Yet another which plane should I consider threat...

AlphaMike said:
I was in your shoes 2 years ago . I knew I wanted a 182 but wasn’t sure what model I really wanted. After a ton of research I decided I wanted a P or Q model. The S and T models (I’ve flown several ) have nicer interior when stock. But that’s really the only upside in my opinion. The P and Q models typically have quite a bit more useful load. You can get a purely paper STC (fresh picks STC) that increases your takeoff weight by 150 lbs. There are plenty of other STCs available for them too. My plane has a Pponk engine which is basically a O470 transformed to a O520. It’s somewhere between 260 and 285 hp depending on who you ask. Either way it’s a serious upgrade in power. I don’t think you will be disappointed with any 182. Any one of them will definitely meet your mission requirements. Your biggest problem will be finding one before it’s already sold! They sell fast! Like same day the listing go’s up fast. It took me 6 months of trying before I found my plane. I got lucky and found it before it got listed. That will probably be your best bet. Join some Facebook groups and let everyone know you are in the market and what you want. Someone just might message you that they are thinking about selling but haven’t yet. Swoop in as fast as you can! They really do sell that fast.
Click to expand...
I thought the S and T models also have anti-corrosion and some noise reduction treatment, plus the fuel injected engine.
The fuel injected should allow running GAMI's and then LOP, which provides lower engine temps.
I found a 182P with the Peterseon King Katmai conversion, think that would be my dream, but talk about hard to find.
There is also a 182S Wipaire BOSS conversion with 340HP, but my wife is not approving the price (yet).
 
Yeah the fuel injection has its +s and -s. The 2002 T model I used to fly had issues with hot starting due to vapor locking. That was a pain in the ass sometimes. Most of the 182s I looked at had anti-corrosion applied already (mine did). As for the BOSS conversation, it’s crazy expensive and I’ve heard it’s actually too heavy for an already nose heavy airplane. But that’s just what I’ve heard, I’ve never flown one, but I would love to!
 
AnthonyS1 said:
Why a C182? Are you regularly flying with 4 or operating out of short/grass strips??? You can get a nice bonanza for around the same price range and will have significantly better speed/efficiency and range. I don't understand the cult following of the C182 at all. Flying in the bush sure they're great. For every other aspect their are much much better options.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is interested in flying high performance airplanes... the 182 is easy to fly, looks and acts like a slightly beefier, slightly faster Cessna 172 except you can usually fit one or two extra people, and most importantly, you'll never forget to lower the landing gear since it's permanently welded in that position. As a result it's easy to see why they're so popular. It's a good middle of the road airplane that does a lot of things reasonably well and is a piece of cake to operate and maintain.

While I think it makes a lot of sense for certain folks, my mindset is a bit more aligned with yours. I want to go as fast and as far as possible, with as much redundancy as possible, as cheaply as possible. This combination of factors is why I own a Twin Comanche.
 
TimRF79 said:
I thought the S and T models also have anti-corrosion and some noise reduction treatment, plus the fuel injected engine.
The fuel injected should allow running GAMI's and then LOP, which provides lower engine temps.
I found a 182P with the Peterseon King Katmai conversion, think that would be my dream, but talk about hard to find.
There is also a 182S Wipaire BOSS conversion with 340HP, but my wife is not approving the price (yet).
Click to expand...

Corrosion proofing is standard on the post restart airplanes. That alone is worth the effort to find one in my book. From what I've been told, Wipaire will only do the BOSS conversion to the post restart airplanes for this reason as well.
 
Ryan F. said:
Not everyone is interested in flying high performance airplanes... the 182 is easy to fly, looks and acts like a slightly beefier, slightly faster Cessna 172 except you can usually fit one or two extra people, and most importantly, you'll never forget to lower the landing gear since it's permanently welded in that position. As a result it's easy to see why they're so popular. It's a good middle of the road airplane that does a lot of things reasonably well and is a piece of cake to operate and maintain.

While I think it makes a lot of sense for certain folks, my mindset is a bit more aligned with yours. I want to go as fast and as far as possible, with as much redundancy as possible, as cheaply as possible. This combination of factors is why I own a Twin Comanche.
Click to expand...
Yes, and keep in mind I have owned (still do) a Bellanca Super Viking, a fantastic handling 160knts airplane.
I have strongly considered Twins, a Twin Commanche, Aztec (for the room and comfort), 337, Aero Commander, or a 310.
And while all of them have lower acquisition cost than a nice 182, I am a little uneasy about the maintenance cost of a twin, lack of short field ability, and the ability for my wife to land it, in case I have an in-flight emergency.
The 337 and Aero Commander.... I really like, but aging fleet is a little deterrent.... Maybe I should look at 5 year cost of ownership 182S versus Aero Commander/337.
 
