Cessna 182 feedback

M

mike m

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Messages
6
Display Name
Display name:
Tex
I've just recieved my wings and I'm having a hard time trying to decide which aircraft will serve me the most. The question I have for everyone is this. how do ya'll feel about a fresh pilot jumping into a "high performace" aircraft, like the 182. I realize that the 182 will be more expensive to fly compared with the 172. My instructor has pretty much stated that the handeling charecteristics of the 182 is very similar, except for the additional speed.

Anyone have any advise? Is this something that raises a concern?

Thanks
Mike
 
Slightly faster, heavy in flare hauls a lot.

I know a fellow who got his private in one.
 
Skylane81E said:
Slightly faster, heavy in flare hauls a lot.

I know a fellow who got his private in one.
Click to expand...

+1 I got my PPL in ours many moons ago, so did my dad.:D It is heavier and faster, but don't let the "high performance" scare you, a few hours of dual and you'll be fine. :D Great all around airplane, but we are all a little prejudice to the ones we own. :)
 
mike m said:
I've just recieved my wings and I'm having a hard time trying to decide which aircraft will serve me the most. The question I have for everyone is this. how do ya'll feel about a fresh pilot jumping into a "high performace" aircraft, like the 182. I realize that the 182 will be more expensive to fly compared with the 172. My instructor has pretty much stated that the handeling charecteristics of the 182 is very similar, except for the additional speed.

Anyone have any advise? Is this something that raises a concern?

Thanks
Mike
Click to expand...

Depends on your mission. If you're just going to use it for $100.00 hamburger runs the 172 will do fine. If you plan on cross country vacations and want to haul luggage the 182 is better suited to the task.
 
No problem. Insurance will want you to fly with instructor some anyway so that will take care of your high performance endorsement. I flew a 172 and a Comanche when I was working on my private. The Comanche made me much better fast. Now days after faster airplanes its just plane fun to fly the old 172. Fly a 205 very regular and that's very similar feel to your 182. You will love it!:yes:
 
I learned in a 172. The checkout and high performance endorsement in the 182 was easy. 5 hours of dual to keep the club happy. Think of it as a 172 on steroids with a couple extra controls (prop and cowl flaps). A bit nose heavy on landing (hint - TRIM is your friend). Much more comfortable than a 172 for cruising. Yes, it burns more fuel per hour, but it goes faster, too.

I really like the 182 for cross country cruising.
 
Three days after my checkride I jumped into my 182RG (with 20 hours of insurance mandated dual) and haven't looked back since. This was over a year ago and I have over 200 hours in it now. I got my IR, commercial & now getting my CFI in it. They're wonderful airplanes.
 
Last edited:
I had the same idea as you. But I bought a Cherokee 235 for $30,000 less.
 
Thanks for the info. I just did't want to put the cart before the horse in this situation. Speed and reaction times may be a bit of a learning curve, but i like the idea of loading up the seats knowing, in most cases, it wll fly.

thanks
 
Great and fairly versatile planes, have used them a lot in the backcountry for two people and alpine gear, turbo is nice for that higher DA.
 
mike m said:
Thanks for the info. I just did't want to put the cart before the horse in this situation. Speed and reaction times may be a bit of a learning curve, but i like the idea of loading up the seats knowing, in most cases, it wll fly.

thanks
Click to expand...

Tex, pretty much exactly what I did and couldn't be happier with my choice. Also, you didn't mention if you we're looking at legacy or restarts, but throttling back and / or LOP if possible might put you around the same fuel burn as a 172. The useful load comes in handy more than I would have thought, and as far as "speed and reaction times", don't worry...I think Aviation Consumer described it as something like a "Ralph Kramden experience":wink2: Nose is a little heavier, but no biggie.
BTW, Congrats!
 
We decided to learn to fly last November, bought a 182 in December, had my first lesson (2nd time in a GA plane) in late January and flew approx. 20 hrs. In a 172 while we were upgrading/fix a few issues in our 182. When the 182 was ready to fly we transition into it (around April i think)not to hard to do, a few new thing to do, a little heavy in the front (trim is your friend). I'm around 50 hrs. Total and approx 175 landings. I have to say I love my plane, I'm glad we purchased first (it kept me flying when I was ready to quit) GO FOR IT! Spend some time in it with your instructor, I would think you will be fine....GOOD LUCK!
 
mike m said:
I've just recieved my wings and I'm having a hard time trying to decide which aircraft will serve me the most. The question I have for everyone is this. how do ya'll feel about a fresh pilot jumping into a "high performace" aircraft, like the 182. I realize that the 182 will be more expensive to fly compared with the 172. My instructor has pretty much stated that the handeling charecteristics of the 182 is very similar, except for the additional speed.

