Shopping for next plane, help wanted

4

4RNB

Line Up and Wait
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2016
Messages
961
Display Name
Display name:
4RNB
So I really vacillate on this, kind of feel I am too ignorant to really decide.

I'd like help and your thoughts on planes I am considering purchasing. My wife has voted for high wing only so this seems to keep me in the Cessna camp. We own a 172 but useful load is 777 or so. 150 HP, cruise about 115 mph. 7 gph fuel burn. I am a big guy, would like to get a wider plane, like a 182 or better.

In the 182 family I have the following thoughts:
1. Bite the bullet and buy new. This is po$$ible. I like good tools that I do not have to deal with breaking down. I like modern tech. I'm a bit spoiled with modernish glass in my plane. Downside is worry over excess cost and having to wait in line for the factory production. Compared to many of the options below, the extra cost seems to be many thousands of hours worth of fuel!
2. T182RG? I like the speed it offers. I like the idea of altitude and climbing if we make it out west, something I really want to do. It would cut other travel times down compared to regular 182s. I've spoken to a mechanic about retract maintenance but have no real world experience in them. Downside is insurance costs, but I think we can swing that.
3. 182 of more modern era: Corrosion proofing, younger airframe.
4. Older 182 seems to offer lower price entry and potential for higher useful loads. I would not escape potential maintenance headaches that come with age. I could buy one nicely tended and updated or one that is old school and update engine and avionics.
5. For older plane, I am attracted to bigger engine for performance, not a hard requirement.
6. I could move up in size to a "200" series for much more useful load, potential bigger size. It almost seems like more of a plane for the money could be had. Not sure if I should plan on this route as thus far, almost nobody in my circle of friends or family has had interest in flying with us. Does this change as a pilot gets more time under their belt?

Currently I most like the T182 RG idea, though a regular 182RG might be smarter.

How do you think of these things?
Did your mission grow to include longer trips and other people such that a bigger plane ought be considered?
I am not sure I want bills for two engines. Especially since most of them seem to be low wings.
 
Shopping for the next plane already? Didn’t you just get into a 172 and go through a major overhaul like within the last year?
 
Okay - now I've read your criteria and want to be helpful.

I will help with the Turbo discussion. Where do you live? That's the major point on Turbo vs. NA in my book.

If you had the turbo, would you use it to depart high DA airports?
Would you use it to get up to near or in the oxygen levels and take advantage of the winds?

I don't know about Turbo maint on the 182. On the Turbo Lance (TIO-540) it's essentially nil until overhaul.
 
Lots of info to sort through...

First, I'd ask what the limiting factor of the 172 is. You don't like it because it's small? You have had to modify some trips because of reduced cargo capacity? It's too slow? For the first 2, I think a 182 makes sense. If you're looking for faster, I think you need a different plan.

My 2 cents, the turbo 182 is for flying out west, higher density altitude performance. Not for speed. The RG model is to do complex training in, not to go faster. The disadvantage, again to me, is that it's goofy, complex and they might not extend when you want them too, and insurance.

So if you want retracts or significantly faster speeds, I think you should re-evaluate the high wing thing.
 
Albany Tom said:
My 2 cents, the turbo 182 is for flying out west, higher density altitude performance. Not for speed. The RG model is to do complex training in, not to go faster. The disadvantage, again to me, is that it's goofy, complex and they might not extend when you want them too, and insurance.
Click to expand...


I see this in PA-32 discussions all the time. People want to know how fast the turbo is vs. N/A PA-32s. As if, at say 6,000 feet, a turbo will be faster because... well.... TURRRRRRBO!

They don't get that the turbo gets you up there, and by THAT you can catch some speed.
 
One of the flight clubs operating out of Albany in the late 80's had a turbo RG 182. I asked one of their instructors what the turbo was for. He said "burning way more oil as it gets older".
 
Albany Tom said:
Lots of info to sort through...

First, I'd ask what the limiting factor of the 172 is. You don't like it because it's small? You have had to modify some trips because of reduced cargo capacity? It's too slow? For the first 2, I think a 182 makes sense. If you're looking for faster, I think you need a different plan.

