182 for me?

D

drmax

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
63
Display Name
Display name:
drmax
Hello. I'm in a bit of a spot. I've been researching hi and low of the specs of a couple different a/c for my mission, and runway. I live on a 2100 X 35' paved strip. No obstacles on end...but tree on the sides of the ends. Central Indian elevation...maybe 780'. I would occasionally be taking wife and 9and 10 yr old. So between now and when they're are adults...8 yrs, I won't want to be upgrading to anything. This will be my 1st and last plane. (47 yrs old) Ok, so will a cherokee 180 get it? Or will I need to be looking at a 182? If I could reduce the fuel burn to around 10/hr, I'd go this direction, but I'm pretty sure I'm dreaming. I'm sorta thinking the 180 would just barely work...and I don't want barely...I want confidence. My price range is no more than 50K. Please advise...DM
 
I watched a 1963 PA28-150 break ground after 1,600' of ground roll piloted by a guy who wasn't a cherokee pilot, at a density altitude of ~5,000' 3 days ago. It was near gross. I operated the same 150 off 2,610'x60' airports @ an elevation of 3,000 during various times of the year.

From my experience I can say:
A PA28 180 "Would Work", I'd buy a 182 instead.
 
Just my opinion, its hard to find a good 182 for $50K. I am a believer in having more performance than the bare minimum you need. So I would wait if need be and get a good 182 vs. buying something that might need a lot of work and/or won't meet the mission.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Just my opinion, its hard to find a good 182 for $50K. I am a believer in having more performance than the bare minimum you need. So I would wait if need be and get a good 182 vs. buying something that might need a lot of work and/or won't meet the mission.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what your definition of "good" is there's plenty of low/recent SMOH, solid airframes and decent looking mid 60's vintage 182's around that 50K will take home. @60K you can get into a P or better.
 
182!....save till you can afford a Q or R model with the wet wings unless you want to mess with bladders IMHO.:idea:
 
Or just buy one someone just did the bladders on. It's only an every seven to ten year thing, really.
 
Red Air Rambo said:
182!....save till you can afford a Q or R model with the wet wings unless you want to mess with bladders IMHO.:idea:
Click to expand...

77 Q's have bladders, I bought one last year.:mad2: but they really are a 10 year or so item, we had a P model for 20 years and it was never hangared, we replaced them once that I remember.;)
And to the OP, look carefully and you can find a decent 182 for your budget.:D
 
I too factored fuel burn into my purchase decision a few years ago. I've since come to the conclusion that fuel burn is the last thing to really care much about when buying most piston singles. A 210 burns quite a bit more fuel per hour than my Cardinal does, but when I did the fuel cost calculation on my way home frm CO the last time I figured a gas hog 210 would have saved me about $100 due to the faster speeds and greater range.

A Cherokee 180 will burn 10-11gph fire walled doing about 120kts. I bet you can get about the same 10-11gph in a 182 if you slow it down to 120kts.
 
Just find one with the Monarch tank conversion that is installed in my 180. 96 gal capacity, will fly non-stop Dallas-Beijing. Well almost.
 
FWIW, prior to 2008 you would have been right. Whole new ballgame now.

Alexb2000 said:
Just my opinion, its hard to find a good 182 for $50K. I am a believer in having more performance than the bare minimum you need. So I would wait if need be and get a good 182 vs. buying something that might need a lot of work and/or won't meet the mission.
Click to expand...
 
With that load out of that airstrip, you will miss the extra 50HP if you go with the 180 Cherokee. You can do yourself a favor with the Cherokee by fueling only to the tabs. Also, you can get a lot nicer 180 Cherokee for that money than you can a 182. One other option is the 235 Cherokee/Dakota, which has the power and payload of a 182, but generally can be bought for less (again, you can get a nicer Dakota than 182 for the same money).
 
There is nothing to compete with a C-180/185 for getting the family out of a short strip. that was the market they were meant to fill.

but they are not in that budget.
 
You think maybe there's a reason for that?

