Buying a trainer plane???

G

GregP

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
29
Display Name
Display name:
GregP
Hello,
I currently have my PPL and have decided that I would like to get my instrument, commercial and ultimately my CFI and ATP. Over the past few years I have acquired over 280 hours through renting a 172M. I have decided that buying my own plane would be better, as I can be making payments for the cost of rental and eventually own the plane. However, I am interested buying a 182 or Maule MT7-235. I know most training is done in 172's, archers or even arrows. Just wondering if a 182 or the Maule would be too big of a plane for such use? Thanks in advance for everyones input.
 
Last edited:
The main thing is to train in a plane with appropriate avionics. If purchasing to use for IFR after completing the rating, equip it close to the way you will fly it to get the maximum benefit from your IR training. That's what I did with my AA-5. 30 years later, and a few panel upgrades along the way, I'm still flying it.
 
A 182 or a Maule certainly aren't large planes. A 182 is more useful than a 172, if you ever want to fly with people and luggage, but it's more costly to feed.
As mentioned above, having the proper instrumentation is critical.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
A 182 or a Maule certainly aren't large planes. A 182 is more useful than a 172, if you ever want to fly with people and luggage, but it's more costly to feed.
As mentioned above, having the proper instrumentation is critical.
Click to expand...

There is always the 172 XP, not as thirsty as the 182, but can keep up with it...

http://cessnaowner.org/hawk-xp/
 
Kenny Phillips said:
A 182 or a Maule certainly aren't large planes. A 182 is more useful than a 172, if you ever want to fly with people and luggage, but it's more costly to feed.
As mentioned above, having the proper instrumentation is critical.
Click to expand...
Well, not really large planes, lol but bigger than 172's and have constant speed props.
 
Can't speak for the Maule, only a little time in one, all VFR - the 182 is a decent, if not great, instrument platform. It is not, in my opinion a "fun" airplane, but a reasonably stable instrument platform. The newer ones are heavy, and have big tanks - I've seen them have less useful load remaining than a 172, when the tanks are full - but that's OK, as you don't HAVE to fill the tanks, and they give it really good range. If you can fly a 172, you can fly a 182 - pretty much the same, except things happen slower in a 182. And there is more shoulder room for you and your CFII.
 
My only thought about those 2 aircraft for training purposes would be to check on insurance that allows you to rent it out to students. With both of those being HP my guess would be that insurance would be substantially more for a training plane as opposed to a 172 or pa-28.
 
Thanks everyone for your valued information. Im still trying to decide between the Maule or a arrow.
 
GregP said:
Thanks everyone for your valued information. Im still trying to decide between the Maule or a arrow.
Click to expand...

Two very different planes.

Unless you want to collect complex hours for something bigger down the line, no point in an Arrow vs. the other two options.

In the depth of the economic crisis I had an opportunity to buy a 5 year old hangar kept M7-180 with 200hrs for little money. I didn't jump on it and it was eventually crated and shipped to the Netherlands. It was very tempting, I just couldn't come up with a reason why I needed a fabric taildragger. Looking back, this would have been one of the few opportunities to own a plane and sell it for a profit later on, but oh well.

Between the 182 and the Maule, I would go with the M7. As one owner told me: 'built by farmers, built for farmers'.
 
GregP said:
Hello,
I currently have my PPL and have decided that I would like to get my instrument, commercial and ultimately my CFI and ATP. Over the past few years I have acquired over 280 hours through renting a 172M. I have decided that buying my own plane would be better, as I can be making payments for the cost of rental and eventually own the plane. However, I am interested buying a 182 or Maule MT7-235. I know most training is done in 172's, archers or even arrows. Just wondering if a 182 or the Maule would be too big of a plane for such use? Thanks in advance for everyones input.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with any of the options given. Have you thought about a Liberty XL (now Discovery)? They come with a complete IFR package and sip fuel. Not as fast as a 182, but the hours are cheap.
It's a 2 seater, with limited useful load, but you didn't say you would be carrying a lot of people and baggage.

On the other side of the spectrum, there's the Cessna 177A, B, and RG. You can get them with IFR packages. They have more useful load than a C-172, and fly almost as fast as a C-182. They have more shoulder room than a Skyhawk, and are the coolest planes Cessna ever built. You'd want a 1972 or newer one.
 
