This probably is not surprising based on my channel name, but I'm 💯 in agreement with this. I mostly fly to fly, not to get somewhere so for me a cheap slow airplane always sounded better to me than a fast one.
I am the same i love my Tecnam p92 echo super, I am never gonna break a Airspeed record in it. I just love to fly it, it is a pure pleasure to fly i am so glad i picked the Tecnam to do my training in. So much so once i have my PPL i am seriously considering buying 1.
@@warshrike666 yes, Tecnam, makes a great airplane. I was fortunate to visit their factory in Capua earlier this year. Unbelievably impressive. They make most of their own parts. If I were to buy a new airplane, it would be one of their models. 👍
@@craigshangar4958 I was in Italy a month ago but did not have time to visit the factory that would have been awesome i am envious mate. Yeah there new models are very very nice i could not afford 1 of those my trainer is a 2005. If i sold my new Stinger i could buy 1 of those tomorrow but my wife has already told me these are her words "you are not selling your car to buy a fecking plane" hahahahaha :) I will have to save up a little 1st so she wont kill me. :) I am 1 of the converted once you have control of a plane for the 1st time it changes you. :)
So well thought out. And so true. After 40 years of flying all types of aircraft, I have discovered the overlooked allure of low and slow for all the reasons you mention. As the proud owner of an exceptional 1976 C150M, I can attest that life at 90 knots is truly fantastic. Made even more so after each fill up. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for your validation. I realize that there are some differing opinions, but it seems as if you and I are of the same mind. Flying is most enjoyable for us at lower speeds, and our pocketbook appreciates it too! In fact, yesterday I flew a glider in Italy for the first time. Fantastic. Low and slow. Thanks for watching.
I am in Italy today and saw a Cessna 150 fly overhead in Capri. I have been looking for private aircraft for days now and this was the first seen. How fortunate you are to fly a glider in Italy! @@craigshangar4958
Craig, I was so glad you gave us your perspective. Today I own a PA28 140/160, and I love that plane. I lot of what you said resonated well with me. I was recently looking at a 1947 Bonanza A35 as an upgrade. You made several great points, one of them being that going slower makes you a better pilot. You have to plan better, make better decisions, and keep yourself out of trouble because of the planes limitations. I totally agree! Maybe that Bonanza should wait a while... However I still would not mind a PA28 180! Just a little more horse power never hurts!! I fly out of F28 in Lubbock. I hope to see you flying someday! Cheers!
You're right, Chris, a little extra horsepower is always welcome. That's why I put the power flow exhaust on. If you're ever planning a trip near Gainesville, send me an email. Perhaps we can meet over coffee in my hangar. Thanks for watching.
You still have to plan and make decisions. And even more so because you are transiting a large amount of area, so things are constantly changing. trip yesterday, destination was MVFR when I departed, went IFR, back to MVFR to VFR and then MVFR when I arrived. I crossed 6 states in that time
That's fantastic! All of my trips have been west of Texas. I'm looking forward to my first trip from Texas to upstate New York in a couple of weeks with my son. It will be interesting to see and compare the differences between flying east and flying west. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
Congratulations on your purchase. That alone should make you feel better! I hope you get many years of enjoyment out of flying your C-172. I'm partial to Pipers, but I think Cessna also made a few 172's, didn't they? Lol. The Skyhawk is a great airplane. The first one rolled off the assembly line in 1956, the same year I was born. They've been in production ever since, except for that gap between 1986 and 1996. Still, they have cranked out over 44,000 of these amazing airplanes. You made a good choice. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
Craig, I purchased a 1973 Cherokee Challenger in 2022. The PA28 group are an awesome easy to life series of planes. Thank you for the insight and commentary.
I could not agree more. The Cherokee series is a great choice. It has quite a legacy, doesn't it? Thanks for watching. And thank you for your kind comments.
Thanks for the perspective, Craig. My Cherokee 140 has an STC for mogas, which makes the cost of operation even less expensive. $4/g at 7.5 gph = $30/hour for fuel. Although I have to confess that I did feel the need for speed. I sold her and bought into a partnership in a Cherokee 235 burning 11 gph, but still mogas. Your video makes me a little wistful for my 140.
Cessna 150 at 4.2gph........ I've also gotten 5gph from a Cessna 172. Typically burned 6gph flying a PA-28-161 Warrior II during my PPL. Gotta lean the engine.
@@SoloRenegade yep. A friend of mine had a Dakota with the Mogas capability . He bragged about it. Bought a truck , added a tank and used it at his airport to fuel. He bragged about the money he was saving until - I asked him about the cost of the truck, tank, insurance on thru truck, maintenance on the truck AND it did nothing on his many cross country trips. Of all things I dump money into on my plane gas isn’t as bad as the other things. Prices on parts in the last few years have nuts. Luckily my IA is also one of my best friends. Just put a new ( rebuilt ) fuel sender in my passenger tank this weekend and it was 280.00. 7 yrs ago it was 160.00. The list is long
Great video with some good points! Some of my most memorable flights to date were done in older 172s and Cherokees, ambling across the US at 100kts. The part about flying lower-performance aircraft making you a better planner really hit the mark as the low power "budget" I often had more or less required me to respect the circumstances of each flight. One thing I might add to the list is the increased accessibility to tighter and/or rougher airstrips. Generally speaking, higher performance aircraft have higher approach speeds and landing gears that are optimized for paved surfaces which make them more challenging to bring into unimproved airfields. I once landed a friend's Mooney on Campbell Field (9VG), a small grass strip that I previously had zero issues bringing a Cherokee or Citabria into. It turned out to be a huge mistake as the Mooney's rubber disc suspension system did not like the small bumps in the grass, and for a solid minute I was convinced the nose gear would collapse. (Luckily it did not) But I also have some counter-points in support of faster aircraft: - Headwinds have disproportionately less impact on your trip time. For example, a 30kt headwind over a 300nm trip in a 100kt plane would increase trip time from 3+00 to 4+16, a 47% increase, whereas for a 150kt plane, the trip time would rise from 2+00 to 2+30, a 25% increase. Thus you'd be less affected by winds aloft in a higher-performance aircraft, and therefore reduce your chances of having to make a fuel stop mid-journey. I remember fighting unexpectedly strong headwinds (45kts) in a 172 while crossing the Appalachians westbound, trying to balance altitude, groundspeed and fuel burn. I ended up landing just 1 gallon above my 60-minute reserve. - Although flying is fun, sometimes it's just better to get there sooner than later. This is especially true on longer trips where pilot's mental stamina and bladder have limits. A few years back, I did a trip from coastal VA to Hondo TX for work, once in a Cherokee and then in a Mooney. In the Cherokee, the 1200nm trip took over 14 hours including 2 fuel stops along the way. By the time I was shooting the RNAV approach into HDO, it was midnight. In the Mooney, the trip took 9 hours with 1 fuel stop and I was in Hondo by dinnertime and had plenty of time to shop for groceries to stock the fridge in my temporary home. All that said, though, if I ever owned my own airplane, I think I'd be looking for a simpler machine even if it was slower. An older 172 or Cherokee would be great despite their crazy asking prices nowadays.
I really enjoyed reading your comments. You made some very good points. I'm also glad that your Mooney gas tanks didn't suffer as a result of the bumpy terrain on landing. I understand they are directly above the main gear.
Great video. I also own a Cherokee 140 and I love flying it. Also controllers give me just as much respect as I hear the heavy iron getting when I fly, especially on long cross country flights, they have been fantastic with me. I fly on the East coast.
I have not flow a cross-country east of Texas yet. In fact, my pilot-son and I were planning a 2-day flight to upstate New York starting today, but had to cancel due to other priorities. I still intend like to fly around the east coast in the future and compare the experience with states west of Texas. Thanks for your kind comment and thanks for watching.
Great video! I call it the upgrade dilemma. There is something to be said for simplicity. 100% agree with what you expressed! The best airplane is the one you are flying and can afford!
Yes, the dilemma of whether or not to upgrade an airplane is definitely a problem to be grateful for. As pilots, that means we are living a good life. Thanks for watching.
Great vid - Thx! I use my 100 knot flying machine to cross country and see my kids and grands annually. I enjoy the freedom of non-towered airports all the way. Tying down and finding lunch with no hurries and no worries, but the weather. The old '47 Stinson 108-1 was my dream Art Deco airplane and after 23 years of flying boat (which i sold to a Monk from Guam) I bought one and it's much more enjoyable to fly, and camp, and eat, and fly...
It's great to fly a relatively slow cross-country, isn't it? There is so much to experience. I would love to see a picture of your 47 Stinson. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
Yes, a good interior really adds to the enjoyment of flying, doesn't it? After all, you're spending most of your time looking at the interior when you're flying. If you're looking at the exterior while you're flying you've got major problems! Lol. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
Your point about lower performance margins making for better pilots is valid. A friend who is both a carrier-qualified and a private pilot told me that military pilots can get into trouble with light aircraft because they are used to having lots of power to save the day.
That's a fascinating insight that I had not heard before from military pilots. But it sounds very true. You can't muscle yourself out of a situation in a light GA airplane. Thank you for your insight and thanks for watching.
Excellent presentation. I also have a Cherokee 140 that I really love. When I think of doing the various upgrades the first thought that comes to mind is how much use I would get out of these costly improvements. Most of us can only fly so much in a year and it is mostly day, VFR. No need to fly when it is 100F in higher elevations in the Southwest. I have thought that money saved on flying my 2 place airplane can be used for upgrades such as newer avionics rather than the higher cost annuals and insurance. With the more sophisticated, expensive airplanes, it is hard to justify leaving them outside on a tie down rather than an expensive hanger.
Those are all very good points. Life is a balancing act, particularly with finances, isn't it? Sounds like you've set your priorities. Enjoy your airplane! Thanks for the comment and thanks for watching.
When I was 17, I flew my friends in a Cessna 182 for the power and performance. Now, in my retirement, I have a Cessna 150. Cheap to keep and fly, very light and responsive on the controls, still gets me to a destination in half the time as driving. I have no desire to sell my little 150 for another aircraft. When the time comes, I will give the keys to the plane to my grandson.
That's a great comment. It captures, for me, the essence of flying. You are piloting something that makes you happy and you are passing that happiness down to your descendants. That's quite an accomplishment in life, isn't it? Thanks for watching.
This video is really great. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I’m just starting my aviation adventures and I suspect I’ll be a slow plane guy…. There’s something magic about the PA28 and cubs :)
I bought a Cherokee 180 to get my PPL and I'm working towards my instrument now. I most likely will sell it and buy a faster plane in the next 5 years. I totally agree with your reasons to fly slow for some use cases, but I think it heavily depends on the mission. For me, the reason I want a faster plane is because I care about the destination more than the journey. I'm single and live alone. My closest relatives live 3 hours away, and my parents moved across the country to retire. I want to get to where I'm going faster to spend more time with the ones I love. For example, flying to my parents in my plane would take about 11 hours, if I had a Bonanza A36 that would take about 6.5 hours. A massive difference in trip duration. In my cherokee that would likely be split over 2 days. If I was staying local, lived near my loved ones, etc.. I would be 100% content with flying slow, enjoying the journey, and saving money on fuel.
