Restarting PPL - in own 182?

[GMR45]

Hi there,

A few years back I started on my PPL in the 172SP, logging around 22 hours and completing two separate solo flights (one in the pattern and one in the near area). Due to some changing circumstances on my part--in addition to a broken foot that prevented me from flying for nearly 3 months--I never finished my training. Now that things have settled down for me I plan to start up again.

My question is this: now that I am in a financial position to do so, I would really like to purchase an airplane for my personal use once I am fully certified. That airplane will likely be a C182 due to its capabilities, reputation as an easy-to-fly plane for low hour pilots, it's stability and IFR capabilities (I plan to begin my IR immediately after getting my PPL), and my familiarity with the high-wing Cessna configuration from my time in the 172SP. That said, as I think through it I wonder if it makes sense to go ahead and purchase the aircraft during my PPL training to a) save a little on costs associated with renting and (more importantly) b) to do my training in the aircraft I actually intend to fly so that I will have as much familiarity with its behaviour and systems as possible once I am on my own.

I understand fully that the 182 qualifies as "high-performance" due to its 230hp power output, and also will have the additional complexities of a fixed-speed prop and cowl flaps. Additionally, while the reputation in terms of overall ease of flight for a HP plane is very good, it is known for having a heavy elevator at low speeds and a particularly high need to be well trimmed at all phases of flight, at least relative to something like the 172. That said, it also should (in theory) handle well at low speeds and has stall characteristics not too dissimilar from the 172...

Am I crazy to be considering this? Is there any reason I couldn't use a 182 as a trainer, assuming of course I can find a good instructor who has logged a good amount of time in the type? Are there any other considerations I may be missing?

Thanks all and really appreciate the feedback.

[India Four Two]

Hi GMR,

Welcome to PPRuNe.

I say go for it. Yes, the 182 is a "busier" and heavier aeroplane, but with your previous 172 experience, you should find it quite familiar. Handling the cowl flaps and the prop will take a little while to get comfortable with, but you will have your instructor with you to remind you.

As long as you trim properly, low-speed handling is not an issue.

I recommend that at some stage, you do some dual flying at gross weight, to get comfortable with the handling and performance changes.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It's an expensive way of doing things, and a more complex aeroplane than you need - so will take a few more hours to get your PPL.

But, if you can afford it and find an amenable school - I can see no reason why not. It's a good capable aeroplane, and if that's what you're going to fly long term, you'll be a much better pilot in it for having learned in the aeroplane.

I like the C182, much nicer handling, roomier, and better performing than the C172.

G

[n5296s]

I'm biassed since I've been flying my TR182 (turbo retractable) for 14 years now. As Genghis says, it will cost you more than a 172 but it's also good to have plenty of time in the plane you intend to fly.

I've never really understood the reputation for being "nose heavy". It isn't. It's heavy in pitch, in general, and you MUST keep it in trim ALL the time. But that's not hard to do, it's just a question of developing the habit. And the plane will tell you, very forcibly, when you're out of trim. It's not like say a 152 or a Citabria, where you can set the trim on takeoff and never touch it again (though that isn't a good idea).

I guess the reputation comes from people who don't expect to adjust the trim, then find it takes near superhuman effort to flare since they're still trimmed for cruise flight. But if you are trimmed for 70 knots on short final, the flare is easy.

[rifruffian]

I believe it is best to get the basics to PPL in the simplest airplane, just because there is quite a lot less to think about and thus a better chance of getting those basics right, quickly. Aerodynamics, communications, navigation, and weather are a useful workload for the novice pilot. Then add on the higher speeds, engine handling, VP prop, retractable undercarriage etc after you have the hours to be confident of the subjects I have previously mentioned.

(And an afterthought that a fixed gear airplane might cope best with some early attempts at landing.....compared to retractable)

(ah well OP, maybe your plane will be fixed gear anyway......I'm not sure about that !)

