172 replacement

U

UngaWunga

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
2,020
Display Name
Display name:
UngaWunga
I have an offer on my plane I wasn't trying to sell, so I find myself in an odd scenario. I like the 172. Very easy to fly, 7-8 gph, and gets in and out of the 2000' home base easily enough. Has a 430w and adsb in/out. Was starting to use it as my IFR trainer. The question is what should I replace it with? I'd of course like to go a little faster, but don't want to greatly increase my fuel burn. A little more useful load sounds great as well, but I mostly fly with either me + a bunch of stuff, my wife and I and stuff, or just me screwing around the local area. I do fly down to VA and NC occasionally from NH, which is why the faster would be nicer. Being able to easily make it to Oshkosh in a day would be nice.

Who has a 182 POH they can share?

Or do I go the other route, realize I'm not going to travel the US by plane, and get a PA-12 or something? Skis for the winter could be fun...
 
DA-40? Faster with less fuel burn, but almost identical useful load.
 
I've kinda been in your position with the 172. I have a 172N with 180 hp, and often people ask me if I want to sell. Sometimes I think a little more speed or a little more range (40 gallons ain't much for an O-360) would be nice. But this airplane has been in the family for 30 years, and while it doesn't have an IFR GPS, it's well-equipped for VFR. I know the airplane inside and out, and arranged things the way I like it. It's adequate for the occasional long trip, but perfect for knocking around the local area and sightseeing, and without breaking the bank. With 180 and 40 degrees of flap (I have the flap-limit STC, but haven't installed it yet) it does well with short fields and high density altitudes. The high wing is good in the Arizona sun and heat.

Yeah, sometimes I browse Barnstormers for 182s, Cherokee 235s, and the like, but I keep coming back to the notion that this one is right for us. And I don't feel like starting over with an unknown quantity, let alone the hassles of buying and selling.
 
With the options you've given it's really pretty open. Depends a lot on your budget. A 182 is a logical step-up but they're getting quite expensive. I think we need more info before we can give you a good idea of what to replace your 172 with.
 
UngaWunga said:
I'd of course like to go a little faster, but don't want to greatly increase my fuel burn. A little more useful load sounds great as well, but I mostly fly with either me + a bunch of stuff, my wife and I and stuff, or just me screwing around the local area.
Click to expand...

It's cliched, but that sounds pretty much exactly like an older Mooney. A C or E will fit your mission on the same fuel burn, be a good bit faster, and carry probably 150 or so more pounds than a 172. They are also well priced to get into and the gear system is dead simple.

A 182 is great. I've been in a partnership with one. But the fuel burn is going to easily be 5GPH higher and then you've got 6 jugs to maintain. It's also overkill if you only want to fly you and wife 99% of the time.
 
Bonchie said:
It's cliched, but that sounds pretty much exactly like an older Mooney. A C or E will fit your mission on the same fuel burn, be a good bit faster, and carry probably 150 or so more pounds than a 172. They are also well priced to get into and the gear system is dead simple.
.
Click to expand...
The problem with a Mooney is that you start to be a bit less comfortable with a 2000' strip that the OP flies out of. That sort of restricts you to high-wing tail draggers and/or Cessna/Pipers.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
The problem with a Mooney is that you start to be a bit less comfortable with a 2000' strip that the OP flies out of. That sort of restricts you to high-wing tail draggers and/or Cessna/Pipers.
Click to expand...


Of course not having the lower gear doors and quick manual flaps helps.
 
Bill Jennings said:

Of course not having the lower gear doors and quick manual flaps helps.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of Brian Painter and his epic flying skills. For the average pilot, however, a Mooney is a bit too aerodynamically clean to be comfortable flying in and out of 2000' fields. Add fuel weight, bags, density altitude and people and that comfort level even goes further down.
 
The 182= seems to make the most sense,for 2000 ft strip.
 
I'm not super familiar with them, but maybe a fixed gear 177?
 
Well lets see

182 - probably the best pick right now IMHO, three different digital autopilots are approved for them (Trutrack, Trio and Garmin) Can burn mogas in most models.

