182 v 172

[VWGhiaBob]

Rethinking my leaning to Cirrus, I'm looking once again at Cessna's. So much easier to fly, better safety record, more resistant to loss of control in the pattern...

Question for all you Cessna experts out there...

Is the cockpit roomier in a 182 than a 172? People weigh more today than they did when the 172 was designed, and I do get a bit tired of rubbing legs with the person in the co-pilot seat.

Is the 182 wider, or is it just a 172 with a bigger engine?

Thanks, all!

 

[midlifeflyer]

The 182 is bigger in all dimensions.

 

[Pilawt]

Is the 182 wider, or is it just a 172 with a bigger engine?

The 182 is a completely different airframe from the 172.

Early 182s (1956-61, models 182 through 182D) were basically a Cessna 180 with a nosewheel. These were only about half an inch wider inside than a 172. With the Model 182D (1962) the 182 got a completely new fuselage that is four inches wider.

 

[rbridges]

182 is a great all around plane. not the fastest or biggest, but quick and relatively comfortable. Fuel burn probably 3-4 gallons/hr higher than 172 depending on what year/engines you are comparing.

 

[DaleB]

If a 172 is like a Ford Focus, the 182 is more like an Explorer. Bigger, faster, hauls more, more comfortable.

Edit: Also costs more to buy, burns more gas, more expensive to maintain and insure, and all that. TANSTAAFL.

 

[JOhnH]

I have a nice 172 with the 180 upgraded engine.
I want a 182.

 

[Skylane81E]

182s are much wider, and easier to get in and out of as the seat slides back further.

The weight limit on the baggage compartment is also higher at 200lbs and with ULs over 1000lbs (mine is 1250) they are real four place planes

 

[Shawn]

Yes...there is a big difference. It is only a matter of inches in comparison, but that difference is huge in terms of passenger comfort and space. I trained in a 172 and now own a 182...I can easily take 4 full size adults and they all have plenty of room and not sitting on top of each other. Tons of leg room in the back.

In terms of the front seat...in a 152, I would have to sit staggered with the right seat, 172 pretty much touching, 182 plenty of room.

152: Ford Pinto with wings
172: middle seat of economy class
182: middle seat of business class
Citation: first class

 

[AggieMike88]

182s are much wider, and easier to get in and out of as the seat slides back further.

The weight limit on the baggage compartment is also higher at 200lbs and with ULs over 1000lbs (mine is 1250) they are real four place planes

After learning in a DA20, having 30 hours in PA28's, 10hrs in a C172, I love the room and comfort in the 182.

As folks have shared it is a good all-around aircraft for load, speed, range, and comfort.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Thanks for the info, members! Any good references out there to more info on this plane? I want to read everything I can find.

Also...and please don't shoot me...I will probably use of that extra weight carrying capability to carry a BRS parachute. The Cirrus spoiled me in that regard! Not sure if anyone out there has experience with BRS...

 

[AggieMike88]

Sounds snarky, but isn't. I just try not to get into a situation where I'm dependent on the BRS.

As far as data on the 182's check out the reference material on Cessna Pilot's Association.

And post any specific questions and we'll all do our best to help.

 

[Shawn]

Yes...go join the Cessna Pilots Association...there is a whole forum dedicated to the 182. Also get yourself a copy of the Cessna 182 Buyer's Guide (only available in a hard copy...there isn't a download). Those were the two most valuable resources when I was researching the 182.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Besides cabin width, what are your minimum requirements or desires, prioritized?
Minimum acceptable cruise speed?
Maximum acceptable stall speed (or maximum acceptable takeoff distance)?
Minimum acceptable range?
Minimum number of bodies and payload?
Maximum acceptable upfront acquisition cost?
Maximum acceptable per hour operating and maintenance costs?

The reason I ask is because if "easier to fly, better safety record, more resistant to loss of control in the pattern" and having the comfortable elbow room of a C-182 was all that mattered, a Zenith CH-750 would work. Or even an ultralight that has no cockpit walls!

 

[PPC1052]

I think the 177 cockpit is actually as wide as some 182 model years. Not quite as much head room though. The 177B (1976) POH lists a cabin width at window height at 42 1/2"

 

[airguy]

I would actually really like to have one of the new turbodiesel 182's. That would be a nice travelling bird.

