177 vs 182 For cargo

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Dervent Quant, Jul 17, 2020.

  1. Dervent Quant

    Dervent Quant Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    23

    Display name:
    CaicosCargo
    Evening, i'm a pilot in training and i'm also looking for a working airplane for short cargo hauls in the Caribbean. Less than 100 nautical mile legs. I'm searching for an airplane that I can both finish my training in and use after the fact.

    Considering renting or buying for flight training, and thought, if I could purchase through the company to offset the cost of training.

    Your advices are greatly appreciated!
     
  2. Greg Bockelman

    Greg Bockelman Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    10,583
    Location:
    Yona (Say Joan ya), Guam

    Display name:
    Greg Bockelman
    182. If nothing else than for airframe support. The Cardinal has its good points but the 182 is a better all around airplane.
     
  3. Lowflynjack

    Lowflynjack En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    3,065

    Display name:
    Jack Fleetwood
    Yep, what he said!
     
    Dervent Quant likes this.
  4. Dervent Quant

    Dervent Quant Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    23

    Display name:
    CaicosCargo
    Thank you, will be looking forward to finer details points at some point but will dive into the realm of research around the 182
     
  5. Lowflynjack

    Lowflynjack En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    3,065

    Display name:
    Jack Fleetwood
    I’m going to buy one soon. It’ll be my first nose wheel plane! My girlfriend wants to learn how to fly and I need to sell the biplane and get a photo plane I can make my own... so it’s 182 time!!
     
    Dervent Quant likes this.
  6. EdFred

    EdFred Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    27,581
    Location:
    Michigan

    Display name:
    Ed Frederick
    Just to be contrary I will say Cardinal. Even though you really want the 182 for this.
     
    Dervent Quant likes this.
  7. frfly172

    frfly172 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    14,712
    Location:
    mass fla

    Display name:
    ron keating
    I’m going with the182 overall.
     
  8. jtheune

    jtheune En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,779
    Location:
    Severna Park, MD

    Display name:
    John T
    182P might be your best bet. P model can use mogas and it has the troll tune stc for extra payload.
     
    Dervent Quant likes this.
  9. Geosync

    Geosync Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2016
    Messages:
    415

    Display name:
    Geosync
    182. Cessna still makes it because it’s one of the best GA aircraft of all time. Doesn’t do anything great, but everything good. If you want a real hauler, Cessna 206. Again, Cessna still makes it. That should tell you something.
     
    Dervent Quant likes this.
  10. Brad Z

    Brad Z Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Messages:
    5,869
    Location:
    Alexandria VA

    Display name:
    Brad Z
    A few decades ago “short cargo hauls around the Caribbean” would immediately trigger interest from the DEA. But yeah, a 182 is your best bet.
     
    GaryV, Todd82, denverpilot and 2 others like this.
  11. Dervent Quant

    Dervent Quant Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    23

    Display name:
    CaicosCargo
    i appreciate you!!!! i do, i flew in a cardinal about 6 years ago, it was border line orgasmic
     
  12. Dervent Quant

    Dervent Quant Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    23

    Display name:
    CaicosCargo
    well, i got it! lol the plant plug
     
  13. dans2992

    dans2992 En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,561

    Display name:
    Dans2992
    Is that no longer a problem they’re dealing with?
     
  14. ktup-flyer

    ktup-flyer En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,977
    Location:
    Tupelo, MS

    Display name:
    ktup-flyer
    182, by far. I have the big tanks (88 gal. Usable) and still have a 777lb payload.
     
  15. Sinistar

    Sinistar En-Route

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,392

    Display name:
    Brad
    Both have very small cargo area doors so that could suck. The 177 has larger front doors so that might help to jam stuff into the back seat. I usually hit my head on the 177 wing since it sits lower so if you are tall that could be a minor nuisance. No struts makes the 177 look awesome compared to 182 but the struts make it way easier to push around. I know you can remove the back seats form the 182 as an owner since the POH gives all W&B stuff with and without. If you are really hauling just cargo, look into having the copilot seat removed as well (its easy).

    A lot of 182's will have useful load around 1150...1300lbs. Remove the rear and front seats probably gets you another 40lbs. Let's say you do 2 legs per fuel fill that's 200nm which is less than 2hrs fuel so use 40gal to have nice reserve so subtract 240lbs of fuel and you still have about 1000lbs left for you and your cargo! And you will notice the extra 50hp on climb out, etc.
     
