If money was no object, help me create the perfect Cessna 182

M

MountainDude

Cleared for Takeoff
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
1,018
Display Name
Display name:
MountainDude
Please help me think about a perfect 182 for my needs. I am absolutely not interested in other planes.
- I want to be able to fly long cross-country within North and South America.
- I want to be able to fly into grass strips, but not anything short or rough
- It will have a BRS (this is not optional)
- I am happy to be on oxygen in mid to high teens
- It will carry 2 adults, so useful load is not critical
- IFR capable

If money is no object, which would you choose and why?
- Model and year? It has to be at least '64, as BRS cannot be installed on earlier models
- Engine? Stock, turbo, IO-550, PPonk?
- Prop? 2 or 3 blade? MT, McCauley, ...?
- Autopilot?
- Avionics?
- Which specific speed mods?
- STOL kit and/or VGs?
- Any other mods or accessories?
 
P model with Kenai Conversion. If you were doing rough stuff I’d say the King Katmai.

Texas Skyways 550 mod.

Then just fill it with electronics until your avionics guy says “uncle”.
 
A few thoughts.
- I think stock 182s can land and takeoff on grass without difficulty. I haven't tried myself yet.
- From 1972 and up, 182s have a bigger wing cuffs. Free basic STOL kit? Also, I think that year introduced tubular landing gear.
- Later models P, Q, R have 88-92 gals fuel. I think previous models 77 gals. Does the extra range do something for you?
- 182s can take pretty much any modern IFR navigator on the market. No concern there. Same with most popular retrofit avionics and autopilots.
- IO-550 brings fuel injection, which solves some problems, and has much higher ceiling compared to stock o-470. On forums, pponk owners seem very happy but there could be higher risk for carb ice. I don't know the details, though, as I'm not digging into this much.
- 2 blade prop supposed to be more efficient, definitely less costly, but 280HP+ or so must have 3-blade prob to handle the engine power.
- To my knowledge, the Turbo 182s have the oxygen system built-in and there was a factory option for the non-turbos. For others, I haven't looked into that topic yet, but I think an O2 bottle can just be secured somewhere inside the cabin. I will probably do that in the coming months.

My first piece of advice is to buy the newest decent 182 available you can afford and build from there. Even the original stock 182 can do anything you want (except BRS). If you checkout the channel backcountry182 on youtube, the owner operates in the US and in latin america in his 182 and he lands in the backcountry everywhere. In recent years, his 182 has been upgraded for maximum STOL performance but in the older videos he was doing amazing even without all the upgrades.

My second piece of advice is take full stock of airframe corrosion during the pre-buy inspection. IMO, corrosion should be expected, but don't want bad surprises and all you bought is a problem. I think we had a thread on that here just recently.

My final piece of advice is buy with an engine that has a few years left in it. That way can prioritize other upgrades, like avionics and airframe rejuvenation, and also learn to appreciate the O-470.
 
If it is just grass as the limitation, how about an RG? Especially a Turbo. Those are fast airplanes and fly the same, if not better.

Since money is no object, naturally you'd want G3x Touch and the GFC500. Shoot, even if money is an object those avionics are reasonable in airplane terms.

Can you retrofit TKS on a 182?

Of course, money being no object, you could always get the Turbine 182 aka Caravan. :p
 
Brad Z said:
P model with Kenai Conversion. If you were doing rough stuff I’d say the King Katmai.

Texas Skyways 550 mod.

Then just fill it with electronics until your avionics guy says “uncle”.
Click to expand...

I am worried about the ease of repair of the Kenai, plus I don't need a short field capability.
 
N1120A said:
If it is just grass as the limitation, how about an RG? Especially a Turbo. Those are fast airplanes and fly the same, if not better.

Since money is no object, naturally you'd want G3x Touch and the GFC500. Shoot, even if money is an object those avionics are reasonable in airplane terms.

Can you retrofit TKS on a 182?

