182 Performance

PilotRPI

PilotRPI

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
616
Location
MA - 1B9
Display Name
Display name:
PilotRPI
Thinking about our mission a bit more, my wife is leaning towards a 182 and it makes sense to me as well. If I were looking at a stock 182 from the 60s, O-470, what is a real life cruise speed and fuel burn. I have some POHs but know those aren’t always real world numbers.

We want something good for IFR, three small adults and some light baggage or four adults on short flights, and can get out if its own way in the summer on a reasonably short strip. Also want to cruise faster than 105 kts.
 
130-135 kts on 15 GPH on my 182q with a o-470u.
 
130 knots @ 12GPH was normal cruise performance in the 182P. I'd typically cruise at 2200 RPM at altitude. You can flog it at 2450 and stay in the green, but I didn't see the point. Maybe you get an extra few knots but it'll cost much more in gas than it's worth.

Unless you've got the 260 horse (O-520?) in front, you probably shouldn't be burning 15gph with a O-470.
 
As the fleet ages the variables multiply -- engine condition, rigging, speed mods, with/without wheel fairings, and on and on. But in general it'll be somewhere from the high 120s to mid 130s KTAS, 12-14 gph. Occasionally you'll hear an owner of a super-slick one claiming 140 KTAS, but that's rare among the '60s vintage range.

The '60 and '61 (182C, 182D) have the narrower cabin and no rear window. If otherwise in good condition, they can be among the fastest 182s. The cabin is the same as the Cessna 180, just a fraction of an inch wider than a 172. They also have manual flaps, which many consider a plus; and in my opinion, lighter, more pleasant handling in pitch.

The 1962 model (182E) was largely an all-new airplane -- wider cabin, rear windows, electric flaps, elevator trim tab in place of adjustable stabilizer. '64 (182G) got a redesign of the aft cabin window shapes, and '65 (182H) a larger horizontal tail and restyled nose cap and spinner. Otherwise changes through the '60s were mostly superficial.

A pre-1973 Cherokee 235 would have similar performance at a somewhat lower price, but less rear seat room and only one cabin door.
 
I get 130 kts at 12-13gph in a 182Q I sometimes fly. One other thing - the engine has low compression, rated for 80/87, so mogas works, if you’re into that, and whatever might come if we someday see the demise of 100LL.

A 182 should also have no problem at all with your proposed loading. They lift a lot and it’s almost like you have to try hard to get them out of acceptable CG.
 
We see 125 knots (occasionally pushing 130, but the STOL kit has some junk on top of the wing and we lose a few knots from it, our cowl flaps don’t close perfectly, and we probably need a re-rig) with ours, and since we live at 6000’ MSL roughly, fuel burn is consistently 11.5 gal/hr for years.

When we go down to sea level it’s roughly 15 in the climb and 13 in cruise, but our long term numbers for that aren’t as plentiful in our multiple year spreadsheet.
 
upper 120's low 130's for speed and around 13gph in a 1966 J model. I live at 5500' so as denver dude said that fuel burn goes up at lower altitudes. Sounds like a great option for the mission you mention.
 
Minus for a start up drop zone, I never got the appeal in a 182, especially when you can often find a nice PA24 for less.
 
We loved our 182 for similar mission, two adults and two kids/preteens/teens plus two small dogs, and light luggage got us to grandmas and beach/mountain houses.
 
James331 said:
Minus for a start up drop zone, I never got the appeal in a 182, especially when you can often find a nice PA24 for less.
Click to expand...

Fast enough to not **** you off. Very roomy inside. Can haul just about anything you put in it. Some burn mogas. Two doors. Lands and takes off short. Fixed gear.

Your affinity for tailwheels not withstanding, it checks a lot of boxes for the person wanting a family hauler.
 
James331 said:
For me I’d go skywagon ;)
Click to expand...

I’d love a 180, but anything beyond very basic panels puts them well outside my reach rather quickly. If i have enough pennies saved when its time, I’d love to end up with one.
 
182’s Perfectly rigged without any wavy or bent control surfaces or irregularities disturbing airflow do 130-135 kts. Most of the older fleet is 125-130. Brand new 182Ts are cleaned up even further and typically do 138-140 kts.

I own a 182P and its a terrific plane. Hard to find a better all around performer.

Fuel burn is 12-13 Gph like others have said, but plan on 15 and you wont run short.
 
Last edited:
I fly a '62 182E. It's the first year of the wider cabin and rear windshield. I typically cruise at 21"/2300 and 65% power and go about 125-127 kts indicated on 11.5-11.8 gph. 23"/2300 will get me over 130 kts indicated, but fuel burn is up around 13 gph. I find that planning for 125 kts and 13 gph is plenty conservative for me. I generally end up getting there faster and land with extra fuel doing that. True airspeeds are typically 131- 137 kts at the previously mentioned settings, but true airspeed doesn't mean much to me.

Gross Weight 2800 lbs.
Empty Weight 1710 lbs
Useful load 1090 lbs.
84 gal fuel capacity, 79 usable.
Mine runs noticeably better on mogas
 
1975 182P. I plan using 14.5GPH for lower altitude flights but have been able to dial back to 11's at higher altitudes. Also have the 74 gallon tanks.

