On the fence....172 or 182

kgruber said:
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!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say don't look for a cream puff, just that installing a 430, then not upgrading it, isn't a sign of neglect. Could be a sign of a lot of VFR flying and or not understanding WAAS. :D
The market is pretty good for cream puffs, always has been, it's the marginal ones that struggle and the rough ones are just not selling. :D
What is hot in the Cessna market is the G1000 172/182's. My buddy just bought a 172 and the FBO where I'm based just sold a 182 after 2 weeks on the market. :D
 
I am definitely not a avionics buff, but didn't the 430 come out before WAAS was available? If so, then I can understand not having the 430W.
 
somorris said:
I am definitely not a avionics buff, but didn't the 430 come out before WAAS was available? If so, then I can understand not having the 430W.
Click to expand...

Yes it was out for several years prior to WAAS, my first 430 was non-WAAS, I traded it for a 530, WAAS came out a month later.:mad2::mad2:
 
I'm a bit confused now about insurance. I just got a couple quotes back from AOPA today with the following exemplars:

1975 PA28-235- $1207
1975 PA28-180- $2101
1977 Cessna 182Q-$2101
1977 Cessna 172N- $827


I'm rather shocked that a PA28-180 is quoting out the same as a C182. And, a Cherokee Six is half the price of a C182 with two more seats!!


I sent off a request for clarification but do you guys see something wrong with this? I'm hoping they got their number turned around some how. The only quote that mirrors what I was told on the phone was the C172 quote.

Quoted on the C-182Q with $70k hull, fixed tricycle gear, hangared, sole owner/pilot with an SEL Instrument rating 120 hours TT, no time in type, (a 5 hour dual requirement before solo).
 
Unit74 said:
I'm a bit confused now about insurance. I just got a couple quotes back from AOPA today with the following exemplars:

1975 PA28-235- $1207
1975 PA28-180- $2101
1977 Cessna 182Q-$2101
1977 Cessna 172N- $827


I'm rather shocked that a PA28-180 is quoting out the same as a C182. And, a Cherokee Six is half the price of a C182 with two more seats!!
Click to expand...

You dont have a Six on your list.

A 28-180 for $2100 seems rather high, unless you would insure it for instruction for a 0 time student.
 
Unit74 said:
Can I still require a passenger to pay their way or would I now be "for hire"?
Click to expand...
As a Private Pilot, you can never require a passenger to pay their way -- only agree to share expenses. But that's another story unrelated to flying on business. As noted by others, the FAA explained in the Mangiamele letter that a Private Pilot cannot carry passengers or property of others with you when flying on business under the 61.113(b) "incidental to business" exception. And if you provide both the airplane and the pilot services, you are providing air transportation of passengers/property for compensation/hire in a manner requiring a Part 135 certificate, not flying incidental to your employment. As a CP/ATP, you can certainly fly a plane provided by your employer (e.g., owned/rented/leased by your employer, not you), but you can't provide the plane yourself (i.e., use one you either own or rented/leased in your own name).
 
Unit74 said:
I'm a bit confused now about insurance. I just got a couple quotes back from AOPA today with the following exemplars:

1975 PA28-235- $1207
1975 PA28-180- $2101
1977 Cessna 182Q-$2101
1977 Cessna 172N- $827


I'm rather shocked that a PA28-180 is quoting out the same as a C182.
Click to expand...
I am, too. And I'm even more surprised that a 235HP Dakota is both less than an 180HP Archer and the same as a 172. One would expect the C-172 and Archer to be about the same and the C-182 and Dakota to be about the same. Sure you didn't flip-flop those two?
 
Unit74 said:
I'm a bit confused now about insurance. I just got a couple quotes back from AOPA today with the following exemplars:

1975 PA28-235- $1207
1975 PA28-180- $2101
1977 Cessna 182Q-$2101
1977 Cessna 172N- $827


I'm rather shocked that a PA28-180 is quoting out the same as a C182. And, a Cherokee Six is half the price of a C182 with two more seats!!


I sent off a request for clarification but do you guys see something wrong with this? I'm hoping they got their number turned around some how. The only quote that mirrors what I was told on the phone was the C172 quote.

Quoted on the C-182Q with $70k hull, fixed tricycle gear, hangared, sole owner/pilot with an SEL Instrument rating 120 hours TT, no time in type, (a 5 hour dual requirement before solo).
Click to expand...

