182 in our future?

[gprellwitz]

grant i usually run the 182RG at top of the green on manifold and about 150 rpms off redline and get a good 12.5-13 gph on 145-150 knots. very economical.

Thanks for the numbers. That's probably about 78% BHP? But about 25% more fuel usage than the 172 that Mark referenced, so he must be using different settings. That's not too far from where I run the 182 at "full rental power" (and probably higher than I'd do a turbo model. And yes, I remember our discussion about the turbo.)

 

[tonycondon]

im not sure what the percentage is. thinking about it more i think its about 22 inches and 2150 rpms. at rental rates our 182RG is cheaper per mile than a 172

 

[Vinny]

According to http://www.mnflyer.com/skylane.html it's been republished, but the home page at that site says the site hasn't been updated since 2003. I've sent an email to check on current availability, and will report back.

Check your PM.

 

[KennyFlys]

There's always a deal somewhere....

Available for World-Wide Sale!

You can buy this brand new 2006 Skylane from Eastern Cincinnati Aviation, the FBO at Sporty’s and an authorized Cessna dealer for $319,000 (more than $30,000 less than a 2007 model).

What savings!

But, it's still defective.

 

[Tom-D]

After reading the comments in this thread I would suggest any C-210-G,H,J,K, or L, would do thier mission easier and less expensive than the R-182.

plus give them more options than the 182. because of the useful load of 1700-1800 pounds and speed nearing 200 miles per.

Horses power from the IO-520-L 285/300, which gives,

Economy speed of 154 mph, range of 1250 miles, endurance of 8.1 hours.
Optimum speed of 187 mph, range of 1065 miles, endurance of 5.7 hours.

service ceiling 15,500 with out a turbin, or the hassels that come with it.

The 210 is a great family aircraft with utility that is hard to beat. and priced nearly the same as the Retract 182 more aircraft for the buck. equals a better value.

here is one loaded and ready to go
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_...up=truexxxxxsearchid=12514093xxxxxregionid=-1

Vs a
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_...up=truexxxxxsearchid=12514119xxxxxregionid=-1

 

[NC Pilot]

I'd love to borrow it, and I promise to send it back, along with one of my books that's ready to join the PoA Book Club! I'll PM you my address. How about bringing the R182 up to 6Y9 next month?

That's really good economy on the RG. I usually figure 10gph for a 172 (full rental power ), so that must be throttled back to about 60% and leaned well. What speed where you getting there, about 130KTS at 8000'?

Grant,

Got the PM and will try to send it out this weekend.

I run my R182 at 22 squared, 150 knots, 12 to 13 gph.

 

[NC Pilot]

The 210 is a great family aircraft with utility that is hard to beat. and priced nearly the same as the Retract 182 more aircraft for the buck. equals a better value.

Until you find out the cost of insurance.

 

[Paul Allen]

That's good to hear, and helps assuage my fears. The only hangar I've been in there is a corporate one that houses both a Pilatus PC-12 (that Leslie got to fly) and a Columbia 400. Man, am I jealous!

You better stay out of that hanger or you might spend more than you wanted to!

 

[Bill]

There is nothing wrong with a good-ol-bird mid 60's 182 with an updated panel. Just have to be happy with 135 kts.

Brent and I, in our almost year long search for a bird, went thru the pruning process of trying to zero in on what aircraft we were looking for. Cherokee Six, 182 varients, Arrows, and Mooneys were the semi-finalists.

The Cherokee Six went first, as we really didn't need the payload, and the fuel burn and down the road engine rebuild costs didn't figure if you didn't need the payload.

The Arrow went second, as it goes 20-25knots slower than the Mooneys on the same fuel burn.

We looked at the 182 models, distilled it down, and the only one that made sense in the end was the good old straight leg 182.

Looking at the Mooneys, with three in my family, the short bodies were out, leaving the mid-body F and J. There is a decent price gap between the best mac daddy F, and the biggest stinking pile of J. But, we figured with some looking, and maybe some painful annuals, we might be able to find a decent early J.

So, there you go, pros/cons:

182 pros:

• Big spacious cabin
• Hauls a load
• Grass/short friendly
• Plenty of giddyup even on hot days
• Every A&P, even in Pea Patch, IA, can work on one

182 cons:

• Holds value, everyone wants one, prices high even for older ones with old panels.
• Fuel burn
• Not the speediest
• 1500 TBO for most affordable older models
• Higher overhaul cost for 6cyl motor

201 pros:

• Built strong
• Fast and frugal flyer
• Can seem to get later models with better panels on the same budget
• I won't lie, a certain ramp presence
• Good ol' IO-360 Lyco engine

201 cons:

• Retract insurance and mx costs
• For some mx, better to have an A&P that knows Mooneys
• Some consider it tight (no tighter than a Cherokee or Archer)
• Need to manage speed on arrival/landing
• Many have gear up or worse damage history

As you know, the 201 won.

Wow, this got long, but the 182 would be a fine choice!

 

[gprellwitz]

You better stay out of that hanger or you might spend more than you wanted to!

I don't think the bank would let us do that! But yeah, those are some sweet birds!

 

[gprellwitz]

After reading the comments in this thread I would suggest any C-210-G,H,J,K, or L, would do thier mission easier and less expensive than the R-182.

plus give them more options than the 182. because of the useful load of 1700-1800 pounds and speed nearing 200 miles per.

Horses power from the IO-520-L 285/300, which gives,

Economy speed of 154 mph, range of 1250 miles, endurance of 8.1 hours.
Optimum speed of 187 mph, range of 1065 miles, endurance of 5.7 hours.

service ceiling 15,500 with out a turbin, or the hassels that come with it.

