What model type of the Cessna 182 do you consider the "Sweet Spot" to purchase.

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
I didn't realize that there are so many different models of the 182:

182 182Q
182A T182
182B 182R
182C 182S
182E 182T
R182 T182T
182G 182M
182P

I have never personally flown a Cessna 182 but I have extensive 172 experience. I've heard the 182 has a constant speed prop and it's a bit faster other then that it's pretty similar to a 172.

I just wanted to know what model type have you flown do you prefer one over the other what is maintenance like and is there a club where I can find more detail about the type. It's looking like I might just join the Cessna club as a first airplane. The transition should be smooth as a first time owner with previous 172 experience. What is insurance like?

Thanks as always for your feedback!
 
182 is not only a bit faster (130 kts up to 150 for RG), it gives you 4 people with lots of fuel option! I flew models Q, S and T - they are very similar with some minor differences, T being the latest and greatest. If you can get it, go for it.
 
I've flown several fixed gear models. At similar weight, performance is quite similar. But later ones are chunkier. My favorites would be Q and R models.

I don't care for G1000. Overkill.
 
It's not just G1000 - T has difference engine and different prop. It is slightly slower than Q, the latter being a bit more speedier in approach.
 
Well, if money is an object, the sweet spot seems to be the P/Q models. Those are very popular.

If money is no object, then an S/T obviously have more gizmos and a nicer interior.

A 172 and a 182 are not quite as similar as often generalized. The 182 feels different landing because it's so nose heavy. It's heavier on the controls overall in flight and more rock solid in IFR. It's also going to feel more bearish on takeoff with the torque because you've got a lot more HP out front. It's a C/S prop, HP airplane that'll do a good 20 knots faster, haul 4 people, and let you fill the tanks.
 
Last edited:
Bonchie said:
Well, if money is an object, the sweet spot seems to be the P/Q models. Those are very popular.

If money is no object, then an S/T obviously have more gizmos and a nicer interior.

A 172 and a 182 are more unalike than often generalized. The 182 feels different landing because it's so nose heavy. It's heavier on the controls overall in flight and more rock solid in IFR. It's also going to feel much different in regards to torque because you've got a lot more HP out front. It's a C/S prop, HP airplane that'll do a good 25 knots faster.
Click to expand...
If you try flying a 206, a 182 sure will feel close to a 172. The big variable is wing loading, which really isn't all that different in any of the 100 series.

Some 172s do have CS props.
 
MAKG1 said:
If you try flying a 206, a 182 sure will feel close to a 172. The big variable is wing loading, which really isn't all that different in any of the 100 series.

Some 172s do have CS props.
Click to expand...

When we are talking the common 4 place airplanes, they all feel fairly similar to me when compared to something the size of a 206/210 or the bigger Pipers. So yeah, if that's the basis, a 182 is similar to a 172 is similar to a Cherokee.

I was one of the few who never even flew a 172 until years after my ticket. Went from a Cherokees and flew a friends 172 for the first time. I'd of been hard pressed to feel uncomfortable or like things were markedly different feeling (in normal flight/takeoff/landing). When I bought into my 182, the biggest difference in feel to me between it and the 172s/Cherokees/Socatas I had flown was the torque and the weight in the nose.
 
Last edited:
Step One...without questions buy this:

Cessna 182 Buyer's Guide (1956-1986)


For what was important for me and my missions, my research led me to ideally be a P or Q model and I wound up with a 1973 182P which is generally considered the "sweet spot" but that is a completely subjective term in what YOU value as important in your plane.

Would have loved a restart with a G1000 but the benefits didn't justify the price jump as I would up with a very nicely equipped panel for what I paid that does the job amazingly well. If I was looking to spend that much I probably would have just gone with an SR-22.
 