Anyone have any advise? Is this something that raises a concern?

Thanks
Mike
Click to expand...

A 182 is NOT high performance, aside from the HP number lol

Honestly, I would be surprised if someone who can handle a 172 couldnt handle a 182 after a few fights.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
A 182 is NOT high performance, aside from the HP number lol

Honestly, I would be surprised if someone who can handle a 172 couldnt handle a 182 after a few fights.
Click to expand...

There has to be an HP line somewhere and the 182 is over it, especially with T. Obviously others are way over it.
 
Bought my T182T about 10 hours after I got my PPL. That was over two years ago, and I have somewhat north of 350 hrs in the 182. I had to put 5 hrs for the insurance, and did my IFR, and some commercial work in the 182. I also had to learn the G1000 as my training was six pack. The transition was seamless. Though the 182 is faster and has a stronger engine, and is front heavy, flying it is very similar to the 172 with slightly different numbers, and the addition of the constant speed prop. Appropriate use of trim is imperative in landing.

You should transition with ease.
 
mike m said:
Thanks for the info. I just did't want to put the cart before the horse in this situation. Speed and reaction times may be a bit of a learning curve, but i like the idea of loading up the seats knowing, in most cases, it wll fly.

thanks
Click to expand...

Here's a different perspective on that. Our club rules require putting the planes away with full tanks, so we always run W&B assuming that case. I can put about 100 pounds more in the cabin in our 180 hp upgraded C-172N than I can in the C-182P. A C-182 will carry more than a stock C-172 obviously, but you should be aware that even a C-182 has limits. :D

NineThreeKilo said:
A 182 is NOT high performance, aside from the HP number lol

Honestly, I would be surprised if someone who can handle a 172 couldnt handle a 182 after a few fights.
Click to expand...

I first logged time in a 182 (dual, of course) the day before my private check ride. Great planes.
 
A very good point, my full fuel payload isn't the greatest, at 722lbs but how often do you need all 7 hours of fuel?
 
Norman said:
Depends on your mission. If you're just going to use it for $100.00 hamburger runs the 172 will do fine. If you plan on cross country vacations and want to haul luggage the 182 is better suited to the task.
Click to expand...

Depends where the $100 hamburger is.

While people occasionally fly 172s very carefully to KLXV, it really would be better for your underwear to take off in a 182. Even better, a TR182.

A transition to a 182 is not at all difficult for a new private pilot. In some ways, they are easier to fly than a 172. Like, the engine RPM doesn't need babysitting at level-off, and the elevator damping spring makes for very stable approaches (and a much heavier control feel).
 
Last edited:
Skylane81E said:
A very good point, my full fuel payload isn't the greatest, at 722lbs but how often do you need all 7 hours of fuel?
Click to expand...

I learned to stop topping tanks when I started flying twins!:D I seldom top off the 182, usually if I am somewhere with cheap gas, but with my 2+ hour bladder 40 gallons is usually more than I need. ;)
I understand flying clubs keeping them topped off, but for an owner it's just carrying extra weight, even solo it climbs better with 3 hours of fuel vs 6. :yes:
The 182's do a lot of things well, decent speed, decent fuel mileage, good payload, stable, roomy, any mechanic can work on it. I wanted something for my son to learn to fly that was also fast and roomy enough that I could use it as well. We love ours! :D
 
mike m said:
I've just recieved my wings and I'm having a hard time trying to decide which aircraft will serve me the most. The question I have for everyone is this. how do ya'll feel about a fresh pilot jumping into a "high performace" aircraft, like the 182. I realize that the 182 will be more expensive to fly compared with the 172. My instructor has pretty much stated that the handeling charecteristics of the 182 is very similar, except for the additional speed.

Anyone have any advise? Is this something that raises a concern?

Thanks
Mike
Click to expand...

