Heck, two or three tows to altitude a month would be sufficient to keep the engine properly excersized and lubricated.
What's it worth?
- Thread starter OkieFlyer
- Start date
Heck, two or three tows to altitude a month would be sufficient to keep the engine properly excersized and lubricated.
OkieFlyer
En-Route
Thanks Mr. Cuervo.
I do trust the mechanic. Greg has done the maintenance for the last 6 years, and he has a good reputation among the aircraft owners here. To go a step further, I actually knew the mechanic who did the maintenance from 1992 to 2007. Joe was also a respected mechanic, and unfortunately lost his life in a plane crash while riding with a local pilot in his brand new Cirrus. That's neither here nor there, but the moral of the story is that the plane has been serviced by men I trust for 22 years. The owner is a good friend of mine, although he's 50 years older than me. He has trusted me enough to attach a glider to the back of his plane that I was flying. We're pretty good buds. I want to pay him a fair price, and I believe he wants me to have it for a fair price.
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
I looked at a ton of 182s last year before I bought mine.
Most of the ones under $40k had issues far bigger concern than what you are describing.
Look at TradeAPlane and filter by price. Look at what sub$49k gets you vs this plane AND no knowledge of the history.
The fact you're familiar with the plane and the mechanics is worth a bunch.
I bought a 182 and completely trusted the seller's mechanic/ broker because he was an honest guy.
This plane is one of the "word of mouth" deals that everyone hears about later.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
And it might have a better oil cooler.
And a tow hook. And mirrors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tell him to reupholster the seats and he has a deal.
denverpilot
Tied Down
I have to admit, you keep adding things that aren't bad. Knowing the mx history and people who worked on it, is a big big deal.
I has to have a tow hook.. And there is a mirror on the left strut.. But it looks kinda ( not legal)...
OkieFlyer
En-Route
I has to have a tow hook.. And there is a mirror on the left strut.. But it looks kinda ( not legal)...
Haha! I'll admit, despite all the good things about it, the truck mirror duct taped to the strut aint one of them. Hey, we in the country, Jack
Last edited:
OkieFlyer
En-Route
I could do some banner towing for overhaul money
p.s. narcos installed in '96. Not quite as old as i thought.
p.s. narcos installed in '96. Not quite as old as i thought.
I could do some banner towing for overhaul money
p.s. narcos installed in '96. Not quite as old as i thought.
Banner tow isn't bad in the right market, and a 182 will pull a big V billboard. It can be kinda stressful on a plane though, I prefer having a tube airframe for snatching up big billboards consistently, it gets tough on the rivets in the empennage.
OkieFlyer
En-Route
Yeah, I'll probably not push the ol dog too hard. It will have a hard enough time keeping my lard a** aloft without the billboards.
Well, thanks again everyone for the discussion, and from the bottom of my heart, have a merry Christmas!
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
I would love to have a banner hook and a billboard for my own Free Speech and commentary when our legislature is in session.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
bnt83
Final Approach
Still haven't really answered the question of $$$ per year on maintenance. When the shop rate virtually everywhere is >$50 an hour it adds up in a hurry. I was reading a thread the other day where about 10 different mechanics had input on hours for an engine change on a 182, the lowest response was 10.5 hours only because it had crapped out a few hours into service an all the junk that is repaired during engine swaps had already been finished. All other responses were 20 to 30 hours with one saying 45 hours.
I just quoted 12 hours to replace two fuel tank level senders and install an Aerospace Logic fuel gauge.
Drain fuel tanks. Remove fuel cap filler access plates. Clean sealant from those plates. Remove, ship old senders. Install new senders. Install new gauge. Re-install filler cap plates. Jack/shore and level aircraft to perform calibration. Update W&B and Equipment List, file 337 and complete log entries.
bnt83
Final Approach
That is precisely what we are talking about
Plane flies great and looks great with no issues, have spent over $18,000 in the past 2 years and have receipts to show expense.
How much of it was labor?
Hmm, an experienced team of two can do an excellent job of an engine swap on a 182 in 24-28 man hours, that includes waxing off the finger prints.
bluerooster
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,095
- Display Name
Display name:
shorty
For some reason I was thinkin' a '62 was a fastback.