Ron Levy said:
One other option is the 235 Cherokee/Dakota, which has the power and payload of a 182, but generally can be bought for less (again, you can get a nicer Dakota than 182 for the same money).
Click to expand...
 
You don't think performance, comfort and capability are part of the equation?

Ron Levy said:
Yes, I do. It is a combination of the predominance of Cessna in the primary training market along with brand loyalty.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, I do. It is a combination of the predominance of Cessna in the primary training market along with brand loyalty.
Click to expand...

My research has led me to agree with you Ron.

I (like the OP) was looking for a 182 or comparable aircraft. I chose the PA28 235 for a few reasons.

1. Speed, just like the 182.
2. Usable load (1,419lbs) which is better than the 182.
3. Short field capabilities, I believe the 182 is superior. But from research, the 235 is very capable as well. Especially with light loads. I can even add a STOL kit, gap seals etc. and make the 235 even faster with increased STOL abilities.
4. Increased range of the 235 (84 gallons)

In this situation, you really cant go wrong with either. So its a coin toss, the 182 I was looking at wasnt ready, had a few issues I was not comfortable with, and the 235 was priced extremely well. The decision was EASY for me.

P.S I get most of my research from whattofly.com (sorry if linking isnt allowed) please delete if it offends anyone.
 
I am a 182 guy. While you don't need a STOL kit for that strip it would be nice.

I also have 2 small kids to haul in back. I have no fear of them outgrowing my bird.

Your budget can hit a 60s era 182. I got mine last year for $45k.
 
Red Air Rambo said:
182!....save till you can afford a Q or R model with the wet wings unless you want to mess with bladders IMHO.:idea:
Click to expand...

Q has a wider CG envelope R has a higher take off weight.

A little coin will up a P or Q take off weight up to the R standard with a paper STC.
 
I have a 1959 Cessna 182 and I love it. It will haul a load, get in and out of short places, and go on long cross country flights. You can pick up a straight tail for the money you want to spend and have some left over to fix it up if needed.
 

Attachments

  • Bob Bement and 9054N and Hangar.jpg
    Bob Bement and 9054N and Hangar.jpg
    169 KB · Views: 16
Bob Bement said:
I have a 1959 Cessna 182 and I love it. It will haul a load, get in and out of short places, and go on long cross country flights. You can pick up a straight tail for the money you want to spend and have some left over to fix it up if needed.
Click to expand...

Isn't the useful load of the older ones considerably (200lbs or so) less than say a P model?
 
bartmc said:
Isn't the useful load of the older ones considerably (200lbs or so) less than say a P model?
Click to expand...

Like all Cessnas they grew heavy as they evolved.

watch the empty weight over the gross weight, watch what happens as the empty weight grows, on each model.
 
Tom-D said:
Like all Cessnas they grew heavy as they evolved.

watch the empty weight over the gross weight, watch what happens as the empty weight grows, on each model.
Click to expand...

Exactly,

I was comparing nubers with Tim W (member here) for his A to my R.

Came to the conclusion that the more things change the more they stay the same.

Capacity was nearly identical
Speed nearly identical
Fuel burn identical

Mine has a wider cabin and bigger fuel tanks, and I like that, but you can get an A for a LOT less money
 
Looks like a 182C has 1090 useful load. A P model has 1196 or an N model has 1310, that's 220 more lbs in an N over a C.

A Cherokee 180 has 1170, for reference. I hear how heavy haulers the 182s are, but when a lowly PA-28 180 can carry 80lbs more on less fuel for the same distance, I don't see it.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
Looks like a 182C has 1090 useful load. A P model has 1196 or an N model has 1310, that's 220 more lbs in an N over a C.

