C172 now, looking at C182s.

4

4RNB

Line Up and Wait
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2016
Messages
962
Display Name
Display name:
4RNB
I'm shopping for a 182. Currently studying IFR, own a 172. I'd like to bounce around and see if I understand 182 differences, here your comparisons and suggestions. Since I am flying regularly I can take my time and get the right plane. It is likely that the longer I wait the better or more expensive plane I can afford.
Differences:
Speed likely 20 kts faster
Improved climb performance
Smoother ride due to 6 cylinders
More expensive and potentially more frequent overhauls (how much are they?)
Better useful load (I am only 770#)
A little wider in the cabin.
Things I want in a plane: AP, Waas GPS, IFR, ADJUSTABLE SEATS!!! I prefer all the other normal stuff like good paint, strong low time engine, pleasant interior. I've been advised to look Q or later. My 172 is a 1974, I would be real careful not getting newer model without seeing inside the plane myself.
Questions:
What are the specific weak points of 182s to look at while shopping and doing prebuys? Is it a weak point for all 182s or specific models?
What were and are your impressions moving from 172 to 182?
Am I correct in expecting fuel burn to increase to the range of 10-15 gph?
Any experience with STC or aftermarket engines, if so what do you think of them?
What else should I know? I have the Cessna owners buyer guide. Are there other resources to look at or read?
I am located in Eastern NC, do you know of any CFIs with access to 182s that can give me some time? I've heard of a club plane but not sure this is the best route for me given the distance. I'd rather go somewhere for a week. We drove to GA and VA looking at 172s and 177s.
If anyone here is within a days drive of eastern NC and willing to share some flying with me and my wife, would love to learn more about 182s. If you chose to fly this way, we host on Airbnb and you could stay here for free.
Thank you.
 
The 182 is a great plane. You've pretty well covered the differences, the biggest, IMHO, between 172 and 182, the 182 can actually take 4 adults, with (light) overnight bags, and still have enough useful load for fuel to actually go somewhere. 10gph fuel burn would be the very low side, 12-14 is probably a better average to think about. STC engines, there are a few, but there's nothing wrong with the stock O470, unless you need to do very short field t/o. Also, upgrading from 2 to 3 blade prop is popular, smoother, slightly quieter, but a bit more weight and more expense to overhaul.
If you've been window-shopping at all, right now the market for later model years, and reasonably well-equipped panel 182s is through the roof, most easily going for over 6 figures. Good luck in your search.
 
4RNB said:
What are the specific weak points of 182s to look at while shopping and doing prebuys? Is it a weak point for all 182s or specific models?
Click to expand...
The firewall. Bonking the nose down on landing bends this.
What were and are your impressions moving from 172 to 182?
Click to expand...
With a longer nose and (sometimes) a taller panel, it's a slightly different sight picture, which can sometimes cause the pilot to bonk the nose on landing. You also need a finer and smoother touch on the throttle. Otherwise, it's a big heavy 172.
Am I correct in expecting fuel burn to increase to the range of 10-15 gph?
Click to expand...
More or less.
What else should I know? I have the Cessna owners buyer guide. Are there other resources to look at or read?
Click to expand...
This book is an entertaining read:
https://www.cessnaflyer.org/media/kunena/attachments/4401/SkylanePilot'sCompanion.pdf
 
I suggest you join the 182 Facebook group and do a lot of reading. All the 182s are great planes. Some people prefer the lighter early years for there incredible short field performance. Others like the wider body’s with more useful load. It’s really a mission thing. What will your mission be in the 182? They’re all good at just about everything, but some are a little better at certain things. The P and Q model are kinda the sweet spot for a lot of people. Wider cabin, more useful load, I believe those two models sold the most units so there’s more of them around too. One thing to look for is firewall damage do to nose wheel landing. 182s have a heavy nose and you will need to use a lot of trim on landing to keep from coming down on the nose. That’s probably the biggest difference when it comes to flying a 172 vs 182 using lots of trim!
 
Last edited:
Many 182s have had firewall damage at some point. The new strut attachment AD (2020-18-01) applies to 182s starting with the 1962 model year (182E), while 172s are affected only from the 1980 model year and later.
 
