Family of four- upgrade from C182?

cruiserandmax

cruiserandmax

Pre-Flight
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
56
Location
San Francisco
Display Name
Display name:
cruiserandmax
I have been flying a well equipped 1979 Cessna 182 regularly for the past 15 years. We have a 7 and 10 year old that keep growing. We have basically been fine with the 182- we can pack up the whole family plus a bunch of bags and comfortably fly IFR 350-400NM in a reasonable amount of time.. But as they grow I am starting to consider what we might upgrade to that would continue to fill that bill without busting the budget.. The obvious choices (to me) seem: Ceessna 206 or 210, Piper Saratoga, Lance, or...?

Any ideas welcomed!
 
206 and 210 will both do it. There’s a wing spar AD that just came out for the 210G-M.
 
It really comes down to what you need. I've done the same analysis and have come back to a 206 or 210. For me, being able to use shorter runways was a factor as many of my destinations were 2400' or less. I also cram a lot into my hangar so a high wing was critical as well. A Cessna 205 would also work, but they're quite rare, 56 years old, and seem to have niche pricing/demand.
 
What's wrong with the Skylane? Still the only airplane I know you can fill the seats and tanks and still talk off.
 
206, PA32 variant, or if you're flush with cash A36.
 
If you were happy with your Skylane, a 206 would be a good upgrade. The real problem these days is the skyrocketing prices on used Cessnas.
 
I would agree a 206 is the logical step up if you like your 182. Pretty much all the speed etc but with more space and useful load, especially if you remove the last row and fly it as just a big 4 place. You could even have the option of going turbo and getting some extra speed and performance if you wanted. The transition would be easy from a 182
 
What is it you are looking to get out of an upgrade? Speed? Space? Range? Baggage weight capacity?
 
I have a 1964 Cessna 210 which will haul about anything fast with a ceiling of 21000'. A good one should be available for $60k. No spar AD. It is in essence a c-206 with a retractable gear except much better if 4+2 seating is acceptable.
 
Cessna 206. 300lbs more useful load, 30 knots faster, similar fuel consumption to 182, 3rd row of seats for 2 kids. Also, excellent parts availability and lots of knowledge on most fields for repairs if needed when traveling.
 
NordicDave said:
Cessna 206. 300lbs more useful load, 30 knots faster, similar fuel consumption to 182, 3rd row of seats for 2 kids.
Click to expand...
Cessna quoted "optimum speed" of the 1975 C-182P as 165 mph (144 kt). For the 1975 U206F Stationair it was 170 mph (148 kt). For the 1975 TU206F Turbo Stationair it was 194 mph (169 kt) at 20,000; but back down at 10,000' it was slogging along with the rest of them at 173 mph (151 kt). For 45-year-old used airframes, take these numbers with a grain of salt.

Using the POH numbers from the current 2020 models, maximum cruising speed of the 182T Skylane at 8,000' (no turbo option currently available) is 139 KTAS and 12.5 gph (21"/2400 rpm). For the T206H Turbo Stationair (no normally-aspirated version currently available), also at 8,000', it's 147 KTAS and 19.2 gph (30"/2400 rpm). Take the T206H up to 20,000' at the same power setting and it's 163 KTAS and 19.0 gph.
 
Another vote for the A36 Bonanza. The kids will love the club seating in the back, and the barn doors make it easy to get bulky items in and out. Cruise at 165 knots, and it's a true joy to hand-fly if that's important to you.

PA32s are also worth looking at - a bit roomier than the A36, but also slower and less efficient (in terms of NM/gal), and not quite the fine handling nor the build quality of the Beech.

- Martin
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEB
cruiserandmax said:
I have been flying a well equipped 1979 Cessna 182 regularly for the past 15 years. We have a 7 and 10 year old that keep growing. We have basically been fine with the 182- we can pack up the whole family plus a bunch of bags and comfortably fly IFR 350-400NM in a reasonable amount of time.. But as they grow I am starting to consider what we might upgrade to that would continue to fill that bill without busting the budget.. The obvious choices (to me) seem: Ceessna 206 or 210, Piper Saratoga, Lance, or...?

Any ideas welcomed!
Click to expand...
Would share with us the details of the 182 that one would assume will be on the market when you find a suitable replacement????
 
Ask yourself how much flying you'll still be doing with them as teenagers. You can probably keep the 182 and if you need to leave some fuel behind or make a fuel stop on a rare occasion, you'll be a lot of $$ ahead vs. buying a new-to-you plane.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Ask yourself how much flying you'll still be doing with them as teenagers. You can probably keep the 182 and if you need to leave some fuel behind or make a fuel stop on a rare occasion, you'll be a lot of $$ ahead vs. buying a new-to-you plane.
Click to expand...
I like this idea.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Ask yourself how much flying you'll still be doing with them as teenagers. You can probably keep the 182 and if you need to leave some fuel behind or make a fuel stop on a rare occasion, you'll be a lot of $$ ahead vs. buying a new-to-you plane.
Click to expand...