 

[rbridges]

If you want to get crazy, the 182 also comes in a retract.

 

[Z06_Mir]

Thanks for the info, members! Any good references out there to more info on this plane? I want to read everything I can find.

Also...and please don't shoot me...I will probably use of that extra weight carrying capability to carry a BRS parachute. The Cirrus spoiled me in that regard! Not sure if anyone out there has experience with BRS...

Eh. I flew a Cirrus recently for 10 hours. I will take my no parachute 182RG any day of the week over that thing...

If you want to get crazy, the 182 also comes in a retract.

And in my (bias) opinion there isn't a better airplane out there... I own a non-turbo model but have been doing some flying and a bit of instruction in a TR182.. I like my n/a better even though I can't reach the flight levels. Why do I love my little R182 more than a Cirrus or the turbo of my airplane? I burn 12gph OR LESS. I have a useful load of 1300 pounds. I have a usable fuel of 88 gallons! What isn't to love? I can take two friends and top off the airplane for a trip to California. Or I can take 3 friends to Vegas. Or I can get across the country with 1 fuel stop.. YES! It's a 150kt machine without argument.. For a long time I'd only flown a handful of airplanes including the 182 but since it was in the shop I've been bumming rides and instructing in other airplanes along with renting a Cirrus... I can say without fail that the 182 (182RG IMO) is one of the best, most versitle airplanes in teh market. For well under $100k you get all that. It's budget friendly, flyer friendly.. can go anywhere. I've landed on grass and at Sky Harbor International (KPHX) and everywhere in between. Life is good as a 182 owner.

 

[Ghery]

The club I belong to has a couple 172s and a 182. One of the 172s has the 180 hp upgrade from Penn Yan. With full tanks (50 gal for the 172, 74 gal for the 182) I can carry over 100 pounds more in the cabin of the 172 than the 182. And the 172 has a Garmin 430W which the 182 lacks. That said...

The 182 is roomier inside.
The 182 is faster.
The 182 is more comfortable, even in the back seat (and I have ridden there).
The 182 burns more gas.
The 182 requires a hi-perf endorsement (big woopie).
I'm not shoulder to shoulder with the person in the right seat in the 182 (I am in the 172).

Depends on your mission and budget. I've flown both across the state (and the club's Arrow, as well) and of the three the 182 is my preferred cross country cruising machine. For short trips, the 172 is fine. $89/hr wet beats $116/hr wet for short trips. Yes, our club rates are good.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

I'd rather have a 180hp 172. Still 1000-1100lbs useful load, 120knots I think it flies more nibble.

But I love the 182 as well.....If my family came with me on more trips that would tilt towards the larger plane.

 

[Pilawt]

I'd rather have a 180hp 172. Still 1000-1100lbs useful load, 120knots I think it flies more nibble.

The simplicity of my 180-hp C-172 does have its charm. If I had to trade up, a C-182 would probably be my first choice. But I can't see that it would outweigh the advantages of what I have, at least for my purposes.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

The simplicity of my 180-hp C-172 does have its charm. If I had to trade up, a C-182 would probably be my first choice. But I can't see that it would outweigh the advantages of what I have, at least for my purposes.

Does that model qualify for a mogas stc? Whether it is available or not, if avgas gos TU, mogas would make a comeback. I like the simplicity as well.

 

[us AAirways]

172 $$$$$$$$$$$

182 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Pilawt]

Does that model qualify for a mogas stc?

Yes. As the Petersen website notes, both the airframe and the engine must be approved for the STC. In my case, the C-172N airframe is approved, and the Lycoming O-360-A4M is approved, but, being a higher-compression engine, it "require the use of 91 AKI (minimum) premium unleaded or leaded automotive fuel."

Interestingly, the original engine that came with the C-172N, the Lycoming O-320-H2AD, is not approved. It has not gone through all the necessary detonation testing.

 

[timwinters]

172 $$$$$$$$$$$

182 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Actually the price of 182s is quite attractive right now and the only difference in maintenance is 2 cylinders (for most, not all) and a CS prop.

MPG is a wash and I can always throttle back and make my 182 a 172 and oft do on low & slow river trips, 110kts @ 8.5 gph. But the opposite can't be achieved.

