Flew a 182RG for the first time

[LoLPilot]

While doing my IR work, my instructor and I are getting me my HiPo endorsement, so we did yesterday's lesson in the 182RG. I don't relish paying to fly that airplane but I can see why people like them! It was very gusty yesterday and the 172's were apparently having a rough go of it. In the 182 it was... occasionally bumpy. I also liked the climb performance and the whole "we got a bit sidetracked practicing maneuvers and made it 40 miles from the airport" cruise performance

Every time I've wondered "why would someone want a plane like that," and I've then flown that plane I have answered my question. And the answer to that with the 182 is "because I wanted an airplane and I wanted to go places in that airplane with people."

 

[Eric Gleason]

Exactly! When I was getting back in the saddle after a 2+ year hiatus, we were just practicing some maneuvers in the 182 and next thing I knew, I'd gained 3000' without trying. There's a lot of excess power available there, and that translates into climb performance that is surprising when transitioning from 152s or 172s. The RG model makes it even moreso. I'm 0.9 hours shy of my insurance requirements for instruction and jonesing for my club 182RG to come out of maintenance.

Fun fact: the 182 uses the same wing dimensions and airfoil as the 172. I understand the structure is different to handle the extra weight, though.

 

[LoLPilot]

Exactly! When I was getting back in the saddle after a 2+ year hiatus, we were just practicing some maneuvers in the 182 and next thing I knew, I'd gained 3000' without trying. There's a lot of excess power available there, and that translates into climb performance that is surprising when transitioning from 152s or 172s. The RG model makes it even moreso. I'm 0.9 hours shy of my insurance requirements for instruction and jonesing for my club 182RG to come out of maintenance.

Fun fact: the 182 uses the same wing dimensions and airfoil as the 172. I understand the structure is different to handle the extra weight, though.

Interesting! What surprised me was that it doesn’t look bigger from the outside but it feels much bigger on the inside (TARDIS). I did notice that the 182 had a similar looking wing but the tanks were placarded 40 gal each vs 27 for the 172’s.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Interesting! What surprised me was that it doesn’t look bigger from the outside but it feels much bigger on the inside (TARDIS). I did notice that the 182 had a similar looking wing but the tanks were placarded 40 gal each vs 27 for the 172’s.

182s as a group have a wide variation in tank sizes. 40 each is one of the smaller ones.

The 182RG is a great airplane. The TR182 (Turbo 182RG) even better

 

[Mtns2Skies]

They're awesome airplanes huh? Really a solid "do it all" airplane. STOL, Speed, IFR capability, Load hauling ability. Pretty tough to beat overall.

 

[Clip4]

182s as a group have a wide variation in tank sizes. 40 each is one of the smaller ones.

The 182RG is a great airplane. The TR182 (Turbo 182RG) even better

Have about 1000 182RG hours, you can keep the carbureted turbo charged engine. Try one with the 300 hp conversion. Far better.

 

[Eric Gleason]

Interesting! What surprised me was that it doesn’t look bigger from the outside but it feels much bigger on the inside (TARDIS). I did notice that the 182 had a similar looking wing but the tanks were placarded 40 gal each vs 27 for the 172’s.

I think the difference in the cabin width is 4". When you're short on space in the cabin, every little bit counts. I'm a big guy and I appreciate not having to rub shoulders and knees with the person next to me.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I found the 182RG (properly, it's an R182) to be a real pussycat. It takes very litle back pressure in a steep turn, and it has a Vso of 38 knots. It doesn't slam its nose down on the runway when you touch down, as other 182s did; I think Cessna moved the mains forward a bit when they designed the retractable version of the airplane. And unlike a lot of other Cessna singles, it doesn't seem to have any nosewheel shimmy isues. It's a nice airplane.

But not cheap if certain things break. Those MLG actuators tend to crack. The MLG pivots tend to crack. The squat switch is on the nosegear, which is still extended (they tend to stick) in the rollout and if the pilot goes to raise the flaps in the rollout and grabs the gear lever instead, that nosegear will fold up. The rubber seals in the hydraulics in the older airplanes need replacing periodically or they age and can fail, and a failed piston seal in any actuator means that the gear won't come down. Can't even pump it down manually. There are a couple of bulkheads in the tailcone that crack.

 

[chartbundle]

But not cheap if certain things break.

I have many, many R182 hours and really like the plane, but only as a renter, it's firmly in the camp of planes I wouldn't buy due to all the possible issues(not saying they're common) So I got a Mooney instead.

 

[hindsight2020]

Yeah the gear pivots in particular, and actuators as well, is what keep me away. In the Arrow, it came to about a savings of 65 hours flown over 5 years over the same mileage, at a net total penalty of 2.5 AMUs against the retract. Over 5 years, that's 500 bucks a year. That premium is a pittance for me, and I've been glad to pay it for the capability traded.