My 2 cents, the turbo 182 is for flying out west, higher density altitude performance. Not for speed. The RG model is to do complex training in, not to go faster. The disadvantage, again to me, is that it's goofy, complex and they might not extend when you want them too, and insurance.

So if you want retracts or significantly faster speeds, I think you should re-evaluate the high wing thing.
Click to expand...

I'm a big guy. Limits are load, width of cabin comfort, and speed.
 
RyanB said:
Shopping for the next plane already? Didn’t you just get into a 172 and go through a major overhaul like within the last year?
Click to expand...

No, first annual.
 
4RNB said:
I'm a big guy. Limits are load, width of cabin comfort, and speed.
Click to expand...

I think you'll like a 182 for the first two reasons, I wouldn't count on the third. I would talk to 182 owners to get an idea of what actual cruise speeds are. Friend of mine has a 182 and loves it. I'd suggest renting one and see if you like them, too. Handy thing is that rental 182's are probably pretty easy to find.
 
Newer 182 = fuel injection. And it's more or less HP de-rated so you get some longevity gains from that.

If you're willing to spend the time upgrading (or you get super lucky finding one), I think I personally prefer a G3x+GFC500 over a G1000+GFC700. That would put the sweet spot at an early steam-gauge 182T. The next nearest would be a 182S (1998 through 2003-ish) but it would be missing some of the cleanup that the later 182T has.
 
4RNB said:
So I really vacillate on this, kind of feel I am too ignorant to really decide.

I'd like help and your thoughts on planes I am considering purchasing. My wife has voted for high wing only so this seems to keep me in the Cessna camp. We own a 172 but useful load is 777 or so. 150 HP, cruise about 115 mph. 7 gph fuel burn. I am a big guy, would like to get a wider plane, like a 182 or better.

In the 182 family I have the following thoughts:
1. Bite the bullet and buy new. This is po$$ible. I like good tools that I do not have to deal with breaking down. I like modern tech. I'm a bit spoiled with modernish glass in my plane. Downside is worry over excess cost and having to wait in line for the factory production. Compared to many of the options below, the extra cost seems to be many thousands of hours worth of fuel!
2. T182RG? I like the speed it offers. I like the idea of altitude and climbing if we make it out west, something I really want to do. It would cut other travel times down compared to regular 182s. I've spoken to a mechanic about retract maintenance but have no real world experience in them. Downside is insurance costs, but I think we can swing that.
3. 182 of more modern era: Corrosion proofing, younger airframe.
4. Older 182 seems to offer lower price entry and potential for higher useful loads. I would not escape potential maintenance headaches that come with age. I could buy one nicely tended and updated or one that is old school and update engine and avionics.
5. For older plane, I am attracted to bigger engine for performance, not a hard requirement.
6. I could move up in size to a "200" series for much more useful load, potential bigger size. It almost seems like more of a plane for the money could be had. Not sure if I should plan on this route as thus far, almost nobody in my circle of friends or family has had interest in flying with us. Does this change as a pilot gets more time under their belt?

Currently I most like the T182 RG idea, though a regular 182RG might be smarter.

How do you think of these things?
Did your mission grow to include longer trips and other people such that a bigger plane ought be considered?
I am not sure I want bills for two engines. Especially since most of them seem to be low wings.
Click to expand...
4RNB said:
So I really vacillate on this, kind of feel I am too ignorant to really decide.

I'd like help and your thoughts on planes I am considering purchasing. My wife has voted for high wing only so this seems to keep me in the Cessna camp. We own a 172 but useful load is 777 or so. 150 HP, cruise about 115 mph. 7 gph fuel burn. I am a big guy, would like to get a wider plane, like a 182 or better.