You may want to shop around. Mind you, I have 2k hours and ~500 in type, but I pay $697/year with $90k hull on my 182. When I shopped, AOPA and AVEMCO were significantly more.

This is the broker I use, from a recommendation made by Cap'n Ron...

Aircraft & Marine Assurance Agency, Inc.
2306 E. Evergreen Blvd. #1
Vancouver, WA 98661
800 466 4944 Fax: 360 694 8249
www.aircraftandmarine.com
 
Brad Z said:
This is the broker I use, from a recommendation made by Cap'n Ron...

Aircraft & Marine Assurance Agency, Inc.
2306 E. Evergreen Blvd. #1
Vancouver, WA 98661
800 466 4944 Fax: 360 694 8249
www.aircraftandmarine.com
Click to expand...
The owner of this agency is a good guy. Until he sold his Archer a few months ago his T-hangar was just three doors down from mine.
 
Just get an rv-10 :-D


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ron Levy said:
I am, too. And I'm even more surprised that a 235HP Dakota is both less than an 180HP Archer and the same as a 172. One would expect the C-172 and Archer to be about the same and the C-182 and Dakota to be about the same. Sure you didn't flip-flop those two?
Click to expand...

Positive. I have the PDFs they sent and have been trying to find the anomaly.

My error, yes it was on the Dakota not the six. We talked about a six on the phone briefly so that was why I misquoted that.

$827 on the 172 seems reasonable given my low hours. The other quotes are just way off from all my research. Something went sideways.
 
Brad Z said:
You may want to shop around. Mind you, I have 2k hours and ~500 in type, but I pay $697/year with $90k hull on my 182. When I shopped, AOPA and AVEMCO were significantly more.

This is the broker I use, from a recommendation made by Cap'n Ron...

Aircraft & Marine Assurance Agency, Inc.
2306 E. Evergreen Blvd. #1
Vancouver, WA 98661
800 466 4944 Fax: 360 694 8249
www.aircraftandmarine.com
Click to expand...

I will call him Monday. Thanks.
 
Unit74 said:
So here is my head scratcher......

I'm on the fence between buying a 172 or a 182. My heart is telling me I need the 182, but my gut is saying I should buy a 172.

My usage will be a mix of $100 hamburgers, trips originating from Little Rock, AR to several places such as OKC, Arlington, TX, Jacksonville, FL and once or twice a year to SBA in SoCal.

About 60% of my flying will be local trips/time building.

I've already got some numbers on cost per hour and my wallet agrees the 172 is the way to go. However, I will get some use out of the utility of the 182 dragging the wife plus two kids here and there.

I do travel some for work and can use the airplane instead of ground or common carrier. I just don't know if the extra cost of fuel per hour is worth the luxury of owing the 182. I would certainly fly less due to fuel costs.

And the flip side is that I'd have to rent a larger aircraft if I owned the 172 for those longer hauls with the family. But, I could afford to fly about 40% more hours in the 172.

Anyone care to opine one way or the other?
Click to expand...

Split the difference and get a Cessna Cardinal RG. Lookup the TAS, Max Gross Weight, GPH and price. You might find that this is a great airplane considering all of the above.

Gene '71 C177RG :yes:
 
Unit74 said:
I'm a bit confused now about insurance. I just got a couple quotes back from AOPA today with the following exemplars:

1975 PA28-235- $1207
Click to expand...

Unit74 said:
My error, yes it was on the Dakota not the six.
Click to expand...
A 1975 PA-28-235 is not a Dakota -- it's the straight-wing Cherokee Pathfinder, which was discontinued after the 1977 model year. The Dakota (PA-28-236, with tapered wing) didn't come out until 1979 and would likely have a higher hull value than a similar-condition PA-28-235.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
A 1975 PA-28-235 is not a Dakota -- it's the straight-wing Cherokee Pathfinder, which was discontinued after the 1977 model year. The Dakota (PA-28-236, with tapered wing) didn't come out until 1979 and would likely have a higher hull value than a similar-condition PA-28-235.
Click to expand...


OK.


I asked her to quote me on a Dakota I was looking at on Controller, and that's what she gave me.
 
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...

Wow...I disagree. I've own a 1971 Cardinal RG for 12 years. There is nothing more complex about this aircraft except that it's an RG. It has a tried and true Lycoming IO360 and there's nothing more complex about it that I can think of.

My Cardinal trues out around 140 knots at 7500 feet on a standard day at Max Gross Weight on 10.3 GPH (72% power) and it can fly for 4.25 hours (with 30 min. reserve).

