182 feeling cramped.

Challenged

Challenged

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,901
Location
Louisiana
Display Name
Display name:
Challenged
In the past couple of months I was able to go for a flight in a couple of 182s, one was a new 182 Turbo and the other was a much older 182 (but don't know the year); they both felt very cramped to me. On the last flight I had just a tiny bag with some clothes and my flight bag and I put them on the back seat and wondered how anyone would fit back there comfortably. The interior dimensions are about the same as my Bonanza as far as I know, so I guess it's just a mental thing about what you're used to or some ergonomic difference either with the interior or maybe a high wing/strut thing that made it feel more claustrophobic.

One thing I did like was the vents in the Cessna, I had forgotten about those, but it dumped lots of cool air on me once we were up in the sky, which was really nice compared to the Bonanza.
 
I dunno, try a 152. It might be a better fit.
 
Challenged said:
In the past couple of months I was able to go for a flight in a couple of 182s, one was a new 182 Turbo and the other was a much older 182 (but don't know the year); they both felt very cramped to me.
Click to expand...
If the "much older" one was 1961 or older, those are about four inches narrower inside than the later models.
 
This might be a case of expectation bias (is that an actual term?). It's like when you want to see a movie and then everyone tells you how awesome it is, but it ends up being sort of "meh" because your expectations are super high. I bet that's part of it anyhow. I feel like I had always heard everyone say you could throw 4 men and camping gear in there and off you go, but it seems like that would make for a pretty cozy flight.
 
Last edited:
There’s a lot of legroom in the back of a 182 when my short butt is in the front.
 
I never worry about the backseat room,have no intention of riding in the back. as i get older its about the ease of entry.
 
Challenged said:
This might be a case of expectation bias (is that an actual term?). It's like when you want to see a movie and then everyone tells you how awesome it is, but it ends up being sort of "meh" because your expectations are super high. I bet that's part of it anyhow. I feel like I had always heard everyone say you could throw 4 men and camping gear in there and off you go, but it seems like that would make for a pretty cozy flight.
Click to expand...

I have some cross-country time in a 2011 Cessna 182T. One of those fancy G1000 equipped showpieces.

It's no Aztec, that's for sure, but it's got more front seat headroom and shoulder width than any Bonanza I've ever been in. We did do a roughly 12 hour round trip to Reno with three guys in the plane with no issues.

But the newer 182s certainly can't carry 4 men and gear. They just don't have anywhere near the useful load.
And that puny little baggage door is a PITA compared to any of the five Pipers I've owned.
 
Last edited:
Even getting in and out of the plane was kind of rough I thought, as I found myself tripping over the wheel pants while I was trying to put my stuff in the back seat and hop in. The more recent one must have been the one that is 4 inches narrower, so that maybe warped my perception in the wrong direction. I'm sure it mostly just a "what you're used to" issue and I imagine some pilots trying to get in/out of the Bonanza would leave them scratching their heads.

frfly172 said:
I never worry about the backseat room,have no intention of riding in the back. as i get older its about the ease of entry.
Click to expand...
 
Also, just to be fair the Bonanza has a fair number of items that I don't like and I realize that all airplanes are trade-offs, even if you can afford to buy a jet.
 
Challenged said:
Even getting in and out of the plane was kind of rough I thought, as I found myself tripping over the wheel pants while I was trying to put my stuff in the back seat and hop in. The more recent one must have been the one that is 4 inches narrower, so that maybe warped my perception in the wrong direction. I'm sure it mostly just a "what you're used to" issue and I imagine some pilots trying to get in/out of the Bonanza would leave them scratching their heads.
Click to expand...

Challenged said:
Also, just to be fair the Bonanza has a fair number of items that I don't like and I realize that all airplanes are trade-offs, even if you can afford to buy a jet.
Click to expand...