GregP said:
Hello,
I currently have my PPL and have decided that I would like to get my instrument, commercial and ultimately my CFI and ATP. Over the past few years I have acquired over 280 hours through renting a 172M. I have decided that buying my own plane would be better, as I can be making payments for the cost of rental and eventually own the plane. However, I am interested buying a 182 or Maule MT7-235. I know most training is done in 172's, archers or even arrows. Just wondering if a 182 or the Maule would be too big of a plane for such use? Thanks in advance for everyones input.
Click to expand...
Do remember that payments or purchase price is not the way to judge how much an airplane is going to cost you. One engine overhaul and you're going to wish you were still renting.
 
Just remember, every hour you fly the 182 (to build hours) you will burn about 4gal more gas. Nowadays that is $20/hr or about $20K if you fly it 1000hrs.

If the 182 is a P model (or older) the TBO will be 1500hrs vs 2000hrs on the Lycoming 172 (I hope I have that right). So if you bought a lower time 172 you could fly it 1000 hrs and be just a bit over half way to TBO. So it would be a lot easier to resell than a run out 182.

The shoulder room and power of the 182 is nice. Just seems like an expensive time builder....I happen to know since I slowly building my time in ours :) But I have no aspiration to reach 1500 for ATP.

If the Maule is significantly cheaper to operate than the 182 maybe that's a better choice of the two for your mission.
 
Just to illustrate the versatility and usefulness of the C-182, search for and read "Katamarino's around the world flight" here on POA. Katamarino is taking a 182R literally around the world.

Other advice here is spot on: Avionics are critical, and best to train on what you will eventually fly. And, in my opinion, the bigness and complex-itivity of the 182 may scare some students back to the 172, thus saving some of the student induced wear, tear, and maintenance on your plane.

-Skip
 
Skip Miller said:
Just to illustrate the versatility and usefulness of the C-182, search for and read "Katamarino's around the world flight" here on POA. Katamarino is taking a 182R literally around the world.

Other advice here is spot on: Avionics are critical, and best to train on what you will eventually fly. And, in my opinion, the bigness and complex-itivity of the 182 may scare some students back to the 172, thus saving some of the student induced wear, tear, and maintenance on your plane.

-Skip
Click to expand...
I always figured the only reason students don't train in 182's is because they cost more to operate and rent so FBOs/Flight Schools don't find it worth it to have them around. I would think of any group of 10 PPL's given the opportunity to build hours (IFR,Commercial) in a 182 vs hours in a 172...at the same rental rate....all 10 would pick the 182 every time. But maybe there is more to it than just the extra cost...hmm?
 
I think the thread has gotten a little off topic, I have no desire to rent the plane out, I only want it for my personel use as a time builder and then to keep for a family plane. I guess in a nut shell I am trying to figure out will I have any issue with commercial manuevers in a plane bigger than a 172 or archer? I do realize the Maule 235 uses more fuel, but I also have a family of 4 that it will occasionally be used to travel from Mississippi to Miami Florida about 5 or six times a year with. So I was more or less looking for a time builder/family plane. Just wanted to get some input on using the maule for a trainer and to see if anyone has had any issue with using the 182 or maule for such use.
 
I have a 172 and flew a 182M recently and was pleasantly surprised at how relatively responsive it was after hearing how it's a flying SUV all these years. It sounds perfect for your mission IMO.
 
GregP said:
I think the thread has gotten a little off topic, I have no desire to rent the plane out, I only want it for my personel use as a time builder and then to keep for a family plane. I guess in a nut shell I am trying to figure out will I have any issue with commercial manuevers in a plane bigger than a 172 or archer? I do realize the Maule 235 uses more fuel, but I also have a family of 4 that it will occasionally be used to travel from Mississippi to Miami Florida about 5 or six times a year with. So I was more or less looking for a time builder/family plane. Just wanted to get some input on using the maule for a trainer and to see if anyone has had any issue with using the 182 or maule for such use.
Click to expand...
I have not done my commercial yet however, if there is any spin training required for commercial (????) you will not be able to do it in the 182. Not sure about the Maule.

As for your family of 4, the trips in a 182 will be fine. There is tons of rear seat leg room. The rear seats are closer together than the front. Probably the worst part about 182 rear seats is that they are low to the floor so if your kids are tall or you wife is tall, you'll be riding with knees above your waist. But all the leg room is handy to stretch out a bit. If its just a couple of small kids they'll have a ton of room.

