On the fence....172 or 182

Never heard of anyone selling their Skylane so they could purchase a Skyhawk.
 
Our club has both. I've flown both. There are plusses and minuses to both.

The 172 I'm describing is a 172N with the Penn Yan 180 conversion. And, long range tanks (50 gal usable).

With full tanks (club rules, you must put it away full for the next pilot) I can put about 755 pounds in the cabin (the 180 hp conversion limits the flaps to 30 degrees and bumps the max gross to 2550 pounds). At normal cruise power there's about 6 hours of fuel on board. That's twice the maximum time I've flown it without landing somewhere. Keep in mind the 755 pounds in the cabin will full long range tanks.

With full tanks (75 gallons) I can put about 630 pounds in the cabin of the 182P. There's about 6 hours of fuel on board, as well. Again, 3 hours has been my maximum time before landing.

Cabin load - advantage 172 (180 hp) when the tanks are full.

Cabin (passenger comfort) size - advantage 182 (hands down)

Pilot comfort - advantage 182 (hands down)

Speed (a relative term, we're talking high wing Cessnas here) - advantage 182

You can trade fuel for cabin load.

If I were in the market today and could afford either, I'd get the 182. As noted previously, you never hear of anyone selling a 182 to buy a 172. When my wife and I are going somewhere the only advantage the club's 172N has over our 182P is that there is a GNS 430W in the panel of the 172 and the 182 is /A. The 430W will spoil you when flying IFR, but the /A 182 will get you there, too. I fly the 172 as it is cheaper, but the 182 is far more comfortable, if for no other reason than you are not jammed shoulder to shoulder with the other person up front. I haven't been in the back seat of a 172 in about 35 years, but I can say that the back seat of a 182 is just fine (and I'm 6'2").

Get the 182. You won't be disappointed.
 
A fellow at my field recently bought a very nice 180hp Cardinal 177B fixed gear and it seems to be a decent compromise between a 172 and a 182. The large doors and extra shoulder room in the front seats is very nice. I've watched him take off with four aboard and it gets off the ground and climbs surprisingly well. I don't know what it cruises at, but it's gotta be faster than a 172.
 
I recall an acquaintance asking whether he should get the 180 hp Cardinal or the Cherokee 180. Several voices answered him simultaneously saying "get the Skylane".
 
Neal Howard said:
A fellow at my field recently bought a very nice 180hp Cardinal 177B fixed gear and it seems to be a decent compromise between a 172 and a 182. The large doors and extra shoulder room in the front seats is very nice. I've watched him take off with four aboard and it gets off the ground and climbs surprisingly well. I don't know what it cruises at, but it's gotta be faster than a 172.
Click to expand...


I'd care to argue the 177B is more expensive to operate. Most have the bendx dual mag which also has a pretty expensive ignition harness, all have a $1000 (with labor) in engine hoses and two fuel pumps. An O470 powered 182 is the way to go in performance and cost.

Most of the 177s have ARC or some other very old radios.

The 177B and the 182s both have a good rudder trim, the 172's don't.

As far as I know, all 172's have the dinky yoke shaft where the later 182's and all the 177 have the larger shaft of the 200 series. They feel much more substantial and better built.
 
Last edited:
I don't see capital dollars being mentioned. Is this not an issue? If you ask whether I'd like a Kia or a Mercedes, I'd be glad to tell you the better decision is the Mercedes. (edit: not suggesting a kia is equal to a 172, sarcasm)

This is only me, however, if I were trying to decide between the two, the dollars would be the second priority to mission.

Mission you defined
Money you haven't.

How about an honest assessment of the capital expense, but apples to apples. Not some "sell vs advertised" BS Jargon. How much more is a 182 truly going to cost above the 172 given the same parameters of Airframe Time, Engine Time, Avionics, etc..

As with anything else in life, it comes down to money. If its not about money, buy a CJ4.
 
Last edited:
Neal Howard said:
A fellow at my field recently bought a very nice 180hp Cardinal 177B fixed gear and it seems to be a decent compromise between a 172 and a 182.
Click to expand...

That's what I was going to suggest. Or maybe a 177RG with the 200 HP engine. Lower fuel burn than a 182, and not significantly lower speed or useful load.

