The Comanche 250 has the largest cabin.
The controls are a bit stiff compared to a Beech.

The Beech in my opinion is easier to land.

I only briefly got some seat time (right seat) in a C182RG.
Definitely a much heavier plane than the C150, and brief C172 time, I was used to.

The C172 i flew was pretty cold. Felt like a C182 with a C150 engine. You definitely couldn't be in a hurry with that one.

The C177 Cardinal is a nice 4-seater. Owner's husband was in a wheelchair, so the pillarless wings allowed for a wider door opening.
Did a couple 4 hour trips in the right seat, between 45R & Oxford/Grenada, MS.

erj_pilot beat me to it. I spent 10 hours in Grumman Cheetah last Sunday ferrying it from Colorado to Sacramento. It was a very tight sweet bird. As previously mentioned a shared plane will help make it less costly.

quote:

Originally posted by Skull Leader:
Ok, my initial ideas behind the retractable gear were to prepare me for a Mooney a couple years down the road.

After taking some advice given here and advice given to me by a pilot uncle I've decided to look for an early model Cessna 182 instead. What I should save in insurance and maintenance should make up for the extra fuel burn. And I do like the idea of the larger cabin. I'm a big guy. 6' and about 265 lbs. And I am currently learning in a 150 so transitioning shouldn't be too difficult.

So a question about 182s. I'm seeing some have an O-470-R engine. Those are certified for 80/87 octane. Any problem with using 100LL in those? Not sure I could find 80/87 octane at many airports.

I'm not sure where big sky country is, but as others mentioned look into a flying club. Here there is a Pompano Beach flying club, they have 6 planes to choose from and they all have great avionics except 1 of them, the rates are very reasonable and no minimum hours if you take it on a trip for a few days, plus $160 a month. A T hanger at Pompano airport is $800 a month....it's a deal......there might be something similar in your area.

We have T hangers here with 8 foot walls then open above that for $75 a month. There is a huge open hanger where you can get space for $50 a month. There is a flying club. I think the buy in is $2500 or $3500 and then monthly dues. They have a 172 available for rent.

Prices sure have gone up. I sold two 172's for 20k each not that many years ago. Tough to beat a 182. Might not do anything great, but does everything well. I have a couple of friends that have them. Good balance of performance/cost. Think a Cherokee 235 where you sit in the shade.
I fly a Super Cub.
It's slow, only 1 passenger, fabric so it needs a hangar. Stays in the air about 3 1/2 hours.Easy to fly, will get you out of most of the trouble it will get you into. It's slow...
OZ

Does anyone fly the Cessna Skymaster anymore? That was the first plane I ever rode in - family friend who worked at Miramar NAS would fly that back to Iowa on visits and take us up. Unique design.

Always found the Skymaster intriguing, but have never seen one in person.

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
The Comanche 250 has the largest cabin.
The controls are a bit stiff compared to a Beech.

The Beech in my opinion is easier to land.

Never flown a Comanche or a Sundowner, but I do have a little time in a Beech Sport. It can be landed well, but it stops flying very abruptly. If you are within a few inches of the ground when it says “%$#@ you, I quit!” you get a nice landing. If you’re a little high, not so much.

The Bonanza and derivatives (Debonair, Travel Air, Baron, C90 King Air for sure and probably Mentor, Queen Air, other King Airs, etc as well) are extremely easy as long as you don’t come in ridiculously over speed.

I guess the other thing to learn about Bonanzas is that while they have beautiful control harmony and are a delight to fly, they have a combination of very strong positive pitch stability and *negative* dynamic roll stability that when combined with the slippery-ness can get you into big if you are not careful. With a Cessna (or other high-wing aircraft, when it it bumped out of level it starts to sideslip a little toward the lowered wing. The air coming sideways runs into the fuselage and raise the wing back up, resulting in positive dynamic roll stability. Not so with a Bonanza.

The exercise to demonstrate negative dynamic roll stability in a Bonanza is as follows:

Memorize maneuvering speed for the aircraft you’re flying at the weight you’re flying it. Choose a target speed at least five knots (or miles depending on your airspeed instrument. Set the airplane up for slow flight, trimmed and power set appropriately. Put your hands in your lap and feet on the floor and wait for the airplane to wind up in a spiral. Sooner or later you’ll get a bump of turbulence that rolls the airplane a little, or if it is dead still air you’ll eventually develop enough of a fuel imbalance to start the roll. Once the airplane starts to roll, the nose will drop and it will start to accelerate. As it accelerates above the trimmed speed, the airplane will pitch “up” trying to regain the trimmed speed. This pitching will only tighten the spiral, causing the nose to drop more (due to less horizontal component of lift), causing the airplane to pitch more trying to get back to trimmed speed, . . . (Can you say graveyard spiral?). When the airplane starts to approach your target speed, (but still below maneuvering speed*), reach up, roll wings level, and let go of the yoke again*. The pitch up from the airplane trying to returned to trimmed speed *will* impress you.

