Buying a Cessna 182

GSDpilot

GSDpilot

Pre-Flight
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
39
Display Name
Display name:
GSDpilot
I am going to purchase a 182 as a first airplane, and am looking for some advice.

Should I avoid an RG model? Insurance is more expensive, and it is one more thing to deal with as a newer pilot. I also understand it will cost more to maintain, and there is a risk of a collapse. It is not my preference, but should it be a deal breaker on my first purchase?

Should I stay away from anything that has had a prop strike? I have seen a few that have had prop strikes or gear up landings. If there is no air frame damage would this seriously affect resale, or safety, and should I avoid it?

Is there a magic number for total time on air frame that I should target? I have seen several with 4000-6000, but am looking for opinions on 9000-10000+. If I get something with 9000, will value drop significantly when it breaches the 10,000 hour mark?
 
I bought my 1976 C182P two months ago, after flying a partnership C182J for 10 years.
It's a seller's market, so you cannot be too picky.
I wanted the BRS, so could not get the RG. Otherwise, I would have gotten the turbo'd RG, since we fly above 14K often.
If you plan to keep your plane for 10+ years, I don't think the prop strike or high hours matter. Just get a good pre-buy.
 
MountainDude said:
I bought my 1976 C182P two months ago, after flying a partnership C182J for 10 years.
It's a seller's market, so you cannot be too picky.
I wanted the BRS, so could not get the RG. Otherwise, I would have gotten the turbo'd RG, since we fly above 14K often.
If you plan to keep your plane for 10+ years, I don't think the prop strike or high hours matter. Just get a good pre-buy.
Click to expand...
Thanks, good input. You enjoying ownership? Just curious what made you take the leap from club to ownership (and also to stick with the 182). Was BRS the driving factor? I am past wrestling with club or ownership, but curious how its going after you made the transition?
 
We fly a lot of XC over tough terrain, so wanted BRS.
182 is the best plane for my mission (must have high wing as I love to look around and take photos).
I wanted my own so I can have it the way I wanted it and fly it when I wanted. Of course it costs more, but if you can afford it, sole ownership is the best.
 
Any prop strike requires a tear down of the motor. Make certain when you review the logs that’s been done and be very suspicious of a prop change without a tear down annotated in the logs. If prop and engine hours don’t match look deeply into the reasons.
 
If you live on a strip less than 2000' or in the back country, or go to those places often, or you need a 4 seater than will carry all 4 all the time, the 182 is a great choice. For my needs (paved runways, usually 1-3 people in the plane, strips 2500'+) I'd only ever consider the RG. 182RGs can be absolute speed demons, for what they are. I had a 182RG beating my 225 HP E33 by a knot on the same route the other day, and I know of people who have faster ones than that. Folding those gear makes that a huge difference in the airplane, and 182RGs seem to have a better gear record than 172RGs and the ever notorious 210.
 
Jeff767 said:
Any prop strike requires a tear down of the motor. Make certain when you review the logs that’s been done and be very suspicious of a prop change without a tear down annotated in the logs. If prop and engine hours don’t match look deeply into the reasons.
Click to expand...
nope,, show me the requirement.
 
It’s not a federal requirement, but it is a service bulletin from the engine manufacturers that mandate a teardown inspection. I understand that “mandate“ is a term chosen for emphasis. My opinion only a fool would fly a prop strike engine without a tear down. It’s been demonstrated looking for cracks on the hub or measuring centricity of the crank is in sufficient.
 
I bought my first plane, a 182P, about 2.5 years ago. No regrets. I don’t fly as much as I thought I would, but much more than I would vs renting.

RG just adds more flying and maintenance complexity, but nothing wrong with it. Just keep in mind that whatever you buy may probably be imperfect in some way and need some money and downtime to correct. RG just adds more stuff to deal with.

If prop strike, I’d want to confirm engine was torn down for inspection. I’d also like some hours flying after the prop strike to ensure all was reassembled properly (100-200 hrs?).

Also, look for damaged firewall, and proper repair. How do you know if it was repaired properly? I don’t know, find a good A&P.

As for hours, mine was just under 3000, but looked well worn/used. @ktup-flyer bought a high time 182 and seems to have had excellent maintenance history and current performance. I don’t think you’ll lose a lot of your initial investment at some magic TTAF, just buy it at the right price.

There is a wing strut SB that may become an AD at some point, involving cracking and a reinforcement, that supposedly shows up at high TTAF.

I’d recommend buying the 182 buyers guide. And join a Cessna specific forum. I know less than 1% of what those guys know.

You MUST post pics here in the future, or you’re not my friend.
 
