Friend Looking For C 182 100K or Less

C

Carovhd1

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 3, 2016
Messages
27
Location
Goldsboro NC
Display Name
Display name:
V35 Pilot
If you know of a C 182 for sale at 100K or less please pm me at gmjdw@yahoo.com
This is a new to aviation friend. He has just soloed.
I agreed to help him look for an airplane.
Located in Eastern North Carolina.
 
A neighbor of mine is trying to sell her C-182. She's located on NC26. PM me if your friend wants the information. I know it's going for much less than $100K.
 
Not sure about that high time RG.

For 100k I'd be looking for a older wide body 550ed 182 with /G WAAS avionics.
 
Most older 182s are well below that dollar amount. Why is your friend having difficulty finding one? It's by far the bulk of what's for sale.

Something weird about this post.
 
He is new to flying and has partnered with a business associate who started back to flying after 25 years of not flying.
They bought a 1959 172 and he has soloed and the partner is actively back into flying and participating in our local pilots association.
I know nothing about the value of those strange airplanes with wings on top. A coupe of days ago he mentioned that everything he found on the web seemed to be over 100K or was high time airframe and engine.
They are very cautious about what to buy. Their objective is to be able to take their wives and golf clubs on a trip safely, hence a 182.They like funny airplanes, the ones with wings on top.
I figured I could get some honest available airplanes to offer to them for consideration from this forum.
As I have done a short education of the 182 it seems you have to move up to the newer aircraft to get the GW. The N,P,Q are 2900 lb or R, S,T at 3100 lbs model give the added weight capability.
Just looking to help a close friend get an airplane and stay in the flying game.
 
Extensions and a 550
 
Last edited:
Two couples plus golf clubs could affect fuel load and CG. I'd run careful calculations of their expected loading with their exact weights and fuel. A 182 is pretty muscular, esp. compared to a 172, but it can still bite the unwary.
 
Carovhd1 said:
......................As I have done a short education of the 182 it seems you have to move up to the newer aircraft to get the GW. The N,P,Q are 2900 lb or R, S,T at 3100 lbs model give the added weight capability....................
Click to expand...

N,P,Q 2900#...Yeah....no. The standard take-off weight of the N is 2950#. The standard landing weight is 2800#. Standard gross weight (take-off and landing) of the P and Q is 2950#. On the P and Q, you can get an STC for 3100# take-off weight but the landing weight is still 2950#.

Kevin
 
Carovhd1 said:
As I have done a short education of the 182 it seems you have to move up to the newer aircraft to get the GW. The N,P,Q are 2900 lb or R, S,T at 3100 lbs model give the added weight capability.
Click to expand...

Watch out on the "re-start" 182s if you're looking for weight carrying. That 3100 lb MGTOW is because the interior got fat. (Plus the weight of having a thousand fuel sumps for the lawyers, a problem fixed decades before by putting a smarter gas cap on the damned things.) Look carefully at the empty weight on those, and you'll often find a P model with the 3100 lb MGTOW STC will carry more than her newer cousins. The restarts are heavy before you put anything in them.
 
Carovhd1 said:
He is new to flying and has partnered with a business associate who started back to flying after 25 years of not flying.
They bought a 1959 172 and he has soloed and the partner is actively back into flying and participating in our local pilots association.
I know nothing about the value of those strange airplanes with wings on top. A coupe of days ago he mentioned that everything he found on the web seemed to be over 100K or was high time airframe and engine.
They are very cautious about what to buy. Their objective is to be able to take their wives and golf clubs on a trip safely, hence a 182.They like funny airplanes, the ones with wings on top.
I figured I could get some honest available airplanes to offer to them for consideration from this forum.
As I have done a short education of the 182 it seems you have to move up to the newer aircraft to get the GW. The N,P,Q are 2900 lb or R, S,T at 3100 lbs model give the added weight capability.
Just looking to help a close friend get an airplane and stay in the flying game.
Click to expand...

I own a 182P model. It's a great plane, but I don't think you'd fit 4 plus luggage and clubs. A Cherokee 6 (300) would likely be better suited to that mission and the wing is in your preferred configuration. And you can find them at $100k or less.
 
My P model doesn't have the 3100 MGTOW STC and has 1134 lbs of useful load, 654 lbs at full fuel with long range (79 gallon) bladder tanks.

Four "standard" 175 lb humans is already almost 50 lbs over my full fuel weight, plus whatever four sets of golf clubs weigh. And most 'Merican humans aren't FAA standard sized these days.

Now if you leave some fuel off and make some assumptions like "most folks won't go more than three hours without needing to pee", you can put four hours of fuel on board and get the remaining useful load to 822 lbs and have VFR day reserves plus another 1/2 hour worth of fuel for "stupidity"... winds aloft changes, runway closed because someone munched an airplane on it, whatever.