AlphaMike said:
I suggest you join the 182 Facebook group and do a lot of reading. All the 182s are great planes. Some people prefer the lighter early years for there incredible short field performance. Others like the wider body’s with more useful load. It’s really a mission thing. What will your mission be in the 182? They’re all good at just about everything, but some are a little better at certain things. The P and Q model are kinda the sweet spot for a lot of people. Wider cabin, more useful load, I believe those two models sold the most units so there’s more of them around too. One thing to look for is firewall damage do to nose wheel landing. 182s have a heavy nose and you will need to use a lot of trim on landing to keep from coming down on the nose. That’s probably the biggest difference when it comes to flying a 172 vs 182 using lots of trim!
Click to expand...

Which group? I'm in one called Cessna 182-Skylane with 21K members. Are there more?
Mission? High wing safe fun travel with my wife. I'd love to see the country by air and car while health is with us. I think a 182 will get us higher and safer for such journeys.
 
That’s the group I was referring too. Most people on there are very helpful. The skyline is a great plane for just about anything. As far as STCs there are a ton available. I have the PPonk conversion with a 3 bland prop. I also have the sportsman stol kit with VGs. Those make an already good short field plane that much better! It can be argued that those modifications make it safer too. I also have the “fresh pics” STC. It’s just a pice of paper and it allows you another 150lbs useful load.
 
AlphaMike said:
That’s the group I was referring too. Most people on there are very helpful. The skyline is a great plane for just about anything. As far as STCs there are a ton available. I have the PPonk conversion with a 3 bland prop. I also have the sportsman stol kit with VGs. Those make an already good short field plane that much better! It can be argued that those modifications make it safer too. I also have the “fresh pics” STC. It’s just a pice of paper and it allows you another 150lbs useful load.
Click to expand...

“fresh pics” STC ???
 
We owned both and loved both. Our 172 had the engine upgrade so the performance difference was less than if it hadn’t but nevertheless the 182 was an improvement and as others have said the extra cabin width and load was well worth it. As AlphaMike says what is your mission? The 182 was a bit smoother and had more range, made the trip to see grandma shorter and more comfortable, not to mention as the kids got bigger the load increase was almost necessary.

I trained in the 172 though, for that purpose it was perfect and was fine for packing up the kids when they were tiny for the 1 hour trip to the beach but the 3 hour trip to grandma’s was better in the 182 and when we got it we never looked back. Both had great IFR platforms, that wasn’t an issue but we had better fuel reserve in the 182. So if you’re planning on flying a lot of IFR distance go for the 182.

P.S. If this was 12 years ago we would have loved to meet up with you as eastern/central NC is where we were, but now we’re in Texas. Good luck!
 
WDD said:
Does the Sportsman STOL kit slow down your cruise speed?
Click to expand...
It was already installed on the plane when I bought it. So I can’t say for sure but if it does it’s minimal. With my setup I typically see 140 to 150 knots cruise.
 
150 kts in a straight leg 182??
 
WDD said:
150 kts in a straight leg 182??
Click to expand...

yep. That’s true airspeed. I have the Pponk engine. I get 140 - 145 at 3500 to 5000 or so. But at 10 - 12k I true out at around 150.
 
AlphaMike said:
yep. That’s true airspeed. I have the Pponk engine. I get 140 - 145 at 3500 to 5000 or so. But at 10 - 12k I true out at around 150.
Click to expand...

150 kts is impressive. How much fuel burn at 150 kts TAS?
 
Well in that picture I was burning 18.7gph. I wasn’t done leaning it and probably ended up right around 18. But when I climb up to around 10-12k I’m usually leaned out to about 12gph. Sometimes more sometimes less dependent on the temperature. I keep my hottest cylinder under 380. At that altitude I only have about 50 -55 % power so I just lean it out and watch the temperatures.
 
Careful about blanket statements about 172 vs 182 useful load. I can put about 100 pounds more in the cabin of the club's 172N with the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion (with full long range tanks) than I can in our 182P (also with full long range tanks). That extra 20 hp plus limiting the flaps to 30 degrees adds 250 pounds to the max gross of the 172N. Having flown both (with a number of hours in each) the key differences for me (usually, two on board) are:

The 182 is like a 172 only -

Two extra controls in the panel (cowl flaps and prop)
Heavier
Trim is necessary when landing the 182, it seems to be less so in the 172
The 182 is a much more comfortable cross country machine as the cabin is wider
The Hobbs costs me more in the 182 (it is, for a pilot, the most expensive instrument in the panel)

If I were to buy a plane (I won't, my wife likes the cost structure of the club much better) I would seriously look at the 182. Enjoy your search.
 