[alex90]

Looking back now - I think that the addition of the extra levers (pitch, undercarriage, cowl flaps) as well as the addition of the speed (an extra 30+kts), taking care of the engine by monitoring RPM / EGT / " of mercury... Etc... Would have been a little too much for me, despite like you being really eager to get into the faster, retractable gear aeroplane (although I went for the Arrow just because I haven't come across any 182 at Biggin Hill...yet...).

I found that I needed to be kept in my comfort zone, at the speeds that could forgive me more had I made a mistake on heading, and an engine that I didn't really need to worry about more than just checking Ts&Ps Suction & Charge on a regular basis. It simplified my life enough to feel very confident, and really, limit the number of mistakes.

After about 25 ish hours solo I did my complex differences training, and it took me another 2/3 hours to really be comfortable with it all after the training, but I was more prepared for the differences and could really concentrate on them rather than having to figure everything out in one go.

But that's just me, I may well be very different from you! Have you considered taking a lesson in a complex plane, seeing how you feel, and if its not too overwhelming for you at that stage of your training?

[9 lives]

A 182 would be an excellent choice for restarting your PPL, as long as you're okay with a slightly more costly operation. Don't worry about the differences, you will easily learn them during training.

[n5296s]

A 182 is fixed-gear - there were relatively few retractables made from 1979 to 1986 but usually when someone talks about a 182 they mean fixed gear.

The retractable 182 is a great aircraft (about 20 knots faster than fixed gear), especially with a turbo, but not I suspect what the OP has in mind.

[TheOddOne]

Case study no. 1.
2 years ago I had a Trial Lesson who then did a couple more flights. He then said 'If I wanted a plane to commute to London, what should I get?' I said a Reims Rocket (210 horse VP prop version of the 172.), expecting him to look for one once qualified. 2 days later he rang me up and said 'I've got one'.
He did his first solo in it, then all the rest of his course. He got his PPL in bang on the 45 hours, now he's using it in the Summer months to commute.
So I'd say, absolutely no problem, it is more expensive per hour but if you own the aircraft then why not?
Case study no. 2.
2 guys who have never flown small aircraft bought a higher-powered and VP-equipped Robin off eBay, NOT something I'd advise but it was cheap! We've just started on the course. I guess it depends how you do the math. We charge £168 per hour plus instructor for our PA28 Archer, which includes £28 VAT. They'll probably not lose anything on depreciation on the aircraft, so it's insurance, hangarage, maintenance and fuel to factor in. Incidentally, insurance was pretty cheap for them while they're training - it ramps up once you get a licence!
I can't see a problem with learning to fly with a higher-performance aircraft once you accept that some aspects of the flying might take a little while longer to learn.

TOO

[172510]

It's an expensive way of doing things, and a more complex aeroplane than you need - so will take a few more hours to get your PPL.Yes but the extra spending to get your PPL must be compared with the cost of conversion from the training aircraft to your own 182

[Pace]

I think there is a false impression given about simple and complex aircraft perpetuated by flying clubs who want to sell you training.

In the past war 18 year olds were sent off in Spitfires after very few hours so
going from a 172 to a 182 is hardly jumping into a complex demanding aircraft :ok:

If you have the money why not ? I had a friend who bought a half share in a Commander 114 retractable before he had got his PPL and moved straight into that on achieving the PPL

So its not about the complexity of the aircraft so much as how much money you have to spare for your hobby.
I see extra power as extra performance and hence extra safety not something to be in awe of

Pace

[GMR45]

Thank you all for all the responses! I must say that isn't really the consensus I expected (was expecting to be met with a healthy dose of skepticism), but hey that's exactly why I posted the question in the first place. Yes the cost of the extra training hours in the 182 may be a little pricier than if I completed the PPL in a rented 152 or 172, but I can't help feeling how much more comfortable I would be in the airplane as a newly minted PPL having done all my training with the more complex systems. Not to mention in these parts the cost difference is actually probably negligible...

To answer a couple earlier questions, no I am not planning to opt for the RG models as I don't feel I need the extra cost, maintenance, complexity, etc. at this point in time. I feel like my hands will be full enough with the constant speed prop, cowling, and potentially carburettor heat to worry about (assuming I opt for a pre-reboot model).