It handles sweetly and snappy. It's a great stable IFR platform. Lots of room in the front and tons of leg room in the back.

It has large doors for easy entry and exit.

It's max gross weight is 2800 lbs. and my empty weight is 1758. That yields a useful load of 1042 lbs. It holds 50 gallons of fuel.

There's no struts and the wing is set back further than a 172 or a 182 providing the pilot outstanding visibility. Further, without struts and with the gear up everyone has an unobstructed view down to the ground.

Lastly, it's a rakish and sexy looking airplane. In the end Cessna really got this design right in looks and performance. The problem was marketing and price compared to the 172 that stopped it's production, but in all respects it is a superior aircraft to the 172 and was never meant to compete or replace the 182. It was meant to compete with the Piper Arrow.

I don't understand the comment that Cardinals typically have old radios. That makes no sense...owners of all models upgrade their airplanes as they see fit and there is no conspiracy to keep Cardinals in the dark ages of avionics. They are outfitted as diversely as any Make or Model aircraft that is for sale today.

You can get a nicely equipped RG model with a mid-time engine for between 45,000 and 70,000. And let's face it...a plane can be priced at ANY amount that the seller wants to price it...but it's real value is only ever going to be what the highest bidder is willing to offer and then actually deliver.

Gene
 
Last edited:
I think my 182 insurance is $13-1400, $75K hull, and my student pilot son listed as a pilot. So, it's not to bad. ;)
 
N747JB said:
I think my 182 insurance is $13-1400, $75K hull, and my student pilot son listed as a pilot. So, it's not to bad. ;)
Click to expand...


So that makes me seriously doubt AOPA got it right then. Hopefully I get an answer from them Monday. $2100 for a rated pilot with an Instrument rating just seems way out of line unless they just don't want to pick up any more binders right now.
 
How many hours in type? We pay half of that through AOPA, but the numbers you are quoting sound like the numbers prior to 25 hours in type.
 
denverpilot said:
How many hours in type? We pay half of that through AOPA, but the numbers you are quoting sound like the numbers prior to 25 hours in type.
Click to expand...

I have zero hours in type. My time is split between 152's and Warriors. I have a few hours in a 172.


The binder called for dual before solo which is fine.
 
Unit74 said:
I have zero hours in type. My time is split between 152's and Warriors. I have a few hours in a 172.


The binder called for dual before solo which is fine.
Click to expand...

I just looked mine up, it was $1478.00, I've got plenty of time and an IR, but my son hasn't finished his PPL yet, they do have a solo restriction, that his CFI is notified before each solo flight. This may be normal now, he can just text him. :D
 
warthog1984 said:
Which one is a better fit for your 90% mission?
Click to expand...
That's a practical way to evaluate one's options WRT an airplane purchase but for the most part airplane ownership isn't really about practicality but rather affordability. IOW I think it's more important to choose the airplane that best fits your financial situation. If you pay more than you should and/or purchase something that costs too much to operate relative to your discretionary income you'll end up restricting your flying because you can't afford to fly as much as you otherwise could/would. OTOH if you go too cheap you end up not using it because it doesn't allow you to do what you could otherwise afford.

Given that reasoning (or rationalization if you prefer) I suggest that the 182 is the right airplane as long as you can handle the significantly higher initial purchase cost and the slightly higher operational costs. IOW if the additional cost of purchasing and operating the 182 (some of which can be mitigated by buying an older and/or less well equipped 182 vs a newer, better equipped 172) then you will be far happier with the larger airplane because it offers noticeably greater capabilities.
 
gismo said:
Given that reasoning (or rationalization if you prefer) I suggest that the 182 is the right airplane as long as you can handle the significantly higher initial purchase cost and the slightly higher operational costs. IOW if the additional cost of purchasing and operating the 182 (some of which can be mitigated by buying an older and/or less well equipped 182 vs a newer, better equipped 172) then you will be far happier with the larger airplane because it offers noticeably greater capabilities.
Click to expand...

This is why I have landed on a 182. I can be happy with a 172 if it was just me. But the wife and 2 kids, plus bags plays a significant roll in my choice. As pointed out previous, I can pull back on the go stick and cruise around at 100kt if I want to save some gas money for putting around. What I don't want to do is fly a 172 at full open 40% of the time just to keep her in the air on those trips. Fuel burn, TBO and W/B are certainly on my mind in those cases, albeit, you would really have to try to get a 172 out of CG, even more so with a 182 at full gross.