Last edited:
My dad bought a P New in 1972,we both learned to fly in it! We bought Q a few years ago for my son to train in, the Q has a slower turning engine with a longer TBO, but not a huge amount of differences. The Q after 1978 have 24 volt electrical systems, but our 77 does fine with the 12 volt system. It's all about your budget. :)
 
Last edited:
I think the earliest model I would buy would be when they switched over to wet wing from bladders ('79/'80?) just to not have to deal with replacing them at some point or any other inherent problems.
 
BrianNC said:
I think the earliest model I would buy would be when they switched over to wet wing from bladders ('79/'80?) just to not have to deal with replacing them at some point or any other inherent problems.
Click to expand...

Non issue IMO. I replaced one and it ran me a whopping $1,200 installed. I have talked to quite a few A/P that all said the same thing...replacing a bladder will be a helluv a lot cheaper than chasing a potential problem with a wet wing!

Bladder age should simply just be a pricing consideration as possible deferred Mx, not a deal breaker. While they certainly do have their considerations to take into account, in reality the avoid the bladder mantra is a bit of an overblown old wives tale IMO.
 
Last edited:
Get the buyer's guide like @Shawn said.

I bought a '76 P. I actually wanted bladders from a maintenance standpoint, again for the reason Shawn mentioned.

Has anyone ever looked into whether bladders are safer or more dangerous in an impact, from a leak/fire standpoint?
 
Shawn said:
Non issue IMO. I replaced one and it ran me a whopping $1,200 installed. I have talked to quite a few A/P that all said the same thing...replacing a bladder will be a helluv a lot cheaper than chasing a potential problem with a wet wing!

Bladder age should simply just be a pricing consideration as possible deferred Mx, not a deal breaker. While they certainly do have their considerations to take into account, in reality the avoid the bladder mantra is a bit of an overblown old wives tale IMO.
Click to expand...

The only issue is that the bladders are supposedly notorious for trapping water, i.e. sumping isn't reliable, as water can get trapped in bladder folds. Can be an issue if you park outdoors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Solid, but not great, IFR platforms. Comfy, too. Handle like pigs - roll rate is measured with a calendar. Visibility is O.K., as long as you're just looking down, from the pilot side. Otherwise, it's like sitting 10 feet inside a cave mouth. It's a lot worse from the backseat. . .

IMHO, if you're gonna travel, trips of 300-400 miles, with some IFR, a 182 is probably O.K. If you like to crash-and-dash, yank-and-bank, scoot across the way for a $100 burger, probably not.
 
Sundancer said:
IMHO, if you're gonna travel, trips of 300-400 miles, with some IFR, a 182 is probably O.K. If you like to crash-and-dash, yank-and-bank, scoot across the way for a $100 burger, probably not.
Click to expand...

Many consider them the Ford F150 of the skies...certainly not the BMW 3 series!

Getting off on a tangent as we all do so well as the OP was asking within the 182 line...but curious why do you say not great IFR platform?
 
Sundancer said:
Solid, but not great, IFR platforms. Comfy, too. Handle like pigs - roll rate is measured with a calendar. Visibility is O.K., as long as you're just looking down, from the pilot side. Otherwise, it's like sitting 10 feet inside a cave mouth. It's a lot worse from the backseat. . .

IMHO, if you're gonna travel, trips of 300-400 miles, with some IFR, a 182 is probably O.K. If you like to crash-and-dash, yank-and-bank, scoot across the way for a $100 burger, probably not.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree with this. I did all my instrument training in a 182. Nice solid IFR platform. Is it a Bonanza? No. But for what it is, what it's meant to be, and what it does, it's a nice plane.
 
BrianNC said:
Totally disagree with this. I did all my instrument training in a 182. Nice solid IFR platform. Is it a Bonanza? No. But for what it is, what it's meant to be, and what it does, it's a nice plane.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you did initial training in. I trained in an SR20, I found the C172 and C182 harder to adjust too for IFR. Basic reason is the higher lag time meant I had a tendency to over correct because I was not getting the reaction I expected. This takes longer to adjust too then I initially accounted for.

