how big of a difference is it from a 172m to a 182m-q regarding Mx and repairs?

[midcap]

Ok, so let's say each plane has a PBI performed by a 3rd party and all major sqawks are fixed prior to purchase.

What are the nuances of the 182 that is going to be more Mx intensive than the 172?
Off the top of my head, the 182 has bladders, CS Prop, 2 more cylinders, extra fuel burn if you so desire to pour on the coals (I'm looking at the 182 for the extra useful load).

 

[Brad Z]

That's about it. Everything else depends on how it's equipped. Not all 182s have bladders, but even the ones that do are relatively mx free. Bladders also means not having to chase down leaks from integrated tanks that are having sealing problems, so that could be a wash.

 

[midcap]

That's about it. Everything else depends on how it's equipped. Not all 182s have bladders, but even the ones that do are relatively mx free. Bladders also means not having to chase down leaks from integrated tanks that are having sealing problems, so that could be a wash.

I did think about that also....I was just concerned over bladder creases and water getting trapped there. But I assume that's somthing that can be inspected.

I watched a video of the bladder replacement and it doesn't look all that complicated. I am not an A&P though so that is sort of a moot point.

 

[Pilawt]

Bent firewalls are something to look for with 182s. Yeah, other Cessnas get bent firewalls too, but combine the nose-heaviness and landing gear geometry of the 182 with ham-fisted technique, and it's not hard to bend one.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

I watched a video of the bladder replacement and it doesn't look all that complicated. I am not an A&P though so that is sort of a moot point.

Complicated? no. Physically exhausting? Yes. You don't need to be an A&P to do a bladder change, just need to be under the supervision of one. Most A&Ps would be more than happy to watch the airplane owner do the grunt work of a bladder change. The worst part is cleaning out the sticky abrasion tape residue that gets everywhere. You also need access to an A&P or reliable friend with long skinny arms to get all the tank clips in place. BTDT x2. If you don't get the clips on correctly, then you get to worry about bladder creases and water getting trapped.

 

[midcap]

Bent firewalls are something to look for with 182s. Yeah, other Cessnas get bent firewalls too, but combine the nose-heaviness and landing gear geometry of the 182 with ham-fisted technique, and it's not hard to bend one.

I would imagine that would show up in a PBI?

 

[midcap]

Complicated? no. Physically exhausting? Yes. You don't need to be an A&P to do a bladder change, just need to be under the supervision of one. Most A&Ps would be more than happy to watch the airplane owner do the grunt work of a bladder change. The worst part is cleaning out the sticky abrasion tape residue that gets everywhere. You also need access to an A&P or reliable friend with long skinny arms to get all the tank clips in place. BTDT x2. If you don't get the clips on correctly, then you get to worry about bladder creases and water getting trapped.

I did notice that, how long arms would be useful in the video.

I was at the local Mx shop the other day and it seems like they may be open to the owner assisting with stuff like that. I just need to talk to them about it.

Another thing I noticed is that according to the POH, it seems like a Q model has a slightly faster cruise than the earlier models.

I think I am going to get the book about buying 182s, it seems useful.

 

[Pilawt]

I would imagine that would show up in a PBI?

Maybe, maybe not. The PBI guy might think a slight wrinkle is ok; but the guy who does your annual two years later might not. In any event, check the logs to see if the firewall has ever been repaired -- it's not unusual among 182s.

Another thing I noticed is that according to the POH, it seems like a Q model has a slightly faster cruise than the earlier models.

Published cruise speeds were adjusted upwards a bit with the 1975 182P, because of the restyled, lower-drag wheel and brake fairings and a modification to the cowl flaps.

 

[Stewartb]

That's like comparing how high maintenance two women might be.

 

[midcap]

Maybe, maybe not. The PBI guy might think a slight wrinkle is ok; but the guy who does your annual two years later might not. In any event, check the logs to see if the firewall has ever been repaired -- it's not unusual among 182s.

Published cruise speeds were adjusted upwards a bit with the 1975 182P, because of the restyled, lower-drag wheel and brake fairings and a modification to the cowl flaps.

that makes sense, all A&Ps are different, that's good to know about the changes on the P model. thanks

 

[midcap]

That's like comparing how high maintenance two women might be.

lol....true.

