Is The C182 A Good First Airplane

CK

Well-Known Member
I've gotten into a little discussion over at another forum where a guy, a fellow pilot, is saying to a student pilot looking for a first airplane that the Cessna 182 is a great first airplane. I said that it's not and it'll be too much for a 50 hour pilot to handle. Well I'm not a ''real'' pilot so naturally no one takes me seriously. So what do you guys think? I'm going to put up a link to this topic, maybe get us some new members


Heres the link if you want to see the original posthttp://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DCForumID2/6848.html#12
 

EatSleepFly

Well-Known Member
He's probably saying that because he's got one for sale.

I think a 182 would be a little much for a student to handle. Hell, its a little much for some private pilots to handle. With a thorough checkout though, a 182 isn't anything that an average-skilled new private pilot can't handle. Its basically a big 172- but heavy on the controls and with more systems.

All that being said- no way in hell I would train a new student in a 182. Not to mention he probably couldn't get insured in it anyways.
 

CK

Well-Known Member
Exactly what I said to him, but he said he trains students in 182 all the time...............
 

Ophir

Well-Known Member
It depends on your perspective. Because i was learning at high altitude I never flew anything smaller than a 182 until I had about 100 hours. It is a bigger plane but you can learn to handle it.
 

John_Jones

New Member
A 182? That seems a lot for a student to handle, especially for a student who has never even soloed. One: Its not cost effective. Two: Actually lots FBO's dont rent 182's. In LFT the two FBO's (Paul Fournets and Lafayette Aero) only rent out 52's and 72's. I wont deny that a 182 is more reliable but there are other factors in it than just reliability.
 

EatSleepFly

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
It depends on your perspective. Because i was learning at high altitude I never flew anything smaller than a 182 until I had about 100 hours. It is a bigger plane but you can learn to handle it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, that never occured to me (being the relatively flatlander that I am). I guess you don't have too much of a choice at higher elevations.

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

John_Jones

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
You're right, that never occured to me (being the relatively flatlander that I am). I guess you don't have too much of a choice at higher elevations.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is true. Never thought of that...I guess you need some power in Colorado (especially the country you were in, near Telluride/Ophir).
 

DE727UPS

Well-Known Member
I think if a guy owned the airplane, there would be nothing wrong with training a student pilot in a 182. It's got a lot more power than you're basic trainer and it would take more time to solo the guy...but if that's what the student wanted to learn in then I wouldn't have any problem doing it. Also, as an owner in a non-commercial operation, insurance wouldn't be that bad. Insuring one for rental at a flight school is another story.
 

davetheflyer

New Member
It's all relative. It would probably be too much airplane if you want something to putter around in on weekends, but if you want to fly cross-country reliably and work on an instrument rating, it would be a good option.

As far as what is too much airplane for a student, remember that military students solo in T-34s and T-38s. It's all what you are used to. If you've been flying a 152, you'll probably need some additionaly instruction, but I don't think that it's an unreasonable step up.
 

Acadia

Well-Known Member
I know several people whp learned from scratch in a 182 and Im going to start a student myself in a 182 shortly. I dont think it is ideal, mostly because of cost. I would push towards a 172 if I had the option, but a 182 will work if they can afford it.
 

xdashdriver

Well-Known Member
Quite frankly I don't see the big deal about a C182. Although I did all my training in a C172, about two weeks after my Private I did my multi which is a LOT more complex than a fixed gear C182. I got that in 6 hours, and the chief instructor at the school had no problem with me renting the twin to go fly after I had done my checkride.

My point is that with proper training there should be absolutely no reason why someone with only 50 hours cannot EASILY transition to a C182. I would admit that doing Private pilot training in a C182 would probably end up with the student having to do 5-10 hours more than in a C172, but that's hardly a big deal, especially if the student owns the aircraft.

The "reputation" that doctors and lawyers et al. that kill themselves in airplanes have is based PURELY on their stupidity and lack of judgment. Most of them were flying in conditions that they were either not qualified for, or not current in. As with anything in flying, you have to know your limitations, apply them, and stick to them.

