The perfect GA airplane, in my opinion (looking for critique)

M

MountainDude

Cleared for Takeoff
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
1,018
Display Name
Display name:
MountainDude
I am hoping to buy this plane in the next 1-2 years, so would appreciate any input.
We are a family of three, living in NM at 7200 ft, and plan to take long trips over big mountains, Alaskan wilderness, Caribbean sea, South/Central American jungles, etc.). I am only a daytime VFR pilot, and that will remain that way.

Cessna 182 (very safe, docile, easy to fix, cheap to maintain, roomy, carries a lot...)
Larger engine (260+ HP) or preferably turbo (climbs well, goes fast, and flies high).
BRS (if engine stops over inhospitable terrain or sea).
Long-range fuel tanks (80+ gallons).
Add a few speed mods.

Opinions?
 
No argument here. :)

In NM the bigger engine can be nice but isn’t necessarily required. Nice for hot high days but most of the engine upgrades don’t have a turbo so they’re limited in what they can do.

Same with LR tanks. We have them. I rarely do anything but use them to tanker around cheaper fuel. The plane will fly longer than my bladder is comfortable.

Speed mods. Mostly useless on this airframe. It’s the frontal cross section and struts that are causing the drag, and you’re not going to do anything significant about that other than buy a 210, suck the gear up, lose the struts, and have a different wing.

BRS: That’ll bring a whole argument of its own out, but it’ll be expensive and eat a lot of useful load. They’re not light when mounted via STC into the baggage area (also loss of baggage space) the way the STCed ones are for the 182. You have to decide for yourself if the cost and loss of performance is worth it. Might be when you say “jungle”.

If you’re going to be flying over seriously inhospitable terrain, don’t forget to add the dual shoulder harnesses. Survivability with or without a BRS is going to be better with them than without. Many serious back country 182 operators around the world also install seats capable of higher G loads. Whether their STCs are available to the public, I do not know.

Frankly with the list of inhospitable terrain you listed, I’d want a second engine before I’d outfit a 182 with BRS. Just my opinion.
 
MountainDude said:
I am hoping to buy this plane in the next 1-2 years, so would appreciate any input.
We are a family of three, living in NM at 7200 ft, and plan to take long trips over big mountains, Alaskan wilderness, Caribbean sea, South/Central American jungles, etc.). I am only a daytime VFR pilot, and that will remain that way.

Cessna 182 (very safe, docile, easy to fix, cheap to maintain, roomy, carries a lot...)
Larger engine (260+ HP) or preferably turbo (climbs well, goes fast, and flies high).
BRS (if engine stops over inhospitable terrain or sea).
Long-range fuel tanks (80+ gallons).
Add a few speed mods.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

Are you retired or have a very flexible schedule? Those distances with a slowish plane flying VFR only could be several days of travel each way.

For my schedule and your distances, nothing short of a jet and an instrument rating would cut it but I envy your flexibility if you can really do it VFR at 140 kts.

I would also make sure the other 2 members of the family are ok with those long legs in a small cabin and occasional lengthy weather delays.
 
MountainDude said:
I am hoping to buy this plane in the next 1-2 years, so would appreciate any input.
We are a family of three, living in NM at 7200 ft, and plan to take long trips over big mountains, Alaskan wilderness, Caribbean sea, South/Central American jungles, etc.). I am only a daytime VFR pilot, and that will remain that way.

Cessna 182 (very safe, docile, easy to fix, cheap to maintain, roomy, carries a lot...)
Larger engine (260+ HP) or preferably turbo (climbs well, goes fast, and flies high).
BRS (if engine stops over inhospitable terrain or sea).
Long-range fuel tanks (80+ gallons).
Add a few speed mods.

Opinions?
Click to expand...
Also no arguments from me! Have you considered a 185? A bit pricier but certainly faster and also up-engined.
 
RudyP said:
Are you retired or have a very flexible schedule? Those distances with a slowish plane flying VFR only could be several days of travel each way.

For my schedule and your distances, nothing short of a jet and an instrument rating would cut it but I envy your flexibility if you can really do it VFR at 140 kts.

I would also make sure the other 2 members of the family are ok with those long legs in a small cabin and occasional lengthy weather delays.
Click to expand...

Not retired, but plan to take 2-6 weeks off for flying adventures.
 
MountainDude said:
I am hoping to buy this plane in the next 1-2 years, so would appreciate any input.
We are a family of three, living in NM at 7200 ft, and plan to take long trips over big mountains, Alaskan wilderness, Caribbean sea, South/Central American jungles, etc.). I am only a daytime VFR pilot, and that will remain that way.

Cessna 182 (very safe, docile, easy to fix, cheap to maintain, roomy, carries a lot...)
Larger engine (260+ HP) or preferably turbo (climbs well, goes fast, and flies high).
BRS (if engine stops over inhospitable terrain or sea).
Long-range fuel tanks (80+ gallons).
Add a few speed mods.

