What type of performance do you guys see out of a 182P?

midcap said:
Yearly budget, probably 20k


I guess fast cruise, ability to carry 2 adults, one kid and a suitcase.
Click to expand...

You'll probably want to sit in some planes and see what you like.

I should also mention that 182s tend to be cheap to insure. I insure mine with $90k hull and just shy of $700/year...a lot less than my car.
 
Well I figured you'd get that Bo jab in there. But when a high percentage of instruction is in the C brand....guess which models are naturally eyed? That's all...and I have hundreds of C time. Heck a C Brand was my first aircraft.

It takes some maturity before the B brands are noticed. :lol:
Brad Z said:
Every plane has its pluses and minuses, but the free market is pretty efficient at quantifying relative value of a plane. There's a reason cheap planes are cheap and expensive planes are expensive, and we can't blame it on large multinational firms dumping old bonanzas on the market to artificially drive the prices down :)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Brad Z said:
You'll probably want to sit in some planes and see what you like.

I should also mention that 182s tend to be cheap to insure. I insure mine with $90k hull and just shy of $700/year...a lot less than my car.
Click to expand...
I just renewed mine $75K hull, with my 21 year old 100 hour PP son as named pilot for $995.00
 
N747JB said:
I just renewed mine $75K hull, with my 21 year old 100 hour PP son as named pilot for $995.00
Click to expand...
Do we dare ask what the cost is to insure Charlene?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Well I figured you'd get that Bo jab in there. But when a high percentage of instruction is in the C brand....guess which models are naturally eyed? That's all...and I have hundreds of C time. Heck a C Brand was my first aircraft.

It takes some maturity before the B brands are noticed. :lol:
Click to expand...

OK. Bonanza are for geezers? :)

Actually I definitely would have considered a Bonanza if it wasn't for 1) the low wing thing mentioned previously, and 2) the shape of the cabin that made my head feel like I was scraping the ceiling. Like a Mooney, that slimmer profile means a faster airplane.
 
Brad Z said:
You'll probably want to sit in some planes and see what you like.

I should also mention that 182s tend to be cheap to insure. I insure mine with $90k hull and just shy of $700/year...a lot less than my car.
Click to expand...

I think next time I am at the FBO I will ask to sit in a few there.

In the hangar is a 182, Comanche, M20J and a Cherokee 140. Along with some other things.
 
Brad Z said:
You'll probably want to sit in some planes and see what you like.

I should also mention that 182s tend to be cheap to insure. I insure mine with $90k hull and just shy of $700/year...a lot less than my car.
Click to expand...

wow, that's cheap
 
AggieMike88 said:
The Cherokee 235 is the Piper answer to the Skylane. @Jay Honeck and @SmashTime can tell you about their experiences. Jay had his named Atlas, because he could carry quite a bit stuff.

The Dakota is the later version of the 235.
Click to expand...


The 235 is a great airplane 130knots & 1400lbs of useful load @ 12-14gph. Superb 2 person airplane with FULL BAGGAGE AND FUEL.

It is however, cramped in the backseat if your pilot/co pilot are 6ft or taller. Id imagine a 5'9 pilot would make the backseat rather comfortable. But as a 6'3 285lb man, those who sat behind me, typically used the whole backseat as kinda a lawn chair recliner. I could scoot my seat forward (and often did) for trips less than an hour.

The price point is also a plus, as its typically cheaper then a 182. But its no less capable for most missions, the backwoods pilot would be wise to choose a 182 over the 235 just on wing clearance alone.

Load her decently under gross and you will climb at 1500fpm for a good amount of time.

Get the one with tip tanks!
 
SmashTime said:
The 235 is a great airplane 130knots & 1400lbs of useful load @ 12-14gph. Superb 2 person airplane with FULL BAGGAGE AND FUEL.

It is however, cramped in the backseat if your pilot/co pilot are 6ft or taller. Id imagine a 5'9 pilot would make the backseat rather comfortable. But as a 6'3 285lb man, those who sat behind me, typically used the whole backseat as kinda a lawn chair recliner. I could scoot my seat forward (and often did) for trips less than an hour.

The price point is also a plus, as its typically cheaper then a 182. But its no less capable for most missions, the backwoods pilot would be wise to choose a 182 over the 235 just on wing clearance alone.

Load her decently under gross and you will climb at 1500fpm for a good amount of time.

Get the one with tip tanks!
Click to expand...

Yeah the 235 is a beast. When I look at the 235's, I then think to myself, that for about the same price, I can get a Comanche that is 20kts faster and that would be able to do 99% of all my missions for a long time.