    Dervent Quant likes this.
  16. Skyrys62

    Skyrys62 En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    3,122
    Location:
    hopefully not at work

    Display name:
    Meet the Fokkers
    Curious the preference for the 182 over the 177 for a photo plane Jack. Seems the lack of a wing spar would be preferred..so that leaves me guessing speed and maybe higher DA areas when traveling/shooting?
     
  17. Groundpounder

    Groundpounder Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,343
    Location:
    New Hampshire

    Display name:
    Heywood Jablowme
    Cherokee 6
     
    Skyrys62 likes this.
  18. Skyrys62

    Skyrys62 En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    3,122
    Location:
    hopefully not at work

    Display name:
    Meet the Fokkers
    Not the two mentioned, but for your mission a Maule MX series (5 or 7) 180hp might be a fairly inexpensive to maintain option. Nice loading area/doors, about 1000-1100 useful, great short/rough field performance, and fast enough for short trips.
    Edit: Insurance might be a tad higher, but offset by 4 cyl to feed/maintain vs. the 182.

    Here's one example.
    https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...=MXT-7-180&listing_id=2367268&s-type=aircraft
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2020
  19. Pilawt

    Pilawt Final Approach

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    8,549

    Display name:
    Pilawt
    I really like Cardinals -- easy entry/exit, roomy, best handling in roll of any Cessna, great visibility. BUT ... as a cargo hauler the 182 is more substantial. During development of the 177 the airframe was turning out to be heavier than anticipated, so Cessna tried to cut weight anywhere they could -- thinner skins, lighter hardware, etc. It does seem a bit chintzy in places.

    As mentioned above, the baggage doors of both the 177 and 182 are too small for serious cargo work.
     
    Dervent Quant likes this.
  20. Sinistar

    Sinistar En-Route

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,392

    Display name:
    Brad
    +1 For Cherokee 6. Take out seats and those big loading doors. Are they similar to 182 prices?

    Back to 177/182. Since your mission isn't about speed, take off the wheel pants as well to cut more weight..and make it easier to check tires on every stop.

    Another angle on the 182. Go for an older model. Even though the cabin will be a bit narrower you'll have more useful load and your main mission isn't using it for people. Also I think the older 182s had a small side panel up front to make servicing (airing up) the front strut a bit easier.
     
  21. ktup-flyer

    ktup-flyer En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,977
    Location:
    Tupelo, MS

    Display name:
    ktup-flyer
    P/Q with the fresh pick STC, and the R model have the highest useful of all of the 182s
     
  22. Jeff Oslick

    Jeff Oslick En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Fullerton, CA

    Display name:
    Jeff Oslick
    A caution with the Trolltune/Fresh Pick STC (which brings MGTOW to 3,100 instead of 2,950). You need to burn off that 150 gal of fuel before landing. OP says short hops, 100 nm or less. 100 nm is only about 60-70 lbs of fuel burn in a 182. Are you going to break the plane over that difference, probably not, but you'll certainly cause extra wear on the gear components. If you do it a lot, you're well into test pilot mode.
     
    denverpilot and Dervent Quant like this.
  23. Dervent Quant

    Dervent Quant Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    23

    Display name:
    CaicosCargo
    i've looked into the 206 - 210 but am concerned with the cost of operations and whether or not i'll be able to complete basic training in them.
     
  24. Groundpounder

    Groundpounder Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,343
    Location:
    New Hampshire

    Display name:
    Heywood Jablowme
    Cherokee 6's are very similar to 182 prices, and a lot more bang for the buck, IMHO, especially if you want to carry a lot of people and/or things.
     
    Dervent Quant likes this.
  25. Dervent Quant

    Dervent Quant Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    23

    Display name:
    CaicosCargo
    Of course within reason we will fill the tanks, but if there's no reason to fill beyond 2/3s full there should be little issue with having to shed this extra weight, also, i'd imagine if there was a true emergency i wouldn't be worried about breaking the landing gear due to being over recommended landing weight. I appreciate the thought; as it's something i've not considered as yet.
     