Opinions?
Click to expand...
If you have deep pockets and patience to find one - Helio Courier, there was a turbine powered version called the H-550 Stallion and an H-800 with a Lycoming IO-720. They fly slow enough that a good pilot could likely survive a crash in the jungle without a BRS? The more common variant had a geared Lycoming 480 that required more than average maintenance.
 
MountainDude said:
I am hoping to buy this plane in the next 1-2 years, so would appreciate any input.
We are a family of three, living in NM at 7200 ft, and plan to take long trips over big mountains, Alaskan wilderness, Caribbean sea, South/Central American jungles, etc.). I am only a daytime VFR pilot, and that will remain that way.

Add a few speed mods.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

Do the Cessna 185, better for what you want.
 
This 182 may meet your criteria:
http://katmai-kenai.com/

The shop that builds them can install BRS too; I think it was around $25k. Like others have said, I think it takes up 60lbs and a nice chunk of the baggage area.

I bought an older one, to save some money. You’ll have to keep your eyes peeled on the used market because there are only a few that come up for sale each year (guys getting out of flying or lost their medicals). I believe there are about 500-600 out there.

Have fun!
 
Last edited:
Don't ever buy a plane.
Instead, buy beer for a lot of guys who own planes.
Especially busy, successful guys, who don't have enough time to fly their planes.
When they need help in the hanger, or washing and waxing, be there to help. Or,if they are looking for the right electronics guy, or engine guy, or airframe guy, get them the names they need.
Volunteer to fly their planes, because you are a nice guy and a good friend, who would do anything to help out a buddy.
Soon, you will have more planes at your disposal than you will know what to do with.

The downside, is that eventually they get old, or dead, or both. Then you run out of planes.
Then you end up looking for a plane to buy.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
This 182 may meet your criteria:
http://katmai-kenai.com/

The shop that builds them can install BRS too; I think it was around $25k. Like others have said, I think it takes up 60lbs and a nice chunk of the baggage area.

I bought an older one, to save some money. You’ll have to keep your eyes peeled on the used market because there are only a few that come up for sale each year (guys getting out of flying or lost their medicals). I believe there are about 500-600 out there.

Have fun!
Click to expand...
+1...I'd rather have the option to control where I go at slow speed.
 
Shepherd said:
The downside, is that eventually they get old, or dead, or both. Then you run out of planes.
Click to expand...

Befriend them, I mean really become best buds, and you've got a shot at being named in the will. Instant free airplane! :D
 
It is really hard to argue against a 182.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Also no arguments from me! Have you considered a 185? A bit pricier but certainly faster and also up-engined.
Click to expand...

That.

The god squad has been flying skywagons in South America for a loooooong time, BRS is cool, but really good mx, upping your pilot game and a good backcountry plane is better, especially the extra payload/performance and less MX without having a BRS.

I would also think twice about the turbo, just adding BS that requires more MX and more failure points.


A good 185, with good avionics and getting your IFR and some quality backcountry training will make you waaaay safer than a VFR pilot in a 182 with a BRS, I think the NTSB reports would back this up.
 
Nothing that flys is “Cheap to Maintain” unless maybe it’s new and under warranty.
 
Think outside the box...get a Sportsman 2+2 with a turbo diesel engine. You can haul all you need fast and far and high and not have to worry about fuel shortages. Plus you can take advantage of new technology and be your own mechanic.
 
About the cheapest way to get into a turbo airplane is going to be a Bellanca Turbo Viking. It's a great performer, affordable to buy, and fairly simple systems and components.
 
James331 said:
I would also think twice about the turbo, just adding BS that requires more MX and more failure points.
Click to expand...

With the home airport at 7200 feet and summer density altitudes above 10,000 feet and add the mountains, I would think twice about not having a turbo.

I get a thrill when the density altitude here drops down to 4500 feet in the middle of winter.:lol::lol:
 
Zeldman said:
With the home airport at 7200 feet and summer density altitudes above 10,000 feet and add the mountains, I would think twice about not having a turbo.

I get a thrill when the density altitude here drops down to 4500 feet in the middle of winter.:lol::lol:
Click to expand...

image.jpg
 
My vote is SR22T. I like to be comfortable for those longer legs and the extra speed over a 182 is nice.

But more important than the plane I think is your desire to fly long distances VFR only. Getting the IR does not mean you have to use it, but sure does give you more flexibility and I think it helps you become a more precise pilot. Just my opinion, but if I were you at least rethink the IR.
 
Her ya go:

Cessna T337B (1967) Turbo Super Skymaster: Cessna 337B; two Continental turbocharged fuel injected 210 hp (160 kW) engines which boosted service ceiling to 33,000 feet (10,000 m), cruise speed to 233 mph (375 km/h), and range to 1,640 miles (2,640 km).

These numbers seem rather optimistic..can anyone verify this?

https://www.skytamer.com/Cessna_337C(T).html
 
MountainDude said:
I am hoping to buy this plane in the next 1-2 years, so would appreciate any input.
We are a family of three, living in NM at 7200 ft, and plan to take long trips over big mountains, Alaskan wilderness, Caribbean sea, South/Central American jungles, etc.). I am only a daytime VFR pilot, and that will remain that way.