As a low wing only owner, I also found myself tripping over the 182 wheels. And then there's the 649 different fuel drains that have to be checked on the new ones. :rolleyes:
 
Tough to take anything serious w/o an armrest. Cirrus. We pilots will fly anything. Put a non flying person in a Cirrus and, well really anything else. Answer will be clear—even before you mentions CAPS.
 
GRG55 said:
As a low wing only owner, I also found myself tripping over the 182 wheels. And then there's the 649 different fuel drains that have to be checked on the new ones. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Which is more of a pain, checking a dozen fuel drains while standing up or just a handful crouched down on your hands and knees? :D
 
asicer said:
Which is more of a pain, checking a dozen fuel drains while standing up or just a handful crouched down on your hands and knees? :D
Click to expand...

I only have two on each side on the Aztec, and they are paired together so not that difficult to get to. I still have to crouch to get the lowest drain on the 182. :D
 
GRG55 said:
As a low wing only owner, I also found myself tripping over the 182 wheels. And then there's the 649 different fuel drains that have to be checked on the new ones. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

One drain per lawsuit that Cessna suffered due to water in fuel is my guess. I trained on one with 13 (2006) current club plane has 3 (1976)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Very cramped cabin:
1972Brochure4.jpg
 
Jeff Oslick said:
In my 25+ years of flying, and 14+ years of 182 ownership, this is the first time I've heard anyone say a 182 (other than the very first models) was cramped.
Click to expand...
As a fat guy, I don't think they are cramped at all! :D
 
I commonly fly with two adults in the back seat of my 182 and almost everyone says it is more spacious than most passenger car rear seats...so not sure what you are expecting.
 
Shawn said:
I commonly fly with two adults in the back seat of my 182 and almost everyone says it is more spacious than most passenger car rear seats...so not sure what you are expecting.
Click to expand...

Not sure I would be quite so effusive about the rear seat room in the 2011 182T I flew. It's quite reasonable for space - for an airplane - but I need the front seat all the way back on the track (unlike the picture in post #20 above, which exaggerates the legroom by showing the front seats all the way forward).
 
Getting in and out of the 1968 182 kinda sucks after flying a 177 for years, still better than a Bo here.

This 182 needs the front seats to slide back about another three inches, that would really make it easier to get my shoes through the space between the forward door post and the seat. I also don't like that my eye level is above the side windows.

Can always take the wheel pants off and stop tripping over them. Also makes it easier to service tire pressure that way.

Bo has some arm rests that I kinda like.
 
bnt83 said:
This 182 needs the front seats to slide back about another three inches, that would really make it easier to get my shoes through the space between the forward door post and the seat. I also don't like that my eye level is above the side windows..
Click to expand...
I think that's caused by the seat stop AD. Keeps the seat nice and close so it's hard to get my feet in. Used to be really easy to slide the seat all the way back and get in, then slide forward. Then the Cessna Butt Shimmy to lock the pins.
 
jim.nelson said:
I think that's caused by the seat stop AD. Keeps the seat nice and close so it's hard to get my feet in. Used to be really easy to slide the seat all the way back and get in, then slide forward. Then the Cessna Butt Shimmy to lock the pins.
Click to expand...

In my case it is not, the seat tracks aren't long enough to make it super easy to get in and out of the front, if they were much longer than than an extra three inches the front seats would hit the bench seat behind them. looked at it a lot, maybe a guy could get McFarlane to machine longer tracks with the seat stop holes located farther aft.
 
This might be the first time I've heard a 182 called cramped, especially in front. I despise 172s, but their front seats are very comfortable (back seats suck, but that's different).
 
I flew a 1976 P model for several years and no way is it small. I flew a lot with my dad and he's about 240 or so pounds and I'm 220. We never even came close to each other. I flew it with 4 adults with all kinds of stuff and still really roomy.
 
Its all perspective I guess. I find the 172's to be very cramped. The 182 is better but I still wouldn't call it roomy by any stretch. People claim they can sit side by side without rubbing shoulders in them but that's never been my experience. The only Cessna I've ever flown that didn't have me rubbing elbows with the person in the other seat was the Caravan.
 