177/177B They are really nice planes but money & complexity wise I lean towards 182. The new Garmin autopilot is not certified for any of these, Trio and Trutrack are.

Hot summer takeoffs the 182 is better than any of them mentioned in this thread imho.
 
Once my engine overhaul is done (prob about a month) I'd be happy to stop in and take you for a flight in my 182
 
UngaWunga said:
I have an offer on my plane I wasn't trying to sell, so I find myself in an odd scenario. I like the 172. Very easy to fly, 7-8 gph, and gets in and out of the 2000' home base easily enough. Has a 430w and adsb in/out. Was starting to use it as my IFR trainer. The question is what should I replace it with?
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t if it fits your mission. Not unless they’re offering above market value. It’s yours, fly the crap out of it.

That said if you go to a 182, it’ll be 11-13 GPH and carry a bit more stuff. Really that’s about it.

The Googles have a bunch of 182 POHs on various folk’s webservers. You’d need to look at specific model letters for exact numbers but really there’s about three or or four major variants.

1. The old straight tails with shotgun panels and Johnson bar flaps.

2. The early “modernized” ones.

3. The late 70s models prior to the bankruptcy and shutdown.

(Up until this point you’re mainly taking variants of the Continental O-470. A very solid engine. The one oddball exception is in 1975-76 in the Q model 182 where the O-470U was tried. It’s a bit of a different beast than a standard O-470 of any other letter. Higher compression, no MoGas STC, and longer TBO if you care.

4. The restarts after bankruptcy and the switch to Lycoming and the later addition of the turbo model.

Those major variants have differences but not enormous ones.

Favorites tend to be the straight tails for some people, the late 70s ones with the ability to add MGTOW via STC, and the restarts. But lots of the “in between” model letters are excellent airplanes and just not as popular. You might find some at a minor discount. Maybe even with their panels upgraded and straightened out.

The retract 182 from the 70s and 80s is a completely different beast and I don’t count it as a normal 182 in this very generic list.

And of course STCs abound for 182s. AOPA has an older article on the piles of mods available for them. Looking that one up and perusing it is a good idea before wading into the 182 market.

Ours has a Robertson STOL kit on it, for example that it came with from the previous owner. @motoavde has a newer kit and other nifty backcountry mods on his. So it helps be generally “aware” of those. The MoGas STCs are popular on the engines that qualify if you have easy access to non-ethanol car juice.
 
neilw2 said:
Once my engine overhaul is done (prob about a month) I'd be happy to stop in and take you for a flight in my 182
Click to expand...

Side note, always curious how those go for folks and costs and what you did, if you remember to post a follow up on it.

Because... it’s eventually coming for all of us... hahahahaha.
 
denverpilot said:
Side note, always curious how those go for folks and costs and what you did, if you remember to post a follow up on it.

Because... it’s eventually coming for all of us... hahahahaha.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's been....fun! I honestly cant wait to get it back. Hopefully will be posting about it soon and I'll include all costs for those who want to think about how awesome it is once it's time.

In the mean time I've gotten a few multi hours so I can't really complain.
 
frfly172 said:
The 182= seems to make the most sense,for 2000 ft strip.
Click to expand...
Not all 2000ft strips are the same. For example one on the coast will be near sea level, rarely get hot and frequently has a reliable headwind component versus one in the plains.
 
asicer said:
Not all 2000ft strips are the same. For example one on the coast will be near sea level, rarely get hot and frequently has a reliable headwind component versus one in the plains.
Click to expand...

Terrain too. Is it out in the middle of a field or surrounded by 100 foot pine trees? In a valley or in the flat land? Curious what airport he's at.
 
