Cabin Size of a Cessna 182S vs. 172S

netsurfr

netsurfr

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
311
Location
Wisconsin
Display Name
Display name:
Jose
I've only flown 172s and there are no 182 near for rent and we're trying to figure out if the cabin of a 182 is wider/roomier than 172s? Also are the doors and luggage door bigger as well? Just curious if the 182 is more comfortable and even easier to load into/out of.

Thanks!
 
Trained in a 172s, currently own a 182s. The difference is definitely noticble.
 
That's why I ask. I saw the width to be the same online but I find comments on forums that states the 182s have roomier cabins than 172s and pa28s.
 
Where would you say the 182 is different? Is there more shoulder/elbow room for pilot and passenger?

brentee said:
Trained in a 172s, currently own a 182s. The difference is definitely noticble.
Click to expand...
 
182 is noticeably larger and more comfortable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cessna interiors are clunky, clostrophobic, crude compared to modern aircraft like the Cirrus SR22 and the little Flight Design CT. The CT has a 50 inch wide cabin and leather bucket seats.

Kids learning in Cessna 172s have no clue whats possible in aviation outside of the lemming world of Cessna.
 
netsurfr said:
Where would you say the 182 is different? Is there more shoulder/elbow room for pilot and passenger?
Click to expand...

Yes... very much so.

Width comparison can be similar in the car word can be something like difference between Ford Escort and Merc. Grand Marquis when it comes to space between elbows and shoulders.
 
Good. Guess we will have to find one near by to take a look to compare. Thanks.

AggieMike88 said:
Yes... very much so.

Width comparison can be similar in the car word can be something like difference between Ford Escort and Merc. Grand Marquis when it comes to space between elbows and shoulders.
Click to expand...
 
Where is "near by" for you?

If anywhere close to me (Denton, TX), I'd be happy to let you see our club's 182P.
 
Unfortunately I'm up in WI but thanks for the offer. I'm going to ask local FBo as I am sure there are 182s there just not for training or rental.
 
CTLSi said:
Cessna interiors are clunky, clostrophobic, crude compared to modern aircraft like the Cirrus SR22 and the little Flight Design CT. The CT has a 50 inch wide cabin and leather bucket seats.

Kids learning in Cessna 172s have no clue whats possible in aviation outside of the lemming world of Cessna.
Click to expand...

Really? One thing they know is possible in a 172 is filing IFR. :lol::rolleyes:
 
CTLSi said:
Kids learning in Cessna 172s have no clue whats possible in aviation outside of the lemming world of Cessna.
Click to expand...

Really? I'm sorry, but your ignorance just continues to shine.

I know of one PoA kid from the San Marcos Texas area that got a his license at the minimum allowable age, then got a Cessna 172 he named "White Lightning" and flew the wings off of it. Traveled to many places around the USA under IFR and built time and experience. He then obtained his CP rating and went on to obtaining some very well paid flying jobs in Nebraska and now Alaska. All before obtaining legal drinking age.

But I guess if you can mere to increase the controversy level within the various topics, you are accomplishing that. But in a poorly informed way.
 
I thought the post was a comparison of two Cessna models. The 182 Is wider and roomier than a 172. Also a bit heavy in the nose during landing.
 
frfly172 said:
I thought the post was a comparison of two Cessna models. The 182 Is wider and roomier than a 172. Also a bit heavy in the nose during landing.
Click to expand...

Yup. The 182 is much more comfortable with two up front for cruising. Not that the 172 is bad, but the 182 is better. And about the nose heavy issue for the 182? Remember, trim is your friend.

I like the 182. :yes:
 
CTLSi said:
Cessna interiors are clunky, clostrophobic, crude compared to modern aircraft like the Cirrus SR22 and the little Flight Design CT. The CT has a 50 inch wide cabin and leather bucket seats.

Kids learning in Cessna 172s have no clue whats possible in aviation outside of the lemming world of Cessna.
Click to expand...

You really are working on getting on my ignore list. Good grief.
 
Yes, 182 is wider. As mentioned previously, there is a gap between the front seats. Although, I should mention, I've never been able to get the drink cart down that aisle.

If possible, you can gain shoulder room in either by offsetting the front seats from each other.
 
brentee said:
Trained in a 172s, currently own a 182s. The difference is definitely noticble.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I posted bad info...bad info on the internet...who woulda thunk it. I didn't know if the "post re-start" 172s were wider than the older ones or not.

From Cessna's website, the 172s cockpit is 39.5" wide. Wider than the older ones but not as generous as a 182.

frfly172 said:
I thought the post was a comparison of two Cessna models. The 182 Is wider and roomier than a 172. Also a bit heavy in the nose during landing.
Click to expand...

