177 vs 182 For cargo

D

Dervent Quant

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
23
Display Name
Display name:
CaicosCargo
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!
 
Thank you, will be looking forward to finer details points at some point but will dive into the realm of research around the 182
 
Dervent Quant said:
Thank you, will be looking forward to finer details points at some point but will dive into the realm of research around the 182
Click to expand...
I’m going to buy one soon. It’ll be my first nose wheel plane! My girlfriend wants to learn how to fly and I need to sell the biplane and get a photo plane I can make my own... so it’s 182 time!!
 
Just to be contrary I will say Cardinal. Even though you really want the 182 for this.
 
I’m going with the182 overall.
 
182. Cessna still makes it because it’s one of the best GA aircraft of all time. Doesn’t do anything great, but everything good. If you want a real hauler, Cessna 206. Again, Cessna still makes it. That should tell you something.
 
EdFred said:
Just to be contrary I will say Cardinal. Even though you really want the 182 for this.
Click to expand...
i appreciate you!!!! i do, i flew in a cardinal about 6 years ago, it was border line orgasmic
 
Brad Z said:
A few decades ago “short cargo hauls around the Caribbean” would immediately trigger interest from the DEA. But yeah, a 182 is your best bet.
Click to expand...
well, i got it! lol the plant plug
 
Brad Z said:
A few decades ago “short cargo hauls around the Caribbean” would immediately trigger interest from the DEA. But yeah, a 182 is your best bet.
Click to expand...

Is that no longer a problem they’re dealing with?
 
182, by far. I have the big tanks (88 gal. Usable) and still have a 777lb payload.
 
Both have very small cargo area doors so that could suck. The 177 has larger front doors so that might help to jam stuff into the back seat. I usually hit my head on the 177 wing since it sits lower so if you are tall that could be a minor nuisance. No struts makes the 177 look awesome compared to 182 but the struts make it way easier to push around. I know you can remove the back seats form the 182 as an owner since the POH gives all W&B stuff with and without. If you are really hauling just cargo, look into having the copilot seat removed as well (its easy).

A lot of 182's will have useful load around 1150...1300lbs. Remove the rear and front seats probably gets you another 40lbs. Let's say you do 2 legs per fuel fill that's 200nm which is less than 2hrs fuel so use 40gal to have nice reserve so subtract 240lbs of fuel and you still have about 1000lbs left for you and your cargo! And you will notice the extra 50hp on climb out, etc.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I’m going to buy one soon. It’ll be my first nose wheel plane! My girlfriend wants to learn how to fly and I need to sell the biplane and get a photo plane I can make my own... so it’s 182 time!!
Click to expand...
Curious the preference for the 182 over the 177 for a photo plane Jack. Seems the lack of a wing spar would be preferred..so that leaves me guessing speed and maybe higher DA areas when traveling/shooting?
 
Not the two mentioned, but for your mission a Maule MX series (5 or 7) 180hp might be a fairly inexpensive to maintain option. Nice loading area/doors, about 1000-1100 useful, great short/rough field performance, and fast enough for short trips.
Edit: Insurance might be a tad higher, but offset by 4 cyl to feed/maintain vs. the 182.

Here's one example.
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...=MXT-7-180&listing_id=2367268&s-type=aircraft
 
Last edited:
I really like Cardinals -- easy entry/exit, roomy, best handling in roll of any Cessna, great visibility. BUT ... as a cargo hauler the 182 is more substantial. During development of the 177 the airframe was turning out to be heavier than anticipated, so Cessna tried to cut weight anywhere they could -- thinner skins, lighter hardware, etc. It does seem a bit chintzy in places.

As mentioned above, the baggage doors of both the 177 and 182 are too small for serious cargo work.
 
+1 For Cherokee 6. Take out seats and those big loading doors. Are they similar to 182 prices?

Back to 177/182. Since your mission isn't about speed, take off the wheel pants as well to cut more weight..and make it easier to check tires on every stop.

Another angle on the 182. Go for an older model. Even though the cabin will be a bit narrower you'll have more useful load and your main mission isn't using it for people. Also I think the older 182s had a small side panel up front to make servicing (airing up) the front strut a bit easier.
 
Sinistar said:
+1 For Cherokee 6. Take out seats and those big loading doors. Are they similar to 182 prices?

Back to 177/182. Since your mission isn't about speed, take off the wheel pants as well to cut more weight..and make it easier to check tires on every stop.