The 210 is a great family aircraft with utility that is hard to beat. and priced nearly the same as the Retract 182 more aircraft for the buck. equals a better value.

here is one loaded and ready to go
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_...up=truexxxxxsearchid=12514093xxxxxregionid=-1

Vs a
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_...up=truexxxxxsearchid=12514119xxxxxregionid=-1

Well, the purchase cost is only a small portion of the ownership cost, as you know! (Heck, once upon a time I actually looked at an original 310 model for about $35K!). That said, the 210 is something we've briefly considered, though we haven't done any in-depth investigation. My concerns are:
1) increased insurance due to 6-seat
2) need larger hanger (> 39' wingspan) for about $100/month
3) shorter TBO (about 1500, IIRC, compared to 2000 on the Lycoming R182) and more expensive overhaul
4) higher fuel burn. I already think the 182 burns a lot!

OTOH, it does have some real advantages, as you mention. I'll probably investigate it more!

 

[tonycondon]

treat that engine right on the 182RG right and it will go well past TBO. ours went to nearly 3000 before it got overhauled.

 

[gprellwitz]

Brent and I, in our almost year long search for a bird, went thru the pruning process of trying to zero in on what aircraft we were looking for. Cherokee Six, 182 varients, Arrows, and Mooneys were the semi-finalists.

The Cherokee Six went first, as we really didn't need the payload, and the fuel burn and down the road engine rebuild costs didn't figure if you didn't need the payload.

The Arrow went second, as it goes 20-25knots slower than the Mooneys on the same fuel burn.

We looked at the 182 models, distilled it down, and the only one that made sense in the end was the good old straight leg 182.

Looking at the Mooneys, with three in my family, the short bodies were out, leaving the mid-body F and J. There is a decent price gap between the best mac daddy F, and the biggest stinking pile of J. But, we figured with some looking, and maybe some painful annuals, we might be able to find a decent early J.

So, there you go, pros/cons:

182 pros:

• Big spacious cabin
• Hauls a load
• Grass/short friendly
• Plenty of giddyup even on hot days
• Every A&P, even in Pea Patch, IA, can work on one

182 cons:

• Holds value, everyone wants one, prices high even for older ones with old panels.
• Fuel burn
• Not the speediest
• 1500 TBO for most affordable older models
• Higher overhaul cost for 6cyl motor

201 pros:

• Built strong
• Fast and frugal flyer
• Can seem to get later models with better panels on the same budget
• I won't lie, a certain ramp presence
• Good ol' IO-360 Lyco engine

201 cons:

• Retract insurance and mx costs
• For some mx, better to have an A&P that knows Mooneys
• Some consider it tight (no tighter than a Cherokee or Archer)
• Need to manage speed on arrival/landing
• Many have gear up or worse damage history

As you know, the 201 won.

Wow, this got long, but the 182 would be a fine choice!

Length isn't a problem. I think that this thread is generating some good information for me and others!

The 201 concerns I have are the lack of good grass performance (at least in my perception. Is it right?) and the relatively small cabin. Leslie and I are cramped in a 172, but comfortable in the 182. We've never sat in a Mooney, so I don't know how they compare. (Darn, we should have taken the opportunity at OSH!)

I definitely like the fuel economy of the Mooneys, though!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well, Leslie and I are now seriously looking at buying our first plane, to the point we've joined the CPA and been pre-approved for financing.

Well it's about time! You two fly regularly enough to make owning really make sense.

Since we're both planning to work on our commercial certificates, we're considering a retract. I'm looking for feedback on whether the R182 (or TR182) gives enough additional "bang for the buck" that we should seriously consider it, or should we just find a way to rent a retract for the commercial work.

Cessna retracts give me the willies. Keep that pumping arm in shape, and pray that you don't lose fluid. IMHO, the Cessna retract design is the worst one in the class (that I'm aware of).

Mission:
flights from 150 - 1500NM each way. Mostly around 500NM.

Make sure you get one with the long range tanks, if it's one of the earlier ones. (The new ones have a ridiculous amount of usable fuel.) Even if you don't actually plan on going 5 hours at a time (and I know you have in the past) it gives you lots of flexibility and a big safety margin in IMC (if the poop hits the prop, you can fly to VMC!)

maybe offer flight training in it in the future
maybe put it online at club/fbo

Aren't you doing this to get AWAY from renting? If you put it on leaseback, you're just a renter with bigger bills.

retract pros/cons:
+ Lycoming (Continentals have reputation as icemakers)

Not a big deal. I know you've mostly flown the newer 182's with the Lycs, but I can tell you that I can count on one finger the number of times I've gotten carb ice in our Continental O-470R powered 182. If you're worried, get a carb temp gauge. If you're really worried, buy one with a run-out engine and do one of the many engine upgrades available for the 182. (That'll give you some of that power you'd have with a turbo as well.)

- higher maintenance cost ($1000/year?)
- higher insurance cost ($500 - 1000/year)

Probably optimistic. (I base this simply on what we spend on mx for the straight-leg 182... Every damn thing on it costs more to fix than you'd expect.)

turbo pros/cons:
+ O2 built-in

If you want O2, there are non-turbo 182's that have it as well if the original owner ordered it that way from the factory. If you want it bad enough, just shop for a 182 that's got it, and expect to spend your own money to get the panel, P&I the way you want them.

+ higher ceiling (20K)

The ceiling of the NA version is 18K, only a 2K difference. I can tell you that I've had ours up in the 12,000-13,500 range several times and I'm still getting 500fpm in a cruise climb configuration up there.

+ faster (10 - 15 KT)

It'll only be appreciably faster if you go high (= longer trips). For a 50nm $100 burger run all it'll buy you is a bigger maintenance bill.

- increased maintenance ($??)

Most definitely.

- can't chop & drop?

