Experience transitioning from C-172 to complex aircraft as potential first owned aircraft?

Looking for any feedback from folks that had mostly C-172 time (zero complex
and/or RG time) then transitioned to a complex airplane when you went to
buy. What did you transition to? Was it a good decision/positive
experience? What type of insurance requirements did you face in terms of
dual time, RG experience, etc.? Were you instrument rated at the time of
transitioning to the complex aircraft?

Just looking for feedback from folks who may have been down this path. When
I move down the path toward ownership, the performance of a complex aircraft
suit my flying requirements better so I'm poking around a bit to get an idea
of costs, issues, insurance requirements, etc. Looking forward to someday
leaving my first "I bought an airplane" post :-)

TIA!

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

It totally depends on the individual and your flying skills and your
instructor's experience and ability to convey the essential information
about the aircraft you are transitioning to.
I transitioned from a C172 to a C182 without difficulty as soon as I
met my club's minimum flight hours experience.
Last month, two members of my club damaged both the club's C182's.
They are partners in owning one of them. Both were damaged in cross
wind landings. Neither incident was reported to the FAA nor NTSB,
despite causing sufficient damage to both aircraft to be a reportable
incident.
Insurance did not cover the partner flying the aircraft they owned (I
was told the reason but cannot remember), but the partner flying the
rental aircraft was covered.

Jack Allison ) wrote:

Looking for any feedback from folks that had mostly C-172 time (zero
complex and/or RG time) then transitioned to a complex airplane when
you went to buy. What did you transition to?

This past March I transitioned from a C172 to a turbonormalized Bonanza
V35B. In order to do so, I rented and installed a dual yoke, then flew
with a qualified instructor. I logged somewhere around 20 hours with the
instructor before he endorsed me for the high-performance, complex
aircraft.

As a former Cape Air pilot (Northeast US commuter air carrier serving the
Cape Cod region), the instructor who endorsed me is a strong advocate of
the flow process. IOW, each phase of flight (takeoff, climbout, level off,
etc.), requires a cockpit flow. While I used a flow process in the 172, it
was nowhere near as complete nor important as what I now use.

In addition to learning a more complete flow, I also created my own
checklists using the POH as a reference, re-arranging items to follow a
logical flow, where possible. These checklists are much more
comprehensive, yet adhere to the flow that my instructor encouraged.

When I created these new checklists I also took the opportunity to
completely rebuild my cockpit resource management. Prior to flying this
aircraft I used to stuff all of my charts and checklists into the ASA
three-flapped kneeboard. It was never as organized as I wanted. Now, I fly
with a kneeboard-sized three-ringed binder containing dividers for
checklists and appropriate charts. I now carry more information in a much
more organized manner.

Was it a good decision/positive experience?

Very much so. Upon reaching about 50 hours in this aircraft, I began to
feel more comfortable with the workload and now enjoy the greater utility
of the aircraft. IMO, learning something new every year, be it a new
aircraft or a new rating, is important to retaining proficiency and
interest in aviation.

What type of insurance requirements did you face in terms of dual time,
RG experience, etc.?

The 20 hours of dual I received was sufficient for the insurance company.
However, to receive the coverage limits I really want while maintaining an
affordable premium requires somewhere around 200 hours in this aircraft. I
do a lot of flying for Angel Flight so I hope to hit this goal later this
year.

In the fall I also plan on attending a recognized proficiency course,
called the Beechcraft Pilot Proficiency Program recurring training course,
which the insurance company will reward with a premium discount.

Were you instrument rated at the time of transitioning to the complex
aircraft?

Yes.

Do you have a particular complex aircraft in mind? If so, which one?

--
Peter














----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Do you have a particular complex aircraft in mind? If so, which one?

Not especially. I'll probably get my complex endorsement in a 182RG that my
FBO will soon put on the line but that doesn't necessarily translate to me
leaning in the Cessna direction. I have plenty of time and if the
opportunity presents itself, I'd like to get some time in other aircraft.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

In article ,
Jack Allison wrote:
Looking for any feedback from folks that had mostly C-172 time (zero complex
and/or RG time) then transitioned to a complex airplane when you went to
buy. What did you transition to?

I did all of my primary training in C-172s and had mostly C-172 time when
I bought my Piper Comanche (PA-24-260).

Was it a good decision/positive experience?

I wanted a plane to travel with and I'm very happy with it. At first I
was a little uncomfortable because I knew it could bite me harder than
a C-172 -- and if it did it would probably cost me a lot of money! It
didn't take long for me to have more time in that specific plane than any
other specific plane, and then more time in Comanches than C-172s, and
then more time in my Comanche than all other planes.

What type of insurance requirements did you face in terms of
dual time, RG experience, etc.? Were you instrument rated at the time of
transitioning to the complex aircraft?