Would guess in about 6 to 8 years you will wish you had the 182 again.
unless you get an A36.

Brian
 
Martin Pauly said:
Another vote for the A36 Bonanza. The kids will love the club seating in the back, and the barn doors make it easy to get bulky items in and out. Cruise at 165 knots, and it's a true joy to hand-fly if that's important to you.

PA32s are also worth looking at - a bit roomier than the A36, but also slower and less efficient (in terms of NM/gal), and not quite the fine handling nor the build quality of the Beech.

- Martin
Click to expand...

The benefit of the PA32 is that they are true 6 passenger airplanes. The downside is speed (as you mentioned) is fairly uncompetitive if you don't start burning gobs of gas, but like the 210, they can be cult priced. Unless you get a T Tail Lance (which is a very fine airplane, BTW), you can expect a Saratoga to end up costing MORE than an A36.
 
brcase said:
Would guess in about 6 to 8 years you will wish you had the 182 again.
unless you get an A36.

Brian
Click to expand...

Most of the flying in the A36s I have been a partner in was done by couples. Once the kids are gone, its a great 2+ bicycles or 2+ skiing gear or 2+ diving gear plane.
 
Last edited:
I had A 182 (which was ground damaged) when I got my C-210 for $500 more. This was in 1971 and I will keep it for ever. Nothing can touch it for $60K today. I regularly carried 4 skiers and skis into the high Rockies and 3 pax plus 3 bicycles in summer. The CG range is cavernous. Any other normally aspirated 4 place plane have a service ceiling of 21,000. Nice for topping WX.
 
Get the A36. 165-170KTAS at altitude burning 13.5GPH. This speed increase from your 182 will make farther trips much more manageable and those 300-400nm trips much more enjoyable. For the C206 or the PA32 to even get within 10knots of bonanza speed your going to be running 18GPH through it. No thanks. I can understand the love for the PA32 cabin. It definitely beats the bonanza but the cessna is just slow and a fuel hog. The back back row of seats on the C206 are only useable for toddler's. Never understood peoples lust for Cessnas. Sure they are good bush planes and trainers but that's about it. They are not cross country machines. I have had an F33a for about a year now and love it. The A36 is needed for 4 or more with bags though. I have the tip tanks on my bonanza. Last week flew from my home base in New Jersey to Orlando Florida. 790nm with a 10 knot tailwind I made it there non stop in 4.5 hours with about a 3 hour fuel reserve. Try that in any PA32 or any Single engine Cessna.
 
brcase said:
Would guess in about 6 to 8 years you will wish you had the 182 again.
unless you get an A36. Brian
Click to expand...

I think this is dead on correct. I went the other direction (4 seat to 2 seater) and am glad I did. My son used to travel with me every weekend, but rarely used 3 seats and only once 4. Now it's a miracle when the wife says she wants to fly local (she won't cross country anymore, says that's what SWA is for and sometimes meets me on trips). My son is out of the house and I use the plane to go see him, but he has only been onboard twice in the past 2 years. My buddies joke and tell me I should've gone single seat RV3;);)
 
I've owned a C206 for 35 years, and it followed a few hundred hours in C182s. I LOVE the C206 and have never worried about it being too small or being underpowered.
 
dbahn said:
I've owned a C206 for 35 years, and it followed a few hundred hours in C182s. I LOVE the C206 and have never worried about it being too small or being underpowered.
Click to expand...

A 206 is DEFINITELY not underpowered, or small. They are slow, however.
 
N1120A said:
A 206 is DEFINITELY not underpowered, or small. They are slow, however.
Click to expand...

True, but no slower than a C182, and the OP didn't express an interest in something faster, just something more capable of hauling his growing family. In the transition from a C182 to a C206 it probably only takes an hour or two to forget which one you're flying (unless the C206 is flying at gross weight, then it takes a few landings to feel the difference in handling).
 
Why not one of the bigger Piper's? Like the Lance or Saratoga? Good useful load and they feel like a Chevy Suburban inside, plenty of room
 
Tantalum said:
Why not one of the bigger Piper's? Like the Lance or Saratoga? Good useful load and they feel like a Chevy Suburban inside, plenty of room
Click to expand...

That's a little like the Ford/Chevy argument. The both do a good job of most of the demands. I like the cargo doors in the C206. And if the C182 works well, why go to a substantially different model?

The A36 is a perfectly good choice, too. But the transition is more involved and the insurance and maintenance costs are higher.
 
I keep wondering why someone would buy a 206 when you can nearly the same airplane for 1/3 the price that goes 15 MPH faster, flies higher and costs less per mile to operate if you can live with 4+2 seating. It is sitting right in that picture behind the 60 Caddy.
 
dbahn said:
That's a little like the Ford/Chevy argument. The both do a good job of most of the demands. I like the cargo doors in the C206. And if the C182 works well, why go to a substantially different model?

The A36 is a perfectly good choice, too. But the transition is more involved and the insurance and maintenance costs are higher.
Click to expand...

The difference in insurance is negligible, as us is the maintenance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top