182 for me?

[jesse]

The never ending useful load discussions. I wonder what would happen if you just used your judgement to determine the maximum load an aircraft could take just like a pickup truck? Would more people crash, would pandemonium break out, I doubt it would skew any actuarial table. I've flown airplanes that were legal yet right on the edge of a serious problem. Others at max gross you'd think it was just you and a quarter tank of gas. Not to mention some very questionable pieces of paper (STC's) you can buy to make you feel good about the load you're carrying in certain models.

The real question should be, would you rather fly a 180 or 182 with 4 people?

I've spent plenty of time flying 182s with 5 people. They are most certainly the better airplane, IMO. But A cherokee 180 can meet many people's mission for less money.

 

[denverpilot]

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.

Yeah, that's a cut-and-paste from a note I keep in my phone that wasn't ever intended for public consumption, but since folks were getting down to the nitty gritty about how the numbers REALLY play out on real-world 182s... I figured I'd share.

I should have looked a little closer at it, but Jesse's right... it's a little nit-picky.

Hopefully I don't have any other notes in my phone about it. I might have labeled some of those "fat-bottomed girl load-hauling capability" or something, in salute to the Queen song... you never know what's in my phone these days...

 

[poadeleted21]

The never ending useful load discussions. I wonder what would happen if you just used your judgement to determine the maximum load an aircraft could take just like a pickup truck? Would more people crash, would pandemonium break out, I doubt it would skew any actuarial table. I've flown airplanes that were legal yet right on the edge of a serious problem. Others at max gross you'd think it was just you and a quarter tank of gas. Not to mention some very questionable pieces of paper (STC's) you can buy to make you feel good about the load you're carrying in certain models.

The real question should be, would you rather fly a 180 or 182 with 4 people?

No doubt, but allz I'm sayin' is that if you put a same vintage 182 up against a PA28-180B/C more times than not, the 180 is going to take off legally with more stuff in it on the same mission... 1100lbs on an 180C is normal. Nobody ever claims that a PA28-180 is a "heavy hauler" but 182 drivers can't get a sentence out without mentioning it. On the one's I've seen the 180 will haul more, I didn't claim better but since planes fly on paperwork... I'm not overly impressed with the useful load of the older 182s.

 

[poadeleted21]

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.

Did a $600 audit, the new owner might be willing to scan it all back in. I was surprised it didn't drop it below book value for empty weight. because I pulled out old heavy interior and build lightweight kydex interior and pulled out some old heavy avionics and replaced them with lightweight ones or just left holes. Also removed a 5lb power supply and tons of wires that were hooked to nothing. I ordered the factory W&B calculations from piper (not cheap) and went from there, matching up with 337s along the way. Heck my 150B would come within 50lbs on paper of some older 182s out there.

 

[denverpilot]

I've flown airplanes that were legal yet right on the edge of a serious problem. Others at max gross you'd think it was just you and a quarter tank of gas. Not to mention some very questionable pieces of paper (STC's) you can buy to make you feel good about the load you're carrying in certain models.

The real question should be, would you rather fly a 180 or 182 with 4 people?

The serious issue up here is climb capability.

Knowing the STC is available, there's no doubt my aircraft can fly over-gross... it's in writing and the engineering is done that it can. Just not without spending $750 on a piece of paper with the aircraft serial number stamped on it.

Having been in some newer 182s that were loaded to the 3100 MGTOW on a hot day up here and seeing the eye-popping lack of climb rate, even in turbo models (T182T is a freaking fat heavy PIG compared to my airplane!)...

I know when my butt doesn't like that it's not going up at full throttle...

Take that same T182T down to sea level or near it... it's a screamer. I really loved all the time flying with Jesse with my normally aspirated bird in Lincoln...

It's the first time I've flown multiple flights back to back where the performance during climb was "wow! this is cool!"... up here it's "Meh... yeah, good... we're climbing and not sinking... dang it's hot out..."

So... environment plays a big role in that question... is the mission 100F at 5885' MSL? Or is it -10F at 1219' MSL?

We could turn that airplane that you said you liked into a "mushy, holy crap why isn't this thing climbing" problem child, just by bringing it up here.

And if that's not enough, we can jaunt on up to KLXV...

Which these folks did in a Gobosh... (on what looks like a nice cool morning with no wind... heh...)

 

[wabower]

The real question should be, would you rather fly a 180 or 182 with 4 people?

No.

OTOH, I'll take the 180 for $400, Alex, if it's like the one in my hangar.



BTW, much has been written about flying at weights exceeding max published. The most recent that I've seen was Peter Garrison's article in Flying Magazine. He concluded that extra weight doesn't pose a great threat if CG is within limits.

 

[Tom-D]

Did a $600 audit, the new owner might be willing to scan it all back in. I was surprised it didn't drop it below book value. because I pulled out old heavy interior and build lightweight kydex interior and pulled out some old heavy avionics and replaced them with lightweight ones or just left holes. Also removed a 5lb power supply and tons of wires that were hooked to nothing. I ordered the factory W&B calculations from piper (not cheap) and went from there, matching up with 337s along the way. Heck my 150B would come within 50lbs on paper of some older 182s out there.

