Help me decide on first airplane

F

Flyfeld

Pre-Flight
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
65
Display Name
Display name:
Flyfeld
Looking for some input on how much airplane to buy. It will be a Cessna 182, the part I need help with is wether to buy a Q series well equipped and mid time engine for about 75k or spend more for a newer model with fuel injection and better avionics possibly even G1000 ?

The mission is working on my instrument rating and pleasure travel with wife and two kids. I have flown G1000 equipped airplanes and really like the traffic feature. Obviously there is about a 100k price difference therefore I am trying to decide if it worth spending the extra dollars.

Thanks for input.
 
Only you can decide that. Pilots fly round gauges and some dont really like glass panels although but most want a certified IFR/GPS and autopilot if they are going to go for hours a day. Simple one without alt hold would be fine.

But if you have the money the new ones are fine. A lot of pilots think the Lycomings are more reliable. Not absolutely sure thats true but it seems to be. Look into the AD situation with either engine. Interview some mechanics. See what they think. 182s are about as bulletproof as any airplane. Some of those glass panels have maintenance too. The standar gauges have maintenance. Avionics need repair more than anything in an IFR airplane a lot say.
 
Well if you like the G1000, then get it. You answered your own question. Might as well buy what you want the first time.
 
Info is too limited to give an answer. Fuel injected = many bennies, avionics taste vs needs vs wants. Newer model, less total time? More time to TBO? Ect.

With info in hand I'd say if you plan on keeping it at least 5+ years and fly often, then Vref (like blue book) its value through AOPA and poss go for the newer one. If Everything don't line up go for the 75k one..but talk em down!
 
I'm in a similar situation considering a 182. I've been renting nice airplanes with all glass for the past few months and have come to really like a working 2-axis autopilot and the avionics/panel to steer it properly (g1000 or avidyne) but the jump in price is huge to get into that - more than I'm willing to pay for. I've decided to hold off and see what new experimental cross-over avionics (like the G5 and D10A) come on the scene, with a plan to eventually find a decent older 182Q model with a decent 2-axis autopilot and GPS and upgrade the panel over time.

Good luck with whatever you decide.
 
Either one, good choice for a safe reliable plane. You should, should now, be able to recoup your investment if you ever sell either one. I believe 182s also have good insurance rates.
 
You said you really liked the traffic feature. I'm guessing that's the same as as a lot of us see on an iPad + GDL39/stratus/stratux.

Not worth 100k in my opinion, but I've got limited time behind a G1000.
 
Thanks for the replies so far, I am aware of the mechanical differences and would really like fuel injection. For a low time learning pilot will the glass panel add to the safety factor? I realize its up to the pilot to be safe but there are some nice tools like traffic and engine monitoring with the G1000. Just not sure if it justifies the extra $. At the end of the day the airplane costs are depreciation, maintenance, hangar, insurance and interest if there is a loan.
 
Unless you are IFR there isn't much more safety with glass. Either way you want CHT/EGT on every cylinder. If you are IFR I don't think anyone knows if glass is safer than 6 pack. Maybe a little safer with glass because of no vacuum pump.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Unless you are IFR there isn't much more safety with glass. Either way you want CHT/EGT on every cylinder. If you are IFR I don't think anyone knows if glass is safer than 6 pack. Maybe a little safer with glass because of no vacuum pump.
Click to expand...

No vac pump on an HSI - and that ain't glass.
 
If you can afford a newer one with a G1000, by all means get that, but a Q or any model above, will suit you just fine for your IFR rating.
 
Go with the plane your comfortable ,with the payments.
 
The new ones are pigs.

I'd get a old wide body, IO550 and three blade conversion, and toss in a aspen in you want to play with glass.

You'll end up with a better plane and for less money.

For IFR, as long as you have a basic GPSS autopilot, engine analyzer, /G, working 6 pack and maybe toss in a HSI for good measure, it's all the same.

"Saftey" isn't something you can buy, sorry, saftey is about 98% PIC, 2% airplane, NTSB reports have been backing that up forever.
 
Why do you say the newer ones are pigs? The ones under consideration are early 1998 to 2004 they all have three blades, fuel injection.
 
