177 vs 182 For cargo

Dervent Quant said:
Evening, i'm a pilot in training and i'm also looking for a working airplane for short cargo hauls in the Caribbean. Less than 100 nautical mile legs. I'm searching for an airplane that I can both finish my training in and use after the fact.

Considering renting or buying for flight training, and thought, if I could purchase through the company to offset the cost of training.

Your advices are greatly appreciated!
Click to expand...

182 is a way better truck than a 177...

(Family owns both in 1968 flavors)
 
Dervent Quant said:
I've done my first 30 hours in cherokees.. love them, but im going into landscaping - agricultural consulting, loading plants into a cessna seems easier than a piper.
Click to expand...
I've heard of many different ways to describe running drugs over the years, but flying plants as an agricultural consultant takes the cake. :rolleyes:

Loading pretty much anything through a typical cessna cargo door is a PITA. Trying to step over the landing gear to load stuff in and out of the main door is even worse IMO. A Cherokee 6 or a 206 would be way quicker and easier. From what I understand, speed of loading/unloading is important for most agricultural consultant types.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Hmmm... maybe I should admit I somehow read the original post as 172 vs. 182!! I'm not even sure I've ever flown in a 177! I have considered them for a photo plane before. I think the big downside is the non-opening windows. I would have to put a removable photo window in. On the 182, I just disconnect the arm that limits the window travel and let it float under the wing.

Honestly I think a 177 would be a great photo plane with a couple of mods.
Click to expand...
Sound advice, that would be doable.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I've heard of many different ways to describe running drugs over the years, but flying plants as an agricultural consultant takes the cake. :rolleyes:

Loading pretty much anything through a typical cessna cargo door is a PITA. Trying to step over the landing gear to load stuff in and out of the main door is even worse IMO. A Cherokee 6 or a 206 would be way quicker and easier. From what I understand, speed of loading/unloading is important for most agricultural consultant types.
Click to expand...
Well... ALRIGHTY THEN... Thought of the 206 and looked into the Cherokee 6 ... Will look some more. This .. your observations of us Agriculture consulting types is in retrospect a great show of knowledge and experience.
 
If you are careful to maintain the CG within limits, the 182 will haul lead bricks if you ask it to.

Don't get the 1957 (x model) or '58 (A model). These are the only two without cowl flaps and that oil temp gets right up to the redline in summer. From the B model on, they all have cowl flaps.

Jim
 
The Fresh Pick STC is a piece of paper which increases the 182's gross weight for take-off by 150lbs for 182P's & 182Q's. My 1100lb useful load magically went to 1250lbs.
http://trolltune.com/

If you need 1400-1600lbs with wider doors, then like others have said the Cessna 206 is the ticket.
 
I flew my 150hp Cardinal to Oshkosh from Alabama. I took out the back and co-pilot seats and carried a cooler, two plastic storage bins, a 6 person tent and air mattress, a screen tent, two burner stove, folding table and two chairs. Plus clothes and food. I flew over the Chicago Class B on the way home.

I would recommend the Cardinal for primary training and sight seeing. If you are hauling anything that won't fit in your pocket, Get a 206.
 
images
 
cgrab said:
I flew my 150hp Cardinal to Oshkosh from Alabama. I took out the back and co-pilot seats and carried a cooler, two plastic storage bins, a 6 person tent and air mattress, a screen tent, two burner stove, folding table and two chairs. Plus clothes and food. I flew over the Chicago Class B on the way home.

I would recommend the Cardinal for primary training and sight seeing. If you are hauling anything that won't fit in your pocket, Get a 206.
Click to expand...


Looked at it.. though I'm leaning more to the pa32 if I'm able to source a fg model.
 
Thank y
NordicDave said:
The Fresh Pick STC is a piece of paper which increases the 182's gross weight for take-off by 150lbs for 182P's & 182Q's. My 1100lb useful load magically went to 1250lbs.
http://trolltune.com/

If you need 1400-1600lbs with wider doors, then like others have said the Cessna 206 is the ticket.
Click to expand...
Thoughts on a pa32?
 
weirdjim said:
If you are careful to maintain the CG within limits, the 182 will haul lead bricks if you ask it to.

Don't get the 1957 (x model) or '58 (A model). These are the only two without cowl flaps and that oil temp gets right up to the redline in summer. From the B model on, they all have cowl flaps.

Jim
Click to expand...
Great to know.. as it's summer all year round here ... How about a pa32?
 
Of the two the 182 is the better option. But there’s better cargo haulers than the 182 also.

