A 206 takes a standard sized suitcase, even big ones with the back seats removed. Holds dog cages etc. So there is an argument for that one.
how big of a difference is it from a 172m to a 182m-q regarding Mx and repairs?
- Thread starter midcap
- Start date
midcap
Pattern Altitude
That might be a plane I upgrade to in 10 years, but it's out of my budget right now.
From a practical perspective, the 182 won't cost that much more to maintain or insure. But if you want to take cross-country trips, the 172 is a mistake. It's not a cross-country airplane, it's a trainer. Do some people use it as a cross-country airplane? Sure. Some people also use their Prius to haul lumber, but that doesn't mean that's what it's designed for. The 182 isn't exactly a speed demon, but it's a much more capable airplane than the 172 (and it is designed as a cross-country platform). Personally, I wouldn't buy either as I want to go fast.
You note in your last post that you really wanted a 150kt XC plane. I can tell you right now, that desire isn't going to go away. When you're plodding along at 135kts in your 182, you're going to quickly start wishing you'd gone for something faster. I think you're overestimating the additional costs on a 150kt+ retract, too. Most of the people who moan about how much a retract costs to maintain and insure have never actually owned one. They've just "heard" how much more they cost. Sure, maintenance will cost a little more, but not that much more (I have a high performance retract, and I've been heavily involved in operating and maintaining a 172 for a flying club). Your fixed-rate annual inspection is probably a couple hundred dollars more, and there are some more parts that can break, but in the long run, the cost differential isn't going to be that significant. The Club I was in had a 172 and a 285hp Debonair. Maintenance-wise, the Debonair was actually less expensive and less problematic than the 172. We never spent our entire maintenance "allocation" on the Debonair. The 172? It was constantly over "budget" on maintenance. Of course, most of it comes down to buying a good specimen to start with and some is just pure dumb luck. There are some outrageously expensive parts on a 172, just like on a Bonanza or Mooney. Honestly, I'd wager that if you already want a 150kt+ XC airplane, you won't last that long in a 182. The transaction costs alone when you trade-up will eat any savings you may perceive.
In other words, you'd be well-advised to open your mind a bit, broaden your search, and figure out how to buy the (reasonable) plane you really want. A $60-70k budget will get you a LOT of airplane, don't squander it by artificially limiting yourself.
Edit: also, many/most retracts are going to have very good useful loads. Most Bonanzas and Debonairs will have the ability to carry 4 adults, bags and (nearly) full fuel. Mooneys are a bit more limited, but close. The odd-ball models, like the Super Viking, also have 1000lb+ useful loads (mine is like 1125).
You note in your last post that you really wanted a 150kt XC plane. I can tell you right now, that desire isn't going to go away. When you're plodding along at 135kts in your 182, you're going to quickly start wishing you'd gone for something faster. I think you're overestimating the additional costs on a 150kt+ retract, too. Most of the people who moan about how much a retract costs to maintain and insure have never actually owned one. They've just "heard" how much more they cost. Sure, maintenance will cost a little more, but not that much more (I have a high performance retract, and I've been heavily involved in operating and maintaining a 172 for a flying club). Your fixed-rate annual inspection is probably a couple hundred dollars more, and there are some more parts that can break, but in the long run, the cost differential isn't going to be that significant. The Club I was in had a 172 and a 285hp Debonair. Maintenance-wise, the Debonair was actually less expensive and less problematic than the 172. We never spent our entire maintenance "allocation" on the Debonair. The 172? It was constantly over "budget" on maintenance. Of course, most of it comes down to buying a good specimen to start with and some is just pure dumb luck. There are some outrageously expensive parts on a 172, just like on a Bonanza or Mooney. Honestly, I'd wager that if you already want a 150kt+ XC airplane, you won't last that long in a 182. The transaction costs alone when you trade-up will eat any savings you may perceive.
In other words, you'd be well-advised to open your mind a bit, broaden your search, and figure out how to buy the (reasonable) plane you really want. A $60-70k budget will get you a LOT of airplane, don't squander it by artificially limiting yourself.
