Advice for 1st airplane

DrPappy

DrPappy

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
152
Location
Tomball, TX
Display Name
Display name:
DrPappy
I am playing with the idea of buying my own aircraft. I trained in 152s/172s so was thinking about looking into a 172, however weight limitations would mean my wife, 2 kids, and I could barely fly with no luggage. If it is going to be at all practical I will need something that will hold just a little more. With not a ton of flight time under my belt, I need something that is not a bear to handle and is fairly affordable, maybe around $65,000 or less. KDWH (Hooks, near Houston) is my closest field, and I would definitely consider co-ownership if you know of anyone who wants to partner.

I think maybe a mid-1970's 182 might do the trick, but honestly know very little about anything other than 152s/172s. I know that many of you guys have tons of experience in this field so I'm asking for your input. What first plane should I look for?
 
How far do you plan on flying? How often do you plan on flying that far? What do you see your average flight being? Any plans to fly places with short fields or grass?

Need to know more about your mission.
 
I have never heard anyone say "I hate my 182."

If you can fly a 172, you can fly a 182. It'll haul your family, your dog, and just about whatever you can close the doors on.

There will always be a market for 182's.
 
I would imagine the 182 would be the most familiar "upgrade" from a 172. Faster. Longer range. You could also look into a 172 with an upgraded engine. I'm sure someone around here owns one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jesse said:
How far do you plan on flying? How often do you plan on flying that far? What do you see your average flight being? Any plans to fly places with short fields or grass?

Need to know more about your mission.
Click to expand...

Good questions. For now my work schedule will not allow much more than a couple of days at a time for goofing off, which is what I will mostly be doing. So I foresee the vast majority of my flights to be within 3-4 hours from home, with a high percentage being within the state. Things like going from Houston to Fredericksburg, TX. A trip to New Orleans would be considered a long trip for me. No need for (intentional) short or grass field landings.
 
I have a 172n 180 conversion. With full fuel that gives me a useful load of close to 800lbs. Great plane but not very fast, I cruise about 115.
 
OkieAviator said:
I have a 172n 180 conversion. With full fuel that gives me a useful load of close to 800lbs. Great plane but not very fast, I cruise about 115.
Click to expand...

That's fine, I am in no rush. Getting there is the fun!
 
Have we gotten to a PC-12 yet? :D

182 is fine, many planes are fine, pick one that will haul 200lbs more, and go 20 kts faster than you need. If you operate to your needs and not the plane's capability, then you will operate safely and efficiently.

If you get the right 182, you can hand it over to Petersen to upgrade with a canard, and when you are due for an engine, a 260hp engine, and end up with a pretty damned awesome all around airplane with a Katmai conversion. I consider it as safe or safer than a Cirrus with a parachute, and it gives you the ability to work amazingly short with that much airplane. 400' would not be out of consideration in the slightest.
 
DrPappy said:
That's fine, I am in no rush. Getting there is the fun!
Click to expand...

Look into the 180 conversions then. You can carry 4 normal sized adults and has a range of about 3.5 hours.
 
MAYBE a 177 if the kids are small.

Cardinal R/G's in flight are one of the sexiest aircraft to behold.

Anyone who has difficulty boarding an aircraft will love a 177. If I keep my medical, and the day comes my knees or anything else give out ...


Cessna%20Cardinal%20177%20RG.jpg
 
Usefull load is the one thing the 182 does best. It is not the fastest, it is not the sexiest, it not the most fun of them all to fly...but it does a lot of things well. I love my 182 and moving bodies and baggage for 2-3 hour trips is most of my missions. The useful load and cabin size is what sold me. If you fly a 172, the 182 will be an easy transition. They are more stable than the 172 and just a bit heavier in the nose for landings.

Sometimes I want faster...sometimes I want more responsive performance...but when I gotta get somewhere with other people I am glad I have it!
 
Shawn said:
Usefull load is the one thing the 182 does best. It is not the fastest, it is not the sexiest, it not the most fun of them all to fly...but it does a lot of things well. I love my 182 and moving bodies and baggage for 2-3 hour trips is most of my missions. The useful load and cabin size is what sold me. If you fly a 172, the 182 will be an easy transition. They are more stable than the 172 and just a bit heavier in the nose for landings.

Sometimes I want faster...sometimes I want more responsive performance...but when I gotta get somewhere with other people I am glad I have it!
Click to expand...

