Bob says C172's are better than RV's!
Bob Axsom said:
Yes, I think the Certified is better for your mission. With a certified airplane you typically will not have the potential of the RV but you will know what you have and it can be serviced and maintained by experts to keep it safe and functional. 280 nautical miles is a fairly easy trip for a Cessna 172 but its stability and speed make it easier for you to stay ahead of it and enjoy the ride. By requirement the commercially built airplanes such as the Skyhawk are very similar but the variation between RVs is significant. In an RV, the rigging is more likely to be off; there may be no electrical schematic or wiring diagram; if the builder did draw them up initially they probably have not been maintained as changes are incorporated; and the potential for latent defects is higher. However, if someone tried to trade me a 172 for my RV-6A I would find it hard not to laugh at them. For my purposes the RV performance is so superior, well, I just don't think I could go back.
Bob Axsom
Bob Old buddy I have to disagree.
You're right, RV's are amateur built planes, built by individuals from a kit, outfitted with a wide range of engines, props, instrument panels and panel layouts. However it almost sounds like a RV put down, and knowing you from your posts, I know you don't mean that. RV's in fact (many not all) are better built than a C172. Flight performance, no comparison. Some RV's are just beautiful works of art and built like a watch. Of course they sell for $80,000 to $120,000.
Design wise a RV is more than rugged enough, not withstanding the nose gear, which is a compromise for speed, weight and ease of construction. The construction of RV's are more than adiquate.
A C172 has a 130 mph cruise optimistically, not to mention anemic climb. RV's are much faster. A C182 is faster than C172, but burns more gas and still slower than a RV. RV's climb to cruise 3, 4 times faster and trues +190 mph.
A 135 sm flt each way, 2 hrs-Cessna, 1 hr 25-RV. Total flt time is longer for taxi, takeoff, climb, approach and pre/post flight, but comparing cruise speed we get 0.6 less hours per trip. The RV burns less gas, less time less gas. Let's say $19.20 less gas per trip, times 5, about $100 wk, $400 month.
I can't possible see how a C172 is better for this mission.
With pre and post flight that is 2-3 hrs a day, assuming RV speed. A C-172 will be 3-4 hours. Drive time to/fm airports? Ground transportation at both ends is an issue. High utilization rate, about 8-10 hours a week means time maintaining, one, two hrs/wk, 25 hour oil changes, etc...
Cost: At 20 trips/month, 270 miles/trip, 30 hr/month, 240 gal, $840 @ $3.50. Add oil changes and other maintenance, your $1000 budget is stretched. Gas price is the key factor. The C-172 will cost more due to higher fuel cost. Include engine overhaul reserves and other fixed cost, hanger, insurance its going to cost big bucks. However if you own a plane, I'm all for flying and using your plane (safely).
What are the real practical aspects of weather, winter time? I can't estimate year round conditions in that region but guess the SW corner of UT may get severe winter weather. The point, you will not be able to fly every day, or even for a week, month at a time.
NOW HOW I DID IT:
I commuted about 35-40 sm air miles one way, driving was about the same 30-35 miles. I lived 10 min from my base airport where I kept my light twin in an open t-hanger. My job was about 10 min from the other airport, where I keep a 1974 AMC "Matador" land yacht, color rust. Block time was usually 30 minutes exactly. Actual wheels up flight from engine start, to shut down was almost 20 min (flew at low 55% pwr). With 10 min drive time at each end it was about the same as driving with light traffic, but I was doing it for time building, not practical reasons. However with heavy typical traffic driving could take double. Of course I was also having fun. I typically landed south on a 9,000 ft runway and "air taxied" down the runway for a mile to my parking at the south end. I'd ask to land long and flew in ground effect for fun.
I always pre-flighted the plane thoroughly the night before, so the morning checks where short and cursory. There was no hanger door to open and close to cost time with the covered parking. I also had free tie down parking at the other end. I worked on the field as a CFI and used the schools parking area. My "other" real day job was off the field about 10 minutes.
By car from home to job took about 40 min, with zero traffic, with traffic ++ 1 hour. Flying practical? no, but I was building twin time. The good part is I had options. Also I launch with weather at mins, since there where almost always VFR alternates on the other side of the mountains, so IFR Alt flight planning was easy. If I could not get in, I could also go back to home base and drive. That happened once. If it was that marginal I just drove.
Morning fog often formed at the destination airport. It was common to fly VFR 99% of the flight, except for the last 20 seconds and 300 feet on an ILS to mins! That was a challenge to land at mins after being VFR. The trick was to get to the airport early, before the fog. I knew when the fog formed. Yep, per the FAA exam, most likely time for fog is about 1 hour AFTER sunrise. A few occasions, in the time it took to landed, tie down, drive to work 10 mins away, the airport went zero-zero. Timing is everything. I would plan on taking off at sun-up and land before the fog. It worked. It's hard to log 20 secs of of IMC.
Of course IFR rating and equip is a must. In your case, icing conditions may keep you on the ground. To make my IFR filling quick, I had two canned flight plans with the flight service. I called and got the automated metar/taf and to file my flight plan I gave them my personal FP number. Done. I went VFR when able of course. IFR would add as much as 10 min as they needed to vector me for approach. The cool part was the runways where North-South, and the commute was N to S, so it was usually straight takeoff south to a south landing.
There was one or two times I was so tired at the end of the day (I had two jobs, teaching simulators/flight instructing) I'd dive home in the beater airport car. A couple of times the weather low going home, so I drove. The base airport had no approach. If it was not too bad, I could shoot an approach to an airport 10 miles away and break off once below the cloud deck and go VFR to my base, I did that a hand full of times.
I commuted for almost two years, every week, 3-6 days a week, except the month the plane was down for maintenance. Oh yes. To make this work, you need to be handy with a wrench and get your hands dirty, doing all you can. An experimental allows you more "flexibility" in maintenance. Professional maintenance adds significant cost and loss of use. Even factory planes allow owner/pilot basic maintenance.
Bottom line, tired don't fly. How will you deal with the commute, deal with logistics, weather, hassles of life, work? It's not like a car where you can go down the freeway jamming on tunes and go, oh there's my exit. You have a lot more mental gymnastics flying. This could bite you. I don't know you personality, skills or judgment, but commuting by air is not for everyone. IT CAN BE DONE, BUT TAKES SKILL AND JUDGMENT (and money). A few "got to get there" light plane commuters have died, many ATP's, but if you have $12,000 to commute, more power to you. I spent about $10,000 in 18 months (many years ago) in plane commuting. I had fun and got twin time leading to my first airline job.
You may love it, you may hate it. The real bottom line is don't kill yourself. I had a good boss and jobs (professional not hourly employee) where if I was late, it was not a big deal. If I HAD TO BE THERE, I DROVE.