Thanks for your comment. It sounds like the Bonanza was a good choice for you. Stay safe by being flexible with your schedule when the weather isn't cooperating.
Great points all! My Grumman Cheetah uses about the same GPH as your Piper but is definitely faster when I want to get there quick but, I agree with you that pulling it back to a leisurely 105-110kts is a whole different perspective. Another benefit of Slow Flight is the dreaded turbulence, especially if there are sharp bumps. Pulling it back to 90-100kts really makes a difference in ride comfort for you and the passengers! New Sub!
Yes, I almost bought a Grumman as well. I believe it was a Tiger but it was already sold when I got there about 30 minutes late! Lol. Thanks for the kind comment and subscribing to my channel. I guess now the pressure is on to make a few more of these videos!
Some good points. As a former owner of a 172, I enjoyed the low and slow. If I bought another aircraft, I might consider a 182 for the useful load. That being said, as I watch videos of people flying much faster planes with all the bells and whistles, I often remark that they aren't really flying. They program the computers and then the plane does the flying. Also, I am never in that big of a hurry anyway!! Thanks for the video.
When I was working on my PPL, one of the Planes I trained in was an Aeronca Champion, Tandem seating and slow flight. I loved the view from the cockpit. I would rather fly it than a Cessna. But with an electrical starter.
I've never flown a Aeronca Champion, but I've received comments from other viewers that it's a great airplane. And yes, I agree with you. Hand propping an airplane is not for me. Years ago at Rancho Murrieta airport in California, I watched a pilot hand prop his small airplane all alone by putting a tie down chain on the rear anchor. Luckily, everything went as planned but I don't like to think of what might have happened. I also watched another pilot in Barstow CA hand prop a piper cub from inside the cabin sitting in the front seat. He made it look effortless and it did look much safer. I don't know if you could do that with an Aeronca. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
9:20 this is VERY true. The most fun I've had flying helicopters came in the R22, the smallest and slowest I've flown. The most fun I've had flying on a regular basis always came from the C150s we had at teh flight school, and my personal C150. Slow is so much fun. And better for flight training too. A new student pilot can progress much faster in a slow aircraft. They have more time on approach to react and adjust, they can more easily land with precision and hit their spot, they can more easily see the changes in their glide path, the aircraft is lighter on the controls and tends to be more responsive. Simpler airplanes also offer less distraction and complexity for new students to deal with while learning the fundamentals. Most of the most famous pilots in history learned to fly in low power slow airplanes.
You know, you bring up a very good point. Being in a slow airplane means that you can really feel the forces of aerodynamics and that tactile feedback really makes you one with the environment. It's a great way to learn. Thank you for a great comment and thanks for watching.
Hey, i also own a beautiful ifr rated Cherokee. Of course its not the fastes one… but Everytime flying it, it makes me smile. Just enjoy the Flight and let the plane fly by it Self. Thats the way to go in GA 🤩 Ps: i am a little jealous about you awesome paintjob 😍
Totally agree with simplicity,I’m building a Vans RV 4 with manual elevator and aileron trim, all round gauges with 1 lowly Garmin G5 . The comments I get about not having a glass panel are unbelievable 😂
I love the simpler planes like yours. I've flown glass and steam, and still like steam. Glass can be distracting. A simple digital round gage can be useful for cost, but having the moving maps in my experience causes people to stop looking outside. they get too hung up on autopilots and such rather than flying.
Great comments. Ironically, I just got to fly a vans RV that a friend from Germany built he flew down to Alzante Brianza here in Italy, and I got to fly it! Lake Como never looked more beautiful than slow flight in that vans. Thanks for the kind comments and thanks for watching.
New sub here , great video and breakdown of having a slower GA airplane I dont feel so bad anymore flying my Sundowner around but it is comfy ! Also I didnt know Gary Busey had a brother lol you look very alike . Take care look forward to more videos.
Yes, the sundowner is a great airplane. Lots of room. I've sat in them before. As far as look-alikes, I do recall one other person, mentioning Gary Busey to me in the past. But more recently, I was mistaken in Italy for a famous Italian pop, singer named Claudio Baglioni. It just makes me laugh. 😂
If you want a fun safe plane to fly try a. Piper cub. With stall speed of around 35 mph and a cruise speed of 70 mph you can enjoy flying it with out breaking the ban. Mine uses about 5 gph at cruise speed. There is nothing more amazing than a fall sunset at 7000 ft
Really great advice! I'm on my third airplane now. First one, built an RV8 and went fast, updside down and loved it but life moved on after having a child! Bought a C-180 Skywagon, a durable, truck of an airplane and also fairly fast but not nearly as quick as the RV. It was old and needed a lot of $$ down the road and costs just started getting out of hand. Sold it, bought an Evektor Sportstar LSA and I have to say it isone fun little airplane. It is NOT fast but is nimble, has superb visibility and is simple to work on. I'm doing the annual, rubber replacement requirement and installing a better brake system myself, with A&P oversight for this work and annual signoff. I might convert it to experimental light sport and take the weekend course so I can do all the signoffs myself. I can operate it on car gas, I live with the airplane at my airpark home and can really reduce costs that way. Or, I might just sell it and call it a day. Flying was something major in my life for a while, but now, it's still just so much to keep track of for regulatory requirements, insurance, fuel and parts costs. A Rotax 912, for what it is, can be rather expensive to maintain if something major goes wrong. More to the point of your video, an old pilot once told me "you like to fly, right? Well then what's your hurry son?".
You made some great points in the comments. I hope you continue to fly and don't find it too much of a regulatory burden. The truth is, just living as becoming a regulatory burden. It seems like the government is in every single nook and cranny of our lives. I recently watched a very chilling interview with Hillary Clinton, where she was critical of people who were nostalgic for an earlier time, when (in her words) "people were in charge of their lives". I don't think she saw the irony. Anyway, thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
Yes, I think that applies for both airplanes and boats. Lol Some pilots have deep pockets, so they can fly faster. Other pilots have governments with deeper pockets, so they get to fly an SR71 at 1800 mph. I guess everything's relative, isn't it? The point is to have enjoyment and satisfaction in what you fly. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching
@@craigshangar4958sort of. I keep it in Era, TX (TX94), but until I get my license I’ll park it at GLE. It’s the white and orange one with the droopy wings.
I have 12 boats, sailing, motorboats, human powered. The smallest rowing boat gets the most attention. This is very much like your friend with 5 airplanes.
As someone who rides motorcycles, I got a smaller, slower bike for the same reasons: to enjoy the ride CHEAPLY! A smaller bike uses cheaper tires, and those tires don't need to be replaced as often; that saves you twice. A smaller bike uses less fuel, so I can have fun all day for $10-$15 worth of fuel. A smaller bike is cheaper to insure. A smaller, simpler bike is easier to work on, which allows me to do all my own maintenance; that saves money, big time. I ride mainly to enjoy the local back roads or to enjoy ride along the river. Why do I need a two wheeled, street legal race bike for that? I don't! I also got my commercial/instrument years ago. I'd hoped to be a professional pilot, but that never happened. I have thought about getting my own airplane. If I were to get an airplane, I'd probably get an Ercoupe for all the reasons you stated in this video. I'd fly mainly for enjoyment, but even if I wanted to do a cross country, it's still quicker than taking the car... :)
I practically live on motorcycles myself, even at age 67. It is interesting that so many pilots also ride. I think you are correct about the similarities between the two wheels on the ground and no wheels on the ground. Here is a link you might appreciate. ua-cam.com/video/flIwJYG5Smc/v-deo.htmlsi=NVuXedCCPnemSO7v Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
I agree with everyone here who says that they fly for the joy of flying rather than going anywhere. When that is your only criteria then there is no need for a fast machine.
Yes, that's basically the point of the video. If you enjoy flying, there's nothing wrong with flying slow, and in many cases, flying slow might actually be more fun. You definitely see and experience more of the wonder of flight. Thanks for your comment. And thanks for watching.
I have owned a PA-28-140 for 10 years. I am teaching my kids to fly in it. ( I am a CFII). My family operated 13 airplanes and a Bell 206. Our turbo Aztec and C-210 were fun, but expensive to maintain. Our CE-340 was also fun, but not a low & Slow airplane. Also very expensive to keep. My Super Viking was am amazing handling airplane, and fast, but burned 16 GPH, and parts were getting hard to get. The Bell 206 was amazing, i got my rotor commercial & IFR in it. But the Cherokee is simple, easy to maintain, easy to fly. If you have a good spar, your are set. Mine does about 102 knots, I have the wheel pants off. My kids fly it really well, and so i am keeping it.
Having experience owning 14 aircraft, including a helicopter, is very impressive. Thanks for validating my experience owning a PA 28. It definitely has a special place in my heart, as yours. And yes, this airplane is definitely a family affair. One of my sons is becoming an airline pilot, and he enjoys flying the Cherokee immensely. Thank you for your kind comment and thanks for watching.
I am living in Japan now and was looking at some earlier vintage Cessna 172s at a used aircraft dealer here in Osaka Prefecture. The costs for annual inspections here in Japan are more than in the US, so i think far less people here can afford to fly high performance like Cirrus, Piper Mirage or even a Turbo 182. Is your plane more affordable than a similar vintage Cessna 172? i am comparing earlier model 172 to a piper PA-28. fixed costs are important factor. i should have bought a plane when i was in Thailand or the Philippines. if you live in those countries cost of ownership is lower than in Japan. My dream airplane in the one i rented in Thailand, a nice clean 1981 Cessna 172P. Have not bought anything yet. bucket list item to check off that list of life goals.
Thank you for your perspective. Very enlightening. Here in the US, a Cessna 172 is comparable to a Piper Cherokee. That said, prices have increased dramatically since I purchased this airplane about 8 years ago. My advice to you is to buy an airplane as soon as your budget allows, because it sounds like you were meant to be an aircraft owner. Good luck with your future purchase.
8:00 Most of my flying experience is at High DA in the Rockies and I've flown Cessna 150s, Cessna 172s, Robinson R22 and more to their limits. Flying IFR flight plan at service ceiling. Flying to places like Leadville. Landing helicopters on a mountain top at max power. You have less climb, less power, more takeoff distance, etc. It really does make you a better pilot in so many unexpected ways. Knowing how to safely fly a low performance condition is critical to safety. When giving training or BFRs to high time pilots flying high performance aircraft, we always warned to watch out. Those pilots are not used to having no power. they are used to being able to power out of problems. They tended to be the most dangerous pilots to do flight training with as a result.
Very true. And it's also more dangerous in airplanes that are higher performance because they fly faster and there's a lot more energy to absorb when things go wrong, isn't there? Excellent comments and it sounds like you are a very experienced pilot. Thanks for watching.
8:55 my local ATC knows me, I fly a 90kt C150. But when in the pattern they love me, and are very willing to work with me. Why? because I adjust my pattern and speed to accommodate other traffic. When an IFR Twin is waiting for me so they can takeoff, I keep my pattern tight, keep my speed up (I can push it up to 110kts at times), and do a short approach. When someone slower than me is in the patter, or someone needs a little extra time, I slow down and widen or extend my pattern. Etc. ATC knows I'm paying attention, can and will adjust, and they use me to fix pattern spacing issues and more as a result. I've earned this respect from ATC at multiple towered airports over the years. And thus when I ask for something reasonable, if a little unconventional, they will likely give it to me as they know that I know what I'm doing.
