Aircraft purchase question #2

fiveoboy01

fiveoboy01

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,321
Location
Madison, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Dirty B
I swear I'm not Ben reincarnated here but hear me out:D

Initially I had my choices narrowed to an Archer or 172/180 conversion.

The other day I was fortunate to receive some dual in a 210T and I was impressed to say the least. The constant speed prop was a thing of beauty.

Now, I'm wondering about a 182. Little more speed, significantly more payload, and not because I NEED to carry a lot more, but I'm always a fan of being well under gross... the more the better.

Only thing that has me thinking twice is the maintenance costs. I'm aware of the higher fuel burn, but if I want a sipper I'll just take my dad's LSA somewhere.

So the point of this thread... Is the maintenance that much higher as a general rule for a 182 vs. a 172? I'm not even considering an RG for that reason. I know this question may be pretty broad and broad answers are acceptable. I can likely afford either on the costs, but I'm not sure if the cost is worth the extra capability. I guess the main thing that worries me is those two extra cylinders. I am definitely looking at low engine times for anything I decide to buy.

FYI since it hasn't been stated, budget for purchase is 60-80, and possibly up to 90+ for the "right" aircraft. As all pilots would say, the cheaper the better.

As for the mission, anything. Hamburger runs, me and 2 friends to a golf course somewhere, or a 600 mile XC just for fun. I'm not a businessman and don't HAVE to be anywhere at anytime.

It will also be an instrument training platform for me this spring but I believe that equipped properly, any of the 3 aircraft I'm considering will be fine for that.

Thanks in advance and no more buying threads, promise.
 
182 in your price range....could be a maint disaster or a gem "if" you get lucky. Low engine time for a 182 in your price range without issues might be hard to find in a "newer" airframe. Prices are all over the place for a 182.... It's a tough search...but so is a 172 that is right for you.

Apples to apples... 172 to 182 both in great condition...shouldn't be a huge difference in maint costs.

Still think based on your mission...172 will be just fine.
 
Last edited:
I thought Ben purchased a plane already??
 
182's have two more cylinders to maintain, the prop will cost a few bucks per hour more, as will fuel. Otherwise the airframes are pretty similar, the 182 is just one size bigger, and a little faster. Short trips you won't notice much difference with the speed, with long range tanks you might make the 600 mile trip non-stop in a 182.:D
 
Bill, we need to chat. You have had rides in many, probably confusing by now. Let me confuse you even more. Joe
 
I would go with 182 over 172. I think you will have better selection finding ifr (gps) equipped 182 than 172. The 182 is less likely to have been initial trainer. 182 has bigger fuel tanks and is maybe 20kts faster. Also 182 is wider and more comfortable. I just flew 1060 nm trip in a 205 which is 6 seat 182 sorta. My tas was 143kts most of trip. I've done several fairly long trips in 172 lately. Best speed with 172 has been 117 kts from Denver to lincoln ne. 2 weeks ago. Last summer took a 172 from Boston to lincoln. That was long trip. Have done 1000 nm trip several times in 172. It's not near as nice of trip in 172.
 
Not really a big fan of ether, if I had to choose between the 172 and the 182 Id go 182, at least the rear seats are not just a gimmick like in the 172.

Mx wise ain't that big of a diffrence, if you're smart you'll be as involved as you can be with the mx and find a good ol' school APIA.

If it were me, Id get a C210 or a higher power PA24, 172s and 182s just arnt something Id bother to own.
 
I'd stick with the Archer myself.... I had the sme dilemma as you last May. I almost bought a 182.

But dollars to doughnuts, the Archer is hard to beat. 1000 pounds, 125+ cruise, excellent IFR trainer, and sips 10 gal. In cruise.

I think with a 182, your paying for way more aircraft than you need based on your post.

As far as a 180 hp 172 goes, I guess it would come down to high Wing or low wing? Both are going to price out about the same. I have flown both platforms and the Archer just feels better to me. Stalls are a nonevent and fueling is easy. Cessna are everywhere. The low wings have more curb appeal to me because there are much fewer buzzing around the local square.
 
James331 said:
...... if I had to choose between the 172 and the 182 Id go 182, at least the rear seats are not just a gimmick like in the 172.
Click to expand...

I agree with your overall sentiment, the 182 is wider and just plain more comfortable, but unless you are sticking someone back there to go across the US I have never found the rear seat of a 172 to be an issue. Just my .02 :dunno:

Beyond that I would agree that for the negligible difference in maintenance the 182 is hard to beat if you are going to travel with it at all.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Is the maintenance that much higher as a general rule for a 182 vs. a 172?
Click to expand...
Another buck or two an hour to cover the prop, maybe another $5/hr to cover the extra cylinders and higher overhaul cost/shorter TBO. Otherwise, not significantly different. Mind the extra 3 gph or so, too.
 