Very hard to go wrong with a 182. For me they break into 5 major groups
* narrow body pre-64
* wide body spring gear 64-71
* wide body tubular gear 72-78 (useful load increase)
* wide body tubular gear 79-86 w/wet wing fuel tanks
* restarts 97-today

I may be wrong about the date for fuel bladder/Wet wing change over. It was about this time frame.
Within those categories are variations like retract, turbo, various engine STC’s.

My own 182P is a fixed gear turbo, 3 blade Hartzell prop, and Robertson STOL kit. Lots of variations out there.

The most popular versions remain the P&Q variants.
 
Last edited:
NordicDave said:
It’s not a federal requirement, but it is a service bulletin from the engine manufacturers that mandate a teardown inspection. I understand that “mandate“ is a term chosen for emphasis. My opinion only a fool would fly a prop strike engine without a tear down. It’s been demonstrated looking for cracks on the hub or measuring centricity of the crank is in sufficient.
Click to expand...
many fools, know how to read the SB, and know what is needed.
 
GSDpilot said:
Should I avoid an RG model?
Click to expand...
FYI: From strictly a maintenance view point, any Cessna RG model will cost more to operate and the number of mx shops that really know these models have become fewer and fewer over the years. It's definitely something to consider/discuss with your mechanic prior to purchase.
GSDpilot said:
I have seen a few that have had prop strikes or gear up landings.
Click to expand...
Each aircraft is unique. When you get a pre-buy done, preferably by the AP/IA that will maintain your aircraft, they will provide you with a list of pros/cons for that specific aircraft. Sometimes an aircraft's history can be used to negotiate a better purchase price that could seal the deal. Good luck.
 
NordicDave said:
For me they break into 5 major groups
* narrow body pre-1962
* wide body spring gear 1962-71
* wide body tubular gear 72-78
* wide body tubular gear 79-86 w/wet wing fuel tanks
* restarts 97-today
Click to expand...

Minor correction noted above. 1962 (182E) was the big change, from the Model 180 fuselage and horizontal tail group, to a wider fuselage with rear-facing cabin windows, elevator trim tab and fixed stabilizer. The 1962 and 1963 models (182E and 182F) had a different rear cabin window arrangement than the later models.

I may be wrong about the date for fuel bladder/Wet wing change over.
Click to expand...
1979 is correct.
 
Tom-D said:
many fools, know how to read the SB, and know what is needed.
Click to expand...

Call it what ever you want. I know I will not fly an airplane that had a prop strike without a tear down. Consider it my personal minimums. There is no reason in my mind to take that risk.

Recently saw an ad for someone needing a ferry pilot for a retract that had just had a gear up. Replaced the prop and got a ferry permit to bring it home, and was looking for a ferry pilot. No thanks.
 
Similar timing and advice from @455 Bravo Uniform. Been flying our 182P for about 2.5yrs. 182's are pretty dang tough so a higher time model shouldn't be an issue as long as its been kept up. Can't really give much advice on the RG. Our thoughts were being in our 50's if this is our only plane it would be nice to not have to deal with retract when we are older. And if we decide we want speed instead and could afford it we'd probably opt for a Cirrus/TTx (still fixed gear). I know your annuals will run more with RG so if your budget is tight another vote against the RG. If you just know you will always want the speed then it is worth considering but then again you are a pretty recent PPL so maybe you aren't sure yet. If you have the time and money, maybe buy a fixed gear first. Fly it for a year or two and learn what you like and don't like about flying. Then sell and get your last plane. The 182 should always be easy to re-sell as long as its treated nicely.

If I was going to buy one again today I think my checklist would go like this (generally in most important to least important)

182P/Q/R Model or newer (wider, tough gear, around 1973 the cowl is shaped nicer)
Less Than 4000hrs (but only because there are so many out there).
Almost OCD like logs / very clear history of the prop, etc
Zero corrosion / Never any time around the ocean.
About 100-200hrs SMOH (includes top end)
PPonk'd or Higher HP Engine (Ideally 260HP or higher)
Firewall with no damage (or repaired).
No major history of MOGAS useFuel bladders < 5yrs old or wet wing
Decent windshield (the old originals can really be crazed)
Cowl flaps mechanically solid / not ready to fall offHigh backed pilot/copilot seats
Pilot Seat has all 3 adjustments
Co-pilot window that opens
Co-Pilot seat has all 3 adjustments
7/10 Paint (crazy expensive to remedy)
7/10 Interior (very expensive to remedy)
Pilot seat has floor belt (part is free, just labor)
Newer ELT (the old ones aren't passing annual so well these days)
Modern Navigator (650/750/Avidyne)
All wheel pants can be installed - no parts missing
 
midwestpa24 said:
Call it what ever you want. I know I will not fly an airplane that had a prop strike without a tear down.
Click to expand...
In other words you'd spend up to $40-50 because of a prop ding. the SB says when is prop is remove to repair, and yada yada.....lot of difference !
 
