Cabin Size of a Cessna 182S vs. 172S

N747JB said:
Us fat guys like the 182's better than 172's. :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, if the FAA ever decides to do a sleep apnea study, I'm confident that they'll start (and maybe end) with the 182 owners' database! :goofy:
 
Man I'm really needing to find a 182 to sit in cause you guys make it sound Lazy Boy Chair like!

So until I do find a 182 to check out how about how does the cabin size (width) compare on a 182 vs. Piper Archers/Arrows?
 
The answer is right at 4". This was the difference between my 172SP and the 182T.
 
netsurfr said:
So until I do find a 182 to check out how about how does the cabin size (width) compare on a 182 vs. Piper Archers/Arrows?
Click to expand...
Max width would be within an inch or two. But there's more to the story than that.

Low-wing airplane cabins usually have a more-or-less semi-circular cross-section above the lower window line. That means that the side windows and window posts curve inward, closer to occupants' heads. High-wing airplanes, on the other hand, tend to have more vertical sides, with greater lateral headroom.

The sketches below purport to show cross-sections of a C-210 and an A36 Bonanza. They're from a 1980 Piper Saratoga ad, so they may be a little skewed, but you get the idea.

Also, seating posture in a C-182 is more upright than in a PA-28, and the C-182 has more vertical headroom.

You just gotta sit in each one to get the full story.
 

Attachments

  • cross-section.jpg
    cross-section.jpg
    51.1 KB · Views: 78
and a Cardinal is 182 width, noticeably wider and more comfortable than a 172.
 
TulsaWeather said:
and a Cardinal is 182 width, noticeably wider and more comfortable than a 172.
Click to expand...

Yup, and the RG's especially sit noticeably lower and have big doors. Passengers seem to love them. They also have better visibility in the pattern, and the higher wing prevents Cessna Forehead. W&B is a bit screwy; that's the cost. Two up front often needs ballast. The windows aren't so nice either.
 
Well I think the 182 I was looking at is way above my budget. It was above my budget by $20K and we could justify that BUT I got a quote from avionics shop to get a used WAAS gps (430W) and 1 Aspen 1000 Pro installed and that comes to about $25K and those 2 items are important to me so realistically this one is too expensive.
 
netsurfr said:
Well I think the 182 I was looking at is way above my budget. It was above my budget by $20K and we could justify that BUT I got a quote from avionics shop to get a used WAAS gps (430W) and 1 Aspen 1000 Pro installed and that comes to about $25K and those 2 items are important to me so realistically this one is too expensive.
Click to expand...

What would you do with those 2 things?
 
netsurfr said:
Well I think the 182 I was looking at is way above my budget. It was above my budget by $20K and we could justify that BUT I got a quote from avionics shop to get a used WAAS gps (430W) and 1 Aspen 1000 Pro installed and that comes to about $25K and those 2 items are important to me so realistically this one is too expensive.
Click to expand...

Where are you? Keep a look out for shared ownership and club situations. 182's are good fits for those groups. And because costs are shared, more likely to be upgraded to modern panel goodies.
 
netsurfr said:
Man I'm really needing to find a 182 to sit in cause you guys make it sound Lazy Boy Chair like!

So until I do find a 182 to check out how about how does the cabin size (width) compare on a 182 vs. Piper Archers/Arrows?
Click to expand...

If you like high wing, stay with the 182. If undecided, try a 4 seat bonanza (33 or 35). I wouldn't recommend one as old as mine, but they really ride nice. Some larger guys I talk with like the bonanza better, but it is a personal preference...

Mine does feel like I'm sitting on a couch watching a good aviation movie :)
 
My wife & I spoke last night and we both realized that we really prefer the low wing so if we're going to spend this kind of money to buy an airplane we both agreed that we best buy what we both enjoy and are excited about. She told me that she's been trying to "talk" herself into an 182 and I told her that so was I. Great plane (I trained for my PPL in a 172) and more convenient to load/unload but I guess we've become low wingers.

We're going to focus on a Dakota as it has everything we'd want right now. Bonanzas are a great and beautiful looking plane and perhaps something that we look at down the road.
 
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're kind of an insulting, condescending fellow, aren't you? :) Someone always has something more, better, or bigger. If you aren't Bill Gates and you think this doesn't apply to you, you're either clueless or classless.
 
Yeah looked at these too and found a nice 260c locally but insurance was the highest on the Comanches than anything else (other than sr22) so I'd need to build hours before moving into them.

Flavius Renatus said:
Jose,

Have a look at Comanches as well.

Flav
Click to expand...
 
netsurfr said:
Yeah looked at these too and found a nice 260c locally but insurance was the highest on the Comanches than anything else (other than sr22) so I'd need to build hours before moving into them.
Click to expand...

Always remember these insurance prices are for the first year/100 hours, after that go around 1.5% of insured value. Ask to also get a quote with 100hrs in the aircraft to give you an idea of forward going expense.
 