A good engine monitor, like the JPI 830 or the EI CGR-30, is extremely helpful in leaning for best economy.

Speeds are about 125-130 KIAS at the "lower" altitude. But on flight between KELP and KDTO at 11,000 MSL, I calculated True Airspeed in the 150's.

The 182 is one airplane that, while not an out and out winner in one particular category, is a winner when you mash all the categories up to a single pile.
 
Plus One has a few, the one out of CRQ I've rented a couple times gets right around 130 knots true. I forget the GPH but the figures posted above by the others seem like they're in the right ballpark.
 
Thing I really like in the 182:
  • Quieter than other cessnas
  • CS Prop, RPM does not change in turbulence (can reduce noise running engine slower)
  • Fresh air vents are great
  • Burn cheaper mogas
  • Climbs out of the summer heat quicker
  • Doesn't sound like a moped
  • Hold a lot of gas
  • Goes a bit faster
  • Lots of aftermarket mods, lots of autopilot options etc
  • Lots of instrument panel space (not all models of course)
Things I don't like:
  • Fuel burn
  • It kinda sucks to get into and out of because the seat tracks should be about 3 inches longer
  • Fuel burn
  • 4 more spark plugs
  • I wish the doors opened all the way like a Cardinal
  • Continental engine
  • Nobody like cowls and this one isn't any better.
 
bnt83 said:
[*]CS Prop, RPM does not change in turbulence (can reduce noise running engine slower)
Click to expand...

The other thing that allows is you really can pull it back on power in cruise and it’ll still make “reasonable” speeds for a lot less fuel burnt.

Nobody does it, full rental power baby!... but it’s an option.

When I’m just out messing around locally shooting approaches or whatever I pull ours back and find the tach hours tick over slower and think to myself, “an hour that doesn’t count as much toward the engine wear and tear and keeps rebuild time that much further away”... plus get the fuel savings.

Going somewhere, usually set power for whatever I can that’ll get me there the quickest... it is an airplane after all and way slower than the traveling types...

But it’s a plus to be able to slow it up if you want to and operate it a tiny bit cheaper. It’ll add up over the years.

As an aside to that, I have no idea why time builders building time for jobs haul butt on XCs at full rental power to wherever they are going. I mean, slow down, if you’re trying to put hours in a logbook. Ha.
 
Yeah, bent like the many arched flap control surfaces on the fleet from extending flaps above the white arc. I was thinking of cowl flaps as well. doors slightly bent and not closing tight, creating more drag as well.
 
Last edited:
NordicDave said:
Yeah, bent like the many arched flap control surfaces on the fleet from extending flaps above the white arc. I was thinking of cowl flaps as well. doors slightly bent and not closing tight, creating more drag as well.
Click to expand...

Heh okay. I can see both of those. Yeah, people abuse the flaps. The McFarlane upgrades are worth the money if the tracks and stuff ever wear out, like a lot of McFarlane STCs for 182s. Seat tracks, etc. They do much nicer work than Cessna on their designs for things Cessna did “not as well”. We haven’t abused ours but our interconnect between the flaps and ailerons may be where our tiny right roll is being introduced.

Finding someone who really knows how to rig a Robertson STOL equipped 182 correctly is likely a “fly it to another State” project we haven’t done in close to a decade and I don’t know if we’ll ever do it unless we make a vacation mission out of it.

Our cowl flaps don’t quite fully close, mainly due to a “repair” to the actuator system that’s a tiny bit out of whack, that we haven’t addressed. Mostly because our local shops are booked out two months in advance so something like that gets put on the punch list for them when annual comes around and they already have the airplane in their hangar.

It’s nutty around here right now trying to find shop time with all the schools banging away making new pilots for the “pilot shortage”.
 
The air vents were mentioned above.

A little more than a year ago, we replaced the original cylinder air vents with the "Precise Flow" Vents from Sporty's

And I am soooo glad we did. The ability to adjust the quantity and direction of the air flow has made us happier pilots. Especially on these "flying oven" days.

9578_4.jpg
 
Our club's old 1971 182N, I would plan on 130 KTAS and 13 gph, and we'd usually see a few extra knots over 130. The 13 gph number was our average per tach hour over a long period of time (~8 years and probably close to 2000 hours).

If you're relatively new to flying and are buying your first airplane, a 182 is a great choice. It's not the best at anything, but it's pretty darn good at everything so you can spend a few years trying new flying adventures. Once you've got those years and hours under your belt, you'll probably have a better idea of the kind of flying you're interested in and can choose another airplane that fits that mission better. But, a 182 makes an excellent first AND last airplane too...
 
denverpilot said:
We haven’t abused ours but our interconnect between the flaps and ailerons may be where our tiny right roll is being introduced.
Click to expand...

My A&P and I last summer O/H'd the whole Robertson system. Dismantled it, lubed all moving parts as per service manual, and replaced about 75% of the rod ends in the system as per the installation manual. With everything adjusted properly, she flys awesome. Zero slack in the ailerons. If you slightly wiggle an aileron, the yoke moves.

Ailerons droop within spec of the flaps and within spec of each other. At 2000lb full flap, she stalls at 32kts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top