In the 182 family I have the following thoughts:
1. Bite the bullet and buy new. This is po$$ible. I like good tools that I do not have to deal with breaking down. I like modern tech. I'm a bit spoiled with modernish glass in my plane. Downside is worry over excess cost and having to wait in line for the factory production. Compared to many of the options below, the extra cost seems to be many thousands of hours worth of fuel!
2. T182RG? I like the speed it offers. I like the idea of altitude and climbing if we make it out west, something I really want to do. It would cut other travel times down compared to regular 182s. I've spoken to a mechanic about retract maintenance but have no real world experience in them. Downside is insurance costs, but I think we can swing that.
3. 182 of more modern era: Corrosion proofing, younger airframe.
4. Older 182 seems to offer lower price entry and potential for higher useful loads. I would not escape potential maintenance headaches that come with age. I could buy one nicely tended and updated or one that is old school and update engine and avionics.
5. For older plane, I am attracted to bigger engine for performance, not a hard requirement.
6. I could move up in size to a "200" series for much more useful load, potential bigger size. It almost seems like more of a plane for the money could be had. Not sure if I should plan on this route as thus far, almost nobody in my circle of friends or family has had interest in flying with us. Does this change as a pilot gets more time under their belt?

Currently I most like the T182 RG idea, though a regular 182RG might be smarter.

How do you think of these things?
Did your mission grow to include longer trips and other people such that a bigger plane ought be considered?
I am not sure I want bills for two engines. Especially since most of them seem to be low wings.
Click to expand...


I’m a big guy. You might look at the Cessna 210 series. Even my older T210F has a useful load over 1200 lbs. I do not rub shoulders with my right seater. If I slide the seat all the way back in cruise, I can’t reach the rudder pedals. You can put 2 grownups in my back seats and still carry some luggage. With 80 gallons usable, I can cruise at 60% power and 14 gph at 180 mph true, 12-13,000 altitude. The newer models max gw is over 500 lbs higher than my 1966 vintage. I don’t know much about 182 variants, but if you’re looking for a plane to travel in, the 210 does the job.
 
Last edited:
A new 182 today adding only SVT is $610k

Used are over priced and one dealer has captured the market.

That said I love the 182 but settled for a new Tecnam P2010 with 215 HP.
 
I wouldn't go 210. I can get insurance for a 182 with $140k hull and $1mil smooth for ~$1200/year. The 210 of similar value got me a quote of $8500/year!

The RG should be more reasonable for insurance.

If you want roomier, look no earlier than a 182E. That's when they increased the cabin width 4" from the stock 180.
 
I’m a big guy and like 182’s, our Q model trues at 133-140, I flight plan for 130. Restart 182’s are a bit heavier than prior models. A non-turbo 210 would give you room and a significant speed increase over the 172. They are all high right now!!
 
wheaties said:
I wouldn't go 210. I can get insurance for a 182 with $140k hull and $1mil smooth for ~$1200/year. The 210 of similar value got me a quote of $8500/year!

The RG should be more reasonable for insurance.

If you want roomier, look no earlier than a 182E. That's when they increased the cabin width 4" from the stock 180.
Click to expand...


I pay about $3100/yr for insurance on my 210. You’re right, the 210 will cost you more for insurance. But there’s quite a difference between planning 130 true in a 182, and flying 180 in a 210 without even trying hard. Higher, faster, heavier. In the end, we get what we pay for. Good luck in your search for your perfect plane.
 
I fly a 182H. It is comfy for bigger dudes including myself. 182 doesn’t do any one thing great. But is does a lot of things good. Little faster. Little roomier. Little more useful.
I also fly a PA-32R. Much roomier. Little faster. More expensive insurance, more useful. I am pretty limber big guy. So I don’t mind getting down off of wing into it. But depending on your ‘carriage’ I could see it tough getting in and out. Friend of mine taller and not great knees struggles out of copilot seat.
Cherokee 6 would remove the need to retract troubles and costs.
A 206/7 is a great plane but the acquisition costs IMO are way out of proportion to gains over a 182
 
Have you considered a Navion Rangemaster? HUGE inside. Restored and updated are available in your price range. I found this in barnstormers. I know your wife said no low wing, but not many airplanes can beat these overall performance specs.

VIDEO! NAVION RANGEMASTER H550 • $145,000 • OPPORTUNITY KNOCKING!! DON'T MISS OUT • OSHKOSH 1ST PLACE. Classic: P-51's li'l bro. VIDEO: link. Navion Rangemaster H. 108 Gal=Longhaul. Cont IO550B Ported ~330hp T1100h 1stRun fuel-sipr. *5* seat(recline). SEL Superior: flight performance, handling, haul, distance, climb, STOL char. Feet/hands-only. 1100LB ULoad. Coast-to-coast 1 fuelstop. 34gal tiptks. GNS430, Autopilot. IFR-eq'd . NEW: McCauley Prp, Concd 35AXC bat, PMA7000, Druitt Easy-Access eng mnt. *Range 1400+-mi. WOW: LT 15gph 160MTAS 3K'. Climb 1600+. Oxy, eTug avail.
 