As for waiting until Commercial to transition to a C182, or even a Bonanza, Saratoga or any other complex single, that is pushing it a little too far. Real-world safety is dependent almost solely on the pilot and how he uses what's between his ears, not how many hours he has. For some things there is no real substitute for experience, but for a lot of things in flying, a high level of training can achieve similar results as a fat logbook, in terms of safety.

Ok, rant over.


Ray
 

E_Dawg

Moderator
I'm with Ray. Look at the military guys flying jets with low time. It's not too much for them to handle because of the excellent training.
 

CK

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I'm with Ray. Look at the military guys flying jets with low time. It's not too much for them to handle because of the excellent training.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but this guy would only be flying once a week or less. I'm going to go ahead and just guess that the military pilots fly a little more then that when they start off, plus those guys are doing it proffesionally not just on the side while balancing another job.
 

DE727UPS

Well-Known Member
"Yeah, but this guy would only be flying once a week or less."

Flying once a week or less is not good....Cessna 152 or Cessna 182.
 

viper548

Well-Known Member
I started flying in a 172 (145hp), and after my solo switched to a T-41C military trainer, which is a 172 w/ the continental IO-360 engine (210hp). It wasn't too much harder to fly than the 172. Just more right rudder and much better rate of climb. It would probably be tough for a student to get insured on a C-182 with so few hours. I had the luck of renting through the air force, they're self insured.
 

Josh

Well-Known Member
My ramblings on the 182:

182 is a great plane. And a great plane to learn in as well.

Maybe it is a little heavy feeling compared to say, a 152 or similar small trainers. But I'd take the opinion it is more real world experience.

After training, you are much more likely to fly a 4 place plane at least, rather than a 1.6person plane like a 152.

The 182 does feel a bit nose heavy, but I see that as a good thing. Can teach a very good flare to a student when they actually have to have some control input during landing.

The more "complex" arguement I don't think holds either. Just because there are a couple radios doesn't mean the pilot has to use them. Really it comes down to an extra knob for the prop. Which is really only an issue during takeoff and landings. Every high performance single I've been in has been prop full forward for takeoff, and full forward as part of the landing checklist. So there is some instruction on when to push/pull knobs. Which I think would be a good thing seeing how many pilots don't even know how to lean properly. If they are taught from the get go, how to use the knobs that are not throttle, all the better.

There's a guy at my local field. Buys a new 182 to learn in, has 0 time (he also has a nice CJ2 in his hanger, which others fly for him - paint and panels almost match between the two!
) He knows where to start and has the money to do it.

I think the only time I would tell someone to not use a 182 for training is if they are trying to save a little money. But then, for instrument training, it may be a wash because things can be done so much faster in a lesson.

Josh
 

davetheflyer

New Member
[ QUOTE ]

The more "complex" arguement I don't think holds either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the complexity issue is based on the constant speed prop. But, hey, I learned to drive on a manual transmission instead of an automatic. The principle is basically the same.

Additionally, it is technically a high performance airplane. It does require the pilot to think faster than a 152. However, if you start with the extra speed from the beginning, then it really isn't an issue.
 

CK

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]

Additionally, it is technically a high performance airplane. It does require the pilot to think faster than a 152. However, if you start with the extra speed from the beginning, then it really isn't an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why not just start in a Bonanza or Saratoga
 

mtsu_av8er

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Additionally, it is technically a high performance airplane. It does require the pilot to think faster than a 152. However, if you start with the extra speed from the beginning, then it really isn't an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why not just start in a Bonanza or Saratoga


[/ QUOTE ]

You can, and alot of people do!!! I've seen it more than a few times!!! If you can afford it, and you get good quality training...why not?

If you aspire to own and fly a 182....or a Saratoga, or whatever you like....it's best to learn to fly in that plane from the beginning. Get some good training, and learn how to do it right.

What's worse...a pilot that learns in a 152, then gets "checked out" in a 182 really quickly, or a pilot that learns from the start in a 182?
 
Top