182 back seats are awful - stuck in one, once, and never again. Other than looking down, the visibility is awful, even worse than the front seat, which is typical Cessna crappy, only more so. You can't see over the glareshield from the back, and have no horizon except out the side windows - your seat is (or appears to be) much lower than the front, and in the newer 182, the front seat backs pretty much end all forward view.

In the 172 and 182, front seat, if one guy slides his seat fore or aft, so your shoulders aren't aligned, it does help. If you gave me a 182, I'd sell it and buy an airplane with the proceeds.
 
Also remember that early 182's are not the same cockpit dimensions as later ones... "I sat in a 182 and it was [cramped/spacious]' is not to useful without knowing which vintage of cockpit it was...
 
Having been in an original VW Beetle every Sunday for many years (off to church with the neighbors!) I used to describe the interior of a 172 as much narrower than that. In fact, the VeeDub is four or five inches wider in the front seats than a "modern" 182, and several inches more in terms of rear seat width. The Cessna (either Skylane or Skyhawk) wins in legroom and headroom.
The Commanders are nice in terms of space, but you trade one thing for another (space for speed, etc.)
 
jsstevens said:
Also remember that early 182's are not the same cockpit dimensions as later ones... "I sat in a 182 and it was [cramped/spacious]' is not to useful without knowing which vintage of cockpit it was...
Click to expand...
Early 182s (and 210s, for that matter), up through the 1961 model year, have the same fuselage/cabin dimensions as the 180 and 185 -- just a half-inch or so wider than a 170/172. The fuselage redesign for the 182 and 210, with rear windows and an extra four inches of width, came in 1962. Those would be the 182E and later, and 210B and later.
 
The biggest issue with the 182 rear seats (probably 172 as well) is that they are so darned low. After about 30 minutes of having your knees 10" above your waist and it gets old. However, when the copilot and pilot are seated for flight the legroom for the rear seat passengers is awesome and gives lots of room to move feet around.

I think once you have a size 12 shoe or larger, even with all the front seat travel (pushed all the way back) it is hard to get a boot or shoe through the opening. Our 182 has the floor belts in place of that crappy safety pin. But it still doesn't allow the seat to slide any farther back. If you are flying a Cessna and hate that safety latch, get the floor belt system...way easier to move the seat, especially in an emergency . Up until about 3yrs ago the unit and the labor were all covered by Cessna. Now the unit is covered but not the labor.

Our 182 has one sump for each wing bladder and then the one you pull to pee on the ground. Sumping is easy.

We don't have the wheel pants on ours. But anytime I ride co-pilot I smash my shins on the step on the main gear leg :mad: Just not used to getting in from that side I guess.

Here's the part I find interesting. With my longest flight of over 4hrs my arse was not sore or hurting at all! I figured I wouldn't be able to walk after that. And this is sitting in the original, low back seat (same foam, same 1970's fabric). I think it has a lot to do with being such a tall seat where knees aren't above the waist.
 
ktup-flyer said:
Where? One on each wing and the gascolator
Click to expand...

after I made that post I got to thinking that I read somewhere along the way that they eliminated (what I believe is) the most important one...and also that maybe that you can install one aftermarket??

Under the belly, below the fuel selector.

Water is heavier than gas and this is the low spot of the system, at least on mine it's the low spot. So where is water most likely to be?

Maybe on the later ones they mounted the gascolator far lower to compensate. Mine's a good 4" above the belly level.
 
timwinters said:
after I made that post I got to thinking that I read somewhere along the way that they eliminated (what I believe is) the most important one...and also that maybe that you can install one aftermarket??

Under the belly, below the fuel selector.

Water is heavier than gas and this is the low spot of the system, at least on mine it's the low spot. So where is water most likely to be?
Click to expand...
Nope. I don't have one down there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top