An example from my own POH , book speed (yeah, I know) for my 177B (FG) at 2400 RPM, 22" (74% BHP) at 8000 ft pressure altitude, standard temperature is 127 KTAS with fuel burn of 9.9 GPH. I am not sure how that compares to a 172. She carries 49 gallons useful fuel. Max gross weight is 2500, with an empty weight of 1612.80, for 887.2 useful load. Fill the tanks, and that is 593.2 for passengers and baggage. Not sure if this is good enough for your mission, but at least these are some specifics to consider.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
That's what I was going to suggest. Or maybe a 177RG with the 200 HP engine. Lower fuel burn than a 182, and not significantly lower speed or useful load.

An example from my own POH , book speed (yeah, I know) for my 177B (FG) at 2400 RPM, 22" (74% BHP) at 8000 ft pressure altitude, standard temperature is 127 KTAS with fuel burn of 9.9 GPH. I am not sure how that compares to a 172. She carrieds49 gallons useful fuel. Max gross weight is 2500, with an empty weight of 1612.80, for 887.2 useful load. Fill the tanks, and that is 593.2 for passengers and baggage. Not sure if this is good enough for your mission, but at least these are some specifics to consider.
Click to expand...


Very general comment so take it FWIW, but you can buy a much nicer 182 for equal or less money than a 177RG and probably a 177B. Plus the O470 powered 182 is much simpler under the hood than either of those Cardinals.

Cardinals tend to be over priced on the surface, overly complex under the hood (compared to Continental powered 172/182) and most of them I see for sale are poorly equipped. Oh and HEAVY on the scale with nothing in them.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
Very general comment so take it FWIW, but you can buy a much nicer 182 for equal or less money than a 177RG and probably a 177B. Plus the O470 powered 182 is much simpler under the hood than either of those Cardinals.

Cardinals tend to be over priced on the surface, overly complex under the hood (compared to Continental powered 172/182) and most of them I see for sale are poorly equipped. Oh and HEAVY on the scale with nothing in them.
Click to expand...

I certainly understand where you are coming from, except for maybe the claim about complex under the hood. But that may be due to my own lack of exposure. In my case, I was able to by in to 177B at roughly 1/2 of what it would have cost for a comparably aged, conditioned and equiped 182. It may be that the deal I found was particularly good on the 177B, but it all depends of the particulars of your options at any give time.

I will say the cabin width and visibility is really cool in the 177B.
 
Hi Unit74.

A friend of mine had a 182 for awhile. He told me he burned 14gph no matter what he did. The 172 we had ran between 9 and 10 gph. The 182 has the CS prop and the extra two cylinders to keep up with. Your insurance will probably run a little more in a 182, but if you can afford the extra fuel and maintenance, I think you will be happier with the 182. What you will probably find is that the trips you envision will be considerably less in actuality. That happens a lot. There is a very nice 182 here in West Memphis that is for sale because the guys in the partnership just aren't flying it. One of them told me last year it flew 26 hours, and 16 of those were his hours getting checked out to join the partnership. This is sad for the airplane, but there are a lot of airplanes of that capability and more sitting out in the hangars most of the time. Life gets in the way and the time you have to "go places" (especially if you have kids in various activities) is more limited than you might think. I have flown a 182 some, and they are really nice.

I went the opposite way -- traded a C-172 for a C-150 though, so not sure my input is worth a whole lot :). Sometimes I long for more speed and weight, but I am a pragmatist and most of my flying is just me, so I can just sit in the seat a little longer and log more hours. Cruising along at less than 6 gph is nice. I don't really think much about how much fuel I am burning, but if I were burning 14 gph (80 bucks or so) I might.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
I find it interesting that you mentioned time building. Are you looking to go to the airlines or something like that? If so, the 172 is the way to go. Otherwise, look at a 182.
Click to expand...


I plan on obtaining my commercial. With what I plan on flying, I have people and light cargo I can be compensated for from work.
 
Mike Boehler said:
I don't see capital dollars being mentioned. Is this not an issue? If you ask whether I'd like a Kia or a Mercedes, I'd be glad to tell you the better decision is the Mercedes. (edit: not suggesting a kia is equal to a 172, sarcasm)

This is only me, however, if I were trying to decide between the two, the dollars would be the second priority to mission.

Mission you defined
Money you haven't.

How about an honest assessment of the capital expense, but apples to apples. Not some "sell vs advertised" BS Jargon. How much more is a 182 truly going to cost above the 172 given the same parameters of Airframe Time, Engine Time, Avionics, etc..