Why didn't you simply fill it with gas, and weigh it?

$600 spent on what ?

 

[Tom-D]

View attachment 26779

Nice wheel pants, 150's ?

 

[poadeleted21]

Why didn't you simply fill it with gas, and weigh it?

$600 spent on what ?

$600 was to sort out all the paperwork over $200 for the W&B/Equipment list from Piper and that again for the AFM (Which had nothing to do with the W&B I suppose but was part of me getting right with the FAA at the same time). Then had my A&P audit and fix all the paperwork since 1963.

Couldn't find any scales. The county has a set they'll bring out to you, but nobody uses em' everybody claims they're inaccurate.

 

[Tom-D]

$600 was to sort out all the paperwork over $200 for the W&B/Equipment list from Piper and that again for the AFM (Which had nothing to do with the W&B I suppose but was part of me getting right with the FAA at the same time). Then had my A&P audit and fix all the paperwork since 1963.

Couldn't find any scales. The county has a set they'll bring out to you, but nobody uses em' everybody claims they're inaccurate.

Flag down any state trooper, they have scales. or know a buddy that does.

Or buy a load cell

 

[poadeleted20]

Best bet for Certified accurate scales is your local speed shop, but you'll have to unplug one of them.

 

[Tom-D]

Best bet for Certified accurate scales is your local speed shop, but you'll have to unplug one of them.

My whole rig was less than 350 bucks. E-Bay is your friend.

 

[edmeis3]

The serious issue up here is climb capability.

Knowing the STC is available, there's no doubt my aircraft can fly over-gross... it's in writing and the engineering is done that it can. Just not without spending $750 on a piece of paper with the aircraft serial number stamped on it.

Having been in some newer 182s that were loaded to the 3100 MGTOW on a hot day up here and seeing the eye-popping lack of climb rate, even in turbo models (T182T is a freaking fat heavy PIG compared to my airplane!)...

I know when my butt doesn't like that it's not going up at full throttle...

Take that same T182T down to sea level or near it... it's a screamer. I really loved all the time flying with Jesse with my normally aspirated bird in Lincoln...

It's the first time I've flown multiple flights back to back where the performance during climb was "wow! this is cool!"... up here it's "Meh... yeah, good... we're climbing and not sinking... dang it's hot out..."

So... environment plays a big role in that question... is the mission 100F at 5885' MSL? Or is it -10F at 1219' MSL?

We could turn that airplane that you said you liked into a "mushy, holy crap why isn't this thing climbing" problem child, just by bringing it up here.

And if that's not enough, we can jaunt on up to KLXV...

Which these folks did in a Gobosh... (on what looks like a nice cool morning with no wind... heh...)

The Gobash and other Skyraider LS airplanes climb pretty well, the Remos (which my son flies) is really impressive.

Cherokee 180's are great at lower altitudes---Kelly Airpark @ 94 degrees after last year's pancake breakfast with 3 slightly (OK, well over) average SOB's in my buddy's Archer was a pucker-fest.

Wing design is a factor, too, the old 172 in front of us rolled a lot less and climbed a lot quicker. A 182 might be overkill at sea level, but up here 235 hp is a welcome safety factor, and the PPonk 285 Skylane at Kelly doesn't strike me as wretched excess.

The gear weight and drag on low-powered retractables seems to be a definite minus in high-altitude takeoffs, I'm glad we weren't in an Arrow.

Overall, if I could afford an aircraft (maybe, but not the divorce) I'd buy a 182 over the alternatives mentioned, it's not my favorite aircraft but IMO the overall mix of relatively low cost, good resale value, reliability, comfort and performance at 5000ft+ western airports is hard to match. I suspect that Nate agrees...

 

[Skylane81E]

A Cherokee 180 with a full load will not compete with a loaded 182. Hell load up my plane and our 200hp arrow and I win untill the level off and still stay competitive in the speed department.

 

[poadeleted21]

A Cherokee 180 with a full load will not compete with a loaded 182. Hell load up my plane and our 200hp arrow and I win untill the level off and still stay competitive in the speed department.

My point was, on paper a PA-28 180 will compete with or beat a 182 on useful load. The old ones had what 1,090 or so useful load and burn more fuel. The early PA28 180s had 1,170 or so useful load, there's plenty of examples that still have 1,140 or so out there today. You're legally going to carry more in the Cherokee, how well? Fly both and see. My other point was that the older 182s useful load, on paper, really isn't that great. If I were OP with his funds and his mission, I'd buy a PA28 235.

 

[Ghery]

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 .

Given that I was 49 the first time I flew a 182, I resemble that remark.

A Cherokee 180 with a full load will not compete with a loaded 182. Hell load up my plane and our 200hp arrow and I win untill the level off and still stay competitive in the speed department.

The club has a 200 hp Arrow and a 182P. The 182 is a few knots faster. And a whole lot more comfortable.

However, if payload with full tanks is what you want, our C-172N with the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion is the winner. 755 pounds in the cabin with full tanks. The Arrow comes in second at around 700 pounds and the 182 third at around 650 pounds. Take away the Penn Yan and the 172 would be in third place.

Nice to know about the STC for the max gross weight increase for the 182. If I ever buy one I'll have to remember that.