Cessna 182T real world cruise speeds

flyingcheesehead said:
Interesting. The market sure does. It's a versatile airplane - It's not the best at anything, but it's pretty dang good at everything.

It's cheaper to operate than either of those, for one.
Click to expand...

A PA24 180 or 200?

I’d seriously look at one of those before a 182
 
Roller said:
A PA24 180 or 200?

I’d seriously look at one of those before a 182
Click to expand...
Um. PA24-200?

A 180 might be cheaper than a 182, but it does have some extra maintenance on the gear and likely higher insurance, those will eat up a good chunk of the fuel savings.

I do love the PA24 but its existence in no way means the 182 is meaningless.
 
Roller said:
Never understood the point of the 182
Click to expand...
Maybe because

It’s easy to enter and exit
It’s moderately fast
It hauls a good load
It operates well off of grass and unimproved fields
It’s an easy step up from a trainer
Any mechanic anywhere knows how to work on it
 
Last edited:
There's a reasonable case to be made that overall the 182 is the best plane ever made. Unless one routinely makes trips over 400 nm, or works in strips less that 1500' long, there really isn't much better a machine. Routine long flights, get a Baron, Bonanza, or 210; shorter strips get a 180 or a Super Cub depending on load requirements.

In a world where all piston powered traveling machines are a niche, the Comanche is in a still smaller niche. The net is full of posts of "I want to get a plane that will do 800 nm legs with my whole family." Is that really a typical use case?

Personally prefer the high wings anyhow for natural pendulum stability and easy IFR flying. But again, that's a corner case for most and then most also have APs so don't care.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's the GPS500, not GNS500. But while we're on the topic...

When Garmin bought Apollo, they renamed the CNX80 the GNS480. And they renamed the SL30 to be... the SL30? Prior to that, they had the GNC300XL, which was a GPS navigator with COM radio and continued that "GNC" naming convention with the GNC420 until they decided to produce a follow on to the SL30, which they called the GNC255. The GPS/COM version of the GTN750 then became the GTN725, otherwise someone might think a GNC725 is a NAV/COM like the 255. But then they came out with the GPS/COM GNC355. So GNC means GPS/COM now right? Wrong. The GNC215 is a NAV/COM.

And then there's the 345, which is not the predecessor to the GNC355. It's either the GMA345 audio panel or the GTX345 transponder.
 
robin ardoin said:
@Roller It is rather interesting that, an aircraft first produced in 1956 and is still in production, with sales of over 23,000 units, is viewed by you as pointless. You sure lifted your skirt and showed us the color of your panties.
Click to expand...

flyingcheesehead said:
Um. PA24-200?

A 180 might be cheaper than a 182, but it does have some extra maintenance on the gear and likely higher insurance, those will eat up a good chunk of the fuel savings.

I do love the PA24 but its existence in no way means the 182 is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but the 172 is the most produced aircraft of all time and I’d wager most pilots grow out of them like a kid grows out of training wheels

The 182 for me is just a slightly bigger and faster 172, but not big enough and fast enough to pay for the extra cost and fuel, it also doesn’t handle as well as its more popular brother the 172

PA24 has a far more comfortable rear seat, the beautiful taper wing provides a well balanced and responsive ship, the gear is dirt simple and if you don’t abuse the plane isn’t much of a maintenance factor.

The main reason they stopped building the 24 was due to the destruction of the factory and re tooling costs

But everyone has their favorite flavors
 
Roller said:
Just my opinion, but the 172 is the most produced aircraft of all time and I’d wager most pilots grow out of them like a kid grows out of training wheels

The 182 for me is just a slightly bigger and faster 172, but not big enough and fast enough to pay for the extra cost and fuel, it also doesn’t handle as well as its more popular brother the 172

PA24 has a far more comfortable rear seat, the beautiful taper wing provides a well balanced and responsive ship, the gear is dirt simple and if you don’t abuse the plane isn’t much of a maintenance factor.

The main reason they stopped building the 24 was due to the destruction of the factory and re tooling costs

But everyone has their favorite flavors
Click to expand...
Agnes did wipe out the Comanche factory. But they were already building the much cheaper Cherokee in FL, so wonder how long the 5000 man-hour Comanche would have survived.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Interesting. The market sure does. It's a versatile airplane - It's not the best at anything, but it's pretty dang good at everything.

It's cheaper to operate than either of those, for one.
Click to expand...
C’mon… by now you should know not to feed the troll. It just encourages the behavior.

Next it’s going to suggest that 100LL should be banned and we should pay a fee on every landing.
 
Bill said:
Maybe because

It’s easy to enter and exit
It’s moderately fast
It hauls a good load
It operates well off of grass and unimproved fields
It’s an easy step up from a trainer
Any mechanic anywhere knows how to work on it
Click to expand...
Headroom and pilot door!

