C182 750 miles? Discuss please

S

SinkorSwim

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
165
Location
St. Charles MO or WDW Fla
Display Name
Display name:
HFC1969
Looking for some expertise on 750 mile flights in a Cessna 182...

I like the cessna for its all around training and flying characteristics, but didn't know how comfy it is with the entire family.. Wife & 2 kids.. :dunno:

Thanks.. :)
 
You want to do this in one day?

Break it up into a morning leg and an afternoon leg, with a nice lunch in the middle, and you're jake.

Do they all get along? Motion sickness? Whiner's disease?
 
I have done 5hr non-stop in a 182RG with my parents and my wife. 182 is pretty good for a travelling machine, especially with well broken-in leather seats in an early-80's model. ;)

It 'helped' that my wife was sleeping for 90% of the trip after being up sick all night with a stomach bug the night before.
 
With anxious/ motion sick pax I plan early, early morning flights.

Lots less energy in the atmosphere = less bumps.

The C182 is a fine traveller. It will last longer than most passengers.

:dunno:
 
SinkorSwim said:
Looking for some expertise on 750 mile flights in a Cessna 182...

I like the cessna for its all around training and flying characteristics, but didn't know how comfy it is with the entire family.. Wife & 2 kids.. :dunno:

Thanks.. :)
Click to expand...
How big are the kids and how much luggage?

A 182 would not work for my family fo 4 (my wife does NOT travel light).
 
Fearless Tower said:
How big are the kids and how much luggage?

A 182 would not work for my family fo 4 (my wife does NOT travel light).
Click to expand...

Children are smaller now.. 11 & 5...

Actually my 11 year old son is my co-pilot...

Currently we fly a 172rg,, which is fine, but need a little more umph.. :idea:

So I have the opportunity to fly a C182 I figure that is a solid 132kt plane:dunno: The 172rg is more like 120..


Thanks for your help..
 
steingar said:
What kind of airplane do you think is going to be that much better?
Click to expand...


Good question... :idea:

Not really for sure... Have access to a SR20, which will haul us now,, next year who knows...

I know this type of topic has been beat to death many times... I'm just searching for something to train & fly in,,, keeps coming back to the 182.. :)
 
thats because it is hard to beat the all around utility of a 182.
 
SR20 could wind up being more coin, and I don't even know if they're any faster. I doubt they carry more. A friend used to load his Skylane with four full-sized adults and luggage for a week, fill the tanks full and fly to Florida in one gulp. Skylanes are legendary for being able to fill seats and tanks, one of the very few four place airplanes that can so boast.
 
SinkorSwim said:
Children are smaller now.. 11 & 5...

Actually my 11 year old son is my co-pilot...

Currently we fly a 172rg,, which is fine, but need a little more umph.. :idea:

So I have the opportunity to fly a C182 I figure that is a solid 132kt plane:dunno: The 172rg is more like 120..


Thanks for your help..
Click to expand...
If the 172RG is only truing 120 knots something is wrong with it. The C182 and 172RG generally true about the same. Are you sure you're not confusing indicated airspeed?
 
My Cherokee 235, with 83 gallons useful, can do 750 miles. Its pilot/owner can't.

It's not as roomy as a 182.
 
I think the recommendation to break it up into at least two legs will serve you well. Somebody is going to have to go to the bathroom and as nice an airplane as the 182 is, there is not much privacy when you have 4 people on board.
 
jesse said:
If the 172RG is only truing 120 knots something is wrong with it. The C182 and 172RG generally true about the same. Are you sure you're not confusing indicated airspeed?
Click to expand...

I might have underestimated it by a little... but.

My concern is getting south.. like TX or FLA and trying to chug back with 180hp... :dunno: Don't get me wrong.. Love the 172rg, that I fly.. :)

But Im not sure I would want to try a "family" cross country in the aircraft. :no:

Would love to find a C210 share.. :yesnod: but then training for me becomes a little bit more expensive.. :mad2:
 
I wouldn't subject my wife to more than 3.5 hr at the max, regardless of the plane, much less the kids in a small plane.
 
Did 4.5 once, but she slept most of the way. 172RG is supposed to go as fast as a fixed gear 182, but good luck filling the seats and the gas tanks.
 
SinkorSwim said:
I might have underestimated it by a little... but.

My concern is getting south.. like TX or FLA and trying to chug back with 180hp... :dunno: Don't get me wrong.. Love the 172rg, that I fly.. :)
Click to expand...
You're going to gain useful load with the 182. Not speed, unless it's the 182RG.
 
mikea said:
My Cherokee 235, with 83 gallons useful, can do 750 miles. Its pilot/owner can't.

It's not as roomy as a 182.
Click to expand...

I used to fly a 235 and a Piper 6 for a land survey company, we used to fly 750+ routinely loaded to the gills, that 235 is one of the best Pipers ever built IMO.
 
jesse said:
If the 172RG is only truing 120 knots something is wrong with it. The C182 and 172RG generally true about the same. Are you sure you're not confusing indicated airspeed?
Click to expand...

Its been forever since I have flown one, but don't those do about 140 TAS ?
 
taters said:
Its been forever since I have flown one, but don't those do about 140 TAS ?
Click to expand...
It's been awhile for me as well - but I think 130 to 135 KTAS is a realistic number. Closer to 130 then 135 most of the time.

I think the POH at best claims 138 but I never saw that happen.
 
jesse said:
If the 172RG is only truing 120 knots something is wrong with it. The C182 and 172RG generally true about the same. Are you sure you're not confusing indicated airspeed?
Click to expand...

All things being equal, if one was truing the same speed in each airplane, wouldn't the indicated be pretty close to the same too?
 
