Cessna 182T real world cruise speeds

RyanB

RyanB

Super Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
16,640
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan
Looking at taking a trip in a 2007 182T in a few weeks. For some reason I had thought the cruise speeds were faster than what I’m seeing - somewhere in the 135kt range. For those of you who fly these, what do you typically see in cruise flight? Is that pretty accurate?

Thanks!
 
135 - 140 is typical for my 182R depending on weight and temperatures aloft.
 
Ok, but what about a T model…?
 
I usually see book speeds, but a couple hundred pounds under book weight. The one time I was near gross, I was seeing a few knots under.

Also, what altitude are you planning?
 
My 182-S, 1100 hrs on the engine, full throttle 2350rpm, lightly loaded (1060 UL) with full fuel trued at 140-142 at 7000 and a little better up to 10,000’.
 
Last edited:
Even if you're talking about the Turbo T182T you won't see much high cruise TAS below ~10,000'.
 
In a nice only-months-old 182T I got 140. But yeah, you're in the ballpark in any case.

How fast did you think a 182 was? Were you thinking T meant Turbo? (That would be a T182.)

Retract models do better as well - R182 is more like 150, and TR182 better still.
 
I owned a 2005 182T and now own a 2011 182T. Book says 145TAS is possible under the right conditions. I found 140-143 was much more realistic at around 8,500 DA. Down lower, speeds would be around 135.

Also, 182T is a completely different airplane from a 182R and doesn’t even have the same engine.
 
Katamarino said:
135 - 140 is typical for my 182R depending on weight and temperatures aloft.
Click to expand...
What’s the highest weight you’ve tested, and how much speed did you lose carrying that much fuel around? I assume the ferry tank helps bring the CG aft so it isn’t as bad as it might be if you were putting the extra weight up front, but I would also assume the loss in cruise airspeed is noticeable.
 
Katamarino said:
They are the same airframe with the exact same engine power and MTOW :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Different engine, different prop. 182R book cruise is 142 and 182T book cruise is 145. Not huge differences but the OP was asking about the T model specifically.
 
iamtheari said:
What’s the highest weight you’ve tested, and how much speed did you lose carrying that much fuel around? I assume the ferry tank helps bring the CG aft so it isn’t as bad as it might be if you were putting the extra weight up front, but I would also assume the loss in cruise airspeed is noticeable.
Click to expand...

The heaviest weight I've flown it at is about 20% over MTOW (~3750lbs). At 7,000ft I got about 128 - 130 KTAS, which picked up a bit as fuel burned off. As you say, COG moves well back so the loss of speed is not excessive. 2 blade prop on mine, so that probably adds a kt or 2 compared to the 3 blade on a T model.
 
RyanB said:
I had thought the cruise speeds were faster than what I’m seeing - somewhere in the 135kt range.
Click to expand...
One thing to keep in mind is that the O470 powered 182's cruise at up to 75% power. Maximum cruise power in the IO540 powered 182T is 80%.
 
Hard to keep them all straight. A T182 is a late 70's vintage fixed gear version of the T182RG. Fairly rare. A 182T is the successor to the first restart 182S with aero cleanups to wheel pants that are worth about 3-4 knots. A T182T is a turbo versions of the 182T.

All of the above are very similar in that they are wet wing 182s with an IO-540. Well except for the T182 which has a turbo'd carberetted O-540.

Anything earlier is Continental powered.

All stock NA 182s seem to do about 135-140 KTAS at optimum altitudes. The turbos get ahead starting around 10,000' - a T182T breaks 150 KTAS around there and goes right on up to 160 KTAS at 20,000'. At about 15 gph though.
 
Steamflyer said:
A T182 is a late 70's vintage fixed gear version of the T182RG. Fairly rare. A 182T is the successor to the first restart 182S with aero cleanups to wheel pants that are worth about 3-4 knots. A T182T is a turbo versions of the 182T.
Click to expand...
And worse yet, it's not uncommon to refer to T182Ts as T182s... and people that don't realize there's a different 182T will refer to a T182T as just a 182T.

The aviation community sucks at coming up with unambiguous names for things.
 
Sounds like the same speed as the Arrow minus we use 10gal per hour.
 
So, the older O-470 powered series (e.g., C182Q) are faster than the newer IO powered? Save money go faster sounds appealing.
 
Last edited:
RyanB said:
Looking at taking a trip in a 2007 182T in a few weeks. For some reason I had thought the cruise speeds were faster than what I’m seeing - somewhere in the 135kt range. For those of you who fly these, what do you typically see in cruise flight? Is that pretty accurate?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
From earlier this winter, 8,000’/full throttle/2350rpm/ROP 2000 182-S 143kn TAS. In hotter conditions I get at least 138kn at that altitude…usually 140.

IMG_1535.jpeg
 
robin ardoin said:
From earlier this winter, 8,000’/full throttle/2350rpm/ROP 2000 182-S 143kn TAS. In hotter conditions I get at least 138kn at that altitude…usually 140.

View attachment 138205
Click to expand...

And you were only 30.9 miles from Heaven (HEVVN)!

Should you have been closer to HADES your speed would be pushing 180!

-Skip
 
mkosmo said:
And worse yet, it's not uncommon to refer to T182Ts as T182s... and people that don't realize there's a different 182T will refer to a T182T as just a 182T.

The aviation community sucks at coming up with unambiguous names for things.
Click to expand...
Cessna isn't so bad. They always have <model number><version letter>. 172N, for example. So T182 is a Turbo 182 whereas the 182T is a newer 182. R182 is the retract 182, whereas R172K is a fixed gear plane ("Hawk XP") that's technicaly a 175, and the retract 172 is the 172RG. I don't know where your confusion lies. :goofy:

And then... *Glaring in the general direction of Garmin* The number of things they have with a G and a 5 in them is just dumb. Before the G5 came out we used to call the G500 and G600 the "G5" and "G6". And then they slapped the 500 and a 600 on their autopilots too, and then there's the G500 TXi... And it wasn't well known, but there was a version of the 530 that was only the GPS without the nav/com and that was the GNS 500.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top