Is The C182 A Good First Airplane

[Sprint100]

I agree, if you plan to buy it right after you get your rating then learn in it. Unless, you just totally can't handle what your going to buy.
To make a long story short, a C182 won't be too much plane for many people. Most likely more hours will have to put in to obtain your PP though

 

[pilatus028]

All I have to say is when you fly anything other then a Warrior or a 172 you start to loose that nice component of lift that allows you to glide the thing down. I flew the 182 this week, brand spanking new (beautiful aircraft)....and I wouldn't want a student pilot to even look @ it. It's not like the 172 that you chop the power and float, it has a little more to it then that.

Clem

 

[Cleared_ILS_RWY_9L]

A C-182 is a good bird, no doubt, but for most it wouldn't be cost effective. Most of the time NASA doesn't launch a GPS Satelite with a Space Shutle, as Space Shuttle missions cost a lot more than Delta II missions. The point being that vast majority of the training will not require a C-182, a C-152 can do it just fine. A C-152 cost *SO MUCH* less to buy, insure, put gas in, overhaul the engine, and don't forget about the C-182's fuel bladders, which need to be replaced periodicly.

I'd say it comes down to money. If you have money to take care of all of the issues that will come up with a C-182, it certainly won't let you down. However, if money is a concern, go with an IFR C-152. The C-152 is a very economical plane. Comparing the C-182 to the C-152 is like comparing a Dodge Neon to a Dodge Durango. The Durango costing 3x more in just about every area, purchase, fuel, maintenance, insurance.

Which is better?

Well, It Depends.

 

[aloft]

I'm going to have to be the voice of dissent here and say that a 182 is not an appropriate aircraft for primary training. Here's three reasons why:

1) it's not approved for spins. Think there's a good reason for this?

2) it's not terribly forgiving of poor technique; it's rather noseheavy and doesn't take much to end up wheelbarrowing it on landing, which can lead to a costly firewall repair/replacement. Check out the AOPA Air Safety Foundation's Ups and Downs of Landings video on their website for a classic example of what can happen with just a little bit of carelessness.

3) powerplant management is not a trivial issue; you can't just yank the throttle to idle to descend. Shock cooling can lead to a cracked cylinder ($$$$) in no time.

Civil Air Patrol operates the largest fleet of C-182s in the world and they require a minimum of 100 hrs PIC to get checked out in one for a plethora of reasons, most of which were needless, expensive repairs and/or injuries. I've known a fair number of licensed pilots whom a 182 is too much airplane for; having to deal with a prop control and cowl flaps and approach control and navigation and traffic and checklists is a situation just begging to overwhelm a student to the point where they could hurt themselves or somebody else, to say nothing of the damage to the aircraft.

Let's keep in mind the old saw: "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous, but to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect" -- three attributes most student pilots have in abundant supply.

 

[EatSleepFly]

Well said, aloft. I agree with you 100%.

Looking back in my logbook, I think I've checked out about a dozen people in the straight 182. All of them had their private, and almost all had their instrument rating, and 100 hrs. PIC (our company requirements). They all transitioned from 172's, and only a few of them transitioned smoothly. Most of them were behind the airplane, and almost all of them had trouble landing on the mains instead of the nosewheel. Not only that, but newer 182's (ours at least) seem to be directionally unstable at high speeds on the ground.

And the whole "military solos their pilots in jets" argument is comparing apples to oranges. Why? Because military students are very dedicated, and I'm sure they read, and study, and prepare for flights. Not to mention they fly often. Out here in FBO-land, students don't want to do any work. All they want to do is fly, and then they only do it once or twice a week at best. They don't study, and they don't prepare. If I had a student that was dedicated and flew often enough, I could probably solo them in a 210 (and then get fired), but I don't.

So, sorry for rambling, but if someone ever comes up to me and says, "hey, I just bought a new 182 and I want to learn how to fly," I am going to run the other way- fast. That is an accident waiting to happen, and thats one logbook that I don't want my sig/# in.

 

[IPad (10)]

Aloft and EatSleepFly if you don't mind I'm going to quote you over at that site. Just let me know if you want me to take it down.......