Well, except when you have a 182 sport model like I do.
 
If you look in the POHs, the widths are measured at different places. The cabins are tapered; it makes a lot of difference.

The 182 is noticeably wider, carries a lot more, and has a bigger instrument panel. A kid up front in a 182 won't see jack.
 
CTLSi said:
Cessna interiors are clunky, clostrophobic, crude compared to modern aircraft like the Cirrus SR22 and the little Flight Design CT. The CT has a 50 inch wide cabin and leather bucket seats.

Kids learning in Cessna 172s have no clue whats possible in aviation outside of the lemming world of Cessna.
Click to expand...

Can the Flight Design airplanes carry 2 200lb guys and full fuel?
 
timwinters said:
I didn't know if the "post re-start" 172s were wider than the older ones or not.
Click to expand...
There hasn't been any change in overall 170/172 fuselage width since 1948 (at least in the front seat area; "Omni-Vision" might have affected rear seat room slightly from '63 on) -- variations in interior measurements would be due to differences in upholstery, trim, hardware, armrests, and exactly where in the tapering cabin the measurements were taken.

Well, except when you have a 182 sport model like I do.
Click to expand...
Yup. C-182s and C-210s before the 1962 model year had the same fuselages as the C-180/185, ever-so-slightly wider than a C-170/172.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Can the Flight Design airplanes carry 2 200lb guys and full fuel?
Click to expand...

Yes, the SR22 has a 1280 pound useful load.

I gave two examples of wider, more comfortable, more sophisticated aircraft in order to illustrate the Cessna's are old designs, and are stuck in the past.
 
Thanks everyone. Like I said I'll have to go and sit in a 182. I just found it odd that it seemed to have the same cabin width as a 172. Seems like it all depends on where the measurements are taken and apparently there's no consistency in that.
 
I found a weight & balance calculator for a SR22 GTS and was that when I added a 230 lbs pilot & 200 lbs passenger (assuming I would fly w/ a buddy of mine) and full tanks that the plane was beyond it's forward CG limits. I would not have expected that.

CTLSi said:
Yes, the SR22 has a 1280 pound useful load.

I gave two examples of wider, more comfortable, more sophisticated aircraft in order to illustrate the Cessna's are old designs, and are stuck in the past.
Click to expand...
 
The 182 is not wider. They made the seats narrower to make it look like it's wider. :)

Even a Tecnam P92 has a wider cockpit than the C172.
 
netsurfr said:
I found a weight & balance calculator for a SR22 GTS and was that when I added a 230 lbs pilot & 200 lbs passenger (assuming I would fly w/ a buddy of mine) and full tanks that the plane was beyond it's forward CG limits. I would not have expected that.
Click to expand...

The CG problem gets worse for the Turbo model, I think up through G3. Not sure about the G5.
 
MAKG1 said:
If you look in the POHs, the widths are measured at different places. The cabins are tapered; it makes a lot of difference.



The 182 is noticeably wider, carries a lot more, and has a bigger instrument panel. A kid up front in a 182 won't see jack.
Click to expand...




Agreed.

OP, go to Controller.com and pull up aircraft listed by Van Bortel. They always take pics of the panels from the back seat. Pull up a G-1000 172 and a G-1000 182, and you can see the extra real estate on the 182 panel, with the same avionics as the 172.
 
Great tip. I can certainly see the differences w/ those van bortel shots of the panel. 182 panel looks much wider & taller so I can easily see the cabin is more comfortable. Thanks!

nddons said:
Agreed.

OP, go to Controller.com and pull up aircraft listed by Van Bortel. They always take pics of the panels from the back seat. Pull up a G-1000 172 and a G-1000 182, and you can see the extra real estate on the 182 panel, with the same avionics as the 172.
Click to expand...
 
Us fat guys like the 182's better than 172's. :D
 
CTLSi said:
Yes, the SR22 has a 1280 pound useful load.

I gave two examples of wider, more comfortable, more sophisticated aircraft in order to illustrate the Cessna's are old designs, and are stuck in the past.
Click to expand...

You also ignore acquisition and operating costs. There are lots of great new airplanes that are more comfortable than older ones, but that doesn't make them a good fit for everyone. Sometimes the old planes provide a mix of payload/speed/instrument capable/etc. that newer airplanes can't touch on a given budget.
 
N747JB said:
Us fat guys like the 182's better than 172's. :D
Click to expand...


Maybe that's why 182s are so damned expensive. Unlike the rest of aviation, the demand for wider cabins coming from wider pilots is on the rise. Count me as one of those BTW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top