Restarting PPL - in own 182?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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...
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by The Ancient Geek; 24th Jan 2016 at 00:59.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 would rather have the 210 than the 182RG, it is just better in so many ways but both too complex for a beginner.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAG
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
Pace
IMHO retractable are too complicated for a beginner
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
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 24th Jan 2016 at 11:04.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Froikheim
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go as high as you can
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... 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
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.
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
Moderator
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!
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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