*If the airplane is accelerating faster than you were ready for and is above maneuvering speed when you get the wings level, *DO NOT* let go of the yoke!!! Instead, roll wings level and hold the yoke firmly, slowly easing it back. Immediately chopping the power to idle would also be prudent at this point to avoid adding energy until you have the airplane back under control.

You’ve done all this at or below maneuvering speed, which is by definition the speed at which the airplane will stall before breaking. When you collect yourself, consider what this would have been like had you started the maneuver at normal cruise, already above maneuvering speed, IFR in the clouds, and looked at a chart a little too long only to look up and find the airplane running away from you. It is not hard to understand how folks without enough experience in the airplane caused it to be called the forked-railed doctor killer. Instinct when pointed at the ground, accelerating, may well be to haul back on the yoke, but that is a great way to break the airplane if the speed is high enough.

Don’t get me wrong, Bonanzas are Great airplanes, but you have to fly them and keep them within their limitations. They are very slippery, which makes them efficient and fast, but it also makes them accelerate very quickly if they get away from you. I don’t know if they still do, but at one point the BPPP (Beechcraft Pilot Proficiency Program or B triple P) recommended dropping the landing gear in a partial panel situation. This greatly increases drag, slowing you way down and reducing your range, but it makes the airplane more roll stable and much slower to accelerate if it starts to get away from you.

quote:

Originally posted by Skull Leader:
We have T hangers here with 8 foot walls then open above that for $75 a month. There is a huge open hanger where you can get space for $50 a month. There is a flying club. I think the buy in is $2500 or $3500 and then monthly dues. They have a 172 available for rent.

The flying club is a Fantastic idea! Fly multiple types, see what you like and dislike about them, build experience, then when you get around to buying you’ll be better prepared to make a great choice and have better luck on insurance costs. I’d suggest finishing your license and starting there.

Someone mentioned Big Sky. If this is anywhere near Ennis, a C172 would probably be a good two seat airplane there. A C182 would be more comfortable, both in cabin width and (more importantly) performance.

Soon after getting my license, I asked to get checked out in a 172 at a flying club in Palo Alto. They asked why and I said because I wanted to rent a four seat airplane. Their response was “It has four seats, but you should consider it a three seat airplane.” Since I only wanted to take two passengers, that was fine. Palo Alto is a sea level airport. A 172 can haul four adults, but you’re a lot less likely to be disappointed if you are conservative about what you expect out of an airplane, especially as you are building experience in it.

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:
Always found the Skymaster intriguing, but have never seen one in person.

I’ve seen several, but never flown one. The one oddity that I’ve read about them is that when taking off you should always add power on the rear engine first, then when the airplane is accelerating, add power on the front engine. Apparently there have been multiple takeoff accidents where the pilot advanced both throttles and the front engine responded but the rear didn’t and the mishap pilot failed to detect the problem until it was too late. That is one thing about a conventional twin - if you lose an engine on takeoff roll, you know it.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

I’ve seen several, but never flown one. The one oddity that I’ve read about them is that when taking off you should always add power on the rear engine first, then when the airplane is accelerating, add power on the front engine. Apparently there have been multiple takeoff accidents where the pilot advanced both throttles and the front engine responded but the rear didn’t and the mishap pilot failed to detect the problem until it was too late. That is one thing about a conventional twin - if you lose an engine on takeoff roll, you know it.

This is true. I flew the skymaster (very modified versions) in Iraq and other locations, chasing folk around in the dark, and other stuff.

Skymasters are great flying airplanes.

The corrosion inspections foisted on many Cessna aircraft by Cessna a few years ago put a big hit on the value and cost of ownership.

The Skymaster suffers from the same weakness as the retractable gear single Cessnas (172RG, 182RG, 210, etc). The shuttle valve on the gear system, the hydraulic pump, and the gear doors (most have the doors removed). There are ways to address it if one knows the system.

In hot climates, the rear engine suffers from poor cooling and ventilation; higher climb speeds, and flight at higher altitudes help.

quote:

Originally posted by Skull Leader:


So a question about 182s. I'm seeing some have an O-470-R engine. Those are certified for 80/87 octane. Any problem with using 100LL in those? Not sure I could find 80/87 octane at many airports.

The 0470's are well known for induction icing, and if the idle mixture is not set properly, for fouling spark plugs. 100LL is not low lead as the name might lead one to believe; 100LL is high in tetraethyl lead content, and unless one maintains the idle mixture setting seasonally, it's easy to foul plugs with idle operations, especially with a rich mixture in hot temperatures. Lean aggressively on the ground, lean for density altitude, and run the engine lean. You can't hurt it below 75% power, so far as leaning goes, but you can certainly foul it.

I've flown 182's for years dropping jumpers, as well as running around the country, civil air patrol, etc. The 182 is a truck. It hauls well, flies like a 172, but with better performance, and is an okay instrument platform.

A lot of the straight-tail 182's have been relegated to the jump world, which is typically end-of life for aircraft.