Comanche is a fabulous machine but the newest one is 50+ years old? Someone should build them again…with way more headroom please
 
There are many good reasons to fly a 182. I'm not there yet, but I can easily envision a day when it's the right plane for me. Compared with a faster and more complex plane, a 182 would add about 40 minutes to my longest normal trip and cut my maximum payload in half. But it would be easier to get passengers in and out of. Easier to maintain and insure. Easier to remain proficient in. Easier to hangar. Easier to operate on grass. Easier for other pilots to transition into and therefore easier to take on a partner. Easier to sell. Its popularity is only half because it is an easy step-up from the popular 172, and half because it's a good fit for almost all avgas-burning missions.

But there aren't many good reasons to answer "Is 135 KTAS a normal cruise speed for a 182T?" with a lengthy debate about whether there was ever a point in manufacturing the plane that the OP is planning to fly. Presumably he didn't put a picture of every GA plane ever made on the wall, throw on a blindfold, and throw darts to decide which plane to use for the upcoming trip. Although, if that is how he picks airplanes, I would immediately subscribe to his newsletter. :)
 
The restart models (S and T) are definitely faster - maybe 8-10kts - due to the aerodynamic cleanup, but they have way less useful load and burn more gas doing it. They have fuel injection, so there is the option of running LOP, but then you give up the speed advantage. There's no free lunch.

C.
 
donjohnston said:
C’mon… by now you should know not to feed the troll. It just encourages the behavior.

Next it’s going to suggest that 100LL should be banned and we should pay a fee on every landing.
Click to expand...

What?

Why would anyone in their right mind ban 100LL and as a American I already pay too much in taxes and fees, landing fees should be prohibited from public fields
 
I have a PA-28-236 which is essentially the Piper equivalent of a 182. If I am to extrapolate from my experience, I would wager that the 182 (and -236) lie in the sweet spot for most GA pilots. Either can easily cruise at an honest 135 knots, but the biggest speed mod is the fuel capacity. I can make it from Miami to Charlotte easily without a fuel stop in just over 4 hours. For shorter trips within the state, the difference in trip time compared to a Bonanza or Cirrus is practically negligible (I don’t care if I get to Disney World in 1:15 versus 1 hour). 160knot airplanes make sense for frequent longer trips. My airplane, just like the 182, is very simple to maintain, gets me to where I need to go reasonably quickly, and has a weight and balance profile I couldn’t exceed if I tried unless I bought a few anvils. As far as GA airplanes go, these airplanes are relatively efficient to own and operate.
 
asicer said:
When Garmin bought Apollo, they renamed the CNX80 the GNS480. And they renamed the SL30 to be... the SL30? Prior to that, they had the GNC300XL, which was a GPS navigator with COM radio and continued that "GNC" naming convention with the GNC420 until they decided to produce a follow on to the SL30, which they called the GNC255. The GPS/COM version of the GTN750 then became the GTN725, otherwise someone might think a GNC725 is a NAV/COM like the 255. But then they came out with the GPS/COM GNC355. So GNC means GPS/COM now right? Wrong. The GNC215 is a NAV/COM.
Click to expand...
GNC725? Is that a thing? Or did you mean GTN 725? They still call it a GTN even without the radios.

GTN = Garmin Touchscreen Navigator.

What a mess.
 
Bill said:
Maybe because

It’s easy to enter and exit
It’s moderately fast
It hauls a good load
It operates well off of grass and unimproved fields
It’s an easy step up from a trainer
Any mechanic anywhere knows how to work on it
Click to expand...
It's a better shelter from the sun when it's hot out.
It's a better shelter from the rain when it's wet.
The wings don't scrape the bushes on either side of the narrow grass and unimproved strip.
It's better for spotting and photographing things on the ground.
 
asicer said:
The GPS/COM version of the GTN750 then became the GTN725, otherwise someone might think a GNC725 is a NAV/COM like the 255.
Click to expand...
flyingcheesehead said:
GNC725? Is that a thing? Or did you mean GTN 725? They still call it a GTN even without the radios.
Click to expand...
asicer said:
I meant what I said...
Click to expand...
asicer said:
The GPS/COM version of the GTN750 then became the GTN725, otherwise someone might think a GNC725 is a NAV/COM like the 255.
Click to expand...
I was talking about this one...........................................................................................^^^^^^^

But, I think I finally picked up what you're laying down. Just all the Gs and 5s have me :goofy::loco::aureola::crazy:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I was talking about this one...........................................................................................^^^^^^^

But, I think I finally picked up what you're laying down. Just all the Gs and 5s have me :goofy::loco::aureola::crazy:
Click to expand...
But wait, there's more! If you have a G3X, the successor is a G3X Touch. If you have a G500 or G600, the successor is a G500 or G600 TXi. If you have a GTN, the successor is a GTN Xi. If you have a G1000, the successor is a G1000 NXi. And, if you're lucky enough to have a G3000, you might be in the market for a G3000 PRIME. Does anyone have a secret decoder ring to figure out what all those stand for?
 
tbroadhurst said:
Just took a trip in a 2005 turbo 182 , 3 big guys no bags 10500 TAS 143 to 145 kts.
Click to expand...
About right for 25”/2300 rpm. At 27”/2300 would just about nibble on 150 ktas at 10k.