Thanks again for the responses guys, really appreciate it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just picking up on TheOddOne's point - have a think also about the Reims Rocket.

To my mind, it's by far the nicest of the C172 family - plenty of power, variable pitch prop, good payload. But, it'll be a little easier to fly with lower purchase and running costs than a C182.

G

[ChickenHouse]

First, make sure you read and understand the basics of doing training on your own aircraft (vastly depends on where you are planning to do it, some places won't allow that without humongous administration ... and fees, or do not allow it at all unless your aircraft is under CAMO ATO).

Second, understand that learning is easier with less complexity. A 172 fix-propped is much easier to learn on, than a 182 CS.

Also keep in mind you are stressing the aircraft during training sessions, as you may never do so later on. I prefer to ride the old school whores in basic training, as it does not hurt that much, if things go wrong. In the end these air-hookers are fine for learning, but don't take'em home for more ;-).

One more thing. There is almost no way at all to estimate what your flight profiles will be after PPL. Whatever you dream being a pedestrian, may differ from what is wise later as an airmen. Try different aircraft in training, do hours in C150, C172, PA28, AT01 or whatever you can get your hand on. After PPL rent and learn. You may find yourselves need shifting. You may be well later with a C172 and would have regrets to spend the premium over it for a 182. Or you find out the best plane for you is a G36, what are you going to do with the premature purchased 182? Things are only little predictable.

A word to the often cited Reims Rocket/Hawk XP and C177, even worse 177RG. Once upon a time, there was a saying these birds would offer the performance and usability of almost a 182 at 172 costs. This no longer holds true. Where spare parts or replacements needed are special to these birds, prices have gone through the roof and some very special parts may even no longer be available. One of the biggest shots I heard lately was an over 3.500 USD price tag for a small and simple break fitting special for the 177RG - and with an 8 month delivery estimate - not very unusual i.e. for non-hydrolic RGs. These birds were built in small numbers and where parts are special, things will get worse and worse.

But, in the end all advice is for the wind, as it comes down to personal preference and nobody can compensate for a thing almost forgotten in the rest of society - individual freedom of choice.

[Above The Clouds]

I would say if you can afford it go for it, especially if thats what you want to own and fly.

One caveat, make sure you have an instructor capable of teaching you correctly and not a newbie hunting to gain alledged complex time, although personally I would debate that a C182 is complex.

A longtime ago I took a new prospective PPL for a trial lesson in a single piston aircraft who was extremly keen to get a licence. That single engine aircraft scared the life out of him so much he went out and bought a Cessna 421 pressurised twin to continue his PPL, he was sent first solo and completed his qualifing cross country in that aircraft also gaining his UK PPL in record time and being issued a licence for multi piston only, so everything is possible with the right mindset.

[The Ancient Geek]

There is nothing difficult about the 182 in its plain Cessna form.

Using the cowl flaps to keep the engine temperatures within limits is a simple task - just be warned that neglecting it or getting it wrong could be costly so rather pay attention.

Setting the RPM on the CS Prop is simple, you only need to remember 3 settings. Takeoff & landing, economy cruise, and lastly only ever (hopefully) practiced but important pull the lever all the way out for best glide if the engine fails.

Now the advantages - the 182 is easier to land than the 172 because it does not float so much in ground effect. It is roomier, a bit faster, carries more usefull load, is more stable and makes a good instument platform.

Whats not to like ........
IMHO one of the best allround aircraft available.

[WhiskeyPapa]

There should be no problem with primary in a 182, especially if you plan to own it. It's not that complicated a plane.

[rifruffian]

Interesting thread.

'above the clouds', the tale of the student pilot who soloed and trained in the Cessna 421 creates a kind of wistful envy within me.

I had been flying around 3000 hours before I could regularly fly a Cessna 402. Shouldn't really complain, I was paid to fly utility SEP meantime but I had a long wait to get MEP. Irrelevant really, I'm now retired.....but somehow I retain a certain frustration.......

