182 vs Bonanza

FlyingBob

FlyingBob

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
13
Location
Ontario, Canada
Display Name
Display name:
FlyingBob
I mentioned earlier today in my first post that I am the proud owner of a '78 C-182 with the P Ponk upgrade, speed mods, and 3 blade Scimitar prop. Essentially, my 182 is very close in numbers to a V35 Bonanza. My useful is 1200+lbs, and I cruise at 150kts @ 15gph. A fellow pilot friend of mine owns a V35 Bonanza, and was quite impressed at the numbers on my 182, saying that it is very close to his airplane. He gets about 160kts @14.5gph, and close to the same useful load.
Before I bought the 182, I was considering a V35, but decided against it due to the increased maintenance on the gear.
The 182 was close to the same cost to purchase as a comparable V35, and the interiors are about the same size inside.

My question is this. With these numbers being as close as they are, is it desirable to gain 10 extra knots per hour in exchange for the extra maintenance, or possible gear issues from having a retractable gear?
I also went with the high wing due to the gravity feed and not having to worry about a pump failure.

Thoughts and comments are welcome.
 
You are worried about the Bonanza gear issues? It's a non-issue.

I wouldn't trade planes for the marginal gain in speed or economy, but the Bonanza gear is the most robust in the industry.
 
Beech parts are pricey. I would stay with the 182, unless you have a need for a status airplane.
 
That's a fast 182. I used to flight plan mine for 135 kts.

I doubt the 10 kts advantage on the Bo would be worth the headache of trading. Both a great airplanes with an edge to the Bo on sex appeal, but to the 182 on raw utility.
 
I'm not familiar with those upgrades. What do they consist of precisely? I'm not sure I beleive a 182 fixed gear would be able to do 150 knots without an extremely substantial increase in power that would kill range.
 
The Bonanza has the same gear as the Baron. I never worried about the gear when I flew them.

Also, nice grab on the 182. That sounds like a great airplane with the numbers you gave us. I'd be happy with it.
 
Wouldn't the Bonanza be significantly more expensive to maintain? The extra 10 knots in this case isn't a big deal for my mission.

I always thought a 182 would be my first airplane, and that a Bonanza is a pipe dream. But perhaps the Bonanza isn't as impossible as I might think?
 
Hi Bob,

It sounds like you have a nice airplane and it probably doesn't make sense to change planes based on speed alone. As you stated you are close, but to a V35? I'm struggling a little with that. The V35 starts with the 1966 year model and it is significantly faster than 160 knots at 14.5 gph unless your friend is talking indicated airspeed while you are give TAS for your plane. Are you sure you have the model correct? The 160 knot TAS cruise fits my experience flying an I0-470 powered V-Tail at the fuel burn you state, but it isn't what I experience with my S35. The S35 is the model prior to the V35 but with the exception of being ever so slightly lighter than the V35. It is pretty much the same airplane for all practical purposes.

In my IO-520 powered S35 which is GAMI equipped I pull to 12.4 gph typically which is 64% power when lean of peak and consistently get 166-168 knot TAS. If I kick up the fuel burn to 14.5 like you are referring to it'll up the speed to about 174-178 knots TAS. If I push it to around 15.5 gph it'll do about 182 knots TAS. All this is meaningless for my application because I do the big mixture pull and go right to 12.4 gph which is the sweet spot for our liking.

As for the maintenance of the gear, well I do my own annual with the help of my IA and I have a beechjack in my hangar. It takes about 10 minutes to set up the jack, and then about an hour to do retracts, crank the gear manually, test the switch/horn for low manifold pressure settings with the gear up, etc... He then looks over everything with his watchful eye. Oh, there is also greasing all the fittings on the gear which can take an hour or so. The ones in the nose well have to be done with the fear partially retracted in order to get to them. It is no big deal. I realize that everybody doesn't do their own work, but I added that because it adds only about an honest hour or two on a typical annual. You'll make that up in a few hours worth of gas saved once your back in the air. Another way of looking at this is for each hour you fly, I will fly 55 minutes to cover the same distance. So if you fly 100 hours per year, I will fly 500 minutes less, or 8.33 hours less. Is the wear and tear expense offset enough to pay your mechanic a couple of more hours to enjoy the added speed? I don't know, that is your call. But then factor in the fuel savings of 2 gallons per hour over the 100 hours you fly in a year and I think you are in the $1,100 per year savings range. This way more than offsets the extra couple of hours during the annual.