Tom-D said:
In other words you'd spend up to $40-50 because of a prop ding. the SB says when is prop is remove to repair, and yada yada.....lot of difference !
Click to expand...

Yep. Personal choice. 9 times out of 10 you might get away with it. Its that 10th time that I'm looking at. An inflight engine failure may cost a lot more than $40-50k.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Yep. Personal choice. 9 times out of 10 you might get away with it. Its that 10th time that I'm looking at. An inflight engine failure may cost a lot more than $40-50k.
Click to expand...
Yup. You are right, it IS YOUR choice. YOUR assessment of risk. But personally, I think the odds are better than 9 our of 10. I think it is more along the lines of 999 out of 1,000.

Devil is in the details,however. Depends on the severity of the strike.
 
N1120A said:
If you live on a strip less than 2000' or in the back country, or go to those places often, or you need a 4 seater than will carry all 4 all the time, the 182 is a great choice. For my needs (paved runways, usually 1-3 people in the plane, strips 2500'+) I'd only ever consider the RG. 182RGs can be absolute speed demons, for what they are. I had a 182RG beating my 225 HP E33 by a knot on the same route the other day, and I know of people who have faster ones than that. Folding those gear makes that a huge difference in the airplane, and 182RGs seem to have a better gear record than 172RGs and the ever notorious 210.
Click to expand...

THIS^^^ I absolutely loved our 182RG. It was probably my favorite of our planes.
 
Peter Anderson said:
I wonder if you include fuel costs saved with moving out at 30 knots faster if the gear issues pay for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
With the pricing of gear pivots and actuators in that particular setup? I'm inclined to say hell no. You re basically gambling you don't have one of these gear parts crack during your tenure. Hope's not a plan in my life, which is why this is probably the one retract I would rather own the fixed version of and go slower.

You're also not going 30 knots faster. In the internet everybody's airplane goes 160, even my arrow. That and a buck twenty gets me a cup of coffee. Even if that were true, the utilization rate required to make 20 knots of block time pay for a 10k actuator or pivot is well beyond the typical owners utilization rate (aka well below 200 hours/yr per 5 year period).

But it's a hobby, so do whatever the heck you want. Caveat emptor and all that jazz.
 
hindsight2020 said:
With the pricing of gear pivots and actuators in that particular setup? I'm inclined to say hell no. You re basically gambling you don't have one of these gear parts crack during your tenure. Hope's not a plan in my life, which is why this is probably the one retract I would rather own the fixed version of and go slower.
Click to expand...

I had a 182RG for 15 years. Never had any pivot issues. But I was aware of the possibility. Just like I was aware of the possibility of the engine needing a new cam at 400 SMOH (which did happen).

But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion. At least you didn't call someone a fool for wanting an engine teardown/inspection after a prop strike. :rolleyes:
 
GSDpilot said:
I am going to purchase a 182 as a first airplane, and am looking for some advice.

Should I avoid an RG model? Insurance is more expensive, and it is one more thing to deal with as a newer pilot. I also understand it will cost more to maintain, and there is a risk of a collapse. It is not my preference, but should it be a deal breaker on my first purchase?

Should I stay away from anything that has had a prop strike? I have seen a few that have had prop strikes or gear up landings. If there is no air frame damage would this seriously affect resale, or safety, and should I avoid it?

Is there a magic number for total time on air frame that I should target? I have seen several with 4000-6000, but am looking for opinions on 9000-10000+. If I get something with 9000, will value drop significantly when it breaches the 10,000 hour mark?
Click to expand...

Fixed gear with bladder fuel tanks IMHO and an 87 octane mogas STC.

If you have plans for a new autopilot someday make sure its is already available for the make/model/year that your are looking at buying.

IF you're at a high elevation airport or flying regular long cross countries then RG and turbo start making more sense.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
With the pricing of gear pivots and actuators in that particular setup? I'm inclined to say hell no. You re basically gambling you don't have one of these gear parts crack during your tenure. Hope's not a plan in my life, which is why this is probably the one retract I would rather own the fixed version of and go slower.

You're also not going 30 knots faster. In the internet everybody's airplane goes 160, even my arrow. That and a buck twenty gets me a cup of coffee. Even if that were true, the utilization rate required to make 20 knots of block time pay for a 10k actuator or pivot is well beyond the typical owners utilization rate (aka well below 200 hours/yr per 5 year period).