 

[Skylane81E]

The club I belong to has a couple 172s and a 182. One of the 172s has the 180 hp upgrade from Penn Yan. With full tanks (50 gal for the 172, 74 gal for the 182) I can carry over 100 pounds more in the cabin of the 172 than the 182. And the 172 has a Garmin 430W which the 182 lacks. That said...

The 182 is roomier inside.
The 182 is faster.
The 182 is more comfortable, even in the back seat (and I have ridden there).
The 182 burns more gas.
The 182 requires a hi-perf endorsement (big woopie).
I'm not shoulder to shoulder with the person in the right seat in the 182 (I am in the 172).

Depends on your mission and budget. I've flown both across the state (and the club's Arrow, as well) and of the three the 182 is my preferred cross country cruising machine. For short trips, the 172 is fine. $89/hr wet beats $116/hr wet for short trips. Yes, our club rates are good.

Problem with comparing full fuel loads is that many 182s have huge tanks. I read here recently that if you can fill your seats with full fuel your tanks are to small. I only have a 722lb full fuel payload but a 7hr endurance comes with that. I recently took about 900lbs of people on a 320 mile trip using only a small portion of the 2300' strip at our destination, all with comfortable fuel reserves

 

[skidoo]

I created a chart for cruise speed vs power and fuel burn for the late models 172 and turbo 182. The N/A 182 tends to burn just a few tenths gps less than these numbers.

As you can see, the fuel burns where the speeds are the same are also about the same... The difference is the 182 can burn more to go faster at the high end, or the 172 can burn less at the slowest end.

I assume that the older models would compare similarly...

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Skidoo,

Those numbers are actually more useful if you compare miles per gallon. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but according to the 182 POH you can pull the 182 back to get comparable MPG numbers to the 172. It's still faster when you do so, however, and apparently few people choose to...

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Here's My Mission...Help appreciated!!!

Thanks for the input! I'm going to buy the Cessna Buyers Guide today. I already have my high performance endorsement, but not complex (no experience with complex prop yet).

In answer to Jim's questions, my mission is:

* Safety (easy to fly, proven reliability)
* Build time / fly!!!!
* Comfort / stellar appearance (for all the friends I want to take up)
* Minimum acceptable cruise speed? Don't care. This is for trips..yes..but who cares between 110 and 160 knots? So I get there an hour later??? That's just more fun time in the air.
* Maximum acceptable stall speed (or maximum acceptable takeoff distance)? Stall...the lower the better (safety)...takeoff distance don't care (no plans to go to short / soft fields)
Minimum acceptable range? Don't care...no long trips planned...LA to Vegas is probably about all I need.
Minimum number of bodies and payload? 4 adults...I'd say 800 - 900 pounds (some hefty folks in my family!) and able to handle Big Bear (7000'msl) with that payload...this is what pushes me into 182 / SR22 territory
Maximum acceptable upfront acquisition cost? $175,000
Maximum acceptable per hour operating and maintenance costs? $180???

Also:
Traffic mandatory (this is So. Cal.!)
Glass preferred, but not mandatory...would consider partial glass (less than G1000), with Foreflight onboard

Any more input certainly appreciated!

 

[bnt83]

I read here recently that if you can fill your seats with full fuel your tanks are to small.

Falcon 900EX

Epmty - 25,306 #
GW - 49,200 #
Fuel Capacity - 3,109 gallons
Payload left with full fuel - 3,069

Maximum # of passengers per the TCDS is 19 + 2 crew = 21 bodies

3069/21 = 146 # bodies

 

[Skylane81E]

Re: Here's My Mission...Help appreciated!!!

Thanks for the input! I'm going to buy the Cessna Buyers Guide today. I already have my high performance endorsement, but not complex (no experience with complex prop yet).

In answer to Jim's questions, my mission is:

* Safety (easy to fly, proven reliability)
* Build time / fly!!!!
* Comfort / stellar appearance (for all the friends I want to take up)
* Minimum acceptable cruise speed? Don't care. This is for trips..yes..but who cares between 110 and 160 knots? So I get there an hour later??? That's just more fun time in the air.
* Maximum acceptable stall speed (or maximum acceptable takeoff distance)? Stall...the lower the better (safety)...takeoff distance don't care (no plans to go to short / soft fields)
Minimum acceptable range? Don't care...no long trips planned...LA to Vegas is probably about all I need.
Minimum number of bodies and payload? 4 adults...I'd say 800 - 900 pounds (some hefty folks in my family!) and able to handle Big Bear (7000'msl) with that payload...this is what pushes me into 182 / SR22 territory
Maximum acceptable upfront acquisition cost? $175,000
Maximum acceptable per hour operating and maintenance costs? $180???