Tim
 
If you think it handles well, no worries; that's certainly a subjective and personal perception. It's an OK IFR platform but not super-stable, by any means; better than adequate, but not stellar. If it was meant meant to be a straight-and-level x-ctry traveler, then yeah, it's fine, middle of the pack. As a VFR "bush plane", or fun flyer, the handling is heavy and slow, and the vis is poor. If you gave me one, I'd sell it and buy something else.
 
Very limited to none 182 experience, but I used to fly 172 and first time I was in 182 I realized what the trim wheel is for

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
WannFly said:
Very limited to none 182 experience, but I used to fly 172 and first time I was in 182 I realized what the trim wheel is for

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It's not too hard to fly a 172 while ignoring trim, but it IS hard to fly one well like that.

As I point out your nearly all CAP cadets, the point of trim isn't to minimize effort or fatigue. It's precision.

Even a 12 year old kid can change altitude in a 182 with both hands without touching trim. Like a drunk sailor.
 
I bought an A model a year ago for a specific purpose...to tow gliders. It's proven to be a great tow plane but also a great airplane for our cross country needs. I think it's more fun to fly than the newer 182s in which I have lots of time too. It's lighter on the controls & has a spectacular rate of climb. The old ones are lighter.

For my situation, if I were to buy one for a personal airplane it would be a 182RG or a 182R.

That said,I've never flown the new models with the glass panels. It seems voodoo to me. LOL.
 
If I were to get a 182, my vote would go for a 182Q model. I am not a fan of the flying characteristics of the 182 as they feel like a heavy pickup truck. Flying planes like the Piper Arrow, Socata Trinidad and Beechcraft Bonanzas are more enjoyable to me.
 
Bonchie said:
Well, if money is an object, the sweet spot seems to be the P/Q models. Those are very popular.

If money is no object, then an S/T obviously have more gizmos and a nicer interior.

A 172 and a 182 are not quite as similar as often generalized. The 182 feels different landing because it's so nose heavy. It's heavier on the controls overall in flight and more rock solid in IFR. It's also going to feel more bearish on takeoff with the torque because you've got a lot more HP out front. It's a C/S prop, HP airplane that'll do a good 20 knots faster, haul 4 people, and let you fill the tanks.
Click to expand...

Well, not quite. Our club has a C-172N with the Penn Yan 180hp conversion and a C-182P. Both have the long range tank option (50 gal in the 172, 74 gal in the 182). The 172 has a full fuel payload of about 755 pounds, while the 182 has a full fuel payload of around 643 pounds.

Now, the 182 is a nose heavy 172 with a couple extra controls. Prop and cowl flaps. Best glide is 5 kts higher than a 172. It is faster and more comfortable. Of the three planes in the club (C-172N, C-172P and C-182P) it is my favorite cross country cruising machine. My list of planes I've flown is limited, but of those I've flown, this is my favorite.

N747JB said:
My dad bought a P New in 1972,we both learned to fly in it! We bought Q a few years ago for my son to train in, the Q has a slower turning engine with a longer TBO, but not a huge amount of differences. The Q after 1978 have 24 volt electrical systems, but our 77 does fine with the 12 volt system. It's all about your budget. :)
Click to expand...

Or, you can do as our club has done. A C-182P with the Q engine. :)
 
gsengle said:
The only issue is that the bladders are supposedly notorious for trapping water, i.e. sumping isn't reliable, as water can get trapped in bladder folds. Can be an issue if you park outdoors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
That was resolved partially by the new style fuel caps that stop the water from entering the tanks! Our Q is hangared and I don't think I've ever found water in the gas! Our old P, with the old caps always had water in the tanks!!
 
BrianNC said:
I think the earliest model I would buy would be when they switched over to wet wing from bladders ('79/'80?) just to not have to deal with replacing them at some point or any other inherent problems.
Click to expand...