Of course, money being no object, you could always get the Turbine 182 aka Caravan. :p
Click to expand...

You cannot put a BRS in the RG model. Otherwise, that is a great plane.
 
182R with supercharger and powerflow exhaust, extended baggage, O-550 conversion, Robertson STOL, Sportsman STOL, wingX extensions, VGs, reversible prop and Dynon 10" 2x, avidyne 550, L3 ADS-B, AoA probe, and your parachute.
 
Turbo, and supercharger add lots of complexity and heat and weight. I run a Ponk 520, lots of power, good fuel burn, and its simple. I like simple.
 
MountainDude said:
I am worried about the ease of repair of the Kenai, plus I don't need a short field capability.
Click to expand...
You’re flying to South America and the Caribbean. You’ll be glad you have short field capability.

More importantly, the slow 35 it stall speed obviates the need for a parachute for a loss of power, since you can control the plane, point it into the wind, and pick your touchdown point. Under a parachute, you’re going to hit the ground faster than without a parachute if the winds are greater than 17 knots, without any ability to direct the plane.
 
wheaties said:
182R with supercharger and powerflow exhaust, extended baggage, O-550 conversion, Robertson STOL, Sportsman STOL, wingX extensions, VGs, reversible prop and Dynon 10" 2x, avidyne 550, L3 ADS-B, AoA probe, and your parachute.
Click to expand...
You are suggesting a lot of STOL mods, but I don't plan to fly into short runways. Is there another reason?
 
TheFB said:
Wow, nine hours on POA with money being no object. Not a single comment about having the wings moved lower....
Click to expand...
That's not an option. We have to stick with 182
 
MountainDude said:
You are suggesting a lot of STOL mods, but I don't plan to fly into short runways. Is there another reason?
Click to expand...
Then lose the Robertson. The wingX give better climb and more performance up high. The sportsman gives safety. The reverse prop is just fun.
 
If money is no object, then a brand new 182 is your best choice. It’ll do what you have on your list.

MountainDude said:
I am worried about the ease of repair of the Kenai, plus I don't need a short field capability.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to worry about repair. Like what? Unless you crash the thing.

I bought mine not for the short field capability, but rather for safety. The conversion gives me a lot of extra margin for pilot error at slower speeds. Plus, since I don’t have BRS, any off-field landing/contact with buildings, trees, etc should occur below 35-40 kts. Plus, the canard support structure acts like a roll-bar. I updated my seat belts with BAS retractable 4 pts for additional safety.
 
wheaties said:
Then lose the Robertson. The wingX give better climb and more performance up high. The sportsman gives safety. The reverse prop is just fun.
Click to expand...

Reverse prop sounds like a naghtmare if it breaks in a small town in another country.
I heard Sportsman was not needed for '72 models and newer, as Cessna implemented something like it. Not sure though.
 
MountainDude said:
Reverse prop sounds like a naghtmare if it breaks in a small town in another country.
I heard Sportsman was not needed for '72 models and newer, as Cessna implemented something like it. Not sure though.
Click to expand...
That's Horton. You don't change the wing cuff with a Horton for 182P+, the sportsman will add quite a bit more cuff.

I forgot, I'd also add the belly pod. Great for CG (as what I'm suggesting moves it forward more.)
 
MountainDude said:
Please help me think about a perfect 182 for my needs. I am absolutely not interested in other planes.
- I want to be able to fly long cross-country within North and South America.
- I want to be able to fly into grass strips, but not anything short or rough
- It will have a BRS (this is not optional)
- I am happy to be on oxygen in mid to high teens
- It will carry 2 adults, so useful load is not critical
- IFR capable

If money is no object, which would you choose and why?
- Model and year? It has to be at least '64, as BRS cannot be installed on earlier models
- Engine? Stock, turbo, IO-550, PPonk?
- Prop? 2 or 3 blade? MT, McCauley, ...?
- Autopilot?
- Avionics?
- Which specific speed mods?
- STOL kit and/or VGs?
- Any other mods or accessories?
Click to expand...

