Any Pilots On Here??

[PILOON]

In all fairness... the dr. killer monicker isn't all that fair, in that, dr's, lawyers, business professionals, were the ones most likely able to afford such a plane back then.

But its sister, the Debonair (straight tail vs V tail) was more conventional and safer, just a tad slower.

 

[PILOON]

Now if you want to go into 'tricky a/c' look at the Mooney MU2, no ailerons and weird wing angles, (down swept).
Also some Lear jets have limitations due to loss of control at altitudes.

However there are many time tested 'old faithfulls' out there that U can rely on.
C172 being at the head of the list along with its decedent's, Many Pipers, and onto some twins like DC3's etc.

If float flying is your thing, the C180's, Piper PA18, Beaver and Otter lead the pact.

OK, there are others but I note the most popular.

Note that the 'hotter the plane' the more hours you need and the more 'by the book' flyer you need to be.
And the closer the maintenance need to be adhered to. I.E.: Sloppy controls might be tolerated on a 100 MPH piper or Cessna but that could kill you on a Piper Navajo or Mooney.

I had a FBO + avionics facility + was Cessna dealer and saw a lot.
I often cringed. Recall one potential client that wanted avionics upgrade on his nice pretty C172 (new paint)!
Well his wing roots were so corroded that I would not fly with him plus his controls cables actually flopped in the wings as the pulleys were so worn out. The cables also left a lot to desire. Lost that sale! LOL.

The more sophisticated and faster the higher the maintaince the costs will be.
The AWD's will get you.

 

[flyerdan]

The Mitsubishi did have a pretty bad safety record, with the flat wing having no dihedral to augment stability, and the relatively short wing giving it a loading that if you got behind the curve it was difficult, if not impossible to recover.
If I recall, the Bonanza got it's Doctor killer rep because it was the only high performance retractable to graduate to, other than the Commanche 260 and Beech did a better job marketing them. They do clean up nice and it's easy for low time transitioners to get behind them.
Speaking of controls, I think I read somewhere that the V35 tail was so sensitive that even uneven weight from paint would induce flutter near Vne that resulted in structural failure in at least one case. I read a lot of Aftermath and the ILAFFT columns.

 

[TimberHole]

Speaking of controls, I think I read somewhere that the V35 tail was so sensitive that even uneven weight from paint would induce flutter near Vne that resulted in structural failure in at least one case. I read a lot of Aftermath and the ILAFFT columns.

What you describe is common on most airplanes. Surfaces must be balanced after painting using the correct procedure and weights. Even the RV I'm building requires the elevators be balanced. An out of balance condition can contribute to flutter. Exceeding VNE makes one a test pilot, regardless of the airplane he is flying.

While a Bonanza is extremely easy to fly it is not tolerant of loss of control. Speed builds very quickly, especially if the power isn't pulled. During recovery, the airplane has far exceeded its trim speed and as a result the nose wants to come up on its own. If a ham handed pilot pulls hard at this point in the recovery he can certainly over stress the tail. All this has little to do with the airframe and everything to do with the pilot. While easy to fly, they don't call them high performance airplanes for nothing.

 

[Old Red]

This is all very interesting information.....and as I read more and more it appears the ultimate plan for me for utility and safety will eventually be the C 182. I had really liked the SR20 and SR22, but the more I read about the C182 the more I like it....plus the transition from the C150 or C172 I train in should be reasonable to continue learning and get my IFR. I have spoken to two physicians this week after I started liking the 182 and just so happens both have the C182. One of them has a turbo with RG but his reasons for this plane was that it is easy to fly and safe. I am not sure how big a deal this is but it appears the aircraft can get up to 160Kts and climb amazing well up in higher altitude to possibly get you out of some sort of trouble and then the stall speed is only 1 knot faster than a c172. Cool....if that makes a difference. I didn't get a chance to ask the Dr. how much he flies the C182T RG way on up where he needs his onboard oxygen. How practical is that? Other than some efficiency and speed why would you want to do that and wear the oxygen masks. Is that common to fly up there or would it just to be to get out of some weather or something?

 

[ray66v]

Surfaces must be balanced after painting using the correct procedure and weights.

That's what everyone seems to believe. But, I'm not so sure.

I recently painted a left horizontal stabilizer for a 172, after it was re-skinned. The company who did it, (one of the largest companies around), said what I have always believed, to the owner as he picked it up, if it's in balance before you paint it, painting it is not going to change that.

He checked it anyway, nothing had changed.

I have painted a few aircraft, and lots of parts over several decades, and never had any issues.

Now, if you are going to start putting filler in them, (which even though you are not supposed to do, is often done), or, putting patches in them, that's of course, a different story.