If you want a BRS, the FG 182 is the only Cessna option.
I'd get a P, Q, or R model with a run-out engine and original avionics ($100K), then put in a 300 hp IO-550, BRS, and whatever avionics you want.
Dont forget to have fun.
 
If the wife wants a high wing my vote is strutless. 177 or Tecnam. Can update a Cardinal to glass cheaper than a new 182, plus the Cardinal is a bit wider than the 182 inside.
 
If you can afford a new 182, you can afford the insurance and maintenance on a T210 or a T182RG. I would 100% go for a later model turbo 210. Doesn’t sound like you *need* a turbo, but smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. Those things rip, I would for sure own one if I was willing to give up (really) rough fields, but I’m not there yet.
 
I have a T182RG. She cruises the fam around the Sierras real nice and when its hot in valley, getting off the ground quick isn't an issue. Now that I've had a turbo, I'd never go back. Plenty of room for 2 big guys up front. Its good feeling when the gear goes up and she starts scooting, you can really feel the difference. I love the retracts but the crotchety old men on this forum are usually against them. 210's are bigger obviously and can not only carry more weight, but more volume (bigger things). Go 210 if you need that utility. Enjoy the process, plane shopping is fun!
 
I have a 182T. Went with new in 2012 for the reasons you listed above. I like new stuff and was a bit more worry free the first few years while it was under warranty. If affording it is possible I wouldn’t think twice about going that route

Just for your own statistics mine was fully optioned (minus AC, wasn’t offered as an option back then) and my useful load sits at 1077.7 Lbs. I plan for cruise at 140ktas at 12.8gph. Though if under max gross I’ll get a few knots faster and typically see a better fuel burn than that too (I usually actually see 145 at 12.2)

If you want to do high altitude stuff and high airport stuff one plane I didn’t see mentioned was a pair of T’s the T182T. This will put you into a newer airframe and give you the turbo performance as well. Plus an additional 15-20ktas cruise if you’re willing to take it up high. However you will take a roughly ~100lb hit in useful load over an equivalent non turbo 182T
 
If wide and comfy are what you want, I would go with the Socata series TB-10/20, or a Rockwell 114/TC. The 182 seems too bloated for my taste. Big motor that takes big gas, for not a lot of performance and it is not that much bigger than a 172.
 
Look into the C-210 1962 thru 1966. Fast and strong and very roomy. That 21,000 foot service ceiling can be a life saver to top IMC. Mine in the pix has been to 23,000 feet moderate load. And a bargain under $70,000 in excellent condition.
 
The RG version can give you speed, but that gear is not as robust as the straight legged version. The RG's can have cracked gear saddles, and those parts are expensive (our club's RG needed $40,000 replacement gear saddles - and they were used), and those parts are hard to find (we sourced ours in Canada after a bit of a hunt).

You could probably buy a post restart model, have the panel rebuilt with G3X's and the rest of the entire stack of Garmin goodies, put in all new carpet and plastics to get that new plane smell, and have a lot left over vs buying a new 182.

Why a 182 vs other fine options? The 182 is very popular, and when it comes time to sell you'll probably be better off on what you can sell it for, etc. Every mechanic knows how to work on it, great short field, good X Country, you'll have a hard time over loading it, etc.

** Yes, love spending other people's money. A 210 would be a blast! It would be older - so you'd have to spend time and money to do a restoration to get it to your "new" level I think you're looking for.
 
Snowmass said:
Look into the C-210 1962 thru 1966. Fast and strong and very roomy. That 21,000 foot service ceiling can be a life saver to top IMC. Mine in the pix has been to 23,000 feet moderate load. And a bargain under $70,000 in excellent condition.
Click to expand...