Another angle on the 182. Go for an older model. Even though the cabin will be a bit narrower you'll have more useful load and your main mission isn't using it for people. Also I think the older 182s had a small side panel up front to make servicing (airing up) the front strut a bit easier.
Click to expand...
P/Q with the fresh pick STC, and the R model have the highest useful of all of the 182s
 
A caution with the Trolltune/Fresh Pick STC (which brings MGTOW to 3,100 instead of 2,950). You need to burn off that 150 gal of fuel before landing. OP says short hops, 100 nm or less. 100 nm is only about 60-70 lbs of fuel burn in a 182. Are you going to break the plane over that difference, probably not, but you'll certainly cause extra wear on the gear components. If you do it a lot, you're well into test pilot mode.
 
Geosync said:
182. Cessna still makes it because it’s one of the best GA aircraft of all time. Doesn’t do anything great, but everything good. If you want a real hauler, Cessna 206. Again, Cessna still makes it. That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

i've looked into the 206 - 210 but am concerned with the cost of operations and whether or not i'll be able to complete basic training in them.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
A caution with the Trolltune/Fresh Pick STC (which brings MGTOW to 3,100 instead of 2,950). You need to burn off that 150 gal of fuel before landing. OP says short hops, 100 nm or less. 100 nm is only about 60-70 lbs of fuel burn in a 182. Are you going to break the plane over that difference, probably not, but you'll certainly cause extra wear on the gear components. If you do it a lot, you're well into test pilot mode.
Click to expand...

Of course within reason we will fill the tanks, but if there's no reason to fill beyond 2/3s full there should be little issue with having to shed this extra weight, also, i'd imagine if there was a true emergency i wouldn't be worried about breaking the landing gear due to being over recommended landing weight. I appreciate the thought; as it's something i've not considered as yet.
 
Groundpounder said:
Cherokee 6's are very similar to 182 prices, and a lot more bang for the buck, IMHO, especially if you want to carry a lot of people and/or things.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Pilawt said:
I really like Cardinals -- easy entry/exit, roomy, best handling in roll of any Cessna, great visibility. BUT ... as a cargo hauler the 182 is more substantial. During development of the 177 the airframe was turning out to be heavier than anticipated, so Cessna tried to cut weight anywhere they could -- thinner skins, lighter hardware, etc. It does seem a bit chintzy in places.

As mentioned above, the baggage doors of both the 177 and 182 are too small for serious cargo work.
Click to expand...


noted. I'm mostly going to be hauling a few hundred pounds of plants and agri-products. I'd love to have a 206 to a kodiak at some point but those are high performance and costly to run as a start up with a mirco budget. I see it as an opportunity to expand from. I'm mostly concerned about the size and quantity of plants i'd be able to haul over a really small distance. I live in the Turks and Caicos, I'm sure I can run larger loads with 'minimum fuel' i've only 100 nm to go each way... with access to fuel at either end of that leg.
 
Sinistar said:
Both have very small cargo area doors so that could suck. The 177 has larger front doors so that might help to jam stuff into the back seat. I usually hit my head on the 177 wing since it sits lower so if you are tall that could be a minor nuisance. No struts makes the 177 look awesome compared to 182 but the struts make it way easier to push around. I know you can remove the back seats form the 182 as an owner since the POH gives all W&B stuff with and without. If you are really hauling just cargo, look into having the copilot seat removed as well (its easy).

A lot of 182's will have useful load around 1150...1300lbs. Remove the rear and front seats probably gets you another 40lbs. Let's say you do 2 legs per fuel fill that's 200nm which is less than 2hrs fuel so use 40gal to have nice reserve so subtract 240lbs of fuel and you still have about 1000lbs left for you and your cargo! And you will notice the extra 50hp on climb out, etc.
Click to expand...

this is great to know! all of it, i'm about 6' 3" and have had that thought. yes, i'll be mostly cargo, with the option of taking 2 or 3 passengers for jobs. 1000 lbs is plenty for the moment!!
 
Skip Miller said:
No. The Saratoga II came in both fixed gear and retract models. PA-32-301 and PA-32-301R.

-Skip
Click to expand...
ah okay, i looked up cherokee 6 and saratoga came up at the same time, appreciate the clarification
 
Skyrys62 said:
Curious the preference for the 182 over the 177 for a photo plane Jack. Seems the lack of a wing spar would be preferred..so that leaves me guessing speed and maybe higher DA areas when traveling/shooting?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top