Bonchie said:
Terrain too. Is it out in the middle of a field or surrounded by 100 foot pine trees? In a valley or in the flat land? Curious what airport he's at.
Click to expand...
True. A coastal strip will usually have lower terrain in at least one direction. :)
 
Keep the 172 or get something that will be fun to fly. Maybe a Maule?
I have owned lots of airplanes and I still have a 172 in the hangar because it is a good all around airplane. I have seen many people step up to a fast traveling airplane and get bored and stop flying. People realize it is no fun to fly high and fast and they have nowhere to go. I also have a V35B Bonanza in the hangar. It is nice to go over 200mph on long trips but my 172 is WAY more enjoyable to fly. Maybe get 2 planes???? They all do different things. Out of mine my 1945 J-3 Cub and 1947 Cessna 140 fly more than all the rest, they are just fabulous!
Maybe a Cub and a traveling plane? You can get a Cub and a Bellanca Super Viking both for $60,000
 
Pilawt said:
I've kinda been in your position with the 172. I have a 172N with 180 hp, and often people ask me if I want to sell. Sometimes I think a little more speed or a little more range (40 gallons ain't much for an O-360) would be nice. But this airplane has been in the family for 30 years, and while it doesn't have an IFR GPS, it's well-equipped for VFR. I know the airplane inside and out, and arranged things the way I like it. It's adequate for the occasional long trip, but perfect for knocking around the local area and sightseeing, and without breaking the bank. With 180 and 40 degrees of flap (I have the flap-limit STC, but haven't installed it yet) it does well with short fields and high density altitudes. The high wing is good in the Arizona sun and heat.

Yeah, sometimes I browse Barnstormers for 182s, Cherokee 235s, and the like, but I keep coming back to the notion that this one is right for us. And I don't feel like starting over with an unknown quantity, let alone the hassles of buying and selling.
Click to expand...

Have you considered adding an auxiliary tank? There are a couple of options available. I also have a 172N with a 180 hp conversion, but with an 18 gallon auxiliary tank in the baggage compartment, which provides an additional 2 hours of flight time. Just a thought.
 
Badger said:
Keep the 172. Don't sell simply because someone wants to buy.
Click to expand...
This!

You currently know what you have and with a new plane, well the gremlins start all over. And on top of that the faster plane will cost more to buy, maintain, and insurance and not to mention on a regional flight you dont save a whole lot of time to justify more cost. Unless you plan to fly alot and far Id keep that 172. Unless you got an offer for $100k.
 
Do you need 4 seats? Or does 2 seats and a little baggage do it for you? Maybe an RV-9?

I think it's hard to gain a lot without also spending a lot. A 182 in your budget is going to be an older one, and your fuel burn is going to go up 50% or so. The Grumman Tiger option sounds like a good fit too, but I'm not sure how much better it will be.
 
denverpilot said:
3. The late 70s models prior to the bankruptcy and shutdown.

(Up until this point you’re mainly taking variants of the Continental O-470. A very solid engine. The one oddball exception is in 1975-76 in the Q model 182 where the O-470U was tried. It’s a bit of a different beast than a standard O-470 of any other letter. Higher compression, no MoGas STC, and longer TBO if you care.
Click to expand...

Or there's the beast we have in the club. A C-182P with the Q's engine. Haven't had any problems with it that I know of. Runs great every time I fly it.

The 172 I've flown the most is the club's 172N with the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion (including the 30 degree limitation on flap range). It has long range tanks (50 gal) so there's about 6 hours fuel to empty tanks on board. I never worry about running out of gas in that plane as it has much longer legs than I do. I need comfort stops about every 3 hours. :p

Personally, if you like your 172 and are happy with how it is set up, I'd keep it.
 
Why are you selling a well equipped plane that does what you need it to do ?


As pilawt mentioned, unless you add 30kts, there is no point in upgrading for speed.

And just because it's the law that everyone has to recommend what they own: You need a Bonanza !!





But seriously. 2000ft strip, 100k budget and a desire for more speed has V-tail written all over it.
 
But seriously. 2000ft strip, 100k budget and a desire for more speed has V-tail written all over it.[/QUOTE]

A Bonanza is great to go fast on a long trip but extremely boring to fly. If the V35B was the only plane I had I would have gave up flying a long time ago.
 
Um...he did say well under a 100k. Plus first year or 2 of v-tail insurance will be $2600ish. That takes the fun out of it plus feeding it and maintaining it. Hard to justify unless you fly long distance and often.