Do you chop&drop? The only time I really have to chop & drop is when Approach wants best forward speed. I've got it to where I can give them 140 knots down the ILS glideslope to 325 feet AGL, pull the power, flatten the prop, wait for the white arc, and dump all 40 degrees of flaps and still land on the threshold at normal speeds if I do everything right. I don't think you need to worry about that too much at Clow.

On a normal descent I plan for 500fpm at 2.5nm/min (or 2nm/min if I have a headwind). Flying to Ames (960MSL) at 8500 feet? That's 7500 to descend, 15 minutes, 37.5nm (or 30 with a headwind). It's more comfy for pilots and pax anyway, and should work fine with a turbo as long as you pull power a bit at a time.

Overall, here's what I'd suggest: Get a straight-legged normally aspirated bird to start out with, and don't put it on the line. This is your first airplane, and you don't need any help running up your maintenance bills! (via Turbo, Retract, or other pilots flying it!) For reference, N271G is a 1971 182N with 5300 TTAF. Around 15 pilots are checked out in it, we put around 250 hours/year on it, and we spend upwards of $50/hour for maintenance alone. Hopefully yours will do better, but be ready for it to be worse!

After you've had it for a couple of years, THEN evaluate whether you really need the retract or turbo. If the answer is yes, then trade up. It's much easier to trade up than down!

Also, somewhere along the way the engine TBO's changed. Our 1971 has a TBO of 1500 with the O-470R. Of course, we're actually up to around 2000 hours and the engine's still running like brand new so maybe it's not that big of a deal. Also, the Texas Skyways upgrades have a TBO of 2400. Something to consider, if you can find one with the upgrade, or if you buy one with a run-out engine and do the upgrade yourself.

As far as leaseback, like I said, do you really want to be renters? I'm guessing no. If you want the bills to be smaller, finding a partner or two is a much better option.

Finally... If you haven't already, start looking hard now. (Try globalplanesearch.com, it hits all of the majors except trade-a-plane I think.) I've wanted a Twin Comanche for a long time and I learned a LOT just from watching the ads very closely. Define what you absolutely must have built in already (6-pack instead of shotgun panel if you look at birds that old, what years have the features you want, is built-in O2 a must, etc.) as well as what you'd *like* to be built in but can be added by you if needed (G430 or 530, etc.). Look at all the birds that have the "musts," and keep track of their prices, both what they originally list for, and what they're listed for when they finally sell. Keep track of all their options as well. After a while, you should have a good idea of what the various setups should actually sell for. Be sure you know how much your "wants" are going to cost to install if you buy a bird that doesn't already have them.

Phew! Can you tell I've thought about buying a lot? Hope this helps.

 

[tonycondon]

ah kent the cessna retract system aint that bad. obviously the piper gravity drop is nicer but what the heck. check the hydraulic fluid before each flight and go have fun. oh and make sure that your nose gear down lock service bulletin has been taken care of

As far as I know, all the 182RGs have the long range fuel, 88 gallons useable.

 

[gismo]

ah kent the cessna retract system aint that bad. obviously the piper gravity drop is nicer but what the heck. check the hydraulic fluid before each flight and go have fun. oh and make sure that your nose gear down lock service bulletin has been taken care of

As far as I know, all the 182RGs have the long range fuel, 88 gallons useable.

From an engineering perspective I have to agree with Kent on this one. Requiring fluid in the single hydraulic system makes for a gazillion single points of failure that can render the gear unusable. Not only would you be unable to lower and lock the gear with a fluid loss, you could easily end up with a partial extension that couldn't be retracted. And checking the fluid isn't the issue, you won't lose the fluid unless there's a leak, and a leak is most likely to come into existence during a retraction or extension cycle.

I don't know how the Cessna single engine retract system stacks up statistically with other designs from a mechanically induced gear related mishap, but I suspect that it's significantly worse in that particular category. That said, IIRC the vast majority of gear related incidents are pilot induced, not mechanical failures so this specific shortcoming might not be worth much concern in the long run.

 

[tonycondon]

well i can understand that Lance. im not sure why they felt the system had to be hydraulic but its obvious that the only way to fold gear up into the fuselage on a cessna is to require power of some sort to extend.

the nice thing is the nose extends back and it seems that in the event of a gear system failure it can usually be locked into place with speed and G's, which will save the engine and usually results in little damage to the belly. the dangling main gear seem to immediately go back up in the fuselage upon touchdown.

 

[gprellwitz]

Cessna retracts give me the willies. Keep that pumping arm in shape, and pray that you don't lose fluid. IMHO, the Cessna retract design is the worst one in the class (that I'm aware of).

Maybe it's just ignorance, but I'm not as leery of the retract as you are. I agree that it's a flawed system with a single point of failure with a bad failure mode, and I wish it were different. OTOH, the Arrow has its own problems (like that bloody auto-extender), and others do too, like having emergency gear extension handles that can be inadvertently rendered inoperative.

Make sure you get one with the long range tanks, if it's one of the earlier ones. (The new ones have a ridiculous amount of usable fuel.) Even if you don't actually plan on going 5 hours at a time (and I know you have in the past) it gives you lots of flexibility and a big safety margin in IMC (if the poop hits the prop, you can fly to VMC!)

As Tony noted, the RGs all have the 88gal usable, but your point is good when looking at straight legs.

maybe offer flight training in it in the future
maybe put it online at club/fbo

Aren't you doing this to get AWAY from renting? If you put it on leaseback, you're just a renter with bigger bills.

I think I said in another posting that we've pretty much decided not to put it on leaseback. Just don't need those hassles or limitations. The flight training I was talking about was if I (or Leslie) were giving it after getting our CFIs.

Not a big deal. I know you've mostly flown the newer 182's with the Lycs, but I can tell you that I can count on one finger the number of times I've gotten carb ice in our Continental O-470R powered 182. If you're worried, get a carb temp gauge. If you're really worried, buy one with a run-out engine and do one of the many engine upgrades available for the 182. (That'll give you some of that power you'd have with a turbo as well.)