That's fantastic. It's always good to know the local controllers and earn their respect. They always appreciate it. I've had similar situation to Sacramento Executive Airport, which has a tower. The guy I know in the tower would on occasion asked me to keep my downwind to base turn short and land as soon as possible because of incoming traffic. He knows that I don't have a problem complying. Good for you that you pay attention to the other planes in the pattern. You will live to be an old pilot. Thanks for a great comment. And thanks for watching.
I fly a 1979 C172, love it and sure it would be nice to get more speed, but the $$-per MPH just isn't in the cards for me. Thanks for posting the commonsense reality of flying. If I can get a few more years at it, I'll be happy.
The only time I get a little "eeeeeeeeeh" is when ATC is ordering me to speed up because I have 2 large cylinders falling from outer space at the speed of sound.
It's not simply flying faster. The pleasure and satisfaction of flying a higher performance and a more capable airplane is something to aspire to. Very few people get into a high performance retractable for example , And want to go back to something much simpler unless forced to. Once you get used to more range and power and smoothness, it is a wonderful feeling of achievement. As far as fuel consumption, On a long trip it really works out about the same, except you arrive quicker. On short trips, you can always pull the power back.
Those are all very good points. It really is a very subjective topic, which is why we are fortunate that there are so many general aviation airplane types on the market. It also makes for great hangar talk, doesn't it? I appreciate your comment and thanks for watching.
but insurance cost is more, purchase cost is more, maintenance cost is more, you need to fly more often to stay proficient, etc. When it comes to emergency landings off-airport, the slower airplane is FAR safer.
No, I've never piloted an auto Gyro, but I think that would be a fantastic experience. I just took my first glider flight in Italy at Alzante Brianza a few days ago, and there was a gentleman who landed an autogyro that looked extremely interesting.
AOPA did a study a while ago. Said basically that if you're not flying 75? hours a year, you shouldn't be an owner. That being said, if I was an owner, I'd want a capable aircraft. A 150 or 140 wouldn't work for me.
I did the same analysis for myself years ago which came close to that number. You have to fly frequently to justify the fixed costs associated with storage, insurance, annual inspections and maintenance. Your preference for larger and/or faster airplanes is totally understandable. We all fly for different reasons. Your interest in the video tells me that you enjoy flying. If I'm right, then I hope you're able to become an owner someday. It's a great experience. Thank you for your comment and thank you for watching.
Sure, I am 67 years old, though I still feel like I'm 30, so I guess that's a good thing. Like you, I think, getting older gives you perspective to appreciate the moment instead of worrying about ETAs, unless of course you don't want to fly after sunset to an unfamiliar airport. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
With a fast airplane, slow is an option. With a slow airplane, slow is a requirement. Fuel cost is a misleading metric since there are aerodynamically cleaner airplanes which will fly faster on the same fuel burn as you are getting to go slow.
Agreed, Mooney is probably the best example of this if you're looking for the best nautical miles per gallon. In my case, I like to fly between 100 and 120 hours a year for the pure pleasure of it., So gallons per hour are my priority. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
You know, it's interesting that you saidfFlying is less frustrating than driving. When I'm up in the air, I'm very relaxed. When I'm driving around on the ground, I'm always wary of other drivers. I guess everyone, except pilots, would find that counter-intuitive. Thanks for the comment and thanks for watching.
I fly my grandfather's Aeronca 15AC Sedan. Low and low, enjoy the view. One should fit the tool to the job. I have no use for a fast aircraft. I wouldn't be able to afford to fly it as much.
That's a great airplane. It must be fun to fly. It's good to hear that you're keeping your grandfather's tradition alive. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
That's a good question. It's been a long path, but i think we're on the cusp of having this solved. When unleaded gas is available for general aviation, our engines will have much less carbon related problems and much more longevity. Sticking valves and fouled spark plugs may be a thing of the past. Here are some excerpts from an AOPA article that you might be interested in…. "Swift Fuels' UL94, a 94-octane unleaded fuel good for lower compression engines, is currently available at 36 U.S. public-use airports. Before using this fuel, currently, you must obtain a supplemental type certificate (STC) specific to your aircraft and engine…… General Aviation Modifications Inc. (GAMI) has developed G100UL, a 100-octane unleaded fuel that is FAA approved, via STC, for all GA spark-ignition piston airplanes" From Thanks for your question and thanks for watching.
You have some good points. I learned to fly in a Cherokee. I had a Cardinal down here at Northwest Regional with the 150 HP engine and flew it around for a while. I live in Flower Mound. I flew a 78 T-210 in California and after flying that I got a little spoiled by the speed, but I always remembered the fuel flow on that airplane in cruise too, and it was about 16 gph in economy cruise after break in. Since then I've also flown A-36's, a Mooney, C-182 RG, and started getting bi annuals in complex airplanes because they demand a little more of you and you can rent virtually anything lower in performance. I have found the mission you have to fly is important. If you want to carry 1 or 2 people a Cherokee or 172 is fine but sometimes the load gets bigger. It's also a pocketbook issue for sure. One evening many years ago 4 of us jumped into an ald C-172 and flew down to the Nut Tree for dinner and back from Enterprise Sky Park no longer in existence. The airplane was just about maxed out but it was a fun and memorable flight made possible by a slow flying 172 and allowed the girls to gaze at the city lights and small towns we crossed over from the Nut Tree in Vacaville back up to Redding, Ca. The trip down and back was as exciting for them as the Nut Tree visit. Thanks for the story on the Cherokee and maybe we'll see you around.
Thank you for sharing. Those are fantastic comments. Yes, when I learned to fly about 30 years ago, I remember landing at the Nut Tree. It was an extremely windy day and kept me on my toes as I flew with my instructor. And your comment about flying slow around northern California to view the beautiful lights really struck me. One of the prettiest flights I ever made was over the Golden Gate Bridge around dusk. I appreciate your comments and thanks for watching.
General aviation is very expensive and costly not a necessity in your life but if you indulge for the love and passion of flying, it will be the greatest experience of your life. Trudging @ 100kts is excruciating as if cruising and never leaving the pattern .
Yes, I agree with you that general aviation is expensive but definitely worth it. if you have the means. That said, let's agree to disagree about. flying at 100 kts. I've never considered it trudging. I consider cross country's at that speed to be pure magic. Thank you for your perspective. Alternate views are always welcome. And thanks for watching.
Yes, isn't it great to spend the least amount of money for insurance? It's an intangible that hopefully we never have to use, so it feels good not to spend more than you have to. Thank you for your comment. And thanks for watching.
@@craigshangar4958 my goal is on flying as affordably as I can reasonably manage. And then share with others ways I find to keep costs down. Flying slow simple airplanes is step one. Simple airplanes require little maintenance, easy to work on. Doing as much maintenance as you allowed and comfortable doing properly yourself is huge too.
Nice, but very polarized perspective. Quite frankly, the one about it making you a better pilot is laughably ridiculous. I enormously enjoy summer afternoons in a Cub when I can smell the cut grass, but many actually “use” an airplane. Things like mission profile are very important concepts a recreational pilot just doesn’t need to worry about. I need to make trips which have grown from an average of 300 miles to 800 and many trips of 1200 miles regularly. I need to have an airplane that has the ability to deal with less than VFR weather. My beloved TR182 is no longer suitable for what I need in an airplane; why? Because it is too slow, and unable to fly over and through the weather I encounter safely.
Interesting comment. Respectfully, I still think that flying an airplane with lower performance margins can make you a better pilot. I've received several comments on this, and many pilots with more time in both lower and higher performance airplanes agree. I also believe that having different opinions in the aviation community does not translate into polarization. It just makes for interesting and enjoyable conversation. Thank you for watching.
Hmm, this summer I did a leg of 1333 nm. I was helped by being at 17,000 and having a roaring tailwind. I was airborne for 7 hours and 3 minutes according to Flight Aware. In his Cherokee, lower with no wind, that flight is over 12 hours. Meaning the addition of at least two stops. So not really a one day trip. Also add in the cost of meals and a night in a hotel to the overall cost. I burned about 80 gallons. Cherokee would have been around 92 gallons at 7.5 per hour.
Yes, you are absolutely correct if nautical miles per gallon is your priority and GA transportation at the lowest cost, which would include overnight stays and meals. In my case, it's about the journey so stopping along the way to towns, I haven't been to before is a great experience. Again, it's all about what makes you happy and what suits your mission. I appreciate your comment and thank you for watching my video.
Another point is headwinds. In my plane, a 40 knot headwind still gives me 135 knot ground speed. A 40 knot headwind in your Cherokee is 68 knot ground speed. Faster is much better in headwinds. I recall one trip in my friend's Cherokee 180D. Watching the trucks on the interstate passing us. :D
Yes, the air cam is a very interesting aircraft, isn't it? I believe it was designed primarily for photography, but I can see about 1 million uses for it. Thank you for the kind comment and thanks for watching.
@@craigshangar4958 My intentions are to build one with my daughter. We love the idea of building one together. The video struck a cord with me because previously daydreaming I thought about how fast and far can I go. But really it’s about experience nature in a new way among other things in an air cam
@@craigshangar4958 I was referring to your claim that another 30 kts will double the fuel burn. A good rule of thumb is that the fuel burn increases by the square of the increase in speed (as does drag.) 30 kts more than 108 kts is about a 25% speed increase which would come out to a ~50% increase in fuel burn, not 100% per your math. Just what I experience in my Mooney. I agree 100% with your point that, if your mission is building time, flying slower is more economical. That can also be achieved by flying slower in a fast plane, but it takes some discipline not to firewall the throttle. What you don't discuss regarding economy is that, when flying cross-country, your lower fuel burn does not result in a proportionally lower mpg since the flight is taking longer than that of a faster, sleek plane (mpg=speed/gph.) Your 108 kts at 7.5 gph comes to 14.4 n.m./gal. A 180 hp Mooney flying at 140 kts & 10 gph is just a little less than that at 14 n.m./gal. If I slow down 5 kts, I actually get better fuel mileage than your Piper. You can always fly slower in a fast plane, but not vice versa. And flying a faster, more aerodynamic plane of similar gross weight at your Piper's top speed will net a similar fuel burn, if not better.
@@jmcgaz1 power flow tuned exhaust, electro air ignition, and a few speed mods. For 1-2 additional micro knots I only have one exposed antenna, a com bent whip under the belly. ELT is hidden in the fiberglass dorsal, transponder shark fin replaced with a tailbeaconX at the tail light.
Yes, well making my airplane IFR capable with installation of a GTN 650 was one of the better things I've done. So I was installation of a really good graphical engine monitor. Thanks for watching.
Yes, I've gotten a few comments from Mooney owners. I'm a big fan of the brand. Clearly, some of the points I mentioned regarding the cost of avgas don't apply to Mooneys. I appreciate your comments. Thanks for watching.