 

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
And the whole "military solos their pilots in jets" argument is comparing apples to oranges. Why? Because military students are very dedicated, and I'm sure they read, and study, and prepare for flights. Not to mention they fly often. Out here in FBO-land, students don't want to do any work. All they want to do is fly, and then they only do it once or twice a week at best. They don't study, and they don't prepare. If I had a student that was dedicated and flew often enough, I could probably solo them in a 210 (and then get fired), but I don't.

So, sorry for rambling, but if someone ever comes up to me and says, "hey, I just bought a new 182 and I want to learn how to fly," I am going to run the other way- fast. That is an accident waiting to happen, and thats one logbook that I don't want my sig/# in.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL!!!!

Yeah, don't want your logbook sig in there.....just make sure the stud carries his logbook IN the plane, so it burns up thoroughly in the post-impact fire..........

FBO comment is hilarious!

 

[EatSleepFly]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, don't want your logbook sig in there.....just make sure the stud carries his logbook IN the plane, so it burns up thoroughly in the post-impact fire..........

FBO comment is hilarious!


[/ QUOTE ]

lol....

(...and you think I'm kidding...

)

 

[Ophir]

[ QUOTE ]
How did that work with soloing and stuff? My boss claims that our insurance comapny won't let anyone touch our 182 unless they have 100 hrs. of PIC time- and he personally requires at least that plus an instrument rating.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it depends on what you insurance is like. This is one guy, one plane and he does all his instruction out of it. He says that he sometimes rents 172 out GJT to get them through the point of slamming it into the ground and transitions them into his plane.

I have had a 172 in to Telluride a few times (180hp) and it was clearing the fence at the other end of runway 27 by 50-100ft with two of us in the plane. You definately need power up there.

 

[av8rmsu]

[ QUOTE ]
Out here in FBO-land, students don't want to do any work. All they want to do is fly, and then they only do it once or twice a week at best. They don't study, and they don't prepare


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, Hey, Hey....I got my PPL at an FBO and studied hard....(I was in college at the time, so I didn't have anything better to do....let's see....study economics, study for PPL....I think I'll do the latter)

Question for military people...

I lived near Columbus AFB in MS. All of the "new" guys from the base would come to the FBO where I got my PPL and get there PPL from my IP. The AF paid for up to 50 hours. Is this something that happens all over or just in MS at CAFB?

They would then transition to a T37 "tweety-bird" or a T-1(I think...it was a biz beachjet). They also fly T38's there....SAAAWEEEEET

 

[aloft]

[ QUOTE ]
I lived near Columbus AFB in MS. All of the "new" guys from the base would come to the FBO where I got my PPL and get there PPL from my IP. The AF paid for up to 50 hours. Is this something that happens all over or just in MS at CAFB?

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not military but I pretend to be on Tues. nights....

All SUPT students are required to get their FAA private ticket before reporting for SUPT. It's intended to be a screening program, but I have my doubts as to its effectiveness in that role. Once upon a time, they used to send everyone down to Hondo, Texas for this, but now they just do it wherever their casual status assignment is. A buddy of mine is doing this very thing right now at Langley AFB. He's supposed to solo tomorrow, in fact.

 

[viper548]

remember that military students solo in T-34s and T-38s. It's all what you are used to.

They also don't have to pay for insurance !!!!

 

[Josh]

[ QUOTE ]
remember that military students solo in T-34s and T-38s.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the T-34 is a VERY easy, forgiving plane to fly. I'd say, better handling charactaristics than say a 172 or a 182. Sure, it is 'more plane' than a 172, but hard to even make a bad landing in a T-34.


If students don't want to do the work, don't check them out in the plane. I think standards are being set too low, if a pilot can't make a transition into a 182, assuming good training at least.

Josh

 

[davetheflyer]

[ QUOTE ]
Then why not just start in a Bonanza or Saratoga

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason that I can think of is $$$ for insurance, fuel, and rental. Also, it might be hard to find a CFI that is experienced enough to feel comfortable teaching landings in a complex, high performance, and expensive airplane (that could include the 182). From a legal and practical standpoint though, I don't see a problem. I think that there is a school in AZ that teaches Lufthansa trainees in Bonanzas (although I could be wrong).

