Restarting PPL - in own 182?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Restarting PPL - in own 182?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
simplicity
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 !)
(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 !)
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by The Ancient Geek; 20th Jan 2016 at 21:44.
cessna 400 series
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.......
'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.......
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...