172 or 182 for IFR training?

Njonl

Njonl

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
22
Display Name
Display name:
Njonl
Looking at buying a plane for IFR training as well as other missions. I'm wondering if there are advantages or disadvantages of either plane? I like the greater useful load of the 182 for hauling more people and more fuel. However, I do like the simplicity of the 172. In addition to IFR training, I'd like to do some exploring of a few backcountry strips and make the occasional trip to Tahoe and Reno. Thanks!
 
Did mine in a 182. No issues with the few extras, they become second nature. What I would do is look at what you want to do and see which plane fits your needs best and buy that one. No plane will be 100% perfect, though for me the 182 comes darn close. Mine has a g1000, and I trained with six pack for my PPL, but again it was no big deal.
 
If the 172 will do the mission, the 182 is overkill and you're paying extra for capability you won't use -- decide if it's worth it. OTOH, if, for payload reasons, it takes the 182 to do the job, then a 172 is a nonstarter. Beyond that, it's just your personal preference and how much money you have to buy the plane, because based on training quite a few folks for the IR in both types, instrument training is pretty much the same in each.
 
For training the 172, for a personal plane (if you want to take people up) the 182. You can train in either, so if you are looking to buy, then the 182 fits both needs.
 
Njonl; what area of the country do you call home?
 
Did mine in my 182rg. If you're going to keep the airplane and use it after often I'd do the 182. If you're buying it just to train in or build time, get the 172.
 
It will definitely be a dual purpose airplane for me. For that reason, I am leaning towards a 182.
Aggiemike, I call Northern California my home.... About an hour north of San Francisco in wine country.
 
Long term, you will probably be happier with the 182, although it is more expensive to operate. True, you can throttle back and cruise at about the same fuel burn, but most people don't do that. If you wind up mostly tooling around the local area (and be realistic about how much time you will have to travel if that is your goal), a 182 will wind up costing quite a bit more. All in all, though, a 182 is a great airplane. If I were in your shoes, I would buy the 182. My $0.02 worth.
 
The primary mission of this plane would be to work on my instrument and commercial ratings. In addition to that, I'd be interested in taking trips to the Reno/Tahoe area, which I think would require the extra HP of the 182. I have family in Washington and Idaho and I'd love to do some camping/hunting in the back country.
 
Njonl said:
The primary mission of this plane would be to work on my instrument and commercial ratings. In addition to that, I'd be interested in taking trips to the Reno/Tahoe area, which I think would require the extra HP of the 182. I have family in Washington and Idaho and I'd love to do some camping/hunting in the back country.
Click to expand...

I don't know your budget, but for that mission I'd really prefer a Turbo 182.

Assuming we're talking about a restart Cessna, there is really only a little more complexity easily mitigated for training. You add a constant speed prop and cowl flaps. Leave the cowl flaps open and forget them, turn the prop down to 2400 and forget it if you become task saturated. In the end you will be a better pilot in a bird you've done your training in.
 
Njonl said:
The primary mission of this plane would be to work on my instrument and commercial ratings. In addition to that, I'd be interested in taking trips to the Reno/Tahoe area, which I think would require the extra HP of the 182.
Click to expand...
Depends on the payload.
I have family in Washington and Idaho and I'd love to do some camping/hunting in the back country.
Click to expand...
How many people and how much baggage?
 
Alexb2000 said:
I don't know your budget, but for that mission I'd really prefer a Turbo 182.

Assuming we're talking about a restart Cessna, there is really only a little more complexity easily mitigated for training. You add a constant speed prop and cowl flaps. Leave the cowl flaps open and forget them, turn the prop down to 2400 and forget it if you become task saturated. In the end you will be a better pilot in a bird you've done your training in.
Click to expand...
I have a T182T and 2400 is my max RPM, am I missing something? As for the cowl open versus closed, I follow the book and temps, but a lot of people do a lot of different things with them.
 
douglas393 said:
I have a T182T and 2400 is my max RPM, am I missing something? As for the cowl open versus closed, I follow the book and temps, but a lot of people do a lot of different things with them.
Click to expand...

Mis-type, I've been in a 206 world for too long. 2300 or max continuous. The 100 RPM won't matter flying around. I've found for training type flights the cowl flaps don't make much difference as long as you make sure you're getting enough cooling.

