Next club purchase...

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
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.

What plane are you trying to compare the 182 to?

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?

"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.

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 Barker" wrote in message
...
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?

It sounds like your primary focus is training. That being said, what you
really need is a complex aircraft because presently you don't have one that
people can get their commercial rating. HP is irelevant towards the complex
rating as it's not needed. The HP endorsement really doesn't do anything
for you from a training perspective. A HP endorsement can generally be
obtained with a couple of hours of instruction, so buying a HP aircraft
solely for the intention of allowing people to pick up the endorsement
doesn't make a lot of sense.

I would highly caution against getting a turbo in a club environment. The
only way I would ever own a turbo is if I owned the plane exclusively or had
one or two partners that I was VERY confident in their engine management
abilities. Throwing a turbo aircraft into a big mix of 172 and DA40 pilots
is asking for trouble and big maintenance bills.

A Cardinal RG might be your best bet, although it's not going to do 150kts
it will come close. They make very good club planes. The same goes for an
Arrow II, although it would be a few kts slower still. A Bonanza might not
be a bad bet if you can find the right one. A 182RG would be quite nice as
a club plane and fits most of your requirements. It would also be a fairly
easy transition to those pilots familiar with the 172SP. I'm not sure if
you can put the Pponk conversion in a 182RG, but that might be a great
option if you can find a 182RG with a run out engine and then do the
conversion. I do know a straight leg Pponk 182 will get you over all but
the tallest mountains and is the next best thing to having a turbo.

"Robert Barker" wrote in message
...
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...

182RG or turbo 182RG.

f-newguy wrote:
"Robert Barker" wrote in message
...
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...

182RG or turbo 182RG.



Insurance rates are plummeting. I am starting the fourth year of
ownership on my Bonanza. I've got a little over 300 hours in the Bo and
those are my only retract hours. The first years premium was $2800.
This year it's $1500. I did lower the hull value from $90K to $80K,
which was a $100 savings. An instrument rating makes so little
difference it isn't worth going to get one if you don't need/want one.

It could be your insurance rates are "plummeting" because of your increased
experience level in the Bo.
BT

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
f-newguy wrote:
"Robert Barker" wrote in message
...
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...

182RG or turbo 182RG.

Insurance rates are plummeting. I am starting the fourth year of
ownership on my Bonanza. I've got a little over 300 hours in the Bo and
those are my only retract hours. The first years premium was $2800. This
year it's $1500. I did lower the hull value from $90K to $80K, which was
a $100 savings. An instrument rating makes so little difference it isn't
worth going to get one if you don't need/want one.

"BT" wrote in message
...
It could be your insurance rates are "plummeting" because of your
increased experience level in the Bo.
BT

Another thing is that personal insurance is one thing, but club insurance is
quite another. For 5 or less members, most insurance companies will just
charge you the rate for the highest cost person (least experience). For 6
or more members (which can be assumed for a club that already has 3
aircraft), insurance rates climb significantly. Lots of clubs do have
Bonanzas, so it's certainly not cost prohibitive in all cases.



"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
f-newguy wrote:
"Robert Barker" wrote in message
...
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...

182RG or turbo 182RG.

Insurance rates are plummeting. I am starting the fourth year of
ownership on my Bonanza. I've got a little over 300 hours in the Bo and
those are my only retract hours. The first years premium was $2800. This
year it's $1500. I did lower the hull value from $90K to $80K, which was
a $100 savings. An instrument rating makes so little difference it isn't
worth going to get one if you don't need/want one.

On Aug 25, 7:02*pm, "Mike" wrote:

Another thing is that personal insurance is one thing, but club insurance is
quite another. *For 5 or less members, most insurance companies will just
charge you the rate for the highest cost person (least experience). *For 6
or more members (which can be assumed for a club that already has 3
aircraft), insurance rates climb significantly. *Lots of clubs do have
Bonanzas, so it's certainly not cost prohibitive in all cases.

I do check outs for a club with an older Bonanza. They charge $210 an
hour. That's not bad for a high performance, complex airplane and
probably less than what most of us owners are paying to keep our birds
in the air.

-Robert