In the case of the 182RG, yeah that math goes all to hell compared to the FG 182 for me. Either one of those components is a 10-14K, maybe more, installed job per leg depending on who overhauls it and how much your local labor charges. That's an engine field overhaul over the two legs. I can't justify that kind of non-engine expense for a 0.3NM/gal savings. I just can't handle those swings (lol see what I did there? ).

Sweet performance though. That kind of ancillary cost model perhaps sucks less for for a revenue operation or 69-way partnership.

 

[Skyrys62]

Yeah the gear pivots in particular, and actuators as well, is what keep me away. In the Arrow, it came to about a savings of 65 hours flown over 5 years over the same mileage, at a net total penalty of 2.5 AMUs against the retract. Over 5 years, that's 500 bucks a year. That premium is a pittance for me, and I've been glad to pay it for the capability traded.

So to clarify (for me)....the cost of maintaining the gear on the Arrow cost $2500 over 5 years. However, saved you 65 hours of (hobbs) time in additional speed during that same 5 years?

If that is correct, does that include the additional insurance costs/annual swing checks/etc?

Just curious, cuz you know, we all want faster but not expensiver

 

[hindsight2020]

So to clarify (for me)....the cost of maintaining the gear on the Arrow cost $2500 over 5 years. However, saved you 65 hours of (hobbs) time in additional speed during that same 5 years?

If that is correct, does that include the additional insurance costs/annual swing checks/etc?

Just curious, cuz you know, we all want faster but not expensiver

No. The 2.5AMUs is the NET penalty over having owned the Arrow versus the Warrior. The gross gear cost is attained by taking that amount and adding the fuel cost of the hours I didn't have to fly in the Warrior because I was flying the Arrow. And that costs does include everything you mentioned: insurance delta, mx, added cost of gear swing in annual inspection. Everything. And that's not fair to the Arrow since in those fictional 65 hours I didn't fly, the warrior could have had mx problems of its own that I'm not accounting for, so I'm being gratuitously unfair against the arrow mx by accounting things with only fuel saved on the fictional warrior hours.

My gross total gear related expense comes around 1AMU a year over those 5 years, with the gear powerpack overhaul accounting for over 50% of that expense (2.2 AMU installed.... with scalping 90/hr labor due to region mind you). If you remove that then yeah it would have been 500 bucks a year, and the warrior would have cost me more money outright to operate than the Arrow. So I'm glad I did have that expense within the sampled time period in order to provide a realistic cost outlook. It also means that the longer I keep the Arrow, the more years that expense is amortized over, and the lower the yearly figure goes. The pump should be good for 7-8 years in non-training use.

But the answer to your question is: $980/yr amortized over 5 years. Insurance delta, mx delta, mx parts and labor outright on gear-related.

You're not gonna be able to match that ratio between a 182 and 182RG if you get a single cracked pivot or actuator. I know that, which is why I don't spring for a 182RG (if I were in the market for a 182 FG that is).

 

[benyflyguy]

While doing my IR work, my instructor and I are getting me my HiPo endorsement, so we did yesterday's lesson in the 182RG. I don't relish paying to fly that airplane but I can see why people like them! It was very gusty yesterday and the 172's were apparently having a rough go of it. In the 182 it was... occasionally bumpy. I also liked the climb performance and the whole "we got a bit sidetracked practicing maneuvers and made it 40 miles from the airport" cruise performance

Every time I've wondered "why would someone want a plane like that," and I've then flown that plane I have answered my question. And the answer to that with the 182 is "because I wanted an airplane and I wanted to go places in that airplane with people."

I love the club 182. No retract. It’s a hauler. I’d love to get a chance to fly a pponk version though!!!

 

[Jim Rosenow]

We have a R182....next-door hangar-mate has a PPonk. We out-run him between 10-15 knots going the same direction at the same time at standard cruise for each, FWIW. Gotta admit, the PPonk out-climbs us, tho!

Not so say the gear thing isn't an issue, but I know of a half dozen R182s in a close radius, and none have ever had an issue, knock on wood. One of them has spent it's entire life on grass. There are non-Cessna re-builds on the gear parts available now, also.

We love ours! YMMV, of course!

Jim

 

[CC268]

Have a hangar neighbor with a 182RG Turbo. Nicest one I've ever seen. He also has one of the coolest hangars on the field and keeps it clean enough to eat off the floors

He has traveled all over the world in that airplane with his wife.

 

[smbimage]

I recently purchased a very nice 182G. Am still completing my PPL, but wanted to finish my training on the aircraft I intended to fly. Was a surprising difference to the 172 I had been training on. Love that plane and its performance.