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

[Tantalum]

Not totally set on it, but it does have advantages like double doors which my wife would love better than the single door.

Same here, that's why my time is split up. I prefer the low wing handling, but wife likes the double doors of the high wings

 

[gsengle]

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).

A 182 can go 1000nm? I'm skeptical.

182 pilots what's a realistic number?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[asicer]

Just purchased, can't wait to read it!

Have you downloaded this yet?

http://www.theskylanepilotscompanion.com/

 

[GeorgeC]

A 182 can go 1000nm? I'm skeptical.

182 pilots what's a realistic number?

80 gallons / 12 gph * 150mph=1000sm. He never said nautical

 

[gsengle]

So, statute miles, no reserve


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bonchie]

A 182 can go 1000nm? I'm skeptical.

182 pilots what's a realistic number?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am a 182 pilot for starters.

Long range tanks will take you about 950nm on economy settings at about 130 knots. That's book numbers. I'm never gonna actually sit in it that long.

You'll have to forgive me for not flying a Mooney.

 

[gsengle]

I am a 182 pilot for starters.

Long range tanks will take you about 950nm on economy settings at about 130 knots.

You'll have to forgive me for not flying a Mooney.

That's pretty good, I wasn't aware a 182 could have such long legs. Why all the defensiveness, I can't get into half the fields you can. It's all trade offs...

I suppose my Mooney can do about 1400nm til it sputters and goes quiet in economy cruise over 7+ hours, but I'd carry one person to do it and need a way longer runway to get off comfortably. Different missions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bonchie]

That's pretty good, I wasn't aware a 182 could have such long legs. Why all the defensiveness, I can't get into half the fields you can. It's all trade offs...

I suppose my Mooney can do about 1400nm til it sputters and goes quiet in economy cruise over 7+ hours, but I'd carry one person to do it and need a way longer runway to get off comfortably. Different missions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Honestly, I'd rather have a Mooney (F or newer). 130 knots feels slow now.

But it's about what partnerships were available at the time in my area.

 

[gsengle]

Honestly, I'd rather have a Mooney (F or newer). 130 knots feels slow now.

But it's about what partnerships were available at the time in my area.

I think a 180 is one of the best looking planes in GA. And a lot of days I wish I had something like an Aeronca and could fly low slow with the windows open... but for traveling brand M is nice - as long as the runways are long. The 182 seems like a good trade off for many, if you like the high wing. Would like to get more time in one.

Anyone know how much advantage the RG version is? And is it still rugged enough gear for off pavement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atbroome]

FP, looks like we are in very similar positions - just under 100 hours looking for our first plane. For 182s I've settled on the P/Qs. But still debating between 182 or Grumman Tiger. Or an older Bonanza. Or....

To bad you don't live nearby or we could partner up.

Thanks as always for your feedback!

 

[GeorgeC]

Anyone know how much advantage the RG version is? And is it still rugged enough gear for off pavement?

A local club claims 155kt on their RG. The gear always looked goofy to me.

 

[MAKG1]

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.

The sight picture on the T model seems a bit different from the others. Not hugely so, though. I think it's just that the seats don't go as high.

 

[MAKG1]

A 182 can go 1000nm? I'm skeptical.

182 pilots what's a realistic number?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You forget they hold a LOT of fuel. If you run it for max range (i.e., slow! -- 100 KTAS) and you have long range tanks, you can get it over 1000 miles with a 45 minute reserve per the performance tables. 10 hours is a whole hell of a lot of flying without a break, though.

I don't usually fly more than 4 hours at once, so my own limit at 130 KTAS is barely half that, but the airplane will go a lot further.

But you NEVER top off a 182. You simply don't need that much, and it just makes the plane less nimble.

 

[GeorgeC]

We always top off the club 182 to keep the bladders happy.

 

[neilw2]

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.

Yea, I never got the "nose heavy" deal. I always land it exactly as you do and never had much of an issue.

 

[FloridaPilot]

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

That is a good point! But I'm not proficient enough to fly a faster airplane yet, especially without retract time, (I prefer a Mooney or a Bonanza..depending on how many people want to fly with me) but alas I should be smart and stick to the course. 3 or 4 people 300-600nm. Something slow for now until I get tired of the speed and get something faster. Or maybe I continue to rent until I'm ready for the faster airplanes which might be a better option. Nothing like owning though and I will get the needed experience faster owing rather than if I rent from the school, which has planes unavailable all the time.