No, your maintenance costs with a 182 will not be significantly higher than a 172. Will there be some extra costs here and there that ad up to a couple of thousand every few years? Yes, but in the over all costs of aircraft ownership that is a rounding error or the difference in luck in one event. Aviation is expensive no matter what, you might as well get all the capability you can use to make it more worthwhile.
 
For your mission (or lack thereof), you may also want to check out a Mooney 201 (M20J). It's in your price range, carries the speed of a Cessna 210, is a low wing (since you originally like an Archer), and maintenance wouldn't be unreasonable, albeit slightly higher than a 182. I don't have one, but it's at the top of my list.

-Andrew
 
ahkahn said:
For your mission (or lack thereof), you may also want to check out a Mooney 201 (M20J). It's in your price range, carries the speed of a Cessna 210, is a low wing (since you originally like an Archer), and maintenance wouldn't be unreasonable, albeit slightly higher than a 182.
Click to expand...
Maintenance might not be a whole lot higher, but retractable gear means insurance will be. Doesn't do short/unpaved runways nearly as well as a 182, either, if that's any part of the OP's mission.
 
Ron Levy said:
Maintenance might not be a whole lot higher, but retractable gear means insurance will be. Doesn't do short/unpaved runways nearly as well as a 182, either, if that's any part of the OP's mission.
Click to expand...

Early 210 will go anywhere a 182 will.
 
Ron Levy said:
The issue was M20J vs 182, not 210 vs 182.
Click to expand...

Wonder who brought up the short runway issue ??

"Doesn't do short/unpaved runways nearly as well as a 182, either, if that's any part of the OP's mission."
 
Tom-D said:
Wonder who brought up the short runway issue ??

"Doesn't do short/unpaved runways nearly as well as a 182, either, if that's any part of the OP's mission."
Click to expand...
I did, and I was responding to Andrew's mention of an M20J as 182 alternative.
ahkahn said:
For your mission (or lack thereof), you may also want to check out a Mooney 201 (M20J). It's in your price range, carries the speed of a Cessna 210, is a low wing (since you originally like an Archer), and maintenance wouldn't be unreasonable, albeit slightly higher than a 182. I don't have one, but it's at the top of my list.
Click to expand...
 
Short/grass runways are definitely a requirement.

No retracts for mx reasons.
 
Pegasus said:
Bill, we need to chat. You have had rides in many, probably confusing by now. Let me confuse you even more. Joe
Click to expand...

Challenge accepted, fly me to breakfast sometime and confuse me more:)

This weather is depressing....
 
The back seats in 172s and 182s, are all over the place in terms of ease of removal. I know of three methods Cessna used to attach the seats. Some take seconds, some take bloody knuckles.
 
I would go with a nice 182.
 
Join the club. :D

That is, if the weather ever improves enough that we can get her back from the paint shop... :(
 
There's more variation in the 172 fleet than the 182s. I stock 145hp 172 is a fine airplane but it won't perform like a 182. A Hawk XP is a 172 that'll perform, especially with the Isham 210hp STC. In the middle there's a 172 with a Lycoming 180hp upgrade. Great airplanes. Straight tail 182s are among my favorite airplanes. Add a big engine and big prop and they'll do things the good 180 drivers will have a hard time keeping up with. Later model 182s are good airplanes but I'd always rather have an old straight tail for off airport ops. Power, CS prop, jackscrew trim.... that's a good combo. A good friend has one that he takes in and out of 500' with room to spare. With a stock motor. Fun stuff.
 
I have a 182P and yet to meet another 182 owner that ever said "Man, I wish I had a 172"

Hear the other way around all the time.

Your budget can get a nice equipped 182
 
Shawn said:
I have a 182P and yet to meet another 182 owner that ever said "Man, I wish I had a 172"

Hear the other way around all the time.

Your budget can get a nice equipped 182
Click to expand...

Yup.

For some reason, the jump from 105 knots to 135 knots makes a massive difference in the utility of the plane (probably because it turns a 4-hour flight into a 3-hour flight), not to mention being able to haul whatever, land wherever, etc...

You will spend more per hour to operate a 182, however, you will spend the same or less per *mile*. And unless all you ever do is poke holes in the sky, or you're trying to build time for a flying job, that's what really matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top