+1, a 182 was my first plane.

Now, eight years later, I'm really enjoying my 210 :)
 
Last edited:
There was someone at either Hooks or Executive that was selling a 1/4 share in a Bonanza A36 (Hey, we're only up to 210s.. time for a Bonanza plug, right? ;) ) -- but I can't for the life of me remember where I read about it. You might poke around the airport and see what flyers are up.. or ask at Beaver Air Services, the Beech shop at Hooks.

Next up... you need a twin ;)
 
I'm a little biased here, but I was in the same boat you are in. What pushed me over the edge was when I came to my senses that kids grow. You may be in good shape right now, but in 5-7 years when those kids become teenagers (airplane speak: full-blown adults) you're now carting around 4 big people.

Someone recommended a Piper PA-32 (Cherokee Six, Lance, Saratoga) and I was moderately luke-warm on the idea. One ride in it and I was sold. It's like the Chevy Suburban of the skies... because they are 6 seaters. Will haul virtually anything, very docile, faster than a 182, roomy, still pretty easy on the maintenance, very common (so parts aren't a problem), decent fuel burn, and pretty easy to fly.

I've seen them in the 50k-60k range, but that's older avionics and higher-time engines. You can get a good one around 100k.

I hope this helps!
 
Last edited:
ahkahn said:
I'm a little biased here, but I was in the same boat you are in. What pushed me over the edge was when I came to my senses that kids grow. You may be in good shape right now, but in 5-7 years when those kids become teenagers (airplane speak: full-blown adults) you're now carting around 4 big people.

Someone recommended a Piper PA-32 (Cherokee Six, Lance, Saratoga) and I was moderately luke-warm on the idea. One ride in it and I was sold. It's like the Chevy Suburban of the skies... because they are 6 seaters. Will haul virtually anything, very docile, faster than a 182, roomy, still pretty easy on the maintenance, very common (so parts aren't a problem), decent fuel burn, and pretty easy to fly.

I've seen them in the 50k-60k range, but that's older avionics and higher-time engines. You can get a good one around 100k.

I hope this helps!
Click to expand...

I was looking at PA32's for a while, and I think they are perfect planes when you are hauling 4 adults and bags. A 182 P or Q model can also work. There is an STC that allows 150 lbs additional takeoff weight. I think those 2 planes are great choices. Of course, if money is no object there are plenty of others.....
 
For simplicity, I would go for a c182 or piper 235,both will carry the load and fly very nicely. At first you will have to adjust for the nose heavy feel.
 
Henning said:
Have we gotten to a PC-12 yet? :D
Click to expand...

You'll have more fun in a plane with less automation anyways, I have way more fun flying my 185 than the PC12 :yes:


172/152/182, man why don't you get something fun.

Grumman AA5, cool canopy, faster and much more nimble on the controls, easy to maintain.

Step up from that would be a Piper, PA24, sweet flying aircraft, every easy systems and not bad on the eyes ether.

I'd also have a look at a Navion, very stout planes, not super fast, but they are spacious inside.

Piper tri-pacers are nice little haulers, a little slower than a 172, but they will get in and out of some tight spots, also you can get a sweet one for not much money.

Maybe a sweet tailwheel, Cessna 170 or a Stinson 108 would work, Cessna 170 is comparable to a 172, Stinson is a little slower but a better STOL plane.

A Maule would be a good choice, great balance of everything, probably could get one within your budget if you did some looking and haggling.


I just couldn't see buying a 152/172/PA28 for personal use, just doesn't get the juices flowing and doesn't fly as well as the others IMO.
 
Last edited:
Advice for your first airplane? Buy your second airplane instead.

Someone gave me that advice when I was looking at 150s and 152s a couple years back, and I'm glad they did. I ended up with a nice 172 that was more mission flexible than a two seater ever would've been. You'll be surprised how fast your mission can change, so if you don't want to go through all of this again very soon, think about what you could grow into.
 
My two cents:
Don't get hung up on choosing the perfect plane, your "second" plane, or your "last" plane...

1. Select a model that will do what you *think* you want to do.
2. Find and purchase a solid example of it.
3. Fly it. Live with it. Enjoy it. And learn.

THEN figure out what you *should* have bought and make that happen.

Repeat as your mission, desires, and circumstances dictate.
 