- higher maintenance cost ($1000/year?)
- higher insurance cost ($500 - 1000/year)

Probably optimistic. (I base this simply on what we spend on mx for the straight-leg 182... Every damn thing on it costs more to fix than you'd expect.)

The prices I listed for insurance and maintenance were the DIFFERENCES between the different straight leg and retract, not the actual cost. Mark estimated about $200 differential for the retract, so this may even be high.

turbo pros/cons:
+ O2 built-in

If you want O2, there are non-turbo 182's that have it as well if the original owner ordered it that way from the factory. If you want it bad enough, just shop for a 182 that's got it, and expect to spend your own money to get the panel, P&I the way you want them.

Heck, we can always strap an O2 bottle to the back of the seat if we want. That way we don't always have to have the weight penalty! I think we'd bo looking to use it more frequently with a turbo, so having it built-in in that case is a pro.

The ceiling of the NA version is 18K, only a 2K difference. I can tell you that I've had ours up in the 12,000-13,500 range several times and I'm still getting 500fpm in a cruise climb configuration up there.

I've seen 14,300 on some, though I think that maybe it becomes 18000 if you lean to an EGT. I know it's 18000 on the 1990's and newer models

It'll only be appreciably faster if you go high (= longer trips). For a 50nm $100 burger run all it'll buy you is a bigger maintenance bill.

True for a turbo, but not a retract. You get the benefit from a retract even more at lower altitudes because the reduction in drag. Plus, our "50nm $100 burger runs" tend to be closer to $1000 and 100 - 250NM. (e.g. Sikeston, Indianapolis, Watertown, Minneapolis)

Overall, here's what I'd suggest: Get a straight-legged normally aspirated bird to start out with, and don't put it on the line. This is your first airplane, and you don't need any help running up your maintenance bills! (via Turbo, Retract, or other pilots flying it!) For reference, N271G is a 1971 182N with 5300 TTAF. Around 15 pilots are checked out in it, we put around 250 hours/year on it, and we spend upwards of $50/hour for maintenance alone. Hopefully yours will do better, but be ready for it to be worse!

After you've had it for a couple of years, THEN evaluate whether you really need the retract or turbo. If the answer is yes, then trade up. It's much easier to trade up than down!

Also, somewhere along the way the engine TBO's changed. Our 1971 has a TBO of 1500 with the O-470R. Of course, we're actually up to around 2000 hours and the engine's still running like brand new so maybe it's not that big of a deal. Also, the Texas Skyways upgrades have a TBO of 2400. Something to consider, if you can find one with the upgrade, or if you buy one with a run-out engine and do the upgrade yourself.

As far as leaseback, like I said, do you really want to be renters? I'm guessing no. If you want the bills to be smaller, finding a partner or two is a much better option.

Finally... If you haven't already, start looking hard now. (Try globalplanesearch.com, it hits all of the majors except trade-a-plane I think.) I've wanted a Twin Comanche for a long time and I learned a LOT just from watching the ads very closely. Define what you absolutely must have built in already (6-pack instead of shotgun panel if you look at birds that old, what years have the features you want, is built-in O2 a must, etc.) as well as what you'd *like* to be built in but can be added by you if needed (G430 or 530, etc.). Look at all the birds that have the "musts," and keep track of their prices, both what they originally list for, and what they're listed for when they finally sell. Keep track of all their options as well. After a while, you should have a good idea of what the various setups should actually sell for. Be sure you know how much your "wants" are going to cost to install if you buy a bird that doesn't already have them.

Phew! Can you tell I've thought about buying a lot? Hope this helps.

Kent,
Thanks for your detailed response!

I'm looking for something with a panel already substantially complete. That's especially true if we do a plane where we have a significant chance of wanting to sell in a few years, because then we'd have to eat all the depreciation. That's also why I'm looking for something that pushes our envelope a little now and well meet our needs for the foreseeable future. That being said, I certainly have not ruled out a straight-leg. There are a lot of people here that I respect saying that the retract/turbo isn't worth it. But I admit, the added speed is sexy! Chicago to Daytona Beach nonstop in 5 hours with IFR reserves! Sure beats the airlines!

Partnership is something I'm also open to, and, for that reason, we'll probably form a corporation to hold the plane. Should make adding/dropping partners easier. Trick, of course, is finding the right one. We seriously considered joining Barry Stratt's partnership in the Arrow, but DuPage was just too far to travel.

I must say, though, that $12500 a year for maintenance seems really high on a straight-leg 182, unless you're including an engine reserve in that. A friend was doing $6000 annuals on an Arrow III and found that to be awfully high.

 

[NC Pilot]

From an engineering perspective I have to agree with Kent on this one. Requiring fluid in the single hydraulic system makes for a gazillion single points of failure that can render the gear unusable. Not only would you be unable to lower and lock the gear with a fluid loss, you could easily end up with a partial extension that couldn't be retracted. And checking the fluid isn't the issue, you won't lose the fluid unless there's a leak, and a leak is most likely to come into existence during a retraction or extension cycle.

I don't know how the Cessna single engine retract system stacks up statistically with other designs from a mechanically induced gear related mishap, but I suspect that it's significantly worse in that particular category. That said, IIRC the vast majority of gear related incidents are pilot induced, not mechanical failures so this specific shortcoming might not be worth much concern in the long run.

The R182 retracts have hard piping everywhere except for two hoses going to the nose gear. It is really a pretty robust system but, like all retracts, must be maintained properly. This means replacing the hoses every 5 years at the most, rebuilding the actuators periodically, rebuilding the power pack periodically, inspecting the hard lines thoroughly every annual, monitoring for loss of hydraulic fluid, performing the SB's on the system, etc, etc. Can one point of failure sink you? Sure, but properly maintained this is not a bad retract system. One guy from the CPA board figures it has cost him about $120/year on the average extra to maintain his retract over a straight leg and that includes rebuilding his actuators and power pack (on my list for next year). In all, not a bad trade off for the extra speed.

