C177 RG vs C182 for high altitude

Arob16

Arob16

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
157
Location
Fort Worth TX
Display Name
Display name:
Arob16
Hey folks - I'm looking for some experienced opinions on aircraft choice for a trip out west. 1975 Cessna 177 RG, OR, a 1975 Cessna 182P. Rough itinerary will be FTW-PHX-SMO-SLC-FTW. Highest planned cruise altitude will be 12,000. The POH for both aircraft would suggest very similar performance at high altitude, so it almost looks like a wash performance-wise. But the more I think about it, I'm leaning towards the higher-HP of the 182. I'm more concerned about high altitude performance and climb performance than I am density altitude takeoff distance... I think both will be fine given the available takeoff distances. Thoughts?

Adam
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    274.3 KB · Views: 39
182 is FG so lower insurance, lower maintenance and less complicated systems. However, you're trading that fir higher fuel burn, more cylinders and higher overhaul cost. I'd do the 182.
 
Thanks for the votes so far guys. BTW not an ownership/purchase question. I have access to both planes (flying club), trying to pick which one to fly out there.
 
I don't think you can go wrong with either. I'm pretty sure the 177RG has a higher service ceiling.
 
You didn't state load. A 177 stopped for fuel at St. Johns AZ (low fuel prices) with 4 occupants and could not take off killing the pilot.
 
Snowmass said:
You didn't state load. A 177 stopped for fuel at St. Johns AZ (low fuel prices) with 4 occupants and could not take off killing the pilot.
Click to expand...

That's not a good outcome. We'd be 2 pax, 2-day duffle bags... somewhere around 2500 lbs or so (2,800 max gross).
 
Range? Payload? Anytime you can save a fuel stop, you’re saving a lot of time and money. Airports are few and far between and the weather might be pretty hot this time of year.
 
Have flown both out of Denver. Loved the Cardinal but it's downside was not-that-great climb rate out if high D-Alt airports.for the uninitiated, I'd go with The extra power if the 182.
 
Also +1 for 182. If nothing more than the extra headroom and easier to acquire parts. It’s a blessing to purchase a used aircraft that is still in production.

The Cardinal is a great aircraft, check it out. The 182 is a safer choice in my view.
 
I've had our stock 182P up to just shy of 15,000msl. That day was in the mid/high 80's and surface DA of 2500 or so (going from memory). Since its not a turbo the climb rates will get quite anemic up around 13,000 and higher. But you should be seeing at least 450fpm up around 10,000. No matter what it seemed to take forever to climb up there but I did it from 990msl. My first try I was too lean. I am guessing I could have sustained around 200fpm at 15,000 for a bit longer. Previous write up is here:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...-000-learned-a-lot.120913/page-3#post-2794794

I'll throw in the obvious O2/Oximeter disclaimer. You may find yourself needing to go higher or maybe your body experiences the effects of low 02 sooner than others. 12,000 for longer periods of time seems like a minimum of having a oximeter along. And if you have o2 you might be able to climb up even higher for awesome tailwinds :)

I know the 177RG will cruise faster on less fuel than the fixed gear 182. But the 182P, especially not fully loaded or fueled should outclimb it all the way and at least get the gear off the runway and into ground effect faster (or should I say shorter distance) when at higher DA.

Besides learning about plane performance and O2 up at those altitudes, the experiment felt like a PPL training day of slow flight!!! I was doing lots of climbing turns to not get so far away from the airport. Once up over 13,000 it was classic slow flight once with any nose pitch up and turning.
 
I run Cardinals in West Texas at high DA with just two people on board all the time and even with brand new fresh engines it really doesn't have as much climb rate as I would like. That's why I voted 182...
 
Sinistar said:
I've had our stock 182P up to just shy of 15,000msl. That day was in the mid/high 80's and surface DA of 2500 or so (going from memory). Since its not a turbo the climb rates will get quite anemic up around 13,000 and higher. But you should be seeing at least 450fpm up around 10,000. No matter what it seemed to take forever to climb up there but I did it from 990msl. My first try I was too lean. I am guessing I could have sustained around 200fpm at 15,000 for a bit longer. Previous write up

I know the 177RG will cruise faster on less fuel than the fixed gear 182. But the 182P, especially not fully loaded or fueled should outclimb it all the way and at least get the gear off the runway and into ground effect faster (or should I say shorter distance) when at higher .
Click to expand...

@Sinistar what kind of TAS were you guys seeing up at those altitudes?
 
I calculated to be 139kts TAS. On flights just before that at 9000msl I was calculating about 137kts. Both seem a bit high but I used a IAS to TAS calculator since i had recorded IAS, altitude, temperature, etc. I suspect you should see about 150mph ground speed with no wind.

But the wind :) Easily 40kts up there!
 
182. There is no replacement for displacement.

I really like the 177RG - it's a smooth flyer and really comfortable for a long legged guy like me, but it can be a bit doggy with any type of load or highish DA. The biggest 'Oh S**T!' takeoff moment I ever had was in a 177RG taking off with 4 occupants, no baggage, and fuel to tabs on a hot Iowa day. It felt like I was dodging buildings climbing out (I wasn't really, but it sure felt drastically different than anything else I had done).
 
Thanks to everyone for the feedback... 182 it is, will report back on this thread on how it goes! Thanks all
 
PPC1052 said:
Which variant? An RG?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter much, the climb rate is about the same between the 177RG and the 177B until you get the gear up... And the A model, forget about that.
 
I've been over 13000 in my 182 with 3 big dudes (2 250+, 1 ~200), full tanks, a yeti full of ice, and bags for Oshkosh. Don't think a 177 could do that.
 
ktup-flyer said:
I've been over 13000 in my 182 with 3 big dudes (2 250+, 1 ~200), full tanks, a yeti full of ice, and bags for Oshkosh. Don't think a 177 could do that.
Click to expand...
Are you running a 260HP or 230HP (sorry, forget). An extra 30HP would be nice up there.
 
Not concerned with high density altitude TO? Which is cheaper to rent? Do you need the retract/complex time? Whose paying the fuel bill? Good auto pilot in both? All things being equal, I’d take the 177rg. If I had to buy the plane, I’d take the 182 for its utility. The 177rg are designed for an efficient cross country machine.
 
Don't know much about 177's but I live at 5,500' and owned a 182 for 5 yrs. Obviously DA is always a consideration. I'd get around 400fpm taking off a few hundred lbs under gross at 8000' DA. Mostly flew at 11,500-12,500 and planned for 130kts. Thats a little slower than most 182's but I had a STOL kit and VG's.
 
182... btw, you realize you don't need to be up there for that itinerary, right? I guess if you want to that's fine.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk
 
Both planes can complete the mission but the 182 will be more capable. ( Also assume you mean the 180hp Cardinal)
 
Assume both are bone stock loaded to gross
177RG: 2800 / 200 = 14 pounds per horse
182P: 2950 / 230 = 12.83 pounds per horse

Obviously depending on actual fuel capacities one could be significantly heaver than the other with full fuel tanks.

177RG factory long range tanks = 60 gallons or .3 gallons per horsepower

182 factory long range depends on S/N assume 79 gallons or .34 gallons of fuel capacity per horse.

It looks like the 177RG would take a significant fuel load reduction to match power to weight ratio of the 182 if you loaded the same weight in either cabin.

The 150 horse 177 I fly, I usually fly around in the summer with 32 gallons me 175 pounds and passenger 145 pounds plus about 40 pounds in bags/junk so around 2100 pounds takeoff weight, that's about 14 pounds per horse (on paper). (I've had it it 14,500 feet solo)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top