A typical 182 useful load is around 1200lbs. Ours can hold around 80gal (480lbs) so that leaves a bit over 700lbs for you, wife, both kids and stuff. Sounds like you are not anywhere near mountains or crazy high DA so you can load it up pretty full. Its about impossible to go out of the W&B envelope and you can always leave behind some fuel to add more people/stuff weight.

Even though I have not been working on commercial I have done several power off 180's and it does 50deg bank (and 60deg bank) turns no problem. My first CFI did some really crazy maneuvers in it to show me what it could do...I still have no clue what they were called :)

There are many years of 182s that do not have a co-pilot window that opens...it sucks...you'll be flying where its hot so you'll learn to taxi with the door open or look for a model year where that window does open.

Our 182P has a height adjustable seat for the pilot only. If you can find a model where both front seats fully adjust it would also be nice, especially for younger kids or a short CFI or passenger. Otherwise its pillow time.

I think Maule's are really cool planes. Sure would be nice if someone could chime in on all the quirks and odd things about a Maule.
 
Sinistar said:
I have not done my commercial yet however, if there is any spin training required for commercial (????) you will not be able to do it in the 182. Not sure about the Maule.

As for your family of 4, the trips in a 182 will be fine. There is tons of rear seat leg room. The rear seats are closer together than the front. Probably the worst part about 182 rear seats is that they are low to the floor so if your kids are tall or you wife is tall, you'll be riding with knees above your waist. But all the leg room is handy to stretch out a bit. If its just a couple of small kids they'll have a ton of room.

A typical 182 useful load is around 1200lbs. Ours can hold around 80gal (480lbs) so that leaves a bit over 700lbs for you, wife, both kids and stuff. Sounds like you are not anywhere near mountains or crazy high DA so you can load it up pretty full. Its about impossible to go out of the W&B envelope and you can always leave behind some fuel to add more people/stuff weight.

Even though I have not been working on commercial I have done several power off 180's and it does 50deg bank (and 60deg bank) turns no problem. My first CFI did some really crazy maneuvers in it to show me what it could do...I still have no clue what they were called :)

There are many years of 182s that do not have a co-pilot window that opens...it sucks...you'll be flying where its hot so you'll learn to taxi with the door open or look for a model year where that window does open.

Our 182P has a height adjustable seat for the pilot only. If you can find a model where both front seats fully adjust it would also be nice, especially for younger kids or a short CFI or passenger. Otherwise its pillow time.

I think Maule's are really cool planes. Sure would be nice if someone could chime in on all the quirks and odd things about a Maule.
Click to expand...
I am actually leaning more toward the maul due to less $$$.
 
Skyrys62 said:
Paging @Bill Watson
Click to expand...

Hello, Mauledriver here! I owned a Maule for a bit over 1500 hours but I can’t offer a point by point comparision with the 182 for this mission profile. I owned a MX7-180a which is a slightly smaller fuselage model with fixed pitch and a tailwheel. For awhile it was the lowest priced new airplane on the market (my example had 30 hours after 2 owners because it was bought as an investment). I’ve never logger hours in a 182 though I’ve flown in (and behind) a few.

We loved our Maule! We could never love a 172 or 182 (a 180 or 185, perhaps). If the Maule fits your eye, you’ll love it so you should do it. If not, you can’t go wrong with a 182. So just a few considerations given my lack of familiarity with the the exact planes in question.

-It’s a composite aircraft, not in the fiberglass sense though there’s a bit of that too, but in terms of a being constructed out of every proven light plane technology out there; steel tubing, aluminum skin, fiber glass, and fabric. It will be a happier experience if kept hangared though it does fine outside.

-It’s a great utility plane. Meaning it’s tough, will carry more than allowed, it’s simple and it’s kinda fun. For example, in the case of the MX, it can be flown with any 1 door removed, as close to an open cockpit experience as most of us need. You can play bush pilot in it and put large tires in it (or just keep the regular tires on it and do the same the same stuff). You can open that giant door hole in the side and carry large, odd payloads like a Christmas tree or a Moose hindquarter (??!!).
(Edit - Built by Farmers for Farmers lol)

-But personally, I’d only own a cute lil’ Maule if it had the little wheel in the back. Put another way, this pilot thinks nose-wheel Maule’s are butt-ugly. If that ends the discussion, then so be it. But it sounds like you want to collect all the ratings without necessarily making a career out of it... you don’t need tw for any meaningful career purpose but it is the endorsement of endorsements in this pilot’s mind.

