I've been getting a lot of good info from you guys so here's another one for anyone with some experience. I've been debating the whole 3 place back country ski/float/wheel plane but also want to teach my son to fly (I'm a cfi). I think I've narrowed it down to a 170B (180hp) or a early model 180. Anyone think a early model 180 is a descent primary trainer ? I've only flown late models and I certainly would select one as a primary trainer.
Thanks folks!

Extra weight translates to extra touchdown airspeed, whether power pitch on short final to touchdown where pilot decides or at the end of round out and hold off until the airplane decides to quit flying.

Either airplane can be flown slow enough, with full flaps, to not be destroyed by a ground loop after a short ground run. The 180, however, requires a bit longer ground run to decelerate to safe ground loop speed. And it costs more to rebuild.

Purchase price and ground loop survivability is not an admitted consideration with most tailwheel pilots and CFIs I have trained. It is with every FBO I have worked for.

Guess it depends on how much money you want to spend!

170's have lighter controls and much better visibility, though neither is what I'd call an ideal trainer. Though of the two, the 180 is by far the less reasonable choice.

Primary training is hard on engines. I wouldn't want to subject a 0-470 to the endless T&G's, power off drills, full power stalls, etc.. New pilots tend to be rather ham-fisted with the engine controls, and they make mistakes. A few T&G's in dusty conditions with the carb heat still open and the propeller still dialed back...then slammed forward under power...isn't going to do the engine any good at all.

Personally I don't think a 180 is a reasonable primary trainer, though I'm sure its been done. A go-around in a 180 with the wrong trim setting could easily be fatal to a new pilot. I don't think a 180 would be that much fun for a new pilot, either. I never heard of a pilot that looked back on their early flying time and wished they had been flying a firebreather instead of the sub-100 hp airplane they learned in. Things happen fast enough for a new pilot in the slowest of airplanes...speeding it up doesn't help them any.

At the very least you'd be burning a lot of fuel and expensive engine time for a rating that could be had for half the cost in a more sensible airplane. If there's any advantage to learning in a 180, I don't see it.

Hammer,

Ya that's my thoughts as well. I've always encouraged the trusty old C152 as an initial training plane. Small aircraft are simply great for teaching someone to "feel" the aircraft.
But whiskey with buddies in a lawn chair they can be fairly convincing.

Scooper wrote:But whiskey with buddies in a lawn chair they can be fairly convincing.

That's because we pilots are REALLY good at spending other people's money!

My primary instructed a fellow from zero to private in his CE180. He told me that it took a little bit longer but it wasn’t a huge deal. I say if you’re up to the task then go for it.

You can instruct your son to manage the power the way you want it. Big Continentals like to be run hard. Can’t imagine a student would be any harder on one than an air taxi pilot where the procedure is full power climb, 24 square cruise to short final then chop the throttle. They are generally running great at TBO.

gbflyer wrote:My primary instructed a fellow from zero to private in his CE180. He told me that it took a little bit longer but it wasn’t a huge deal. I say if you’re up to the task then go for it.

You can instruct your son to manage the power the way you want it. Big Continentals like to be run hard. Can’t imagine a student would be any harder on one than an air taxi pilot where the procedure is full power climb, 24 square cruise to short final then chop the throttle. They are generally running great at TBO.

Yes, but that's largely because they're flying every day......Trust me, air taxi jocks can screw up engines just like anyone else.

I agree that you can do this task in either airplanes, with the RIGHT flight instructor. To me, the test would be: Which airplane do I want to own when the training is over? Or, if you plan to sell it after: Which airplane will sell easiest and recover initial cost best?

MTV

My first solo and PPL was in our family 170B. Prior to that, most of my time was in 7AC Champs. My stepdad would cover the entire panel with a sectional and taught me to learn to fly the pattern by listening and looking (in both the 170B and Champs). I don't think a student pilot could easily learn to do that in a 180, and it's a valuable lesson to learn early.

(I know bigrenna will love the nice photo showcasing my wheel panties below) [emoji23]



A 180 feels like a heavy dump truck in comparison to the 170. Not meant in a negative way, but it's like a heavy, powerful station wagon where the 170B feels like a lighter, albeit underpowered, sports car.

I wouldn't want to learn or teach primary in a 180. Something simpler like the 170 (fixed pitch prop, etc...) would be way less workload for a student IMO.

It's harder to get a sense of the basics IMO in a big pig like the 180. Again, not meant to be derogatory, but even the early 180's feel like crap on the controls compared to any 170. To be fair, the way a 170 feels on the controls isn't ideal either, but it's "less crappy" than the 180.

For example, I have zero desire to bang the pattern in any 180, but the 170B is light enough on the controls to be fun. The 170B is borderline though, because a Champ or Cub is best for that kind of fun.

The 180 has never been an attractive flying airplane to me, but what it can do is attractive. The 170B is an attractive flying airplane IMO, but its lack of capability is a huge bummer.

Someday I'll add a 180/185 to accompany my 170B and then I'll have it all covered! Oh and I'll have to keep my 7ECA so that I can sit centerline, with a tandem seat, and a proper stick located between my legs. I loathe the dorky yokes in the Cessnas. [emoji2961]

Ya I agree with you. No more lawn chairs and whiskey for me....for a night.

I pretty much learned to fly in a 185 on wheels and floats, that is all we had when I was a kid so that is what we used. Like MTV said, it depends on the instructor and I had an incredible instructor ( my dad ) so it worked. My dad taught his buddy to fly from zero hours to PPL in the same 185, it can be done but it all depends on the instructor. Personally, I think the 170 would be a fantastic trainer but not the great load packing work horse back country the 180 or 185 are.

Kurt

You might consider an insurance quote on both to help make up your mind. I fly a 205 now, and wouldn’t want to have trained in it. It’s heavy, sinks when it gets slow, and has more going on (more avionics, fuel management, cowl flaps, prop, etc). And it’s a lot more expensive to buy, maintain, and fly. My wife sure likes it more than the 172 though.

Ya the insurance quote is a good point

If that is the only airplane he has known then I don't think it will be that difficult. Yes there is more going on than a fixed pitch airplane but then you will get folks who will argue that learning in a tailwheel is so much harder than a trike. A friend of the family trained his daughter in their 195....

Anything is possible [emoji1360]

A CFI consideration is quality and speed of instruction. Dynamic proactive rudder movement, for me, has been better and faster than static reactive. It requires a looser oversight, however. The student cannot rapidly walk the rudder pedals with our feet on them.

Back when most trainers were tailwheel, most trainers were ugly and cheap. That leant itself to quality and speed of takeoff and landing training.

Aryana wrote:Anything is possible [emoji1360]

Yep, I've got a friend who purchased a Commander 114 Turbo. He had 7 hours total time before purchasing, and did the rest of his PPL and Instrument training in that complex, high-performance, turbocharged airplane. Insurance was astronomical, but he wanted to learn in his "forever" airplane, and that's what he did.

I guess if you want something bad enough, you can make it happen. And i I was a kid with "free" access to a C-180, I'd sure enough learn to fly in a C-182... LOL