Thinking of upgrading from my 182

EvilEagle said:
How much is your insurance on the 182? My Bonanza insurance is only $2600/year for $200k hull (I'm underinsured). How much are people paying for Mooney insurance?
Click to expand...
My current 182 insurance is 1600 per year for 165k.
 
You can spend $150k in addition to what you'd get for your 182, or in total?
 
TCABM said:
How often do you do that trip and is (optimistically) 0.7 worth it?

I’m not Mooney expert, but I think the fuel burn at 8500 is optimistic, even with an intercooler and the Merlin wastegate. @Pinecone could better answer that question since he has one.
Click to expand...
Actually a bit high. I have a 252/Encore, and cruise at 10.1 GPH. Up high (16-17, I am BasicMed) that gives me 175 KTAS.

I recently did NE MD to Fort Worth and back, about 7 hours each way on around 75 gallons.
 
WDD said:
You can spend $150k in addition to what you'd get for your 182, or in total?
Click to expand...
Total. Even that is an approximate figure. I can spend a bit more and would prefer a bit less. I’ve considered an m20e/f/j/k, n/p/s35/debonair/33 Bo, 182rg and turbo 182 rg. An airplains 300hp 182rg would be awesome I think, but rare and expensive. It would also require refinery to keep fueled and go fast.

An sr22 with air conditioning is the dream, but quite out of reach right now.
 
Last edited:
Pinecone said:
Actually a bit high. I have a 252/Encore, and cruise at 10.1 GPH. Up high (16-17, I am BasicMed) that gives me 175 KTAS.

I recently did NE MD to Fort Worth and back, about 7 hours each way on around 75 gallons.
Click to expand...
ForeFlight shows 172 knots at 10500 and 75% 11.3gph in the 231. Most of the 231 I’ve looked have the Merlyn waste gate and some have the intercooler. Even if this is a bit optimistic it’s still amazing.
 
182 RGs are less than straight leg 182s because maintenance costs could end up killing you as well as double the insurance. But you will go faster
 
WDD said:
182 RGs are less than straight leg 182s because maintenance costs could end up killing you as well as double the insurance. But you will go faster
Click to expand...
The insurance isn't double for a retract... Or at least it wasn't anywhere close to that when I looked into it.

Our club needed to replace a straight-legged 182, and we had some people who wanted retracts and others who wanted a six seater. A bunch of people said "we can't do retracts, the insurance will be too expensive." So, I looked at the cost of insurance for a fixed-gear 182, retract 182, a 206 (aka a six-seat 182) and a 210 (aka a retract six-seat 182).

The additional cost of insurance for the club on the retract was 10%, the additional cost of insurance for the fixed-gear six-seater was 100%, and the cost of both was a flat-out "No, you may not, not for any price."

WRT maintenance, it's maybe an extra couple hundred bucks to swing the gear on the annual, and I also looked into what the worst-case costs would be for something in the system breaking, and it seemed like a worthwhile risk.
 
Supereri said:
The reason I was looking at Mooneys for example

Kdvt to kcma on a random day
Current 182 is 2h 56m and 37g
An m20k would be 2h 11m and 26.2g even at 8500 ft
S35 Bo 2h 15m and 35g
Click to expand...
If you're only going to 8500, the M20K is a waste - That's the altitude range where the J and other normally aspirated models shine. The turbos do a lot better if you're going up to 15,000+ on a long (300+nm) leg.
Supereri said:
ForeFlight shows 172 knots at 10500 and 75% 11.3gph in the 231. Most of the 231 I’ve looked have the Merlyn waste gate and some have the intercooler. Even if this is a bit optimistic it’s still amazing.
Click to expand...
Mooney efficiency is about as good as it gets in the certified world, and is definitely amazing.

FWIW, I run my Ovation at 65%. Fuel burn at or below 9,000 is 12 gph, TAS goes up as you climb to peak at 175 KTAS. Climbing further, TAS starts to decrease but so does fuel burn, I've seen 172 KTAS on 10.1 gph at 13,000 feet.
 
Our club also has a straight leg 182 and a retract 182.

Insurance - different for a club vs individual. I just bought a straight leg 182, and also checked insurance for an RG version. It’s eye watering. I have 500 hours, instrument rated.


Maintenance - a few years back our RG had a cracked saddle. Found some replacements - used - for around $40k. About 3 months ago its nose collapsed on landing. In addition to what insurance is paying out, the club has a nice chunk to pay as well.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
If you're only going to 8500, the M20K is a waste - That's the altitude range where the J and other normally aspirated models shine. The turbos do a lot better if you're going up to 15,000+ on a long (300+nm) leg.

