172 or 182?

[Maffou]

Hello everybody,

I'm looking to get a plane for more training type of flights. I really enjoy taking what I see on YouTube Channels like The Finer Points, or FlightChops and applying it to my sim to learn a little. I'm looking at the 172 or 182. I fly the Bonanza and it works well for zipping around to different airports, but it is not a trainer. I also have the P51, and, you know, its really not a trainer.
The 172 is, ofcourse, is a classic plane for training on, however, I am also looking a the 182 to get something a little bit bigger.
To get to the point, is the 182 a reasonable plane for my purposes, or should I go for the 172?

Thanks for the help

[Hook]

I'm going outside the limits of the question you asked to answer in a different way.

Don't buy the 172 because you think you should. This is what I did. I never really enjoyed flying it. Yeah, it's a great little airplane and most people are gonna love it, but I had problems. I enjoyed the Cherokee a lot more. Those are also used as trainer aircraft.

If you want the 182 then get that. It's going to be a "complex" aircraft where the 172 would be simple (no prop control, fixed landing gear, etc). If the videos you watch deal with setting prop speed and raising and lowering landing gear then you'd want the 182 anyway. If most of the videos deal with a 172 then that would be a good reason to get the A2A version.

I've learned a lot about flying from the A2A Cub. My best friend took lessons in a Cub. My lessons were in a Cessna 150, both of these were back around 1970. It's funny how well I remember it.

I think if you're already flying the Bonanza and the P-51 then the Cub will actually teach you more about actual flying than the 172. If you'd never flown before then the 172 would probably be a better choice than the Cub. The Cub has only the most basic of instruments which forces you to rely on the view out the window and the airspeed indicator and to a lesser extent the simple altimeter which has only the thousands needle. You have only a hand-held radio with one frequency and limited batteries (about 2 hours) so you won't be doing a lot of communicating and there's no transponder which means that if you're going for realism you'll be avoiding controlled airspace. Depending on where you want to fly this may be a limiting factor for the Cub. The Cub is also missing a walk around pre-flight inspection and a detailed maintenance hangar but still has rudimentary maintenance functions like checking the oil, but it's also a bit cheaper if that matters.

I'd better mention that the Cub has no autopilot and no GPS (although it does have the Shift-5 map) so this might be a limiting factor as well. I prefer to fly without either so this is my normal style of flying and it will definitely teach you about simple navigation.

Hook

[Paughco]

Consider the T-6! Now THERE is a trainer! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UZmEha ... A&index=12

This is a bit like going down to Southsound BMW to road-test motorcycles. You will inevitably end up buying something! Watch the A2A YouTube videos on the respective aircraft you are interested in. Watch Scott put the T-6 through its paces. Also maybe some of SimCFI's YouTube stuff. Watch his navigation tutorial in the 172. Another good one is FlightChops' mountain flying series. That was in the 182. Rough decision. You cannot go wrong if it's A2A!

Seeya
ATB

[Hook]

I'm going to agree with Paughco that the T-6 might be a better trainer than the Cub. It's probably a lot closer to the P-51 than to the Cub though.

Hook

[ianfisher 101]

Simple. Get both.

[Adam_NZ]

My question is .. what kind of training are you after? Ground handling, spin/stall recovery (or general flight model-related stuff) - or are we talking about good airmanship: correct engine management, navigation or general procedures?

If you're restricting yourself to a simple choice - between the 172 and the 182 - I'd go for the latter, as at least you get to play with prop pitch for your money.

Adam.

[Mickel]

For a trainer, the Cherokee. It has more of a soul than the 172. I know it wasn't an option. But I prefer it over the 172. Of the 172 and 182, in sim, the 182. But yeah, it's not really a 'trainer'.

The tail draggers will make you better. The T-6 will bite you every time you let it. But there is a sense of achievement when you 'master' it (used loosely, as you never really do). The Cub, won't bite so much. But you still have to be on it when landing. If you're not, you can end up hot and high. With time, you can side slip that away, but if not... around you go.

Honestly, while I would have the 172 last of all of those, you can't really go wrong with any choice.

[Maffou]

Hey everybody

Thanks for all the responses. Its helped me in making the decision. I think I will not get the 172. Some people mentioned the Cub which I don't think will fit into what I want to do with the plane as I want to fly into controlled airports, and have an option for a GPS. The T-6 might not be good for what I am looking for, as I already have the P51 which I think is probably good for practicing tailwheel flying. I think it will be between the Cherokee, and the 182. I will have to go back and watch the videos again to help make my decision.
I am looking to practice just general things like stalls, spins, IFR flying, normal procedures, all that kind of stuff. I don't know if the Cherokee is rated for IFR, so that will be something I will look into.
Also, does the 182 have the variant with retractable gear, or is it just fixed gear?

Thanks for the help

[Adam_NZ]

I think the retractable gear variant (RG) is only available from Carenado. The A2A model has fixed undercarriage (though you can add/remove the cosmetic spats!).

As to IFR training - I'm no expert - but I'd say both 182 and Cherokee would be OK, bearing in mind that you can add your own [additional] gauges if you like - just as in RL.

Adam.

