Is there anyway to visually distinguish a Cessna 172 and 182?

The tail is the easiest way to me, dead giveaway. Once you start obsessing about certain models, you start being able to tell the difference between model years.
 
3 in the green said:
Once you start obsessing about certain models, you start being able to tell the difference between model years.
Click to expand...
You say that like it's a bad thing ...

:cool:

But all of the evolving detail differences and aesthetics aside, still the most reliable "tell" is this: If it's a four-seat, strutted high-wing, fixed-tri-gear Cessna with the rudder behind the end of the tailcone, it's a 172 or one of its derivatives. If the rudder is on top of the tailcone, it's a 182.
 
Last edited:
182 has a tail cone below the rudder, a 172 does not. 182 has Constant speed prop. 172 has fixed prop
 
This has been an interesting thread. Being that I've been an airplane nut since the mid 60's there have been several things pointed out by posters that I've never noticed.

I'm still pretty sure I have a 182 though.
 
Fly it - start a turn - look out the window - if the horizon moves very, very slooowly, it's a 182.
 
flight2000 said:
And this whole time I thought it was as simple as having Skylane versus Skyhawk written on the tail.... :rollercoaster: :stirpot: :cheers:
Click to expand...
Unless it says "Civil Air Patrol" on the tail. I've been conditioned that they are all 182s or 206s, 'cause that's all CAWG has. But a visitor from Region showed up earlier this week in an ORWG 172S, and yes, it fooled me.

I guess a G1000 172 seems like a silly choice for a search plane to me, as you would be hard pressed to squeeze a crew of two in one.
 
MAKG1 said:
Unless it says "Civil Air Patrol" on the tail. I've been conditioned that they are all 182s or 206s, 'cause that's all CAWG has. But a visitor from Region showed up earlier this week in an ORWG 172S, and yes, it fooled me.

I guess a G1000 172 seems like a silly choice for a search plane to me, as you would be hard pressed to squeeze a crew of two in one.
Click to expand...

The CAP 172Ps with the 180hp upgrade will haul 4 adults and full fuel. The G1000SPs, no way. Hard pressed to get a 3 man crew in those...
 
TheRealMarkMessier said:
So basically the Cessna 172 looks like it could kick your @ss and the 182 and the Cessna 182 will come over and do it!

(excuse my french but it's how my old Boss compared the 98-02 Camaro and Trans Am. For the record, the Trans Am was the one that would come over and do it).
Click to expand...

That was pretty much the case for anything Pontiac vs Chevy. Trans Am > Camaro, Grand Prix > Monte Carlo, GTO > Chevelle
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Lets do bizjets next. For the life of me, I cannot tell them apart.
Click to expand...

Your garden variety Falcon comes in the following sizes:
Falcon 10
Falcon 20
Falcon 50
Falcon 900
Falcon 2000
Falcon 7X
Falcon 8X

Falcon 10:
img.axd


Falcon 20:
img.axd


Take the Falcon 20's fuselage and stretch it, add a 3rd engine on the tail and you get the Falcon 50.

Falcon 50:
img.axd


The bigger version of the Falcon 50 is the Falcon 900, they look pretty similar but the 900 is way fatter and has more windows:

Falcon 900:
img.axd


From there, take an engine off the Falcon 900 and you get a Falcon 2000.

Falcon 2000:
img.axd


A bigger version of the 900 is the 7X and further 8X:

7X:
img.axd


8X:
img.axd
 
The swept vertical stabilizer is the first give away. After that, I look at the cowling. Most fixed gear 172s have no cowl flaps. The 172 cowling also has a joggle in the line of fasteners where it attached to the firewall.
 
Love the rudder/tailcone discriminator!
A trick I use: if there's a step on the strut or fuselage for climbing up on the wing, it's a C172 variant. No step? C182 variant.
Is this reliable and accurate?
 
G-Man said:
...A trick I use: if there's a step on the strut or fuselage for climbing up on the wing, it's a C172 variant. No step? C182 variant.
Is this reliable and accurate?
Click to expand...
Nope. All three of the 182s I have flown recently have them, and Googling 182 photos shows many that do.
 
The increased stream of dollar signs coming out the exhaust is a dead giveaway for a 182.
But you need special glasses to see them. Typically myopic and rose colored.
 
Expand your horizons. There are way more exciting airplanes out there to obsess over than the 172/182. ;)
 
Tie-down rings retract on 182's and they are fixed in 172's. I wonder what happens if you have a retractable tie-down ring failure :eek:.
 
There's no difference. It's simply a marketing ploy. Just like a Ford Crown Vic and a Lincoln Town Car. Same product, different price point. Don't let them fool you. #russians #staywoke
 
Cowl flaps and a bigger exhaust on the 182.
 
Bobanna said:
Are we recalling the Yenko (427) chevelles?
Click to expand...

The various Yenko cars weren't factory-production vehicles, so I don't think that counts. In any case, I was speaking towards appearance of the Pontiac models versus their Chevy counterpart, not performance. Pontiac usually added some sportier trim or body work over the Chevrolet models.

Bobanna said:
Or, the LS-6 (454) Heavy Chevy?
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the Heavy Chevy didn't have a 454 option, they were geared at meeting a low-cost demographic. The LS-6 was a monster, but is pretty a rare find, which is why they are 6-figure cars at auctions today.
 
Sit in it. If you can't see out of it, it's a 182. . . Or, fly it. If it handles like a pig, it's a 182.
 
G-Man said:
Love the rudder/tailcone discriminator!
A trick I use: if there's a step on the strut or fuselage for climbing up on the wing, it's a C172 variant. No step? C182 variant.
Is this reliable and accurate?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. One of the 172s I fly (an N model) lacks the step on the fuselage. Frankly, I don't remember if it has one on the strut. Wouldn't matter, it doesn't have a hand hold on the fuselage to go with it.
 
You know sometimes I wonder what "English proficient" really means...

Come on people, read before you post.

Cowl flap? No. My 182 doesn't have them, some 172s do.

Constant speed prop? No. Some 172s have them.

There's an exception to almost every rule.

The one thing I can't find an exception to (as was pointed out in post #7 by @Pilawt) is the rudder/tailcone. 182s have tailcones and the rudder sits atop. 172s don't, the rudder wraps behind the fuselage.


...
 
Last edited:
There's also taking a look at the data plate. :D
 
Now if I could only figure out how to tell a 177 from a 172. . . .
 
Ghery said:
Not necessarily. One of the 172s I fly (an N model) lacks the step on the fuselage. Frankly, I don't remember if it has one on the strut. Wouldn't matter, it doesn't have a hand hold on the fuselage to go with it.
Click to expand...
The steps/handles were an extra-cost option. My '78 172N doesn't have them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top