Mooney efficiency is about as good as it gets in the certified world, and is definitely amazing.

FWIW, I run my Ovation at 65%. Fuel burn at or below 9,000 is 12 gph, TAS goes up as you climb to peak at 175 KTAS. Climbing further, TAS starts to decrease but so does fuel burn, I've seen 172 KTAS on 10.1 gph at 13,000 feet.
Click to expand...
I would like to go higher when winds and trip dictate. I only chose 8500 to illustrate that even at less than ideal altitudes it’s still a meaningful difference.
 
WDD said:
Insurance - different for a club vs individual.
Click to expand...
True, but normally much better/easier for an individual.
WDD said:
Maintenance - a few years back our RG had a cracked saddle. Found some replacements - used - for around $40k.
Click to expand...
There's a company that has a repair process approved now, I think we paid $4K-$4.5K. Cessna parts costs got really stupid after Textron bought Beechcraft and realized they could pretty much charge whatever they wanted.
 
Supereri said:
Total. Even that is an approximate figure. I can spend a bit more and would prefer a bit less. I’ve considered an m20e/f/j/k, n/p/s35/debonair/33 Bo, 182rg and turbo 182 rg. An airplains 300hp 182rg would be awesome I think, but rare and expensive. It would also require refinery to keep fueled and go fast.

An sr22 with air conditioning is the dream, but quite out of reach right now.
Click to expand...
I don't have a refinery, but I have a pair of Flint long range wing tanks.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If you're only going to 8500, the M20K is a waste - That's the altitude range where the J and other normally aspirated models shine. The turbos do a lot better if you're going up to 15,000+ on a long (300+nm) leg.

Mooney efficiency is about as good as it gets in the certified world, and is definitely amazing.
Click to expand...
I will climb into the teens for anything 2 hours or longer.
 
Pinecone said:
I will climb into the teens for anything 2 hours or longer.
Click to expand...
I've always thought about it in terms of distance, but time kinda makes more sense. Converting my "miles per thousand feet" into "minutes per thousand feet" I come up with 6 minutes per thousand feet being roughly optimum, so an hour flight would be 10,000 (max)... So that makes sense.

What's the highest you go? Are you a 231 or 252?
 
After reading this whole thread, a bunch of thoughts jump out at me. In no particular order: it’s still not really clear what the mission is so a lot of this is premature - we’ve talked about destinations and distances, but not much about loading, people size, gear, and weights, or other uses (e.g. do you need to go into rough fields). For the relatively short distances OP mentioned, I don’t think they will really notice much difference unless the increase in speed is really substantial, and to do that, something else will definitely have to give (loads, comfort, etc). In spite of this, I can understand the desire for something different - I am going through the same right now. Stay away from the FAT supercharger, DM me if you seriously start considering this. On an otherwise straight plane, I wouldn’t expect a really any improvement in speed from wheel pants. In my experience, ForeFlight planning always seems to come out optimistic. That’s about all I can think of hah!
 
AA5Bman said:
For the relatively short distances OP mentioned,...
Click to expand...
That is an excellent point. I am, for example when flying with the boss (wife), am limited to 2 ~ 3 hours before someone needs to visit the rest room. Not really going to save that much time with a faster plane vs the OP's 182's 130kts to make it worth it.
 
These are good points. The 182 is pretty good as far as my worst case load is concerned. I'm a big guy (275, but on the decline) and the wife is about 170 (and also on the decline). My boys are grown and will very rarely fly with us. Most likely these would be weekend trips for some breakfast or trips with the boys and I, not the wife, during the week.

I've only landed on grass once many years ago during my first go around at training. Off airport is not a common use case for me at all. I'll be on fully prepared runways with plenty of length almost exclusively. I do live in Phoenix so mountains and high DA are common.

So, most common scenario is wife and I with week/weekend bags. But, I'd like the option for 4 for short $100 hamburgers. figure 800 pounds plus 2.5h of fuel as a worst case. I think this puts it somewhere around 1000-1100 pounds of useful for a 5% use case type of flight. With the exception of some late model M20J and the M20k models this looks pretty doable. If I did an M20k this would just restrict my ability to take all 4 of us on flights. This is rare if I'm being honest with myself.

As far as foreflight planning I've adjusted all of the speeds down to my actual cruise speeds in the 182. I think like a 5-7% reduction from Foreflights estimates. I love the idea of the FAT supercharger, but I don't think it's in the cards for me.
 