I received a text message from my friend with the Cub that was mentioned in the video .... "Very good and the guy with the Cub 💯 agrees. 😍 And I have two more arguments … 1. faster aircraft normally fly higher . The higher you fly the less fun because everything becomes more uniform. 2. if I fly faster aircraft I will be earlier at my destination and have less time in the air and less time fun. If I want to compensate for this I need to fly more in faster airplanes but then I can also keep a slower airplane . Good Video!!! 👍🏼✈️ To double speed you need approximately 5x the horsepower And one more thing … if you fly 200 instead of 170 this are 30 miles more or 17%. On a two hour flight that brings you 20 min earlier to your destination. 100 min instead of 120 min - at what price? And I seldom see people getting a good bargain out of the 20 min . One talk at the airport or even an additional tank stop will ruin the efficiency"
"To double speed you need approximately 5x the horsepower" Not entirely true. For a given airframe, sure. BUT, change the plane, keep the HP and you can go 2x faster. I have a Lancair 320, 160hp. I cruise at 200KTAS+ on 9 gal / hr. It's mission isn't the same as a Cessna or Piper. I miss my 172 and would like to get another one, or a STOL, but keep the Lancair. Fast planes like my Lancair are designed to be cross country machines, and they do it very well. As much as I love flying, it's not my job and my time is limited. If I'm going a long way, the time saved, and fuel costs, by flying fast are invaluable. But on the other hand, I cannot land off field, rought strips, less than 4,000ft. Different mission, different plane. It would be great if there was one plane that did it all.
The only time I have seen that happen is in the movie "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. Lol. ua-cam.com/video/XeetQ2e6qkg/v-deo.htmlsi=WEsq9K8yL4pPsz0q
Unless you're flying some ex-miitary thing that goes crazy fast, you really don't notice your speed at altitude. A few thousand feet up, 30 or even a 100 knots just doesn't feel much faster. Heck, I've flown business jets in commercial simulators and even they don't feel much fater at altitude (although they're a lot busier when landing). A plane isn't a car or motorcycle where speed differences are easily noticiable. As you observed, you're better off in a more affordable plane that you can maintain properly and build hours in. An Aztec or Beech twin is way faster than a Citebria or Pitts. But which is more fun and engaging to fly? It's not the faster ones.
These archaic planes with antiquated engines are always gonna be slow. Thanks to Mosaic, we will have aircraft that will allow for 170 knots, burning 7 gallons an hr with 800plus nm range.
Yes, progress is always in evitable, although it does seem to come in spurts for general aviation. Here's a good article on Mosaic that you may have seen already.
Your comment has merit. I felt that same after we shot the clip. We probably should have displayed a corrective comment. I was making a comparison between an older, slower airplane vs a newer, faster airplane with a much higher hull value, but did not explain my reference properly. That is the risk I run when talking somewhat extemporaneously from notes instead of reading from a script. Good catch. Thanks for watching.
I am sure there are many more reasons to fly slow, that been used as an excuse for designers to take short cuts and some to cover up their inaptitude to design good planes., it also save some money. One of the key reason we fly is to get somewhere faster. The Desert Storm generals taught us , it is good to have options, and bad when you are forced into a corner with no options. To me, a real cross country airplane should be able to cruise at a minimum of 140 kts and have range approaching 1000 miles. This airplane give options and can always fly at 80,90 kts But an airplane that max out at 90 kts have not a hope in hell to reach 140 kts Yes, slow flight is fun, sometimes, just not all the time. maybe the designers of commercial jet can use some of those excuses you listed to justify why jet speed been stuck at just below Mach one for 3/4 century, I call it the "sound barrier"
You have good points from the perspective of cross country flying. Not everyone wants to take a couple of days to fly from Texas to California, but I find it very enjoyable and rewarding. And yes, flying a faster airplane does give you the option of slowing down, but the extra utility of being able to fly faster does come with a price. Again, we all have different pocket books, perspectives and priorities, and that's one of the things I really like about the pilot community. Thanks your comment and thank you for watching.
Very true. I think the amount of energy increases by the square of speed. So a few extra knots can translate into a lot more energy to be absorbed during a bad landing. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
@@craigshangar4958 NASA studies from many decades ago (crashing real airframes into the ground) showed teh survivability rates of aircraft in relation to both speed and angle of impact, and showed that below ~54kts and less than 30deg nose down upon impact, you're almost guaranteed to survive. They made a graph of speeds and angles below which you can pretty much be guaranteed to survive. This study clearly is used to inform stall speed requirements for different categories of aircraft. But it also proves the NTSB data about crash landing wings level, under control, at minimum airspeed without stalling. better to crash into something slow but under control in a shallow dive angle than to lose control or pile drive it in at higher speeds. Slow airplanes like C150, J-3, Champ, etc. are much less likely to be flying very fast to begin with, making them far safer in a crash. and combine that slow speed with corresponding short landing distances and you have more options where to land in an emergency.
You did not see the video of the 150 with strong head wind,and the very impatient controlor getting shot tempered at 50k over all you might get better treatment on an IFR trip.
I didn't exactly understand the last part of your comment, but it's interesting that you talked about a short tempered controller. I was at a Aviation dinner tonight in Lugano Switzerland, and got to talk to the controller at that airport who was also attending. He said the same thing. It is very frustrating for him to separate IFR traffic with some of the slower general aviation airplanes on the field. I thought his comments were interesting as well. Thank you for your comment and thank you for watching.
@@craigshangar4958 looks like the controllers are nicer in the south west,in the North East there more short temper ed to a lot of VFR traffic.I have see an examner on A flight test tell him to leave the pattern be cause there was to much traffic,but it was just to much traffic for the controller ,and the examner did not leave the pattern, said a few words,and it was A flight test The controller changed his tone and attitude.
IN the North East the controler will not even agnolage you if he is. Is very bizy,say for flight following but he hears you another way of saying it forget it you will never get A clearance through the class B Air space remain clear On the other hand if you are on an IFR flight plan almost all ways derct,or radar vectors derect, I think you are trusted more to hold your altitude an heading of you're An Instrument rated pilot.
Why justify having an older, cheaper slower aircraft? It fits your mission. And that is really the point. WHAT IS YOUR MISSION. Why does your friend with multiple planes have multiple planes? Because he has a different need, apparently, at different times when it comes to flying. Flying cheap and slow fits the mission niche for people who are not going anywhere, they just want to be in the air. Flying faster is for people who want and need to get somewhere, but they also get to be in the air. Flying a complex piston plane with constant speed prop, retractable gear and able to fly in instrument conditions is for those that want to fly faster, need to get somewhere, and might need to do it in bad weather. Flying a jet is a cost/capability up from that. All jet planes have retractable gear, can fly instrument conditions, and fly higher and MUCH faster. There is a direct relationship between speed and cost. But, for those that need to get somewhere and need to do it quickly, then the extra cost can only be justified by the time savings. That is why most jets are owned by businesses, or people with a business. Aviation can be a hobby, a business or both.
Yes, I agree with your comment. Hopefully, I set that tone at the beginning of the video. People fly for a lot of different reasons. If the travel time was a priority, I certainly would want something faster than 100 kt airplane. I appreciate your comment and thank you for watching.
You are very misleading to newbies. Insurance is not required. Situations like loans and municipal airports demand it. This overshadows your whole episode. Thumbs down.
I've read your comment several times, but honestly I don't know what you're trying to say. Insurance is needed by airplane owners who want to protect their investment in their airplane and also want to protect themselves from liability.
Under powered airplanes suck, we had a Comanche 400, could do a fast climb out with full fuel, four adult passengers, and all their luggage !!! and even with high DA !!! just because you have a big engine, doesn’t mean you have to go fast, we would slow it down to conserve fuel, but you never had to worry about being overloaded on takeoff
Well, I have never thought that any airplanes suck, but as I said in the video, different pilots certainly have different viewpoints. I hope you enjoyed the video and thanks for watching.
This probably is not surprising based on my channel name, but I'm 💯 in agreement with this. I mostly fly to fly, not to get somewhere so for me a cheap slow airplane always sounded better to me than a fast one.
Both can be true. Loving to be in the air, why rush to the ground? Enjoy the ride :)
I am the same i love my Tecnam p92 echo super, I am never gonna break a Airspeed record in it. I just love to fly it, it is a pure pleasure to fly i am so glad i picked the Tecnam to do my training in. So much so once i have my PPL i am seriously considering buying 1.
@@warshrike666 yes, Tecnam, makes a great airplane. I was fortunate to visit their factory in Capua earlier this year. Unbelievably impressive. They make most of their own parts.
If I were to buy a new airplane, it would be one of their models. 👍
@@craigshangar4958 I was in Italy a month ago but did not have time to visit the factory that would have been awesome i am envious mate. Yeah there new models are very very nice i could not afford 1 of those my trainer is a 2005. If i sold my new Stinger i could buy 1 of those tomorrow but my wife has already told me these are her words "you are not selling your car to buy a fecking plane" hahahahaha :) I will have to save up a little 1st so she wont kill me. :) I am 1 of the converted once you have control of a plane for the 1st time it changes you. :)
So well thought out. And so true. After 40 years of flying all types of aircraft, I have discovered the overlooked allure of low and slow for all the reasons you mention. As the proud owner of an exceptional 1976 C150M, I can attest that life at 90 knots is truly fantastic. Made even more so after each fill up. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for your validation. I realize that there are some differing opinions, but it seems as if you and I are of the same mind. Flying is most enjoyable for us at lower speeds, and our pocketbook appreciates it too! In fact, yesterday I flew a glider in Italy for the first time. Fantastic. Low and slow. Thanks for watching.
I am in Italy today and saw a Cessna 150 fly overhead in Capri. I have been looking for private aircraft for days now and this was the first seen. How fortunate you are to fly a glider in Italy! @@craigshangar4958
Craig, I was so glad you gave us your perspective. Today I own a PA28 140/160, and I love that plane. I lot of what you said resonated well with me. I was recently looking at a 1947 Bonanza A35 as an upgrade. You made several great points, one of them being that going slower makes you a better pilot. You have to plan better, make better decisions, and keep yourself out of trouble because of the planes limitations. I totally agree! Maybe that Bonanza should wait a while... However I still would not mind a PA28 180! Just a little more horse power never hurts!! I fly out of F28 in Lubbock. I hope to see you flying someday! Cheers!
You're right, Chris, a little extra horsepower is always welcome. That's why I put the power flow exhaust on. If you're ever planning a trip near Gainesville, send me an email. Perhaps we can meet over coffee in my hangar. Thanks for watching.
You still have to plan and make decisions. And even more so because you are transiting a large amount of area, so things are constantly changing. trip yesterday, destination was MVFR when I departed, went IFR, back to MVFR to VFR and then MVFR when I arrived. I crossed 6 states in that time
Just did dallas to atlanta in my vashon ranger at 108 knots. Very enjoyable trip and i did get to see and take it all in!
