Glass cockpit vs steam gauges for low time PPL (and getting into a fast aircraft early on)

The C/T182 is an excellent airplane. As all planes, it has lots of trade-offs. It is really good on rough and short runways. It takes a lot of useful load and fuel so you can carry a lot and have a good range. It is not fast for that engine power.

If you want something fast like a SR22, a PA46, or a TTX/Corvalis/Columbia, you will not be able to comfortably go into anything much shorter than 800 m, you may not carry as much load with the same range. But you’ll get there fast.

The DA40 is also quite fast given the engine power, but it is a 2-seater with full fuel and some luggage. You can carry 3 adults if you trade range. 4 adults is not possible unless they are light and you trade a lot of range. The CG is also limiting when you start putting stuff in the baggage area or back seat.

And none of those planes will be happy on rough runways.

This is why you need to have a good idea if how you are going to use the plane before you chose. Some people call that the mission profile, others do not like that term. And you need to be able to sacrifice one characteristic in favour of another.

You will find the POH of most of these planes in the Internet. In some cases in the manufacturer web sites, and in other cases on the web site of some club or rental outfit.

Keep in mind that the W&B numbers in those POHs are often for planes with minimum equipment and therefore not representative of a plane with the equipment level you want. It will however give you a general idea of their capabilities.

Easy ways to raise the payload are

• publish a higher Vs (although the max for a SEP is 60kt) – a few kt makes a dramatic difference to the loading envelope
• publish a higher MTOW (and a higher Vs)

The TBM700C2 and the PC12 got the 60kt raised to 65kt and gained big payload increases.

The thing is that there are other considerations than just stall speed. Structural strength, engine power, service ceiling…

Aviathor wrote:

The DA40 is also quite fast given the engine power, but it is a 2-seater with full fuel and some luggage. You can carry 3 adults if you trade range. 4 adults is not possible unless they are light and you trade a lot of range. The CG is also limiting when you start putting stuff in the baggage area or back seat.

For what it’s worth I’ve flown quite a bit in a friends Lycoming powered DA40 with two couples, although not as PIC so I didn’t do the W&B. I understand it may have higher payload than the Diesel powered version? This one has the G1000 setup and the owner likes it, although fitting ADS-B was apparently a pain (several iterations through the Garnin certified shop to get it working right)

The back seat is roomier in a DA40 than the front seat, which is cramped for me.

Silvaire wrote:

I understand it may have higher payload than the Diesel powered version?

IIRC the first DA40-180 had MTOW 1150 kg. The MTOW was later raised to 1200 kg by applying a service bulletin. The problem is that the CG very quickly exceeds the aft limit.

I have skimmed the documentation of the DA40NG which I believe is equipped with the AE300 engine (168 HP) which is even heavier that the CD135/155 which were heavier than the IO360. IIRC the MTOW of the DA40NG is 1310 kg. I have not checked the W&B data, but since the airplane will be more nose-heavy (from the engine), the CG may well be better off.

So in other words that may well depend on what Diesel-powered version you are referring to. The first Diesel versions only had 135 HP versus to the 180 HP of the IO360-powered version, AND they were heavier than the IO360. The AE300 is even heavier, but they have raised the MTOW.

Valentin wrote:

Rough and short runways are not a priority (I don’t know any nearby but who knows…). Safety of operating by a low time pilot is a priority. Speed and range are priorities as well. However, speed often contradicts safety. Ability to carry four people is essential, but not necessarily with full fuel. Availability of relatively new planes is a priority (made in this century at least). And modern avionics.

Honestly, just buy a Cirrus. To me it seems like the right plane for you.

JasonC wrote:

Valentin wrote:

Rough and short runways are not a priority (I don’t know any nearby but who knows…). Safety of operating by a low time pilot is a priority. Speed and range are priorities as well. However, speed often contradicts safety. Ability to carry four people is essential, but not necessarily with full fuel. Availability of relatively new planes is a priority (made in this century at least). And modern avionics.

Honestly, just buy a Cirrus. To me it seems like the right plane for you.

People do seem to love the Cirri. I do not, but that’s not too relevant.

If you do buy a Cirrus, do not go for anything older than a G3. But make sure if was flown by somebody who understands engines and did not just slam the throttle into the firewall and leaned using “Lean Assist”. The way the Cirrus power lever works is that until a detent, advancing the power lever just increases MP and the RPM remains at or below 2500. Beyond that detent, the RPM will rise to 2650 or whatever max RPM is, over a very short travel of the lever. When a SR22 takes off, you will often hear the prop governor at work as the power lever goes past the detent. And that cannot be good for the engine. A little while ago I talked to a mechanic who told me he saw a lot og Cirrus engines with trashed crankshaft bearing, and he attributes that to this particular design feature.