Welcome Guest. Sign in or Signup

3 Answers

Training in a C182 glass cockpit?

Asked by: 2711 views Private Pilot

Hello AAC! I have a question about flight training for my PPL. My dad has had his PPL my entire life and I've been flying around with him in single engines since I was less than 1! He's always had a plane that I couldn't train in (Bonanza E33A single yoke). He is selling that plane and looking to get a C182 (maybe RG, maybe Turbo, probably glass cockpit) and my question is, could I train in a plane like that? I know that right off the bat I wouldn't be able to. My thought was to rent a C150/C152 until I am more prepared for the C182. Is this a possibility or a pipe dream? Thank y'all for your time!

3 Answers



  1. Max Trescott, Aviation News Talk podcast host on Aug 26, 2020

    It would be possible for you to get your pilot certificate in a Cessna 182. I’ve taught the Private to multiple people who bought a SR22 and learned to fly in it, and that aircraft is a little harder to learn than a C182. The big challenge will be insurance. Your dad’s insurance company will most likely charge more if you learn to the fly in it, as you have far less experience than he does. Also, eventually you’d need to solo the aircraft as part of your training, and there is more risk to the insurance company when you do that. So it’s possible. But it may be more cost effective to get your Private in a C152 or C172 and then afterwards get transition training in the C182, which won’t take very long.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  2. Mark Kolber on Aug 26, 2020

    I agree with Max. It may take some extra hours with a faster and more complicated airplane but it’s doable. A friend, tired of maintenance issues with school airplanes bought a 182. Another person I knew owned a 210 in a partnership and his son learned to fly in it.

    The advantage of a simple trainer is, well, it’s simple. So there is less to learn, which translates to being more efficient in terms of time to solo and to license. But it is far from the only way and there us something to be said in terms of long-term efficiency learning to fly in what you will be flying later.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  3. John Scarry on Aug 26, 2020

    I got my license at age 45 in my C182 with steam gauges. For me, the 182 was hard to learn to land well. There’s a lot more going on (and faster) than in a C172 or Cherokee. The plane flies faster so things happen faster, it takes a lot of trim to land properly, it’s heavier so it is harder to keep it on the centerline on rollout, the flaps generate a lot of drag on final and then lift on rollout which is harder to manage, and you need to manage the cowl flaps. Learning in the 182 probably added 20 hours to my training. You’ll also burn about 5 gph more than in a trainer.

    If you do learn in the C182, I’d recommend that you don’t do touch-and-goes but instead do taxi-backs. That way you can learn to manage the entire landing, get off the runway and reconfigure the plane for takeoff, then do it again.

    The glass panel itself shouldn’t add much time, but learning all the features of the system takes time. And if it is in the plane it is fair game for the examiner. Fortunately, Garmin has simulators that you can learn with without burning Avgas.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes


The following terms have been auto-detected the question above and any answers or discussion provided. Click on a term to see its definition from the Dauntless Aviation JargonBuster Glossary.

Answer Question

Our sincere thanks to all who contribute constructively to this forum in answering flight training questions. If you are a flight instructor or represent a flight school / FBO offering flight instruction, you are welcome to include links to your site and related contact information as it pertains to offering local flight instruction in a specific geographic area. Additionally, direct links to FAA and related official government sources of information are welcome. However we thank you for your understanding that links to other sites or text that may be construed as explicit or implicit advertising of other business, sites, or goods/services are not permitted even if such links nominally are relevant to the question asked.