Metal fuel tanks are far from trouble free. There's a reason Piper built their leading edge fuel tanks on the Cherokee derivatives to be removable.

What kills bladders prematurely is leaving them near empty with the plane parked outside in the sun all the time.
 
Meh, whichever one has the most useful load, cheapest price and can turn skydiving loads the fastest all day.

Save up a little and get a C180, much better for a personal plane.
 
Are you absolutely set on high wing? Like someone else noted to me they don't fly as nice as a low wing. Low wings, even a humble Archer, feels a lot more stable and sporty to me, it just flies where you pointed it like it's on train tracks. If you need load hauling ability why not a Six/Lance/Saratoga?

My time is split pretty evenly between low wing (PA28-161 and 181/SR20) and high wing Cessnas

Granted, the 172 with 180 conversion climbs the best
 
I'll say that the difference in landing a 172 vs a 182 is pretty significant.

I had no trouble transitioning between c172, PA-28, DA-40. But learning to stick a 182 gave me some trouble. It develops a heavier sink than smaller planes. I kept trying to recreate the sight picture of landing a 172 only to find that I was too aggressive with the flare in the 182.

Some hard landings resulted from me being too afraid to get slow and trying to land it like a Skyhawk.

They're not as similar as they seem.
 
The 182 is nose heavy and needs a touch of power for approach due to that characteristic to arrest too rapid a sink rate. Piper Arrows have that a little but not as dramatic as the 182.
 
Bonchie said:
Well, if money is an object, the sweet spot seems to be the P/Q models. Those are very popular.

If money is no object, then an S/T obviously have more gizmos and a nicer interior.

A 172 and a 182 are not quite as similar as often generalized. The 182 feels different landing because it's so nose heavy. It's heavier on the controls overall in flight and more rock solid in IFR. It's also going to feel more bearish on takeoff with the torque because you've got a lot more HP out front. It's a C/S prop, HP airplane that'll do a good 20 knots faster, haul 4 people, and let you fill the tanks.
Click to expand...

Shawn said:
Step One...without questions buy this:

Cessna 182 Buyer's Guide (1956-1986)


For what was important for me and my missions, my research led me to ideally be a P or Q model and I wound up with a 1973 182P which is generally considered the "sweet spot" but that is a completely subjective term in what YOU value as important in your plane.

Would have loved a restart with a G1000 but the benefits didn't justify the price jump as I would up with a very nicely equipped panel for what I paid that does the job amazingly well. If I was looking to spend that much I probably would have just gone with an SR-22.
Click to expand...

Just purchased, can't wait to read it!

Blueangel said:
If I were to get a 182, my vote would go for a 182Q model. I am not a fan of the flying characteristics of the 182 as they feel like a heavy pickup truck. Flying planes like the Piper Arrow, Socata Trinidad and Beechcraft Bonanzas are more enjoyable to me.
Click to expand...

Although I would love to get a Mooney or a Bonanza right out of the gate, my experience is just minimal with under 100 hours of total flight time. The insurance would eat though my budget. This will also be my first airplane purchase so I would like to dip my toe in before jumping in fully. Maintenance costs shouldn't be that bad with a 182. But it can get me to where I would like to be...slowly but surely. Once I hit 500 hrs then I would consider faster airplanes.

James331 said:
Meh, whichever one has the most useful load, cheapest price and can turn skydiving loads the fastest all day.

Save up a little and get a C180, much better for a personal plane.
Click to expand...

James, why do you say that? What characteristics make a C180 better than a C182?

Tantalum said:
Are you absolutely set on high wing? Like someone else noted to me they don't fly as nice as a low wing. Low wings, even a humble Archer, feels a lot more stable and sporty to me, it just flies where you pointed it like it's on train tracks. If you need load hauling ability why not a Six/Lance/Saratoga?

My time is split pretty evenly between low wing (PA28-161 and 181/SR20) and high wing Cessnas

Granted, the 172 with 180 conversion climbs the best
Click to expand...