TimRF79 said:
Yes, and keep in mind I have owned (still do) a Bellanca Super Viking, a fantastic handling 160knts airplane.
I have strongly considered Twins, a Twin Commanche, Aztec (for the room and comfort), 337, Aero Commander, or a 310.
And while all of them have lower acquisition cost than a nice 182, I am a little uneasy about the maintenance cost of a twin, lack of short field ability, and the ability for my wife to land it, in case I have an in-flight emergency.
The 337 and Aero Commander.... I really like, but aging fleet is a little deterrent.... Maybe I should look at 5 year cost of ownership 182S versus Aero Commander/337.
Click to expand...

Having two engines does not necessarily mean an airplane lacks short field performance...

Maintenance wise, they cost what they cost. I haven't personally seen long term costs be that much different between a complex single and a twin. Of course, it is dependent on the condition of each. You can have a POS single that costs far more than a nice twin or a POS twin that costs far more than a nice single.
 
Thankfully, the 2004 can be upgraded to G3X Touch. But, that plane's got other issues. How about none-of-the-above and look for a P, Q, or R?

Check out this file for the evolution of the 182 with a description of each model: http://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/cessna-wp-s3-browser/Samples/182hist.pdf

A few highlights that may matter or not to you:
Personally, the only thing I would like from a S over my R is corrosion proofing. But for the price delta with the '98, even that can be dealt with, IMO.
 
Last edited:
CA182R said:
Thankfully, the 2004 can be upgraded to G3X Touch. But, that plane's got other issues. How about none-of-the-above and look for a P, Q, or R?

Check out this file for the evolution of the 182 with a description of each model: http://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/cessna-wp-s3-browser/Samples/182hist.pdf

A few highlights that may matter or not to you:
Personally, the only thing I would like from a S over my R is corrosion proofing. But for the price delta with the '98, even that can be dealt with, IMO.
Click to expand...
Yes, looked at this and landed that I would want to have a 79or newer.
But tell me how teh 2004 can go to a G3X Touch, I heard the G1000 units can't be changed out to a different system?
 
TimRF79 said:
Yes, looked at this and landed that I would want to have a 79or newer.
But tell me how teh 2004 can go to a G3X Touch, I heard the G1000 units can't be changed out to a different system?
Click to expand...

As I've written in other threads, the G1000 systems are STCd into the airplane. They should be removable and replaceable just like any other STCd component. It didn't fundamentally change the airplane. The cost to remove and upgrade would likely be more than upgrading an otherwise similar steam gauge airplane though.
 
Oh shoot, I looked at the AML right before posting (I also thought can't be done). The 182T/T182T/etc are listed in the AML but I didn't see this note at the time: "Excluding aircraft equipped with Garmin G1000". Wow, sorry.

I definitely would not buy that airplane, then.
 
I'm currently in the process of a full upgrade to G3X Touch in my 182R.

I think there's something ugly going on behind the scenes with the G1000, like Textron controls it and not Garmin. I would definitely stay away and enjoy the retrofits.
 
CA182R said:
I think there's something ugly going on behind the scenes with the G1000, like Textron controls it and not Garmin. I would definitely stay away and enjoy the retrofits.
Click to expand...

At a minimum, the OEM is in control of the software in the G1000 because it is application specific. See the recent threads regarding the DA40 G1000 system and the lack of updates for some airplanes.
 
AlphaMike said:
The 2002 T model I used to fly had issues with hot starting due to vapor locking.
Click to expand...
It requires a certain technique. Once I learned it, I've never failed to hot start an injected 172/182. (and no, it does not involve leaving a puddle of fuel on the ramp)

One thing about the S/T vs the legacy in addition to fuel injection is Continental O470 vs Lycoming IO540. The Lycoming is essentially a 300hp engine de-rated to 230hp, so it's quite under-stressed.
 
asicer said:
It requires a certain technique. Once I learned it, I've never failed to hot start an injected 172/182. (and no, it does not involve leaving a puddle of fuel on the ramp)
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am wrong, but this is the same issue for any injected engine.
I know there is a special technique to hot start the Viking
 
TimRF79 said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but this is the same issue for any injected engine.
I know there is a special technique to hot start the Viking
Click to expand...
No correction needed, other than most any injected engine. There might possibly be one out there somewhere that doesn't need a special hot start technique. :)
 
TimRF79 said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but this is the same issue for any injected engine.
I know there is a special technique to hot start the Viking
Click to expand...

The fuel system specifics can influence how easy or hard a hot start is. As a broad generalization, the Lycomings seem a bit more stubborn than the Continentals but both have personality.
 
TimRF79 said:
Yeah, my golden rule finance as much as possible, pay cash as little as possible.
Pretty simple.
Click to expand...

In this case just do an interest only loan and pay maintenance and fuel on a credit card. Because financing let’s you get things you can’t afford by magic. Can’t afford a payment? Just borrow money to make the payment.