Yeah I realized that but my wife also prefers fixed gear so if I can I'd like to keep her happy!
 
If you're going to put her in a low wing you might as well get an RV-8 so she sees less yet while airborne.

:goofy:

I seriously can't imagine any "passenger" wanting a low wing since most want to sight see.

But to each his/her own.
 
netsurfr said:
Yeah I realized that but my wife also prefers fixed gear so if I can I'd like to keep her happy!
Click to expand...

That's entirely up to you, keeping your wife happy is more vital to your enjoyment of GA than any other single factor. It's just going to cost fuel money.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
You're kind of an insulting, condescending fellow, aren't you? :) Someone always has something more, better, or bigger. If you aren't Bill Gates and you think this doesn't apply to you, you're either clueless or classless.
Click to expand...

None of that changes the fact that Cessna is an obsolete design and a clumsy product.

Shoot the messenger, it's easier right?
 
CTLSi said:
None of that changes the fact that Cessna is an obsolete design and a clumsy product.

Shoot the messenger, it's easier right?
Click to expand...

By the way, you haven't popped your head into the avgas and Jet A contamination thread I made yet. You should do that so you can go back on this post on about how the two fuels are clearly visible separate. Unless you want to keep being wrong all the time which seems to be a common point with you. :dunno:

CTLSi said:
I am not trying to be mean about the pilot missing this, but the fuel is dyed for a reason and he should have been both checking it, and being able to tell when it's diluted. The main reason to check fuel is to look for color and water.
Click to expand...
 
CTLSi said:
None of that changes the fact that Cessna is an obsolete design and a clumsy product.

Shoot the messenger, it's easier right?
Click to expand...

The thing is, it's not obsolete. The economics of a 150 still work.
 
CTLSi said:
None of that changes the fact that Cessna is an obsolete design and a clumsy product.
Click to expand...

Today's 172s are not the same bird as those produced 57 years ago just like today's 737s aren't the same birds of 47 years ago and today's Corvettes aren't the same cars as those of 61 years ago.

Oh, and by the way, I'd rather have a '57 corvette than a 2014.
 
timwinters said:
Today's 172s are not the same bird as those produced 57 years ago just like today's 737s aren't the same birds of 47 years ago and today's Corvettes aren't the same cars as those of 61 years ago.

Oh, and by the way, I'd rather have a '57 corvette than a 2014.
Click to expand...

I am not a Vette guy, but that 2014 is awesome!
 
CTLSi said:
None of that changes the fact that Cessna is an obsolete design and a clumsy product.

Shoot the messenger, it's easier right?
Click to expand...

Not shooting the messenger, just pointing out that you are violating life's core rules: Never insult a man's wife or car (or airplane, if applicable). Do so and you'll be treated like a leper. I suspect you've known that your whole life, but just so you know, it applies to internet interactions too. Good luck!
 
CTLSi said:
None of that changes the fact that Cessna is an obsolete design and a clumsy product.

Shoot the messenger, it's easier right?
Click to expand...

I sure hope you grow out of this irrational exuberance over your acquisition. And I thought I was bad ...

So basically, what you are saying (if I've read your posts correctly) is that your CTLS can carry two people at jut over 120 KTS burning car gas with a cool glass panel. Correct?

Let's see, I have a nearly 67 year old bird that:
- cruises at 140 KTS routinely.
- Carries up to 4 people - with some W&B calculations
- has all the GPS stuff you have
- includes an auto pilot - helps when I'm cruising above 10000' on those long 3 to 6 hour flights
- IFR ready (pilot isn't yet)
- and looks VERY COOL on the ramp - much better than the CTLS (personal pref here)
- Does it all on car gas.

I will grant you this, the CTLS design is nice. Still trying to get a ride in one myself. But is the CTLS in the same league as a 172? Not sure. But the 172 is an iconic design that will be remembered in the history books long after we quit flying. I would even wager to bet they will be making 172s (and similar designs) well after the CTLS design is gone. Why - the 172 is just a good aerodynamic / economic compromise.

Now, if you want to see an iconic airplane that really did turn the civilian aviation industry - checkout an early V-Tail Bo. Curious about what will likely remain the hottest selling recreational aircraft? Checkout a Van's RV - available as an eLSA too.

Personally, I like them all....
 
As much as I'd like to judge the CTLS on its merits (as I should) I just couldn't fly in one. They just look too cute and goofy. Like a Fiat 500. I won't get in one of those either. It's like they should have a sign on the door that says "Please leave your balls outside before entering".

I appreciate the technology though. Just the styling... Man... They need to do something about that.
 
What would be the next size up (Cessna) from a C182?
 
mandm said:
What would be the next size up (Cessna) from a C182?
Click to expand...
Question was answered in this very thread more than 5 years ago.
 
I owned a 2005 172 and a 2007 182.
There is a proverbial mile of cabin width between the two aircraft.

Signed:
Big dude.

PS" If you have MHC aspirations, the 182 is your friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top