Edit: also, many/most retracts are going to have very good useful loads. Most Bonanzas and Debonairs will have the ability to carry 4 adults, bags and (nearly) full fuel. Mooneys are a bit more limited, but close. The odd-ball models, like the Super Viking, also have 1000lb+ useful loads (mine is like 1125).
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
If it's in your budget, a 182 is an excellent choice. My only gripes about it are heaviness in pitch, and poor visibility (pre-1962 182s are not as bad in those categories). But even those gripes aren't so bad that they would keep me from having one.
I've thought of moving up to a 182 from my 180 hp 172. But I inherited this airplane from my late father, so it has a lot of sentimental value; and I've had it long enough now to know its virtues and its quirks. Besides, I'm retiring this year, and logically should be downsizing anyway. So I think I'll keep it.
I've thought of moving up to a 182 from my 180 hp 172. But I inherited this airplane from my late father, so it has a lot of sentimental value; and I've had it long enough now to know its virtues and its quirks. Besides, I'm retiring this year, and logically should be downsizing anyway. So I think I'll keep it.
midcap
Pattern Altitude
While I really like Comanche's, their speed and they are in my price range, I don't think I would have enough experience to handle somthing like that as a low time pilot. That's a big reason why I am looking at 182s.
Don't sell yourself short, and don't let a little more airplane scare you. As a CFI, I've encountered a lot of students who were apprehensive about moving into "bigger" airplanes. While a certain level of respect is required for the bigger/faster airplanes, they still operate on the same basic principles and they're nothing to shy away from provided you have the right attitude. Sure, you'll need a little more training in a Commanche vs. a 182. But with a good CFI and just a little dedication on your part, I think you'd be (pleasantly) surprised how quickly you can get up to speed on something like a Commanche. If you really like Commanches, I honestly think you'd be foolish to not seriously consider one (and at the very least go fly one with someone). I'm not here trying to "upsell" you, but I'm speaking from experience when I say you should get what you really want first (within reason, of course).
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
The 180's will always have a smaller, more cramped fuselage than the post-1962 182's.
If that is a consideration to the OP, then a 180 is not a "way better plane".
And, for "expenses", similar condition 180's will cost the OP more to purchase than a similar condition 182, in my experience.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
I don't fly fatties, so it's never been a issue
Same reason for amphibs or tundras, fat chicks can't jump
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
My thoughts exactly, buy new !
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
There are still a lot of 182s on floats. conversion is authorized by blue print data, by Field approval.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
You do realize you are dealing with a shorter TBO on the 0-470. ? seldom do the 0-470 cylinders go past 1200 hours with out maintenance. the starter adaptor is near $2500.00 for a overhauled unit, then there are the starter motors them selves, you will need two between over hauls, the 6 cylinder TCM electronic mag kits are approaching $3,000.
Yes, it will cost more to own the 182.
One more recommendation, midcap. Before you settle on a Comanche or Bonanza or Mooney, take you wife out to the airport and let her try them on. They are definitely nice airplanes and much faster than a C-182, but you have to climb on the wing to get in. That's okay, and a lot of people are okay with that, but I personally don't like it.
TheGolfPilot
Line Up and Wait
A non-turbo 182rg is only run you about $20 more a hour compared to a straight leg. Considering you'll be getting about 20 knots more that isn't an awful trade off. Same useful load, same wing design..
JustinD
Line Up and Wait
As for the speeds obviously YMMV but I rarely see less than 140ktas in my bird, fully loaded, running it by the book I can easily see 141-142 up at 8-11k. Solo I often see closer to 145-147. Now it's certainly not 150, but it's also not 135.
Maybe I just got a faster cleaner bird as my bird does faster than book speed for any given power configuration, but I think whoever says the 182 can only do 135 is selling it short.
The photo I've attached is me solo at 10k last week in the Florida heat. That's at 20 inches, 2300rpm about 12.4gph
Maybe I just got a faster cleaner bird as my bird does faster than book speed for any given power configuration, but I think whoever says the 182 can only do 135 is selling it short.