The thing is that, as of right now, a 172 would work just fine, but in a few years, I would want to get somthing a little bigger, longer legs, more useful load, it kinda makes sense to rent a 172 then buy a 182 instead of buying a 172, selling it, then buying a 182.

 

[coloradobluesky]

On average, take the horsepower 230/160, which equals 1.44. That is the multiplier of the cost of a 182 vs 172. Although, having said that, you'd have to have a fleet of them to get that figure because of high variance specific plane to specific plane. You might look at the cost of rental difference. Call around and use that figure. The one I know about it is 150 per hour 182 vs 115 per hour 172 so that comes out 1.3 multiplier. All depends on maintenance costs etc and a bit of luck as well...

 

[midcap]

I don;t know of any 182s for rent locally, just the 172M that is 135hr wet, that's why I would rent that plane until I became proficient enough to buy a 182.

Hangar rental would be $250 a month for a communal set up.

 

[flyingron]

If your 172 was old enough it's not even any additional cylinders. The prop is an increase and there are other minor fiddly bits (some 182s have rudder trim, cowl flaps, etc.. that the 172s don't).

 

[Theboys]

Buy the 182. It's not much more difficult to fly and has lot of perks over 172. You can pull power back and get close to same fuel burn and speed as on the 172. Most 172s useful are in the 850 to 900 useful and the 182 is usually around 1100 or better. I flew a trip yesterday of about 1100nm. In a 172 I have to stop about 3 times for fuel and break so takes 12 hours or so. In a 182 you can probably make it with 1 stop and do it in 9 hrs. I did it in 6 hrs and I was tired of sitting in that amount of time.

 

[midcap]

If your 172 was old enough it's not even any additional cylinders. The prop is an increase and there are other minor fiddly bits (some 182s have rudder trim, cowl flaps, etc.. that the 172s don't).

So, in essence, you aren't looking at a huge difference in Mx?

 

[midcap]

Buy the 182. It's not much more difficult to fly and has lot of perks over 172. You can pull power back and get close to same fuel burn and speed as on the 172. Most 172s useful are in the 850 to 900 useful and the 182 is usually around 1100 or better. I flew a trip yesterday of about 1100nm. In a 172 I have to stop about 3 times for fuel and break so takes 12 hours or so. In a 182 you can probably make it with 1 stop and do it in 9 hrs. I did it in 6 hrs and I was tired of sitting in that amount of time.

That;s what I was thinking. I plan on doing mostly XC flying, so I would want somthing more suited for that.

As far as the plane being more difficult to fly, the theory of operation behind a CS prop seems pretty simple. I guess you just need to get used to the more power and speed.

 

[RyanB]

So, in essence, you aren't looking at a huge difference in Mx?

No significant increase

That;s what I was thinking. I plan on doing mostly XC flying, so I would want somthing more suited for that.

As far as the plane being more difficult to fly, the theory of operation behind a CS prop seems pretty simple. I guess you just need to get used to the more power and speed.

Go ahead and purchase the aircraft you want for long term. A 182 transition from a 172 won't take you very long, it's basically the same airplane with a CS and higher HP engine.

 

[somorris]

Hi Midcap.

Based on my experience, I would also recommend going ahead with the 182. The maintenance will be more, the insurance probably a little more, and it burns more fuel. That being said, if you are going to need the extra capacity in a few years, you will probably wind up losing money in the transaction if you buy a 172 first. Also, for XC flying the 182 will get you there faster. There is a nice one for sale on the AOPA forum if you are ready now. Good luck! Keep us posted.

 

[midcap]

Hi Midcap.

Based on my experience, I would also recommend going ahead with the 182. The maintenance will be more, the insurance probably a little more, and it burns more fuel. That being said, if you are going to need the extra capacity in a few years, you will probably wind up losing money in the transaction if you buy a 172 first. Also, for XC flying the 182 will get you there faster. There is a nice one for sale on the AOPA forum if you are ready now. Good luck! Keep us posted.

thanks for the advice....will do!