[Big Pistons Forever]

I did a zero to PPL course on a guy with a Nanchang CJ6. So 285 hp supercharged 9 cylinder radial engine, VP prop, retract gear and a complex pneumatic system to operate all services. I would estimate that he took about 10 hrs more training than if I had done the course in a C 172/Pa 28. Most of the extra time was used on learning proper engine operation and system monitoring.

I don't think that it should take significantly more time to do the PPL in a C 182 vs a C 172. The one caveat is that the instructor must have experience with the proper operation of a big block 6 cylinder Continental engine and VP props. Time on type would be a significant advantage.

[GMR45]

Thanks again guys for more advice--keep it coming! Just FYI I don't think I would consider using an instructor who isn't decently familiar on the 182...it is a common enough airframe that I wouldn't think finding a CFI who has logged at least a moderate number of hours in one should be all that unreasonable...

[ChickenHouse]

Do you have an intuition butt?

The 182 is quite a nice and comfortable travel bird, but it is also a stable one. I prefer a light and more responsive aircraft for the first training sessions, mainly to get the student a closer feel of what its like to deal with the air. The reason for a C150, AT01, Spitfire ;) or similar is not only affordability, but also aircraft response. Keep us posted on your progress.

[tecman]

I lean a bit to that view too, CH. However, in the bush where the C182 and the big old Cherokees were, and to some extent are, king I've watched many of the younger generation on stations learn to fly well in the family aircraft. My observation is that, apart from the stability factor you mention, the extra power can breed the view that one can hop in the aircraft and blast-off in (nearly) any circumstance. There's something about coaxing a C150/152 off a short, soft strip on a hot day that leads to a respect for technique and P-charts. My suggestion to the OP would be make sure that he does some comprehensive load checks under various conditions as soon as the local training regulations permit, along the lines already noted by I42.

On the plus side, the extra familiarity with slightly more complex systems and extra speed is no doubt a good thing. Find a good instructor and go for it.

[Pace]

Tecman

its funny how speed becomes relative to what your brain becomes used too.
I renewed my SEP recently in a PA 28 after having flown jets exclusively over the past four years.

I was mind boggled at how slow it felt after such a time away and also remembered when I moved from the 150 to a PA28 when I got my licence many moons ago what a rocket ship it was in comparison.

But this PA28 felt very very slow and toy like which took some getting used to.

I am not complaining because it was a lovely experience floating along the roads and watching the traffic below but slightly amusing when reading discussions on how fast these little singles are I am talking about the difference between 90 KT cruisers and 110 KT cruises not so much the slippery mooneys or Cirrus which do need more control because they are slippy

Pace

[GMR45]

Haha I cannot for the life of me figure out what "an intuition butt" might be!

[tecman]

That is certainly true, Pace. My first instructor used to say of the C150: "nothing to do and all the time in the world to do it" ! It didn't seem like that to me at the time, though.

One thing I've found fascinating is the saturation effect on the brain. When things start piling up, pilot performance can drop very rapidly indeed. I had a friend who owned a very nice early model C172 and, in my estimate, flew it pretty well. He sold it and bought a PA24-260 (Single Comanche) and, despite the efforts of his friends and instructors, he was never able to cope with the faster aeroplane. Perhaps if he'd been 20 instead of 40, and had more practice and different instruction, it might have worked out differently. But it seemed to me (in the right seat) as though he was having both input bandwidth and processing speed issues.

I've not flown jets but I understand your joy in returning to slow flight. I enjoy flying whatever is around but these days 100 kts in my VLA with the panoramic view is about right for a Sunday afternoon.

[Pace]

Very occasionally we have positioned the Citation OCAS it's very easy to bust 250 KTS low level
I try in those situations to bring the aircraft back to fast twin speeds of 160 KTS and in the Citation that feels really slow!

I am sure our brains are diffrent I knew a pilot who was a very successful businessman and ultra detailed in planning but also seemed to have a one speed brain where if things started happening too quick his brain would not catch up
Like computers we all have diffrent operating systems some good at graphics others at memory banks but poor on fast games where they stutter and stop

Pace

[2high2fastagain]

I learned in a C152 and then bought a TR182 just after I qualified and converted to it. It worked really well for me and I'd recommend it. That's not to say learning in a 182 is a bad thing.