If your buddy, his wife, and the couple he wants to take golfing are skinny people and they only take the clubs they need to survive, maybe then.

The 3100 MGTOW STC has a distinct problem from a planning perspective -- you still have to fly off enough fuel to get to 2950 for landing. 25 gallons, which is more than two hours of flight, if you're maxed out. If you climb high, almost 2.5 hours, since fuel burn drops to about 11 GPH up higher. Which means your golf course airport can't be within 250 nm or so. Short hops, the MGTOW STC doesn't do you much good.
 
denverpilot said:
My P model doesn't have the 3100 MGTOW STC and has 1134 lbs of useful load, 654 lbs at full fuel with long range (79 gallon) bladder tanks.

Four "standard" 175 lb humans is already almost 50 lbs over my full fuel weight, plus whatever four sets of golf clubs weigh. And most 'Merican humans aren't FAA standard sized these days.

Now if you leave some fuel off and make some assumptions like "most folks won't go more than three hours without needing to pee", you can put four hours of fuel on board and get the remaining useful load to 822 lbs and have VFR day reserves plus another 1/2 hour worth of fuel for "stupidity"... winds aloft changes, runway closed because someone munched an airplane on it, whatever.

If your buddy, his wife, and the couple he wants to take golfing are skinny people and they only take the clubs they need to survive, maybe then.

The 3100 MGTOW STC has a distinct problem from a planning perspective -- you still have to fly off enough fuel to get to 2950 for landing. 25 gallons, which is more than two hours of flight, if you're maxed out. If you climb high, almost 2.5 hours, since fuel burn drops to about 11 GPH up higher. Which means your golf course airport can't be within 250 nm or so. Short hops, the MGTOW STC doesn't do you much good.
Click to expand...

I can envision a scenario where the plane could handle the weight of 4 people, bags, and clubs, but where would you put all those bags and clubs in a 182? Would the clubs be in the back seat wedged between the skinny little wives? They aren't going to fit in an area with luggage for four people, unless they're heading off to a nudist colony.
 
Brad Z said:
I can envision a scenario where the plane could handle the weight of 4 people, bags, and clubs, but where would you put all those bags and clubs in a 182? Would the clubs be in the back seat wedged between the skinny little wives? They aren't going to fit in an area with luggage for four people, unless they're heading off to a nudist colony.
Click to expand...

I think if you combined golf bags between the couples, they'd fit leaning against the back seat, but then again the back seaters might take a club to the head in turbulence. ;)
 
Brad Z said:
I can envision a scenario where the plane could handle the weight of 4 people, bags, and clubs, but where would you put all those bags and clubs in a 182? Would the clubs be in the back seat wedged between the skinny little wives? They aren't going to fit in an area with luggage for four people, unless they're heading off to a nudist colony.
Click to expand...

Get the extended baggage kit.

P7100050_sm.jpg
 
What's with the full fuel obsession?

The full fuel thing is kinda silly, I mean you really think your friend is going to pile wifey, plus his non pilot friend and his woman into a plane for a full fuel length trip?

The amount of times I've topped the tanks at work, or in my own planes is VERY few and far between. Only planes you see always topped off are flight schools with low times folks.


Flying full fuel endurance in most planes probably will end up with the wife and friends saying they will never fly with you again.

I fly for a living, I love flying, but I have ZERO desire to sit in a 182 for 3+ hours NON STOP, F' that noise.

Landing every few hours just to see the sights, or simply take a walk and a pee is where it's at. If you're in more of a hurry than that ether buy a faster plane or just go commerical.
 
To the OP, You can find all sorts of 182's for less than $100k. And less than $75k, and less than $60k..... etc... even under $50k.

Just trade-offs on time vs age vs interior vs exterior vs avionics.

I have 1150 pounds of usable load, and have 6+ hours of fuel (1000 miles). I can tade-off fuel capacity for golf clubs and potty stops.
 
James331 said:
What's with the full fuel obsession?
Click to expand...
Agreed. If you can fill the seats and the tanks both, your tanks are too small. I can fly four for around three hours or can fly two for near seven.
 
James331 said:
What's with the full fuel obsession?

The full fuel thing is kinda silly, I mean you really think your friend is going to pile wifey, plus his non pilot friend and his woman into a plane for a full fuel length trip?

The amount of times I've topped the tanks at work, or in my own planes is VERY few and far between. Only planes you see always topped off are flight schools with low times folks.


Flying full fuel endurance in most planes probably will end up with the wife and friends saying they will never fly with you again.