Also, you don't need a bunch of strength to operate the emergency gear extension system. 25 pumps easy pumps and the gear is down and locked.

 

[gprellwitz]

The R182 retracts have hard piping everywhere except for two hoses going to the nose gear. It is really a pretty robust system but, like all retracts, must be maintained properly. This means replacing the hoses every 5 years at the most, rebuilding the actuators periodically, rebuilding the power pack periodically, inspecting the hard lines thoroughly every annual, monitoring for loss of hydraulic fluid, performing the SB's on the system, etc, etc. Can one point of failure sink you? Sure, but properly maintained this is not a bad retract system. One guy from the CPA board figures it has cost him about $120/year on the average extra to maintain his retract over a straight leg and that includes rebuilding his actuators and power pack (on my list for next year). In all, not a bad trade off for the extra speed.

Also, you don't need a bunch of strength to operate the emergency gear extension system. 25 pumps easy pumps and the gear is down and locked.

Thanks, Mark. That's some good info!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Maybe it's just ignorance, but I'm not as leery of the retract as you are. I agree that it's a flawed system with a single point of failure with a bad failure mode, and I wish it were different. OTOH, the Arrow has its own problems (like that bloody auto-extender), and others do too, like having emergency gear extension handles that can be inadvertently rendered inoperative.

None are perfect, but I still maintain that Cessna dropped the ball on theirs. Lance pretty much nailed it.

BTW, there's a reason most Arrows have had the auto-extend removed. One of those "Gee, it seemed like a good idea at the time" things...

As Tony noted, the RGs all have the 88gal usable, but your point is good when looking at straight legs.

I was trying to cover 'em all.

The flight training I was talking about was if I (or Leslie) were giving it after getting our CFIs.

Understood... But would it be "on the line" at all, or would people be getting a checkout they couldn't use? Or would you be doing some kind of specialized training (10-day instrument courses, etc.)?

The prices I listed for insurance and maintenance were the DIFFERENCES between the different straight leg and retract, not the actual cost. Mark estimated about $200 differential for the retract, so this may even be high.

Differences - Yup... And I'm just sayin'... NOTHING is as cheap as you think it is (I mean in general, not WRT the numbers you posted specifically).

Heck, we can always strap an O2 bottle to the back of the seat if we want. That way we don't always have to have the weight penalty!

Good point. And you could let me borrow it now and then too.

True for a turbo, but not a retract. You get the benefit from a retract even more at lower altitudes because the reduction in drag.

Right... Sorry, I didn't make it clear that I was going in order with things as they were in your original post. Everything under "Turbo" relates to turbo, not necessarily retract.

I'm looking for something with a panel already substantially complete. That's especially true if we do a plane where we have a significant chance of wanting to sell in a few years, because then we'd have to eat all the depreciation. That's also why I'm looking for something that pushes our envelope a little now and well meet our needs for the foreseeable future.

Good plan... But what are NEEDS and what are WANTS? Believe me, I know that retract is enticing, but just be sure you're darn good and ready for what comes with it. I'm only saying this from the perspective of someone who's wanted to own a plane damn near forever, and I'm using the club to learn about ownership without having to pay all of the bills myself. Well, I *am* paying all the bills, just with other people's money. And I can say, the bills NEVER surprise me with their size on the small side...

But I admit, the added speed is sexy!

Not quite... It's $$$exy.

Chicago to Daytona Beach nonstop in 5 hours with IFR reserves! Sure beats the airlines!

It's 5.5, even at 150 knots.

More importantly, it's still only 6.4 or so at 130 knots...

I must say, though, that $12500 a year for maintenance seems really high on a straight-leg 182, unless you're including an engine reserve in that.

Hah... I wish. This is an AIRplane. Airplane$ can be very expen$ive $ometime$.

There's much to say... I'll call ya.

Looking at our variable costs, we spend $52/hr for fuel at $4.00/gal, $50/hr for maintenance, a couple bucks for oil, $5 for upgrade reserve and $17 for engine reserve. So, around $125/hr. (This is all tach hours BTW.) Add insurance and hangar and you'll have a pretty good idea what it'll cost, and also a pretty good idea why I haven't bought a plane yet. (I did, however, buy a Powerball ticket last night. )

 

[Ghery]

the Arrow has its own problems (like that bloody auto-extender),

The Arrow I fly had that auto-extender removed years ago. I understand that many in the fleet have had that done.

Now, as one who has flown the Arrow and the 182, you're on the right path. The 182 is MUCH more comfortable. And that's for people in the front seats. If you're going to put anyone in the back seat, there isn't even a comparison. 182 all the way!

 

[gprellwitz]

The Arrow I fly had that auto-extender removed years ago. I understand that many in the fleet have had that done.

Now, as one who has flown the Arrow and the 182, you're on the right path. The 182 is MUCH more comfortable. And that's for people in the front seats. If you're going to put anyone in the back seat, there isn't even a comparison. 182 all the way!

Yeah. With the Arrow you can (and most already did, as Kent noted) have the "flaw" removed, which you can't on the Cessna retracts. But there's Mark's description of the Cessna as being mostly hard piping. (Not that he isn't biased towards his own make/model, as every owner is)

I haven't seen any actual or even scientifically guesstimated number on the frequency of fluid leaks in Cessnas that make it impossible to keep the gear extended. Does anyone have a link to any numbers? Sounds like exactly the sort of thing Dick Collins would have put together, flying a 210 himself.

And yes, I've flown both the Arrow and 182, and MUCH prefer the 182 for comfort.