JOhnH said:
I think the recommendation to break it up into at least two legs will serve you well. Somebody is going to have to go to the bathroom and as nice an airplane as the 182 is, there is not much privacy when you have 4 people on board.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. You need big bladders to fly that far non-stop, and I'm not talking about the ones in the wings!

As for the "Little John" bottles they sell, in addition to the lack of privacy you mentioned, it's a hassle to use one in flight, because if you're in front, you need to slide the seat all the way back, and the angle of the seat bottom makes it difficult to get the job done.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
All things being equal, if one was truing the same speed in each airplane, wouldn't the indicated be pretty close to the same too?
Click to expand...
Probably. But I don't think he has flown the 182.

I was thinking perhaps he read about the C182 and 135ish knots and then remembered he hasn't seen above 120 knots on the 172RG.

If you're looking for noticeable speed - 172RG to a fixed gear 182 isn't going to give you it. 182RG yes.

172RG to 182 will give you much better useful load.
 
Palmpilot said:
Amen to that. You need big bladders to fly that far non-stop, and I'm not talking about the ones in the wings!

As for the "Little John" bottles they sell, in addition to the lack of privacy you mentioned, it's a hassle to use one in flight, because if you're in front, you need to slide the seat all the way back, and the angle of the seat bottom makes it difficult to get the job done.
Click to expand...
I did a 750NM trip a couple of weeks ago in a 182 nonstop. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N7111W/history/20110925/1400Z/KHFD/1C5
Very comfortable, and I landed with over an hour of fuel. I didn't have any bladder issues (mine or the plane), and didn't do anything special in preparation. The 182 is hard to beat as an all-around traveler.
 
172RG at 120 knots true has to be a mistake. Should be close to 130. Agree that it sounds more like indicated and a 182 fixed would be about the same speed. Does your plane have one of those rings around the airspeed indicator that lets you convert from indicated to true?

I got 110 knots true in a very "broken in" 160hp 172N at only 62% power at 4000', which is within 1 knot of the book figure. The extra 20hp you have, and the constant speed prop and retractable gear should help more than 10 knots...
 
When I was that age (11 y/o), dad was flying our family around in his 172RG. It had 180hp, constant speed prop and 66 gallon tanks. I talked to him about it recently, he said 135 knots was a realistic cruise on just under 10gph. If you can fit your kids and wife in there with baggage and still fill the tanks to 50 plus gallons i'd say take the 172. You'll save enough money in fuel to pay for an extra night in the hotel.

Now I understand if you are flying out west with high altitudes the 172 would be marginal at gross weight. But this time of year the density altitude is not so bad, and in the south east you don't really need the extra ponies to haul your butt up to 12,000 feet

Understand you might be looking for some extra room just to keep things comfy, but you'll probably have to make a bathroom / stretch stop regardless of which airplane you take so keep that in mind.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
If you're looking for noticeable speed - 172RG to a fixed gear 182 isn't going to give you it. 182RG yes.
Click to expand...

This is the statement that I have been interested in... Thx..

I have 100hrs in DA40, 100 hr in 172rg, 25 in 182rg, 25 in 172, 50 in DA20 and a few others sprinkled in...

I fly quite a bit or what I think is quite a bit.. 10 hrs a month. Would like to increase that.. I spend roughly 800 a month on airplane rent.. :yikes: For that I think I could easily own a share in something a little more travel friendly... However I still want to train on my CFI..

I appreciate the discussion...

Oh & BTW... Im not silly enough to do all 750 in one stop with the family.. :wink2: should have made that clear.. Just want to make the 750 comfortably and safe.
 
A 182 will do that with more comfort than a 172, and at least as fast, but it will cost about 4 gph more to do that.
 
To take that much and go perceptibly faster one would have to spend quite a bit more.
 
Ron Levy said:
A 182 will do that with more comfort than a 172, and at least as fast, but it will cost about 4 gph more to do that.
Click to expand...
It'll definitely require more fuel, but if leaned per the book it shouldn't be quite 4gph. I averaged about 11.5gph on that trip I mentioned above leaned to peak EGT. CHTs were around 350, I was at 8000', and getting about 132 knots true, IIRC. BTW, that was without wheel pants.
 
tonycondon said:
thats because it is hard to beat the all around utility of a 182.
Click to expand...

Not really,,, an early 210 will beat it any day of the week. same fuel burn, better speeds, better loads.
 
Henning said:
Not exactly, add 4 GPH.
Click to expand...
I was getting 130 knots at 11,000 leaned back to 11 gph in the 205. It is nearly as good as a C182 when leaned back-though just about a half gallon more per hour at altitude and in the minus 8-9 knot range (less than max cruise).
 
gprellwitz said:
It'll definitely require more fuel, but if leaned per the book it shouldn't be quite 4gph. I averaged about 11.5gph on that trip I mentioned above leaned to peak EGT. CHTs were around 350, I was at 8000', and getting about 132 knots true, IIRC. BTW, that was without wheel pants.
Click to expand...
*shudder* Not a recipe for long engine life.

For a family of 4, I would also endorse a 205. They're not significantly more expensive than 182s either.
 
bbchien said:
I was getting 130 knots at 11,000 leaned back to 11 gph in the 205. It is nearly as good as a C182 when leaned back-though just about a half gallon more per hour at altitude and in the minus 8-9 knot range (less than max cruise).
Click to expand...

Yup absolutely nothing wrong with operating a big ol machine at a more efficient power setting. I drive a lifted v-8 jeep with mud tires but i get reasonable gas mileage hwy by driving at 65mph instead of 75 or 80
 
sba55 said:
*shudder* Not a recipe for long engine life.

For a family of 4, I would also endorse a 205. They're not significantly more expensive than 182s either.
Click to expand...

Really? The piper warrior POH says for best economy mixture (above 6000 ft) to lean until desired rpm is achieved
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top