A Cherokee 180 has 1170, for reference. I hear how heavy haulers the 182s are, but when a lowly PA-28 180 can carry 80lbs more on less fuel for the same distance, I don't see it.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

The 235 Cherokee's useful load is 1450lbs +/- with more HP if you need it!
I guess I've grown really partial to the 235 since its what I picked :rofl:

I just cant see anything beating the overall performance of a 235. Especially for the price. Im sure someone will inform me otherwise though ;)
 
Are you using actual numbers or some website that quotes empty weights based on theoretical numbers for which no airplanes were ever delivered?

bartmc said:
Looks like a 182C has 1090 useful load. A P model has 1196 or an N model has 1310, that's 220 more lbs in an N over a C.

A Cherokee 180 has 1170, for reference. I hear how heavy haulers the 182s are, but when a lowly PA-28 180 can carry 80lbs more on less fuel for the same distance, I don't see it.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Are you using actual numbers or some website that quotes empty weights based on theoretical numbers for which no airplanes were ever delivered?
Click to expand...

For reference - The Cherokee 180 I instruct in is equipped with a basic six pack, Garmin 430, and KX-155. The useful load is 989 lbs and it is a '65 model. With full fuel you have 700 lbs remaining.

With good pilot technique it would operate in that strip just fine. That said, a 182 is a hell of a lot nicer airplane. It's criminal to put an adult into the back seat of many Cherokees.
 
Last Saturday when I got home, it was pouring down rain at the airport. It was nice having the wide umbrella (Cessna wing) over my door! Not to stir up the high wing/low wing frenzy, but the Cessna has some comfort advantages with regard to entry/exit that I don't think many can argue with, especially if a person is over 40 or so :).
 
wabower said:
Are you using actual numbers or some website that quotes empty weights based on theoretical numbers for which no airplanes were ever delivered?
Click to expand...

pilotfriend.com it's been very close with all the airplanes I'm familiar with. The one I sold last week, it's exactly the numbers it was delivered with and within 3 lbs of how I sold it last week.
 
somorris said:
Last Saturday when I got home, it was pouring down rain at the airport. It was nice having the wide umbrella (Cessna wing) over my door! Not to stir up the high wing/low wing frenzy, but the Cessna has some comfort advantages with regard to entry/exit that I don't think many can argue with, especially if a person is over 40 or so :).
Click to expand...

Yeah, people over 40 typically need the excercise and climbling ladders to fill the tanks would help that. :D
 
jesse said:
For reference - The Cherokee 180 I instruct in is equipped with a basic six pack, Garmin 430, and KX-155. The useful load is 989 lbs and it is a '65 model. With full fuel you have 700 lbs remaining.

With good pilot technique it would operate in that strip just fine. That said, a 182 is a hell of a lot nicer airplane. It's criminal to put an adult into the back seat of many Cherokees.
Click to expand...

That is an extremely FAT 180C. I put my 150B on a diet and got back something like 17lbs just by removing stuff that wasn't even hooked up and replacing the interior with very lightweight material. From the old Piper documents I've seen, the W&B on them look pencil whipped from the factory. That one should have had 1170 from the factory.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
Looks like a 182C has 1090 useful load. A P model has 1196 or an N model has 1310, that's 220 more lbs in an N over a C.

A Cherokee 180 has 1170, for reference. I hear how heavy haulers the 182s are, but when a lowly PA-28 180 can carry 80lbs more on less fuel for the same distance, I don't see it.
Click to expand...
Y'all be careful about those "book" useful loads on planes from the 70's and before. The "official" weights came off "standard" equipment, which back then usually was very stripped down -- often not even a single radio or a vacuum system, just the minimum required by Part 91 for Day VFR. This helped the marketing department created advertising material which made the useful load look great, but it was totally unrealistic. Those planes typically left the factory with 100 lb or more "optional" equipment, including things like nav lights, a radio, a vacuum pump, and AI/HI gyro instruments. IFR gear would often run the weight up to 150 lb over "standard" in this class of plane.