Also:
Traffic mandatory (this is So. Cal.!)
Glass preferred, but not mandatory...would consider partial glass (less than G1000), with Foreflight onboard

Any more input certainly appreciated!

Fwiw getting a glass plane can present a wrinkle later at upgrade time as the glass is often part of the TCDS. Plus I honestly prefer the "legacy" Cessnas. Short of the fancy avionics a new 182 isn't demonstrably better than mine.

Also a P or Q with the fresh pick up gross STC will give you the widest CG margins and likely the highest possible GW as well. The older ones also have some of the best engine upgrades available, I'd recommend a Pponk engine (or other, bigger, upgrade) for hauling heavy loads out of a high airport.

I also think you are going to have to ditch the idea of a BRS to carry what you want, 4 adults means 4 adults worth of detritus to lug in the back, Whoops you've already used up that space with the BRS...

I think you can find a P or Q with either a mid/low time Pponk or a run out stock engine then do the upgrade yourself with decent avionics then fly the thing within your budget.

 

[AggieMike88]

Re: Here's My Mission...Help appreciated!!!

I think you can find a P or Q with either a mid/low time Pponk or a run out stock engine then do the upgrade yourself with decent avionics then fly the thing within your budget.

I fly a 182P with the gross weight STC and really like it's performance and comfort. Fits my missions of shorter hops, regional flying, grass strips, and PnP flights just fine.

In addition to the quoted advice of replace with your own choice of engine, you can do the same with avionics. Fly during the good weather seasons with what you bought, then put it in the upgrade shop during the bad weather or busy life season.

At AOPA summit, the Avionics Upgrade seminar showed an the extreme (and expensive) example of what they are doing to the sweeps plane (3-tube Aspen, GTN-750, flush mount iPad, and more). But they also discussed the "easier on the budget" example of single tube Aspen and a GTN-650 and ADS-B in/out compliant. For many of us, a set up like the latter would serve us well for a long time.

 

[timwinters]

Re: Here's My Mission...Help appreciated!!!

I already have my high performance endorsement, but not complex (no experience with complex prop yet).

I'm pretty sure complex has to do with retractable gear, not CS props and flaps.

I don't have a complex sign-off.

At least I don't think I do...it's been quite awhile.

 

[MAKG1]

Re: Here's My Mission...Help appreciated!!!

I'm pretty sure complex has to do with retractable gear, not CS props and flaps.

I don't have a complex sign-off.

At least I don't think I do...it's been quite awhile.

Complex requires all three.

If you can find a light single with retractible gear but fixed pitch, it's not complex.

It's much easier to imagine a 201 HP fixed pitch aircraft, though all 182s have CS props.

 

[Skylane81E]

Re: Here's My Mission...Help appreciated!!!

Complex requires all three.

If you can find an aircraft with retractible gear but fixed pitch, it's not complex.

Or no flaps, like an EZ or similar

 

[Ghery]

Problem with comparing full fuel loads is that many 182s have huge tanks. I read here recently that if you can fill your seats with full fuel your tanks are to small. I only have a 722lb full fuel payload but a 7hr endurance comes with that. I recently took about 900lbs of people on a 320 mile trip using only a small portion of the 2300' strip at our destination, all with comfortable fuel reserves

True. However, our club rules require us to put the planes away with full tanks so the next pilot won't have to waste time getting gas. So, I must plan assuming full tanks.

Impact? The 172 has 6 hours endurance. I don't have a 6 hour bladder, so I'm highly unlikely to ever do the stupid pilot trick of running out of gas. Not saying it's impossible, but the likelihood is reduced.

 

[coma24]

Bob,

You might be saying you don't care about speed right now...but that will change, especially after you hit a 30kt headwind and start seeing traffic on the freeway moving faster than you.

