182 in our future?

[gprellwitz]

Well, Leslie and I are now seriously looking at buying our first plane, to the point we've joined the CPA and been pre-approved for financing. We find that a 182 really fits our mission profile well. Since we're both planning to work on our commercial certificates, we're considering a retract. I'm looking for feedback on whether the R182 (or TR182) gives enough additional "bang for the buck" that we should seriously consider it, or should we just find a way to rent a retract for the commercial work. Also, if we're looking at an R182, should we just go ahead and get the turbo version?

Mission:
based in the midwest, so need weather capabilities (we have a 496)
== Stormscope
== IFR GPS
== autopilot
generally about 500 - 600# of people and bags.
Some grass runways (e.g. Gastons, 6Y9)
flights from 150 - 1500NM each way. Mostly around 500NM.
maybe offer flight training in it in the future
maybe put it online at club/fbo

retract pros/cons:
+ more fuel efficient
+ base for commercial rating
+ faster (10 - 15 KT)
+ Lycoming (Continentals have reputation as icemakers)
- higher maintenance cost ($1000/year?)
- higher insurance cost ($500 - 1000/year)
- greater chance of system failure
- higher acquisition cost ($5000 - $10000?)
- low ceiling (14,300) -- EGT raises to 18000???
- lower payload
? are they just as good on grass as straight-leg?

turbo pros/cons:
+ O2 built-in
+ higher ceiling (20K)
+ faster (10 - 15 KT)
+ understand Cessna's turbo-normalizer is pretty solid
- increased maintenance ($??)
- increased acquisition cost ($5000 - $10000?)
- can't chop & drop?

Do I have the above right? What am I missing? Any suggestions? Something else we should be seriously considering?

 

[jdwatson]

Grant,
I'm looking at the same thing, except I'm not in the position to buy. I've been drooling over R182's for about 2 years. Based upon a Aviation Consumer article the post-1979 models have wet wings vs. fuel bladders.

 

[gprellwitz]

Grant,
I'm looking at the same thing, except I'm not in the position to buy. I've been drooling over R182's for about 2 years. Based upon a Aviation Consumer article the post-1979 models have wet wings vs. fuel bladders.

Well, I can't say we're truly in a position to buy either, but we'll likely do it anyway, if we find the right plane. And yes, wet wings are definitely desirable, and, IIRC, (almost?) all the R models are wet wings, because they only came out in '78 or '79.

Leslie and I have the majority of our long cross-country experience in a 1999 182 (with some in a 2002 T182), so are very familiar and pleased with the performance.

 

[SCCutler]

The 182 is such a fine platform, you can scarcely go wrong.

 

[gprellwitz]

I literally haven't had anyone say it was a bad plane in any significant way. Not the best in any category, but pretty darned good in most. That's probably why it's hard to find one at a real bargain price. OTOH, they hold their value!

 

[poadeleted20]

Unless you have a serious need for the extra 10 knots or so you get from the retractable gear, I'd advise against it. You trade payload for the extra speed, and double or triple insurance rates. Also, a 182RG isn't going to be cost-competitive with the 180-200HP retractables as a trainer, so it's not likely to attract much of a market in that capacity.

The turbo -- runs up costs big-time but gives little return unless you're planning to do a good bit of flying out west of Denver with four aboard (which isn't in your mission statement). The normally-aspirated engine should haul the two of you and as much baggage as you're likely to need in and out of most all mountain airports you are likely to want to visit.

All in all, unless you have a real burning need for either folding gear or turbocharging not stated in your post, the straight 182 sounds like your best bet.

 

[NC Pilot]

Being the owner of a 1978 R182 I believe it is one of the best values n retracts around (IMHO and I'm obviously not predjudiced). The R182 is not excessively more than a straight leg version of similar year and condition. The maintenance on the retract has not been excessive and once the Cessna retracts are rigged they tend to stay that way. Extra maintenance cost may be around $200/year.

Mine came with bladders, but they were replaced with Monarch tanks and hold more fuel than my bladder can stand.

You can load it with about 800#'s and full fuel depending on equipment.

Insurance doubled from my 172, but so did the value.

The gear is strong enough to take grass runways, but I don't do that much and will only use a smooth grass runway.

The Lycoming is just solid.

If I could have swung the purchase I would have gone for the turbo, but the R182 is a great plane in it's own right.

PM me with questions if you want.

 

[Dave2]

What Cap'n Ron said. And remember if you really want to use the turbo you'll be needin' O2, not a big deal, but just one more thing.

Good luck in the search, I know you guys/gals love the 182. Find a good one and be happy )

Dave

 

[gprellwitz]

What Cap'n Ron said. And remember if you really want to use the turbo you'll be needin' O2, not a big deal, but just one more thing.

Good luck in the search, I know you guys/gals love the 182. Find a good one and be happy )

Dave

We already bought the canulas for the T182 we flew to Wings (though they didn't arrive in time), so we have no problem with using O2. In fact, I find a difference with O2 above about 8K. Even coming back from FL in the 182, we were up at 14K at one point in the straight-leg, and would have gone higher if we had O2 on board. Flying over Lake Michigan or down to the Bahamas, I'd also like to be as high as possible.

