Need Web site informatiom..Cessna

[corjulo]

As my club purchase plans move along a desire to compare the specs on a 182 and a 172 with a 180 engine have come up

Does anyone know of a web site that can provide this information quickly. Does anyone have any first hand knowledge of the benefits of a 180HP on a 172 vs a 182

 

[poadeleted3]

The 180 hp Skyhawk, with the gross weight increase included in the STC, will carry more than a thousand pounds. Even with a full 40 gallons it's a real four person plane, and still carrys a great load with the extended 50 gallon tanks. Not all the 180 hp engine swaps come with the gross weight increase, that's something you'll want to make sure of.

I've seen them hit 120 knots, with a 65% cruise of around 115. The Skylane is markedly faster, of course, around 130-135 knots.. The pre-SP Skyhawks just JUMP off the ground with two healthy sized adults and a kid on board. They don't have all the leather, soundproofing, etc, of the newer Skyhawks, so the plane is usually under gross unless you stuff it full. Put the 850 pounds or so that would have a 160 hp Skyhawk at gross in the plane, and we saw around 1000 fpm climbs. Very nice.

The Skylane is physically bigger and heavier. The cabin is roomier, and more comfy. It's faster, more powerful and more stable, IMHO. It will cost more to maintain and run, but the excess power could be nice now and then.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

As my club purchase plans move along a desire to compare the specs on a 182 and a 172 with a 180 engine have come up

Does anyone know of a web site that can provide this information quickly. Does anyone have any first hand knowledge of the benefits of a 180HP on a 172 vs a 182

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/airspec/index.php

If you pick a "172 Skyhawk '98" from the list, that will be a 172 with 180hp.

Troy

 

[Bob Bement]

The 182 is hard to beat. I have a 1959 model that I flew into Gastons, with four good sized people, full fuel and baggage and cameras and extras. We were not that heavy when we left Gastons, as we stoopped at BPK for fuel. Don't get me wrong the 180 makes a lot better plane out of a skyhawk, but you still can't beat the 182.

 

[Greebo]

Our club has a 76 C172M which has the 180HP STC from Penn Yann Aero.

The 180HP means, in addition to the increased useful load and cruise spelled out by Joe, a VERY respectable climb rate, and just a general overall feel of increased power on demand when you need it.

I love flying our club plane.

 

[corjulo]

Thanks

you guys are going to make me look so smart at the next meeting. Drinks for all

 

[Bob Bement]

When you think about the original 170 and early 172s had the cont. O-300 at 145 hp. a 180 hp engine gives you 35 hp more. I'll bet old Orville and Wilbur would of liked a 35 hp engine.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

As my club purchase plans move along a desire to compare the specs on a 182 and a 172 with a 180 engine have come up

Does anyone know of a web site that can provide this information quickly. Does anyone have any first hand knowledge of the benefits of a 180HP on a 172 vs a 182

Dan,

Despite the fact that they look similar, the 182 is NOT a big, fast 172. It flies like (and is) a completely different airplane.

The 180hp 172 is no slouch. You may also want to throw the 172XP in the mix (195hp, c/s prop 172 that flies a bit different too). Fly in all of the above if you can.

The 182 will be the fastest of the bunch and *might* carry the biggest load. I say might because some of the older ones, mine included, have a max landing weight. My gross is 2950 but max landing is 2800 so I can't load it to the brim and take a quick tour of the city - I've gotta burn 25 gallons (about 2 hours) off before I can land if I take off at gross. (Mine is a 1971 182N.)

The 182 is really a great traveling machine. It's got a nice wide cabin and I had no discomfort after being in it for 4+ hour legs on my current trip. (Of course, the Garmin 430 and S-Tec 2-axis autopilot with GPSS make for an awfully low workload in the air as well!) The higher airspeeds mean that headwinds aren't as big of a problem (same headwind is a lower percentage of the total) and it flies solid and stable. It also climbs quite nicely, I really like the way it takes off.

The 172 will be cheaper to operate (less fuel, cheaper engine o/h, fixed prop, and probably somewhat cheaper insurance) and easier to fly if the pilots in your club are new. It's a bit easier to land and doesn't require a high-performance endorsement.

Hope this helps...

 

[AirBaker]

I'd check www.risingup.com.

Personally I'd go with the 182. Even as a Beech owner, the 182 is probably one of the best overall 4 seaters in my mind. Good short field performance, decent range, easy to fly.

There are a ton of STCs out for the 182 for larger engines, STOL kits, etc. I think at 180hp or even with the Hawk XP, you're pretty much got all the horsepower you're going to to shoe horn in to that little guy. As mentioned earlier, the bigger, wider cabin isn't a bad feature either. Hop in the back of the 172 and then in the back of the 182 to try them out.

Despite what Kent says, think of it as a 'Big 172' when you get checked out in one. Just keep it trimmed up and it will fly very much like a 172. Only faster and heavier.

My vote 182!

 

[Ghery]

Our club has both a 180 hp C-172N and a C-182. I fly both, for different reasons.

Our flight planning has to assume full tanks as club rules require putting the plane away full. So, load carrying capacity comes down to cabin load with full tanks. We have the long range (50 gal useable in the 172, 75 gal useable in the 182) in both airplane. From my latest look at the W&B numbers, I can put 753 pounds in the cabin of the 172 and 627 pounds in the cabin of the 182. Again, full long range tanks in both. Not what one would expect, however.

On the other hand, the 182 is faster (135 KIAS cruise vs. 114 KIAS cruise) at cruise power settings. It handles turbulance better due to its higher wing loading. It is wider, so you're not crammed shoulder to shoulder with the person in the right seat, so it is more comfortable.

Bottom line, what are you going to use it for? Cross country cruising machine? 182. Shorter trips, training, proficiency flying? I'll take the 172. Both are nice, and with the exception of the controllable pitch prop and cowl flaps you can fly the 182 as a bigger, faster and heavier 172. I do a better job at approaching consistency in my landings in the 182, as well. Even with a lot fewer hours in it.

Now, if you want a reasonable retract - our PA-28R-200 will carry around 700 pounds in the cabin with full tanks and goes just a touch slower than the 182. If we had comfortable seat cushions in it I'd like it more than the 182, but it doesn't. Even so, I've got about 25 hours in 182s and 41 hours in the Arrow.

Either way, you'll have a good plane for the club. Have fun!