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

Respectfully, I'm done with tail draggers though. I flew a champ and I hated it. It felt like an adult getting on a tricycle.

Have you downloaded this yet?

http://www.theskylanepilotscompanion.com/

No, I haven't I wish you wrote to me sooner...it looks like a good book I will take a look at it. Thank you!

I think a 180 is one of the best looking planes in GA. And a lot of days I wish I had something like an Aeronca and could fly low slow with the windows open... but for traveling brand M is nice - as long as the runways are long. The 182 seems like a good trade off for many, if you like the high wing. Would like to get more time in one.

Anyone know how much advantage the RG version is? And is it still rugged enough gear for off pavement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

10-15 knots difference I was told but tackling the retractable gear on a Cessna might not be worth it.

FP, looks like we are in very similar positions - just under 100 hours looking for our first plane. For 182s I've settled on the P/Qs. But still debating between 182 or Grumman Tiger. Or an older Bonanza. Or....

To bad you don't live nearby or we could partner up.

That is cool, lets continue to keep in touch and bounce ideas off of each other at least. It's a small world, especially within the airplane community.

 

[Shawn]

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

That's the kicker...IF you properly trim it...which many 172 pilots do not properly learn cuz it is just not as important in the smaller planes...don't do that propperly, chop power and think you are in a 172 is how most 182's wind up landing nose hard, bending a firewall, pourpoiseing, or worse...prop strike. It is a VERY common problem and common damage to find in the 182 line when things start to go a bit wrong.

Easily mitigated but pilots have to be aware of and understand its tendencies to prevent it.

But you NEVER top off a 182. You simply don't need that much, and it just makes the plane less nimble.

Never say never. I top off all the time...not all 182's have long range tanks at 80 gallons...many are standard tanks at 60 or so gallons.

 

[Sinistar]

We really like our 182P model. Rather than gush about it (okay, we really, really like it) I will mention what we don't like:

1.) Co-pilot window does not open (hot in summer). I believe some 182's have a opening window on that side
2.) Airflow in general is pretty weak. But the heater is awesome!!!
3.) Getting in is difficult for shorter people or people who are weak (eg. elderly) - bring a small step.
4.) The 182 requires the pilot side seat safety latch. It sucks and would be really hard to find in a emergency. Our A&P let us know that the floor belt system part is still paid for by Cessna so we had that installed. Much, much easier to move the pilot seat and back now!!!
5.) Height adjustable chair for the pilot (we have this). Height adjustable seat for the co-pilot (we wish it had this).
6.) Add a CO monitor. During run-up and long idling the CO levels can come up quick, especially with any vents or window open.
7.) The panel is very tall. Not the best for small kids riding up front.
8.) Ideally a better shade solution for the large rear window (especially if passengers)
9.) The 182 is heavy in general so budget for a tow/tug.
10.) Taking the lower cowling off is a PITA.
11.) Our 'P' Model still has a strainer and not a oil filter.
12.) Lean aggressively on the ground or you'll wonder where all the fuel went in flight.
13.) For most all TCM 182's, carb ice is a known area to watch out for.
14.) For 182's with bladders there is a potential for water to be trapped beyond wrinkle in the bottom.
15.) The rear seats have nice side-side space and lots of leg room. But your butt is pretty close to the floor (knees are really bent).
16.) I think the 'P' model had one of the lower MTOW of the older series so perhaps going back a few models will get you another 100lbs or so.
17.) We did not care for the factory visors and switch to Rosen - they are awesome.
18.) The factory landing lights go really fast so if you find a plane with LED you will be happy.


FYI: Ours has the 84gal tanks but only 79 useable. The 'P' Model has 40deg flaps but I think other models had 30deg.

 

[tspear]

That is a good point! But I'm not proficient enough to fly a faster airplane yet, especially without retract time, (I prefer a Mooney or a Bonanza..depending on how many people want to fly with me) but alas I should be smart and stick to the course. 3 or 4 people 300-600nm. Something slow for now until I get tired of the speed and get something faster. Or maybe I continue to rent until I'm ready for the faster airplanes which might be a better option. Nothing like owning though and I will get the needed experience faster owing rather than if I rent from the school, which has planes unavailable all the time.