Things to consider.

1. It might take you a while to find a nice 182, assuming you haven't got a third of a million to spend for a new one. What are you going to do in the meantime (get started is my advice)
2. Do you really want to be circuit bashing in your expensive 182? The engine won't like that very much. It won't like PFL (practice forced landing) training much either. The o540 on my 182 loves long cruising runs.
3. The 182 is much faster than most training aircraft. The controls are also heavy and things happen a lot faster. That might extend your training as others have already noted.
4. Check on insurance. When my wife wanted to learn to fly and share the load with me, the ab initial training insurance premium for the 182 was prohibitive. She learned on a C152 instead.
5. RG or Fixed? I see there's another Turbo retractable owner posting who seems to love his machine as much as I adore mine. Cruising at 151 knots for 49lph gets you places, though the polo mint wheels on grass strips makes life interesting in the winter. There have been massive debates on this forum in the past about the merits of both. I've calibrated my aircraft and it goes 19 knots faster with the wheels up.

Overwhelmingly my advice is to take the time to find a really nice aircraft. Find an engineer you trust who will thoroughly survey the aircraft for you. Then all you have to do is spend money for the next ten years getting the aircraft just the way you want it. I'm eight years in and it's nearly sorted!

[thing]

The 182 is a lovely aeroplane, I would say go for it. If I had the dosh it would be my aircraft of choice.

It was my first 'complex' aircraft although as mentioned above you will touch the blue knob about four times during a normal flight and the cowl flaps are no problem at all. It took all of ten minutes to get my head around it. Your further training bits like nav etc will not feature faffing with the cowl flaps and wobbly controller anyway apart from departing and landing so in that respect it's no different to a 172. Just smoother and a bit faster. As for being heavier on the controls, it's nowhere near as heavy as an Arrow IMO. Yes you need to keep it in trim but you should be doing that with every aircraft you fly. There's nothing like dropping flaps twenty, two up, with about a third fuel on board and letting it rip down a short grass strip, Cessna got it bang on with the 182.

Enjoy it, I'm quite envious!

[nouseforaname]

I can relate a bit to what you are talking about. When I did my ppl in a 152 my dad actually had a 182. Very lucky I know, would sometimes fly up with him for my lessons. One thing that I always thought was good learning on a low powered airplane was that you have more respect for the things a lot of power saves you from. Mainly short field stuff, 182 is brilliant it will get in & out of most places, especially out! If you do get back in a plane with less power like a 172 be careful, it can really catch you out.

[9 lives]

3. The 182 is much faster than most training aircraft. The controls are also heavy and things happen a lot faster. That might extend your training as others have already noted.

I don't agree. Comparing a 182S to a 172P ('cause those are the two most recent flight manuals I have for the types), the 182 is only 3 knots faster for most speeds slower than "normal" climb, and indeed 1 knot slower for short field approach.

I suggest that a 172 flown heavy will feel more heavy than a 182 with a similar load, but yes, a fully laden 182 will feel a little more heavy that a 172.

With cowl flaps, and assuming their appropriate use, the 182 will be just fine for PFL's, and will indeed overshoot with much more confidence.

A pilot who completes PPL training on a 182 would be just fine, with perhaps an additional hour or so added incrementally while propeller and cowl flaps are properly learned, but that is a valuable skill. A 182 trained pilot might be less confident getting into a 152 on a gusty day, but other than that, and the greater cost to operate a 182, there is not reason not to learn in it.

As soon as I was permitted after PPL, I transitioned to the 177RG in the club fleet, and flew 50 hours on it - one of my most wise pilot choices in hind sight....

The "break" between "easy" and 'not so much" in the Cessna tricycle product line, for abinitio training, comes at the 100 to 200 break in my opinion.

The 182RG is a wonderful plane, but consider ownership with caution, there are some main gear parts, which if damaged, are very hard/scarce ($$$) to replace. The RG's are a lesson in speed management, but a lesson worth learning...