As with anything else in life, it comes down to money. If its not about money, buy a CJ4.
Click to expand...


I'm looking at sub 100k plane with about 13k in total expenses per year for my limits.

That's a good number that has a 15 % reserve in in it for the awe crap factor.
 
This board has confirmed what I have been leaning on.... Thank you.


I have a line on a 69 plane local. Has a 430 non-waas, king equip, 8 paint, 7 interior cloth on a three blade prop. 700 hours smoh on both. Plane is clean and per a friend who has flown it for the owner, a great trimming bird.

Any reason I should hold out for say a P or Q model instead? Looked at some R's but dollars to doughnuts, I can fly a better equipped plane for less albeit, they have bladders.

Seems to be a lynch pin in my quest for a plane; buy older with lots of upgrades or buy newer with a wet wing and steam gauges for the most part.....

What say the experienced ones?
 
If you wanna upgrade that 430 to WAAS, it aint going to be cheap :) I just paid that bill.
 
For under $100k you can get a pretty sweet well equipped 182. I trained in a 172 and though that was the way I was gonna go...then I started looking at my mission closely. I thought it would be $100 hamburger runs and occasional weekend trips with friends...and that is when I decided to go with the 182 so I could carry a few grown bodies AND bags.

I bought the 182 and now in reality, I fly a LOT of 200-300nm weekend trips with friends and travel a LOT for work and personal as transportation...often close to gross, and not so much $100 hamburger runs.

I looked for a P or better with autopilot as a starting point for me...also on the P&Q you can get a STC that increases the Gross Takeoff weight 150lbs via just a paperwork push.

The 182 opened up a LOT of opportunities that I wasn't expecting. Glad I didn't go with the 172...great plane, but the 182 is a nice step up!

I followed a great piece of advice that I got on this board...buy once, cry once and buy your last airplane first!
 
Last edited:
somorris said:
Hi Unit74.

A friend of mine had a 182 for awhile. He told me he burned 14gph no matter what he did. The 172 we had ran between 9 and 10 gph. The 182 has the CS prop and the extra two cylinders to keep up with. Your insurance will probably run a little more in a 182, but if you can afford the extra fuel and maintenance, I think you will be happier with the 182. .
Click to expand...

I was quoted $1211 from AOPA for the 182 with 70k on the hull. The 172 and a PA28 was just over $800 for either.

somorris said:
Hi

There is a very nice 182 here in West Memphis that is for sale because the guys in the partnership just aren't flying it.
Click to expand...

Can you PM me some info on it or point me to the listing?
 
bartmc said:
If you wanna upgrade that 430 to WAAS, it aint going to be cheap :) I just paid that bill.
Click to expand...

*hijack*

Mind sharing what the cost was?...I am thinking I may do the same with my 430 and upgrade my 330 to ES to get ADSB out. Like the traffic picture on Foreflight!
 
Shawn said:
*hijack*

Mind sharing what the cost was?...I am thinking I may do the same with my 430 and upgrade my 330 to ES to get ADSB out. Like the traffic picture on Foreflight!
Click to expand...


Garmin is saying $3k plus the A&P labor to uninstall/install. You have to send it to Garmin and they change out some parts.
 
Unit74 said:
Garmin is saying $3k plus the A&P labor to uninstall/install. You have to send it to Garmin and they change out some parts.
Click to expand...

That's if your coax is good, and there's no interference.

I shelled out 75 $100 bills by the time the smoke cleared at the avionics shop….."While we're in there"
 
Where did the extra $4500 go? I don't think it's fair to say all retros will be $7500. Sounds like they found issues on yours which affected the total job?
 
Unit74 said:
Where did the extra $4500 go? I don't think it's fair to say all retros will be $7500. Sounds like they found issues on yours which affected the total job?
Click to expand...

Took it in because the comm was out, GPSS light was INOP, and nav flag on the HSI was hanging out, memory battery in the GPS was dead and my davatron was INOP. Some broken and loose wires, new coax run, rearrange the panel because the KX155 was causing interference, some sort of filter added, installed a new annunciator panel (annunciator+install added $1000). Shipping the GPS insured for $8K isn't cheap either.... Stuff adds up.
 
Ouch....what a surprise.


Any comments on the difference between an M, P and Q? I'm seeing some well equipped for a decent price. Some folks are way to proud of what they own, however.
 