 

[gprellwitz]

Understood... But would it be "on the line" at all, or would people be getting a checkout they couldn't use? Or would you be doing some kind of specialized training (10-day instrument courses, etc.)?

Haven't even begun thinking that far ahead, except to know that it would not be "on the line." It would be our personal plane in which we gave instruction, and, now that I think (a little) more about it, I realize that there are few instances in which a pilot would want to get instruction like that unless (s)he were just going for a HP or complex endorsement for the sake of getting one.

Good point. And you could let me borrow it now and then too.

You know you could! Heck, I was thinking of calling Chris Jones back when he did his Rockies trip and seeing if we couldn't work something out! IIRC, he had portable O2 on that trip in his RV.

Right... Sorry, I didn't make it clear that I was going in order with things as they were in your original post. Everything under "Turbo" relates to turbo, not necessarily retract.

Yeah, the headings got a little jumbled in my mind, and I figured it better to be explicit.

Good plan... But what are NEEDS and what are WANTS? Believe me, I know that retract is enticing, but just be sure you're darn good and ready for what comes with it. I'm only saying this from the perspective of someone who's wanted to own a plane damn near forever, and I'm using the club to learn about ownership without having to pay all of the bills myself. Well, I *am* paying all the bills, just with other people's money. And I can say, the bills NEVER surprise me with their size on the small side...



Not quite... It's $$$exy.

VERY!

It's 5.5, even at 150 knots.

I was figuring based on a Turbo retract = 165 KTS

More importantly, it's still only 6.4 or so at 130 knots...

5 hours, even 5.5, I can do in a plane. Not so sure about 6.4, so you get a ground stop in there that adds an hour, so the comparison is 5 hrs to 7.4. For trips beyond 5.5, you have a ground stop for either one, so the gap narrows again.

Hah... I wish. This is an AIRplane. Airplane$ can be very expen$ive $ometime$.

There's much to say... I'll call ya.

Got your VM. I'll call ya back!

Looking at our variable costs, we spend $52/hr for fuel at $4.00/gal, $50/hr for maintenance, a couple bucks for oil, $5 for upgrade reserve and $17 for engine reserve. So, around $125/hr. (This is all tach hours BTW.) Add insurance and hangar and you'll have a pretty good idea what it'll cost, and also a pretty good idea why I haven't bought a plane yet. (I did, however, buy a Powerball ticket last night. )

THERE'S your engine (and airplane) fund! Those are some good numbers, thanks.

One of Leslie's coworker's families owns a Silver Eagle P210 conversion. Now that is a sweet plane! Rolls Royce Allison 250B17 Turbine, 450 shp. 190KTS + at FL180. ONLY $750K

O&N Aircraft offers a turboprop conversion of the Pressurized Cessna P210N known as the "Silver Eagle". The conversion is actually more of a re-manufacturing process. A new Silver Eagle conversion is nearly a new aircraft built on the original Cessna airframe. The tail and other components are modified to handle the 450 horsepower generated by the 205 pound Rolls Royce Turbine. As part of the conversion, all avionics are replaced with a new panel, the exterior is stripped and painted and the interior is completely replaced. The finished product has excellent fit and finish and rivals fine automobiles.
The Silver Eagle improves on the capable P210 airframe primarily by adding turbine performance and reliability. The turbine turns the propeller at a docile 2016 rpm creating a quiet and smooth ride. The exterior noise levels are very low.
The climb performance of the Silver Eagle is noteworthy. Initial climb rates at 4000 lb gross weight are usually in the 2100 - 2300 feet per minute (fpm) range, and can exceed 3000 fpm at lesser weight. Cruise climbs of 135 - 145 knots and 1500 fpm are not uncommon. The power/weight ratio also makes for short take-offs which will usually be far less than 1000 feet. Landing distances can also be cut down to well under 1000 feet using propeller reverse pitch (beta). Useful load is around 1400 pounds depending on equipment.
Cruise speeds vary widely based on engine output and airframe extras. Most Silver Eagles receive a power enhancement package to boost engine output on average by 10-14%. An enhanced engine will allow for real world cruise speeds in the 200 - 210 knot range. One Silver Eagle has documented a TAS (true airspeed) of 224 knots in cruise.
The Rolls Royce engine sips fuel at altitude and will burn between 20 - 28 gallons of Jet A per hour depending on altitude and air temperature. That will convert to between 6-10 nautical miles per gallon (NMPG). 10 NMPG (about 11.6 mpg)is almost as good some SUVs on the road today. Max range with a full 147 gallons of Jet A is over 1350 nm (1566 miles).[1]

 

[tlglenn]

I belong to a flying club and we have both a 182 and a R182. I can peg the VSI in the R182 at 80 knots IAS. I can't do that in the 182. But, the R182 is restricted to paved surfaces. The insurance premiums per dollar of insured value are identical.

 

[Tom-D]

Well, the purchase cost is only a small portion of the ownership cost, as you know! (Heck, once upon a time I actually looked at an original 310 model for about $35K!). That said, the 210 is something we've briefly considered, though we haven't done any in-depth investigation. My concerns are:
1) increased insurance due to 6-seat
2) need larger hanger (> 39' wingspan) for about $100/month
3) shorter TBO (about 1500, IIRC, compared to 2000 on the Lycoming R182) and more expensive overhaul
4) higher fuel burn. I already think the 182 burns a lot!

OTOH, it does have some real advantages, as you mention. I'll probably investigate it more!

Your concerns are noted but here is what you can do.

remove the 2 back seats and insure for 4

Need a larger hangar. yep you do, I can't help that.

TBO is no concern in part 91, and the cost of an overhaul will not come for a long time with the 210 I linked you to. most folks do not fly enough to run a new engine to TBO. I would ask westernskyways.com how much they charge for the 2 engines you are compairing I'll bet there isn't much diference.

