Cessna 182 questions

Larry Liebscher

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Messages
50
Location
Waterloo, IA
Display Name

Display name:
Larry Liebscher
A couple of questions. Just being inquisitive.

#1. Frequently people refer to the C-182 as one of the best all around personal planes. Words like stable, great instrument platform, comfortable, solid, etc. are frequently used to describe it. Since all of my time has been in Cherokee derivatives, what would I notice different about how it handles or rides compared to a Dakota or Arrow? I'm not talking about useful load or the high wing / low wing thing, just how it behaves and feels to fly.

#2. You can now get a BRS parachute and a TKS system after market for the 182. The BRS costs $17,000 and weighs 85 lbs. The TKS system costs $23,000 and probably weighs in the 105 lb area fully loaded. Would anyone consider buying either? Would having either in a 182 make you more comfortable about flying at night or during the winter? Would you expand your personal minimums in anyway with either? (Do you think either company is going to sell many of these?)

References:
TKS - http://www.weepingwings.com/
BRS - http://www.brsparachutes.com
 
I haven't flow many pipers so I can't comment on the comparison but from a 150/172 to a 182 just seemed like going from a VW beetle to a Caddy. Roomy, solid, stable, powerful, a lot less of the nose dancing around the sky uncommanded! But I have only about 250 hrs in one, hopefully more experienced 182 drivers will check in.

As for those two options, I wouldn't.

The BRS, the chances you will ever need one are so slim! And a lot of the 182 crashes I bet it would not help anyway.
The TKS, will it deice the tail or the prop or windshield? I can't see pushing into ice with a 182 with or without it, but I could be wrong.
 
Larry Liebscher said:
A couple of questions. Just being inquisitive.
#2. The TKS system costs $23,000 and probably weighs in the 105 lb area fully loaded. Would anyone consider buying either?

References:
TKS - http://www.weepingwings.com/
BRS - http://www.brsparachutes.com
Larry, flying anywhere in the upper midwest in the winter requires de-ice. The TKS stuff will allow you to get 40% more useable time in the sky by allowing you to fly form December through March. Even though it's not known ice (an insurance issue!) the performance of TKS is so good- it can PREVENT ice formation on the low setting, and you have little weight penalty with the reservoir empty.

To get known ice you'd need two alternators, a dual bus, and a flight behind the C130 tanker plane at 18,000 in the winter....but TKS provides plenty of "get me outta here!" protection.

I did not go hunting for a Known Ice Seneca II. I was shopping for a K-ice Centurion at the time....
 
Yeah, I know. I'm not really looking for any of this. I was just reading a magazine that came today that had ads for the BRS system for the 182. It just got me thinking about why people would spend the money and useful load for the BRS and/or the TKS in a 182. I just wonder how many they will sell.
 
It just got me thinking about why people would spend the money and useful load for the BRS and/or the TKS in a 182

Saw a new 182 with a BRS (and G1000) a KONZ awhile back. I think the man pointing it out stated the BRS was a requirement from the owners wife..... That'd be one reason.
 
Larry Liebscher said:
#1. Frequently people refer to the C-182 as one of the best all around personal planes. Words like stable, great instrument platform, comfortable, solid, etc. are frequently used to describe it. Since all of my time has been in Cherokee derivatives, what would I notice different about how it handles or rides compared to a Dakota or Arrow? I'm not talking about useful load or the high wing / low wing thing, just how it behaves and feels to fly.
You might notice a bit of difference at first, but that will be more an issue of controls in different places or electric vs manual flaps and it just isn't significant in the long run. Unless you're hauling people in wheelchairs or something like that (where the high-wing/low-wing thing does matter), the C-182 and Dakota are pretty much interchangeable in my mind. I suggest that unless you have some dramatic reason for wanting one or the other, you shop for both and take the best buy regardless of make.

#2. You can now get a BRS parachute and a TKS system after market for the 182. The BRS costs $17,000 and weighs 85 lbs. The TKS system costs $23,000 and probably weighs in the 105 lb area fully loaded. Would anyone consider buying either? Would having either in a 182 make you more comfortable about flying at night or during the winter? Would you expand your personal minimums in anyway with either? (Do you think either company is going to sell many of these?)
The TKS might increase my confidence in winter and cause me to make an occasional "go" when I wouldn't without it. The BRS is just dead weight to me.
 
Re: BRS

One problem of the BRS is that when it is deployed you lose almost complete control of where you actually land -- into power lines, buildings, etc., places you might be able to avoid in an off-field landing (assuming you still have aircraft control). Of course, you don't have to deploy it unless it meets certain criteria -- for example, over hostile terrain or obstructions where an off-field landing is almost certain death. In those cases, plus inflight loss of control (e.g., VMC into IMC with spatial disorientation & flight control malfunctions) and a few other instances where you have no suitable field to land, the BRS might save your life. It already has saved some lives, but it has not saved pilots who crashed from controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), for example. Does the risk/benefit analysis justify the BRS' cost and loss of payload? Only you can decide.
 