If you want to know what the useful load of a 4-seat plane of that vintage is, look at the W&B paperwork on the actual plane in which you are interested, and you'll probably find it's way less than the marketing material of its time would lead you to believe. BTW, we had a 1964 180 Cherokee (C-model, I think) in our club back around 1971, and the actual useful load on it was exactly 1000 lb.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Y'all be careful about those "book" useful loads on planes from the 70's and before. The "official" weights came off "standard" equipment, which back then usually was very stripped down -- often not even a single radio or a vacuum system, just the minimum required by Part 91 for Day VFR. This helped the marketing department created advertising material which made the useful load look great, but it was totally unrealistic. Those planes typically left the factory with 100 lb or more "optional" equipment, including things like nav lights, a radio, a vacuum pump, and AI/HI gyro instruments. IFR gear would often run the weight up to 150 lb over "standard" in this class of plane.

If you want to know what the useful load of a 4-seat plane of that vintage is, look at the W&B paperwork on the actual plane in which you are interested, and you'll probably find it's way less than the marketing material of its time would lead you to believe.
Click to expand...

This wouldn't be the case for the early cherokee number's I've seen. My former PA28 is within 2lbs of book value, radios and all, 1100lb useful on a PA28-180 is about right these days. I know old 182's put a twinkle in folk's eyes but a PA28-180 will typically lift the same or more legally, I suppose a 182 will do it better.

Granted my PA28's numbers were suspiciously round numbers, but they did include all the equipment.
 
bartmc said:
This wouldn't be the case for the early cherokee number's I've seen. My former PA28 is within 2lbs of book value, radios and all, 1100lb useful on a PA28-180 is about right these days. I know old 182's put a twinkle in folk's eyes but a PA28-180 will typically lift the same or more legally.

Granted my PA28's numbers were suspiciously round numbers, but they did include all the equipment.
Click to expand...
I'll believe it when I see it on the scales, or at least audit the W&B data back to its last weighing. I've found a staggering number of errors in such computed W&B data over the years.
 
Without exception, every self-serv facility I've used has had a ladder for use during the ~10 minutes required to add fuel. For the past 30+ years each of my leg times has averaged ~16X the time I spend at the fuel pumps, many of which are not at self-serv facilities. Don't try to kid anybody who sits in a seat that is shaded by the wing that flying in a greenhouse is more comfortable. BTDT.

bartmc said:
Yeah, people over 40 typically need the excercise and climbling ladders to fill the tanks would help that. :D
Click to expand...
 
bartmc said:
Looks like a 182C has 1090 useful load. A P model has 1196 or an N model has 1310, that's 220 more lbs in an N over a C.

A Cherokee 180 has 1170, for reference. I hear how heavy haulers the 182s are, but when a lowly PA-28 180 can carry 80lbs more on less fuel for the same distance, I don't see it.
Click to expand...

wabower said:
Are you using actual numbers or some website that quotes empty weights based on theoretical numbers for which no airplanes were ever delivered?
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
Y'all be careful about those "book" useful loads on planes from the 70's and before. The "official" weights came off "standard" equipment, which back then usually was very stripped down -- often not even a single radio or a vacuum system, just the minimum required by Part 91 for Day VFR. This helped the marketing department created advertising material which made the useful load look great, but it was totally unrealistic. Those planes typically left the factory with 100 lb or more "optional" equipment, including things like nav lights, a radio, a vacuum pump, and AI/HI gyro instruments. IFR gear would often run the weight up to 150 lb over "standard" in this class of plane.

If you want to know what the useful load of a 4-seat plane of that vintage is, look at the W&B paperwork on the actual plane in which you are interested, and you'll probably find it's way less than the marketing material of its time would lead you to believe. BTW, we had a 1964 180 Cherokee (C-model, I think) in our club back around 1971, and the actual useful load on it was exactly 1000 lb.
Click to expand...

Ditto all of the above... you have to look at individual aircraft and see what's installed. Duncan and I have compared numbers on our 182s and they're different also, similar to his story about comparing with the A-model.

And... also have to be careful with the later models, those useful loads are based on MGTOW, NOT landing weight. If you want raw load carrying, as someone pointed out in another thread, the 235 beats the 182 because it's not an MGTOW weight, it's a max gross weight.