I fly for a living, I love flying, but I have ZERO desire to sit in a 182 for 3+ hours NON STOP, F' that noise.

Landing every few hours just to see the sights, or simply take a walk and a pee is where it's at. If you're in more of a hurry than that ether buy a faster plane or just go commerical.
Click to expand...

I almost always fly my 182 with full fuel. I can buy MoGas for $2.50 a gallon, or less (most of this winter), most AvGas on the way for potty stops is $3.99-5.50 per gallon. That saves me $20-40/hour of flight time. Easily pays for my insurance, my annual, and most of my hangar rent per year.

I like my 79 gallon tanks.....
 
James331 said:
What's with the full fuel obsession?

The full fuel thing is kinda silly, I mean you really think your friend is going to pile wifey, plus his non pilot friend and his woman into a plane for a full fuel length trip?
Click to expand...

I don't have an obsession with full fuel, but it is nice to carry lots of weight and still have plenty of range. It saves time and money. Case #1: We fly up to HPN often to visit family. Minimum fuel purchase to waive fees is 7 gallons. Since my field is $3.50/gal cheaper than HPN, every 17lbs of useful load that can be converted from payload to fuel that I don't have to buy at HPN saves me $10.

Case #2: we have a place in the outer banks, walking distance from HSE. Figure 1:50 each way for us. HSE doesn't sell fuel, so without full fuel we have to make an extra stop. Extra stop= wake up sleeping baby = unhappy wife. My 182's LR tanks saved our marriage! :)
 
Many folks have had a ...bad experience basing their fuel stops on prices or pax.

Extra payload is always nice, ferrying fuel is useful I'll admit.
 
James331 said:
What's with the full fuel obsession?
Click to expand...

None here, just giving the real world numbers.

Many 182 owners with bladder tanks do attempt to keep the tanks as full as possible to avoid top of tank "rot". We do also, but plan between the co-owners to burn it down if a "heavy lift" mission is approaching.

Many 182 owners with human bladders never need the range of the standard range tanks, let alone the long range ones. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
None here, just giving the real world numbers.

Many 182 owners with bladder tanks do attempt to keep the tanks as full as possible to avoid top of tank "rot". We do also, but plan between the co-owners to burn it down if a "heavy lift" mission is approaching.

Many 182 owners with human bladders never need the range of the standard range tanks, let alone the long range ones. ;)
Click to expand...

Don't think you need to fill them, just keep some fuel in them, like 1/4 tanks or so, that's what the 200 series cessnas I flew for work did, that's what I've been doing in my 185 too.


X100 on the human bladder thing too :)
 
James331 said:
Many folks have had a ...bad experience basing their fuel stops on prices or pax.

Extra payload is always nice, ferrying fuel is useful I'll admit.
Click to expand...

Easier to have the extra capacity and not use it, than to not have the extra capacity and try and use it.
 
James331 said:
Many folks have had a ...bad experience basing their fuel stops on prices or pax.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? Lots of folks have taken off with full tanks and still run out of gas. Fuel planning is fuel planning regardless of whether your tanks are topped off or 1/4 full. As long as I have enough fuel (verified three ways) to meet my personal reserves (which are more conservative than 91.151 or 91.167) I'm good to go.
 
Obviously they need to share clubs. No need for everyone to have their own bag of clubs. That's selfish.
 
Mason said:
Frank's bird is very nice, always been cared for very well. Engine has some hours since TBO but priced accordingly.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Frank bases his 182 at my field and has been commuting weekly between DC and CT for years. That plane will practically fly itself IFR up to Bridgeport. If I were in the market it would be a top choice. He and I use the same mechanic who is meticulous.
 
Brad Z said:
Agreed. Frank bases his 182 at my field and has been commuting weekly between DC and CT for years. That plane will practically fly itself IFR up to Bridgeport. If I were in the market it would be a top choice. He and I use the same mechanic who is meticulous.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Anyone who buys that aircraft is unlikely to get hit with the "first annual scare" and could probably fly for years before it would be time to do the overhaul on the engine, which has been babied and treated quite well all its life.
 
James331 said:
Don't think you need to fill them, just keep some fuel in them, like 1/4 tanks or so, that's what the 200 series cessnas I flew for work did, that's what I've been doing in my 185 too.


X100 on the human bladder thing too :)
Click to expand...

James,

The idea is to keep the bladders wet with fuel so they don't dry out. If you don't fill the tank, over time the upper bladder has a tendency to dry out, degrade and possibly crack causing leaks. This is most concerning if the aircraft is not hangared and the sun bakes the top of the wing.

After replacing my bladders 10 years ago I had to remove one because the nipple (where it connects to the sump drain) failed. The bladder looked brand new, so I think there might be some validity to this practice.

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