Best GA airplane?

motoadve

motoadve

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
348
Display Name
Display name:
motoadve
Depends on the mission, but 182s can do it all.
 
Mine.

Others will argue that it's theirs. And I'll agree that they believe that.

Of course my dog is the best dog, my job is the best job, my car is the best car... shall I go on?

Almost forgot, my posts are the best posts.
 
Ravioli said:
Mine.

Others will argue that it's theirs. And I'll agree that they believe that.

Of course my dog is the best dog, my job is the best job, my car is the best car... shall I go on?

Almost forgot, my posts are the best posts.
Click to expand...

Ha... Actually I always think the other planes on the ramp are the best plane, because I don't see their maintenance bills, but I see mine.
 
I like to think “what can’t I do if I buy a plane to replace my 182”. That’ll likely keep me from buying a next plane.

I sometimes think something faster would be nice. Or maybe something cheaper to operate and maintain.
 
On a transatlantic flight I sat behind a FAA test pilot and we had a long discussion and he rated the C-210 as number one all around. Yes, I have had a 1964 model (with wing struts) for 40 years and can't imagine exchanging it except that Cessna's insane parts prices might force me to.
 
motoadve said:
Depends on the mission, but 182s can do it all.
Click to expand...
What exactly is the point of this post? The title is a question. But the body of the post contains the answer.

If you're really asking a question, maybe provide some information. What type of flying, distances, how many people, etc.

Or is this just another link to a "look at me" video?
 
No plane can do it all, unless you can name me a <16gph 160+kt, short field, transoceanic, amphibious aircraft.
 
Bonan....

Oh someone already said it.

So no need to watch the video now?
 
All airplanes start out high on the suckage scale: cost to buy, cost to operate, cost to maintain, cost to insure, yada, yada, yada.
Your job, OP, is to find the the airplane that reduces the suckage scale to a realistic level for your particular interests, lifestyle, pocketbook and ego.
We love to use the term "mission", but I will bet cash money that interests, lifestyle, pocketbook and ego, probably weigh in as more important than the "mission".
If they didn't we would all be flying double baggers, because they are as ugly as they are cheap and functional. But we don't because we wouldn't be caught dead in one.
 
PC12, but I can't afford it so whatever.
 
182s are celebrated on these forums. I don’t see the draw. It can “do it all” but slower and for more money than alternative options. It’s the all season tire of airplanes- mediocre at everything.
 
Still waiting for a 6 seat experimental Low wing! That will be the best one for me!
 
Mine is the best looking one on the ramp, no doubt about it. But it stops there. Once in action, she's a lazy climber and slow cruiser, plus something popping up with the engine every six or so months lol.
 
Paul V said:
182s are celebrated on these forums. I don’t see the draw. It can “do it all” but slower and for more money than alternative options. It’s the all season tire of airplanes- mediocre at everything.
Click to expand...
Useful if the "mission" changes or multiple people own it.

Easier to find co-owners in something that'll scratch everyone's particular itch a little than something that doesn't scratch their itch at all.

Which actually covers quite a few of the larger light singles really. Not just the 182.

It's why Microsoft Windows is popular too. It's garbage as a single function OS. So is OSX.

As well as familiarity. If you trained in a spamcan you probably feel most comfortable in a bigger spamcan.

It won't scratch all the itches of someone looking for a Decathlon or Extra. That's for sure. Well... Technically it'd do it for a few minutes until they ripped the wings off. Ha.

One owner wants to take the kiddo in a baby seat. Another just wants to do laps around the pattern. Another wants to go places slightly faster than the cars on the interstate below. Another wants to fly in fairly hard IMC as long as ice isn't forecast and even then they might survive a brief enounter in it. Another wants to go putter around the mountains on calm wind days before it gets too hot. Etc.

It'll do all of that and haul a decent payload with the back seats out.

There's lots of airplanes that do many of those better but they give up something in the rest of the list. Therefore it's a decent rental or club or multi owner aircraft.

Generics that fly like what people trained in, generally sell. Both Cessna and Piper knew that.

Heck Cirrus even knows it. Get someone started in the cheapest one, they'll want the next step up, as long as it flies similarly and feels similar to their first "love".

Then they specialized. If you decided you wanted payload they sent you on to the 206. If you decided you wanted to go faster, here's a 210.

And then similar in the twin lineup.