But it's a hobby, so do whatever the heck you want. Caveat emptor and all that jazz.
Click to expand...

It was just a question. No need to get worked up. Our club has both a fixed gear 182 and an R182 RG. The RG is a solid 30 knots faster. At least that’s the way it’s been when I have flown them. Granted. That’s only one example of each model to take experience from. Oh. And my RV actually does do 160 knots


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Peter Anderson said:
It was just a question. No need to get worked up. Our club has both a fixed gear 182 and an R182 RG. The RG is a solid 30 knots faster. At least that’s the way it’s been when I have flown them. Granted. That’s only one example of each model to take experience from. Oh. And my RV actually does do 160 knots


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
It was just an opinion, I wasn't getting worked up, that's just the way I type. It's all good
 
Peter Anderson said:
It was just a question. No need to get worked up. Our club has both a fixed gear 182 and an R182 RG. The RG is a solid 30 knots faster. At least that’s the way it’s been when I have flown them. Granted. That’s only one example of each model to take experience from. Oh. And my RV actually does do 160 knots
Click to expand...

We have a 2000 182 that I usually see 140 KTS true @ 8K and an 81 182RG that I plan at 155 KTS at 8K - that's 23x on both - what are you seeing?
 
Pugs said:

We have a 2000 182 that I usually see 140 KTS true @ 8K and an 81 182RG that I plan at 155 KTS at 8K - that's 23x on both - what are you seeing?
Click to expand...

I was seeing 128 true with the straight leg and 155 with the RG in our club planes. The RG has a run out motor. The straight leg motor has 200 hours on it and has wheel pants as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
From a claims perspective(I’m in that field) a prop strike is a covered loss. So there is no reason to use a fly by night mechanic to do an IRAN(inspect and Replace As Necessary) on the engine. In fact, we prefer it go to a reputable engine/airframe shop. I have had some insureds refuse the engine inspection, which is their prerogative. We have no authority over the matter. If the aircraft was uninsured, there is a good chance a fly by nigh mech WAS involved, and then you gotta be careful. Sure they can be great, but when things are done on the cheap, corners are cut.

If the inspection/repairs were done by a good shop and a good pre-buy was done, I’d fly it no problem. It’s really a toss up on propstrikes, sometimes there are bent cranks, cracked accessory gears, and sometimes absolutely nothing. The severity and medium doesn’t really correlate. For gear up landings, you’ll want to see good airframe shop 337s in the logs. That’s like a Beegles, Steve’s Aircraft, etc. There are a handful across the land that do really great airframe work. Most local A&Ps know who they are, so you can verify with them if you’re looking at buying one with said damage. Again, it’s a covered loss so if the A/C was insured, it should have gone to good airframe shop. Many times these shops find old, crap repairs, and end up pulling that out in the course of their own repair.

So, don’t shy away from damage history, just pour over the logs with a good A&P/IA and walk away if it looks sketchy.

Finally, RGs are great, but they do add one more thing to forget. And trust me, I’ve seen ALL types of pilots gear up- airline guys in their own rigs, CFIs, examiners on checkrides, etc.
 
GSDpilot said:
I am going to purchase a 182 as a first airplane, and am looking for some advice.

Should I avoid an RG model? Insurance is more expensive, and it is one more thing to deal with as a newer pilot. I also understand it will cost more to maintain, and there is a risk of a collapse. It is not my preference, but should it be a deal breaker on my first purchase?

Should I stay away from anything that has had a prop strike? I have seen a few that have had prop strikes or gear up landings. If there is no air frame damage would this seriously affect resale, or safety, and should I avoid it?

Is there a magic number for total time on air frame that I should target? I have seen several with 4000-6000, but am looking for opinions on 9000-10000+. If I get something with 9000, will value drop significantly when it breaches the 10,000 hour mark?
Click to expand...

My first, and expected only, is an RG - love it! I came out of training in a 172 , got about 50 more hours, then bought the 182. The transition wasn’t hard at all.
 
Peter Anderson said:
I wonder if you include fuel costs saved with moving out at 30 knots faster if the gear issues pay for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

If you are someone who does a lot of XC flying, absolutely. Especially when the flight start crossing the 1 hour mark.

Pugs said:
We have a 2000 182 that I usually see 140 KTS true @ 8K and an 81 182RG that I plan at 155 KTS at 8K - that's 23x on both - what are you seeing?
Click to expand...

140 is pretty much best rigging and best engine performance for a 182. 155 is a middling R182. My Tiger regularly eats up 182 fixed gears.
 