My useful load is 1192 lbs, but the ability to carry this weight is not nearly as versatile as your 1,200 lb useful load due to CG concerns. I can use it, but sometimes have to be creative with loading. Again, IMO you have a great airplane. If you gotta have a Bonanza then come on in, the waters fine. If you are happy with the fine airplane that you already have then I'd stay put. My 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
Jessie I had a friend who was an A&P/IA that used to do mods on 182's that would give the fixed gear versions an honest 150 knots. He did gear fairings, cam I think, and a few other things. This was in the 90's and he has since perished in a plane crash so I cannot call and ask him. He could get a fixed gear 182 to cruise at similar speeds to a 182RG. I'm sure it was a kit he was installing. The 182's can scoot.

jesse said:
I'm not familiar with those upgrades. What do they consist of precisely? I'm not sure I beleive a 182 fixed gear would be able to do 150 knots without an extremely substantial increase in power that would kill range.
Click to expand...
 
Pponk is

Turning and o470 into an o520

Or

Turning a TSIO 520 into an o520.
 
frfly172 said:
Beech parts are pricey. I would stay with the 182, unless you have a need for a status airplane.
Click to expand...

I have yet to buy a Beech part for my Bonanza. The few Beech parts I have bought for other airplanes I've worked on however were very reasonable. On par with Piper and Cessna parts.

LDJones said:
That's a fast 182. I used to flight plan mine for 135 kts.
Click to expand...

That's what I've always figured them at too. That seems awfully fast for a 182 and it sounds like his friend with the Bonanza has a slow V35.

FWIW, my old F35 will do about as good as the OP's 182 while burning 3-4 GPH less.
 
Okay I have a newbie question. Does useful load include fuel? How much does fuel weigh in a 182?
 
FloridaPilot said:
Okay I have a newbie question. Does useful load include fuel? How much does fuel weigh in a 182?
Click to expand...

Yes in includes fuel. By that you would have to subtract the weight of the fuel from the useful load to determine how much you have left for you and your passengers.
 
kayoh190 said:
Wouldn't the Bonanza be significantly more expensive to maintain? The extra 10 knots in this case isn't a big deal for my mission.

I always thought a 182 would be my first airplane, and that a Bonanza is a pipe dream. But perhaps the Bonanza isn't as impossible as I might think?
Click to expand...

My Bo hasn't been much more expensive than my Cherokee. The gear is a rounding error in an aviation budget. Hull value is 3x what it was on my Cherokee and insurance went up $800/yr. I can't imagine there's much savings in a 182 over a Bo.
 
I just recently sold a 182P model which I had along with my Bonanza F33A. I kept the 182 thinking it could do things that my F33A couldn't do. Now, to be honest, the 182 with VGs is a slightly better short field aircraft than the Bonanza when operated at lighter weights. Load the 182 up to max gross weight and load the F33A to the same 2950 weight and the F33A has slightly better performance. I take my F33A in and out of a 1350ft grass field all the time with room to spare. So, in the real world, there isn't much of a difference.

Now, I burn 14.8gph at 135kts in the 182 and 13.0gph at 170kts in the F33A. Right there is a significant cost savings. As mentioned, the gear on the Bonanza is a non issue and it is very robust. The Beechcraft products are much better built than a Cessna or Piper, and although some parts do cost more, they break less often.

The Bonanza is better in crosswind, better at carrying ice, easier to land, has much lighter control feel, and is quieter. It is a much better aircraft in every respect. These facts are not disputable.

To say a modified 182 is almost like a v35/f33 is laughable. Overall, the costs of the F33A were less than on the 182P.
 
Last edited:
I'm not inclined to believe a V35 is a 160 KTAS ship at 14.5 nor do I consider 10NMPG a particularly enviable direct operating cost in the land of $6 gas, provided you fly more than 100 hours a year.