The oddballs that strayed from the progression gained cult followings... Cardinal, 337, T303, etc. But never sold as well. Even the 182RG was kinda off the beaten path.

Even the silly Caravan is just a continuation of the do anything theme when you really get down to it. It's outclassed by a bunch of things it gets used for. But it can do multiple things.
 
Paul V said:
182s are celebrated on these forums. I don’t see the draw. It can “do it all” but slower and for more money than alternative options. It’s the all season tire of airplanes- mediocre at everything.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't see where they're that much better than the Dakotas/Pathfinders to pay more than double for the 182 vs the Piper.
 
Last edited:
Well you're going to get a million answers but on production numbers the C-172(and 182) is it. Still in production, still high demand.
 
motoadve said:
but 182s can do it all
Click to expand...
..any plane, if flown competently, can "do it all" .. depending on how you define "all"
I love your videos and you have a nice rig that does its mission well. But for 90% (or more?) pilots that mission really doesn't fit their need. It's like if we all drove Jeeps, even though most people never leave the road. The Jeep, for all intents and purposes, is an impractical uncomfortable vehicle (no personal hate, I drive something comparable, equally impractical)

I recently flew quite possibly one of the nicest 182RG out there. Owners spare no expense, all the best avionics (G500, GTN, etc), everything you can imagine. And guess what. I really wanted to like the plane. I'll be flying it to Oshkosh after all (since no one else has a multi and I'm not interested in fronting the Aztec bill!).. But all the things I hate about the flight school 172 is right there on this 182.. in just a slightly heavier version

-slow (I got critiqued for saying the Aztec is "fast" in another forum. The 182 (even the RG) is demonstrably slower)
-fuel hog
-not responsive on the controls
-blocks all meaningful visibility except for "straight down next to you"
-pain to fuel
-wobbly on the ground
-not unique and lacks any kind of aesthetic appeal
-trim wheel in dumb spot
-constant rudder pressure that's hard to trim away
-a tube for an air vent that's either a blizzard in the cockpit or off
-the useful load isn't all that great.. "only plane you can fill the tanks and the cabin" - total BS. Best case scenario you have 1,200 lbs useful. Toss 80 gallons in there and you better hope you and your friends are in shape (180 lbs or less), fly naked, and don't wear headsets and the plane is otherwise empty
-most planes fly better the faster they go.. even the "it shouldn't fly it's so bulbous Aztec" but the 182 just feels like it suffers its way through the flight envelope. Get a PA28 into the yellow arc and the thing is downright sporty! The same can't be said for the 172/182.. feels like your bending metal with constantly changing trim needs and a gradual loss of harmony in the controls

EdFred said:
<16gph 160+kt
Click to expand...
Mooney, Comanche, there are a few planes that come close. There's a somewhat ugly amphib out there that also comes close.. Seawind 300

Paul V said:
182s are celebrated on these forums. I don’t see the draw.
Click to expand...
I flat out hate them. The fact that everyone loves them makes me hate them more. I can't find a singe redeemable quality. My personal (maybe mean sounding) theory..? Cessna cranked out sheer volumes of 172 for the schools and people like sticking with what they're used to.. so eventually they buy a 182. Oh and it has 2 doors, and you don't have to climb in the wing to get in. So the Mrs prefers that over the PA28. So you learn in a 172, and then eventually buy a 182. Not realizing there are planes that carry more, fly faster, burn less gas, or some combination of all three. To this point, I also don't get the Bonanza obsession. Narrow cabin and in most cases not that fast. Older ones have a huge bar in the cockpit blocking all useful switches and dubious flap/gear handles. BUT, they do fly extremely nice. In my last 17 years of flying experience any Bonanza I've flown (even very beater Debonair rentals) fly **superbly** well. The folks at Beech certainly knew what they were doing!!