[ QUOTE ]
Because military students are very dedicated, and I'm sure they read, and study, and prepare for flights. Not to mention they fly often.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would make it easier. Civil students can be motivated as well. If they aren't, it just means more dual.

 

[jonnyb]

The 182 is perfectly fine to train in. Geeezzzzz. Not certified for spins? Nose heavy? Come on...........So do spins in a citabria or decathelon and teach them to use more pitch trim and a be careful of the nose gear like you should anyway. Sheesh,,,,,talk about over analyizing the #@%$ out of something.

 

[pilot602]

It's all relative.

I got my multi-private at 42 hours total time and, essentially, haven't flown anything since - with the exception of an 85hp Champ.

If you're a sharp cookie and have a prepensity to not do stupid things you could learn to fly in a jet. Without any prior experience there is nothing to compare to so the student simply wouldn't know a 182 is "nose heavy" or "fast" or "complex" or whatever. The student would simply be learning what is presented to him.

Citation kid - a lot of folks gave you a hard time for flying the equipment you've claimed to have flown at your age. Before you go denouncing a 182 as too much aircraft maybe you should look at your own logbook?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm 14, I have 200 hours with 100 multi and 50 turbine including 15 jet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not attacking you here, I'm simply stating if you believe a 182 is too much airplane maybe you should honestly look at the stuff you're flying and ask yourself the same question.

At the end of the day a careful, thoughtful pilot can learn to fly anything.

 

[EatSleepFly]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it might be hard to find a CFI that is experienced enough to feel comfortable teaching landings in a complex, high performance, and expensive airplane (that could include the 182).

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, I'll put an end to my part in this conversation since I'm definitely in the minority. I am a $hitty intructor (no really, I am) and refuse to take a primary student in a 182. There I said it.

 

[Josh]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that there is a school in AZ that teaches Lufthansa trainees in Bonanzas (although I could be wrong).

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

I was just up in Napa yesterday, and it rememinded me of this. Japan Air Lines (JAL) has a huge training center up there. Their training planes, are Bonanza and King Air. Sure, these guys may be a lot more dedicated than the average once a week student, but I believe they have a very good safety record. I think it is not a matter of the student, but the level of instruction required for a larger plane. If good habits are taught from day 1, then the foundation is there.

For example, I started in a Tomahawk. Was taught to go through a GUMPS checklist prelanding, even though the gear is always down and locked. I've never had a time where I forgot gear until short final, and think that is a result of sound training.

 

[mtsu_av8er]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, it might be hard to find a CFI that is experienced enough to feel comfortable teaching landings in a complex, high performance, and expensive airplane (that could include the 182).

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, I'll put an end to my part in this conversation since I'm definitely in the minority. I am a $hitty intructor (no really, I am) and refuse to take a primary student in a 182. There I said it.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...don't be too hard on yourself!!! Don't sweat it!!!

Personally, I'd take a primary student up in the space shuttle if he was paying.......

 

[IPad (10)]

[ QUOTE ]
It's all relative.

I got my multi-private at 42 hours total time and, essentially, haven't flown anything since - with the exception of an 85hp Champ.

If you're a sharp cookie and have a prepensity to not do stupid things you could learn to fly in a jet. Without any prior experience there is nothing to compare to so the student simply wouldn't know a 182 is "nose heavy" or "fast" or "complex" or whatever. The student would simply be learning what is presented to him.

Citation kid - a lot of folks gave you a hard time for flying the equipment you've claimed to have flown at your age. Before you go denouncing a 182 as too much aircraft maybe you should look at your own logbook?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm 14, I have 200 hours with 100 multi and 50 turbine including 15 jet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not attacking you here, I'm simply stating if you believe a 182 is too much airplane maybe you should honestly look at the stuff you're flying and ask yourself the same question.

At the end of the day a careful, thoughtful pilot can learn to fly anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've got a 10,000 hour pilot in the left seat, he'd be up there by himmself..........