Speed allows you to have a wider radius of destinations within a duration that you consider to be comfortable (whether that's 2, 3 or 4 hours) and makes you less hampered by headwinds.

I can't tell you how many 600nm trips I've done with 25-40kt headwinds with my plane that would've been an utter dog with a 172.

 

[poadeleted21]

Re: Here's My Mission...Help appreciated!!!

Thanks for the input! I'm going to buy the Cessna Buyers Guide today. I already have my high performance endorsement, but not complex (no experience with complex prop yet).

In answer to Jim's questions, my mission is:

* Safety (easy to fly, proven reliability)
* Build time / fly!!!!
* Comfort / stellar appearance (for all the friends I want to take up)
* Minimum acceptable cruise speed? Don't care. This is for trips..yes..but who cares between 110 and 160 knots? So I get there an hour later??? That's just more fun time in the air.
* Maximum acceptable stall speed (or maximum acceptable takeoff distance)? Stall...the lower the better (safety)...takeoff distance don't care (no plans to go to short / soft fields)
Minimum acceptable range? Don't care...no long trips planned...LA to Vegas is probably about all I need.
Minimum number of bodies and payload? 4 adults...I'd say 800 - 900 pounds (some hefty folks in my family!) and able to handle Big Bear (7000'msl) with that payload...this is what pushes me into 182 / SR22 territory
Maximum acceptable upfront acquisition cost? $175,000
Maximum acceptable per hour operating and maintenance costs? $180???

Also:
Traffic mandatory (this is So. Cal.!)
Glass preferred, but not mandatory...would consider partial glass (less than G1000), with Foreflight onboard

Any more input certainly appreciated!

Go for 210 or a 206 if you want to haul 4 hefty adults out of big bear. With $175K I think your options are more than 172 vs 182.

 

[DaleB]

You might be saying you don't care about speed right now...but that will change, especially after you hit a 30kt headwind and start seeing traffic on the freeway moving faster than you.

Amen to that. The first time my wife and I took the club 172 on a trip of any length (300+ NM each way) we had about a 25-30 kt headwind -- both ways. So I'm putzing along at cruise seeing the 80 kt ground speed on the GPS, knowing I'm going to have to stop for fuel before we get there, and kept thinking, "Man, if I had the RV finished we'd be there by now and still have gas left".

 

[douglas393]

Re: Here's My Mission...Help appreciated!!!

Thanks for the input! I'm going to buy the Cessna Buyers Guide today. I already have my high performance endorsement, but not complex (no experience with complex prop yet).

In answer to Jim's questions, my mission is:

* Safety (easy to fly, proven reliability)
* Build time / fly!!!!
* Comfort / stellar appearance (for all the friends I want to take up)
* Minimum acceptable cruise speed? Don't care. This is for trips..yes..but who cares between 110 and 160 knots? So I get there an hour later??? That's just more fun time in the air.
* Maximum acceptable stall speed (or maximum acceptable takeoff distance)? Stall...the lower the better (safety)...takeoff distance don't care (no plans to go to short / soft fields)
Minimum acceptable range? Don't care...no long trips planned...LA to Vegas is probably about all I need.
Minimum number of bodies and payload? 4 adults...I'd say 800 - 900 pounds (some hefty folks in my family!) and able to handle Big Bear (7000'msl) with that payload...this is what pushes me into 182 / SR22 territory
Maximum acceptable upfront acquisition cost? $175,000
Maximum acceptable per hour operating and maintenance costs? $180???

Also:
Traffic mandatory (this is So. Cal.!)
Glass preferred, but not mandatory...would consider partial glass (less than G1000), with Foreflight onboard

Any more input certainly appreciated!

I have a 2007 T182T. It has a G1000 and turbo. I trained in a 172. The 182 is a more robust plane, and bigger than the 172. I flew a 172 a few weeks ago for the first time since I got my 182 about 2 and a half years ago, and it reminded me why I love my 182. As for true four people, I think that depends on their size. Three people is never a problem, four people with luggage may put you over. For what you want to spend I think a slightly older 182 with glass will be right there. I have not looked at recent prices. Make sure you get a good prebuy, when I was looking there were quite a number of dogs as well. Good luck. There are two Cessna specific forums I know of. They are both pretty good, and the magazines they send are also pretty good.