I do not have an IR and do overwater flights. But I have about 50 hours under the hood and 6.5 hours of real IMC (instructor right seat) and can fly an ILS if needed. This is not significant experience, but enough to fly the plane on instruments in marginal VMC. I treat overwater flying as potentially IMC even when it is VFR. It’s not about flying approaches. It’s about being comfortable in the plane without a horizon line and in clouds of bright mist.
My point is that you need to be really comfortable switching to instruments over water. It’s visually quite different from land (although the same thing can happen over a hard surface too!). I need to get my IR (wish I could use an FAA IR as the written is passed and experience requirements met), but need an EASA rating to use it in my plane.
The sensible answer is that regular flights from Cyprus will virtually require you to get an IR or at least be proficient on instruments, which will come about because you are training for an IR. This is one of the reasons I urge you to set up a training relationship somewhere on the mainland. You can go plenty of places there without an IR.
I seriously considered flying to Paphos from Sitia about a year ago. In the end, I decided no to do it: to far without an IR, too many unknowns over the water. In fact, I’ve spent more time than that over water, but i’ve been much closer to land for a diversion, if needed.
You do need to be a good instrument pilot to fly in the “goldfish bowl” conditions but curiously you can fly quite well VFR around Greece. File on the IFR routes like an IFR flight… They are relaxed.
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
I seriously considered flying to Paphos from Sitia about a year ago. In the end, I decided no to do it: to far without an IR, too many unknowns over the water. In fact, I’ve spent more time than that over water, but i’ve been much closer to land for a diversion, if needed.
I’ll go with the instructor first time anyway. Then we’ll see. I have no choice, anyway. Otherwise, I’ll be stuck on the island!
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
This is one of the reasons I urge you to set up a training relationship somewhere on the mainland. You can go plenty of places there without an IR.
If I base my plane somewhere else, I won’t fly often enough. Unless I buy two planes.
Another point of which I’m not certain is whether it’s better to buy a turbo or normally aspirated plane. I’m talking about 182.
Turbo seems to be more versatile, but it requires paying more attention to the engine management (no shock cooling etc). I don’t know if it’s a serious issue.
Valentin wrote:
As for Cessna P210, I considered it before and decided it’s too complicated for a new pilot (retractable gear, pressurisation). And I hardly see any advantages in this model in my situation.
On what basis do you decide this? Retracable gear is not rocket science. There also are 210’s which are non pressurized, they are almost exactly like a 182 RG in terms of complexity but for the gear.
What I am starting to think is that you are way ahead of yourself trying to figure out what airplane you can master. Finish the PPL first, then go around and try some different planes before you comit to one. I think it will be worth it.
I know MANY people including Peter here who converted from a fixed gear/prop airplane directly to a so called “complex” type with variable prop and retracable gear. I myself moved to the Seneca at 70 hours TT all of which in a Cessna 150. The next plane I learnt was the Caravelle. Friend of mine who learnt to fly on a Katana bought a Piper Arrow III the moment he got his PPL and did the transition in less than 10 hours with his FI. Another guy I know actually finished off his PPL on a Mooney M20F. And then there is this guy, who is actually on this forum and in this thread:
TBM Trip report to the Maldives
who states he is a 600 hour pilot who spent 400 hours on a DA40 and then upgraded to a TBM. Well, there you go, that is about your plan, isn’t it?
A 210 is no different in complexity to a C182RG. The C182 with fixed gear is only one lever different (namely the landing gear lever) to the C182RG. The pressurized 210, yes it has the pressurisation to take care of, but that again is not something which requires a lot of experience nor extraordinary mindpower… heck, you are in IT, something which makes my head turn only thinking about programming….