There is this really powerful lever/knob in those "fast" airplanes. It is called a throttle, you pull it back and the plane slows way down. On approach to land, what is desired speed for a C182, a Mooney, or a Bonanza. Go with Vso * 1.3 as the AIM suggested baseline, not what the local Joe uses flying into a 4K runway. You will find, C182 has a stall speed of 54, the Mooney is 53, the Bonanza A36 is 52. Guess what, you should fly those "fast" planes slower then the Cessna on approach.
Where Cessna has the advantage, is the plane is so dirty, if you come in fast, it is more forgiving. You may as well learn proper energy management and get past this limitation.

Tim

 

[chartbundle]

A local club claims 155kt on their RG. The gear always looked goofy to me.

Personally I always considered the club RGs I've flown to be 145kt aircraft. The gear does look goofy and the repair bill when something goes wrong can be staggering with a couple of extremely expensive parts. And of course, there's the the fact that there is no backup if you lose all the hydraulic fluid in the gear system, it has a way to pump it down if the pump fails, but without fluid then it doesn't do anything. I consider them a perfectly good rental plane, but I wouldn't want to own one.

 

[labbadabba]

And of course, there's the the fact that there is no backup if you lose all the hydraulic fluid in the gear system, it has a way to pump it down if the pump fails, but without fluid then it doesn't do anything.

My understanding is there is an emergency reservoir that will supply enough pressure to manually extend the gear in the event of a hydraulic failure.

 

[chartbundle]

My understanding is there is an emergency reservoir that will supply enough pressure to manually extend the gear in the event of a hydraulic failure.

Based on the diagram it looks like that's possible, unless you have a leak causing the fluid to leak out as you use the hand pump, then you're still landing gear up. Basically in comparison to other systems which fail down or have a mechanical backup it's a slightly higher risk system. https://www.aopa.org/asf//ntsb/narrative.cfm?ackey=1&evid=20140714X95312

 

[Tantalum]

I prefer a Mooney or a Bonanza..depending on how many people want to fly with me) but alas I should be smart and stick to the course. 3 or 4 people 300-600nm. Something slow for now until I get tired of the speed and get something faster. Or maybe I continue to rent until I'm ready for the faster airplanes which might be a better option

I've had the same conundrum. I really hate renting because of availability and scheduling means our schedule is less flexible. I also always wonder a little how the last person who rented the plane flew, or abused it. But when it comes to purchasing, I ask myself. Do I get a respectable Archer, cruise around 120 kts, and be perfectly happy with that for a few years. Or wait a bit and buy that fast Mooney... there have been a couple on controller I've been really impressed with for both.

You may as well learn proper energy management and get past this limitation.

That's a good point. I think for most people though it's not necessarily the cruise, it's managing the faster speeds and slipperier airplane on descent. I think most new pilots / renters are used to flying the Cherokees and 172s at or near full power, including the descent, and only pulling the power back once they're in the pattern or getting established on the approach. I don't think it would be wise to leave the power in on a Mooney or Bo for the descent!

 

[chartbundle]

I don't think it would be wise to leave the power in on a Mooney or Bo for the descent!

Well, maybe not on one of them there fancy ILS approaches they have at those big airports. On the other hand keeping power in coming out of 17,500 got me a nice 170KTAS and 500FPM all the way to a couple miles from the airport and pattern altitude. Worst case I have speed brakes but didn't need them as I had plenty of time to plan this descent.

 

[Blueangel]

I highly dislike the poor quality of Cessna aircraft doors. They get abused easily at least in rentals and are a royal PITA to open and close. Not a fan of the seating position in Cessnas. I guess I prefer low wing aircraft as they fly nicer and easier to see the pattern. But the high wing vs low wing debate has been a long time. That said, once I am back working and making money, I plan to get a nice plane like a Bonanza, Commander or Socata my three favorite single pistons. Dream ship would be a Bonanza A36 since I love camping, fishing and scuba diving and loading gear in the back is way easier with those double cargo doors!

 

[Justin M]

Just wanted to say thanks to all the contributors to this thread. I'm only in the dreaming phase of ownership, but the commentary in this thread has been helpful as I dream about my options in the future. Buying a plane looks like it is filled with "I don't know what I don't know" gotchas, but the community here is filling in some gaps.

Thanks!

 

[Justin M]

That's the kicker...IF you properly trim it...which many 172 pilots do not properly learn cuz it is just not as important in the smaller planes...don't do that propperly, chop power and think you are in a 172 is how most 182's wind up landing nose hard, bending a firewall, pourpoiseing, or worse...prop strike. It is a VERY common problem and common damage to find in the 182 line when things start to go a bit wrong.