[The Ancient Geek]

The "break" between "easy" and 'not so much" in the Cessna tricycle product line, for abinitio training, comes at the 100 to 200 break in my opinion. The 206 is a pussycat - just a slightly bigger 182 to fly. I know of several pilots who trained on it in Africa where it is the workhorse of choice.
I would rather have the 210 than the 182RG, it is just better in so many ways but both too complex for a beginner.
The 208 OTOH is an entirely different proposition.

[Above The Clouds]

The Ancient Geek
I would rather have the 210 than the 182RG, it is just better in so many ways but both too complex for a beginner.

I am sorry but that statement of being too complex for a beginner complete and utter nonsense, why on earth do you think that ?

At the end of the day it is another single engine aircraft, it goes up-down, left-right, is a touch faster and has 2 extra levers in the cockpit to control cowl flaps and the VP prop, why is that too complex if taught correctly from day one.

Have a read of my earlier post about the guy who did his PPL in the Cessna 421.

[The Ancient Geek]

Hmmm - IMHO retractables are too complicated for a beginner but as the man with the wooden leg said, it's a matter of opinion.

[Pace]

TAG

IMHO retractable are too complicated for a beginner

How on earth did those young pilots ever fly combat in Spitfires during the last war on such low hours ?
Or the young women WAFs who were thrown a set of keys to an aircraft they had never flown and told to position it ?

I think its more to do with your bank balance. I can remember having keys thrown at me by AA at Bournemouth it was a matter of sitting down with the POH note the differences and off you go.
one a Trinidad had a tiny switch near my knee for the weeping wing anti ice.

Climbing into cloud low level it took me some time to work out what the chemical smell was after I had inadvertently knocked it on with my knee :E

Pace

[9 lives]

Of course any certified GA aircraft will have characteristics which make learning to fly in it possible, but not assuredly ideal. As you make the "break" from the Cessna 100 series to the 200 series tricycles, you've gone to aircraft which have more power, and more inertia, with more focus on speed than ease of recovery from certain conditions. Of course they all do everything (spin approval excepted), but how they do it, and the tactile warnings they give differ.

If a person is determined to learn to fly in a C 206, I'm sure it can be done, and if that's all that's available, that's what it will be, but it is going to be more costly in more hourly cost, more hours required cost, and much greater cost if something gets bent a bit, as can happen during training. I opine that if training for a PPL were to require an extra hour in a 182 over a 172, training in a 206 would be an extra 10 hours, and in a 210 an extra 15 - presuming that you expect the pilot to be type competent when you're done. Honestly, aside from learning the PT6, and the risks of a new pilot cooking it, the 208 is a more simple plane for a low time pilot than a 210.

I say this because the 182 is about the end of the line where energy management of the aircraft is of lesser concern. Once you start in the 182RG, and then the 200's you have an aircraft whose energy, and engine must be managed to assure safe flight. In a 172, you can get low and slow with full flaps on a practice forced landing, decide to go around, jam in the power, and it's probably going to work out. In a 182RG, and more so the 200's, you can still be settling with power, and you'll have to combat several different forces and effects to safely fly it away.

From a student acceptance and advancement point of view, up to a 182, an instructor can say "if it does this, you do that, it'll do this, and you continue to fly safely." For the 200 Cessnas its' not so clear. If the instructor skillfully masks those characteristics, the student can learn to fly in it, but have they learned the type? Could they demonstrate type appropriate skills for a flight test in it?

[Pace]

ST

I fully support the notion of a check flight moving from one aircraft to another.
How much that check flights involves I question as I have a sneaky feeling a lot has to do with flying school income.

There is no rocket science jumping from one fixed gear fixed prop aircraft to another for a half competent pilot and maybe this is more to do with revenue and our Nanny state attitudes today

Even jumping into a retractable VP just has a few extra items and considerations? I was amazed at the requirements to fly a Cirrus. The aircraft itself is no big deal only the avionics which should be taught on the ground not the aircraft. Yet there are more hours required to transition to that aircraft than a full type rating on a 400 KT business jet something has to be wrong ?