The typical delta between these two models as described is actually on the order of 20 knots, so the upgrade is of consequence. The opportunity cost of gear maintenance is not a matter of airspeed, it's a matter of how many miles a year you intend to travel. At a certain mileage, it's cheaper to pay for gear maintenance than throw an extra 2-3GPH at the fixed gear 182 to still go slower for the same power output when encountering headwinds (drag is not linear).

Would I upgrade? Depends on your mission. How many miles a year do you plan on traveling and what is your allowance for gas costs as a proportion of your budget? If the former is small, then it doesn't make sense to trade out. But if you're looking at 25,000NM/yr the fuel differences and time will be a significant expense... Unless of course 3+ AMUs worth of additional gas costs is a rounding error in your budget, then you can go fast the expensive way to your hearts content. I can pay for entire annuals on my savings alone between a 182 and an Arrow over 100 hours. To me that difference is not inconsequential.
 
bartmc said:
My penis grew 2" when I bought the Bonanza. :D
Click to expand...

So you're saying I could DOUBLE my length with a Bonanza purchase? Sounds good to me!
 
I love the 182 - but I don't for the briefest moment believe in one going 150 knots true in level flight. Have to see it to believe it.

My V35A, I go WOT (Wide Open Throttle), 12.1 GPH (more or less), 2400 RPM, true 162 knots. That's lean of peak. Rich of peak, I gain about 8 knots, on another 4-5 GPH.
 
SCCutler said:
I love the 182 - but I don't for the briefest moment believe in one going 150 knots true in level flight. Have to see it to believe it.

My V35A, I go WOT (Wide Open Throttle), 12.1 GPH (more or less), 2400 RPM, true 162 knots. That's lean of peak. Rich of peak, I gain about 8 knots, on another 4-5 GPH.
Click to expand...

I get 162 ROP.
 
SCCutler said:
I love the 182 - but I don't for the briefest moment believe in one going 150 knots true in level flight. Have to see it to believe it.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing it too, but my experience with 182s is pretty limited. None of them I have experience with will do it as far as I know.

One of my friends owns a P model 182 and will occasionally fly with me on some longer trips. He always wants to take my Bonanza because it is faster and cheaper on gas, and complains about how inefficient his 182 is.
 
The 182 has 2 doors, too. I've often wished my plane had more than just a passenger side door.
 
Bobanna said:
Yes, they are great airplanes. I have flown 182Q, F33A, and A36 all over the high arctic. On paper, your argument makes perfect sense; the differences become qualitative, The Bonanza has a "feel" and capability that is unique, while I'd submit that the 182 offers more flexibility and maybe better short/rough field capability (my 182Q has the Horton STOL kit). The Bonanza's landing gear is quite robust, and though it is a recurring maintenance item, the trade=off is about even for the performance gain. The Bonanzas are wonderful, but from my own experience, I always felt a little better in the 182 while going to some remote airstrip above the Arctic Circle. That about says it all. It sounds like you found a really nice 182, especially with the up-grades. Post some pictures if you ca, Fly safely and God bless.
Click to expand...

I also flew in the high Arctic in King Air 100's and 200's. The Beechcraft airplanes are very robust, as I know from experience. Couldn't imagine flying there in a single piston pounder!!! LOL!
 
It looks like there are a couple of ways to do this. Charlie Siebel was apparently an engineer at Cessna and he went on to come up with a speed mods. I just found some articles and tests done by magazines that seem to support a 150 knot fixed gear 182 if it has these mods. Also there is IO-520 and IO-550 mods that will do it. With the 550 the climb is supposed to be 1,500 fpm as well. Sounds like a heck of an airplane actually.

SCCutler said:
I love the 182 - but I don't for the briefest moment believe in one going 150 knots true in level flight. Have to see it to believe it.

My V35A, I go WOT (Wide Open Throttle), 12.1 GPH (more or less), 2400 RPM, true 162 knots. That's lean of peak. Rich of peak, I gain about 8 knots, on another 4-5 GPH.
Click to expand...
 