Depends on what you’re hauling and how much you can charge for it if this is a commercial venture. Along with all the necessary stuff to do it commercially. Without cost analysis we can’t even tell you if starting the engine is worth it, fuel and maintenance-wise. Without size and weight we can’t tell you if it’ll even fit through the door.
 
denverpilot said:
Of the two the 182 is the better option. But there’s better cargo haulers than the 182 also.

Depends on what you’re hauling and how much you can charge for it if this is a commercial venture. Along with all the necessary stuff to do it commercially. Without cost analysis we can’t even tell you if starting the engine is worth it, fuel and maintenance-wise. Without size and weight we can’t tell you if it’ll even fit through the door.
Click to expand...
Will do more cross referencing and begin the cost analysis for both, it's an agricultural operation. Ferrying grow mediums, teas and tonics, small to medium sized vegetable/fruit trees, and produce. The pa32 has a great config as well, I can remove both rear seats have ample storage space for the typical haul and remain a 4 place aircraft for convince.
 
Groundpounder said:
PA-32 would be the best at doing what you want to do.
Click to expand...
I'm leaning to the pa32 I am a bit biased though, begun my initial training in a pa28.. and it's low to the ground.. at least the cabin...and won't have to trip on any struts.
 
weirdjim said:
If you are careful to maintain the CG within limits, the 182 will haul lead bricks if you ask it to.

Don't get the 1957 (x model) or '58 (A model). These are the only two without cowl flaps and that oil temp gets right up to the redline in summer. From the B model on, they all have cowl flaps.

Jim
Click to expand...

never had this issue myself and, honestly, always wondered why they added cowl flaps. Of course, today's oil's redlines are much higher than those of 1958.

I also thought that cowl flaps were about CHTs, not Oil temp. Maybe they go hand-in-hand but, with the O470s oil cooler being right up front...don't see how cowl flaps would significantly affect it. I'm no engineer though...

and the great part about not having cowl flaps is that it's significantly easier to remove the cowl for oil changes and other mx.

I think a more important consideration for him, depending on the physical size of his anticipated loads, may be to buy a wide body. They were widened in '62 IIRC, the same year the back window was added.
 
Last edited:
I fly a Lance which is a PA-32R.... the retract version of the PA32 that came before the Saratoga. I transitioned from a Cherokee Archer II to this plane in 3 hours. They're just big cherokees, they don't fly too much different. Biggest difference is it's a bigger heavier plane, first thing you'll notice is a lot more effort needed to move the rudder pedals especially while taxiing. Second thing you'll notice is more force on the elevator controls. Other than that it's pretty much just a big Cherokee. Especially if you're dealing with a fixed gear model. I don't see a reason not to complete primary training in one especially if it's what you intend to fly.

There are a whole much of different variants of the PA32 but in general the fixed gear options are the PA-32-300 and the PA-32-260. The 260 has less HP but it has the most useful load... if speed and takeoff performance aren't a huge concern a 260 might not be a bad way to go for hauling.
 
Worth mentioning that removing the rear seat in a 182 is a standard option as per the type certificate to fly in a "cargo" configuration. With the rear seat removed, the 182 approaches near mini-van capacity.

There is also a price bump for 1972 and later models with the tubular main gear due to increased gross weight.
 
timwinters said:
never had this issue myself and, honestly, always wondered why they added cowl flaps. Of course, today's oil's redlines are much higher than those of 1958.

I also thought that cowl flaps were about CHTs, not Oil temp. Maybe they go hand-in-hand but, with the O470s oil cooler being right up front...don't see how cowl flaps would significantly affect it. I'm no engineer though...

and the great part about not having cowl flaps is that it's significantly easier to remove the cowl for oil changes and other mx.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. I fly a 1958 model all the time and if anything, oil temps are too low!
 
I fly a highly modified 182 with removable doors and jump seats in the back. If it fits, it flys.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Hmmm... maybe I should admit I somehow read the original post as 172 vs. 182!! I'm not even sure I've ever flown in a 177! I have considered them for a photo plane before. I think the big downside is the non-opening windows. I would have to put a removable photo window in. On the 182, I just disconnect the arm that limits the window travel and let it float under the wing.

Honestly I think a 177 would be a great photo plane with a couple of mods.
Click to expand...
Jack

I’ll be happy to take you up in my 177RG and let you play with it. That said, if I were buying a plane to fly cargo I’d go with a 182 instead of a 177.

As a photo-plane no strut would be handy but the 182 you were using as a photo-plane when we went up was out climbing me pretty significantly. Given the wide range of planes you work with the 182 might give you more options.

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top