Geosync said:
Well you're going to get a million answers but on production numbers the C-172(and 182) is it. Still in production, still high demand.
Click to expand...
By this logic the Toyota Corolla is the best car ever and China (by population) is the best place to live




**Maybe a better way to look at this
-who has the most passionate / obsessed owners? I would say that goes to the Mooney crowd
.. flying is after all 99% romance driven. People will justify their plane as the best plane through whatever confirmation bias they want. All the 172, 182, SR22, Mooney, Bonanza, etc., folks will say theirs is the best
 
Tantalum said:
..any plane, if flown competently, can "do it all" .. depending on how you define "all"
I love your videos and you have a nice rig that does its mission well. But for 90% (or more?) pilots that mission really doesn't fit their need. It's like if we all drove Jeeps, even though most people never leave the road. The Jeep, for all intents and purposes, is an impractical uncomfortable vehicle (no personal hate, I drive something comparable, equally impractical)

I recently flew quite possibly one of the nicest 182RG out there. Owners spare no expense, all the best avionics (G500, GTN, etc), everything you can imagine. And guess what. I really wanted to like the plane. I'll be flying it to Oshkosh after all (since no one else has a multi and I'm not interested in fronting the Aztec bill!).. But all the things I hate about the flight school 172 is right there on this 182.. in just a slightly heavier version

-slow (I got critiqued for saying the Aztec is "fast" in another forum. The 182 (even the RG) is demonstrably slower)
-fuel hog
-not responsive on the controls
-blocks all meaningful visibility except for "straight down next to you"
-pain to fuel
-wobbly on the ground
-not unique and lacks any kind of aesthetic appeal
-trim wheel in dumb spot
-constant rudder pressure that's hard to trim away
-a tube for an air vent that's either a blizzard in the cockpit or off
-the useful load isn't all that great.. "only plane you can fill the tanks and the cabin" - total BS. Best case scenario you have 1,200 lbs useful. Toss 80 gallons in there and you better hope you and your friends are in shape (180 lbs or less), fly naked, and don't wear headsets and the plane is otherwise empty
-most planes fly better the faster they go.. even the "it shouldn't fly it's so bulbous Aztec" but the 182 just feels like it suffers its way through the flight envelope. Get a PA28 into the yellow arc and the thing is downright sporty! The same can't be said for the 172/182.. feels like your bending metal with constantly changing trim needs and a gradual loss of harmony in the controls


Mooney, Comanche, there are a few planes that come close. There's a somewhat ugly amphib out there that also comes close.. Seawind 300


I flat out hate them. The fact that everyone loves them makes me hate them more. I can't find a singe redeemable quality. My personal (maybe mean sounding) theory..? Cessna cranked out sheer volumes of 172 for the schools and people like sticking with what they're used to.. so eventually they buy a 182. Oh and it has 2 doors, and you don't have to climb in the wing to get in. So the Mrs prefers that over the PA28. So you learn in a 172, and then eventually buy a 182. Not realizing there are planes that carry more, fly faster, burn less gas, or some combination of all three. To this point, I also don't get the Bonanza obsession. Narrow cabin and in most cases not that fast. Older ones have a huge bar in the cockpit blocking all useful switches and dubious flap/gear handles. BUT, they do fly extremely nice. In my last 17 years of flying experience any Bonanza I've flown (even very beater Debonair rentals) fly **superbly** well. The folks at Beech certainly knew what they were doing!!


By this logic the Toyota Corolla is the best car ever and China (by population) is the best place to live




**Maybe a better way to look at this
-who has the most passionate / obsessed owners? I would say that goes to the Mooney crowd
.. flying is after all 99% romance driven. People will justify their plane as the best plane through whatever confirmation bias they want. All the 172, 182, SR22, Mooney, Bonanza, etc., folks will say theirs is the best
Click to expand...
5dmh5n.jpg
 
Grumman Tiger... 135KTs True at altitude, 900 lbs useful, 10 gph fuel burn, sliding canopy that can be opened in flight (for those very hot summer days), fold down back seats that allow for station wagon volume, and not to hateful on maintenance and insurance.

Geeee... between Tantalums post and mine, I am going to quit looking at the 182s and keep my Tiger! LOL
 
motoadve said:
Depends on the mission, but 182s can do it all.
Click to expand...

The 'best' GA airplane, for you, is the one that does 80-90% of what you want it to do when you need to do it. Anything else, unless possessing unlimited funds or an old money trust account, is a waste.

I've owned Cherokees. They're great for what they are. I flew a part 91 Malibu back in the day for the company that I worked for to get me to my job sites (yeah, the perks of the job). It was great for what it was. I have a 172 that I'm finishing up a panel and autopilot upgrade. It is great for what I need it for (basically flying 200 miles or so between my houses in PA and MA so I don't spend eternity driving up I95 in the summer).

In the end, it's your money...so the best airplane is yours (to you).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top