All I'm saying is that a restart Cessna is not a hard one to manage for a new pilot and training could be done in it. Of course engine management would have to be learned at some point.
 
Ron Levy said:
The max RPM for a 182 varies with specific model/year.
Click to expand...
I will have to recheck but if I remember correctly the restart turbo 182(T182T) all have the same top RPM with the factory installed powerplant. I know the three I looked at all did, and my commercial bought cheat sheets is the same for RPM for the non G1000 and G1000 T182T's.
 
Did my instrument training in my 182 after doing my primary in rental 172s. You climb faster on the missed is all. You'll still be shooting all approaches at 90 knots but with the 182 you have the option to shoot at 120 once you get really good at them. Amazing how much faster things happen at 120.
 
When I started out I would not consider a club or partnership because of rules and issues of getting on with not being able to use the plane the way I want to. So I bought a 4 cylinder 4 seat. I fly 90% of the time by myself so I would love to fly the 4 cylinder and pay for its lower ownership operations.

However I do need to have 3 seats and 1100 lbs useful loads once in a blue moon. There wasn't one available to me to rent, s I ended up buying a Comanche 250 at about 3 times the cost per hour to fly/own.

When my flying went from about 200 hrs a year to about 50 I invited two friends and my brother to share expenses and use my plane (non equity partnership). We had this arrangement for about 3 years and had no problems.

So I would recommend others consider ownership in a club or small partnership which has great cost savings advantages and still the freedoms of ownership.

An ideal situation would be to either participate in a club with both planes or to own a most cost effective 4 cylinder and rent a HP airplane when needed.

At one time I thought I would fill the plane all the time but it seldom turns out that way. No one wants to fly as much as I do. So maybe you will have better luck than I with getting your family to fly on trips with you. I hope so anyway. But I hate to see you buy a big plane with expectations that turn out differently. I think many pilots have similar stories.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If the 172 will do the mission, the 182 is overkill and you're paying extra for capability you won't use -- decide if it's worth it. OTOH, if, for payload reasons, it takes the 182 to do the job, then a 172 is a nonstarter. Beyond that, it's just your personal preference and how much money you have to buy the plane, because based on training quite a few folks for the IR in both types, instrument training is pretty much the same in each.
Click to expand...

That's a very long way of saying, "Are you fat? And is your instructor fat?"

:)
 
I just got signed off in a 182. What a really nice plane. You need to look at what you'll be doing, and be realistic. My experience is similar to Tony's above. No one in my family likes to fly as much as I do. It's pretty much just me and a friend or my wife. Hence, I own a mooney.

The 182 can carry a family of 4 and some luggage. The down side is more fuel, more cost for comparably equipped plane and more insurance.
 
Last edited:
I too am considering this. Right now just renting until after I pass my checkride for PPL then will get checked out in a 177RG/182 for complex/high performance endorsements. You may want to consider low wing if you like that as well.
 
If money was no issue for the care and feeding I would definitely go with the 182, or better yet a 180!:D
 
Njonl said:
Looking at buying a plane for IFR training as well as other missions. I'm wondering if there are advantages or disadvantages of either plane? I like the greater useful load of the 182 for hauling more people and more fuel. However, I do like the simplicity of the 172. In addition to IFR training, I'd like to do some exploring of a few backcountry strips and make the occasional trip to Tahoe and Reno. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Do the training in the 172. The 182 makes everything too easy!
 
OrangeOkie said:
If money was no issue for the care and feeding I would definitely go with the 182, or better yet a 180!:D
Click to expand...

If money really is no issue, and he is interested in hauling in high and hot, a C208 would be reeeeealy nice.
 
At one time I thought I would fill the plane all the time but it seldom turns out that way. No one wants to fly as much as I do. So maybe you will have better luck than I with getting your family to fly on trips with you. I hope so anyway. But I hate to see you buy a big plane with expectations that turn out differently. I think many pilots have similar stories.
Click to expand...

Hi Tony. Based on the non-flying or rarely-flying airplanes in the hangars at my based airport, I think there are a LOT of pilots in the same situation. It is easy to dream of all the places you can go with the faster, bigger airplane, but the reality is life gets in the way. A lot of airplanes wind up sitting a lot. On the other hand, it is hard to be pragmatic and realistic when you are shopping :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top