That's fantastic! All of my trips have been west of Texas. I'm looking forward to my first trip from Texas to upstate New York in a couple of weeks with my son. It will be interesting to see and compare the differences between flying east and flying west. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
I just bought a 1965 172F. You made me feel so much better😀😀
Congratulations on your purchase. That alone should make you feel better! I hope you get many years of enjoyment out of flying your C-172. I'm partial to Pipers, but I think Cessna also made a few 172's, didn't they? Lol. The Skyhawk is a great airplane. The first one rolled off the assembly line in 1956, the same year I was born. They've been in production ever since, except for that gap between 1986 and 1996. Still, they have cranked out over 44,000 of these amazing airplanes. You made a good choice. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
The cost savings per hour is a great selling point of the PA-28. The higher cost savings with a Powerflow Exhaust really helps with time-building.
Great points! Beautiful Cherokee too! Thanks for the video.
Thanks for the kind comments. I enjoyed making it as well.
Craig, I purchased a 1973 Cherokee Challenger in 2022. The PA28 group are an awesome easy to life series of planes. Thank you for the insight and commentary.
I could not agree more. The Cherokee series is a great choice. It has quite a legacy, doesn't it? Thanks for watching. And thank you for your kind comments.
Great points
Thank you
Thanks for watching. Glad you appreciate it.
Great advice!
Thanks buddy. 😎
Thanks for your kind comments and thanks for watching.
Thanks for the perspective, Craig. My Cherokee 140 has an STC for mogas, which makes the cost of operation even less expensive. $4/g at 7.5 gph = $30/hour for fuel.
Although I have to confess that I did feel the need for speed. I sold her and bought into a partnership in a Cherokee 235 burning 11 gph, but still mogas. Your video makes me a little wistful for my 140.
The Cherokee 235 is a great airplane. Enjoy flying it!
Cessna 150 at 4.2gph........
I've also gotten 5gph from a Cessna 172.
Typically burned 6gph flying a PA-28-161 Warrior II during my PPL.
Gotta lean the engine.
Few airports carry Mogas ,at least at the hundreds of airports I have landed at in 21 years.
@@arthurbrumagem3844 that's been my issue with wanting to fly on mogas. where do you get fuel on cross country flights?
@@SoloRenegade yep. A friend of mine had a Dakota with the Mogas capability . He bragged about it. Bought a truck , added a tank and used it at his airport to fuel. He bragged about the money he was saving until - I asked him about the cost of the truck, tank, insurance on thru truck, maintenance on the truck AND it did nothing on his many cross country trips. Of all things I dump money into on my plane gas isn’t as bad as the other things. Prices on parts in the last few years have nuts. Luckily my IA is also one of my best friends. Just put a new ( rebuilt ) fuel sender in my passenger tank this weekend and it was 280.00. 7 yrs ago it was 160.00. The list is long
THANKS!!!
You're welcome! Thanks for watching.
Great video with some good points! Some of my most memorable flights to date were done in older 172s and Cherokees, ambling across the US at 100kts. The part about flying lower-performance aircraft making you a better planner really hit the mark as the low power "budget" I often had more or less required me to respect the circumstances of each flight.
One thing I might add to the list is the increased accessibility to tighter and/or rougher airstrips. Generally speaking, higher performance aircraft have higher approach speeds and landing gears that are optimized for paved surfaces which make them more challenging to bring into unimproved airfields. I once landed a friend's Mooney on Campbell Field (9VG), a small grass strip that I previously had zero issues bringing a Cherokee or Citabria into. It turned out to be a huge mistake as the Mooney's rubber disc suspension system did not like the small bumps in the grass, and for a solid minute I was convinced the nose gear would collapse. (Luckily it did not)
But I also have some counter-points in support of faster aircraft:
- Headwinds have disproportionately less impact on your trip time. For example, a 30kt headwind over a 300nm trip in a 100kt plane would increase trip time from 3+00 to 4+16, a 47% increase, whereas for a 150kt plane, the trip time would rise from 2+00 to 2+30, a 25% increase. Thus you'd be less affected by winds aloft in a higher-performance aircraft, and therefore reduce your chances of having to make a fuel stop mid-journey. I remember fighting unexpectedly strong headwinds (45kts) in a 172 while crossing the Appalachians westbound, trying to balance altitude, groundspeed and fuel burn. I ended up landing just 1 gallon above my 60-minute reserve.
- Although flying is fun, sometimes it's just better to get there sooner than later. This is especially true on longer trips where pilot's mental stamina and bladder have limits. A few years back, I did a trip from coastal VA to Hondo TX for work, once in a Cherokee and then in a Mooney. In the Cherokee, the 1200nm trip took over 14 hours including 2 fuel stops along the way. By the time I was shooting the RNAV approach into HDO, it was midnight. In the Mooney, the trip took 9 hours with 1 fuel stop and I was in Hondo by dinnertime and had plenty of time to shop for groceries to stock the fridge in my temporary home.
All that said, though, if I ever owned my own airplane, I think I'd be looking for a simpler machine even if it was slower. An older 172 or Cherokee would be great despite their crazy asking prices nowadays.
I really enjoyed reading your comments. You made some very good points. I'm also glad that your Mooney gas tanks didn't suffer as a result of the bumpy terrain on landing. I understand they are directly above the main gear.
That was a very nice video, I loved the ending especially. "Fly what makes you happy"
Thanks. Those are the words that I live by! Thanks for watching.
Great video. I also own a Cherokee 140 and I love flying it. Also controllers give me just as much respect as I hear the heavy iron getting when I fly, especially on long cross country flights, they have been fantastic with me. I fly on the East coast.
I have not flow a cross-country east of Texas yet. In fact, my pilot-son and I were planning a 2-day flight to upstate New York starting today, but had to cancel due to other priorities. I still intend like to fly around the east coast in the future and compare the experience with states west of Texas. Thanks for your kind comment and thanks for watching.
Great video 👍🏿
I'm glad you liked it. Thanks for watching.
Great video! I call it the upgrade dilemma. There is something to be said for simplicity. 100% agree with what you expressed! The best airplane is the one you are flying and can afford!
Yes, the dilemma of whether or not to upgrade an airplane is definitely a problem to be grateful for. As pilots, that means we are living a good life. Thanks for watching.
Amazing video.
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it. And thanks for watching.
Great vid - Thx! I use my 100 knot flying machine to cross country and see my kids and grands annually. I enjoy the freedom of non-towered airports all the way. Tying down and finding lunch with no hurries and no worries, but the weather. The old '47 Stinson 108-1 was my dream Art Deco airplane and after 23 years of flying boat (which i sold to a Monk from Guam) I bought one and it's much more enjoyable to fly, and camp, and eat, and fly...
It's great to fly a relatively slow cross-country, isn't it? There is so much to experience. I would love to see a picture of your 47 Stinson. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
Well valid points. A good interior job makes an airplane seem faster also.
Yes, a good interior really adds to the enjoyment of flying, doesn't it? After all, you're spending most of your time looking at the interior when you're flying. If you're looking at the exterior while you're flying you've got major problems! Lol. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
Your point about lower performance margins making for better pilots is valid. A friend who is both a carrier-qualified and a private pilot told me that military pilots can get into trouble with light aircraft because they are used to having lots of power to save the day.
That's a fascinating insight that I had not heard before from military pilots. But it sounds very true. You can't muscle yourself out of a situation in a light GA airplane. Thank you for your insight and thanks for watching.
Excellent presentation. I also have a Cherokee 140 that I really love. When I think of doing the various upgrades the first thought that comes to mind is how much use I would get out of these costly improvements. Most of us can only fly so much in a year and it is mostly day, VFR. No need to fly when it is 100F in higher elevations in the Southwest. I have thought that money saved on flying my 2 place airplane can be used for upgrades such as newer avionics rather than the higher cost annuals and insurance. With the more sophisticated, expensive airplanes, it is hard to justify leaving them outside on a tie down rather than an expensive hanger.
Those are all very good points. Life is a balancing act, particularly with finances, isn't it? Sounds like you've set your priorities. Enjoy your airplane! Thanks for the comment and thanks for watching.
When I was 17, I flew my friends in a Cessna 182 for the power and performance. Now, in my retirement, I have a Cessna 150. Cheap to keep and fly, very light and responsive on the controls, still gets me to a destination in half the time as driving. I have no desire to sell my little 150 for another aircraft. When the time comes, I will give the keys to the plane to my grandson.
That's a great comment. It captures, for me, the essence of flying. You are piloting something that makes you happy and you are passing that happiness down to your descendants. That's quite an accomplishment in life, isn't it? Thanks for watching.
This video is really great. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I’m just starting my aviation adventures and I suspect I’ll be a slow plane guy…. There’s something magic about the PA28 and cubs :)
I know. The magic of flying slower simpler airplanes at lower altitudes is something I can't explain. Thanks for watching.
@@craigshangar4958 your welcome. Love the channel :)
I bought a Cherokee 180 to get my PPL and I'm working towards my instrument now. I most likely will sell it and buy a faster plane in the next 5 years. I totally agree with your reasons to fly slow for some use cases, but I think it heavily depends on the mission.
For me, the reason I want a faster plane is because I care about the destination more than the journey. I'm single and live alone. My closest relatives live 3 hours away, and my parents moved across the country to retire. I want to get to where I'm going faster to spend more time with the ones I love.
For example, flying to my parents in my plane would take about 11 hours, if I had a Bonanza A36 that would take about 6.5 hours. A massive difference in trip duration. In my cherokee that would likely be split over 2 days.
If I was staying local, lived near my loved ones, etc.. I would be 100% content with flying slow, enjoying the journey, and saving money on fuel.
Thanks for your comment. It sounds like the Bonanza was a good choice for you. Stay safe by being flexible with your schedule when the weather isn't cooperating.
Great points all! My Grumman Cheetah uses about the same GPH as your Piper but is definitely faster when I want to get there quick but, I agree with you that pulling it back to a leisurely 105-110kts is a whole different perspective. Another benefit of Slow Flight is the dreaded turbulence, especially if there are sharp bumps. Pulling it back to 90-100kts really makes a difference in ride comfort for you and the passengers! New Sub!
Yes, I almost bought a Grumman as well. I believe it was a Tiger but it was already sold when I got there about 30 minutes late! Lol. Thanks for the kind comment and subscribing to my channel. I guess now the pressure is on to make a few more of these videos!
Great!!!!!
Thanks!
Could not agree more!
I'm so glad you liked the video. Thanks for watching.
Some good points. As a former owner of a 172, I enjoyed the low and slow. If I bought another aircraft, I might consider a 182 for the useful load. That being said, as I watch videos of people flying much faster planes with all the bells and whistles, I often remark that they aren't really flying. They program the computers and then the plane does the flying. Also, I am never in that big of a hurry anyway!! Thanks for the video.
That's an excellent point that I wish I had included in the video! Very insightful. Thank you for watching.
they also tend not to pay attention outside. they rely too much on ADS-B when many of us still have no ADS-B.
Great video
Thank you for your kind comment. And thanks for watching.
When I was working on my PPL, one of the Planes I trained in was an Aeronca Champion, Tandem seating and slow flight. I loved the view from the cockpit. I would rather fly it than a Cessna. But with an electrical starter.