Money no object? 2020 T182T(or any T182T year). Forget the mods on the old ones. Nice, yes, but a stock T182T is everything you need. You said nothing short or rough so don’t need the STOL mods.

The restart 182 with the turbo lycoming is superior than the old Connie. New ones have the G1000 avionics suite. Decent speed, our company T182T gets 150 kts over the ground, no wind. Over 10k feet even more. Built in O2. I have to get into boarderline crop duster strips for work and it handles them all with ease.

Downside is that it’s still a turbo and they like to fail. We got 1500 hrs out of ours the first go -round. But it doesn’t sound like money is an issue in your case.

If you’re looking for a project, then sure, get a 70s model and mod the hell out of it. Check out a BOSS 182, engine by Lycon. Absolute BEAST. https://www.wipaire.com/boss-182-lycoming-io-580-engine-conversion-by-wipaire/
 
N1120A said:
I had to resist, trust me lol

Really?

Out of curiosity, why?
Click to expand...

Major reasons:
- It's a high wing and I can open the window, so I can enjoy and photograph the scenery
- I can add the BRS, so I can go fly to Alaska and Patagonia
- Everyone knows how to fix it, and repairs dont take long or cost too much
- Very docile at slow speeds and will not punish you if you make a mistake
Other reasons:
- Super comfy
- Tons of baggage space
- Fixed gear
- Very stable
- Easy in/out
- Protected from the Sun and rain
- Long range
- Climbs to 18,000 without a problem
- Carries a lot
etc.
 
1_n93pc.JPG


Will go in to and out of places a 182 won't be able to and will carry everything you need, and don't need.....:yesnod:
 
Geosync said:
Money no object? 2020 T182T(or any T182T year). Forget the mods on the old ones. Nice, yes, but a stock T182T is everything you need. You said nothing short or rough so don’t need the STOL mods.

The restart 182 with the turbo lycoming is superior than the old Connie. New ones have the G1000 avionics suite. Decent speed, our company T182T gets 150 kts over the ground, no wind. Over 10k feet even more. Built in O2. I have to get into boarderline crop duster strips for work and it handles them all with ease.

Downside is that it’s still a turbo and they like to fail. We got 1500 hrs out of ours the first go -round. But it doesn’t sound like money is an issue in your case.

If you’re looking for a project, then sure, get a 70s model and mod the hell out of it. Check out a BOSS 182, engine by Lycon. Absolute BEAST. https://www.wipaire.com/boss-182-lycoming-io-580-engine-conversion-by-wipaire/
Click to expand...

I like this idea, but have 3 concerns about the newer models:
1. how serviceable is the turbo if it fails in a small town in Argentina?
2. I read lots of complaints about the G1000 (it's somehow locked up and cannot be changed)
3. don't they use more fuel, which limits the range, relative to P and Q models?
 
Well, if it fails you just order a new one, and engine. No more difficult to service than any other engine component. You can go with a Pre-2005 T182T and get the 6 pack. That’s what we have(2004). I upgraded it to G5s, GTN 750, original KAP 140 auto pilot. Very good setup.

Yes it burns more fuel, mainly to keep the turbo happy, but it is faster too, about 15kts faster than a P/Q. You can also just pull back on the power and get better fuel burn and range.
 
Brad Z said:
More importantly, the slow 35 it stall speed obviates the need for a parachute for a loss of power, since you can control the plane, point it into the wind, and pick your touchdown point. Under a parachute, you’re going to hit the ground faster than without a parachute if the winds are greater than 17 knots, without any ability to direct the plane.
Click to expand...

Diamond uses that to market the the DA40. The demo pilot I flew with a few years ago claimed the DA40 in a full coordinated stall comes down at a rate of descent less than that of an SR22 under a chute. It makes sense that a 182 with full flaps might be similar. Just curious, is the BRS for you or the spouse?