Flyfeld said:
Why do you say the newer ones are pigs? The ones under consideration are early 1998 to 2004 they all have three blades, fuel injection.
Click to expand...

The bigger engine is heavier as is the 3-bladed prop, fuel injection, 26g seats, corrosion protection, etc. Figure the post-1998s are ~100lbs heavier than the pre-1987s and the G1000s an additional 30-50lb on top of that.
 
My experience so far with newer planes has been that my maintenance costs were higher than older ones. Seems like more things to go wrong and upgrade, or whatever. Insurance will be higher from higher hull value,although not much and payment will be more. That equates to less gas you can buy. Useful load will be little less in newer but they are nice as is injection, although on a 182 not sure how much you are going to gain on that. I have had g1000 and its okay but I personally like the Aspen with conventional gauges. Most planes are going to show traffic with the new adsb updates anyway. Another thing if you decide to buy a g1000 plane is to make sure it's waas equiped. The upgrade thru Cessna from non-waas is really expensive. On plane I had was 20g
 
I have a G1000 182, mines a 2012 182T, I love it. I am a big proponent of the glass and modern avionics as while round dials are fun and all I truly enjoy the added safety features of having most everything integrated, traffic etc ...especially terrain if you are flying in mountainous areas with the synthetic vision (if you find one with that option), having aural queues and visual warnings for most things I think increases safety a bit and I like it. I also really enjoy having the xm weather right on the moving map as its increased the useful time on my 182 by far, that's something you could of course get on a handheld unit you just as others have said need to determine if you want that integrated or not and what its worth to you. With a modern one its likely to be a bit faster than the older models, even the T version gained a few extra knots over the S model with the same engine. as for maintenance cost I'd say it depends how new you are getting, I got mine new so I had the two year factory warranty so my mx costs were basically non-existent over the first 2 years besides the normal oil changes and wear and tear problems. mine has now been out of warranty for a bit now and fortunately the mx costs have been relatively low (knock on wood). I wouldn't really think there would be much mx cost difference between a newer model or an older model, then again your mileage may vary on that one, like cars some are good some just aren't. Now as for useful load it is a fact that these birds got fatter over the years and you would have slightly more useful load on older models compared to newer versions. My bird is well equipped and my useful load on my specific airplane is 1,076lbs. Not bad at all, but older models such as the Q would likely have a slightly higher useful load. Two things to mention, as the poster above me stated, make usre its already WAAS equipped if you go G1000, and also if you can find one with the integrated autopilot, the GFC700 I think you'd like it alot, I've flown many GFC700 equipped ones and others that had autopilot just not the integrated one, and the GFC700 works far smoother. Either way I think you would enjoy your airplane, its a great going places plane, I may be biased but my vote would go torwards a G1000 equipped plane. If you'd like some more info on my personal experience and what not feel free to shoot me a message.
 
Thank you, the WAAS equipment is great info.
 
Not all newer (post-Q) Skylanes are fuel injected, or G1000 equipped. So there are more alternatives to choose from.
 
RotorDude said:
Not all newer (post-Q) Skylanes are fuel injected, or G1000 equipped. So there are more alternatives to choose from.
Click to expand...
It's the restart ones that have fuel injection, 1997 and up. G1000 didn't hit until 2004? WAAS was later, maybe 2010? I think the G1000 with WAAS and GFC700 autopilot are the hot ones in the market.
I've got a Q model and it's great, but it's about the have its 40th birthday!
 
So here is my take...I trained in a G1000 and being "Inspector Gadget" as my friends call me cuz I always gotta have the coolest toys I went into the training then immediate buying process wanting a G1000.

Well, those ended up being a bit more than I wanted to spend...so I "settled for" a great condition 182P with a 430W, auto pilot, and one Apen PFD panel...so it is a partial panel. Honestly with the introduction of the iPad, Foreflight Pro with Synthetic Vision, ADSB-Out and Stratus 2...I could easily do without even the Apen panel. I am flying by the steam gauges primarily anyway even through my IFR certification and the information to aid your situational awareness with the iPad is amazing!

I am about to do a an engine rebuild and the only upgrade to the panel I am considering is a engine analyzer...don't really care if I blow this engine up!

Now...yea, the iPad is a consumer grade "toy" compared to a certified full glass panel...but now three years in I do not even really long for a G1000 upgrade anymore and most of my flying is 100-300nm XC trips.