Turbo vs non turbo: Yes the turbo needs more attention. No slamming the throttle forward, but setting a power. Observing cool down times after landing. Shock Cooling is not limited to Turbos, you don’t want to do this with a normally aspirated engine either. So “Take Off Powrer” means advancing the throttle(s) exactly as you would in a non-turbo but observing the MP needle and setting max take off power rather than slam-bam to the wall. Which never was a good idea anyhow, not on any piston engines nor jets. The only airplane where slamming the throttles forward I know was Concorde. Unfortunately they don’t make those anymore.
But if that is what you are worried about, we are fast coming back to the Cirrus. No prop lever, no gear lever, parashute. Only a throttle and a mixer like your Cherokee 140.
What you get with a turbo is a ceiling around FL250 (obviously this needs oxygen and in most cases via a mask) whereas non-turbo touring types reach FL180-200 or so. You also get a much better climb rate: 1000fpm all the way to FL180 is not unusual i.e. 18 minutes whereas my TB20 takes some 45 mins to get there.
But as with most freebies there is a longer term cost. There is extra complexity (more to go wrong – lots of cases of long downtime) and almost no turbo engine (of the Lyco/Conti family) makes TBO without some cylinder replacements due to cracks. The exhaust system struggles to withstand the higher temperature. A turbo is thus best avoided unless you need the high altitude performance. This isn’t like the turbo in “your” VW Golf which just goes on for ever; firstly cars spend almost all the time at low power (even 120km/h is ~40% power for a 2 litre car) and secondly car turbos are highly developed whereas piston GA turbos are from the 1950s.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
On what basis do you decide this? Retracable gear is not rocket science. There also are 210’s which are non pressurized, they are almost exactly like a 182 RG in terms of complexity but for the gear.
I understand that it’s not rocket science. However, pilots are humans and make mistakes sometimes. For example, they land with gears up. More systems – more possibilities for mistakes. I believe that it’s possible to operate a pressurised plane with retractable gear for a low time PPL. I just decided that it’s too many complications for no real advantage. And these additional systems will require additional maintenance and might be a cause for some downtime. In particular, I read that the retractable gear in C210 is not very reliable.
A newer plane with fewer systems is better than an older one with more systems when I have poor maintenance facilities and no experience at all, isn’t it?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And then there is this guy, who is actually on this forum and in this thread:TBM Trip report to the Maldives
who states he is a 600 hour pilot who spent 400 hours on a DA40 and then upgraded to a TBM. Well, there you go, that is about your plan, isn’t it?
Yes, I read this report. However, this guy had 400 hours (and IR) when he upgraded to a TBM, not just a PPL with no hours.
Valentin wrote:
However, this guy had 400 hours (and IR) when he upgraded to a TBM, not just a PPL with no hours.
Exactly. And he did it in a DA40. Pretty much what you want to do with your C182 or Cirrus. Quite amazing nevertheless. Valentin wrote:
For example, they land with gears up.
Valentin wrote:
However, pilots are humans and make mistakes sometimes. For example, they land with gears up.
Oh yea. Lots of times. No matter how many hours they have.
Valentin wrote:
I just decided that it’s too many complications for no real advantage.
As I said, I think it’s early for that decision and well, there are advantages. RG means upwards of 30 kts more speed for the same engine and fuel flow, just for starters. Pressurisation, well, you might be willing to fly for hours under O2 but you can bet your passengers won’t. If I had the money, the C210P would be very high on my shopping list. Exactly because I think it’s a plane an average pilot can handle as opposed to Malibus which bite even very experienced folks. Or if I can get my hands on an M22… but that is also very unrealistic I’m afraid. And no, I won’t recommend that one to you.
But turning in circles also is part of flying. Because of that many folks who think about gear and pressure and so on not unlike yourself, Cirrus is now the marketleader.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If I had the money, the C210P would be very high on my shopping list. Exactly because I think it’s a plane an average pilot can handle
The P210 has a reputation for being capable, but also one of the most demanding light aircraft to own and operate. Would this not be the last aircraft to recommend to a first time aircraft buyer? Maybe a P337 twin might be worse?
I think Valentin seems to have had the right idea initially in focusing on a C182.