Being far into debt is great - no stress and you never have to actually pay to own anything. There is no such thing as a downturn or assets dropping in value, and you’ll never have to worry about having your income interrupted, have the stuff be repossessed, be in debt, and have a negative net personal wealth.


EDIT: After further review, my post was snarky - no malice intended. It’s just that I’ve seen people follow the “I’ll just finance my toys” and it always ends very poorly.
 
Last edited:
AnthonyS1 said:
Why a C182? Are you regularly flying with 4 or operating out of short/grass strips??? You can get a nice bonanza for around the same price range and will have significantly better speed/efficiency and range. I don't understand the cult following of the C182 at all. Flying in the bush sure they're great. For every other aspect their are much much better options.
Click to expand...

The Bonanza cult following is orders of magnitude greater than that of the C182. A Bonanza is not an airplane for a 6'6" 280lb individual. Ease of entry, seats that have a meaningful range of travel, and adequate head and shoulder room are probably more important to the poster than shaving 10 minutes off of a trip. The way that Beech created a yoke system that simultaneously obscures half of the panel and crushes the top of the pilot's thighs is an engineering marvel.
 
Man you guys are tough on @TimRF79 - he is already a pilot and aircraft owner. He knows he wants a high wing and he wants to finance. Pretty darn clear if you ask me.

I would also suggest the 98 model. As another poster said though, up the monthly amount for the rebuild in 7..8 years. Lets just say $50K over 8yrs is another $520/month. But Tim would be doing this (engine rebuild fund) whether he bought it outright or not. Since he is a aircraft owner he's probably already figured out the hangar, knows what trips to A&P can be like etc.

I think what Tim might miss is the cruise speed and fuel economy of the Viking. Not trying to sway him to the Bo LOL - but it will be noticed. However, maybe the 182S is faster than the older models???

I am guessing the typical hourly rate for a C182 flown 100hrs to be:
1,200gals of LL @ $5/gal or about $6,000/yr.
The engine rebuild adds $4,200/yr.
Lets say annuals and moderate repairs average about $3,000/yr.
He probably already has a hangar and insurance is probably similar so he can fill those in.

So he is looking at $13,200/yr outside of his financing, hangar and insurance. Not sure if that helps him but at least worth mentioning. Taking a guess at insurance and hangar he will be spending about $34,000 per year to finance and fly the plane and have a engine reserve. That works out to about $340/hr. So round up to $350/hr.

I own a older 182 and there are no sumps down below so it is nice. Two doors are awesome as is the room and the shade.

I was just wondering, do the re-start 182's (such as the 182S/T) - have all those extra friggin' sumps and still need him to crawl down underneath...that would suck????

The hard part for me...thinking about this solely from a "no money down" POV....is that the $350/hr should get you pretty close to SR22 rentals. Definitely nice and roomy, two doors, no crawling over **** or a dead copilot, can easily handle this weight, modern panel and even faster than the Bo. The nice part about the SR22 rental is that you are never on the hook for the engine rebuild or being wickedly upside down if the GA market crashes. Plus the newer Cirrus will not be as likely to end in a total loss since they are much newer than than all of our 40 and 50 yr old planes which are that one major AD away from zero value.

Just thoughts.
 
Sinistar said:
I was just wondering, do the re-start 182's (such as the 182S/T) - have all those extra friggin' sumps and still need him to crawl down underneath...that would suck????
Click to expand...
Yes, two of them.

But doesn't yours have that pull handle thing under the oil door? Trying to manipulate that thing while positioning your other hand under the drain tube and while not cutting yourself on the oil door latch seems almost as bad as kneeling down for the belly sumps.
 
asicer said:
Yes, two of them.

But doesn't yours have that pull handle thing under the oil door? Trying to manipulate that thing while positioning your other hand under the drain tube and while not cutting yourself on the oil door latch seems almost as bad as kneeling down for the belly sumps.
Click to expand...
I figured the restarts would have more sumps, since more years, more lawyers, etc.

To answer your question maybe a relevation for me LOL! I was never taught to catch the fuel from the pull handle thingy...just to ensure it squirted out fuel which would mean: There is fluid coming out hence there is some fuel and it is not frozen. So that leads to a big question: Do others our there with older models (P,Q and older) just pull the handle and watch it squirt out or do you also catch it a examine it?

To be honest, I don't think I could even manage to pull that latch and catch the fuel unless I had a pail LOL!!!

Either way, about to learn a new thing in the coming posts!
 
Not sure about the S model but the T model I flew has 4 sumps per side! Kinda overkill if you ask me. Doesn’t everyone rock the wing a few times before sumping?
 
