182 vs Bonanza

[denverpilot]

Okay I have a newbie question. Does useful load include fuel? How much does fuel weigh in a 182?

Yes. And it depends on the model of 182 and the size of the tanks. Many different tank sizes as standard and also as options on the 182 over the years.

 

[Jay Honeck]

The quality debate WRT Bonanzas is always an interesting one. As always, it comes down to this: If a 1958 Cessna is still flying, 56 years later -- and many still are -- it's hard to say that there was any qualitative difference between the Beech and the Cessna.

Heavy construction in airplanes is not the same as heavy in trucks or power tools. In the latter, weight translates into "sturdy". In the former, it translates into excess weight.

One must then wonder: How much more performance could Beech have squeezed out of the Bo if they had put it on a weight loss program?

Of course, one can point at the DC-3, which will fly forever simply because Douglas took their best guess at structure and then tripled everything. So, by that theory, Bonanzas should be flying long after the last 182 or Pathfinder has crumbled to dust.

How this benefits current owners is not clear. And so the debate continues.

Personally, I've had my fill of feeding heavy six-cylinder, single engine planes, and am loving our light and nimble RV-8.

 

[docmirror]

The quality debate WRT Bonanzas is always an interesting one. As always, it comes down to this: If a 1958 Cessna is still flying, 56 years later -- and many still are -- it's hard to say that there was any qualitative difference between the Beech and the Cessna.

One must then wonder: How much more performance could Beech have squeezed out of the Bo if they had put it on a weight loss program?

Personally, I've had my fill of feeding heavy six-cylinder, single engine planes, and am loving our light and nimble RV-8.

Actually, you have this exactly backwards. The Bonanza hit the market in mid-47. It's contemporary cousins from Cessna and Piper were the C-195, and I guess the PA-11 or 12, or the variant of the J4 or J5? Anyway, the Bonanza was light years ahead of the contemporary GA designs.

Also, it was built light from the start. The first few hundred were built with fabric ailerons and flaps, and mag for the ruddervators. The spar carrythrough was a birdcage of steel trusses and the prop had wooden blades to save weight. So, what I'm saying is that there might have been a way to save weight on the early Bo, but it was going to be darn hard to find. Yes, they could have made the gear trunnion a bit lighter, and yes, they could have shaved a few pounds maybe from the gear box, and possibly done with slightly smaller windows, etc but for it's day, it was so far past contemporary planes there was just no comparison.

By 1956 when the first 182 came out, almost 10 years after the Bo, it would compete with the G35. A more accurate comparison would be the 210, but that was still more than 3 years away. So, direct comparison to the early 182 was no contest. The Bo of 1956 hauled more useful than the first 182, it went faster, and it was certified for util category to max gross weight. Just all around a far better plane. It also cost significantly more than the 182 of the day, which is why the 182 was a good seller.

Now, if we FF to 59 when the 210 showed up(a 182 with RG and tapered wing outboard of the flaps), we can compare that to the Bo J/K35. The 210 could haul more useful weight, but the Bo was still faster, and had a stronger gear. A lot of runways back then were grass, and stout gear was important. Sadly, by the K model, the Bo started to get bloated. The next iteration had to add a few feet of wing tip to deal with the extra weight, and after that, the Bo finally got the same HP as the 210, which made it even faster.

The early Bonanzas are the lightest airframes by far, and there wasn't much weight savings to be had. I know, I've looked. Also, when fitted with the later engines, the early airplanes with their light weight are blistering fast. I know that as well. Not sure what speeds an RV-8 gets, but I'm sure it's pretty high. The early Bo with the bigger engine can haul 4 in comfort, and go around 185-190MPH, but I have to burn a fair amount of auto gas to do it. As for a comparison to the later 182, it's not really very fair to Cessna.

 

[skylanerg]

I finally got to see a Cardinal up close and sit in one. Not only does the view seem fantastic, those doors make getting in and out just fantastically easy. Next time I find $100k lying around, it's going on my purchase list

I owned a '68 with RAM upgrade. Two words: Comfy and Slow. For $100k you could find a very nice RG and have plenty of discretionary upgrade funds left over.

Hell, for $100k you could find a nice 182RG. Sweet ride.

 

[Henning]

I owned a '68 with RAM upgrade. Two words: Comfy and Slow. For $100k you could find a very nice RG and have plenty of discretionary upgrade funds left over.

Hell, for $100k you could find a nice 182RG. Sweet ride.

Unless I needed the weight, I would chose a 177RG over a 182RG.

 

[dgdamore]

Can anyone compare the cabin width from the Bo to the 182?

 

[Pilawt]

Can anyone compare the cabin width from the Bo to the 182?

A mid-1970s Mooney ad compared the cabin widths (elbow-to-elbow) of all the competition. It listed both the Skylane and F33A Bonanza at 45.5".

Those measurements can vary somewhat depending on the specific models, with different upholstery, armrest styles, etc., but they're pretty close. Because of the way the fuselage cross-sections taper, the Bonanza is likely to be a skosh narrower at eye level, and the 182 a bit narrower at the floor.

Note that 182s built before the 1962 model year (182E) were a few inches narrower.

 

[ytodd]

Can anyone compare the cabin width from the Bo to the 182?

I owned a 182P for 4 years, sold it and now own a Bonanza J35 for the last 2 years. I don't know the measured width, but I can tell you the 182 feels more roomy inside. That said, I don't miss the 182 except every once in a while when I want to get into a small unimproved strip.