Of all the horror stories that are told by the groupe here have never come to pass in the 2, 210s I care for. we do the retraction tests as per the MM and maintain the 210s on a 50 hour cycle and for the 10 years one owner has owned his 210 he has not spent over $1000 per year on every thing.

For every horror story you here there are plenty of owners flying trouble free, remember 2% of the people make 100% of the news you hear repeated over and over.

My next family aircraft will be an early 210 with th flat spring gear. and struts. stripped to the bone, with 4 seats, GNC 530, transponder, Mode C, Intercom for 4, and the IO-520 300 horse.

Just catch a ride in one, it'll make a believer out of you.

 

[gprellwitz]

I belong to a flying club and we have both a 182 and a R182. I can peg the VSI in the R182 at 80 knots IAS. I can't do that in the 182. But, the R182 is restricted to paved surfaces. The insurance premiums per dollar of insured value are identical.

Why is it restricted to sealed runways? Insurance demands? Club rules?

 

[Ghery]

Why is it restricted to sealed runways? Insurance demands? Club rules?

Don't know about his, but our club's planes are restricted to paved runways. Last guy who landed on a sod strip had a prop strike, reinforcing the long standing rule.

 

[gprellwitz]

Our club restricts to sealed (paved) without prior permission. AFAIK, it's generally given if a) you've actually done it with an instructor and b) the particular plane doesn't have wheel pants. (That's because they had some pants damaged to the tune of about $1K each.)

 

[Tom-D]

Cessna retracts give me the willies. Keep that pumping arm in shape, and pray that you don't lose fluid. IMHO, the Cessna retract design is the worst one in the class (that I'm aware of).

Before you make a statement like that run an AD search on the piper Arrow and then on a C-210, and for comparison the R182.

you'll see how unfounded your statement really is.

I'll make it easy. here is the 210-L AD list

2007-09-01 Ground power electrical cable, the fuel strainer cable, and the fuel line
2004-19-01 C Shoulder harness adjuster
2004-19-01 Shoulder harness adjuster - Corrected by AD 2004-19-01 C
2000-06-01 Tube in fuel filter strainer top assembly
98-16-04 Wing angle stiffener
97-01-13 Collapsed hose
87-20-03 R2 Seat tracks
86-26-04 Shoulder harness adjuster - Superseded by AD 2004-19-01
86-24-07 Engine controls installation
84-10-01 R1 Bladder fuel cells
83-17-06 Aileron balance weights
83-13-01 Placard-improper fuel cap sealing
79-25-07 Alternator ground
79-10-14 R1 Fuel tank venting
79-08-03 Electrical system
78-01-14 ELT installation
77-23-11 ELT installation
77-04-05 Carburetor air intake
75-16-01 Wing fuel tanks
75-05-02 Engine oil
73-17-01 Fuel transfer pump placard
72-07-09 Cracks and loose bolts in fin & rudder
72-03-03 R3 Wing flap jack screw
71-22-02 Cracks in nose gear fork

here is the Piper Arrow PA-28R-201T

99-05-09 Induction air filter
97-01-01 R1 Main gear sidebrace stud cracks
97-01-01 Main gear sidebrace stud cracks - Revised by R1
96-10-03 Flap handle attach bolt
95-20-07 MLG side brace stud cracks (Corrected by AD 95-20-07 C)
95-20-07 Correction MLG side brace stud cracks
94-14-14 Nose landing gear
86-17-01 Ammeter replacement
82-06-11 R1 NLG, inspect, rig, modify
80-14-03 Bendix, King or Narco transmitters
79-22-02 Fuel leakage
79-13-03 fire hazard prevention
79-02-05 Fuel flow
77-23-03 Rod end bearings
67-26-02 Fuel selector valve
67-20-04 Main landing gear torque link
64-06-06 Control wheels
62-19-03 Propeller attach bolts

IMHO I'll take the nit pickin rigging, and "O" ring replacements of the 210 L/G over the cracking Piper landing gear anyday.

And Finally the R-182

2000-06-01 Tube in fuel filter strainer top assembly
98-16-04 Wing angle stiffener
97-01-13 Collapsed hose
87-20-03 R2 Seat tracks
86-24-07 Engine controls installation
84-10-01 R1 Bladder fuel cells
83-22-06 Aileron hinge pin
83-17-06 Aileron balance weights
83-13-01 Placard-improper fuel cap sealing
79-25-07 Alternator ground
79-10-14 R1 Fuel tank venting
79-08-03 Electrical system
78-01-14 ELT installation
77-23-11 ELT installation
77-04-05 Carburetor air intake
75-16-01 Wing fuel tanks
73-17-01 Fuel transfer pump placard
72-07-09 Cracks and loose bolts in fin & rudder
71-22-02 Cracks in nose gear fork

 

[SCCutler]

I think Tom's making an excellent suggestion, here, if you decide to go retract; Fly a 210, and you may be surprised at how rock-solid they are, IMHO outstanding for IMC.

---

Edit: And in case you think you have to have a turbo for real flying in a 210, check out this guy:

http://www.friendshipflight.com/

 

[AirBaker]

remove the 2 back seats and insure for 4

My insurance company won't let me do this.

So Grant,
I understand the appeal of the 182, but I've never really got the 182RG. Most people here know my preference for aircraft, but I think the RG doesn't earn its keep. Before the 182RG folks jump on me here, I'm sure its a great flying machine, but the $$/performance gets a little inflated due to the '182' appeal.

How often are you going to be landing on strips that are worse than grass?

 

[gprellwitz]

My insurance company won't let me do this.

So Grant,
I understand the appeal of the 182, but I've never really got the 182RG. Most people here know my preference for aircraft, but I think the RG doesn't earn its keep. Before the 182RG folks jump on me here, I'm sure its a great flying machine, but the $$/performance gets a little inflated due to the '182' appeal.