Pace

[MacLaren1]

Buy the best aircraft you can afford, then go for it. If it's yours, and you are training exclusively for it, it will fit you like a glove, and you won't need to upgrade. Yes, more expensive in the short term, but cheaper in the long run. And definitely with a variable pitch prop. BUT don't get so confident you challenge the weather... You just can't win. Too many AAIB reports with fatalities... :eek:

[TheOddOne]

and more so the 200's, you can still be settling with power, and you'll have to combat several different forces and effects to safely fly it away.

I can certainly go along with that. A couple of decades ago I decided to get checked out on a C207, having only recently moved up to the Reims Rocket. Phew! What a difference! Long moment arm, much more inertia, difficult to slow down coming into the circuit without busting the bottom of the green arc on the manifold gauge (the owner was doing the checkout). The other big thing was in the go-around 'if you apply full power at the stall the torque will overcome any roll control you have. Gentle the power in, even if it means momentarily touching the ground'.
Even now, I wouldn't want to teach anyone to fly in a 207, probably not a 206 either, notwithstanding that I have successfully in a Reims Rocket.

TOO

[Pilot DAR]

I had to pick up a Cessna 207, to fly it into my own 2100 foot grass runway, for work here at home. After a two circuit checkout, I was declared checked out. I started home with the plane, but was not at ease with a short(er) landing in an unfamiliar plane at home. So along the route home, I did ten circuits at a 2500 paved runway I knew well. After ten circuits in the 207, my left arm was honestly tired - it has higher pitch control forces. That aircraft does what it was designed to do, but would hardly be an encouraging abinitio trainer!

[Pontius]

I suggest you crack on with your PPL and then continue in your 182 when you get it. You don't have to do all of you training in your own machine and if you start (again) in a Cessna then it'll be a bit more familiar when you switch to your 182.

All this talk of 'complex' is nonsense. Wobbly propellor theory can be learnt in a very short time and it really is not rocket science. You'd just add the use of a VP prop to your normal lessons, so I really fail to see how that's going to extend your tuition by any significant time. A good deal of military pilots have no flying behind them and jumped into Bulldogs and Grob Tutors from day one.

Good engine handling is going to take longer but that would be the case if you learnt in your own 182 or not. Chances are you'd probably take less time to become very familiar with your engine because you've got a very vested interest in looking after the donk and would be worth some extra study. Cowl flaps, schmowl flaps....open or close them to keep the temperature according to the book. Apart from that, it's big 172 with a lovely dose of pretty decent performance and a machine that I regularly enjoy flying.

In the meantime, go and book your lessons to get started with your PPL (II). Who knows, you might hate it second time round and I'd have saved you the cost of buying a 182 :)

[9 lives]

Cowl flaps, schmowl flaps....open or close them to keep the temperature according to the book.

Well... Open or close the cowl flaps in anticipation of a speed or power change, based upon your understanding of their affect, to prevent rapid temperature changes of the cylinders. If you are flying a 182 wheelplane, and you're approaching exceeding a CHT limitation, I cannot imagine what you're doing with it! If you are watching the CHT indicator to determine what position to select the cowl flaps, you're taking too long. The CHT will tell you if what you did a minute or more ago with the cowl flaps has had the affect you intend. If you can actually see the pointer of the analog CHT indicator move, you did not anticipate cowl flaps well, and may have already damaged the engine.

Both cowl flaps, and constant speed propellers are straight forward to understand, and yes, can be learned and mastered without hours of flying time being required, but there function and affect should be taken seriously. In my opinion (and I have trained it many times), student study for an hour or so, and good understanding confirmed during a 15-30 minute preflight briefing, should result in a maximum of an hour of practical flying to cement those skills.

[India Four Two]

If you are flying a 182 wheelplane, and you're approaching exceeding a CHT limitation, I cannot imagine what you're doing with it!

ST, how about using a 182 for glider towing at 65 mph with an airfield DA of 5500'?

Last summer during a hot spell with temperatures over 30 C, we often approached our club's max CHT when towing heavy two-seaters. Going from memory, I think it is 315 F and the absolute maximum is 350 F.