I am really not partial to high wings, matter of fact I think with all the water I would fly near and over, a low wing would be better.

These are the specs I looked up for a Comanche 260

Horsepower: 260 Gross Weight: 3200 lbs
Top Speed: 170 kts Empty Weight: 1773 lbs
Cruise Speed: 161 kts Fuel Capacity: 60 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 53 kts Range: 628 nm
Takeoff Landing

useful load of 1400? so after fuel and oil that's still 1000lbs of useful load. That's what I am talking about.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Once you have your instrument rating, the cost drops a bit more...
Click to expand...

I have heard that. I think I will rent until I get my IR ticket. What's going to happen is that I am going to get ALOT of hours before I even solo due to my medical.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Another benefit with the Q model.... The passenger side window opens.

Also, both the P and Q model have access to a "paperwork" STC that increases the max gross takeoff weight from 2950 to 3100 lbs. Meaning you gain 150 lbs useful load without having to change anything structurally. See http://www.182stc.com/ for more info on that.

Having long range tanks is a nice thing, as it extends the range by an hour. The trade off is the increased weight of the fuel if you depart with full tanks.

The 182 is an airplane that is not a "best in a single category" airplane. But in all of the categories combined, it will always be a good choice for those that seek a good balance of speed, range, load, comfort, stable IFR, etc.
Click to expand...

Easily fixed by installing a "camera port" window. Which is what we did. Lots cheaper than changing out the door/window mechanism.

We got ours too large though. Recommend making sure yours is placed such that it doesn't hit the passenger when folding it down. Haha.

N747JB said:
Not all Q's have opening right side windows, at least one doesn't!
Click to expand...

This too.
 
denverpilot said:
Easily fixed by installing a "camera port" window. Which is what we did. Lots cheaper than changing out the door/window mechanism.

We got ours too large though. Recommend making sure yours is placed such that it doesn't hit the passenger when folding it down. Haha.



This too.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see that camera port! It's not a problem when I am flying, I leave the window open, my son likes it closed, he doesn't sweat as much as his old man!! :)
 
N747JB said:
Nice! It opens inward? Cost?
Click to expand...

I'd have to look at what we paid but it wasn't outrageous. A little more than replacing the window which needed replacing anyway. I think their prices are buried in their website somewhere.
 
whAt would the pros and cons of a Cherokee 235/Dakota vs a 182P,Q,R be found?
 
midcap said:
whAt would the pros and cons of a Cherokee 235/Dakota vs a 182P,Q,R be found?
Click to expand...
$80K buys a nice Piper.....and buys a fair to mediocre Cessna of the same year. To get a comparable Cessna be prepared to add $20-30K to that. Just because it's a Cessna.

I've got hundreds of hours in both....they do some of the same things IMHO.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
$80K buys a nice Piper.....and buys a fair to mediocre Cessna of the same year. To get a comparable Cessna be prepared to add $20-30K to that. Just because it's a Cessna.

I've got hundreds of hours in both....they do some of the same things IMHO.
Click to expand...

I have noticed that trend, I mean if you get a piper, the money you save over a Cessna is essential a new overhauled engine.

I am just trying to figure out why the big price difference.
 
Data points:

1977 182Q, Pponk 275 HP, 2 blade McCauley prop
I plan for 13 gph @135 KTAS. Yes, will go faster, but I prefer to cruise at ~65% power and lean aggressively.
Longer flights (over ~1.5 hrs), typical for LA-SF Bay or LA-Sacramento, I'll fly at 10K-12K (I use O2 above 8K) I'll get 135 KTAS at <11 gph. Record best is 137 KTAS at 9.2 gph at 14.5K.
Airframe is stock, wheel fairings but no aero mods. It has been properly rigged, which certainly helped.
>1,264 lbs useful load with Trolltune STC (75 gal useful fuel, so over 800 lbs fuel fuel payload).
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
$80K buys a nice Piper.....and buys a fair to mediocre Cessna of the same year. To get a comparable Cessna be prepared to add $20-30K to that. Just because it's a Cessna.

I've got hundreds of hours in both....they do some of the same things IMHO.
Click to expand...

We did a head-to-head fly off between a Dakota and a 182 on the same day before deciding on the Cessna. Nothing against Brand P - I have a lot of hours in Archers and Warriors too.

The big pros for the 182 were:
- Huge back seat. Even the longer-body Dakota's don't have as much room.
- Many STC mods available for the 182, including great engine options like the Pponk.
- We flew on a turbulent day and the yaw stability of the 182 felt better.
- High wing for airplane camping (which it does get used for).