The photo I've attached is me solo at 10k last week in the Florida heat. That's at 20 inches, 2300rpm about 12.4gph
Attachments
Last edited:
midcap
Pattern Altitude
I don't fly fatties, so it's never been a issue
Same reason for amphibs or tundras, fat chicks can't jump
Lol, I'm the fat one
midcap
Pattern Altitude
1200 on an N/A engine, that's sad
midcap
Pattern Altitude
My local airport is having a fly in next month and we are going so she should be able to try some planes out.
She has only seen 182s models, a Comanche 250 and the 172m and a Navajo, she loves the Navajo (lol it's not even a consideration)
She feels the 172 is too small, likes the 182 but really likes the Comanche.
midcap
Pattern Altitude
My CFI told me the same thing, while we were looking at a Comanche, he said it's no big deal to learn how to fly the plane.
That is often the case for cylinder overhauls on O-470s that aren't flow regularly and don't have nickel cylinders. If your flying schedule is less regular and you have Ni cylinders, and keep up with oil changes, you will have fewer cylinder issues.
Of course, I'm getting screwed over by the new and completely bogus AD on ECi cylinders, so I get to replace them at 1200 hrs (in about a year).
TheGolfPilot
Line Up and Wait
We are talking older 182's the newer ones are cleaned up a bit. Yours has a g1000 I think it's safe to assume it is from this century, hence new. I've been in a good handful of 182Ps and 135 is about the fastest one I've seen while being ran with book cruise settings. 128-132 I would say is normal.
midcap
Pattern Altitude
That is often the case for cylinder overhauls on O-470s that aren't flow regularly and don't have nickel cylinders. If your flying schedule is less regular and you have Ni cylinders, and keep up with oil changes, you will have fewer cylinder issues.
Of course, I'm getting screwed over by the new and completely bogus AD on ECi cylinders, so I get to replace them at 1200 hrs (in about a year).
I would fly at least once a week. I am fortunate to have the ability to do that. So, the plane would be used. I guess that may make a difference.
saddletramp
Line Up and Wait
I'm presently teaching my wife to fly in our 182A. After 5 hours of dual I think she has power management down. She's a little apprehensive about all the power & torque on takeoff but she'll get that figured out soon.
I told her we'd rent a 150 or 172 sometime & they'd seem really easy to fly. It's a matter of what you're used to.
A 182 is pretty hard to beat for an overall versatile airplane.
I told her we'd rent a 150 or 172 sometime & they'd seem really easy to fly. It's a matter of what you're used to.
A 182 is pretty hard to beat for an overall versatile airplane.
midcap
Pattern Altitude
I always wondered how much pull to the left a big engine would have.........the little 140hp 172 I train in was surprising my first time.
At least now I am getting a good idea of the pro's and con's of the 182.
JustinD
Line Up and Wait
Good point, when I was in bed writing this I didn't even think how it's probably been cleaned up over the years, I was just thinking well they are all 230hp 6 cylinders
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
It's been a progressive clean-up process, little things here and there. 1975, for example, brought cleaner wheel and brake fairings and tighter cowl flaps. Compared to its predecessors, the 182T (2001) has redesigned, lower-drag wheel fairings; redesigned cowl with less cooling drag; and smaller landing gear strut steps. So yeah, a 182T with all the fairings intact is noticeably faster than an early '70s model.
All else being equal, a '60-'61 182C/D, with its narrower, fastback fuselage and smaller trimmable stabilizer, and lighter gross weight, is a skosh faster than some later models.
Theboys
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 835
- Location
- Lincoln Nebraska- Plant city florida
- Display Name
Display name:
Theboys
I bought a commanche while training for my private. It wasn't all that much harder to fly than my 172. Although after flying it my 172 sure got lot easier to fly!
TheGolfPilot
Line Up and Wait
Op, I think you got a good run down here.
If your primary goal is to travel a certain distance over the course of the year the 182 will be very cost effective, as will a 182rg. If your primary goal is to fly 2 hours a week with an occasional cross country, the 172 will probably end up being cheaper.
I fly a 60 mile jaunt with three different planes 2-3 times a week. My Hobbs times are pretty consistent round trip.