Is that still true? TAP has 2 for sale in that year range under $100k, one has a run out engine at 1690 TBO for 55, and a 1964 that looks decent for $95k, below-

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...model=210D&listing_id=2398078&s-type=aircraft
 
I agree with aa5bman and snowmass. If you can afford new, you can afford a good used T210F. Or a normally aspirated 210. The 1966 and earlier versions are very capable true 4 place aircraft. Replacement gear saddles are available on eBay for under $1000 usd. The service ceiling on a T210F is actually 31300 feet.
You can easily cruise in the high teens fully loaded. Any higher, the reality is that in a piston single you gain nothing but an increased chance of a physiological incident. I recently went from Maine to Pennsylvania and back in one day for business. I’ve added a shot of my instruments and fuel flow showing cruise at 60% power. I looked at 182s and 177s. Nice planes, but not nearly as capable, and nearly as pricey as a good used 210 these days. Do your homework, and trust, but verify what is said on these pages.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8356.jpg
    IMG_8356.jpg
    816 KB · Views: 58
charheep said:
Is that still true? TAP has 2 for sale in that year range under $100k, one has a run out engine at 1690 TBO for 55, and a 1964 that looks decent for $95k, below-

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...model=210D&listing_id=2398078&s-type=aircraft
Click to expand...
Honestly my price was from a few years ago and it's what insure it for. Mine has 1300 hours since a major with all new cylinders, new crankshaft and new prop. Always hangared in Arizona too. Thanks for the warning. I have had it since 1975 and it was been a super plane. I guess I will need to talk to the insurance company.

I feel that the C-210 is the best all around GA airplane ever. Short takeoff, high ceiling, fast, easy to fly and very stable. BTW the landing gear is actually a simple design and NOT a maintenance problem. It just looks strange. It is simply a single shaft set 45 degrees to the centerline that turns and swings the gear up and down. The doors opening and closing make it look very busy.
 
Last edited:
Think about your normal, most current trips and figure out how much time a faster plane saves you.
While 160tas sounds great over 130tas, on a 200mile trip, the time difference is minimal.

When I looked into 182’s, i found:
A non WAAS G1000 is a no go
R’s and older a way more overpriced than S’s and T’s
Turbo’s are not worth it (IMO)

Looking at 206’s
Way too much money for a little extra plan

210’s / 182RG:
No interest in messing with a Cessna retract
Insurance cost are prohibitive
Don’t like not having a strut for fueling
 
orca64 said:
I agree with aa5bman and snowmass. If you can afford new, you can afford a good used T210F. Or a normally aspirated 210. The 1966 and earlier versions are very capable true 4 place aircraft. Replacement gear saddles are available on eBay for under $1000 usd. The service ceiling on a T210F is actually 31300 feet.
You can easily cruise in the high teens fully loaded. Any higher, the reality is that in a piston single you gain nothing but an increased chance of a physiological incident. I recently went from Maine to Pennsylvania and back in one day for business. I’ve added a shot of my instruments and fuel flow showing cruise at 60% power. I looked at 182s and 177s. Nice planes, but not nearly as capable, and nearly as pricey as a good used 210 these days. Do your homework, and trust, but verify what is said on these pages.
Click to expand...

Good lord is that 180 knots true at 14 gph at 12.5? I’m drooling. I want one so bad... I really need to convince the wife to own two planes, but until then I’m “stuck” with my farm-truck plane.
 
AA5Bman said:
Good lord is that 180 knots true at 14 gph at 12.5? I’m drooling. I want one so bad... I really need to convince the wife to own two planes, but until then I’m “stuck” with my farm-truck plane.
Click to expand...
His digital readout is 146.5 MPH not knots, and 181 MPH TAS. But the analog ASI reads slightly less about 142 for 173 MPH TAS.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
His digital readout is 146.5 MPH not knots, and 181 MPH TAS. But the analog ASI reads slightly less about 142 for 173 MPH TAS.
Click to expand...

Ahhh I missed the MPH thing. That makes more sense. Still speedy and pretty efficient, but not quite as impressive.
 
In my C-210D I care more about saving money than speed. I use 150 Knots and 13 GPH with Gami fuel injectors. I go a little faster and burn less fuel but this is conservative for planning; 14 MPG in reality.
 
It’ll be the same size, but maybe consider a 180 horsepower 172. The useful load is a lot more than stock. We had a 172M with the Penn Yan STC; 1085 useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top