Oh, and if money is no object, you should buy a T206H. Plenty of relatively new ones on the market with TKS, tip tanks, factory O2, and lots of avionics goodies. Stall speed with the huge flaps is a brisk walk. Take the back seats out and fly it like a stretch 182.
 
Wants to fly CONUS to Argentina, but turbo cost is an object.
3d4aa4d4d8f5e633e4bd277f1e26d773014e3c37r1-512-498v2_hq.jpg



Snark aside, my vote is any 182 with a Lycoming bolted to it. The rest is frankly immaterial given this unicorn mission set. Good luck. Oh an take lots a' pictures, so those of us with boat anchors *cough* I mean kids can live vicariously through you. *nervously checks six for wife screen-sniping* :D
Cheers!
 
TheFB said:
Wow, nine hours on POA with money being no object. Not a single comment about having the wings moved lower....
Click to expand...

I started to go there but as a newbie here I'd thought it better to follow the leader ...:p
 
Brad Z said:
More importantly, the slow 35 it stall speed obviates the need for a parachute for a loss of power, since you can control the plane, point it into the wind, and pick your touchdown point
Click to expand...
How many successful power out situations were able to pull that off? A lot has to go right, namely an assumption of the pilot's skill. A BRS has many more uses outside of power failure, it was originally added as a result of a midair collision and has come in handy with pilot incapacitation as well as a host of other use cases

Cervieres said:
The demo pilot I flew with a few years ago claimed the DA40 in a full coordinated stall comes down at a rate of descent less than that of an SR22 under a chute
Click to expand...
See above, but what about forward rate of speed? I'd take coming straight down over and then walking away over a slightly slower descent rate but a perfectly coordinated 35 knot stall held into a building

The OP said he wants one as a non negotiable

To the OP, I would agree on a 182P as a baseline. Ditch factory new and instead outfit the avionics to your liking
 
Tantalum said:
How many successful power out situations were able to pull that off? A lot has to go right, namely an assumption of the pilot's skill. A BRS has many more uses outside of power failure, it was originally added as a result of a midair collision and has come in handy with pilot incapacitation as well as a host of other use cases


See above, but what about forward rate of speed? I'd take coming straight down over and then walking away over a slightly slower descent rate but a perfectly coordinated 35 knot stall held into a building
Click to expand...

Wasn’t claiming equivalence, just that a forced landing without power in some aircraft could be preferable to coming down under a parachute. It was a marketing claim made by Diamond, not my personal dogma. Of course a chute would be safer in the setting of a midair collision or spatial disorientation.
 
Cervieres said:
Wasn’t claiming equivalence, just that a forced landing without power in some aircraft could be preferable to coming down under a parachute. It was a marketing claim made by Diamond, not my personal dogma. Of course a chute would be safer in the setting of a midair collision or spatial disorientation.
Click to expand...
Incidentally I believe that is the AN-2 (big slow Soviet biplane) claim that its stall speed is something ridiculous like 30 KM/H.. so a "crash" is generally a non event
 
Tantalum said:
Incidentally I believe that is the AN-2 (big slow Soviet biplane) claim that its stall speed is something ridiculous like 30 KM/H.. so a "crash" is generally a non event
Click to expand...

Not to derail the post, but if GA pilots were really concerned about safety, we’d be talking more about inertial reel seatbelts, 5 point harnesses, AmSafe belts, 26g seats, etc. The chute makes for a fun argument, but has had a pretty negligible effect on fatal accident rates depending on how the numbers are processed. Closed head injury and fire in an otherwise survivable crash are much more common scenarios.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I keep reading the title of this thread and keep thinking to myself, "if money were no object, it sure as hell wouldn't be a 182." ;)
Click to expand...

What would it be? PC6 might do the job.
 
Timbeck2 said:
A G-5 flown by my own private crew with a Swedish bikini model fanning me with a big feather while another one feeds me grapes.
Click to expand...
What a waste of Swedish bikini models.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top