Dare I say a 182 at full gross would almost have to have a cargo bay full of lead bricks to be out of CG! :yes: Much more flexibility in the 182 v. 172 for a family and it's required paraphernalia.
 
I just received a reply to my inquiry about the substantial and unwarranted triple in price over a 172. There must have be a disconnect because here is the new quote from AOPA:
 

Attachments

  • AOPA Quote.jpg
    AOPA Quote.jpg
    160.4 KB · Views: 49
Last edited:
182, you'll never regret having a bit extra space, extra speed, extra load, or extra range.
 
gismo said:
That's a practical way to evaluate one's options WRT an airplane purchase but for the most part airplane ownership isn't really about practicality but rather affordability.
Click to expand...

:confused: Really don't understand your thinking. If you get the plane best suited for your 90% mission (ie, it is best suited for 90% of your flying), then unless finances are either way tight or way loose... that is your best plane- regardless of its capabilities.

Unit74 said:
This is why I have landed on a 182. I can be happy with a 172 if it was just me. But the wife and 2 kids, plus bags plays a significant roll in my choice.
Click to expand...

If you are and/or will actually be traveling with the family most of the time, go for the 182!

OTOH, if it is mostly you flying currently and you only think "yeah a 172 would work, but with a 182 I could finally convince the family to go with, and I'd have this other funding stream to pay it off, etc..."- stick with the Skyhawk.
 
Unit74 said:
I just received a reply to my inquiry about the substantial and unwarranted triple in price over a 172. There must have be a disconnect because here is the new quote from AOPA:
Click to expand...

That's about right! :D Somebody might have checked the wrong box or pushed the wrong button. ;)
 
She musta hit the box that said, "Prior accident inuring loss" or something!
 
Unit74 said:
I just received a reply to my inquiry about the substantial and unwarranted triple in price over a 172. There must have be a disconnect because here is the new quote from AOPA:
Click to expand...

I would start looking for an insurance agent who works for you, not against you.
 
weilke said:
I would start looking for an insurance agent who works for you, not against you.
Click to expand...


I just send off my info to Falcon. I logged into my USAA to get a quote and they linked it to Falcon.

I will ask around the field and get one more quote to make my comparisons.
 
Henning said:
182, you'll never regret having a bit extra space, extra speed, extra load, or extra range.
Click to expand...

so, you buy a 210 and get a little more of each at a lessor price.
 
Unit74 said:
I just send off my info to Falcon. I logged into my USAA to get a quote and they linked it to Falcon.
Click to expand...

I have had a very good experience with Falcon. Sadly, our agent (a board regular) decided to retire from his insurance career 1/2 way through the process. The agent he handed it off to concluded the transaction in a professional and competent manner.

I will ask around the field and get one more quote to make my comparisons.
Click to expand...

One thing you should be aware of in aviation insurance is the 'agent of record' system. Now that AOPAIA has shopped you with a couple of carriers, those carriers may not provide a new quote for the same N-number through Falcon (it has something to do with how insurance companies dont want different departments in their company to compete against each other). Falcon may ask you to give them a letter that states that they are now your 'agent of record' before they can get further quotes from the different carriers (according to a broker I talked to this is not really an issue these days).

For something straightforward like the coverage you are looking for, there is going to be little difference between the prices different agencies will be able to quote you. For something more complicated, higher limits, expensive plane, high-risk aircraft etc. there can be bigger differences between agencies. So if you can get good quotes through Falcon, you are not likely to benefit from changing agents again.
When looking at prices, make sure you compare apples with apples. Different 'not in motion' and 'in motion' deductibles, medical payments etc. Also, some endorsements and riders may be included with one carrier but not another (e.g. covering premises liability on a rented hangar, this is expensive if you have to buy it on your own but can be a free rider under your plane policy).

The other thing you need to know is that Avemco doesn't use the retail agent network and only writes direct. They are often more expensive than other insurers, but they are quite lenient when it comes to 'step up' situations. When other insurers ask for 25hrs dual, they may ask for 10. If others ask for 10, they ask for 'any pilot the insured approves'. They also have very limited penalties if you cancel after a couple of months. Other insurers pretty much keep 1/2 of your remanining premium if you cancel early, Avemco just sends you a refund check for the unused portion of your premium. So while they are not right for everyone, for some people Avemco is the way to go, just dont expect your broker to quote them as he can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top