Flew a 182 today

ktup-flyer said:
Yep. I was going to buy it and drop a 750 in it before I found out it had corrosion in the wings. On to the next one.
Click to expand...
There is still some value in the CNX80 system. While not directly compatible with today's ADS-B Needs (like the GTN's are), I still prefer it over a GNS430.

How bad was the corrosion?
 
Last edited:
So for you guys that fly the 182, what type of true airspeed do you see, at what fuel flows?
 
Rcmutz said:
So for you guys that fly the 182, what type of true airspeed do you see, at what fuel flows?
Click to expand...
I was told about 150 at 10-12 gph. 2nd hand info from the seller

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
182k: 150mph true, 11gph, 23 squared, or thereabouts.
 
GeorgeC said:
182k: 150mph true, 11gph, 23 squared, or thereabouts.
Click to expand...

That is about 130 kts. Can you see 135 if you run at higher power setting? I continue to go back and forth on selling my Tiger and getting a 182.
 
Rcmutz said:
Can you see 135 if you run at higher power setting?
Click to expand...
In theory, yes, according to the POH. I run at around 70% according to the JPI, so there's a bit of room.
 
Rcmutz said:
So for you guys that fly the 182, what type of true airspeed do you see, at what fuel flows?
Click to expand...

I fly mostly between 4500 and 7500, 130-135kts true and right at 12 gph.
 
Our club has a pair of 172s and a 182P (with the Q engine). I LOVE the 182. A big, stable, comfortable cross country machine. With the upgraded panel (Garmin 650, etc.) it's really nice. Think - 172 on steriods. As noted a while back, take the 172 numbers, add 5 knots and you're in the ballpark. Oh, and remember, trim is your friend. You may get sloppy with a 172, but you MUST trim a 182. Save your firewall, it can.

Now, for payload - our 172N with the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion is the winner. With full long range tanks I can put 755 pounds in the cabin. The 182, with full long range tanks, can only take around 650 pounds. Yes, I know about leaving fuel in the truck, but the club rules require putting a plane away with full tanks, so all my planning has to be with that consideration. However, it is typically just my wife and me, along with minimal baggage, so it isn't really important.

If I were to buy only one, I'd get the 182. Did I mention that I LOVE that plane? :)
 
Rcmutz said:
That is about 130 kts. Can you see 135 if you run at higher power setting? I continue to go back and forth on selling my Tiger and getting a 182.
Click to expand...

Above 130 is doable at lower altitudes but it starts to be a losing proposition quick in fuel burn. I usually flight plan for 130 in the 9000-11000 altitude range, WOT and the prop pulled back a little bit for noise level, burning 11.5/hr, leaned ROP with the O-470 carb'd variety of engine. Drag goes up massively as speed increases above 130.


I and my co-owner both learned our lesson about bombing along at 3000 making a lot more than usual power one day when we planned to land with an hour of fuel in the tanks, and sticked it to find slightly UNDER VFR minimums of 30 min.

We realized after scratching our heads a bit and our eyebrows going up and some very confused looks at each other -- we realized that since we are used to flying out of an airport at 5885' we almost never fly it from sea level to 5000' MSL.

We got stuck there at 3000' by a cloud layer that day. (Before I had my instrument ticket.)

Back-calculating we were burning close to 15/hr. We've averaged 11.5 for a decade at our altitude and cruise altitudes. One of those "gotcha" things for pilots flying lower than they're used to.
 
Ghery said:
. Yes, I know about leaving fuel in the truck, but the club rules require putting a plane away with full tanks, so all my planning has to be with that consideration.
Click to expand...

Might take a bit of coordination, but seems you could arrange that whomever flys it last not fill it. Perhaps bring it up to the club officers. That's potentially "encouraging" someone to fly it over grossed, even if one leaves out cargo, which they may or may not do.
 
ktup-flyer said:
I've got my eye on this one. http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/18026617/1977-cessna-182q-skylane
Click to expand...
Forget the airplane... I want the VW bus sitting next to it.