Bobanna said:
Yes, they are great airplanes. I have flown 182Q, F33A, and A36 all over the high arctic. On paper, your argument makes perfect sense; the differences become qualitative, The Bonanza has a "feel" and capability that is unique, while I'd submit that the 182 offers more flexibility and maybe better short/rough field capability (my 182Q has the Horton STOL kit). The Bonanza's landing gear is quite robust, and though it is a recurring maintenance item, the trade=off is about even for the performance gain. The Bonanzas are wonderful, but from my own experience, I always felt a little better in the 182 while going to some remote airstrip above the Arctic Circle. That about says it all. It sounds like you found a really nice 182, especially with the up-grades. Post some pictures if you ca, Fly safely and God bless.
Click to expand...

docmirror said:
You are worried about the Bonanza gear issues? It's a non-issue.

I wouldn't trade planes for the marginal gain in speed or economy, but the Bonanza gear is the most robust in the industry.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to Beech's gear as being flimsy. Just the overall reliability of a retract vs a fixed gear. Beech gear are very sturdy, no question.
 
SCCutler said:
I love the 182 - but I don't for the briefest moment believe in one going 150 knots true in level flight. Have to see it to believe it.
Click to expand...

Stock 182, your are right...no way

FlyingBob said:
I am the proud owner of a '78 C-182 with the P Ponk upgrade, speed mods, and 3 blade Scimitar prop.
Click to expand...

...but with this set up...absolutely!
 
brywd said:
It looks like there are a couple of ways to do this. Charlie Siebel was apparently an engineer at Cessna and he went on to come up with a speed mods. I just found some articles and tests done by magazines that seem to support a 150 knot fixed gear 182 if it has these mods. Also there is IO-520 and IO-550 mods that will do it. With the 550 the climb is supposed to be 1,500 fpm as well. Sounds like a heck of an airplane actually.
Click to expand...

If you check the numbers on P Ponk's website, and add in all the speed mods available for a 182, basically my 182 is about as fast as a fixed gear 182 can go.
So yes, the speed of 150kts is very attainable.
I have no regrets about purchasing my 182...I was just wondering how many people would consider the 182 with my mods/numbers vs a Bonanza.
Thanks for all the feed back guys!
 
FlyingBob said:
My question is this. With these numbers being as close as they are, is it desirable to gain 10 extra knots per hour in exchange for the extra maintenance, or possible gear issues from having a retractable gear?
I also went with the high wing due to the gravity feed and not having to worry about a pump failure.

Thoughts and comments are welcome.
Click to expand...

FlyingBob said:
I wasn't referring to Beech's gear as being flimsy. Just the overall reliability of a retract vs a fixed gear. Beech gear are very sturdy, no question.
Click to expand...

You said issues, I said there are no issues that are worth mentioning. Grease the uplock rollers, once in a long while the nose strut will need new bushing and seals. It goes up, then it goes down, that's it.
 
FlyingBob said:
I mentioned earlier today in my first post that I am the proud owner of a '78 C-182 with the P Ponk upgrade, speed mods, and 3 blade Scimitar prop. Essentially, my 182 is very close in numbers to a V35 Bonanza...
Click to expand...

I don't want to pick on you Bob but it's pretty obvious that you have no serious intention to swap your 182 for a V35. As a mechanic I've had intimate relations with both of these aircraft and I can say that the Bonanza definitely does have a manufactured quality edge on the Cessna and when it sold new it was significantly more expensive. However this does not translate to anything meaningful for the end user of a sixty year old airplane. Cessna had a different philosophy, to make a lighter, less complex and more affordable airplane and it worked because there were far more 182's sold than Bonanzas and they have clearly proven themselves to be a fine aircraft.

When we look at the entire range of GA aircraft that were produced from the late 40's and on the performance numbers of any of them that use the same powerplant and were designed to carry the same general load are not that far apart. People do love their airplanes and it's obvious you love yours but I'm going to tell you that nobody is going to get a slam-dunk here because it just doesn't exist.
 