Cessna 182 (very safe, docile, easy to fix, cheap to maintain, roomy, carries a lot...)
Larger engine (260+ HP) or preferably turbo (climbs well, goes fast, and flies high).
BRS (if engine stops over inhospitable terrain or sea).
Long-range fuel tanks (80+ gallons).
Add a few speed mods.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

Plenty of 'em! ;)

Why day VFR only? That can really hamper travel plans. Even when you're wanting to be sightseeing, it's good to have the option. It's also easier to do the international flights (the ones with a border crossing) IFR, IMO.

C182 is a great airplane, the only problem with them is they're kinda pigs on fuel for their speed, and they're not fast. That said, they're "fast enough" for domestic travel if you have the time. I've had a 182 all over the CONUS. But going farther afield, you may want more speed.

I would prefer a big engine over the turbo. For Alaska and international, the increased performance down low will allow you to get into more short strips whereas the turbo doesn't do you any good until you get up high. If you get a 300hp engine, it'll develop more power than the turbo from about sea level to 7,000 feet, and you'll have less maintenance, less worrying about heat, and one less thing to break over the jungle.

BRS? Well, if you're worried about that sort of thing, get a twin. The BRS eats up baggage space, is expensive both to install and to repack, and after seeing what it did in the Skycatcher I wouldn't bet my life on it in a Cessna! :eek:

Fuel: I'll never argue against long-range tanks. You don't have to fill them, but if the extra weight doesn't cause performance issues on a particular flight it's nice to have more. Larger tanks = more options.

Speed mods on a 182 are lipstick on a pig. The only way the 182 is really going to get faster is by pulling up the gear and/or going high (via a bigger engine and/or a turbo). I'm a big fan of the R182 (RG) for that reason, it has all of the excellent qualities of the fixed-gear 182 but goes 15-20 knots faster.

Also, if you're going to be flying in Central/South America, you might want to invest in some additional security apparatus (Medeco locks, extra grounding wires for the mags when you leave it, etc). Small heavy haulers like the C182/C206/etc are very attractive to thieves who want to steal them to run drugs.
 
I fly all over NM in my C-T182T quite well.
Range is great; speed good enough to daytrip Houston from my base.
 
With respect to others, you do not want a 300hp 182 unless you are on floats or have some special climb requirements. All the extra HP doesn't help with cruise speed, just climb performance in certain circumstances. The 300HP conversions are like $90K-100K for conversion.

I'm a 182P owner with a twin turbo normalized STC. 182 owners who want more power look at the 265HP P.Ponk upgrade is a much better cost/benefit choice and costs under $7500 for the conversion.

The BRS is more marketing than real. Consider BRS "half an engine". It costs half the price of an engine and only goes one direction. Remember planes like the Cirrus cannot break out of spins, and the BRS is mandatory for spin recovery.
 
182 owner with a Pponk (~270 hp). With a P or Q model and the Fresh Pick STC (we have a '77 Q) you can carry a lot, which partially offsets the BRS, but you still need to land at 2950 lbs. We have 812 lbs useable payload with full fuel (75 gallons), but with a BRS you'd be down to 732 lbs (I think it is 80 lbs, installed). At 2950 lb landing weight, that is still 582 lbs in the cabin, but it is easy to trade off a couple hours (~13 gallons) of fuel, either by burning it off or not having it on board, to make the numbers work for a high cabin payload.

182 - excels at nothing, and does everything well.
 
NordicDave said:
Remember planes like the Cirrus cannot break out of spins, and the BRS is mandatory for spin recovery.
Click to expand...
Cirrus was given credit for the BRS as a spin recovery technique during certification, so it did not have to demonstrate spin recovery like more conventional designs have to. That does not mean it cannot break out of a spin, that only means that its spin recovery was not part of certification. Those are very different things.
 
SethV said:
My vote is SR22T. I like to be comfortable for those longer legs and the extra speed over a 182 is nice.

But more important than the plane I think is your desire to fly long distances VFR only. Getting the IR does not mean you have to use it, but sure does give you more flexibility and I think it helps you become a more precise pilot. Just my opinion, but if I were you at least rethink the IR.
Click to expand...

My thought too. Just makes no sense to me to restrict yourself to day VFR for such long flights. You can wind up stuck for days.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Cirrus was given credit for the BRS as a spin recovery technique during certification, so it did not have to demonstrate spin recovery like more conventional designs have to. That does not mean it cannot break out of a spin, that only means that its spin recovery was not part of certification. Those are very different things.
Click to expand...

Was spin recovery part of flight test at all?

Not doing it for certification and not flight testing them at all is also two very different things. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Was spin recovery part of flight test at all?

Not doing it for certification and not flight testing them at all is also two very different things. :)
Click to expand...

In Europe they spun it I think 61 times with no anomalies noted by the test pilots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top