182rg 1.0 $165 per hour
182p 1.3 $145 per hour
172m 1.5 $105 per hour
Run the numbers and the differences are negligible. Those per hour costs are from a non profit club running each plane about 400 hours a year and the only thing not covered by that is monthly dues which cover the tie down fees.
If your primary goal is to travel a certain distance over the course of the year the 182 will be very cost effective, as will a 182rg. If your primary goal is to fly 2 hours a week with an occasional cross country, the 172 will probably end up being cheaper.
I fly a 60 mile jaunt with three different planes 2-3 times a week. My Hobbs times are pretty consistent round trip.
182rg 1.0 $165 per hour
182p 1.3 $145 per hour
172m 1.5 $105 per hour
Run the numbers and the differences are negligible. Those per hour costs are from a non profit club running each plane about 400 hours a year and the only thing not covered by that is monthly dues which cover the tie down fees.
midcap
Pattern Altitude
what you felt were the biggest learning curves with the Comanche vs the 172?
midcap
Pattern Altitude
Most of my flying will be XC between my three offices, that's why I will need somthing with some legs.
If you have retractable gear it is always in your head and required attention every landing. THAT makes a big difference. Just 20% faster and constant speed prop, not so much. Significantly higher stall speed matters too. Faster airplanes usually land faster too.
mtuomi
En-Route
172 running 400 hours per year, and only breaking even at 105 per hour? How outrageous are gas prices at your home field? I bet that's way higher than average ownership costs at 100 hours p.a...
TheGolfPilot
Line Up and Wait
That includes everything and our account typically grows enough where new avionics are frequently added. Blutooth audio panels and GTNs are the newest upgrades
rpadula
En-Route
How far apart are your offices?
mtuomi
En-Route
Ok, so it is for profit, but the profits are spent on upgrades. Then the prices make more sense.
midcap
Pattern Altitude
Let's say it's a triangle, each leg would be between 200-250nm.
Then as part of my due dillegence I need to fly to different properties and talk to the managers of those properties to make sure they are what they say they are.
midcap
Pattern Altitude
The faster landing speeds I assume just take getting used to I imagine.
The 172 with 20deg flaps just seems like it want's to sit happily at best glide speed. I guess that's why it's a trainer.
Theboys
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 835
- Location
- Lincoln Nebraska- Plant city florida
- Display Name
Display name:
Theboys
Landing speeds aren't all that different. I fly a Malibu quite a bit and my problem has always been to much speed on landing. I usually fly a instrument approach just to keep my speed down. If it's heavy or hot or some windshear I might land little faster. Flying the 205 to landing is basically like a 172 although 205 likes little power. When you put flaps down on 205 it go's into park status.
midcap
Pattern Altitude
I know I can feel when the 172 is trimmed just right with the flaps for best glide which is how I land the plane. I imagine most single engine planes are like that to a certain extent. Of course, I am always looking at the airspeed.
denverpilot
Tied Down
That's what the rudder trim is for. Crank it a little to the right for takeoff and you'll only need a little rudder.
Even if you don't do that, you get used to it and your foot moving with the throttle becomes totally automatic. Just hold the centerline.
It's not some screaming 500 hp radial or anything.
MD11Pilot
Line Up and Wait
Get the 182
Get a plane WITH the avionics that you are going to want already installed.
Let someone else pay the depreciation of the radios.
I just passed on an older 210 with a brand new GTN 750 because the owner wanted full price he paid for it. Sorry but it drops approximately 50% almost immediately according to my apprasial friend.
Find a good mechanic that won't listen to your drooling (don't fall in love and look over warts) and pay for a good pre-buy. There are so many planes out there. Be patient.
Get a plane WITH the avionics that you are going to want already installed.
Let someone else pay the depreciation of the radios.
I just passed on an older 210 with a brand new GTN 750 because the owner wanted full price he paid for it. Sorry but it drops approximately 50% almost immediately according to my apprasial friend.
Find a good mechanic that won't listen to your drooling (don't fall in love and look over warts) and pay for a good pre-buy. There are so many planes out there. Be patient.