I just went through this and that was my quote at 56k hull and plane was 70k. Not sure on OP hours and ratings but was told it would likely stabilize at 1500 a year in a few years. So I'll stick with my Cherokee 180. Haha
 
pigpenracing said:
A Bonanza is great to go fast on a long trip but extremely boring to fly. If the V35B was the only plane I had I would have gave up flying a long time ago.
Click to expand...

No accounting for taste I guess. Maybe a V-tail is boring compared with a Extra300 or SuperCub.

It also depends on the individual aircraft. I currently own pieces of two A36s. One is a A36TC with tips, hot-prop and full up IFR equipment. The other one is an older model that is a lot lighter, 300hp engine, no tips and simple avionics. One is good to go up to 16,000ft and land 5hrs later in Florida. The other one gets off the ground quickly, has a much better roll rate and is just more fun to fly.
 
181DADC5-416A-4500-9A4F-5309B8999E66.jpeg CAFCCC38-07CC-4A62-81B7-EEAFD2BF5B1F.jpeg
weilke said:
No accounting for taste I guess. Maybe a V-tail is boring compared with a Extra300 or SuperCub.

It also depends on the individual aircraft. I currently own pieces of two A36s. One is a A36TC with tips, hot-prop and full up IFR equipment. The other one is an older model that is a lot lighter, 300hp engine, no tips and simple avionics. One is good to go up to 16,000ft and land 5hrs later in Florida. The other one gets off the ground quickly, has a much better roll rate and is just more fun to fly.
Click to expand...

The V35B in my hangar is the nicest Bonanza I have seen.... It is really classy and a beautiful airplane. Like I said if you want to fly high and fast it can not be beat for a single.
On the other hand if you just want to go for a local flight to do some sightseeing the 172 is better. I don't think the guy that started the thread is looking for a straight up traveling airplane but instead something that is good all around.
The Bonanza is also like sitting in a oven here in Texas. It sure isn't a summer plane. The 172 with the windows open is much more enjoyable.
 
Yeah I've been rather unimpressed lately with what the extra dollar gets you in capability in this frothy market. It's fun to dream about the 5% mission, but for the other 90% the economy of the current bird is just hard to beat. That's why I'm still holding on to my short legged Arrow.

If you don't need the extra useful load, there's really nowhere to go for you with a 180hp 172 in hand. If it was a stock 172 I'd probably say it's worth the upgrade within the same category, but for that airframe/engine combo, you're right there at the sweetspot imo.
 
UngaWunga said:
I like the 172. Very easy to fly, 7-8 gph, and gets in and out of the 2000' home base easily enough. Has a 430w and adsb in/out. Was starting to use it as my IFR trainer.
Click to expand...
Why change horses? Sounds like you have a good thing going. Finish your IR.
 
pigpenracing said:
The V35B in my hangar is the nicest Bonanza I have seen.... It is really classy and a beautiful airplane. Like I said if you want to fly high and fast it can not be beat for a single.
On the other hand if you just want to go for a local flight to do some sightseeing the 172 is better. I don't think the guy that started the thread is looking for a straight up traveling airplane but instead something that is good all around.
The Bonanza is also like sitting in a oven here in Texas. It sure isn't a summer plane. The 172 with the windows open is much more enjoyable.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to insult your plane. My point is that a plane is as interesting and or boring as the flying you do with it. A V-tail is not doomed to flying long distances, you can land on grass, gravel and get into most fields a unmodified 182 will do. I am not dissing little high-wing planes either. Some of the most enjoyable flying I have done was at 1001ft in a C152.
 
I like my Cherokee-235; roughly comparable to a 182 in most respects, and they may be running a little cheaper. (I haven't actually checked.)

It'll go a little faster, but really not all that much though. As much as I like mine, I wouldn't make that move for speed; you'll be disappointed. What it will do is haul a fair bit more useful load than a 172, and hold more fuel. 2000' strip should be no problem. However, expect 12-ish GPH, more if you're really in a hurry.

Honestly, I'd probably keep the 172 unless you're running up against missions you want to do but just can't for useful load. That was my situation---we simply could not take the trips we were going to want to take, when we were going to want to take them (southwest summer, high DA, 100+ temps) in a 172. If it's working for you though, I'd say stick with it unless the offer you're looking at is one you can't refuse. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top