  26. Dervent Quant

    Dervent Quant Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    23

    Display name:
    CaicosCargo
    I've done my first 30 hours in cherokees.. love them, but im going into landscaping - agricultural consulting, loading plants into a cessna seems easier than a piper.
     
  27. Groundpounder

    Groundpounder Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,343
    Location:
    New Hampshire

    Display name:
    Heywood Jablowme
    What? I take it you're not familiar with the cargo door on the Cherokee 6?

    ID02061-6336-1-251-1967-Piper-Cherokee-6-Aircraft.jpg
     
    wheaties and Dervent Quant like this.
  28. Dervent Quant

    Dervent Quant Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    23

    Display name:
    CaicosCargo

    noted. I'm mostly going to be hauling a few hundred pounds of plants and agri-products. I'd love to have a 206 to a kodiak at some point but those are high performance and costly to run as a start up with a mirco budget. I see it as an opportunity to expand from. I'm mostly concerned about the size and quantity of plants i'd be able to haul over a really small distance. I live in the Turks and Caicos, I'm sure I can run larger loads with 'minimum fuel' i've only 100 nm to go each way... with access to fuel at either end of that leg.
     
  29. Dervent Quant

    Dervent Quant Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    23

    Display name:
    CaicosCargo
    I am not!!!
    I thank you!!
    to the webs again!!
     
    Groundpounder likes this.
  30. Dervent Quant

    Dervent Quant Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    23

    Display name:
    CaicosCargo
    is the saratoga basically the cherokee 6 with RG?
     
  31. Pilawt

    Pilawt Final Approach

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    8,549

    Display name:
    Pilawt
    "Saratoga" (PA-32-301), introduced for the 1980 model year, is the Cherokee Six 300 with longer, tapered wings and increased fuel capacity, still fixed-gear. The PA-32R-301 "Saratoga SP" was the retractable gear version.
     
  32. Groundpounder

    Groundpounder Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,343
    Location:
    New Hampshire

    Display name:
    Heywood Jablowme
    For the most part yes. The Lance also has the same cabin configuration as the 6, with retractable landing gear like the Saratoga.
     
  33. Pilawt

    Pilawt Final Approach

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    8,549

    Display name:
    Pilawt
    PA-32-301_piano.jpg
     
    Dervent Quant likes this.
  34. Skip Miller

    Skip Miller Final Approach

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    5,441
    Location:
    New York City

    Display name:
    Skip Miller
    No. The Saratoga II came in both fixed gear and retract models. PA-32-301 and PA-32-301R.

    -Skip
     
    Dervent Quant likes this.
  35. Dervent Quant

    Dervent Quant Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    23

    Display name:
    CaicosCargo
    this is great to know! all of it, i'm about 6' 3" and have had that thought. yes, i'll be mostly cargo, with the option of taking 2 or 3 passengers for jobs. 1000 lbs is plenty for the moment!!
     
  36. Dervent Quant

    Dervent Quant Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    23

    Display name:
    CaicosCargo
    ah okay, i looked up cherokee 6 and saratoga came up at the same time, appreciate the clarification
     
  37. Dervent Quant

    Dervent Quant Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    23

    Display name:
    CaicosCargo
    this looks quite nice, now, could i complete initial training in it?
     
  38. Groundpounder

    Groundpounder Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,343
    Location:
    New Hampshire

    Display name:
    Heywood Jablowme
    I don't see why not, especially if you buy a fixed gear PA-32 variant. It handles pretty ponderously, but I don't think its a difficult airplane to fly.
     
  39. Lowflynjack

    Lowflynjack En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    3,065

    Display name:
    Jack Fleetwood
    Hmmm... maybe I should admit I somehow read the original post as 172 vs. 182!! I'm not even sure I've ever flown in a 177! I have considered them for a photo plane before. I think the big downside is the non-opening windows. I would have to put a removable photo window in. On the 182, I just disconnect the arm that limits the window travel and let it float under the wing.

    Honestly I think a 177 would be a great photo plane with a couple of mods.
     
    Dervent Quant and Skyrys62 like this.
  40. Lowflynjack

    Lowflynjack En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    3,065

    Display name:
    Jack Fleetwood
    You can also fly without these doors! That may only excite me, but again, this is a great photo plane!