jimhanson
I’ve been in the FBO business for 52 years–and operated a number of 150/152s–but no longer. There is a REASON these airplanes are no longer built–it’s not that they aren’t good airplanes–it’s the fact that the 172 has proven to be an even BETTER trainer/rental airplane–as shown by the marketplace.
The acquisition cost isn’t much different, but the 172 is much more versatile. I can be used as a trainer, rental, personal aircraft. It has a much better panel–with the panel space to fit the radios (and even electronic flight displays) used today, making it a better instrument trainer. The 172 has a better cabin–and the pilot sits upright, rather than legs out front. The 172 can be utilized for rental and cross country–and it makes little sense for students to train in a 2 place aircraft–then have to transition to a 4 place.
Economics–MAINTENANCE is about the same as a 152. Insurance is about the same, except for the two additional seats (if that is a problem, take them out!). Fuel burn–the “wetted area” is about the same–if you only want to go 95 knots–pull the power back on the 172, and there is virtually no difference in fuel burn. Unlike 152s, 145 and 150 hp Skyhawks thrive on auto fuel). Overhaul costs are about the same. RESALE: The 172 wins hands-down over any two-place trainer.
“We saw a decked-out 152 at AirVenture last summer listed for $76,000, and its owner told us he had more than twice that invested in recent upgrades.” And THAT says a lot about the economics of owning a two-place trainer–you don’t come anywhere NEAR getting your money back from upgrades.
Capital costs: FBOs have found that the minuscule savings on a two place trainer are far more than offset by the above–and the added advantage is that an FBO doesn’t have to stock parts for two different aircraft if they train in the 172. And then there is the advantage of fleet utilization–better to have 3 172s on the line than 2 152s and 2 172s.
Is it any WONDER that the 2 place trainers (152, Tomahawk, Skipper) are out of production?