Easily mitigated but pilots have to be aware of and understand its tendencies to prevent it.

The grand poo-bah at the new club implied that there is a trick to trimming on landing that I may be unaware of. We were talking about landing the 182 versus the 172.

I have been trimming for the descent, but should I trim for the flare when I cross the fence? What's your technique to trim for landing?

 

[chartbundle]

I have been trimming for the descent, but should I trim for the flare when I cross the fence? What's your technique to trim for landing?

Honestly, in the 182 I never did, reaching for the trim wheel on short final is a pain and about half the rentals I've flown that had electric trim it often worked poorly or intermittently.

On the Mooney the CFI who did my check-out got very annoyed if I just strong-armed it instead of trimming. But the electric trim is functional and fast enough for it to work well even as you're flaring.

 

[asicer]

My understanding is there is an emergency reservoir that will supply enough pressure to manually extend the gear in the event of a hydraulic failure.

That would be the pilot's bladder. Just make sure you pee into a bottle and not one of those crystal->gel packs.

 

[Tantalum]

nice 170KTAS and 500FPM

The speed does feel nice in a descent. Ofcourse on a lousy fixed pitch prop I max out around the 140-150 KTAS in order to keep the RPMs at around 2500. But for someone not used to shedding 70 knots off as they near the airport I could see that being a problem. The Cirrus I found actually pretty easy to manage the speed. It is slippery, but if you bring the power out and get a notch of flaps in that's like putting the brakes on

 

[Tantalum]

Honestly, in the 182 I never did, reaching for the trim wheel on short final is a pain and about half the rentals I've flown that had electric trim it often worked poorly or intermittently.

On the Mooney the CFI who did my check-out got very annoyed if I just strong-armed it instead of trimming. But the electric trim is functional and fast enough for it to work well even as you're flaring.

Yes. I hate how the trim is setup in a the Cessnas. The Archer (even without electric trim) is much easier to trim out with the wheel right next to you. And the Cirrus you just tap it until you trim away the pressure. I always got yelled at in the Skyhawk too for trimming, but honestly leaning forward, getting stuck against the seat belt, and moving that thing up and down is a PITA.. it is almost just easier to keep a little pressure on the yoke

 

[MAKG1]

Honestly, in the 182 I never did, reaching for the trim wheel on short final is a pain and about half the rentals I've flown that had electric trim it often worked poorly or intermittently.

On the Mooney the CFI who did my check-out got very annoyed if I just strong-armed it instead of trimming. But the electric trim is functional and fast enough for it to work well even as you're flaring.

I won't do much more than trim it hands off at 65 KIAS and full flap just after turning final.

The thing people seem to skip is that you usually do need to adjust trim as you let out the flap.

 

[GeorgeC]

I have been trimming for the descent, but should I trim for the flare when I cross the fence? What's your technique to trim for landing?

I trim the 182k for 70mph on final and then avoid further configuration changes. Is that a pancake on your head? Nice.

 

[Shawn]

The grand poo-bah at the new club implied that there is a trick to trimming on landing that I may be unaware of. We were talking about landing the 182 versus the 172.

I have been trimming for the descent, but should I trim for the flare when I cross the fence? What's your technique to trim for landing?

Once configured on final and trimmed to maintain desired glide slope without much yoke pressure, I will add a bit of nose up trim over the fence. A couple of spins of the wheel for me is an easy reach. That technique is subjective and certainly not the only way as evident here, but what I do.

The danger that I eluded to is is you do NOT do any trimming and expect the same characteristics of the 172 is where some will get into trouble. When chopping power heading for the roundout to flare, the heavier nose of the 182 will naturally wanna drop faster than the 172 with no other inputs. If your trim is already outta whack it may be that much harder to keep the nose up. Too high, chop power at wrong time, bad energy management to flare, nose low trim, gusty conditions...a combination of factors can easily lead to a nose hard landing that the 182 is prone to.

Not a lot has to go wrong for a bad landing but a lot has to go right for a good landing...and understanding the pitfalls and tendencies is critical. Again, nothing that is not easily mitigated and no one here so far is wrong in their technique, but if you are just flying along fat, dumb, oblivious and unaware you may find yourself in a world bent metal if you do not understand what you are compensating for when things start to go wrong and how to minimize getting into a bad situation in the first place.

