What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Rv-12 or C150/172

1 Task

Member
Hey all,

Let me start off by saying I know airplanes are expensive. Id love to build something but trying to figure out what. Im just wondering if its better to just buy c150 for 20k then building a new 12 for 70k. I like the 12 but its slow and dont feel like the bank for the buck is there. I like the rv14 but its expensive and IMO missing 2 extra seats filling a sweet niche! Hoping the RV15 will be a like a rv-14 but 2+2 cause it would make me feel like im winning more if that make sense.

Anyways let me know what im missing and any helpful advice.

Thanks in advance
-Jon
 
Seems like you probably need to define your mission. Is it going to be a weekend play toy? Cross country commuter? Solo? Passenger? More than 1 passenger?

I learned to fly in a C-150 and have several hundred hours in them, although at this point I haven't flown one for years.

Slow, not much useful load, but tons of fun to fly. Its a nice little airplane for bombing around in, but not something I'd want to take on a long trip, especially with a second person.

Also, you might buy one for $20k, but a nice one with good radios, low time engine, nice interior and paint job will likely cost double that.

Same story with the c-172. People around here call them spam cans and talk about how awful they are, but I straight up love that airplane. Easy to fly, easy to work on, and to my knowledge, there's never been one break up in flight, no matter how it's abused. Off the top of my head, I think it's probably the only standard/utility category airplane that you can say that about. It's the Ford F-150 of the airplane world and just about the best airframe thats ever been built.

However, it's slow, and if you put enough gas in it to actually go anywhere, you're pretty much limited to 2 people, or maybe 3 and no bags.

Also, you're going to run into the same cost-benefit as above; you can buy one for probably $40,000, but a nice one is going to be significantly more. And if you want glass screens and an IFR navigator that does LPV approaches, you're going to be well over $100k
 
I like the 12 but its slow

Slow is relative term. If I'm flying in the pattern with either C150 or C172 I need to give them a good lead. RV-12 will out climb a C172 any day of the week and match it in cruise at half the fuel burn. Difference between driving a truck and a sports car.

Take two Day Light Sport Repairman Inspection Course and do you own Annual Condition Inspection. Lots of money to be saved...
 
Last edited:
I got my private in a 150 and owned a 152. And flown a 172 quite a bit in a club. Also owned a Cherokee. I now own a RV12 and its the first plane I can see me keeping for a LONG time. To me the kickers are this:

1. Much lower operating costs (mogas, get repairman to do CIs, crazy low fuel burn vs a 172/PA28, etc.).

2. Modern Avionics and Autopilot with Alt hold is worth every single penny in my mind. So nice for x-countries, getting situational awareness/flt plan altering under control on panel or ipad real quick, grabbing a drink of water/lunch, getting a nice picture, you name it. ADS-B with moving map, traffic, weather, etc right on panel on aircraft quality display (Dynon HDX-> super bright, won't overheat, buttons+touch, etc.) is fantastic.

3. Basically new vs. 30-40 years old.

4. Bubble canopy and visibility is insane. And you sit in front of spar so visibility down is also good (not typical in a low wing).

5. Much smoother controls...truly finger tip vs. ham fisted yokes.

Don't get me wrong, I loved my 152, but it's no comparison. The RV-12 wins hands down. And if back seat is needed, you're comparing apples to oranges with the 172. Different missions. But I'd still chose the 12.

Just my 2 cents.
 
If you think an RV-12 is slow, try a 152. On the bright side, if you're looking to build time, a 152 will give you plenty of it. I'm told they are fun to fly (so is the RV-12), but I don't know that I could wedge myself into one.

I was flying a club 172 before buying my 5 year old, 160 hour RV-12. Now I fly (slightly) faster, climb faster, see better, burn significantly less gas (at a buck or so per gallon less cost), use virtually no oil, and spend a fraction of what I was before. I have a modern panel and autopilot.

The club 172 was costing me $95 per hour wet -- and that was much less than the local rental rate. The club wasn't making money on that, they had been tracking the true operating cost of that plane for many years. We've been tracking the cost of the RV-12 and allowing a fairly generous overhaul budget... we're paying $35 per hour, wet. Operating and maintenance costs are much, much lower.

But -- there are no back seats, and no baggage door, and you really can't use the wing to get out of the rain. If those things are important, then a 172 has them.
 
I'm in pretty much the same boat.

I'm still under 100 hours and am just getting back up knocking the rust from after a couple years off of flying. If I feel I'm at the point where I can fly 100+ hours a year, I'll look at ownership.

Finding a 172 or Archer with decent equipment is going to have you in the same price range as a legacy -12 and several 6s. From there, many well-equipped 7s and 9s with only a few hundred hours on them are probably another $10-15k away as is building a new 12iS.

Regarding the 150, you can get a clean one for $30-40k and a not so clean one for significantly less. If you want to dip your toe into the ownership pool and build hours, drop the $30k and know you should be able to recoup it when you decide you want more airplane.

The 12iS appeals to me because I know it is within my capabilities, technically (building it), aeronautically (flying it) and financially (affording it). Most of my flying will be just me and my wife on quick weekend adventures and maybe a couple longer ones. If so equipped I could get my instrument and commercial tickets in it and it will fly circles around the 172 and Archers that are a decade or more older than I am!

The 14 and 10 are in an entirely different price galaxy and the 9a seems beyond my capacity as a builder.

I'd wait a couple years to see, and save up for, what Vans has for us in the -15 and also what the FAA's MOSAIC rule changes bring (if they bring anything at all). You may end up back at the 12.

In the meantime, if you want to build time and get some ownership experience, grab a 150 or Cherokee 140.
 
I've been flying since 1970, soloed in a 150, owned a bunch of airplanes, built several homebuilts (including several RVs) and have owned a 150 for the last 7 years. It is inexpensive flying and I've done several, coast-to-coast flights. Lots of fun and usually low and slow. I'm retired now and building a RV12iS and just ordered the powerplant kit. I'm selling the 150 next month (after the annual is completed) in order to pay for the balance of the powerplant kit. If I had my choice I'd probably keep it. I'm an A&P so my annual is the most expensive part of owning it. The RV12iS is a great kit. Either way you'll be happy.
 
In addition to defining your mission, consider the ability to perform your own maintenance on an 'experimental.' That is a good thing for some and a negative for others.
 
In addition to defining your mission, consider the ability to perform your own maintenance on an 'experimental.' That is a good thing for some and a negative for others.

How so? There is no requirement that you do your own work on an Experiemental; just the ability. You can still hire out everything if you want to. I suppose it might be a challenge if you don't have a local A&P who is familiar with or wants to do work on a homebuilt.
 
How so? There is no requirement that you do your own work on an Experiemental; just the ability. You can still hire out everything if you want to. I suppose it might be a challenge if you don't have a local A&P who is familiar with or wants to do work on a homebuilt.

Agreed. Some LOVE the ability to do anything to their aircraft. They would likely find a 152/172 very limiting. Some don't want to do any maintenance and finding an A&P to work on an experimental is sometimes challenging (depending on the airplane, location, A&P, etc.). Only attempting to point out to the OP that there are some additional factors to consider.
 
Back
Top