N1120A said:
140 is pretty much best rigging and best engine performance for a 182. 155 is a middling R182. My Tiger regularly eats up 182 fixed gears.
Click to expand...

Good to know. A tiger is on the short list for the retirement list once I leave the land of 3 year hangar waits. (Ironically, in 3 years)
 
GSDpilot said:
I am going to purchase a 182 as a first airplane, and am looking for some advice.

Should I avoid an RG model? Insurance is more expensive, and it is one more thing to deal with as a newer pilot. I also understand it will cost more to maintain, and there is a risk of a collapse. It is not my preference, but should it be a deal breaker on my first purchase?
Click to expand...

IMO, no. But, there are some caveats on that. What is your mission? If you're not going to use it as a traveling airplane - IE, you do more $100 hamburgers, poking holes in the sky and sightseeing than you do long cross countries - then don't bother.

But, if you're planning to travel, the extra speed is really nice and can save you enough money to make it worthwhile to spend the extra $$ on insurance and maintenance. Do be aware that you have a couple more items which can easily cost you several thousand dollars in a heartbeat, but IMO worth it on a cross country plane.

Should I stay away from anything that has had a prop strike? I have seen a few that have had prop strikes or gear up landings. If there is no air frame damage would this seriously affect resale, or safety, and should I avoid it?
Click to expand...

Depends. If the prop strike was 30 years ago on a different engine, no worries. If it was 30 days ago and just now becoming airworthy again, there had better be a SIGNIFICANT discount under the market value of an undamaged airplane.

Is there a magic number for total time on air frame that I should target? I have seen several with 4000-6000, but am looking for opinions on 9000-10000+. If I get something with 9000, will value drop significantly when it breaches the 10,000 hour mark?
Click to expand...

IME, 8,000 hours is where things can turn a corner to getting more expensive maintenance wise, kind of like 100,000 miles on a car. But a 182 with 8,000 hours likely has about 1.1 million miles on it! :) There's a lot of exceptions, though - Most important is how the plane has been treated in recent years.

hindsight2020 said:
With the pricing of gear pivots and actuators in that particular setup? I'm inclined to say hell no.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, the free market combined with Cessna's "F*ck you" parts pricing has resulted in a much better solution for cracked pivots - There's a facility in Oregon with an STC repair process.

It is worth noting here that the early steel pivots don't crack - It's the later aluminum ones that do. All 1979-1986 R182s have the aluminum pivots. 1978 R182s can have either - With some research you can find out the serial number where the changeover happened.

You're also not going 30 knots faster.
Click to expand...

Depends which planes you're comparing. Our 182N would do about 133 KTAS on a good day, while the R182 would do 150 without breaking a sweat. I have seen 140 in a post-production-restart (2006) 182T as well.
 
Our club 182Q with a poorly repaired wing will do 125 IAS at 8500 while our '08 182T will normally do 140 IAS at 8500 if wheel pants are left on. We expect that if we redid the older plane's wing we'd see 135.
 
wheaties said:
Our club 182Q with a poorly repaired wing will do 125 IAS at 8500 while our '08 182T will normally do 140 IAS at 8500 if wheel pants are left on. We expect that if we redid the older plane's wing we'd see 135.
Click to expand...
I get around 135 in our 182Q, it has a properly repaired wing! :D
 
10 knot KTAS penalty on account of "jig"? Jesus H. I don't buy that premise for one second, but if somehow true, you got bigger problems than poor gas mileage at that point. LOL
 
Speed in 182s is relative. Lots of numbers getting thrown around but at the end of the day the biggest factor is how much fuel you throw at the problem and how hard you run the engine. All 182s can get 135 knots... for a time.
 
wheaties said:
Our club 182Q with a poorly repaired wing will do 125 IAS at 8500 while our '08 182T will normally do 140 IAS at 8500 if wheel pants are left on. We expect that if we redid the older plane's wing we'd see 135.
Click to expand...

A year ago talking with a mid-level exec at Texron, he said the airframe clean-up they did on the 182T was 5 KTS improvement. Right in line with Wheaties post and my personal experience.

AA5Bman said:
Speed in 182s is relative. Lots of numbers getting thrown around but at the end of the day the biggest factor is how much fuel you throw at the problem and how hard you run the engine. All 182s can get 135 knots... for a time.
Click to expand...

Yes, agree with you given assumptions its properly rigged and depends on extra draggy stuff that's made it way to the airframe, like antennas or lack of wheel pants, etc. Old planes just seem to lose 5 kts with stuff that has happened to the airframe over the years.

Amazing all-round great GA planes. Very hard to fault a C182.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top