My 1975 Cessna 182 P-model, as it sits today... IFR /A equipped, with King avionics, ADF and antennas removed...

1/28/2011
Empty weight: 1815.9
Empty CG: 36.00"
New useful load: 1134.1
New moment: 65468.47
Max weight: 2950
80 gal @ 6 lbs/gal = 480
Full fuel useful load : 654.1

I can add an STC for $750 to raise the MGTOW to 3100 lbs, but MGTOW does you no good if you're not going to burn lots of gas. If you're going for raw load hauling, or need to tanker gas for IFR fuel minimums on short, heavy, hops... you won't get the full utilization out of it. It really helps you haul more FUEL, not "stuff" in the end. And don't land before you burn it off, or it's a mandatory inspection of the gear and aircraft.

You will however, have the widest CG envelope of any 182 built.

Not that it matters much, you'd pretty much have to be hauling 200 lbs (the maximum in the baggage area) of lead weights, and similar amounts of lead in the back seats with one tiny pilot up front, to get the thing out of the rear CG envelope. Fuel is virtually right on top of the center of CG, so even fuel burn matters very little in a 182.
 
denverpilot said:
My 1975 Cessna 182 P-model, as it sits today... IFR /A equipped, with King avionics, ADF and antennas removed...

1/28/2011
Empty weight: 1815.9
Empty CG: 36.00"
New useful load: 1134.1
New moment: 65468.47
Max weight: 2950
80 gal @ 6 lbs/gal = 480
Full fuel useful load : 654.1
Click to expand...
You really meant "Full fuel payload: 654.1", right? Because "useful load" is by definition max gross minus empty weight, and "payload" is useful load less fuel. Folks criss-crossing those terms can cause a lot of confusion.
 
Ron Levy said:
You really meant "Full fuel payload: 654.1", right? Because "useful load" is by definition max gross minus empty weight, and "payload" is useful load less fuel. Folks criss-crossing those terms can cause a lot of confusion.
Click to expand...

Anyone with half a brain can figure out what he meant. No reason to knit pick everything Ron.
 
denverpilot said:
Ditto all of the above... you have to look at individual aircraft and see what's installed. Duncan and I have compared numbers on our 182s and they're different also, similar to his story about comparing with the A-model.

And... also have to be careful with the later models, those useful loads are based on MGTOW, NOT landing weight. If you want raw load carrying, as someone pointed out in another thread, the 235 beats the 182 because it's not an MGTOW weight, it's a max gross weight.

My 1975 Cessna 182 P-model, as it sits today... IFR /A equipped, with King avionics, ADF and antennas removed...

1/28/2011
Empty weight: 1815.9
Empty CG: 36.00"
New useful load: 1134.1
New moment: 65468.47
Max weight: 2950
80 gal @ 6 lbs/gal = 480
Full fuel useful load : 654.1

I can add an STC for $750 to raise the MGTOW to 3100 lbs, but MGTOW does you no good if you're not going to burn lots of gas. If you're going for raw load hauling, or need to tanker gas for IFR fuel minimums on short, heavy, hops... you won't get the full utilization out of it. It really helps you haul more FUEL, not "stuff" in the end. And don't land before you burn it off, or it's a mandatory inspection of the gear and aircraft.

You will however, have the widest CG envelope of any 182 built.

Not that it matters much, you'd pretty much have to be hauling 200 lbs (the maximum in the baggage area) of lead weights, and similar amounts of lead in the back seats with one tiny pilot up front, to get the thing out of the rear CG envelope. Fuel is virtually right on top of the center of CG, so even fuel burn matters very little in a 182.
Click to expand...

Quick google search for PA28 180C Useful load

For comparison purposes, I have a 1965 180C. My useful load is 1168 lbs. as of my last weighing.
Click to expand...

I have a '67 180 D .....My useful load is 1027lbs....Payload is 727 w/ full fuel......
Click to expand...

Note: the D model was advertised 1090 from the factory, Piper's got fatter over the years.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top