[Hook]

You can download the manuals for each aircraft from the store page and that should help you make a decision.

Between the Cherokee and the 182 it's a lot to do with high wing or low wing. The Cherokee has a fixed pitch prop, not sure about the 182 and fixed landing gear which do not retract. I find the Cherokee very pleasant to fly. Either one should work with IFR.

Hook

[BPL]

I'll be a dissenting voice here: I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the 172. There's a reason the 172 is such a popular trainer in real life. Your choice really depends on what kind of training you want to do.

If you want a plane that's good for learning the basics (in other words, the sort of things you'd learn as a new student pilot pursuing a private pilot certificate), I'd recommend the 172. The 172 is a simple plane with good handling, making it an excellent choice for learning the basics of airmanship, normal procedures, navigation, IFR, etc. It's an excellent training aircraft. Some may find the 172 boring, but I think it's great fun to fly.

Having said all that, if you're already flying the Bonanza and the P-51 successfully, you probably already have some decent flying skills. So you may want something a little more complex than the 172. In that case, the 182 would be a great choice. It's bigger, heavier, and faster than the 172; and it has a constant speed prop, so that adds prop pitch settings to your training exercises. (The 182 has fixed landing gear, BTW, not retractable.)

As others have mentioned, there's also the Cherokee, which is an excellent little plane and a real joy to fly. It's a cool older plane with lots of personality. (As Mickel said, "It has more of a soul than the 172.") It's simple like the 172, but it's a low wing and flies a little differently. Unlike in the Cessnas, you also have to switch fuel tanks periodically in flight in the Cherokee to stay balanced. The Cherokee has very gentle stall characteristics, so I'm not sure if it would be as good for stall/spin training as the others would.

I haven't used flight sims much in a while (waiting now to see what happens with the new MSFS), but, on a personal note, the 182 is probably my least favorite of those three planes. The handling always felt a little heavy and sluggish to me, and I guess (for whatever reason) it just didn't "speak to me" as much. (On a minor note, and perhaps contributing to my feelings about it, I was always a little bothered by the modeling of the interior, which appears to be a mixture of an older and a newer 182 interior. But that's just me being a little bit picky. ) That's just personal preference, though. The 182 is still an excellent aircraft and may be exactly what you're looking for. You can't go wrong with anything made by A2A!

[bobsk8]

I have quite a few real life hours in a C 172. As far as A2A, I have the 172-182 , Cherokee, Comanche, T6, Connie. The two most realistic aircraft for me to fly in the sim is the A2A 182, and Comanche. You get the constant speed prop, and on the Comanche, the retractable gear. For crosswind and rudder control, the T6 will require hundreds of hours, and it will still bite you when you least expect it I hardly ever fly the A2A 172. Just doesn't feel right to me.

[BPL]

I have quite a few real life hours in a C 172. As far as A2A, I have the 172-182 , Cherokee, Comanche, T6, Connie. The two most realistic aircraft for me to fly in the sim is the A2A 182, and Comanche. You get the constant speed prop, and on the Comanche, the retractable gear. For crosswind and rudder control, the T6 will require hundreds of hours, and it will still bite you when you least expect it I hardly ever fly the A2A 172. Just doesn't feel right to me.

Interesting to hear a perspective on that from a real-life pilot. I'm not a real-life pilot, so I don't have that standard of comparison. (I've taken control of the yoke in a 172 for a few minutes, but that's the limit of my real-life piloting experience.) Which 172 model(s) do you fly in real life? The A2A 172 is based on a 172R, I believe, which I think I've read flies a little differently from earlier models. (I also love the A2A Comanche, BTW. Great plane! )

To the OP, just thought I'd add a few qualifications to what I wrote above. As I said, I haven't used flight sims much lately, and it's been even longer since I've flown the 182. I also have less time on the 182 than I have on most of my other A2A planes, and at least part of that time I was flying with poor controller settings that could've contributed to the seemingly sluggish handling of the 182 that I described. (Always set your controller settings to those laid out in this post: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=47744.) So don't let me scare you off from getting the 182 if that's what you feel would be the best fit for your purposes.

[Maffou]

I am going to have to give it a couple days. Right now, I'm leaning toward the 182, but the Cherokee is very much still an option. We will see what a couple days will do with some more videos, and a little bit or reading. Either way, I'm sure I will be more than happy with what plane I get.

[Killratio]

BPL.

Yes, the R flies completely differently to an earlier model 172. In fact, with many hours in earlier and R, I treat them as different aircraft. The early models are a larger heavier C152 to me, the R shares nothing in flight characteristics with a C152.

I would go for the C182 if I were you. The C172 is pretty much as boring as it is to fly in real life. A "great trainer but a no brainer". In real life the R is more stable, heavier feeling and more comfortable than the older model with the trade off being the extra 436 fuel drains to check in preflight ! To fly away somewhere for a weekend it is a complete yawn. To fly friends on a sightseeing local trip, you'll have much fewer sick bags to clear out in the R and can nod off until you want to make turns. For interesting flying, more challenge, the C182 would be far and away better.

The Cherokee is a nice little bus but again, the C182 is much more interesting to fly.


FWIW