Is it "worth it"?...that is subjective to what you value and can afford but knowing what I know now...even though I probably could have, I am perfectly happy with my choice not having spent that much more on a plane with a G1000 and certainly don't feel like I am any less "safe" without the full glass panel.

But I am also an advocate of "Buy once, cry once" for what you really want.
 
Last edited:
Here's a thought...

Flying more will do more to make you a better pilot than glass will.

If you can afford to FLY both the same amount after you buy them, buy glass.

If buying the glass means you have to fly less... Steam.
 
This discussion is useful and I am leaning towards a non glass but with descent avionics version like many of the early 2000's are. I really like my I pad with fore flight and if this is supplemented with a descent GPS moving map and autopilot etc. this is a good fit for my mission. Many of the late 90's and early 2000's are available with a nice king package with KMD 550 etc. This is a process and I appreciate the help from the more experienced. Thanks
 
Flyfeld said:
This discussion is useful and I am leaning towards a non glass but with descent avionics version like many of the early 2000's are. I really like my I pad with fore flight and if this is supplemented with a descent GPS moving map and autopilot etc. this is a good fit for my mission. Many of the late 90's and early 2000's are available with a nice king package with KMD 550 etc. This is a process and I appreciate the help from the more experienced. Thanks
Click to expand...

My work plane has one of those King MFDs, unless you got onboard radar, it's more weight than it's worth for a small plane.

Just make sure you have a GNS or better for your /G and you'll be fine.
 
Flyfeld said:
Looking for some input on how much airplane to buy. It will be a Cessna 182, the part I need help with is wether to buy a Q series well equipped and mid time engine for about 75k or spend more for a newer model with fuel injection and better avionics possibly even G1000 ?

The mission is working on my instrument rating and pleasure travel with wife and two kids. I have flown G1000 equipped airplanes and really like the traffic feature. Obviously there is about a 100k price difference therefore I am trying to decide if it worth spending the extra dollars.

Thanks for input.
Click to expand...

This may sound old fashioned, but in my opinion earning your instrument rating without glass forces the development of thinking skills related to situational awareness that you just don't have to learn when flying on a glass panel. VOR and ILS/LOC approaches under the hood without a moving map will make shooting GPS approaches seem super easy, plus should you have to use them one day you'd have those skills. It may not be a reason not to buy the glass if you're going to be keeping the plane and the instrument training is a small part of the picture, but it would be a silver lining on the situation should you decide the older panel was more practical at this time.
 
Chester Clark III said:
This may sound old fashioned, but in my opinion earning your instrument rating without glass forces the development of thinking skills related to situational awareness that you just don't have to learn when flying on a glass panel. VOR and ILS/LOC approaches under the hood without a moving map will make shooting GPS approaches seem super easy, plus should you have to use them one day you'd have those skills. It may not be a reason not to buy the glass if you're going to be keeping the plane and the instrument training is a small part of the picture, but it would be a silver lining on the situation should you decide the older panel was more practical at this time.
Click to expand...

I'd add to that, without a moving map.

But if you're going to buy anyways, I'd ether hold off, or train in what you already have.

But yeah, ideally a basic six pack and no moving map for a IFR trainer.
 
Did you ask for help choosing your first car. Did you ask for help choosing your first wife?
Just wondering.
o_O
 
James331 said:
Some folks should ;)
Click to expand...
denverpilot said:
Nah. More fun to watch the train wreck. Especially if it starts at the reception.
Click to expand...

I can tell you these are both the gospel truth.
One of my jobs is to make sure some people never make it to their own wedding.

About 20 years ago I was a guest at what had to be the shortest marriage on record.
The bride and groom were walking down the aisle after the ceremony and the bride stopped, said something to a woman in one of the pews, then punched the groom so hard they had to call an ambulance.
Said she: "The reception is paid for. Go have fun."
Then she went off on her honeymoon, alone.
To this day, I have no idea what it was all about, but the reception was great.
 
Save the cash, buy an older 182Q model with good autopilot, Garmin 530W with GDL and then you have most for half cost of later 182 aircraft. That is what I would buy if I was intent on a Skylane.
 
