Old complex training aircraft

brien23

brien23

Pattern Altitude
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,624
Location
Oak Harbor
Display Name
Brien
Home Airfield
76S
Several GA aircraft were primarily used for complex training, they were not that good at anything else and cost was the primary reason for them. Those with retractable landing gear, flaps, and controllable pitch propellers, as defined by the FAA as "complex aircraft", popular examples include the Cessna 172 RG, Cessna 182 RG, Piper Arrow. After 2018 flight schools dumped them and people bought them up for their own use. With the extra cost of the propellers, complex landing gear and little better than or worse performance than a Piper PA-28-180 fixed pitch prop and fixed landing gear over the cost of a PA28R-180 why would you do that.
 
Because not everyone shares your view that "they were not that good at anything else." I don't see too many Cutlasses these days (that' may be geographic), but I do see Arrows in my neck of the woods. I do regular recurrent training for a couple of Arrow owners who have upgraded their panels and fly all over (I assume North Carolina to Toronto counts) . I think they make for a comfortable, stable, and relatively efficient mid-range cross country option.
 
brien23 said:
Several GA aircraft were primarily used for complex training, they were not that good at anything else and cost was the primary reason for them. Those with retractable landing gear, flaps, and controllable pitch propellers, as defined by the FAA as "complex aircraft", popular examples include the Cessna 172 RG, Cessna 182 RG, Piper Arrow. After 2018 flight schools dumped them and people bought them up for their own use. With the extra cost of the propellers, complex landing gear and little better than or worse performance than a Piper PA-28-180 fixed pitch prop and fixed landing gear over the cost of a PA28R-180 why would you do that.
Click to expand...
As a happy owner of one of those "not good at anything," undesirables, I'll explain my rationale :)

0) Safety: The fast, high wing-loading aircraft I REALLY wanted right out of PPL was probably not a good fit for someone who only had experience flying a slow, stable, 15:1 glide ratio LSA. It made sense to me to have an intermediate aircraft where I learned more and became accustomed to going 30+ knots faster and getting familiar with other procedures.

1) Insurance: As a newbie pilot you can't hop into any aircraft you want. AVEMCO stomped on my dreams early on and put a price tag limit on my piloting aspirations, quotes from other smaller insurer outfits were obscene.

2) Cost / Value trade off: My money goes further with complex aircraft specifically because of people with your perspective. Your mindset is what drives the price of an Archer up to $175k+ while Arrows can be had for $100k. You can absorb a lot of gear maintenance and incrementally higher annual costs for a long time before you're a net winner in an Archer. Additionally, I was able to find a nice midwest plane that spent its whole life in private ownership instead of flight schools, which is harder to do when you're shopping for a FG.

3) Joy: Having the magical blue lever and gear selector just get you conditioned to an airplane that is more engaging to fly IMHO. I enjoy that extra little bit of complexity.

I originally thought of my airplane as a stepping-stone aircraft to my next thing. As time went on I came to enjoy the value of a known-quantity. No, it's not the fastest, can't fly the highest, carry the most stuff. But it fits my mission, is relatively affordable as airplanes go, and has taken me across the country multiple times. Checks nearly all the boxes for my mission for an acceptable price. Why move to FG?
 
Last edited:
For some, 10 knots is worth the cost. For some, the extra maintenance on retractable gear isn’t a deal breaker, especially if they don’t let little squawks fester. A constant speed isn’t that challenging to deal with, either. And you can find deals on Arrows and Cutlasses that put them ahead of their fixed-gear siblings. And there’s the CDI factor.
 
brien23 said:
Several GA aircraft were primarily used for complex training, they were not that good at anything else and cost was the primary reason for them. Those with retractable landing gear, flaps, and controllable pitch propellers, as defined by the FAA as "complex aircraft", popular examples include the Cessna 172 RG, Cessna 182 RG, Piper Arrow. After 2018 flight schools dumped them and people bought them up for their own use. With the extra cost of the propellers, complex landing gear and little better than or worse performance than a Piper PA-28-180 fixed pitch prop and fixed landing gear over the cost of a PA28R-180 why would you do that.
Click to expand...
Old? The Arrow I flew my complex in is the newest airplane I've ever flown. Not every school has dropped them, that's who I rented from. And it was sorta fun cycling the gear for each and every required full-stop landing. (Sorta because it literally cost me twice what the 150-152 cost.)
 
frfly172 said:
Your not a true pilot if your not flying a taildragger or a retractable plane
Click to expand...

Ha! I kind-of agree with half that statement. Even though I teach tailwheel, I thought that the rule change that allowed the use of non-retract aircraft was a big mistake. Prior to that change, every commercial pilot had to demonstrate proficiency in an airplane with a single checklist item that, if missed, absolutely guaranteed a crash. After the change, no.
 