And the exterior photo of it on a grass trip is when it was visiting Cedar Mills, TX. That was a really nice place to go for flying and food. Until we had our monsoon 3 years ago and Lake Texhoma went waaaaaay, WAAAAAY beyond flood stage. Photo is of the runway area N11PH is sitting on. The flood at its peak stage swallowed up 2/3's of the runway. Runway end is usually 150-feet beyond the last set of trees in the second photo.

33mr5si.jpg

IMG_7913.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ghery said:
Our club has a pair of 172s and a 182P (with the Q engine). I LOVE the 182. A big, stable, comfortable cross country machine. With the upgraded panel (Garmin 650, etc.) it's really nice. Think - 172 on steriods. As noted a while back, take the 172 numbers, add 5 knots and you're in the ballpark. Oh, and remember, trim is your friend. You may get sloppy with a 172, but you MUST trim a 182. Save your firewall, it can.

Now, for payload - our 172N with the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion is the winner. With full long range tanks I can put 755 pounds in the cabin. The 182, with full long range tanks, can only take around 650 pounds. Yes, I know about leaving fuel in the truck, but the club rules require putting a plane away with full tanks, so all my planning has to be with that consideration. However, it is typically just my wife and me, along with minimal baggage, so it isn't really important.

If I were to buy only one, I'd get the 182. Did I mention that I LOVE that plane? :)
Click to expand...
Too funny Ghery. For a minute, I thought you were in my club! 2x172s and a 182 (that i'm in the middle of checkout in). I agree, it's a nice stable platform and I think it'll be fun to fly. I got 1.8 hours in it, then the plane went in for annual + new engine, so I hope to complete my checkout when it's back on the line.

Really great plane from what I can tell.
 
saddletramp said:
I'm curious to get opinions of those corrosion videos.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd like to know too, trying to learn. I guess I'm used to seeing corrosion on steel cars, not aluminum.

I thought the ribs or spars would be the first to corrode, not the underside of the skin.

Is that considered bad? As in "don't buy ever"? Or is it ok to fly and maybe treatable to stop it from worsening?

Did I just hijack this thread?
 
I would like to know too, and this thread was hijacked long time ago

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
AggieMike88 said:
Forget the airplane... I want the VW bus sitting next to it.

And the exterior photo of it on a grass trip is when it was visiting Cedar Mills, TX. That was a really nice place to go for flying and food. Until we had our monsoon 3 years ago and Lake Texhoma went waaaaaay, WAAAAAY beyond flood stage. Photo is of the runway area N11PH is sitting on. The flood at its peak stage swallowed up 2/3's of the runway. Runway end is usually 150-feet beyond the last set of trees in the second photo.

33mr5si.jpg

IMG_7913.jpg
Click to expand...
Damn. Not an airport I'd want to go off the end at.
 
saddletramp said:
I'm curious to get opinions of those corrosion videos.
Click to expand...

455 Bravo Uniform said:
Yeah, I'd like to know too, trying to learn. I guess I'm used to seeing corrosion on steel cars, not aluminum.

I thought the ribs or spars would be the first to corrode, not the underside of the skin.

Is that considered bad? As in "don't buy ever"? Or is it ok to fly and maybe treatable to stop it from worsening?

Did I just hijack this thread?
Click to expand...

WannFly said:
I would like to know too, and this thread was hijacked long time ago

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
@Tom-D
 
Corrosion occurs on the underside of the wing skins simply because that is where most of the condensation occurs.
 
AggieMike88 said:
This isn't that much more HP than the engine found in most P's and Q's. The extra ponies are going to be a big help in the climbout, and might get you a few more pounds of extra load.
Click to expand...

Do they? I would have figured they're heavier and negate any load carrying pluses unless the STC to strap them on also upped max gross.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top