 

[JustinD]

Do the 182...though I may be biased

The 182 is a true going places 4 place airplane. I often toss me and 3 friends in my plane, some bags and plenty of extra reserve fuel for 2.5+ hour legs (your mileage may vary with individual pax weight!) we are plenty comfy, and it goes plenty fast enough! As for MX, I have friends with all different fixed gear singles, our MX cost is roughly the same giver or take a little on each on end. The slight increase you may notice is definitely worth the useability and flexibility of the 182. Plus as you said, if I feel like joy flying I can pull the power back for similar burn to a 172 at the same speed roughly

 

[3393RP]

Using a 1.44 multiplier as mentioned above to account for differences in ownership cost is a dubious methodology. I don't believe the disparity is nearly 50%.

 

[James331]

On average, take the horsepower 230/160, which equals 1.44. That is the multiplier of the cost of a 182 vs 172. Although, having said that, you'd have to have a fleet of them to get that figure because of high variance specific plane to specific plane. You might look at the cost of rental difference. Call around and use that figure. The one I know about it is 150 per hour 182 vs 115 per hour 172 so that comes out 1.3 multiplier. All depends on maintenance costs etc and a bit of luck as well...

Huh?

Where did you hear that?

Based on those numbers, I should be able to get a annual on a cub for nothing.


My 185 is double the HP of a 172, or my last taildragger, but I ain't paying near double for a annual.

Yeah I have a CS prop, but I DONT have electric flaps or half the other interior fluff.

It's a interesting theory, but I don't think it's based on any facts, I know a few lower HP, more complicated planes then mine that tend to have more expensive annuals.


To the OPs question, a older 182 to a older 172, not going to be a huge difference really, biggest factor would be fuel burn and a little more money if you swap out all the jugs, but mostly just additional costs on fuel and initial buy price.


If you're looking at 182s, you'd be well served to check out a 180, way better plane, similar or less expenses, faster, hauls a lot, just as happy on small 8.5s running circles around 182s, as it's on skis, floats or amphibs.

 

[flyingron]

The 172 is going to be more expensive to buy and typically hull insurance scales pretty linearly with the insured value. Other than that, there isn't a whole lot of difference, maybe a few more expensive things that could cost you if they go wrong, but the basic maintenance on a fixed gear single is going to be pretty much the same.

 

[midcap]

Huh?

Where did you hear that?

Based on those numbers, I should be able to get a annual on a cub for nothing.


My 185 is double the HP of a 172, or my last taildragger, but I ain't paying near double for a annual.

Yeah I have a CS prop, but I DONT have electric flaps or half the other interior fluff.

It's a interesting theory, but I don't think it's based on any facts, I know a few lower HP, more complicated planes then mine that tend to have more expensive annuals.


To the OPs question, a older 182 to a older 172, not going to be a huge difference really, biggest factor would be fuel burn and a little more money if you swap out all the jugs, but mostly just additional costs on fuel and initial buy price.


If you're looking at 182s, you'd be well served to check out a 180, way better plane, similar or less expenses, faster, hauls a lot, just as happy on small 8.5s running circles around 182s, as it's on skis, floats or amphibs.

that 180 is an interesting plane, I am just not a huge fan of tail draggers (blasphemy I know )

But they can come with floats.....

 

[midcap]

The 172 is going to be more expensive to buy and typically hull insurance scales pretty linearly with the insured value. Other than that, there isn't a whole lot of difference, maybe a few more expensive things that could cost you if they go wrong, but the basic maintenance on a fixed gear single is going to be pretty much the same.

that's why i am not trying to buy anything too expensive. My goal is to find a solid air frame around 60-70k. I can always add the swanky avionics later on especially if I don't have to upgrade the plane for a long time after I buy it.

 

[Tom-D]

I was at the local Mx shop the other day and it seems like they may be open to the owner assisting with stuff like that

If you are going to install the bags, don't blame the FBO for leaks.
getting the old bags out in repairable condition is the hardest part, because they are hard and don't like being folded up small enough to come out thru the holes provided. The new tanks are pliable and go in pretty easy, but when the installer doesn't know how to install they can be cut. or not lie flat.
This is one item that the novice might better pay to have done.

 

[Tom-D]

But they can come with floats.....

So can 182's

 

[Tom-D]

I would imagine that would show up in a PBI?