I'm getting my high performance endorsement in a 182 right now after basically 130 hours in a 172 and can tell you the 182 is a breeze to transition to. Aside from remembering the cowl flaps and adjusting to the adjustable pitch propeller( which is not hard) the 182 is not hard to fly. The speeds are virtually the same on takeoff and landing so it's an easy adjustment- in fact its probably an easier plane to get airborne out of short fields and such.

The only thing that is noticeable is the nose is much heavier in a 182 because of the stronger engine. It is also a bit harder on the controls and requires a bit much strength to manipulate the controls.

If I ever have enough money to buy a plane I would seriously consider the 182. It seems like the perfect plane for a private pilot as it can haul a lot and go far and cruise at a fast(er) speed than the simple trainers.
 
I will get you around too, I've been all over from Michigan to Florida and from the Atlantic to the far side of the continental devide
 
Landing attitude is critical. Make sure the aircraft is in a proper landing attitude before touchdown. Add back pressure if there is any hint of a porpoise. I see a lot of 182s going into a porpoise and terminating with a prop strike or bent firewall. Landing with a little bit of power helps avoid a high sink rate.

As mentioned earlier, trim is your friend. One thing to watch for on go-arounds is the pitch up when power is increased. The 172 has it, but the 182 gives you more of it. Throttle forward means yoke forward and the trim should also be in play.

Fundamentally, it's a big 172. Cessna designed it to be an easy transition from the 172, and that's what it continues to be.

I think the 182 is the perfect airplane for a new pilot. It's got the speed and payload to be good transportation, yet it's an easy transition. The landing gear is down and welded, which helps rental and insurance rates.
 
I learned in a Cessna 170 tail wheel airplane, and after 835 hours, I bought a 1959 Cessna 182. I have over 2000 hours in the 182. It was not much of a transision for me to go from the 170 to the 182. It is a little bit heavier on landing for the controls, It is a little harder to get slowed down but not that bad. with those big Folwer flaps. It will carry a load and is a fair cross country airplane.
 
I describe my 182 as the most average airplane ever built. It's a good compromise between speed and low speed performance, payload and fuel burn; a true four seater.

There's a billion mods for it, parts are plentiful, and any mechanic can work on it. It's a good plane for a new owner.

Oh, and a good safety record.

And if you don't like it, there's always a resale market for it.
 
Last edited:
Brad Z said:
Asayt(ffA I describe my 182 as the most average airplane ever built. It's a good compromise between speed and low speed performance, payload and fuel burn; a true four seater.

There's a billion mods for it, parts are plentiful, and any mechanic can work on it. It's a good plane for a new owner.

Oh, and a good safety record.

And if you don't like it, there's always a resale market for it.
Click to expand...


I've noticed tons of them for sale, making it difficult to choose.
 
Bob Bement said:
I learned in a Cessna 170 tail wheel airplane, and after 835 hours, I bought a 1959 Cessna 182. I have over 2000 hours in the 182. It was not much of a transision for me to go from the 170 to the 182. It is a little bit heavier on landing for the controls, It is a little harder to get slowed down but not that bad. with those big Folwer flaps. It will carry a load and is a fair cross country airplane.
Click to expand...
It's worth mentioning that older 182s, like Bob's, have the nicest handling of the bunch.

182s built before the 1962 model year (up through 182D) are in effect tri-gear C-180s, with lighter weights and movable-stabilizer pitch trim. Controls are pleasant and nicely-balanced. The 1962 C-182E introduced the 4"-wider cabin, rear windows, and fixed stabilizer with elevator trim tab. These are noticeably heavier in pitch.
 
Pilawt said:
It's worth mentioning that older 182s, like Bob's, have the nicest handling of the bunch.

182s built before the 1962 model year (up through 182D) are in effect tri-gear C-180s, with lighter weights and movable-stabilizer pitch trim. Controls are pleasant and nicely-balanced. The 1962 C-182E introduced the 4"-wider cabin, rear windows, and fixed stabilizer with elevator trim tab. These are noticeably heavier in pitch.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but honestly the only difference I noticed when I flew Tim's A model was the Johnson bar flaps and that he was slightly closer to me than someone next to me in mine. Speeds were bang on the same, as was the handling.

It was typical 182, stable, predictable and forgiving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top