Unit74 said:
I plan on obtaining my commercial. With what I plan on flying, I have people and light cargo I can be compensated for from work.
Click to expand...
Not in your own plane -- you'd need a Part 135 certificate for that. You can't provide both the plane and the pilot services without that paper -- all you can do with just a CP ticket is fly a plane the company provides.
 
I guess things have changed in the last 10 years...... I was always under the impression I could be compensated with the commercial rating regardless of bird.

Can I still require a passenger to pay their way or would I now be "for hire"?
 
Unit74 said:
I guess things have changed in the last 10 years...... I was always under the impression I could be compensated with the commercial rating regardless of bird.

Can I still require a passenger to pay their way or would I now be "for hire"?
Click to expand...

Plenty of threads already on those subjects. Look up Mangiamele, 134.5, expense sharing, common purpose.
 
Unit74 said:
I guess things have changed in the last 10 years...... I was always under the impression I could be compensated with the commercial rating regardless of bird.

Can I still require a passenger to pay their way or would I now be "for hire"?
Click to expand...

There are two separate things you would need: a commercial pilot certificate, and an air taxi certificate, It's not just the past ten years; it's been that way for a long time. Ron mentioned an exception to the air taxi certificate requirement if you're flying a plane that your employer provides.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not in your own plane -- you'd need a Part 135 certificate for that. You can't provide both the plane and the pilot services without that paper -- all you can do with just a CP ticket is fly a plane the company provides.
Click to expand...
we really need to get that changed, or make it much easier to get a part 135 owner operator ticket.
 
somorris said:
Hi Unit74.

A friend of mine had a 182 for awhile. He told me he burned 14gph no matter what he did.
Click to expand...


That's odd. He must have never climbed or leaned when he did.

I have four years of hard data showing we consistently burn an average of 11.5 GPH in an O-470 equipped C-182.

But we fly from an airport at roughly 6000' MSL and cruise most of the time around 9000' MSL.

We see a solid 13 GPH at lower altitudes, but we have significantly less hard data to back that up.
 
I took a 182S on a cross-country flight yesterday, and came to the conclusion that that is really what I would like to own. Unfortunately, Vref says that they cost about twice what I feel I can afford. :(
 
Ron Levy said:
A 182 will never do the same things as a 172 "about as cheap" because you will have to pay more for the plane up front, pay more for maintenance (a few more moving parts including the c/s prop), and pay significantly more for six cylinders vice four at overhaul time.

That said, I would recommend deciding how much you have to spend on the purchase, and seeing if you can get a good 182 for the money you have available. If you're just barely able to afford a bottom-end 182, you can get a lot nicer 172 for the same money, and I think you'll be a lot happier in the long run if you buy better quality now as long as the 172 can do the mission. You might look for 172's with the 180HP STC, as those can haul nearly the payload of a 182 but can be bought for a lot less than a 182.
Click to expand...

Taking this thought a step farther, the 182 has rubber fuel bags, they last an average of 15 years, 3 if you burn auto.
they cost around $1500.00 each.
If the bags have not ben changed in the last 10 years, you best have about 10 grand in the maintenance reserve to spend on renewal of the fuel system.
 
The only issue with a 172 is wife and two kids. Depends how trim the family is and how light they can pack. Or if they can learn to pack light.
 
I just went through this with a buddy of mine, he bought a G1000 172. He doesn't plan on using it for travel, only local flights and his wife's flight training. I really pushed for the 182, but it's his money. Personally I like the speed, room and useful load of the 182's.:D
 
Unit74 said:
This board has confirmed what I have been leaning on.... Thank you.


I have a line on a 69 plane local. Has a 430 non-waas,
Click to expand...


I'd be very careful. Anybody who skimps on the 430W upgrade has probably skimped on every other part of the airplane.

I'd look for a hangared cream puff. There are plenty out there.
 
kgruber said:
I'd be very careful. Anybody who skimps on the 430W upgrade has probably skimped on every other part of the airplane.

I'd look for a hangared cream puff. There are plenty out there.
Click to expand...

That would depend on what they were using the airplane for, would you think the same thing about someone that kept a KLN 90B instead of upgrading to a 430W? :dunno:
 
N747JB said:
That would depend on what they were using the airplane for, would you think the same thing about someone that kept a KLN 90B instead of upgrading to a 430W? :dunno:
Click to expand...


Yes, especially since he could have bought a GNS-155XL, a much better unit for less money.

In this market, I'll buy a cream puff. Wait....I already did!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top