Silvaire said:
I don't want to pick on you Bob but it's pretty obvious that you have no serious intention to swap your 182 for a V35. As a mechanic I've had intimate relations with both of these aircraft and I can say that the Bonanza definitely does have a manufactured quality edge on the Cessna and when it sold new it was significantly more expensive. However this does not translate to anything meaningful for the end user of a sixty year old airplane. Cessna had a different philosophy, to make a lighter, less complex and more affordable airplane and it worked because there were far more 182's sold than Bonanzas and they have clearly proven themselves to be a fine aircraft.

When we look at the entire range of GA aircraft that were produced from the late 40's and on the performance numbers of any of them that use the same powerplant and were designed to carry the same general load are not that far apart. People do love their airplanes and it's obvious you love yours but I'm going to tell you that nobody is going to get a slam-dunk here because it just doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I guess how I should have worded things originally, was...now that I have a high wing airplane (182) that is pretty darn close in numbers to a Bonanza (260-280hp...I don't know Bonanza types, so whatever model fits that HP range) which would people choose? I know a regular 182 doesn't compare AT ALL to a Bonanza due to speed, range, etc. But like I said, now that a 182 can be modified enough to come relatively close to a Bonanza, which would people choose?
I have almost 6000hrs, ATPL, multi IFR, float, and been flying for 25 yrs, so my experience isn't much with general aviation, but more with commercial flying. Hence why I am not that familiar with GA aircraft.
Back when I was researching which aircraft to buy, if it wasn't possible for a 182 to get the performance numbers close to a Bonanza, I would've bought the Bonanza.

Thanks,
 
FloridaPilot said:
Okay I have a newbie question. Does useful load include fuel? How much does fuel weigh in a 182?
Click to expand...
Someone already answered with respect to useful load -- fuel comes out of your useful load.

Fuel in a 182 weighs the same as fuel in any other aircraft, 6 pounds per gallon for avgas:rofl:. Did you mean how much fuel (gallons or weight) can the aircraft hold? There's not a single answer for that because tank sizes differ. Since you're not required to fly with full tanks though, you fill according to your w/b needs (and if you're flying long enough, you plan a refuel stop if necessary).
 
I suspect by the time you get done putting on all the mods needed to make a straight leg Skylane do 150 knots you could have bought a pretty shiny Bo.
 
docmirror said:
You said issues, I said there are no issues that are worth mentioning. Grease the uplock rollers, once in a long while the nose strut will need new bushing and seals. It goes up, then it goes down, that's it.
Click to expand...

Well, a friend of mine had the landing gear on his 182 fall off in flight... No I'm not kidding.
 
bartmc said:
Well, a friend of mine had the landing gear on his 182 fall off in flight... No I'm not kidding.
Click to expand...

I hate it when that happens.

Every gear up I've ever heard of in the Bonanza, once the plane was lifted off the runway, and the lever was cycled, the gear came down - clean as can be. I think Bonanza gear is the simplest, most elegant and robust system in general aviation.
 
docmirror said:
...Every gear up I've ever heard of in the Bonanza, once the plane was lifted off the runway, and the lever was cycled, the gear came down - clean as can be. I think Bonanza gear is the simplest, most elegant and robust system in general aviation.
Click to expand...

On the very early models with the full span piano-key switches across the panel they all look identical - the flap switch, the gear switch, even the ashtray. I believe there was an incident or two that involved someone flipping the wrong switch, despite the guard on the gear selector. At any rate they stopped making them that way.

I know someone who had a gear extension failure on his F33 but that was because the upholstery shop had left a pair of pliers under the seat in the spar channel where the gearbox is.
 
Silvaire said:
On the very early models with the full span piano-key switches across the panel they all look identical - the flap switch, the gear switch, even the ashtray. I believe there was an incident or two that involved someone flipping the wrong switch, despite the guard on the gear selector. At any rate they stopped making them that way.
Click to expand...

I've had several, I know them well. When the gear switch is selected to the down position, the gear will move that way. If the operator selects the wrong switch, then I can hardly blame that on the machine.

Certainly the design was more elegant than functional, but if it were operated nominally, it would work nominally.

On my first early Bonanza, I screwed a small Tonka wheel on the piano switch so that there would be no confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top