I've never flown a Aeronca Champion, but I've received comments from other viewers that it's a great airplane. And yes, I agree with you. Hand propping an airplane is not for me. Years ago at Rancho Murrieta airport in California, I watched a pilot hand prop his small airplane all alone by putting a tie down chain on the rear anchor. Luckily, everything went as planned but I don't like to think of what might have happened. I also watched another pilot in Barstow CA hand prop a piper cub from inside the cabin sitting in the front seat. He made it look effortless and it did look much safer. I don't know if you could do that with an Aeronca. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
9:20 this is VERY true. The most fun I've had flying helicopters came in the R22, the smallest and slowest I've flown. The most fun I've had flying on a regular basis always came from the C150s we had at teh flight school, and my personal C150. Slow is so much fun. And better for flight training too. A new student pilot can progress much faster in a slow aircraft. They have more time on approach to react and adjust, they can more easily land with precision and hit their spot, they can more easily see the changes in their glide path, the aircraft is lighter on the controls and tends to be more responsive. Simpler airplanes also offer less distraction and complexity for new students to deal with while learning the fundamentals.
Most of the most famous pilots in history learned to fly in low power slow airplanes.
You know, you bring up a very good point. Being in a slow airplane means that you can really feel the forces of aerodynamics and that tactile feedback really makes you one with the environment. It's a great way to learn. Thank you for a great comment and thanks for watching.
Hey, i also own a beautiful ifr rated Cherokee. Of course its not the fastes one… but Everytime flying it, it makes me smile. Just enjoy the Flight and let the plane fly by it Self. Thats the way to go in GA 🤩
Ps: i am a little jealous about you awesome paintjob 😍
I agree. How can you not smile when you're flying one of these great airplanes? And that's the point, isn't it?😊
@@craigshangar4958 absolutely, it is 😊 greetings from Germany
Totally agree with simplicity,I’m building a Vans RV 4 with manual elevator and aileron trim, all round gauges with 1 lowly Garmin G5 . The comments I get about not having a glass panel are unbelievable 😂
I love the simpler planes like yours. I've flown glass and steam, and still like steam. Glass can be distracting. A simple digital round gage can be useful for cost, but having the moving maps in my experience causes people to stop looking outside. they get too hung up on autopilots and such rather than flying.
Great comments. Ironically, I just got to fly a vans RV that a friend from Germany built he flew down to Alzante Brianza here in Italy, and I got to fly it! Lake Como never looked more beautiful than slow flight in that vans. Thanks for the kind comments and thanks for watching.
New sub here , great video and breakdown of having a slower GA airplane I dont feel so bad anymore flying my Sundowner around but it is comfy ! Also I didnt know Gary Busey had a brother lol you look very alike . Take care look forward to more videos.
Yes, the sundowner is a great airplane. Lots of room. I've sat in them before. As far as look-alikes, I do recall one other person, mentioning Gary Busey to me in the past. But more recently, I was mistaken in Italy for a famous Italian pop, singer named Claudio Baglioni. It just makes me laugh. 😂
@@craigshangar4958 👍🏻👍🏻🤣
If you want a fun safe plane to fly try a. Piper cub. With stall speed of around 35 mph and a cruise speed of 70 mph you can enjoy flying it with out breaking the ban. Mine uses about 5 gph at cruise speed. There is nothing more amazing than a fall sunset at 7000 ft
I think the piper cub is probably the most iconic loved airplane of all time. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
Really great advice! I'm on my third airplane now. First one, built an RV8 and went fast, updside down and loved it but life moved on after having a child! Bought a C-180 Skywagon, a durable, truck of an airplane and also fairly fast but not nearly as quick as the RV. It was old and needed a lot of $$ down the road and costs just started getting out of hand. Sold it, bought an Evektor Sportstar LSA and I have to say it isone fun little airplane. It is NOT fast but is nimble, has superb visibility and is simple to work on. I'm doing the annual, rubber replacement requirement and installing a better brake system myself, with A&P oversight for this work and annual signoff. I might convert it to experimental light sport and take the weekend course so I can do all the signoffs myself. I can operate it on car gas, I live with the airplane at my airpark home and can really reduce costs that way. Or, I might just sell it and call it a day. Flying was something major in my life for a while, but now, it's still just so much to keep track of for regulatory requirements, insurance, fuel and parts costs. A Rotax 912, for what it is, can be rather expensive to maintain if something major goes wrong. More to the point of your video, an old pilot once told me "you like to fly, right? Well then what's your hurry son?".
You made some great points in the comments. I hope you continue to fly and don't find it too much of a regulatory burden. The truth is, just living as becoming a regulatory burden. It seems like the government is in every single nook and cranny of our lives. I recently watched a very chilling interview with Hillary Clinton, where she was critical of people who were nostalgic for an earlier time, when (in her words) "people were in charge of their lives". I don't think she saw the irony. Anyway, thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
As an Aviation Mechanic, the general rule of thumb in aviation; is more complex, and faster knots will always translate to more, $$$$$!
Yes, I think that applies for both airplanes and boats. Lol Some pilots have deep pockets, so they can fly faster. Other pilots have governments with deeper pockets, so they get to fly an SR71 at 1800 mph. I guess everything's relative, isn't it? The point is to have enjoyment and satisfaction in what you fly. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching
Absolutely True...mine is a Cessna 172N!
Thank you for your comment and validation!
I just solo’d at GLE! I’ve got a Cherokee 140 I hope to start racking up hours in once I get my license.
🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations! The solo is a huge mile stone. Are you keeping your plane at KGLE?
@@craigshangar4958sort of. I keep it in Era, TX (TX94), but until I get my license I’ll park it at GLE. It’s the white and orange one with the droopy wings.
I have 12 boats, sailing, motorboats, human powered. The smallest rowing boat gets the most attention. This is very much like your friend with 5 airplanes.
Yes, planes and boats and even motorcycles are similar in that regard sometimes. Thanks for your comment.😊
As someone who rides motorcycles, I got a smaller, slower bike for the same reasons: to enjoy the ride CHEAPLY! A smaller bike uses cheaper tires, and those tires don't need to be replaced as often; that saves you twice. A smaller bike uses less fuel, so I can have fun all day for $10-$15 worth of fuel. A smaller bike is cheaper to insure. A smaller, simpler bike is easier to work on, which allows me to do all my own maintenance; that saves money, big time. I ride mainly to enjoy the local back roads or to enjoy ride along the river. Why do I need a two wheeled, street legal race bike for that? I don't!
I also got my commercial/instrument years ago. I'd hoped to be a professional pilot, but that never happened. I have thought about getting my own airplane. If I were to get an airplane, I'd probably get an Ercoupe for all the reasons you stated in this video. I'd fly mainly for enjoyment, but even if I wanted to do a cross country, it's still quicker than taking the car... :)
I practically live on motorcycles myself, even at age 67. It is interesting that so many pilots also ride. I think you are correct about the similarities between the two wheels on the ground and no wheels on the ground. Here is a link you might appreciate.
ua-cam.com/video/flIwJYG5Smc/v-deo.htmlsi=NVuXedCCPnemSO7v
Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
I agree with everyone here who says that they fly for the joy of flying rather than going anywhere. When that is your only criteria then there is no need for a fast machine.
Yes, that's basically the point of the video. If you enjoy flying, there's nothing wrong with flying slow, and in many cases, flying slow might actually be more fun. You definitely see and experience more of the wonder of flight. Thanks for your comment. And thanks for watching.
I have owned a PA-28-140 for 10 years. I am teaching my kids to fly in it. ( I am a CFII). My family operated 13 airplanes and a Bell 206. Our turbo Aztec and C-210 were fun, but expensive to maintain. Our CE-340 was also fun, but not a low & Slow airplane. Also very expensive to keep. My Super Viking was am amazing handling airplane, and fast, but burned 16 GPH, and parts were getting hard to get. The Bell 206 was amazing, i got my rotor commercial & IFR in it. But the Cherokee is simple, easy to maintain, easy to fly. If you have a good spar, your are set. Mine does about 102 knots, I have the wheel pants off. My kids fly it really well, and so i am keeping it.
Having experience owning 14 aircraft, including a helicopter, is very impressive. Thanks for validating my experience owning a PA 28. It definitely has a special place in my heart, as yours.
And yes, this airplane is definitely a family affair. One of my sons is becoming an airline pilot, and he enjoys flying the Cherokee immensely.
Thank you for your kind comment and thanks for watching.
I am living in Japan now and was looking at some earlier vintage Cessna 172s at a used aircraft dealer here in Osaka Prefecture. The costs for annual inspections here in Japan are more than in the US, so i think far less people here can afford to fly high performance like Cirrus, Piper Mirage or even a Turbo 182. Is your plane more affordable than a similar vintage Cessna 172? i am comparing earlier model 172 to a piper PA-28. fixed costs are important factor. i should have bought a plane when i was in Thailand or the Philippines. if you live in those countries cost of ownership is lower than in Japan. My dream airplane in the one i rented in Thailand, a nice clean 1981 Cessna 172P. Have not bought anything yet. bucket list item to check off that list of life goals.
Thank you for your perspective. Very enlightening. Here in the US, a Cessna 172 is comparable to a Piper Cherokee. That said, prices have increased dramatically since I purchased this airplane about 8 years ago. My advice to you is to buy an airplane as soon as your budget allows, because it sounds like you were meant to be an aircraft owner. Good luck with your future purchase.
8:00 Most of my flying experience is at High DA in the Rockies and I've flown Cessna 150s, Cessna 172s, Robinson R22 and more to their limits. Flying IFR flight plan at service ceiling. Flying to places like Leadville. Landing helicopters on a mountain top at max power. You have less climb, less power, more takeoff distance, etc. It really does make you a better pilot in so many unexpected ways.
Knowing how to safely fly a low performance condition is critical to safety. When giving training or BFRs to high time pilots flying high performance aircraft, we always warned to watch out. Those pilots are not used to having no power. they are used to being able to power out of problems. They tended to be the most dangerous pilots to do flight training with as a result.
Very true. And it's also more dangerous in airplanes that are higher performance because they fly faster and there's a lot more energy to absorb when things go wrong, isn't there? Excellent comments and it sounds like you are a very experienced pilot. Thanks for watching.
8:55 my local ATC knows me, I fly a 90kt C150. But when in the pattern they love me, and are very willing to work with me. Why? because I adjust my pattern and speed to accommodate other traffic. When an IFR Twin is waiting for me so they can takeoff, I keep my pattern tight, keep my speed up (I can push it up to 110kts at times), and do a short approach. When someone slower than me is in the patter, or someone needs a little extra time, I slow down and widen or extend my pattern. Etc. ATC knows I'm paying attention, can and will adjust, and they use me to fix pattern spacing issues and more as a result. I've earned this respect from ATC at multiple towered airports over the years. And thus when I ask for something reasonable, if a little unconventional, they will likely give it to me as they know that I know what I'm doing.
That's fantastic. It's always good to know the local controllers and earn their respect. They always appreciate it. I've had similar situation to Sacramento Executive Airport, which has a tower. The guy I know in the tower would on occasion asked me to keep my downwind to base turn short and land as soon as possible because of incoming traffic. He knows that I don't have a problem complying. Good for you that you pay attention to the other planes in the pattern. You will live to be an old pilot. Thanks for a great comment. And thanks for watching.