Last edited:
The big flight characteristic differences I remember are:

1. Piper Arrow et al. bleed energy a whole lot worse, especially when slow. IOW, if one looses airspeed and height awareness on short final it is much easier to get surprised in an Arrow et al. and drop it in short or hard.

2. The C182 control forces required to keep the nose wheel off the pavement in the flair is significantly greater than the forces required in the Arrow et al. Not impossible, nor extremely difficult in a C182, just more forces required than in an Arrow et al.

3. The last point isn't necessarily a flight experience, per se, since you won't notice it until standing at the fuel pump gazing into your empty wallet, but the C182 burns ~40% more fuel for the same distance traveled relative to the Arrow. The fuel burn & cost differences decrease as you go to the "et al." side of the Arrow family.

YMMV, these comparison comments are based on somewhat vague memories since the last experience in an Arrow et al. was several years ago.
 
Ed,

Point #3 is going to be interesting to watch. If you figure a C182 burns about 3 gph more an hour than an Arrow for the same distance traveled, and if fuel prices consistently reach $4/gal, and if you figure a 200 hr/year use, that's an additional $2400/yr in fuel. That pays for a lot of maintanence on the retractable gear. Actually, it almost pays for my entire annual this year.

We've all been singing the praises of fixed gear and fixed prop because of the reduced cost of maintanence and insurance. If fuel costs continue to rise, fuel efficiency may outweigh the costs of swinging the gear. The Mooney 201 may become even more valued.
 
Keep in mind that comparing a 182 to an Arrow is apples-to-oranges. If you want to compare a Cessna product to an Arrow, look at the Cardinal RG (basically the same 200 HP FI engine). The 182 compares to the 235 Cherokee (Hershey-bar wing) and Dakota (tapered wing). Decide first which class of plane (200 HP retractable or 230-235 HP fixed gear) meets your mission requirements for payload -- the 182/Dakota haul a bunch more than the Arrow/Cardinal RG, which usually have full-fuel payloads of under 600 lb. If you need to haul four adults and baggage, you need the extra HP. If not, the retracts can give you the same speed on less power/fuel consumption. Once you've sorted that out, then look at the Piper vs Cessna issues.

Finally, note that the Grumman Tiger will haul as much, as fast, as far, as the Piper Arrow and Cessna Cardinal RG, and do it at a lot lower cost. But if you need load hauling of the 230HP-class planes, the Tiger won't cut it -- and neither will the 200HP retracts.
 
Ron Levy said:
Keep in mind that comparing a 182 to an Arrow is apples-to-oranges.
Sure is. You can throttle a C182 back. You cannot "throttle up" a PA 28 R200. The most common error I see pilots make is selecting an aircraft just under what what they really need for capability.

I would like the Rev suggests, carefully assess your mission needs. Then butter it up about 20%. You'll be amazed how much you use that added capability.

As for BRS I agree. I did not even address #1 :)-))
 
Larry,
I started my training in a 182(about 7 hours) before we bought a Cherokee 140 that i fly now, the 182 is my grandpa's and i still fly it pretty often, it is a really nice plane to fly, eats a lot more gas then the Cherokee, but overall it wasn't hard to go back and forth between the two.
 
I have about 1100 hours in the 182 but none in the low wing pipers. I know that for my flying the Cessna high wing is hard to beat. It will haul a load. Stable and will get off of a short field. The high wing gives you good downward visibility, and when you land on rough fields the wing clearance is a plus.
 
Bob Bement said:
I have about 1100 hours in the 182 but none in the low wing pipers. I know that for my flying the Cessna high wing is hard to beat. It will haul a load. Stable and will get off of a short field. The high wing gives you good downward visibility, and when you land on rough fields the wing clearance is a plus.
I've only got a couple of hundred in 182's, but my experience is that the payload, speed, and range performance of the 182 is just about dead even with the 235 Cherokee/Dakota. However, Bob's right about the Cessna being a bit better choice on short rough fields, and this is true of all comparable Cessna/Piper products (172 vs Warrior, 172-180 vs Archer, and 182 vs Dakota).
 
Larry Liebscher said:
A couple of questions. Just being inquisitive.

#1. Frequently people refer to the C-182 as one of the best all around personal planes. Words like stable, great instrument platform, comfortable, solid, etc. are frequently used to describe it. Since all of my time has been in Cherokee derivatives, what would I notice different about how it handles or rides compared to a Dakota or Arrow? I'm not talking about useful load or the high wing / low wing thing, just how it behaves and feels to fly.

#2. You can now get a BRS parachute and a TKS system after market for the 182. The BRS costs $17,000 and weighs 85 lbs. The TKS system costs $23,000 and probably weighs in the 105 lb area fully loaded. Would anyone consider buying either? Would having either in a 182 make you more comfortable about flying at night or during the winter? Would you expand your personal minimums in anyway with either? (Do you think either company is going to sell many of these?)

References:
TKS - http://www.weepingwings.com/
BRS - http://www.brsparachutes.com

It's soooo much easier to fantasize your a WWII fighter pilot in the Piper... otherwise the C182 out-excells in most ways.
 
Back
Top