Awww, I liked our cutlass. Always available on the line, and the kids were gonna eventually gear the thing up anyway so it was getting value out of the fresh motor we slung on it.

I probably wouldn't own one today for any amount. mx and insurance are making it nearly unsupportable.
 
TonyG said:
Ha! I kind-of agree with half that statement. Even though I teach tailwheel, I thought that the rule change that allowed the use of non-retract aircraft was a big mistake. Prior to that change, every commercial pilot had to demonstrate proficiency in an airplane with a single checklist item that, if missed, absolutely guaranteed a crash. After the change, no.
Click to expand...
I think this is the FAA realizing that it is very, very difficult to rent retractable gear airplanes in many parts of the country. Our local FBO only has fixed gear Cessnas, and I can only think of one airport in our part of the state that has an RG available for rent.
 
Others have already piped in with the answer. In short, when I came to that decision, it was pretty much a steep discount (>50% discount) over a Dakota/182, because it was more expensive to maintain. The recreational market also tends to be driven by zero retract entrant types, so the insurance inverted the proposition, which further inflates the easier to insure samples (FG). I needed way higher power loading than what the warrior was capable of, so the stoopid retract was the only thing available in my price ranges. But that was back in the prehistoric age, aka pre covid. Today I wouldn't touch any of them with a 10 foot pole, not in current pricing. And I still think the Dakota is overpriced.

Ostensibly the 180hp cherokees are the most overhyped of the bunch, and I owned/operated all three variants (160 180 and 200). All relative dogs, not their fault, the power loading isn't there. 230hp is the minimum that cabin needs to be a traveling contender for me.

Trainer-derived retracts are cooked in the post-ERAU/TAA days though. The discount no longer pencils out for me at least/TETO. Might as well eat the full mx nut and just go into the six cylinder retracts and get the 150+knot cruise speeds. I speak of people buying now, not people flexing about having bought for a nickel yesteryear.

To be clear, I never owned the arrow over the piddly speed gain, it was strictly the price delta compared to dakota/182.
 
I don't understand the inclusion of the "182RG" in the OP's list. That one seems to be a pretty good performer and certainly doesn't fit in the "complex trainer" category. I don't know that I'd ever seen a flight school with one on their line.
 
I think same reason people buy convertibles in NY. They like them. The reason not to buy them may also be similar. The insurance is higher.
 
RussR said:
I don't understand the inclusion of the "182RG" in the OP's list. That one seems to be a pretty good performer and certainly doesn't fit in the "complex trainer" category. I don't know that I'd ever seen a flight school with one on their line.
Click to expand...
I have rented both 182RGs and the turbo version from flight schools. But no, they were not used as trainers.
 
Ok, I'll bite. Every light GA plane (arguably every plane period) is a compromise of some sort. 182(RG)s and Arrows are trucks of the sky. Both have useful loads of around 1,000 lbs, sometimes over 1,100 lbs depending on the specific submodel and installed equipment. They are stable, capable cross-country machines. They aren't the fastest, but they still run circles around 172s and non-retract Cherokees. For the 25% added performance, they are not nearly 25% more expensive to obtain, operate, or maintain. They are relatively easy to fly and make good entry points for newer pilots who want a "real" plane. A pilot with a few hundred hours in one of these entry-level retracts is going to have a lot easier time settling into his future Acclaim than the guy who buzzed around in a 172 for his first 500 hours.
 
brien23 said:
Several GA aircraft were primarily used for complex training, they were not that good at anything else and cost was the primary reason for them. Those with retractable landing gear, flaps, and controllable pitch propellers, as defined by the FAA as "complex aircraft", popular examples include the Cessna 172 RG, Cessna 182 RG, Piper Arrow. After 2018 flight schools dumped them and people bought them up for their own use. With the extra cost of the propellers, complex landing gear and little better than or worse performance than a Piper PA-28-180 fixed pitch prop and fixed landing gear over the cost of a PA28R-180 why would you do that.
Click to expand...
The 182RG is an outlier there. The one I flew would do 155 KTS at 9K on 12 GPH toting 88 gallons of fuel and 4 people. A lot better than anything else on that list.
 
My PA 28 180hp Arrow was my favorite airplane ever…planned on 135 knots with a couple of speed mods and scimitar prop upgrade and useful load at 1000 pounds, while burning 8-9 gals an hour. It was just fun to fly and easy to maintain.
 
I always thought that there was something satisfying about hearing the wheels go "thump" in their wheel wells and feeling the airplane accelerate soon thereafter whenever I moved that switch up.
 