The restart airplane POH tables are good to about 1 knot in actual performance, so anyone curious can google and find expected TAS performance for any of them.
 
tbroadhurst said:
Just took a trip in a 2005 turbo 182 , 3 big guys no bags 10500 TAS 143 to 145 kts.
Click to expand...
Did you see my post #37, I don't get the difference - 25" 2350rpm was getting tas 155kts.
Can the programming on the G1000 be monkeyed with to alter the tas readouts??
 
mandm said:
You can fit a low wing + RV in your hangar or just a high wing. Your choice. :cheers:
Click to expand...
I was trying to figure out how on earth a low wing would give you MORE room for an RV... And then I realized you must have a fifth wheel.

On the other hand, one of my hangar neighbors is able to slide a boat underneath his high wing, so...

I think that means that the optimum hangar arrangement is boat->high wing->low wing->5th wheel. Just think of all the space you could save! :D
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Did you see my post #37, I don't get the difference - 25" 2350rpm was getting tas 155kts.
Can the programming on the G1000 be monkeyed with to alter the tas readouts??
Click to expand...
No. With a turbo, it's all about what altitude you're flying.

Your G1000 shot doesn't show altitude, only IAS, TAS, and OAT. It appears that you were maybe at 13,000? 3ºC would be ISA+14 at that altitude, and that should result in 124 KIAS=155 KTAS.

Looking at the book for the T182T, 25"/2350 should be getting you right around 150 KTAS in those conditions, though the book adds that for every 150 pounds under MGTOW you can add another knot.

What was your altitude? Were you light?

At 10,000 and standard temp with 3 heavy dudes, 24 squared would give 145 KTAS, 24"/2300 would give 143 KTAS according to the book.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
No. With a turbo, it's all about what altitude you're flying.

Your G1000 shot doesn't show altitude, only IAS, TAS, and OAT. It appears that you were maybe at 13,000? 3ºC would be ISA+14 at that altitude, and that should result in 124 KIAS=155 KTAS.

Looking at the book for the T182T, 25"/2350 should be getting you right around 150 KTAS in those conditions, though the book adds that for every 150 pounds under MGTOW you can add another knot.

What was your altitude? Were you light?

At 10,000 and standard temp with 3 heavy dudes, 24 squared would give 145 KTAS, 24"/2300 would give 143 KTAS according to the book.
Click to expand...
I was getting some amazing performance out of a 1968 Arrow once.

The GPS 3-way method showed the airspeed indicator was reading almost 10 knots fast in cruise.
 
A place where the 182 shines versus Comanche or Bo or ... is insurance.

Lower insurance for newer pilot without a lot of retract hours. And cheaper for older pilots, why may not be able to insure a retract. If I had waited a few more years before buying, retract may have not been possible.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Did you see my post #37, I don't get the difference - 25" 2350rpm was getting tas 155kts.
Can the programming on the G1000 be monkeyed with to alter the tas readouts??
Click to expand...
Missed that post - in my experience, in fat numbers, with 2000 hours all told, the T182T crosses the 150 ktas threshold at 10,000'. I'd expect closer to 151-153, but close enough. That said, was almost always at 27"/2300/15 gph±. The steam version of the aircraft did not have the green hash at 25" that I have seen in the G1000 MP "dial", which may be the "recommended" cruise MP for the G1000 airplanes, though the powerplants were identical.

The G1000 is on the TCDS, so imagine it's the most locked down SW imaginable. And probably more accurate than the TAS ring on the airspeed indicator I used for most observations - you could make the GPS spit out the TAS, but it wasn't a continuous readout since there was no air data computer in the steam airplanes.
 
With a non turbo 182T, leaned for about 12 USG on 10.500ft, around 130-145 TAS. About 110 IAS. Two persons and 3/4th tanks. Averaged on a 2 week trip.
 
dennisc172 said:
With a non turbo 182T, leaned for about 12 USG on 10.500ft, around 130-145 TAS. About 110 IAS. Two persons and 3/4th tanks. Averaged on a 2 week trip.
Click to expand...
Were there great differences in OAT on this trip? That's quite a range of TAS for an NA plane. 145 is only about 6-8 ktas lower than the turbo at that altitude, and you aren't making 25" up there in an NA plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top