Sinistar said:
I figured the restarts would have more sumps, since more years, more lawyers, etc.
Click to expand...
Actually, I seem to remember that one of them is near the side of the fuselage so that mitigates some of the crawling.
Sinistar said:
Do others our there with older models (P,Q and older) just pull the handle and watch it squirt out or do you also catch it a examine it?
Click to expand...
That's one reason I do it but the other reason is that I was taught that it was a little bit rude to intentionally spill 100LL on to the asphalt.
AlphaMike said:
Not sure about the S model but the T model I flew has 4 sumps per side! Kinda overkill if you ask me. Doesn’t everyone rock the wing a few times before sumping?
Click to expand...
Should be 5 sumps per side. And I thought the wing rock thing was for wrinkles in the bladders? (the S and T don't have bladders)
 
Your right it was 5 per side. I was taught to shake all 182 wings. Bladder or not. Why else would a T model have 5 sumps per side if water didn’t get trapped in the wet wings?
 
Sinistar said:
So he is looking at $13,200/yr outside of his financing, hangar and insurance. Not sure if that helps him but at least worth mentioning. Taking a guess at insurance and hangar he will be spending about $34,000 per year to finance and fly the plane and have a engine reserve. That works out to about $340/hr. So round up to $350/hr.
Click to expand...
I may have noted that I work in finance, therefore I look differently on "cost" and "cash flow".
The $350 you show is a cash flow number.
Now the cost is different and much lower.
If I take mx/annual, hangar insurance, fuel, engine... I come to cost number of $230 (assuming the GA market does not crash resulting in an extraordinary asset devaluation).
Let's remember that GA has recently seen a huge appreciation.
Note, this cost can be further reduced by purchasing a hangar (which I am looking into).

When comparing to renting cost and cash flow are equal due to the lack of equity.
Many places that rent require you to carry renters insurance, which I expect similar to owner insurance.

I could not find a place to rent an SR22 in my area and only one 182T for rent with less than a one hour drive distance.
Above an hour drive you are looking at rental rates of $180, plus monthly club membership fees, plus cub joining fee. All in this would come to a rental rate of approx. $220 cost (plus the 1+ hour drive).

The 182T for rent would be a little nice than a '98 182S, but basically for $10 extra cost I can have a plane available anytime i want it, within a 10min drive.
This seems very reasonable.

Regarding the sumping of the belly sumps, did I note i am 6'6"?
Because with that size you get arms long enough to easily sump the belly sumps, haha.

And yes... this kind of money can buy a Bo, a Cirrus,.... but again looking for plenty room, and option to land on grass strips, maybe at some point even off-airport (and tricycle and high wing).
Based on all my research the only planes fitting that bill are 182, 206, Mt-7, Sportsman (there may be some more if I would go TW).
 
TimRF79 said:
Regarding the sumping of the belly sumps, did I note i am 6'6"?
Because with that size you get arms long enough to easily sump the belly sumps, haha.
Click to expand...
That's handy for the one under the fuel selector, but I suppose if you are built like an orangutan you can get the one under the fuel strainer without even bending down. :)
 
I like the idea of fuel injection way better than carb'd. Easier to fine tune with gami's and less carb ice to worry about. So go newer. As for paying for it, its your finances. I am not going to make any assumptions or comments. Either you pay whats needed or you dont. Not my fight.

So put my vote for the newer. (1998 one)
 
TimRF79 said:
This would then fit the bill:
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...2P+SKYLANE&listing_id=2391537&s-type=aircraft
but here is the issue on this plane I would probably drop 120k on avionics and then I am at higher rate monthly then the 98 182S and have an older plane with more total time (but nicer avionics).
The whole idea of buying a plane with mostly what you want is so that someone else took the intial depreciation hit.



Oh they really don’t like that...
I normally walk in and tell what I want to pay per month and then when they ask me how this is going to work I explain that they have all the knobs to make it happen (car price, interest rate, trade value, tenor).
Then I lean back and keep repeating that my number is my number and they need to figure out how to get there.
Click to expand...
Get the nice one so I can buy it off you or the finance company later for cash.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Get the nice one so I can buy it off you or the finance company later for cash.
Click to expand...
Sounds good, there is actually another contender that entered the arena, after the 2004 Turbo was eliminated.
 
TimRF79 said:
Not sure where you see a GPS receiver?
View attachment 94388
Click to expand...
Listing says the plane comes with a 696 and the picture backs it up.

eyJidWNrZXQiOiJ0YXAtYXNzZXRzMSIsImVkaXRzIjp7InJlc2l6ZSI6eyJmaXQiOiJjb250YWluIiwiYmFja2dyb3VuZCI6eyJhbHBoYSI6MSwiciI6MjU1LCJiIjoyNTUsImciOjI1NX19LCJzbWFydE92ZXJsYXkiOnsiYnVja2V0IjoidGFwLWFzc2V0czEiLCJrZXkiOiJ3YXRlcm1hcmsucG5nIn19LCJrZXkiOiI3NjI5ODYuanBnIn0=
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top