Henning said:
Have we gotten to a PC-12 yet? :D

182 is fine, many planes are fine, pick one that will haul 200lbs more, and go 20 kts faster than you need. If you operate to your needs and not the plane's capability, then you will operate safely and efficiently.

If you get the right 182, you can hand it over to Petersen to upgrade with a canard, and when you are due for an engine, a 260hp engine, and end up with a pretty damned awesome all around airplane with a Katmai conversion. I consider it as safe or safer than a Cirrus with a parachute, and it gives you the ability to work amazingly short with that much airplane. 400' would not be out of consideration in the slightest.
Click to expand...

Not at PC12 yet, but I'll get us a little closer by skipping over the Mooney and Grummans and suggest he check out a Bonanza. :D:D
 
My advice would be to go rent 182 etc.... and take the family flying and see how they like it... If they get into it, then pull the trigger and get one that can haul the tribe.
 
OkieAviator said:
I have a 172n 180 conversion. With full fuel that gives me a useful load of close to 800lbs. Great plane but not very fast, I cruise about 115.
Click to expand...

+1, when you look at the bang for the buck.

The 180 conversion also allows for a gross weight increase to 2550 pounds, what brings the useful load up to around 1050 lbs.

We rented a 180hp 172N a couple years back, which was also equipped with a powerflow exhaust. It was the most pleasant to fly aircraft, which also climbed like a homesick angel (by 172 standards).
 
rbridges said:
I was looking at PA32's for a while, and I think they are perfect planes when you are hauling 4 adults and bags. A 182 P or Q model can also work. There is an STC that allows 150 lbs additional takeoff weight. I think those 2 planes are great choices. Of course, if money is no object there are plenty of others.....
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm a former 182 guy... I still have it in my avatar pic. They're both great planes, but the biggest decider for me was the 6 seats, extra useful load, and of course, 30kts faster.

I actually really enjoyed looking at those 182's with the 300hp STC mod on them... I'll bet those turkeys get up and go! Never seen one in person, but cruising at 180kts or whatever they do just shy of Vne would well-feed the speed demon in me.
 
OkieAviator said:
Look into the 180 conversions then. You can carry 4 normal sized adults and has a range of about 3.5 hours.
Click to expand...
That would be my recommendation as well. I've got a Cessna 170 with 180 Lyc conversion, flight plan for 100 knots @ 7.5 gph (13.3 nmpg), 37 gallons useable gives me 4 hours 45 minutes to dry tanks.
If DrPappy is used to a stock 172 I think he'd be impressed with what the Lyc O-360 will do for it. When I flew with the old 145 hp Continental I used to say they put 4 seats in the airplane so you'd have to explain to the 4th guy why he couldn't go, now I have no problem loading 4 adults plus full fuel and getting off my 1500 ft strip comfortably.
Now there's sure nothing wrong with a 182 if you need the extra speed and useful load. 130 kts @ 11 gph (11.8 nmpg), I'm sure some would argue with this but in my experience control forces 172 vs 182 is like the difference in driving a pickup vs driving a truck.
Both the Lycoming O-360 and the Continental O-470 are time proven reliable engines but I think you could assume the 6 cylinder O-470 would cost significantly more at major overhaul time than the 4 cylinder O-360.
What it really boils down to I think is the anticipated misson, that is...do you need the extra load hauling ability of the 182? You, the wife and 2 kids, even when the kids become teenagers if you pack light the 180 hp 172 will do just fine. OTOH if it's (oops) one more kid and/or if everybody wants to pack a big suitcase then you'll wish you had the 182.
 
Ventucky Red said:
My advice would be to go rent 182 etc.... and take the family flying and see how they like it... If they get into it, then pull the trigger and get one that can haul the tribe.
Click to expand...
That's good advice, go fly one a few hours before you take the plunge. Not to knock the 182 but IMO they're definitely heavier on the controls than a 172.
 
Last edited:
ahkahn said:
Yep, I'm a former 182 guy... I still have it in my avatar pic. They're both great planes, but the biggest decider for me was the 6 seats, extra useful load, and of course, 30kts faster.

I actually really enjoyed looking at those 182's with the 300hp STC mod on them... I'll bet those turkeys get up and go! Never seen one in person, but cruising at 180kts or whatever they do just shy of Vne would well-feed the speed demon in me.
Click to expand...


Lances are not 30kts faster than a welded 182. A lance is a 150-155 mill, a 182 is 130-135.
 