TonyG said:
Ha! I kind-of agree with half that statement. Even though I teach tailwheel, I thought that the rule change that allowed the use of non-retract aircraft was a big mistake. Prior to that change, every commercial pilot had to demonstrate proficiency in an airplane with a single checklist item that, if missed, absolutely guaranteed a crash. After the change, no.
Click to expand...
Learning to properly operate a checklist would have a lot better results in guaranteeing a successful flight in far more areas than just putting the gear down.
 
RussR said:
I don't understand the inclusion of the "182RG" in the OP's list. That one seems to be a pretty good performer and certainly doesn't fit in the "complex trainer" category. I don't know that I'd ever seen a flight school with one on their line.
Click to expand...
Wed had one when I was there, and it's still there. Very nice-flying airplane, but you'd better maintain that hydraulic system. The gear won't free-fall into position if the hydraulics rupture. It has to be hand-pumped down, and you need hydraulic integrity for that.
 
RyanShort1 said:
10 knots is no joke if you fly long days professionally. An 8 hour, single fuel-stop day in a C-177RG is easily an 11 hour day with 2-3 fuel stops in a 172. Been there done that, proven the theory.
Click to expand...
Right now, my log book wants hours, fulfilled requirements, and endorsements. It could not care less about miles. But, I can see how a 28R, hauling twice what a 152 will haul, at a 30% faster cruise speed, while burning about the same quantity of fuel over the same distance would appeal. And I can see how an even faster 201 would appeal even more.
 
Arrow's are not bad airplanes. I think the fixed gear PA28s are superior in handling and ownership costs, but I never hated flying an Arrow.

The 172RG on the other hand is one of the few airplanes I've ever flown that I hated. The two we had at Plus One at the time had NO positive attributes over a standard 172 that I could ever find.
 
RyanShort1 said:
10 knots is no joke if you fly long days professionally. An 8 hour, single fuel-stop day in a C-177RG is easily an 11 hour day with 2-3 fuel stops in a 172. Been there done that, proven the theory.
Click to expand...
A 177RG is in a different league though than a 172.

The 177RG is the sweetest flying single engine Cessna I've ever flown.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Nothing wrong with a Mooney, but.....

....Bonanza?
Click to expand...
Mooney owners often compare their airplanes with Bonanzas. Bonanza owners don't seem to compare their airplanes to Mooneys. I owned a V-tail for 17 years, and it was far more comfortable than the Mooney I was in this morning.

Long ago, I was looking to upgrade from my Cessna 172. The late Morrie Dolahan told me, "Just get yerself a Bonanza. That's what you're gonna end up with, anyway." I am forever happy that I took his advice.
 
Fearless Tower said:
A 177RG is in a different league though than a 172.

The 177RG is the sweetest flying single engine Cessna I've ever flown.
Click to expand...
When I looked for a 200hp retract I wanted the fastest. Mooney 201 blew most away especially the Rockwell 112. The 177 RG was not far behind the 201 in speed.
 
bonefishpete said:
When I looked for a 200hp retract I wanted the fastest. Mooney 201 blew most away especially the Rockwell 112. The 177 RG was not far behind the 201 in speed.
Click to expand...
Mooney 201 vs Commander 112? That's not even a remotely fair comparison in terms of speed alone. Of course, it's also not a remotely fair comparison in terms of comfort alone, either.
 
bonefishpete said:
Cost wise speed wise can’t beat a Mooney. Gear is electric / push rods fairly simple. Sorry but a 200hp 201 leaves an Arrow multi counties behind maybe states.
Click to expand...
Depends on the typical flight profile. Headwinds notwithstanding, a Turbo Arrow (obviously a big step up from a NA Arrow) will beat the J if you're willing to take advantage of what the turbo brings to the table. A strong tailwind up high and/or the ability to fly over smaller buildups rather than have to dodge them can mean the Turbo Arrow will outpace the J by a large margin on some days. At the typical 8,000 the J cruises, the Turbo Arrow will tie it or at worst be 5 kts slower.

Similar acquisition costs, similar operating costs, similar maintenance costs between the two. And before you call foul on the turbo, which really is not the maintenance nightmare some make it out to be, remember that every plane has its quirks. I'd rather rebuild a turbo than eat a fuel tank reseal/bladder install.
 
Can't speak to the others, but the Arrow is a very good airplane. It was NOT originally a trainer. That evolved over time, mostly because there were so many of them. During the heyday of GA in the 70's, it was the step up from primary trainers to an entry level XC machine, and it filled that role very well. It and the 182 are IMO the two classics of the genre. Neither is the best at anything, but both do lots of things well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top