Buying another plane

[poadeleted1]

Maybe a C205? Dr. C I think owned one. There is one on the field here and the owner seems to love it a lot!

KP

 

[rpadula]

Would a 172RG work? It's been a while since I've flown the one I used to rent, but it had the 68 gal. long range tanks and - IIRC - a higher gross weight than a straight-legged 172 (maybe 2800lbs?).

-Rich


And P.S. to Joe: the Commander 114's have a zero-fuel weight limit, so while you can fit 4 people in there, you've gotta put 'em on the scale first

 

[corjulo]

Hey Dan:
Sounds like the 182 is the way to go.
I'm on the board of RFC Dallas Flying Club here at Addison (Dallas area). We have a PA-28; C-177RG; 300 HP Beech Deb; F-33 and an A-36 Bonanza. Question I would ask is do you want to give members the opportunity to step up to high performance/complex? If not, you seem to be on track. If you want to open that door (as we have) look at the C-33 or F33 Bonanza.
I have the performance numbers for our club planes if you want to dig in.

Best,

Dave
Baron 322KS

There is another club on the field that specializes in more complex aircraft. We really are looking for more power and larger payload. Because we're a 172 club the feeling is we should stick with a high wing. We have a lot of members who can only afford to fly one or two hours a months and the thought of switching from low wing to high wing scares some people.

What is your (the cfi's) estimate of the time needed to sign off on a 182 for a pilot that normally fly a 172m?

 

[corjulo]

Would a 172RG work? It's been a while since I've flown the one I used to rent, but it had the 68 gal. long range tanks and - IIRC - a higher gross weight than a straight-legged 172 (maybe 2800lbs?).

-Rich


And P.S. to Joe: the Commander 114's have a zero-fuel weight limit, so while you can fit 4 people in there, you've gotta put 'em on the scale first

Again, complex rating would be a hard sell. We need to keep the insurance company happy as well. The mantra of our club is to keep flying as affordable and accessible as possible.

 

[sere]

There is another club on the field that specializes in more complex aircraft. We really are looking for more power and larger payload. Because we're a 172 club the feeling is we should stick with a high wing. We have a lot of members who can only afford to fly one or two hours a months and the thought of switching from low wing to high wing scares some people.

What is your (the cfi's) estimate of the time needed to sign off on a 182 for a pilot that normally fly a 172m?

One hour.

 

[Bill]

cruise speed is so slow you have bird strikes on the trailing edge.

Ouch! That is going to leave a mark.

Our club has a 172, an Archer III, and a 206. Even the Archer is not useful 4 persons with any baggage and fuel for travel. 836 useful load

An old pilot at the local airport says to always buy two more seats than you need.

But a 206 at 80k is not possible

 

[poadeleted3]

snip

. We have a lot of members who can only afford to fly one or two hours a months

snip

The thought of being partially financially responsible for a plane flown by a "lot" of people who only fly one or two hours a month is what would scare me. That's simply not enough, unless they are dual with an instructor. There are always ways to afford more hours. McDonald's is always hiring. 20 hours a week will buy you an hour in the air.

 

[poadeleted20]

There is another club on the field that specializes in more complex aircraft. We really are looking for more power and larger payload. Because we're a 172 club the feeling is we should stick with a high wing. We have a lot of members who can only afford to fly one or two hours a months and the thought of switching from low wing to high wing scares some people.

Well, then I'd say your only choices are a 172 with the Penn Yan 180 HP STC conversion (includes gross weight upgrade to 2550 lb, giving you about 120 lb more payload) or the C-182. A Cardinal is another option, but even with the 180 HP engine and CS prop, they don't give you much more payload than a 172, and less than a 172 with the 180 HP STC.

What is your (the cfi's) estimate of the time needed to sign off on a 182 for a pilot that normally fly a 172m?

Probably less time than the insurance company will demand for a reasonable rate (I'm guessing 3-5 hours on that for those with no HP or CS prop experience). I'd say an hour or so of ground training on 182 systems and CS props, and 2-3 hours of flight training to be sure the pilot won't jam the throttle with the prop control on low RPM on a go-around ("right to left, right to left, right to left...") or leave the cowl flaps closed and cook the engine on a missed approach.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

What is your (the cfi's) estimate of the time needed to sign off on a 182 for a pilot that normally fly a 172m?[/QUOTE]


Dan:

Our club planes don't make that transition. In the local CAP unit, we checked out pilots in the same day on the 172 and 182. Maybe one hour of ground school pointing out the differences and an hour of flight for those with experience. Of course, more time for a newer pilot.

I found it very easy to make the transition if one was prepared for the slightly heavier nose. If a pilot was coached with the numbers (airspeeds and power settings) to fly on base and approach, there was little difference except heavier with differnt control feel to level out and flare.

Don't think I'll ever locate all the fuel drains--heck there could be a class on just that. Also, will never get used to not being able to look under the cowling before each flight

(See what happens when you grow up in Bonanzas!!

Best,

Dave