Watch for firewall damage and engine mount damage and corrosion, especially on older 182s. Look also for leaking fuel cells. They're a pain in the ass, and youll see melted duct tape and green stains near the wing root, near the door or the fairing above the door. The duct tape is places over surfaces in the tank bays to keep from wearing against the bladders on bladder airplanes.

The damage to the firewall on the 182's occurs as a result of landing on the nosewheel. The 182, especially when flown with one or two people, is more nose heavy than one might be used to if flying a 172. Bad shimmy dampers and nosewheel shimmy are common on 182's, as well. Corrosion and damage to the engine mount has been common on pre-buys and other inspections I've done.

Look for cracks on the flaps and excess wear on flap tracks from overspeeding the flaps. Not uncommon.

The O470's are best flown with power at bottom of the green, than at idle during descent. Where cylinder changes have been done, it's not that uncommon for the opposite cylinder to require changing not long after. Case cracks aren't uncommon, either. Be skeptical of overhauls, especially top overhauls, and be aware that "overhaul" simply means that the engine, or component, has been inspected, and found to be within limits. You may have a wide range of quality work, and life used/life remaining in an engine advertised as "overhauled."

quote:

Originally posted by JDHunz:
Does anyone fly the Cessna Skymaster anymore? That was the first plane I ever rode in - family friend who worked at Miramar NAS would fly that back to Iowa on visits and take us up. Unique design.

You can get a multi-engine rating in a Skymaster, but it would come with the limitation, "Center Line Thrust Rating", or something to that effect, and you would not be rated to fly "conventional" multi-engine aircraft. To remove that limitation/restriction, you would have to do another checkride in a "conventional" multi-engine aircraft that is susceptible to and has a certificated Vmc.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by JDHunz:
Does anyone fly the Cessna Skymaster anymore? That was the first plane I ever rode in - family friend who worked at Miramar NAS would fly that back to Iowa on visits and take us up. Unique design.

You can get a multi-engine rating in a Skymaster, but it would come with the limitation, "Center Line Thrust Rating", or something to that effect, and you would not be rated to fly "conventional" multi-engine aircraft. To remove that limitation/restriction, you would have to do another checkride in a "conventional" multi-engine aircraft that is susceptible to and has a certificated Vmc.

So, would a multi rating in a conventional twin allow you to fly a center thrust twin without additional endorsement?

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

You can get a multi-engine rating in a Skymaster, but it would come with the limitation, "Center Line Thrust Rating"

One of our SIGforum members has a multi rating limited to Center Line Thrust; he did the check ride in a turbine powered (jet) airplane, I forget what airplane it was, but maybe he'll check in to this thread and tell us about it.

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:

So, would a multi rating in a conventional twin allow you to fly a center thrust twin without additional endorsement?

Yes. There would not be a limitation stated on the pilot certificate. And, you would not be limited to two engines just because the check ride was in a twin, "multi" means more than one, so the multiengine rating would cover you in an airplane with a whole bunch of engines.

Think about the days of yore, when automatic transmissions were just coming into common usage. Way back then, in some states, if you took your Driver License test in a vehicle with an automatic transmission, you were limited to that type, but if you took the test with a standard (manual) transmission, you were legal in automatics, as well.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Think about the days of yore, when automatic transmissions were just coming into common usage. Way back then, in some states, if you took your Driver License test in a vehicle with an automatic transmission, you were limited to that type, but if you took the test with a standard (manual) transmission, you were legal in automatics, as well.

Same philosophy in Texas when the LTC first came out. If you qualified with a revolver, you could only conceal-carry a revolver. But if you qualified with a semi-auto, you could conceal-carry both a revolver and a semi-auto. That restriction has since been removed...

quote:

Originally posted by VictimNoMore:
I’m also looking/planning the first aircraft.
Piper Tri-Pacer has been mentioned, and is currently at the top of my list based on my income, aircraft price, parts, insurance, etc.
They seem to be a solid choice.

A tripacer is easy to fly and maintain, but it is still a tube and fabric aircraft. Maintenance and upkeep requires a certain set of skills that MOST A&P's do not possess these days. In all aircraft we warn people to budget for engine and prop overhauls. For a tripacer, one must also budget for fabric replacement. Every second that it lives outside figure you're losing 10 seconds of life off the fabric. Budget for a hangar.

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:

A tripacer is easy to fly and maintain, but it is still a tube and fabric aircraft. Maintenance and upkeep requires a certain set of skills that MOST A&P's do not possess these days. In all aircraft we warn people to budget for engine and prop overhauls. For a tripacer, one must also budget for fabric replacement. Every second that it lives outside figure you're losing 10 seconds of life off the fabric. Budget for a hangar.

Thanks for the advice.
New hangars are being built, and current occupants will move up to them. Leaving a bunch of older, smaller T hangars available.
If I acquire a Tri-Pacer, I agree that a hangar is a must. My CFI is also an A&P, very talented.

The other nice thing about high winged aircraft is that you can always take a lawn chair and sit in the shade

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
The other nice thing about high winged aircraft is that you can always take a lawn chair and sit in the shade

Or throw a tarp over and have an instant tent.

For off-airport or sea ops nothing beats a high-wing.