Blueangel said:
Save the cash, buy an older 182Q model with good autopilot, Garmin 530W with GDL and then you have most for half cost of later 182 aircraft. That is what I would buy if I was intent on a Skylane.
Click to expand...

As an owner of 182Q I couldn't agree more. Mine has a 430W with a 2 axis autopilot. I wouldn't have any more capabilities if it was all glass. it has a higher useful load, and is a lower acquisition cost than it's new counterparts. You could even get a BRS via an STC if you were so inclined.

Also I never got why people love the fuel injection so much. It's easy to keep an eye on the carb temp while flying reducing the risk of carb icing. Fuel injection hot starts are a pain in the ass!
 
neilw2 said:
As an owner of 182Q I couldn't agree more. Mine has a 430W with a 2 axis autopilot. I wouldn't have any more capabilities if it was all glass. it has a higher useful load, and is a lower acquisition cost than it's new counterparts. You could even get a BRS via an STC if you were so inclined.

Also I never got why people love the fuel injection so much. It's easy to keep an eye on the carb temp while flying reducing the risk of carb icing. Fuel injection hot starts are a pain in the ass!
Click to expand...

Agree with all of that.

Fuel injection isn't BETTER, is just a different option, if you want to do stuff like LOP injection is better, lots of IFR ops injection is better.

Lower MX costs, auto fuel savings, carb all day long.

As for starting a injected engine when it's hot, that's just knowing a few tricks, io520/550, I can have the engine shutdown for no time flat, or for a unload and load,mand get it back running in a few blades 80% of the time, couple full rotations the remainder.
 
Blueangel said:
Save the cash, buy an older 182Q model with good autopilot, Garmin 530W with GDL and then you have most for half cost of later 182 aircraft. That is what I would buy if I was intent on a Skylane.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. A couple of years ago I bought a Cardinal with mostly original interior and avionics. It was low cost because of it. That allowed me to select my options for upgrading. If you really want to go to glass, even the full 3 screen Aspen (or the G500) will set you back significantly less than the G1000 price difference, and the avionics will be 5-10 years newer.
 
Blueangel said:
Save the cash, buy an older 182Q model with good autopilot, Garmin 530W with GDL and then you have most for half cost of later 182 aircraft. That is what I would buy if I was intent on a Skylane.
Click to expand...

neilw2 said:
As an owner of 182Q I couldn't agree more. Mine has a 430W with a 2 axis autopilot. I wouldn't have any more capabilities if it was all glass. it has a higher useful load, and is a lower acquisition cost than it's new counterparts. You could even get a BRS via an STC if you were so inclined.

Also I never got why people love the fuel injection so much. It's easy to keep an eye on the carb temp while flying reducing the risk of carb icing. Fuel injection hot starts are a pain in the ass!
Click to expand...

As an owner of a P model, I'll third the thought that the late model 70's 182s are solid machines.

Our avionics are a bit dated, but it hand flies just fine, and is a solid platform.

The re-starts are HEAVY and carry significantly less fuel than mine. With the L/R bladders I have 80 on board with 75 useable. Far more than MY bladder usually wants to fly, but great for long range planning for having plenty of fuel to get to an alternate or divert or whatever. If I offload some fuel, it'll carry an incredible amount of crap aloft. And the STC is available to raise the MGTOW to 3100 just like the restarts with much more of that ending up as useful load.

This free republished book is worth a read if you're at all interested in Skykanes. Shows what a workhorse they are.

http://www.theskylanepilotscompanion.com
 
denverpilot said:
.

The re-starts are HEAVY and carry significantly less fuel than mine. With the L/R bladders I have 80 on board with 75 useable.
Click to expand...

Heavier yes, but they do not carry less fuel. The T models carry 92 gallons of which 87 is useable. I believe the S models do as well, both restarts
 
JustinD said:
Heavier yes, but they do not carry less fuel. The T models carry 92 gallons of which 87 is useable. I believe the S models do as well, both restarts
Click to expand...

But with the extra weight you often have to leave it behind. Just depends, but they're fat before you ever put any fuel in them.

I'm 1815.9 empty and can go from there to 2950 without the STC and 3100 with. Over 1200 lbs of useful load with the STC.

We'd be even lighter with newer avionics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top