All great advice! I have started perusing for both 172's with the 180 conversion and also for 182's. I have noticed that several 182's on the market report past prop strikes. Is this because of the heavier feeling nose and pilots not rounding out soon enough?
 
182's are heavier in the nose and require flying all the way down to the runway. I was taught to pretty much pull back to idle in a 172 at the threshold. If you just chop power in the 182 you can drop like a brick. One of my early landing in the 182 I reverted back to my old training and bounced myself right into a go around! Because of the heaviness of the nose...porpoising then a stubbornness to save the landing can easily and often does lead to prop strikes in the 182. It is pretty common to see.

Once I got my HP and purchased my 182, I opted to spend about 6 hours with a CFI that lived and breathed 182's to dial it it...or rather dial ME in...and that was mostly all all landings as I was really good at bouncing the sucker when I first got it!

If the engine and prop have been redone and there was no or strut firewall damage...that would not phase me in the least. My 182 had 2 prop strikes in the log book prior to my purchase.
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
182's are heavier in the nose and require flying all the way down to the runway. I was taught to pretty much pull back to idle in a 172 at the threshold. If you just chop power in the 182 you can drop like a brick. One of my early landing in the 182 I reverted back to my old training and bounced myself right into a go around! Because of the heaviness of the nose...porpoising then a stubbornness to save the landing can easily and often does lead to prop strikes in the 182. It is pretty common to see.

Once I got my HP and purchased my 182, I opted to spend about 6 hours with a CFI that lived and breathed 182's to dial it it...or rather dial ME in...and that was mostly all all landings as I was really good at bouncing the sucker when I first got it!

If the engine and prop have been redone and there was no or strut firewall damage...that would not phase me in the least. My 182 had 2 prop strikes in the log book prior to my purchase.
Click to expand...

If you need power all the way to the ground something is wrong with your plane, rigging, CG, but something ain't right.

You should be able to pull power runway assured (usually before the threshold) in most any plane and make a nice landing.

I know for a fact you can do it in a Cessna 120, 140, 150/2, 172, 182, 185, 206, 207, 208B, I know because that's how I landed the things.

In the larger planes you need to trim much more so than the little ones, porposing a cessna is just a result of poor flying skills, I've also never seen a 182 get bounced :hairraise:
 
Shawn said:
182's are heavier in the nose and require flying all the way down to the runway. I was taught to pretty much pull back to idle in a 172 at the threshold. If you just chop power in the 182 you can drop like a brick. One of my early landing in the 182 I reverted back to my old training and bounced myself right into a go around! Because of the heaviness of the nose...porpoising then a stubbornness to save the landing can easily and often does lead to prop strikes in the 182. It is pretty common to see.

Once I got my HP and purchased my 182, I opted to spend about 6 hours with a CFI that lived and breathed 182's to dial it it...or rather dial ME in...and that was mostly all all landings as I was really good at bouncing the sucker when I first got it!

If the engine and prop have been redone and there was no or strut firewall damage...that would not phase me in the least. My 182 had 2 prop strikes in the log book prior to my purchase.
Click to expand...
I always reduce the power to idle in a 182. Often on downwind. With 40 degrees of flaps. If you're falling out of the sky when you get rid of the power then come in steeper and keep the nose down until you're in ground effect.
 
James331 said:
I know for a fact you can do it in a Cessna 120, 140, 150/2, 172, 182, 185, 206, 207, 208B, I know because that's how I landed the things.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not every freshly minted PPL right outta the gate is a SuperPilot like yourself.

You are correct...I did not say WILL drop like a brick..but CAN drop like a brick if you are configured with flaps and a drag profile that requires power to maintain proper approach speed and glide path. Correct technique or not, chop the power in that configuration in the 182 and you are gonna meet the runway real fast. If you are configured for a no power landing from well before the threshold...yes, that is easily doable with proper energy management.

If you tell a pilot that has only ever experienced a 172 to land the 182 exactly the same...well, that is what results in all the prop strikes that the OP is discovering!

I am sharing my experience of back when I was a new pilot and new to the 182...OP asked why so many prop strikes which is what I was answering, not debating what is proper landing techniques.
 
Last edited:
Just fundamentals and being able to feel a plane out.

I would hardly say that NOT smashing and abusing a 182 would make me a "super pilot" :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top