Yeah, I'm not positive what year they went to the big cabin, I thought it was 1961.
OkieFlyer
En-Route
I hear ya. When I mentioned flushing money down he toilet, I was referring to renting. Sure renting is cheaper than owning, but for every dollar, you get some fun, some experience, and a log book entry. However, even though one would spending more money by owning, it's money spent on something that belongs to you, and can be used any way you see fit. No what I mean. It seems there is much more to be gained from ownership over renting. Some money spent on an owned airplane can be recouped, at least in part, when you sell it. I see some of those dollars spent, such as paint, interior, avionics, and engines as adding to the value of the craft, though I know you probably don't come anywhere close to getting it all back, it isn't all in vain. Dollars spent renting just go away, never to be seen again.
I would think every used plane is a bit of a gamble. I'll try to pick a plane that has reasonable odds that the engine will give me some time before plunking down the big money on overhaul. In the mean time, i'll try to put some dough back in reserve for such expenditures.
The E model is the first of the wide body models. It was certified in 1961, but I don't know if there are any E models from that year. Generally, the ones from 1961 are D model straight tails.
Ahh, thanks, makes sense.
Stewartb
Final Approach
I don't think that's correct. I remember the 62 getting the 185 cabin and a swept tail. No aft windows. The "Omni vision" wide body cabin came in '63 or '64, right?
That's a new one on me. I am not a 182 aficionado by any means, but I have flown and worked on a bunch of them of various vintages, I can't recall a 182 getting a 185 cabin. The only 2 cabins I'm familiar with is the narrow 180 cabin on the early models, and then in the beginning of the 60s somewhere they come out with the wide body 'omnivision' cabin. I will say I can't recall ever being in a 182D though, so maybe... I know the A&B don't have a 185 cabin.
OkieFlyer
En-Route
Nope. This entire thread is about a 1962 182E with the wide body and omni vision. I have the original paperwork in my posession. Perhaps there were D model straight tails sold as 1962s, but the E models began in either late '61 or '62. IIRC, the C and D models had the third window added, like the 180. Those would be the '60 and '61 models.
A & B models - straight fuselage - no third window - straight tail
C & D models - straight fuselage - third window - swept tail
E & F model - Wide body - Omni Vision - square aft side window
D model and later - elliptical aft side window
Last edited:
Stewartb
Final Approach
You're probably right. I just remember one year having the 185 cabin with a swept tail. Very unique.
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
1961 is the narrow cabin. The ones with swept tail and narrow cabins were the fastest.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope. This entire thread is about a 1962 182E with the wide body and omni vision. I have the original paperwork in my posession Perhaps there were D model straight tails sold as 1962s, but the E models began in either late '61 or '62. IIRC, the C and D models had the third window added, like the 180. Those would be the '60 and '61 models.
C & D models - straight fuselage - third window - swept tail
Ahh, interesting, good to know, thanks. I can't recall ever seeing a C or D. I can't say for sure, but it looks like they lost the trimming horizontal stab on them?
OkieFlyer
En-Route
Perhaps it was an option?
The trimmable stab I wouldn't think be optional, but I can't see well enough in the picture to tell, it may be there.
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
I think it left with the narrow
From some source found on Google....
182 - 1956 - debut
182A - 1957 - higher performance model introduced, Skylane name first used
182B - 1959 - cowl flaps added
182C - added swept tail & third side cabin window
182E - cut down rear fuselage & "omni-vision" wraparound rear window
Last edited:
Well, the C&D are narrow as well, so it should still have it.
Stewartb
Final Approach
Straight tail vs swept tail determines jack screw or trim tab. Only in 182s though. No jack screws ever went into 172s, right? The swept tail was all about market appeal (from what I've read). Straight tails work better (from experience). But it's hard to make a fair comparison since there are other differences between the models.
Jimmy cooper
En-Route
Regardless, it will be an exciting aircraft! You'll always wonder what's going to break next! keeps you on your toes both on the ground and ......in the air.!
Straight tails are less drag, less frontal surface area.
bluerooster
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,095
- Display Name
Display name:
shorty
Straight tails have much more rudder authority as well.
OkieFlyer
En-Route
I just with it had Johnson bar flaps. I hate the switch Cessna used for the electric ones.