Just different flavors of apples, folks have their preferences. I actually prefer the cockpit ergonomics of Cherokees over Cessnas, probably because I'm on the shorter side and the panel is high on 182s (though that is a plus when IMC).
 
midcap said:
[...] I guess fast cruise, ability to carry 2 adults, one kid and a suitcase.
Click to expand...

As much as I like Cessnas, we were actually also looking into 182s for a while - this has written 'Mooney' all over it, assuming retractable and one door is OK for you. In the older models, there is not much leg room in the back, for a single adult or kids however still sufficient.
Also, don't let people tell you that they are tight. The seating position is more like in a sports car, and the windows are not biggest, what might have led to this tale. Objectively, the cabin is actually the widest in class: http://www.mooneyland.com/why-mooney/

In our M20E, with a few speed mods, we are planning on 150 kts TAS at 10 gph (actual is more around 152 kts at 9.8 gph) or 140 kts at 9 gph (also rather conservative). By far the best traveling machine I ever experienced and we actually travel quite a bit.

The 182's fuel consumption is not only much higher at the same speed, the TBO of the older O-470 engines is also only 1,500 hours and overhauls are more expensive due to the 6 cylinder engine. At a given budget, a Mooney would get you quite a bit further than a 182.

If you prefer fixed gear, a Grumman Tiger is another plane I would look at.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Oslick said:
Data points:

1977 182Q, Pponk 275 HP, 2 blade McCauley prop
I plan for 13 gph @135 KTAS. Yes, will go faster, but I prefer to cruise at ~65% power and lean aggressively.
Longer flights (over ~1.5 hrs), typical for LA-SF Bay or LA-Sacramento, I'll fly at 10K-12K (I use O2 above 8K) I'll get 135 KTAS at <11 gph. Record best is 137 KTAS at 9.2 gph at 14.5K.
Airframe is stock, wheel fairings but no aero mods. It has been properly rigged, which certainly helped.
>1,264 lbs useful load with Trolltune STC (75 gal useful fuel, so over 800 lbs fuel fuel payload).
Click to expand...

Those are some nice numbers
 
Jeff Oslick said:
We did a head-to-head fly off between a Dakota and a 182 on the same day before deciding on the Cessna. Nothing against Brand P - I have a lot of hours in Archers and Warriors too.

The big pros for the 182 were:
- Huge back seat. Even the longer-body Dakota's don't have as much room.
- Many STC mods available for the 182, including great engine options like the Pponk.
- We flew on a turbulent day and the yaw stability of the 182 felt better.
- High wing for airplane camping (which it does get used for).

Just different flavors of apples, folks have their preferences. I actually prefer the cockpit ergonomics of Cherokees over Cessnas, probably because I'm on the shorter side and the panel is high on 182s (though that is a plus when IMC).
Click to expand...

Good to know...
 
German guy said:
As much as I like Cessnas, we were actually also looking into 182s for a while - this has written 'Mooney' all over it, assuming retractable and one door is OK for you. In the older models, there is not much leg room in the back, for a single adult or kids however still sufficient.
Also, don't let people tell you that they are tight. The seating position is more like in a sports car, and the windows are not biggest, what might have led to this tale. Objectively, the cabin is actually the widest in class: http://www.mooneyland.com/why-mooney/

In our M20E, with a few speed mods, we are planning on 150 kts TAS at 10 gph (actual is more around 152 kts at 9.8 gph) or 140 kts at 9 gph (also rather conservative). By far the best traveling machine I ever experienced and we actually travel quite a bit.

The 182's fuel consumption is not only much higher at the same speed, the TBO of the older O-470 engines is also only 1,500 hours and overhauls are more expensive due to the 6 cylinder engine. At a given budget, a Mooney would get you quite a bit further than a 182.

If you prefer fixed gear, a Grumman Tiger is another plane I would look at.
Click to expand...

I really like Mooneys I just don't know if the useful load is high enough, I guess I can always go on a diet.lol
 
midcap said:
I really like Mooneys I just don't know if the useful load is high enough, I guess I can always go on a diet.lol
Click to expand...
well then.....the Bonanza might be more suited for the nice looking hefty folk. :lol:

I'm not even gonna mention the speed....cause they're in a different league.
 
N747JB said:
They are all 4 place!! Seriously, the early Bo's are all 4 place, the newer ones, A-36 have 6 seats.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that, I thought they were 6 seats.

I'll research them, they seem to command a premium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top