I fly a 1979 C172, love it and sure it would be nice to get more speed, but the $$-per MPH just isn't in the cards for me. Thanks for posting the commonsense reality of flying. If I can get a few more years at it, I'll be happy.
The only time I get a little "eeeeeeeeeh" is when ATC is ordering me to speed up because I have 2 large cylinders falling from outer space at the speed of sound.
Your comment is interesting. Do you have a details to share?
It's not simply flying faster. The pleasure and satisfaction of flying a higher performance and a more capable airplane is something to aspire to. Very few people get into a high performance retractable for example , And want to go back to something much simpler unless forced to. Once you get used to more range and power and smoothness, it is a wonderful feeling of achievement. As far as fuel consumption, On a long trip it really works out about the same, except you arrive quicker. On short trips, you can always pull the power back.
Those are all very good points. It really is a very subjective topic, which is why we are fortunate that there are so many general aviation airplane types on the market. It also makes for great hangar talk, doesn't it? I appreciate your comment and thanks for watching.
but insurance cost is more, purchase cost is more, maintenance cost is more, you need to fly more often to stay proficient, etc.
When it comes to emergency landings off-airport, the slower airplane is FAR safer.
Craig, have you piloted an autogyro?
No, I've never piloted an auto Gyro, but I think that would be a fantastic experience. I just took my first glider flight in Italy at Alzante Brianza a few days ago, and there was a gentleman who landed an autogyro that looked extremely interesting.
AOPA did a study a while ago. Said basically that if you're not flying 75? hours a year, you shouldn't be an owner.
That being said, if I was an owner, I'd want a capable aircraft. A 150 or 140 wouldn't work for me.
I did the same analysis for myself years ago which came close to that number. You have to fly frequently to justify the fixed costs associated with storage, insurance, annual inspections and maintenance. Your preference for larger and/or faster airplanes is totally understandable. We all fly for different reasons. Your interest in the video tells me that you enjoy flying. If I'm right, then I hope you're able to become an owner someday. It's a great experience. Thank you for your comment and thank you for watching.
Great video Craig...
Can I ask what is your age..???
I am 61 and I think like you now, before I was a speed 😈
Sure, I am 67 years old, though I still feel like I'm 30, so I guess that's a good thing. Like you, I think, getting older gives you perspective to appreciate the moment instead of worrying about ETAs, unless of course you don't want to fly after sunset to an unfamiliar airport. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
With a fast airplane, slow is an option. With a slow airplane, slow is a requirement. Fuel cost is a misleading metric since there are aerodynamically cleaner airplanes which will fly faster on the same fuel burn as you are getting to go slow.
Agreed, Mooney is probably the best example of this if you're looking for the best nautical miles per gallon. In my case, I like to fly between 100 and 120 hours a year for the pure pleasure of it., So gallons per hour are my priority. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
For me and my Archer it isn’t the destination but the journey . I still get there with less frustration than cars
You know, it's interesting that you saidfFlying is less frustrating than driving. When I'm up in the air, I'm very relaxed. When I'm driving around on the ground, I'm always wary of other drivers. I guess everyone, except pilots, would find that counter-intuitive. Thanks for the comment and thanks for watching.
@@craigshangar4958 it’s my happy place
My Lancair IVP gave this video a thumbs down for some odd reason?
Well, always trust your airplane! Don't ever disagree with what it's telling you, particularly when you're flying it.😂
I fly my grandfather's Aeronca 15AC Sedan. Low and low, enjoy the view. One should fit the tool to the job. I have no use for a fast aircraft. I wouldn't be able to afford to fly it as much.
That's a great airplane. It must be fun to fly. It's good to hear that you're keeping your grandfather's tradition alive. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
This is why I would just be so content owning a J3 Cub
I caught the words "would be". Think about changing your words to "will be". Lol. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
What happens when Avgas is no longer available?
That's a good question. It's been a long path, but i think we're on the cusp of having this solved. When unleaded gas is available for general aviation, our engines will have much less carbon related problems and much more longevity. Sticking valves and fouled spark plugs may be a thing of the past. Here are some excerpts from an AOPA article that you might be interested in….
"Swift Fuels' UL94, a 94-octane unleaded fuel good for lower compression engines, is currently available at 36 U.S. public-use airports. Before using this fuel, currently, you must obtain a supplemental type certificate (STC) specific to your aircraft and engine……
General Aviation Modifications Inc. (GAMI) has developed G100UL, a 100-octane unleaded fuel that is FAA approved, via STC, for all GA spark-ignition piston airplanes"
From
Thanks for your question and thanks for watching.
You have some good points. I learned to fly in a Cherokee. I had a Cardinal down here at Northwest Regional with the 150 HP engine and flew it around for a while. I live in Flower Mound. I flew a 78 T-210 in California and after flying that I got a little spoiled by the speed, but I always remembered the fuel flow on that airplane in cruise too, and it was about 16 gph in economy cruise after break in. Since then I've also flown A-36's, a Mooney, C-182 RG, and started getting bi annuals in complex airplanes because they demand a little more of you and you can rent virtually anything lower in performance. I have found the mission you have to fly is important. If you want to carry 1 or 2 people a Cherokee or 172 is fine but sometimes the load gets bigger. It's also a pocketbook issue for sure. One evening many years ago 4 of us jumped into an ald C-172 and flew down to the Nut Tree for dinner and back from Enterprise Sky Park no longer in existence. The airplane was just about maxed out but it was a fun and memorable flight made possible by a slow flying 172 and allowed the girls to gaze at the city lights and small towns we crossed over from the Nut Tree in Vacaville back up to Redding, Ca. The trip down and back was as exciting for them as the Nut Tree visit. Thanks for the story on the Cherokee and maybe we'll see you around.
Thank you for sharing. Those are fantastic comments. Yes, when I learned to fly about 30 years ago, I remember landing at the Nut Tree. It was an extremely windy day and kept me on my toes as I flew with my instructor. And your comment about flying slow around northern California to view the beautiful lights really struck me. One of the prettiest flights I ever made was over the Golden Gate Bridge around dusk. I appreciate your comments and thanks for watching.
Sometimes high performance is how slow a plane can fly.
I'm going to have to get my head wrapped around that statement! Lol. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
Scissors jacks = torque links.
General aviation is very expensive and costly not a necessity in your life but if you indulge for the love and passion of flying, it will be the greatest experience of your life. Trudging @ 100kts is excruciating as if cruising and never leaving the pattern .
Yes, I agree with you that general aviation is expensive but definitely worth it. if you have the means. That said, let's agree to disagree about. flying at 100 kts. I've never considered it trudging. I consider cross country's at that speed to be pure magic. Thank you for your perspective. Alternate views are always welcome. And thanks for watching.
@@craigshangar4958 totally agree, flying is what binds us together!
My annual insurance has never been above ~$725/yr. CFII with tailwheel and less than 1000hrs, C150. Last year was just under $700.
Yes, isn't it great to spend the least amount of money for insurance? It's an intangible that hopefully we never have to use, so it feels good not to spend more than you have to. Thank you for your comment. And thanks for watching.
@@craigshangar4958 my goal is on flying as affordably as I can reasonably manage. And then share with others ways I find to keep costs down. Flying slow simple airplanes is step one. Simple airplanes require little maintenance, easy to work on. Doing as much maintenance as you allowed and comfortable doing properly yourself is huge too.
Nice, but very polarized perspective. Quite frankly, the one about it making you a better pilot is laughably ridiculous. I enormously enjoy summer afternoons in a Cub when I can smell the cut grass, but many actually “use” an airplane. Things like mission profile are very important concepts a recreational pilot just doesn’t need to worry about. I need to make trips which have grown from an average of 300 miles to 800 and many trips of 1200 miles regularly. I need to have an airplane that has the ability to deal with less than VFR weather. My beloved TR182 is no longer suitable for what I need in an airplane; why? Because it is too slow, and unable to fly over and through the weather I encounter safely.
Interesting comment. Respectfully, I still think that flying an airplane with lower performance margins can make you a better pilot. I've received several comments on this, and many pilots with more time in both lower and higher performance airplanes agree. I also believe that having different opinions in the aviation community does not translate into polarization. It just makes for interesting and enjoyable conversation. Thank you for watching.
Hmm, this summer I did a leg of 1333 nm. I was helped by being at 17,000 and having a roaring tailwind. I was airborne for 7 hours and 3 minutes according to Flight Aware.
In his Cherokee, lower with no wind, that flight is over 12 hours. Meaning the addition of at least two stops. So not really a one day trip.
Also add in the cost of meals and a night in a hotel to the overall cost.
I burned about 80 gallons. Cherokee would have been around 92 gallons at 7.5 per hour.
Yes, you are absolutely correct if nautical miles per gallon is your priority and GA transportation at the lowest cost, which would include overnight stays and meals. In my case, it's about the journey so stopping along the way to towns, I haven't been to before is a great experience. Again, it's all about what makes you happy and what suits your mission. I appreciate your comment and thank you for watching my video.
Another point is headwinds. In my plane, a 40 knot headwind still gives me 135 knot ground speed. A 40 knot headwind in your Cherokee is 68 knot ground speed. Faster is much better in headwinds. I recall one trip in my friend's Cherokee 180D. Watching the trucks on the interstate passing us. :D
1960 PA-22 here faster than a Carbon Cub or Super Cub more load. Picked it up for $25K!
So you bought a Tri Pacer. Congratulations! I hope you have many years of flying enjoyment. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
I really like this video. My dream airplane make me go slow. An Air Cam
Yes, the air cam is a very interesting aircraft, isn't it? I believe it was designed primarily for photography, but I can see about 1 million uses for it. Thank you for the kind comment and thanks for watching.
@@craigshangar4958 My intentions are to build one with my daughter. We love the idea of building one together. The video struck a cord with me because previously daydreaming I thought about how fast and far can I go. But really it’s about experience nature in a new way among other things in an air cam
Fuzzy math. My M20C, cruising at 140 kts (10,500 ft) burns < 10 gph. If I dial it back to 133 kts, I burn about the same as you, around 7.8 gph.
No, that is not fuzzy math. It's good economic sense. I Mooneys as well. Thanks for watching.
@@craigshangar4958 I was referring to your claim that another 30 kts will double the fuel burn. A good rule of thumb is that the fuel burn increases by the square of the increase in speed (as does drag.) 30 kts more than 108 kts is about a 25% speed increase which would come out to a ~50% increase in fuel burn, not 100% per your math. Just what I experience in my Mooney.
I agree 100% with your point that, if your mission is building time, flying slower is more economical. That can also be achieved by flying slower in a fast plane, but it takes some discipline not to firewall the throttle.
What you don't discuss regarding economy is that, when flying cross-country, your lower fuel burn does not result in a proportionally lower mpg since the flight is taking longer than that of a faster, sleek plane (mpg=speed/gph.) Your 108 kts at 7.5 gph comes to 14.4 n.m./gal. A 180 hp Mooney flying at 140 kts & 10 gph is just a little less than that at 14 n.m./gal. If I slow down 5 kts, I actually get better fuel mileage than your Piper.