Not if it has been repaired properly. all you should see is the 337 if it is there. or log entry.

 

[Pilawt]

that 180 is an interesting plane, I am just not a huge fan of tail draggers (blasphemy I know )

Get a 1961 or earlier 182, and you have essentially a 180 with a nosewheel. Problem solved.

The 1962 182E was a largely redesigned airplane, with wider fuselage and rear windows, and pitch trim changed from the 180/185-style adjustable stabilizer (which I prefer) to a fixed stab with elevator trim tab.

 

[bnt83]

I don't like the instrument panels in the older ones.

I want a standard layout and have the ability to unscrew and remove them

 

[midcap]

If you are going to install the bags, don't blame the FBO for leaks.
getting the old bags out in repairable condition is the hardest part, because they are hard and don't like being folded up small enough to come out thru the holes provided. The new tanks are pliable and go in pretty easy, but when the installer doesn't know how to install they can be cut. or not lie flat.
This is one item that the novice might better pay to have done.

What is the price difference between repairing old bags and installing new ones? It seems like the old material would just crack again.

 

[midcap]

Get a 1961 or earlier 182, and you have essentially a 180 with a nosewheel. Problem solved.

The 1962 182E was a largely redesigned airplane, with wider fuselage and rear windows, and pitch trim changed from the 180/185-style adjustable stabilizer (which I prefer) to a fixed stab with elevator trim tab.

Interesting.

 

[James331]

So can 182's

Kinda sorta

They never made a factory floatplane 182, so no factory reinforcements, lift rings, float fittings, and most importantly no factory (as in through and through) corrosion proofing.

There is a reason the factory floatplanes command a premium.

 

[N747JB]

So, in essence, you aren't looking at a huge difference in Mx?

They are very similar airframes, so airframe costs will be similar with the exception of fuel bladders, which last 10- 20 years, cowl flaps which don't normally cause issues even though I had one come lose this year. The bigger cost differences will be fuel, insurance (+$2-300), a couple extra cylinders to care for and engine/prop reserves. Buy the 182, cheaper to buy the last plane first! Trading airplanes costs more than the price difference between the two: pre buys, maintenance catch up, travel costs etc.
My dad, my son and myself all learned to fly in 182's, it's not a big deal, a little more power and a little more fuel burn to go with a little more speed.

 

[bnt83]

I'd more concerned about the cost of Continental engine parts than anything. Last I knew there is no competition and all FAA/PMA parts are manufactured by the same parent company.

 

[midcap]

They are very similar airframes, so airframe costs will be similar with the exception of fuel bladders, which last 10- 20 years, cowl flaps which don't normally cause issues even though I had one come lose this year. The bigger cost differences will be fuel, insurance (+$2-300), a couple extra cylinders to care for and engine/prop reserves. Buy the 182, cheaper to buy the last plane first! Trading airplanes costs more than the price difference between the two: pre buys, maintenance catch up, travel costs etc.
My dad, my son and myself all learned to fly in 182's, it's not a big deal, a little more power and a little more fuel burn to go with a little more speed.

that was my line of thinking also.

If I bought a 182, I wouldn't need to get a bigger plane for probably 10-15 years.

What also appeals to me is that I can pull back power and cruise slow and efficient for those Friday after noon flights to maintain my skill level.

 

[midcap]

I'd more concerned about the cost of Continental engine parts than anything. Last I knew there is no competition and all FAA/PMA parts are manufactured by the same parent company.

Wouldn't that be a universal concern?

 

[N747JB]

that was my line of thinking also.

If I bought a 182, I wouldn't need to get a bigger plane for probably 10-15 years.

What also appeals to me is that I can pull back power and cruise slow and efficient for those Friday after noon flights to maintain my skill level.

The 182 does a lot of things well, it's not the best in many categories, but it's a great all around airplane

 

[midcap]

The 182 does a lot of things well, it's not the best in many categories, but it's a great all around airplane

I think that's what is appealing to me about it.

I really wanted a 150kt XC plane, but there would be trade offs, gear to maintain, less forgiving wing design, lower useful load. etc.

It seems like the 182 flies close enough to the 172 that it's a good airplane for a low time pilot to transition into. I would plan on using it to train IFR also.