah, but it won't haul 3 or 4 people or a bunch of junk. Also, angelflight west won't allow experimentals. <SNIP>


I think given the choice I'd rather ditch a 172 than a Vans
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When you need / want to haul 4-people and you don’t have the finances to get an RV10, the Cessnas start to look pretty good.
 
Yeah, but it won't haul 3 or 4 people or a bunch of junk. Also, angelflight west won't allow experimentals. <SNIP>


I think given the choice I'd rather ditch a 172 than a Vans
Having built a -9A and now needing 4 seats, there's no way I'd go for anything as slow as a 172!

I'm actually considering either a Comanche 260B/C - if I can find one - or a Twin Comanche. I refuse to go backwards in performance after the RV! :D
O
<SNIP>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't know if this is already mentioned in a previous post but not all 172s are created equal. Anything less than 1968 I believe and you better expect some pretty terrible performance at high density. The O-300 Continental in them things is pretty terrible on the performance side of things. Very smooth engine though.

On the other hand the ones I have flown with a Lycoming O-320 on board seem to climb much better.

Many factors at play here but these are my findings. There is a reason that one with O-300 Continental sells for SIGNIFICANTLY less!

Let's just say I will stick to my -7A. The plan was to always buy a 4 seat after the build but after seeing the cost of whats on the market my wife was not happy when I said "we have to build a -10". :D
 
I'm sure it has been said earlier in this thread, but I will add anyway. 172's are still in production, not because they suck, but rather because they don't. Minivans are also still in production for the same reason. Am I excited about minivans? No. Have I owned one? No. But I do understand the usefulness of one.

I have many hours in 172's. If they have 180hp and 2550lb gross they are really useful machines. Yeah they only cruise at 115kts, but they can land short, takeoff reasonable short, and climb reasonable well while hauling stuff.

A 150 is a great plane as well, and would be outstanding if it had 50 more hp and 300lb higher gross weight. The way they are, though, they are great trainers and fun to fly, but limited. I could land mine in less than 300ft, but takeoff and climbout was... disappointing.

I fly my Beech about 80 hours a year and I really like that plane as well, lands reasonably short, takeoff is reasonably short, hauls over 1000 lbs, and cruises at 125 kts, and is very responsive, if heavy on the controls. Overall a great plane and was cheap to buy and is relatively cheap to own.

All that said, I can't wait to get my 9 done.:)

The plane that is truly fun is the one that does exactly what you want it to do (meets your mission). Bottom line, though, is I would fly whatever I had.

Tim
 
I'm going to put this delicately... Cessnas suck! :D

I flew my first Cessna with about 1300 flight hours and couldn't believe how terrible it flew. I'm with OP's wife. Never wanted to fly one again.

Smartest thing Cessna ever did was capture the trainer market. A bunch of people grew up in aviation just not knowing any better.
 
Are you...

Are you a CFI? Probably not or you would realize the benefits of the Cessna.

I can tell you that after thousands of hours as an instructor in various aircraft, the Cessna is hard to beat...

...and if you take it cross country, it will get you there safely and reliably, even if it is slow.

It was never meant to be agile or fast... consider the mission it was originally designed for 60+ years ago, then tell me again how much they suck...
 
Are you a CFI? Probably not or you would realize the benefits of the Cessna.

I can tell you that after thousands of hours as an instructor in various aircraft, the Cessna is hard to beat...

...and if you take it cross country, it will get you there safely and reliably, even if it is slow.

It was never meant to be agile or fast... consider the mission it was originally designed for 60+ years ago, then tell me again how much they suck...


And that, my friend is why, if you own one of these birds and want to sell it, all you have to do is name your price and it'll be gone in less than the time it took you to type up the for sale ad.;)
I have a guy now, FSDO inspector, that asks EVERY time we see each other, if we want to sell the 172.
 
Lotsa Cessna bashing here. I get it. My Cardinal RG flies like a truck. I just turn the autopilot on.

However my old 170B was an absolute delight to fly. Light on the controls and beautifully balanced. From takeoff to cruise to landing I barely had to touch the trim. Plenty stable for occasional IFR work yet responsive enough to be fun. With the big fowler flaps it would get into almost anywhere and mine had the 180hp/constant speed conversion so it would get back out. 3 pointers on grass would just make you smile every time. Wheel landings on pavement....ok, those could get sporty but no airplane is perfect.

(BTW, this winter my Cardinal-slug swallowed myself, my wife, two kids, and the entire contents of a Toyota Rav4, effortlessly flew us 1100 miles from Wisconsin to Florida in 8 hours, and only burned $300 in gas.)
 
If Vans produces a high wing RV that flies just as fast, or almost as fast as another comparable low wing RV, I am building that airplane. I hope it is the next RV15

I’d push the buy button right after you for a high wing RV15. I like the high wing for easer entry/exit and the shade.
 
Last edited:
Lotsa Cessna bashing here. I get it. My Cardinal RG flies like a truck. I just turn the autopilot on.

However my old 170B was an absolute delight to fly. Light on the controls and beautifully balanced.

Too many old Cessna’s still have the original cabling and heim joints which have never seen a tensioner or replaced.

Pretty easy to tell a Cessna that was rerigged and heim joints replaced. The slightest control input to my 182P demonstrates direct movement in control surfaces.
 
Aircraft are different for different missions. You want to get a good float plane...don’t buy an RV ...want to buy a ski plane..don’t buy an RV. Want to pack a big load....don’t buy an RV. Want to land on gravel bars or in the boondocks..don’t get an RV. I could go on but the point is the RV has a rather narrow mission so it doesn’t make a lot of sense bad mouthing an aircraft with a wider mission.
There is a reason that a 172 is in such demand...there is also a reason why a nicely built RV is also in high demand...both great aircraft with dissimilar missions:)
 
Your typical Cessna and a typical RV are simply not even comparable!
A trained monkey could drive a C172 all day long, an RV8 (conventional u/c of course) takes a lot more skill!
I drove a C172 just recently after probably 15 years, was bored in about 1 minute! They have their place in aviation.
 
Back
Top