On the fence....172 or 182

I experienced this quandary about two years ago. My mission was mostly local flying with kiddos and or friends, with one trip from Louisiana to Maryland/West Virginia per year. I thought my 90% mission requirement required a Cessna 172, my 10% solution would have been a Cessna 182. I am a military pilot and have been flying GA since I was 15. As I was shopping, a very clean 172L with ~1200 hrs came on the market locally. Bottom line is that I jumped and have enjoyed flying an economical aerospace machine for two years with my largest expense being hanger rent. My 10 year old son loves to fly with me, and I have no issue in him flying the plane from taxi to very short final. A 182 does add complexity, cost and capability. However I to can pull my power back, burn 5gph and pay less than $500/year for insurance (172 is very forgiving of a young student, has metal fuel cells and a simple prop). We still fly to the east coast, however we have to spend about 2 hours longer in the air, not bad as it is fun to fly right?
What do you see as your 90% mission? What can you comfortably afford? What is available close to home that is a well maintained and reasonably priced? The mission is not about what you “WANT” to do with it, but what you are going to do with it. I bought CPA’s Guide to 172 and Guide to 182 and read both multiple times. Think about what you think you need. Best of luck to you.
Mike
 
I would probably buy the 182, but it will cost you more money for just about everything. As Tiger said, the C-172 is a very capable airplane. If you are like a lot of us, your long cross countries will probably be less than you anticipate with all of life's other demands. Difficult decision :).
 
On the fence and seemingly no real concern about the cost difference between operating these or the acquisition cost?

Well then I'd get the 206 :D

Seriously I never understand why everyone always jumps to recommending the 210 and bypasses the unsung hero the 206. The 206 drinks more fuel but is faster than a 182, carries a LOT more, has six seats and still has the simplicity and lower costs associated with the fixed landing gear. This is assuming the cost differential is not a big deal which seems to be the premise of this thread.

We're always going to spend more of your money if you ask us to spend your money. ;)
 
Although I have not been responding, I have been looking at the performance of all the planes you guys have been recommending.

I think I am still on the 182. However, I would actually prefer a Dakota but I'm not really interested in having to constantly switch tanks, so the 182 it is. I have some time in the Pipers and like the visibility better than the Cessna.
 
but I'm not really interested in having to constantly switch tanks
Click to expand...

And it gets real exciting when you get the timing off for the switch (tip tanks) and the engine quits over the mountains of West Virginia. BTDT. I like the 182 better, but then I am a high wing kind of person. Good luck!
 
Unit74 said:
Although I have not been responding, I have been looking at the performance of all the planes you guys have been recommending.

I think I am still on the 182. However, I would actually prefer a Dakota but I'm not really interested in having to constantly switch tanks, so the 182 it is. I have some time in the Pipers and like the visibility better than the Cessna.
Click to expand...


Paging Clark.

He'd probably sell ya the FrankenKota which I've flown in, and she's a solid bird. It has the wing on the wrong way under the fuselage but other than that... ;)

Switching tanks is no big deal if you're not prone to complete stupidity. Ha.
 
If you can see so well out of a Piper why do they land on other aircraft on Final.??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top