|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: N. Phoenix AZ USA
Posts: 28,977
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MauleM5-235
The 172 is a great trainer, but can be surprisingly limited in terms of range, payload, speed and rate of climb as a personal plane. The 182 solves all those problems. Most people who have just gotten their PPL will not "outgrow" a 182s capabilities for many years, if ever.
|
Totally agree and would have gotten a C-182 except for one thing... fuel burn. Love the airplane and what it will do but it burns another 5 or so gallons per hour over a C-172 or my favourite, the Cardinal C-177. The C-182 is the pickup truck with wings on it, and carries just about anything you can get in the cockpit.
If its 2-3 people on trips 3-400 miles long, might look at a Cardinal. Fast, roomy, fuel burn is good and sexy looking. Only issue I can see with them is that they went out of production years ago. They have really large doors that allow you to get in and out easily. Its really a C-210 downsized a bit and cheaper to operate.
Joe A
__________________
2021 Subaru Legacy, 2002 Dodge Ram 2500 Cummins (the workhorse), 1992 Jaguar XJ S-3 V-12 VDP (one of only 100 examples made), 1969 Jaguar XJ (been in the family since new), 1985 911 Targa backdated to 1973 RS specs with a 3.6 shoehorned in the back, 1959 Austin Healey Sprite (former SCCA H-Prod), 1995 BMW R1100RSL, 1971 & '72 BMW R75/5 "Toaster," Ural Tourist w/sidecar, 1949 Aeronca Sedan / QB
|