Next club purchase...

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:11:26 -0700 (PDT), Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Aug 22, 8:55*pm, John Smith wrote:

Cessna 182.
Not 150 kts, but fast enough.
The ability to haul a load is more important than speed.
Four full adults plus luggage.

I do a lot of instruction in the C-182 but I cant say I'm a big fan of
the airplane. Cessna was just lazy and bolted a high performance
engine on their training plane. Its dog slow, sucks gas like no
tomorrow and flys like a box. I think the 172 is a fine airplane but
they really needed to go back to the drawing board when it was time
for the 182. Its a bit like putting a high performane engine in a Yugo
and calling that your high performance offering.

-Robert

Robert, with only an engine change, was it the weight that turned the
182 into a woofer?

Thanks to everyone for replying. Some really good points here. I kind of
smile at the 152 suggestion... We have days here in the summer that a 152
can't get off the ground unless it's really light on fuel and the
passgengers are built like twiggy!


"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
On Aug 22, 10:36 pm, "Robert Barker" wrote:
Our club currently flies a 172R and 172SP as trainers and a Diamond DA40
as
our 3rd plane. We've put tons of students thru our 172s and are finally
getting some good usage on our Diamond. We've started "long distance"
planning on our next planes. We'd like to get a good low wing trainer like
an Archer and we'd like to get a high performance plane to get complex
ratings. For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can
do 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540
stack and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance
wouldn't kill us... As we're near the mountains, turbo would be nice but
would incur some other problems with training, etc. That said, we were
leaning towards a Turbo Arrow III... Any suggestions?

Sounds like you need my club's fleet.

4 152 (for primary training)
2 172 SP
2 Warrior
2 Mooney M20J

The Mooney works pretty well in the club environment, no turbo,
simple, low maint landing gear. Just emphasize speed control on
landings during checkouts. It does 150 kts and has all you need for
the complex training.

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:11:26 -0700 (PDT), Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Aug 22, 8:55 pm, John Smith wrote:

Cessna 182.
Not 150 kts, but fast enough.
The ability to haul a load is more important than speed.
Four full adults plus luggage.

I do a lot of instruction in the C-182 but I cant say I'm a big fan of
the airplane. Cessna was just lazy and bolted a high performance
engine on their training plane. Its dog slow, sucks gas like no
tomorrow and flys like a box. I think the 172 is a fine airplane but
they really needed to go back to the drawing board when it was time
for the 182. Its a bit like putting a high performane engine in a Yugo
and calling that your high performance offering.

-Robert

Robert, with only an engine change, was it the weight that turned the
182 into a woofer?

It's more than an engine change. The first 182s had a smaller cabin, but
the rest of them have considerably more room than the 172 with a wider and
longer cabin. The wing is essentially the same, but everything else is
different.

The 182 is far more versatile than the 172. You can pull the power back on
a 182 and get 172 fuel burns at the same speeds, but you can carry more,
farther, higher, with more room and a better climb rate. If you want to go
faster, you have that option.

heh, I blew past the fact that we're flatlanders and you're mountain
folk. However, the Mooney is still a good suggestion for a club
plane, and a Warrior is an excellent low-wing trainer (though at your
altitude, like you said you may need to get an archer and treat it
like a warrior for loading purposes)

On Aug 28, 10:56*pm, "Robert Barker" wrote:
Thanks to everyone for replying. *Some really good points here. *I kind of
smile at the 152 suggestion... *We have days here in the summer that a 152
can't get off the ground unless it's really light on fuel and the
passgengers are built like twiggy!

"xyzzy" wrote in message

...
On Aug 22, 10:36 pm, "Robert Barker" wrote:

Our club currently flies a 172R and 172SP as trainers and a Diamond DA40
as
our 3rd plane. We've put tons of students thru our 172s and are finally
getting some good usage on our Diamond. We've started "long distance"
planning on our next planes. We'd like to get a good low wing trainer like
an Archer and we'd like to get a high performance plane to get complex
ratings. For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can
do 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540
stack and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance
wouldn't kill us... As we're near the mountains, turbo would be nice but
would incur some other problems with training, etc. That said, we were
leaning towards a Turbo Arrow III... Any suggestions?

Sounds like you need my club's fleet.

4 152 (for primary training)
2 172 SP
2 Warrior
2 Mooney M20J

The Mooney works pretty well in the club environment, no turbo,
simple, low maint landing gear. *Just emphasize speed control on
landings during checkouts. *It does 150 kts and has all you need for
the complex training.

On Aug 29, 6:08*am, "Mike" wrote:

The 182 is far more versatile than the 172. *You can pull the power back on
a 182 and get 172 fuel burns at the same speeds, but you can carry more,
farther, higher, with more room and a better climb rate. *If you want to go
faster, you have that option

Wait, how do you make a 182 go fast? I teach in both round dial and
glass 182's and I've never seen one go fast. You put the same HP in
any other plane and you get good speed; but put it on the 182 and its
slow. Hence the saying "A 182 burns a lot of gas to go slow".

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Aug 29, 6:08 am, "Mike" wrote:

The 182 is far more versatile than the 172. You can pull the power back
on
a 182 and get 172 fuel burns at the same speeds, but you can carry more,
farther, higher, with more room and a better climb rate. If you want to
go
faster, you have that option

Wait, how do you make a 182 go fast? I teach in both round dial and
glass 182's and I've never seen one go fast. You put the same HP in
any other plane and you get good speed; but put it on the 182 and its
slow. Hence the saying "A 182 burns a lot of gas to go slow".

I was specifically comparing a 182 to a 172, which I understood to be your
comparison also. As such, the 182 is head and shoulders above.

So what are you comparing the 182 with to say it's slow? Your Mooney? Your
Mooney was designed to be efficient, with few other considerations given any
serious priority. The 182 was designed to be roomy, comfortable, stable,
and safe. It's basically an old man's aircraft, and as such it's been very
popular as it's still sold today virtually unchanged, while the Mooney has
morphed into something different and still can't come close to outselling
the Skylane. They are two different aircraft designed for different
objectives. It's not really fair to compare the two.

Furthermore the R182 will cruise about the same speed as your Mooney which
is not slower in my book. The Mooney might do it on less fuel, but there's
a lot of tradeoffs for that efficiency. Even at that you're only talking
about 1-2 gph better, which equates to less than $10 per hour less even at
$5 avgas. I'd rather pay the $10 and spend that hour in a 182.