In order for the G5 tape to read True Airspeed, you must have OAT plumbed into the G5. Correct?
 
Rcmutz said:
In order for the G5 tape to read True Airspeed, you must have OAT plumbed into the G5. Correct?
Click to expand...
.
I’m not really sure what you need to get the G5 to show TAS. I just do the calculation. My GTN 750 has a built in airspeed calculator. But for a rule of thumb it’s usually double your thousand foot altitude and add that to your airspeed. So 5,000 feet add 10 to your airspeed. That’s not exact but gets you close. In my plane I just let the 750 do the math.
 
@4RNB - a few more quirks.

In our 182P only the pilot seat has height adjustment. I know some people have both sides adjustable but not all.

The same quirk for the side window. In ours and several years only the pilot side opens, not fun on these 95deg days but just crack the door open.

Not all 182 have headrests and not sure if they can be added after the fact.

Most of the old Cessnas required the fully PITA seat rail lock. But later on they added the option for a floor belt to lock it in place. It is 1000x easier to use. And Cessna might still be providing the part for free.

Had a great experiment today. Our resident 172XP, our 182 (stock) and the Dakota (stock) departed a flyin exactly 1 min apart in that order. About 65nm total.

I passed the 172XP in a climb about 8min out. The Dakota overtook the 172XP a little shy of the half way point. I landed about 4min ahead of the Dakota and I was at the fuel pump when the 172XP landed or about 7min ahead of him. I had 60 gal of fuel and probably 450lbs of people. The Dakota had about 50gal of fuel and 325lb of people. The 172XP had one person at maybe 150lbs. I calculated 11.7gph. I think the Dakota was about the same. Guessing 10gph on the Superhawk, but maybe lower??

Thats just a recent example. All 3 very capable planes. In the end the time difference is really negligible for trips under 250nm or so.

So don't just lock onto the 182. The Dakota is way prettier. The 172XP will burn less fuel. Man, if the Dakota would have had 2 doors and about 3in wider it would be about perfect.

The pancakes were good :)
 
Speed likely 20 kts faster
Click to expand...
20 is possible in theory depending on what 172 you're starting with and what 182 you're going to. But probably better if you go into it expecting about 15 and be pleasantly surprised if you get 20.

Smoother ride due to 6 cylinders
Click to expand...
Meh, I never noticed much difference in smoothness/roughness between them.


What were and are your impressions moving from 172 to 182?
Click to expand...
My first impression of the 182 was that it flys like a heavier 172. Which makes sense because that's exactly what it is.
Am I correct in expecting fuel burn to increase to the range of 10-15 gph?
Click to expand...
I'd say 12-14 is more realistic in most cases.
Any experience with STC or aftermarket engines, if so what do you think of them?
Click to expand...
I was in a flying club that had a 182 with an STC that swapped the 230hp motor for a 260hp fuel injected motor. Near as I could tell it climbed a bit better and was maybe 3-4 knots faster but it was also thirstier. The fuel injection was nice though.
 
AlphaMike said:
.
I’m not really sure what you need to get the G5 to show TAS. I just do the calculation. My GTN 750 has a built in airspeed calculator. But for a rule of thumb it’s usually double your thousand foot altitude and add that to your airspeed. So 5,000 feet add 10 to your airspeed. That’s not exact but gets you close. In my plane I just let the 750 do the math.
Click to expand...

What I was getting at, is the G5 displaying ground speed (142 Kts) on the tape or true airspeed? I see the indicator showing GS 140 Kts.
 
The tape shows indicated airspeed. You can have it display true airspeed but I don’t have the required equipment. I believe the tape always displays indicated airspeed but on a different display it can display TAS.
 
The oat was 2 degrees c. I don’t think poa lets you upload the best
Resolution. Anyway, keep in mind that was 3500. To be honest that’s actually better than I normally see at that altitude. Normally I’m 140 - 145 true burning 17 to - 18. At 3500. Again I just took that picture because the sunrise was amazing!
 
AlphaMike said:
The oat was 2 degrees c. I don’t think poa lets you upload the best
Resolution. Anyway, keep in mind that was 3500. To be honest that’s actually better than I normally see at that altitude. Normally I’m 140 - 145 true burning 17 to - 18. At 3500. Again I just took that picture because the sunrise was amazing!
Click to expand...
Cool. The airspeed calibration chart in my 182Q POH says 140KIAS is 136KCAS, so your 142 indicated is probably 138 calibrated. Plugging in 3500ft altitude, 30.15 inches of mercury and OAT 2C at 138KCAS, I get 142KTAS at 2100DALT (2960PALT).
 
