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

Tantalum said:
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!
Click to expand...

Each plane has its quirks, but all of them are pretty easy to adjust for. Just fly with someone who knows the plane, and can land the plane in a field with a safe margin over book. For me, that is about 500ft over book. Which means, you should be able to get in/out of any 2K length field comfortably with any of the planes mentioned.

Tim
 
FloridaPilot said:
...
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.



...
Click to expand...

No worries, normally that works the other way.
 
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...

Goodness. What did you guys put in the panel that weighs so much? ;)

Our P model is 654.1 full fuel useful load, but we also have 6 more gallons of fuel on board than yours at 80 with the L/R bladders in 1975.

So we are beating you by quite a few pounds. And we also have the additional weight of the Robertson STOL kit. Granted that's not a lot, but it's making yours look even worse.

You guys sneak some lead weights into the tail to keep it from being nose heavy or something? ;)
 
what do you guys think of this 182Q for $75k? The damage history worries me a little...but should it? It has nice avionics (430w and aspen 1000)
 
Ugh...too far away! One of these days we'll each find the right plane for us. Back right after I got my private, and was working on my instrument rating, Dad and I had a 1960 182C. Loved that plane! Not as good max weight as later models, and narrower body, with no rear window, but a good stable plane.

Flew it to Oshkosh in 90...landed on the last 1000 feet of runway with room to spare! 40 deg of barn door flaps...if you knew how to handle it, you could it on a dime and stop quick.
 
ybitz said:
what do you guys think of this 182Q for $75k? The damage history worries me a little...but should it? It has nice avionics (430w and aspen 1000)
Click to expand...

If repaired correctly that wouldn't worry me.

I'm more fascinated that any event that got the right wingtip that hard into something such that it got tonthe aileron and structure, didn't put a lot of stress on the gear, motor mounts, etc. If that was during a landing, it was a wild ride. To hit the wingtip that hard during a landing would be quite impressive.

If it was ground mis-handling/hangar rash, different story. Happens.

So I might see if the logs show how the wingtip got hit.
 
I know of a plane that had a deer strike. No, not at the north pole; a deer ran out on to the runway while the plane was landing. At night. Mangled the wing, repaired to like new.
 
In your opinion does the 182 have better, worst or the same visibility than a 172?
 
FloridaPilot said:
In your opinion does the 182 have better, worst or the same visibility than a 172?
Click to expand...
182s built after 1964 are worse -- the glareshields are higher, just about as high as the top edge of the side windows. In my normal seating position in a newer 182 I have to crane my neck up to see out the front, and duck down to see out the side. A 172 is almost -- not quite -- as bad.
 
The guys I rent from seem to prefer the restart Cessnas. They have a 1999 182 S.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
The guys I rent from seem to prefer the restart Cessnas. They have a 1999 182 S.
Click to expand...
I just got REAL impressed by a 182P I flew out of Reno in 8000+ DA. It managed 800 FPM in those conditions, and kept 500 FPM or more all the way to the 10500 cruising altitude, at 100 MPH. DA around 13000. Service ceiling is nominally 17700.

Of course, it had a nonstandard 3-blade "climb" prop on it, plus a STOL kit. Kinda slow for a 182, but it sure climbed nicely.
 
ybitz said:
what do you guys think of this 182Q for $75k? The damage history worries me a little...but should it? It has nice avionics (430w and aspen 1000)
Click to expand...
It's been on the market for at least 6-7 months. Something isn't right with it.
 
ktup-flyer said:
It's been on the market for at least 6-7 months. Something isn't right with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah...for that panel at that price there has to be something deeper than folks just skittish about some damage history for it not to have moved.
 
Another consideration is mogas. The P has an STC while the later models don't (maybe the Q does?).
 
Bonchie said:
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).
Click to expand...

Interesting. Well, long range or not, the tanks hold 74 gallons between them. I'll have to re-check the W&B numbers the next time I use that plane, but the numbers have been in that range for as long as I've flown that plane. I know the 182 has the reputation of being able to fly with anything you can close the doors on, but...

I don't have the option of trading fuel for payload. Club rules require putting the planes away with full tanks, so I have to do all flight planning assuming full tanks.

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

182 pilots what's a realistic number?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

3 hours. The plane has a lot more range than I have bladder.
 
Bonchie said:
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).
Click to expand...
My 182 has 92 gallon tanks. 1317lb useful load.
 
ktup-flyer said:
My 182 has 92 gallon tanks. 1317lb useful load.
Click to expand...

Good lord. Factory tanks or STC? If factory, what year was that?

Our 79 usable is a butt crusher. I've never done a full tank, land with reserves, flight in ours. It's just too long for "fun" aviation.
 
denverpilot said:
Good lord. Factory tanks or STC? If factory, what year was that?

Our 79 usable is a butt crusher. I've never done a full tank, land with reserves, flight in ours. It's just too long for "fun" aviation.
Click to expand...
Factory 81 R model. 87 usable. I'll post a pic on FB when we go pick it up in a couple weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top