Well, given that, IMO, the only planes that I'd consider in the running especially given your size (no offense, and I'm up there with ya), are 210s, 206s, and TR182. Bonanzas are narrow, IMO, and not that comfortable but they would do the basic mission, although maybe not at enough additonal speed to matter, depending on the model, and the ones that are worth pursuing are going to be out of budget. Mooneys should be discarded entirely for comfort reasons at 2+ bills. 210s may or may not fit the budget but might get you enough speed to justify the change, and you don't give up the load carrying or space capabilities, but are a pretty big step up in complexity. Same with TR182s if you're willing to fly high. Given that they won't add *substantial* speed, I don't see a reason to go to a non-turbo'ed R182, and 206s are just more awesomer but not any faster.

Personally, I think you own the right plane.
 
AA5Bman said:
Personally, I think you own the right plane.
Click to expand...
Sounds like it. OP, I’d say you’re smarter than you give yourself credit for - you’ve already picked a plane that is a great fit.
 
130 knots seem a little slow for a 182. But, wheel pants do make a difference. I loose a solid 5 knots when I remove them. I just don’t think it’s all that much of a difference honestly. 5 to 10 knots really doesn’t make a huge difference on a 3 hour leg. I say that, but I too sometimes think about how nice it would be to see 155+ knots. Then, I realized it’s only a short gain in the long run, and you have to give up a lot of other things (comfort, fixed gear, short field ability, etc.) to get there in this price range.

I would recommend looking into why you’re only seeing 130 knots. Is that 130 true or indicated?
 
AlphaMike said:
130 knots seem a little slow for a 182. But, wheel pants do make a difference. I loose a solid 5 knots when I remove them. I just don’t think it’s all that much of a difference honestly. 5 to 10 knots really doesn’t make a huge difference on a 3 hour leg. I say that, but I too sometimes think about how nice it would be to see 155+ knots. Then, I realized it’s only a short gain in the long run, and you have to give up a lot of other things (comfort, fixed gear, short field ability, etc.) to get there in this price range.

I would recommend looking into why you’re only seeing 130 knots. Is that 130 true or indicated?
Click to expand...
It's a 1963 182F. I think 130 is pretty on target without wheel pants for the older planes. That's 130 knots true. I think the newer 182s are a bit cleaner and true a bit faster. Maybe I'm wrong?
 
Last edited:
Speed is largely how you run ‘em, how high, and how much fuel you’re burning when you do it. Very hard to compare one plane’s speed to another just based on knots alone. Betcha could go faster if you turned up the fuel, but 130 knots for a 182 seems spot on to me.
 
Sounds right. If you’re LOP, 130kts in a 182 isn’t unreasonable. On the other hand I run ROP and spin up the prop to get more power, and I make more speed. And burn more gas. And I figure there is nothing about this hobby that is cheap - so I buy more gas.
 
AA5Bman said:
Speed is largely how you run ‘em,
Click to expand...
That’s true for sure! I run my 182 as lean as I can get. I keep my cht’s under 380 in all fazes of flight. But once up to cruise altitude (6k to 15k) I’m at full throttle and lean for 380 for the highest cylinder temperature. I’m usually around 142 to 145 knots true. I do have a Pponk in my plane but I’ve flown several different planes that had stock O470s and I usually get 138 +- Flying this way.
 
my point has been made for me.
 
Unsurprisingly, the Bo and Mooney crowd has chimed in. Bonanzas are nice, but a Bo in your price range (as already mentioned) is going to need a lot of TLC (read: $$$). Pay me now or pay me later. Mooneys are great, but also already mentioned are the potential compromises on space and/or useful load.

Regardless, your most efficient path to more speed is a retract. In your price range, that's a 182RG, Commander, Mooney, Turbo Arrow (NA won't be much faster), Comanche, or Viking. A lot of fixed-gear guys will tell you that a retract is a money pit. That just isn't the case. Budget 2 AMUs a year extra and you'll probably come out ahead in the long run.

The second-most efficient path is a turbo, but only if you are willing and able to fly high. You mentioned a lot of local flights, and the turbo won't inherently help you there. You also mentioned issues with slow climbs, high DA, and cruising altitudes 10-11,000', and the turbo will help substantially for all of those situations.

I fly a Turbo Arrow III. I do a lot of long legs, and I don't mind sucking on O2 at 17,000'. I true out in the mid-160s at 65% and 12.5gph (ROP) in the mid-high teens. Going east, it is not uncommon for me to see ground speeds > 200 kts thanks to the strong tailwinds up high. As an added bonus, it is no man's land in the high teens. That's big for IFR flying. I get cleared direct pretty often at those altitudes. Going west, the headwinds can cancel out altitude efficiency, so the turbo doesn't benefit me as much. I still true out around 145 at 8,000, or 150 if I'm willing to go to 75% power.