 

[labbadabba]

I won't do much more than trim it hands off at 65 KIAS and full flap just after turning final.

The thing people seem to skip is that you usually do need to adjust trim as you let out the flap.

When you are on final at 65KIAS, what is your target descent rate? I'm transitioning to our CAP 182 and found that at 65KIAS she wanted to sink like a rock so I really find myself dragging the plane during short final. My CAP CFI kept getting on me for being too fast but I've not been able to find the sweet spot in energy management with it yet. The 172, I can set the power so I'm 75kts on base, 70 on final and after deploying the final notch of flaps, letting the speed drop off to 60-65kts on short final. I can do this just by elevator input, flaps, and trim. My hand is only on the throttle for go-around.

 

[BrianNC]

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.

I thought it was as docile as the 172. Maybe a little more nose heavy. That's what trim is for. I never had any problem landing it at all, and always landed it power off. I always went power off when I had the runway made to answer someone else's question. Never gave me any problem at all.

 

[Bill]

I don't think it would be wise to leave the power in on a Mooney or Bo for the descent!

The 201 has a pretty high red line. If the air is fairly smooth, I leave cruise power in on decent, at least down through 5000msl or so, then start to slowly back out of the power. Not uncommon to get 185kts on a 500fpm decent, helps make up for some of the time lost in climb.

 

[Pilawt]

The sight picture on the T model seems a bit different from the others. Not hugely so, though. I think it's just that the seats don't go as high.

The cowl is longer and higher, too. The specs quoted by Cessna over the years are a little inconsistent, but the Lycoming-powered 182 variants (R182, T182R, 182S/T) run about six to nine inches longer than the later Continental-powered models.

 

[MAKG1]

When you are on final at 65KIAS, what is your target descent rate? I'm transitioning to our CAP 182 and found that at 65KIAS she wanted to sink like a rock so I really find myself dragging the plane during short final. My CAP CFI kept getting on me for being too fast but I've not been able to find the sweet spot in energy management with it yet. The 172, I can set the power so I'm 75kts on base, 70 on final and after deploying the final notch of flaps, letting the speed drop off to 60-65kts on short final. I can do this just by elevator input, flaps, and trim. My hand is only on the throttle for go-around.

It's a function of weight. There is enough variation for it to matter.

Near max landing weight, 70 KIAS works better.

I usually target 500 FPM.

There is nothing wrong with dragging it in as long as you aren't continually adding power (that means you're behind the power curve, and adding power alone isn't going to help).

I've always found the throttle needs adjustment during a partial power descent, even in a 172.

 

[FloridaPilot]

That's the kicker...IF you properly trim it...which many 172 pilots do not properly learn cuz it is just not as important in the smaller planes...don't do that propperly, chop power and think you are in a 172 is how most 182's wind up landing nose hard, bending a firewall, porpoising, or worse...prop strike. It is a VERY common problem and common damage to find in the 182 line when things start to go a bit wrong.

Easily mitigated but pilots have to be aware of and understand its tendencies to prevent it.



Never say never. I top off all the time...not all 182's have long range tanks at 80 gallons...many are standard tanks at 60 or so gallons.

I learned, (Correct me if I'm wrong) The trim is like a hold switch, point the nose to where you want it be THEN trim. I had to learn that the hard way.

I highly dislike the poor quality of Cessna aircraft doors. They get abused easily at least in rentals and are a royal PITA to open and close. Not a fan of the seating position in Cessnas. I guess I prefer low wing aircraft as they fly nicer and easier to see the pattern. But the high wing vs low wing debate has been a long time. That said, once I am back working and making money, I plan to get a nice plane like a Bonanza, Commander or Socata my three favorite single pistons. Dream ship would be a Bonanza A36 since I love camping, fishing and scuba diving and loading gear in the back is way easier with those double cargo doors!

ME TOO....Love the Bonanza's Especially the A36 with the removable seats. I need to fly one of those beasts.

Just wanted to say thanks to all the contributors to this thread. I'm only in the dreaming phase of ownership, but the commentary in this thread has been helpful as I dream about my options in the future. Buying a plane looks like it is filled with "I don't know what I don't know" gotchas, but the community here is filling in some gaps.

Thanks!

That is part of why I like to create threads. I ALWAYS learn something and I enjoy the interaction and learn from that as well.

I say Thank you as well for answering my endless and sometimes mundane questions from the more experienced folks here.