Not totally set on it, but it does have advantages like double doors which my wife would love better than the single door. I would hold the door for her ever time and check to make sure her door is secured. I can't do that in the low wings....not with my budget anyway.
 
Blueangel said:
The 182 is nose heavy and needs a touch of power for approach due to that characteristic to arrest too rapid a sink rate. Piper Arrows have that a little but not as dramatic as the 182.
Click to expand...
I make almost every landing in a 182 power off with full flap. It's not hard at all. Just hold it off the runway until the stall warning sounds like we were trained as student pilots.

I think people get wimpy with the controls due to fear of tail strikes. 182s are NOT prone to that.

I don't understand the nose heavy comment. It's nose behaves like any other Cessna if you trim it.
 
MAKG1 said:
I make almost every landing in a 182 power off with full flap.
...
I think people get wimpy with the controls due to fear of tail strikes.
Click to expand...
When do you pull power to idle? I get wimpy with the controls due to fear of nose strikes.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Although I would love to get a Mooney or a Bonanza right out of the gate, my experience is just minimal with under 100 hours of total flight time. The insurance would eat though my budget. This will also be my first airplane purchase so I would like to dip my toe in before jumping in fully. Maintenance costs shouldn't be that bad with a 182. But it can get me to where I would like to be...slowly but surely. Once I hit 500 hrs then I would consider faster airplanes.
Click to expand...

More myth then reality. Talk to a couple of insurance brokers. The main issue you will have with Mooney and Bonanza will be retract time. Not speed or other factors. In addition, you have not considered how much money is lost when you switch airplanes. Depending on the budget, you may consider an older SR20 or Columbia 350. Both are fixed gear, fast travel planes, very comfortable.

Tim
 
Ghery said:
Well, not quite. Our club has a C-172N with the Penn Yan 180hp conversion and a C-182P. Both have the long range tank option (50 gal in the 172, 74 gal in the 182). The 172 has a full fuel payload of about 755 pounds, while the 182 has a full fuel payload of around 643 pounds.
Click to expand...

Long range tanks in a 182 are 84 gallons, not 74. And that'll take you almost 1000 miles if you don't flog it.

With only 643 pounds of payload with 84 gallons on board, that'd put your useful around 1150. That has to be with the old 2950 MGW for the P. There's a pencil-whipped, paper STC that'll increase that to 3100 pounds with no modifications.

Trust me, your 182, in reality (not telling you to ignore book numbers here, to be clear), will far out haul that 172 if push came to shove. For the same range that 172 gives you at full tanks, you could instead put 50 gallons in your 182 and have 850 pounds payload (or 1000 pounds if you have the STC to make it legal).
 
Last edited:
FloridaPilot said:
...

James, why do you say that? What characteristics make a C180 better than a C182?



...
Click to expand...

Jackscrew trim is standard, better CG range and lower drag

Factory float plane options, even if you don't go on floats or skis, you not only have the option and better resale, but you have a factory reinforced and anti corrosion airframe.

Better cruise speed due to the cleaner design of a Tailwheel configuration

Better off field and short field abilities



Factory standard manual flaps, hands down better once you learn how to work them.

More nimble and lighter controls

Many have Robertson STOL kits, bubble Windows etc, basically on average people also take better care of and spend more money on skywagons.

Just look at the market
 
MAKG1 said:
I make almost every landing in a 182 power off with full flap. It's not hard at all. Just hold it off the runway until the stall warning sounds like we were trained as student pilots.

I think people get wimpy with the controls due to fear of tail strikes. 182s are NOT prone to that.

I don't understand the nose heavy comment. It's nose behaves like any other Cessna if you trim it.
Click to expand...

Do you find the sight picture to be significantly different? For whatever reason, I over-flare our 182T. Proper flare to me feels like we're landing flat and I'm afraid of coming down on the nose wheel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top