I am not going to go so far as to recommend a Turbo Arrow to you. It happens to be the best fit for my personal mission x budget equation. I am not you. As with all planes in this market segment, the model has its fair share of warts and compromises. One lesser-known area that isn't a compromise is useful load. It is a sleeper hauler, on par with a 182. I have > 1000 lbs useful in mine.

Do look at Commander 114s. Vikings are not my jam, but with you being in a dry climate, they are an option as well - as long as you have a hangar. Comanches are not the easiest to keep maintained.

Also, every plane mentioned in this thread is an incremental upgrade. If you really want to make a big step up and can't stretch the budget any further, a partnership may be worth a look. You could surely find a like-minded partner in a big metro like PHX.
 
@Supereri consider how much time you have in 182s and how familiar you are. Transition to anything else should be just fine, and take very few hours, but a retract 182 would seem to be the easiest and quickest route (other than keeping yours). Don’t discount your muscle memory for when the SHTF. A consideration perhaps.
 
Supereri said:
I think the newer 182s are a bit cleaner and true a bit faster. Maybe I'm wrong?
Click to expand...
The 182T and T182T (restarts) have aero clean-ups and wheel pants that added 4-5 ktas over the previous 182S model (first restart), which in turn was essentially the pre-restart Lycoming powered version from '78-'81. Those were the 182RG, T182RG, and T182 (fixed hear version w/turbo Lyc).

A T182T will do about 145 ktas at 6-7500', 150 ktas at 10,000', 155 ktas at 15,000', and 160 ktas at 20,000'. These are about 72-77% power figures (27'/2300) and 15 gph. The new Cessnas pretty much exactly make book, so one can just google for the POH if interested.

As noted a turbo IFR in the mid-teens will get direct everywhere, because there's no one else up there. However, while a T182T is brutally useful airplane, it comes with a brutal price.
 
Good points, but remember his budget is $150K total, which includes selling his current plane. Essentially he can buy a different plane for exactly the amount he sells his current plane. I don't see how that's getting him a much newer FI or Turbo model. May be an RG, but that has its own costs, let along all of the transaction costs, and "any new plane will have surprises" costs.

Best bet still IMHO is to keep current plane and go enjoy it.
 
I can't tell you guys how much I appreciate the discussion. I do think there's a lot of wisdom in the keep what you have and learn to be happy with it argument. I bring these up as a discussion into my thought process and what I've seen to make me consider a new plane. Also keep in mind I believe my current airplane would be listed around 165-170k and sold for a bit less. I could also likely put another 20-40k into the purchase or improvement of another plane. This would put my total budget closer to 185-200k all in. I'd rather step down a bit in how much I have invested, but this is not a requirement.

Now I completely realize that many of these don't have logs to review and pictures can hide A LOT of sins. But, this are the kinds of ads I see that make me think about switching. I haven't listed any Mooneys here but they are even more affordable.



www.controller.com

1964 BEECHCRAFT S35 BONANZA For Sale in Sparta, Tennessee

1964 BEECHCRAFT S35 BONANZA For Sale in Sparta, Tennessee at Controller.com.
www.controller.com www.controller.com
Higher time engine and an older, but functional panel.

www.controller.com

1962 BEECHCRAFT P35 BONANZA For Sale in Blair, Nebraska

1962 BEECHCRAFT P35 BONANZA For Sale in Blair, Nebraska at Controller.com. 1962 Beech P35 Bonanza S/N D-7074 l N713WB Airframe 3583 Hours Total Time Engine Continental IO-470N - 740 Hours Since Major Overhaul 260 Horsepower l S/N CS96301-R Overhauled January 2000 Propeller Beechcraft Electric...
www.controller.com www.controller.com

www.controller.com

1965 BEECHCRAFT S35 BONANZA For Sale in Columbus, Ohio

1965 BEECHCRAFT S35 BONANZA For Sale in Columbus, Ohio at Controller.com. 4576 Total Time, 183 On Factory New Engine - IO-520-BB, Garmin 750Xi, Garmin 430W, G-5 HSI, 345 ADSB Transponder, S-Tec 60 Autopilot with Altitude Hold, D'Shannon Tip Tanks, Hangared
www.controller.com www.controller.com
Really like this one, but it's top end of what I would prefer to spend. Although 183 hours in the last 7 years isn't great.
 
Haha, you might be right. Logic and reason be damned.... Everyone knows the best financial decisions are made on emotion alone....

I'm not decided on anything. I may just order some wheel pants and the lower cowl mod from Knots2U and tell myself the decision is paused until I finish my IFR rating. This will get me an insurance break and help motivate me to get it done. Plus another 50 hours or so under my belt is never a bad thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top