The remedies, in order of application, were: speed up to 70 mph, go to full-rich and lastly reduce power.

While I enjoy the challenge of operating the 182 efficiently, my opinion is that it is not very suitable as a towplane, partly because of the engine-management issues, but also because it takes longer to get airborne than our Scout towplane. This has led to some marginal departures when towing our two-seaters.

[9 lives]

Yup, I have to agree with I42, if you're going to use a 182 to tow gliders from high DA airports, then yes, you may have to take advanced training in CHT awareness!

[India Four Two]

you may have to take advanced training in CHT awareness!

Our check-pilot likes to say "In the Scout, you fly the tail wheel; in the 182, you fly the engine!" Very true.

[India Four Two]

Having re-read my glider towing post, I hope it doesn't deter GMR45 or anyone else from flying a 182.

We are operating our 265HP 182 in an extreme mode - five minutes of full-power at 65 mph in hot and high conditions, followed by three minutes of full-flap, low-powered descent, all the while watching out for traffic with one eye and the other on the CHTs. ;)

This is about as far way from what the 182 was designed for, as you can get.

Anyone who operates the 182 'normally' shouldn't have any problems with cooling, providing they are sensible when changing power settings and managing the cowl-flaps.

Our 182 has a carburettor temperature gauge, which is a real bonus. No more guess work about carb icing - just use the hot-air control to keep the temperature out of the yellow arc. I really like it.

Finally, much as I like the challenge of towing with the 182, I think it is a bad choice for a tow plane - we should have got a Pawnee. :cool:

[Tankengine]

Tow at 70-75kts and much of your overheating on climb goes away.
Also ballasted gliders won't have to tell you to speed up! :E

I am contantly amazed at tug pilots who cannot see the difference in climb speed differences needed between club two seaters and heavy private type gliders.:ugh:

[Piltdown Man]

Let's talk about the C182. It was designed to be flown by an average PPL; in fact the exact same PPL that the C172 was designed for. Yes it had a wobbly prop and cowl flaps. So what? With good instruction their operation can be blended into standard lessons. It's advantage is that it can get up to a reasonable level very quickly, performance operations can be taught well and cross countries can be exactly that. And while we are talking about speed, just what exactly is its stall speed? At max. landing weight and full flap I come up with 49 kts. This gives a basic approach speed of 55 kts. With an increment for wind an approach speed of 65 kts is probably quite appropriate so it will fit in with every other aircraft.

As for its utility, it is better than a C172 which is also a very useful aircraft. The extra punch of the C182 makes everything a just a little bit easier. But I have to put in a little negativity. You will gave to find a local engineer you can trust, preferably one on site. Because if you get a problem you will initially need on-site support if for no other reason that you'll be learning about operating and maintaining your aircraft as you go along - but as a newbie!

Regarding an I/R may I suggest getting a bit of time in the thing before you ditch the (visible) outside world. Get to enjoy your aircraft and what it can do for you. Consolidate your flying so its operating your aircraft is second nature. Then, and only then, start your I/R.

Lastly, learn to fly without a wretched iPad, iPhone, GPS and similar devices. Have the basics down pat. Get a feel for DR, speed, heading, time etc. Then your I/R will be so much simpler. You will be able to point the thing off somewhere and KNOW where you are. You will be able to free your brain from the rubbish generated by such devices and concentrate on the important stuff, like where you are going to be in a short while and what you are going to do when you get there.

Buy the C182 and enjoy it.

PM

[India Four Two]

I am contantly amazed at tug pilots who cannot see the difference in climb speed differences needed between club two seaters and heavy private type gliders.:ugh:I fly at the speed that the glider P1 puts on the tow-ticket. Most specify between 65-70 mph :ugh::ugh: I don't think we would get much of a climb rate at 70 kts plus at our DAs.

Our club two-seaters are the heavy gliders! ;)

[GMR45]

Thanks everyone for chiming in. Has given me a lot to think about. Still not decided on the way I'll go, but great to have the info from people with a ton more experience than I have. Will try to post an update once I've decided what I'm going to do.