I’ve really never tried calculating calibrated airspeed. That’s an interesting idea. I would be really interested in how it’s done!
 
I own a 2012 182T and it’s the only plane I’ve ever owned. I instructed for a few years primarily in 172’s so I have plenty of time in both

the 182 I find does fly more smoothly and is much better for going places than a 172. That’s not just cause the 6 cylinder engine. But the constant speed prop will help as well as numerous other factors. One thing I didn’t see you mention is the prop is constant speed so prop overhauls will also be a little more expensive than the fixed pitch of most 172’s

speed: I plan cruise at 140ktas (this is what I plan for but I frequently see closer to 143-145 in cruise) I plan for a fuel burn of 12.8gph at those speeds (though I typically see 12.1-12.4gph at those speeds) depending on altitude. I am fortunate my plane is faster than the book and burns less than the book all while leaning by the book.

Fuel burn: see above. But if you’re just up for a leisurely cruise you can bring the speed back and the fuel down to 10-10.5 fairly easily.

useful load is higher. I can’t speak for other variants but in my 182T my exact useful load is 1077.7Lbs. Plenty to take 4 adults a reasonable range and more than enough to take 3 people and a significant amount of luggage.

it climbs better. even though I’m in FL I typically cruise between 8-11000 for the cooler air. It has no problem getting up there. I have not been higher than 12,500 in it, haven’t had the need, but it has plenty climb left in it even up there, especially if you’re not full.

you will have rudder trim in a 182

my plane has 87 gallons useable so significantly more range than 172 if you care to endeavor that far.

it is more spacious than a 172 and as a result more comfortable, especially if you have people in back. I’d be happy to answer any other questions if you had anything specific! Again I’m in a 182T so I’m running the IO540 in my bird with a 3 blade prop
 
Last edited:
JustinD said:
my plane has 87 gallons useable so significantly more range than 172 if you care to endeavor that far.
Click to expand...
It's not just about how far you go but also where you go. For instance, if your home field has gas but your destination does not then a 172 might require an extra fuel stop somewhere while a 182 will not.
 
172 to a 182 isn't a big difference.
I once had someone say you should upgrade by 50kts or more,
unless 135 kts, 14 gph and 1100lbs trips your trigger you need a different plane.
For me going from the 120 on a 2000' grass strip was nirvana.
 
manac said:
I once had someone say you should upgrade by 50kts or more,
Click to expand...
asicer's rule says 15%. On a 60 minute flight, that's 9 minutes, which is enough to tell your slower buddy on downwind that you are already at the tie-down spot. On a 2-3 hour flight, that's enough time to secure the plane and be outside the airport gate.
 
I have an 81 R model. I'll let you know next time I'm in the area, and I'll take you for a spin and talk 182s
 
manac said:
172 to a 182 isn't a big difference.
I once had someone say you should upgrade by 50kts or more,
unless 135 kts, 14 gph and 1100lbs trips your trigger you need a different plane.
For me going from the 120 on a 2000' grass strip was nirvana.
Click to expand...
I do 140-145, 13gph, and 1320-1330lb useful (panel work in progress)
 
AlphaMike said:
Well in that picture I was burning 18.7gph. I wasn’t done leaning it and probably ended up right around 18. But when I climb up to around 10-12k I’m usually leaned out to about 12gph. Sometimes more sometimes less dependent on the temperature. I keep my hottest cylinder under 380. At that altitude I only have about 50 -55 % power so I just lean it out and watch the temperatures.
Click to expand...

I’ll believe 150 knots in a pponk’ed 182, but not at 12gph. Not a chance.

Since no one has mentioned it, if I ever bought another 182, I’d personally avoid the Q models for the -U engine, which has higher compression cylinders and therefore low likelihood of ever allowing mogas. Nice to know you could fill ‘er up with car gas if 100LL is ever killed off by the left.

In my opinion, the ultimate 182 is a factory turbocharged R model, which are also super duper rare. Never gonna run mogas in those but I’d take the compromise for the performance in that case. After that, I’d say -P models or the super early ones that are really lightweight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top