I wasn't instrument rated, and the insurance company wanted 20 hours of
dual (including 10 instrument) before I solod. At the time I had a handful
(maybe 5) complex and HP.

Since then I finished my instrument rating, did a phase of wings, passed
100 retract/high performance and 100 make and model. I'm hoping this will
add up to a lower premium!

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

On 9-Jun-2004, "Jack Allison" wrote:

Looking for any feedback from folks that had mostly C-172 time (zero
complex and/or RG time) then transitioned to a complex airplane when you
went to
buy. What did you transition to? Was it a good decision/positive
experience? What type of insurance requirements did you face in terms of
dual time, RG experience, etc.? Were you instrument rated at the time of
transitioning to the complex aircraft?

Just looking for feedback from folks who may have been down this path.
When
I move down the path toward ownership, the performance of a complex
aircraft suit my flying requirements better so I'm poking around a bit to
get an
idea of costs, issues, insurance requirements, etc. Looking forward to
someday
leaving my first "I bought an airplane" post :-)

TIA!

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student


While I had a few dozen hours in a C-182 many years ago, all of my recent
flying had been in a C-172 when my partners and I bought our Arrow IV about
8 years ago. At the time, I had zero hrs RG time but well over 1000 TT and
an IR. My partners both had plenty of RG time and IRs (although one had
considerably less TT). Our insurance company required that I get 10 hrs of
dual in the new plane. Insurance costs were reasonable right from the
start. It is my understanding that all named pilots having IR is a big
factor in insurance premiums for complex and/or high performance airplanes.

I have had no problems with the transition. In terms of performance and
economy gain, you get a lot from RG with a relatively modest increase in
airplane complexity.

-Elliott Drucker
--
-Elliott Drucker

"Jack Allison" wrote in message
...
Looking for any feedback from folks that had mostly C-172 time (zero
complex
and/or RG time) then transitioned to a complex airplane when you went to
buy. What did you transition to? Was it a good decision/positive
experience? What type of insurance requirements did you face in terms of
dual time, RG experience, etc.? Were you instrument rated at the time of
transitioning to the complex aircraft?


I bought a Cessna 172RG in 1997 shortly after getting my license. The
transition was extremely simple. The insurance company wanted 20 hours of
dual instruction in complex airplanes. I did not have an instrument rating.

The 172RG was my first airplane. I had numerous maintenance problems with
it, especially with the gear, until I finally replaced the entire hydraulic
pack. After that I had no more trouble with the gear. Still, I would not
recommend getting a complex aircraft for personal use. I am much happier
with my 206. It is faster, carries a bigger load, and I never have to worry
about forgetting to put the feet down.

"Jack Allison" wrote in message
...


Looking for any feedback from folks that had mostly C-172 time (zero
complex

and/or RG time) then transitioned to a complex airplane when you went to
Think carefully about your mission and why you want to own an airplane.

If the airplane will be a step toward additional larger complex airplanes,
then an entry-level retractable such as a C172RG might make sense.

But as a means for practical travel on its own, I think there is a
reasonable argument that a C182 has performance advantages over a C172RG in
terms of payload and endurance. So think about whether and airplane you
buy is intended for training for for practical travel and if it is meant for
travel, then think about the relative merits of speed vs. payload vs. range.

I was looking to build experience in retractables when I transitioned from
my flying club wich had a C172/182/Archer/Warrier. I decided on an older
Mooney M20C which cost no more than a C172 but let me build complex airplane
time. A 1960s vintage Mooney M20C still remains an excellent value for
this purpose.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Think carefully about your mission and why you want to own an airplane.

Couldn't agree more Richard and have been doing just that. I want to take
the time to research what fits with my long term flying goals. If that
means I rent for a few more years, so be it.

I decided on an older
Mooney M20C which cost no more than a C172 but let me build complex
airplane
time. A 1960s vintage Mooney M20C still remains an excellent value for
this purpose.

Interesting. I've only started to look at costs for complex Cessna
hardware, mainly because that's what I'm most familiar with. I definitely
want to consider options such as this, especially if cost can be in the
C-172 range.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

"Jack Allison" wrote in message
...

Interesting. I've only started to look at costs for complex Cessna
hardware, mainly because that's what I'm most familiar with. I definitely
want to consider options such as this, especially if cost can be in the
C-172 range.



The acquisition cost for a 60s vintage M20C is indeed comparable to many
172s.

However, the operating cost will be higher because there is more maintenance
on a retractable airplane and because parts are not as common as for a C172.

Nonetheless, the older Mooneys are among the least expensive ways to step up
to a retractable.

Some people say Mooneys have too small a cabin -- that is true if you are
more than about 6 feet tall, but cabin width is negligibly smaller than
other complex singles.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com