Lot’s of solid advice in this thread, hope my off the wall thoughts can help as well. Good Luck!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Last edited:
The OP is one bad squawk away from being upside down relative to renting. That said, were I in the OP's shoes I'd get a twin. The market is soft, and I would think lots of multi would help get a foot in the door wherever he intends to seek employment.
 
steingar said:
The OP is one bad squawk away from being upside down relative to renting. That said, were I in the OP's shoes I'd get a twin. The market is soft, and I would think lots of multi would help get a foot in the door wherever he intends to seek employment.
Click to expand...

...and one decision away from being upside down and drowning with a twin!

Interesting but I saw no indication of a plan to fly professionally. In my case, it was always a fantasy that benefited from going through the ratings in aircraft I owned. All the time working my tail off to indulge the fantasy while creating an aviation lifestyle.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Everyone who hasn't owned a plane thinks it's cheaper to buy a plane and train in it than to rent. Non-owners have very optimistic ideas of what it takes to keep a plane properly equipped and flying safely.

Having said that, I also have observed that those who own rental planes sometimes have a funny idea of what actually needs to be repaired rather than deferred for useful flight. COM doesn't work at 124.0 or above, no problem. NAV out of tolerance? They're not that accurate anyway. Flat-spotted tires?. Go fly until next annual. Engine uses a quart of oil every 1-2 hours? Throw some cans of oil in the back...That's the kind of stuff that drives folks to own. It's not the low cost of ownership. Not every rental operation is like this, but...
 
There are a couple of tailwheel Maules on our field. Very nice planes, reasonably well-equipped with avionics, pretty fast cruise, and eye-popping STOL performance. Gotta be comfortable with tube and rag construction, though, and hangaring is probably a must for long-term ownership.
 
Bill Watson said:
Hello, Mauledriver here! I owned a Maule for a bit over 1500 hours but I can’t offer a point by point comparision with the 182 for this mission profile. I owned a MX7-180a which is a slightly smaller fuselage model with fixed pitch and a tailwheel. For awhile it was the lowest priced new airplane on the market (my example had 30 hours after 2 owners because it was bought as an investment). I’ve never logger hours in a 182 though I’ve flown in (and behind) a few.

We loved our Maule! We could never love a 172 or 182 (a 180 or 185, perhaps). If the Maule fits your eye, you’ll love it so you should do it. If not, you can’t go wrong with a 182. So just a few considerations given my lack of familiarity with the the exact planes in question.

-It’s a composite aircraft, not in the fiberglass sense though there’s a bit of that too, but in terms of a being constructed out of every proven light plane technology out there; steel tubing, aluminum skin, fiber glass, and fabric. It will be a happier experience if kept hangared though it does fine outside.

-It’s a great utility plane. Meaning it’s tough, will carry more than allowed, it’s simple and it’s kinda fun. For example, in the case of the MX, it can be flown with any 1 door removed, as close to an open cockpit experience as most of us need. You can play bush pilot in it and put large tires in it (or just keep the regular tires on it and do the same the same stuff). You can open that giant door hole in the side and carry large, odd payloads like a Christmas tree or a Moose hindquarter (??!!).
(Edit - Built by Farmers for Farmers lol)

-But personally, I’d only own a cute lil’ Maule if it had the little wheel in the back. Put another way, this pilot thinks nose-wheel Maule’s are butt-ugly. If that ends the discussion, then so be it. But it sounds like you want to collect all the ratings without necessarily making a career out of it... you don’t need tw for any meaningful career purpose but it is the endorsement of endorsements in this pilot’s mind.

Lot’s of solid advice in this thread, hope my off the wall thoughts can help as well. Good Luck!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
Bill, Thank you very much for your views and info on the Maule. I have considered complex planes too, and yes I should of stated earlier I am wanting tp try and get on with a regional or local company possibly.
 
chemgeek said:
Everyone who hasn't owned a plane thinks it's cheaper to buy a plane and train in it than to rent. Non-owners have very optimistic ideas of what it takes to keep a plane properly equipped and flying safely.

Having said that, I also have observed that those who own rental planes sometimes have a funny idea of what actually needs to be repaired rather than deferred for useful flight. COM doesn't work at 124.0 or above, no problem. NAV out of tolerance? They're not that accurate anyway. Flat-spotted tires?. Go fly until next annual. Engine uses a quart of oil every 1-2 hours? Throw some cans of oil in the back...That's the kind of stuff that drives folks to own. It's not the low cost of ownership. Not every rental operation is like this, but...
Click to expand...
Very valid point, and that is just another reason I want to buy and not rent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top