I see 182s, R182s, and TR182 in the same price range for the 1978-1984 years. I haven't done a detailed analysis or anything, but my perception is that you're paying an additional 10-20% for either an R182 or TR182 over the straight leg, but there's definitely overlap in the prices. For example, for $125K, you could find either a TR or a straight leg. You also have increased complexity, insurance, and maintenance on the R or TR. For that, you get an additional 22% speed/efficiency for the TR (135KTs vs 165KTs), but only about 11% for the R (135KTs vs. 150KTs). I'm starting to lean towards either a straight-legged or the TR, and less toward the normally aspirated R. And yes, the 210 is still in the list of possibilities.

How often are you going to be landing on strips that are worse than grass?

An occasional foray out west or down to the islands, so maybe some dirt/crushed coral strips. I'd guesstimate 92% sealed, 6% grass/turf, and 2% dirt, gravel, crushed coral, etc.

 

[gprellwitz]

Your concerns are noted but here is what you can do.

remove the 2 back seats and insure for 4

As Chris said, my understanding is that insurance companies insure based on what the plane is certified for. So you can't pull out seats to reduce the passenger carrying capacity.

Need a larger hangar. yep you do, I can't help that.

TBO is no concern in part 91, and the cost of an overhaul will not come for a long time with the 210 I linked you to. most folks do not fly enough to run a new engine to TBO. I would ask westernskyways.com how much they charge for the 2 engines you are compairing I'll bet there isn't much diference.

TBO is of no legal concern, but I take it as the best indication of the expected longevity of a particular engine model. And if the same manufacturer puts a TBO of X on one engine and X + Y% on another, I have to expect that I'll be running the second Y% longer, even if they both go beyond TBO. They are, of course, individuals, so factors such as usage patterns, break-in, etc. will strongly influence the actual time before overhaul for a particular engine.

Of all the horror stories that are told by the groupe here have never come to pass in the 2, 210s I care for. we do the retraction tests as per the MM and maintain the 210s on a 50 hour cycle and for the 10 years one owner has owned his 210 he has not spent over $1000 per year on every thing.

That's good to know! How about the other owner?

For every horror story you here there are plenty of owners flying trouble free, remember 2% of the people make 100% of the news you hear repeated over and over.

Yeah, anecdotal evidence can severely skew perceptions! Unfortunately, statistically valid comparisons are difficult for me (most everyone?) due to my lack or knowledge and experience and the dearth of hard data out there. This is why, of course, I started this thread, so we can at least get some of this out where others with more experience than I can look at things and say "yeah, I've seen that too" or "I've never heard of that before, perhaps it was an anomaly?"

My next family aircraft will be an early 210 with th flat spring gear. and struts. stripped to the bone, with 4 seats, GNC 530, transponder, Mode C, Intercom for 4, and the IO-520 300 horse.

Just catch a ride in one, it'll make a believer out of you.

You offering?

 

[Tom-D]

As Chris said, my understanding is that insurance companies insure based on what the plane is certified for. So you can't pull out seats to reduce the passenger carrying capacity.

This must have changed since I insured my 170 for the 2 front seats.

TBO is of no legal concern, but I take it as the best indication of the expected longevity of a particular engine model. And if the same manufacturer puts a TBO of X on one engine and X + Y% on another, I have to expect that I'll be running the second Y% longer, even if they both go beyond TBO. They are, of course, individuals, so factors such as usage patterns, break-in, etc. will strongly influence the actual time before overhaul for a particular engine.

That is what the manufacturers lawyers want you to think. TBO is based upon the amount of time the manufacturer thinks the engine can be run and then torn down and all parts will meet service limits. It is not based upon when the manufacturer thinks the engine will fail, that is a lawyer conception, passed on to the public as gospel.

That's good to know! How about the other owner?

He is the guy that did not believe he should get a good prebuy.

Yeah, anecdotal evidence can severely skew perceptions! Unfortunately, statistically valid comparisons are difficult for me (most everyone?) due to my lack or knowledge and experience and the dearth of hard data out there. This is why, of course, I started this thread, so we can at least get some of this out where others with more experience than I can look at things and say "yeah, I've seen that too" or "I've never heard of that before, perhaps it was an anomaly?"

That is why you asked us for advice, right? you got mine, I believe you will be much happier in the 210-G or later doing what you have stated here. It is a better IFR platform, It is Complex, It is High horse power, and it gives you more options than the 182.
The long trips you have planed will be much more pleasure in the 210, the 1000 mile trips are one leg, the 500 mile legs are a turn around with out fueling. 2 people a half load of fuel you will be looking at 190 indicated with take offs at 500' and climb rates of 1000' or better.

You offering? I wish, I'll build mine after the F-24 goes away.

find a ride before you commit.

 

[AirBaker]

...looking at 190 indicated...

Don't think that I am picking on you.

190 Indicated??

 

[bbchien]

Don't think that I am picking on you.

190 Indicated??

Yeah. That's less than 160 kias. The 70-72 Centurions are in mph.

 

[tonycondon]

the only way you are going to get 165 out of a TR182 is way up high. like way way up high.

 

[tdager]

There is nothing wrong with a good-ol-bird mid 60's 182 with an updated panel. Just have to be happy with 135 kts.

I agree! And 135kts is fast when comparing it to droning along on the ground.

 

[gprellwitz]

Flew a TR182RG into the backcountry a lot with DA pushing 10K and predictably, loved the thirsty turboed engine. 165 knots at 12000 MSL cruise was common.

the only way you are going to get 165 out of a TR182 is way up high. like way way up high.

12K doesn't sound like "way way up high." Yeah, it's a little higher than we usually fly on trips (around 8000' MSL), but not too much.