You can always fly slower in a fast plane, but not vice versa. And flying a faster, more aerodynamic plane of similar gross weight at your Piper's top speed will net a similar fuel burn, if not better.
If you throw stupid money at a M20C you’ll do 142 kts with it pulled back to 8.5 gph, 157 kts at 14.5 gph.
@@HairHelmet Nice C. I see your sloped windshield, cowl closure, 3-blade. What else have you done?
@@jmcgaz1 power flow tuned exhaust, electro air ignition, and a few speed mods.
For 1-2 additional micro knots I only have one exposed antenna, a com bent whip under the belly. ELT is hidden in the fiberglass dorsal, transponder shark fin replaced with a tailbeaconX at the tail light.
1 thing i always tell people is you can always fly a fast plane SLOOOOW but you cant fly a slow plane fast lol 😂
Yes, unless you fly a fast plane TOO slow. Then it may get your attention! Lol. Thanks for watching.
The last thing I needed to hear. Lets get that slow airplane and make it IFR
Yes, well making my airplane IFR capable with installation of a GTN 650 was one of the better things I've done. So I was installation of a really good graphical engine monitor. Thanks for watching.
Flying fast is life.
Then live and fly fast! Thanks for watching.
I get 9GPH in my Mooney m20 75% power @ 185MPH
Yes, I've gotten a few comments from Mooney owners. I'm a big fan of the brand. Clearly, some of the points I mentioned regarding the cost of avgas don't apply to Mooneys. I appreciate your comments. Thanks for watching.
It's about the journey, not the destination...
It certainly is. And that goes way beyond aviation, doesn't it? Thanks for watching.
I received a text message from my friend with the Cub that was mentioned in the video ....
"Very good and the guy with the Cub 💯 agrees. 😍 And I have two more arguments …
1. faster aircraft normally fly higher . The higher you fly the less fun because everything becomes more uniform.
2. if I fly faster aircraft I will be earlier at my destination and have less time in the air and less time fun. If I want to compensate for this I need to fly more in faster airplanes but then I can also keep a slower airplane .
Good Video!!! 👍🏼✈️
To double speed you need approximately 5x the horsepower
And one more thing … if you fly 200 instead of 170 this are 30 miles more or 17%. On a two hour flight that brings you 20 min earlier to your destination. 100 min instead of 120 min - at what price? And I seldom see people getting a good bargain out of the 20 min . One talk at the airport or even an additional tank stop will ruin the efficiency"
"To double speed you need approximately 5x the horsepower"
Not entirely true. For a given airframe, sure. BUT, change the plane, keep the HP and you can go 2x faster. I have a Lancair 320, 160hp. I cruise at 200KTAS+ on 9 gal / hr. It's mission isn't the same as a Cessna or Piper. I miss my 172 and would like to get another one, or a STOL, but keep the Lancair.
Fast planes like my Lancair are designed to be cross country machines, and they do it very well. As much as I love flying, it's not my job and my time is limited. If I'm going a long way, the time saved, and fuel costs, by flying fast are invaluable. But on the other hand, I cannot land off field, rought strips, less than 4,000ft. Different mission, different plane. It would be great if there was one plane that did it all.
If you are flying over the interstate highway and the cars are going faster than you, what's the point of flying?
The only time I have seen that happen is in the movie "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. Lol. ua-cam.com/video/XeetQ2e6qkg/v-deo.htmlsi=WEsq9K8yL4pPsz0q
Unless you're flying some ex-miitary thing that goes crazy fast, you really don't notice your speed at altitude. A few thousand feet up, 30 or even a 100 knots just doesn't feel much faster. Heck, I've flown business jets in commercial simulators and even they don't feel much fater at altitude (although they're a lot busier when landing). A plane isn't a car or motorcycle where speed differences are easily noticiable. As you observed, you're better off in a more affordable plane that you can maintain properly and build hours in. An Aztec or Beech twin is way faster than a Citebria or Pitts. But which is more fun and engaging to fly? It's not the faster ones.
Agreed. That's an interesting insight. Thanks for watching.
These archaic planes with antiquated engines are always gonna be slow. Thanks to Mosaic, we will have aircraft that will allow for 170 knots, burning 7 gallons an hr with 800plus nm range.
Yes, progress is always in evitable, although it does seem to come in spurts for general aviation. Here's a good article on Mosaic that you may have seen already.
Never feel sorry for anyone that owns an airplane.
Very true, I don't think that sympathy with my motivation for buying one!😂
Mooney = Fast & Efficient - 155- 160 Knots at about 9-10 gallons per hour.
Yes, Mooneys are king for NMPG. I have always been a fan and almost bought one. I appreciate your comments. Thanks for watching
Some good logical points, but comparisons on insurance were exagerrated. 5 fold to go to an Arrow or even a Bonanza? No.
Your comment has merit. I felt that same after we shot the clip. We probably should have displayed a corrective comment. I was making a comparison between an older, slower airplane vs a newer, faster airplane with a much higher hull value, but did not explain my reference properly. That is the risk I run when talking somewhat extemporaneously from notes instead of reading from a script. Good catch. Thanks for watching.
I am sure there are many more reasons to fly slow, that been used as an excuse for designers to take short cuts and some to cover up their inaptitude to design good planes., it also save some money. One of the key reason we fly is to get somewhere faster. The Desert Storm generals taught us , it is good to have options, and bad when you are forced into a corner with no options. To me, a real cross country airplane should be able to cruise at a minimum of 140 kts and have range approaching 1000 miles. This airplane give options and can always fly at 80,90 kts But an airplane that max out at 90 kts have not a hope in hell to reach 140 kts Yes, slow flight is fun, sometimes, just not all the time. maybe the designers of commercial jet can use some of those excuses you listed to justify why jet speed been stuck at just below Mach one for 3/4 century, I call it the "sound barrier"
You have good points from the perspective of cross country flying. Not everyone wants to take a couple of days to fly from Texas to California, but I find it very enjoyable and rewarding. And yes, flying a faster airplane does give you the option of slowing down, but the extra utility of being able to fly faster does come with a price. Again, we all have different pocket books, perspectives and priorities, and that's one of the things I really like about the pilot community. Thanks your comment and thank you for watching.
When it comes to emergency landings off-airport, the slower airplane is FAR safer.
Very true. I think the amount of energy increases by the square of speed. So a few extra knots can translate into a lot more energy to be absorbed during a bad landing. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching.
@@craigshangar4958 NASA studies from many decades ago (crashing real airframes into the ground) showed teh survivability rates of aircraft in relation to both speed and angle of impact, and showed that below ~54kts and less than 30deg nose down upon impact, you're almost guaranteed to survive. They made a graph of speeds and angles below which you can pretty much be guaranteed to survive.
This study clearly is used to inform stall speed requirements for different categories of aircraft. But it also proves the NTSB data about crash landing wings level, under control, at minimum airspeed without stalling. better to crash into something slow but under control in a shallow dive angle than to lose control or pile drive it in at higher speeds.
Slow airplanes like C150, J-3, Champ, etc. are much less likely to be flying very fast to begin with, making them far safer in a crash. and combine that slow speed with corresponding short landing distances and you have more options where to land in an emergency.
1st Reason: Money
2nd Reason: See the first reason
Those are good reasons!😂
If your flying for money go fast, if your going for a burger go slow and enjoy😊😊
Yes, and it's not good to eat fast either!😂 Thanks for watching.
You did not see the video of the 150 with strong head wind,and the very impatient controlor getting shot tempered at 50k over all you might get better treatment on an IFR trip.
I didn't exactly understand the last part of your comment, but it's interesting that you talked about a short tempered controller. I was at a Aviation dinner tonight in Lugano Switzerland, and got to talk to the controller at that airport who was also attending. He said the same thing. It is very frustrating for him to separate IFR traffic with some of the slower general aviation airplanes on the field. I thought his comments were interesting as well. Thank you for your comment and thank you for watching.
@@craigshangar4958 looks like the controllers are nicer in the south west,in the North East there more short temper ed to a lot of VFR traffic.I have see an examner on A flight test tell him to leave the pattern be cause there was to much traffic,but it was just to much traffic for the controller ,and the examner did not leave the pattern, said a few words,and it was A flight test The controller changed his tone and attitude.
IN the North East the controler will not even agnolage you if he is. Is very bizy,say for flight following but he hears you another way of saying it forget it you will never get A clearance through the class B Air space remain clear
On the other hand if you are on an IFR flight plan almost all ways derct,or radar vectors derect, I think you are trusted more to hold your altitude an heading of you're An Instrument rated pilot.
Why justify having an older, cheaper slower aircraft? It fits your mission. And that is really the point. WHAT IS YOUR MISSION. Why does your friend with multiple planes have multiple planes? Because he has a different need, apparently, at different times when it comes to flying. Flying cheap and slow fits the mission niche for people who are not going anywhere, they just want to be in the air. Flying faster is for people who want and need to get somewhere, but they also get to be in the air. Flying a complex piston plane with constant speed prop, retractable gear and able to fly in instrument conditions is for those that want to fly faster, need to get somewhere, and might need to do it in bad weather. Flying a jet is a cost/capability up from that. All jet planes have retractable gear, can fly instrument conditions, and fly higher and MUCH faster. There is a direct relationship between speed and cost. But, for those that need to get somewhere and need to do it quickly, then the extra cost can only be justified by the time savings. That is why most jets are owned by businesses, or people with a business. Aviation can be a hobby, a business or both.
Yes, I agree with your comment. Hopefully, I set that tone at the beginning of the video. People fly for a lot of different reasons. If the travel time was a priority, I certainly would want something faster than 100 kt airplane. I appreciate your comment and thank you for watching.
I dunno man. I don't think these, what are they called Piepers, will ever catch on.
Yes, Piper is certainly an off brand, isn't it?😂
I can give you 1 reason you need to fly faster, it's called a Hobbs meter. It's counting your wallet away minute by minute before that next overhaul.
Yes, if your primary reason for flying is travel, I totally agree. I appreciate your comment and thanks for watching.
Lies ....speed is life !!!
Please, don't sugarcoat your opinions! Lol. 😂. I hope you enjoyed the video. Thanks for watching.
You are very misleading to newbies. Insurance is not required. Situations like loans and municipal airports demand it. This overshadows your whole episode. Thumbs down.
I've read your comment several times, but honestly I don't know what you're trying to say. Insurance is needed by airplane owners who want to protect their investment in their airplane and also want to protect themselves from liability.
@@craigshangar4958 Go back to my comment. You presented that insurance is mandatory. If I teach a subject, I had better not lie. How about you?
Under powered airplanes suck, we had a Comanche 400, could do a fast climb out with full fuel, four adult passengers, and all their luggage !!! and even with high DA !!! just because you have a big engine, doesn’t mean you have to go fast, we would slow it down to conserve fuel, but you never had to worry about being overloaded on takeoff
Well, I have never thought that any airplanes suck, but as I said in the video, different pilots certainly have different viewpoints. I hope you enjoyed the video and thanks for watching.