I can't see even an amateur painter applying paint unevenly enough to add a noticeable amount of weight to one side.

 

[plowhog]

Other than some efficiency and speed why would you want to do that and wear the oxygen masks. Is that common to fly up there or would it just to be to get out of some weather or something?

I have 1,100 pilot in command hours flying a Cessna 182RG. As a new pilot you will probably first transition to a fixed gear 182 but not necessarily so. The two are similar except for faster cruise speed with the retractable gear. In my opinion you are making a very wise choice looking at the Cessna 182. Out of five airplanes I owned, it was hands-down the best combination of good performance at a reasonable to low cost.

The 182 flies well and is very efficient in the 5,000 - 7,000 ft altitude range. Sure, they go higher, which you can do if needed. But, your passengers will be more comfortable below 8,000 ft. At this altitude the air is a little thinner but still plenty of oxygen for the engine so you have good manifold pressure to make power.

I always carried a SkyOx portable oxygen bottle as an emergency backup, but never used it even a single time. I could easily fly over the Sierra Nevada mountains, staying below 12,500 ft, and not need to use oxygen. I think the 182 is certified to fly up as high as about 16,000 ft. I climbed mine to 14,000 feet just for fun once to see what it could do and it took a very, very long time to climb that high. The higher you go, the less climb performance you have. Regarding use of oxygen, my insurance person once said: "its hard to put an oxygen mask on a beagle."

I also considered the T182RG. It's a manual turbocharger (no automatic waste gate) but that's an easy thing to manage. It's a much more expensive plane to purchase though.

 

[Old Red]

I have 1,100 pilot in command hours flying a Cessna 182RG. As a new pilot you will probably first transition to a fixed gear 182 but not necessarily so.

When you say "if needed" to go on up higher...why would I need to? What about flying that high (not that I want to at all....just curious) be less comfortable for pax?

Everything I read confirms the 182 with the 88 galling tanks is a good transition. And you are right...the turbo newer models are very expensive. I am not seeing a lot of difference in price between a used SR22 and a used 182. I just learned about flight radar today. Blows me away you can see that stuff. Lots of SR22s and C172s up there with the 1000s of jets.

Anyway, I am just super anxious to get up....but the darn weather....a buddy and I might go up today....but I am ready to start training.

What about those 2 or 3 week schools? Are they legit? Waiting on a CFI who has a full time job, wife and kids and other students will most likely be a contributing factor to this taking a long....what if after a little while I make the leap to a 2 weeks school?

 

[TimberHole]

Personally I'd give the local program a fair chance before I looked at accelerated options. You've got way more to learn than you'll be able to absorb in 2 weeks.

As for going up high, the reason you'd go up there is because of the turbocharger. These planes are the fastest at the highest altitude you can make cruise power. For a normally aspirated engine that's around 7,000 but the turbo lets you go higher and still make power. I think in time you'll decide the turbo is too complicated, too expensive and generally not necessary for the type of flying most of us do. Plus they run red hot. Think about that as you drill along at 15,000!

 

[plowhog]

The reasons to cruise at between 5,000 and 7,000 feet are many. The air gets thinner with altitude, which means less drag, which means your plane goes faster burning the same amount of fuel. But, as you keep increasing altitude, the air gets so thin that your engine can no longer make full power and it keeps declining in power as you climb higher. So, the "sweet spot" for performance (speed vs fuel burn) is about 5-7,000 feet.

Your passengers will start to get a bit sketchy as you climb higher, say to 8,000 ft or so. Pilots are used to changing altitudes, passengers not so much.

You might also find local weather causing you to select altitude. If you have puffy cumulus clouds, flying below the bases will be very bumpy and not comfortable. Around here those bases are often at 3,500-4,500 ft. Get above them at 7,000 ft and it is smooth sailing.

The biggest reason for new pilot dropout/washout is interruptions to the schedule. Either you get busy, or your instructor lands a job with the airline and disappears on you, or whatever. I did traditional pilot training and schedule for my private certificate. 6 weeks and 35 flight hours later I had my pilot license. (Yes, 35 hours.) I did the accelerated course for my instrument training. Total immersion for about 10 days. If you devote yourself as a good student you can do well with either of these routes.

Another fun little airplane that is not as capable but might be interesting to look at is the Cessna Hawk XP. It is a 172 with a six cylinder engine, making 180hp (factory) that can be upgraded to 210hp using an Isham conversion. 210 ponies in a 172 delivers pretty good performance, although it is the smaller cabin with less comfort than a 182. I owned one of those for a while. They are vintage 1977/1978. I think the 1977 models were 12V and the 1978 and up were 24V.