The book difference in speed between the straight-leg and the TR is about 30KT, which I find believable because I saw a 15KT difference between the 1999 182 and the 2002 182T we've flown (140KT to 155KT). So I look at it as a 20% increase in speed to add both retract and turbo. Now I need to go back and compare the fuel flow between the turbo and the normally aspirated engine.

As I recall the insurance numbers I was ballparked, I think there was about a 40% increase for the retract, from about $1250 to about $1750.

Being a trainer is not the primary mission purpose, other than for our own commercial ratings. When we mentioned we were looking at the R182 and TR182, the first thing the FBO owner said was "you're going to let me have it [for leaseback]!" We're not at all sure we want to do that, because of the added insurance cost (here I do believe it to be a factor of 4 or 5) and because one of the things we're looking forward to is unfettered access to the plane, which you can't have if it's going to be available on the line. That's also why we're considering keeping it in a tiedown rather than in a shared hangar, though we will investigate the price and availability of having our own hangar, too.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Flew a TR182RG into the backcountry a lot with DA pushing 10K and predictably, loved the thirsty turboed engine. 165 knots at 12000 MSL cruise was common. The RG was just something to put up with on rougher strips but no problems.

Mostly, after some really fantastic flying when kept light (and even when loaded down with fuel, PAX and camping gear) I was glad to just pay my hourly costs for everything and be done with them rather than own them!

I guess I didn't learn real well 'cause my new rig is a turbo & RG too.

 

[bbchien]

Grant, the TR182 has a bolted on turbocharger with a linkage that moves the wastegate some with every mm of throttle movement. Fairly Primiitive.

However, if you fly any weather at all, and youse guys are IR pilots, you will enjoy flying along on top, even in the midwest, above the "cloud lift" line between 9K and 16K. In the winter, on top is warm and sunny.

Just run the turbo at conservative power settings. You guys are smart and can do the compromise power settings- some guys can't- they want 75-80% all day and they pay.

You can't go wrong with ANY of the choices. Let me also add, that if you do ANY Colorado and Great Basin flying, and into the Snake River basin, you'll really be happy that you have all 230 hp available. There is NO SUBSTITUTE for power, and you can always throttle back.

BUT NEVER put a turbo bird on leaseback. NEVER.

 

[tonycondon]

grant we talked at length at oshkosh. if you are even thinking about thinking about putting it up at the flight school, do not get the turbo. the R182s were made until 81 or 82 and the models after 79 do have wet wings which is preferred. with 88 gallons useable you will never run out of gas before you cant stand sitting anymore. Ron may have a point about the price vs. an arrow or 172RG, but you must ask yourself this question: Which would you rather fly? My FBO in Ames does very well renting their 182RG because everyone who flies it LOVES it. Ask Chris Jones, Adam Kite, and Matt Michael. the combination of speed, complex time, great stable IFR platform, comfort, range really add up to many renters. not to mention the performance. IIRC your FBO does a lot of renting to people who do long trips, just like you, and this airplane is perfectly suited for that.

WRT the Turbo, I told you i flew one and was just not impressed.

 

[bbchien]

grant we talked at length at oshkosh. if you are even thinking about thinking about putting it up at the flight school, do not get the turbo. the R182s were made until 81 or 82 and the models after 79 do have wet wings which is preferred. with 88 gallons useable you will never run out of gas before you cant stand sitting anymore. Ron may have a point about the price vs. an arrow or 172RG, but you must ask yourself this question: Which would you rather fly? My FBO in Ames does very well renting their 182RG because everyone who flies it LOVES it. Ask Chris Jones, Adam Kite, and Matt Michael. the combination of speed, complex time, great stable IFR platform, comfort, range really add up to many renters. not to mention the performance. IIRC your FBO does a lot of renting to people who do long trips, just like you, and this airplane is perfectly suited for that.

WRT the Turbo, I told you i flew one and was just not impressed.

Tony, you have to be departing Telluride to be impressed.

----OR----

be on top in winter, with a warmish destination, making 210 knots over ground eastbound.

Then it's impressive. Mind you, I'm not terribly impressed 'cause I have 420 horsepower to FL 19. But a NA skylane at FL 16 is pretty anemic. 90 kts indicated.

I also think, putting an a/c on an FBO flightline is not going to work for you guys. You guys are gonna like having the a/c EXACLTY the way you left it.

 

[tonycondon]

understand Bruce. but i dont really see that kind of flying as their mission, and without the turbo it leaves the rental possiblity open.

 

[bbchien]

understand Bruce. but i dont really see that kind of flying as their mission, and without the turbo it leaves the rental possiblity open.

Guess Grant and Leslie have to really decide if it's going to be a truly private bird, or a working bird.....

sigh. Decisions, decisions.....

 

[SCCutler]

I see Air Prellwithz' Bird Prellwitz being a private magic carpet for the flyingest couple in aviation. I don't see it on leaseback.

Buy a generic 172 for leaseback. Buy a 182 (of whatever stripe) as your golden chariot. You don't want to get into and ask yourself, "did that last rube who flew this thing wheelbarrow it in?"

 

[bbchien]

I see Air Prellwithz' Bird Prellwitz being a private magic carpet for the flyingest couple in aviation. I don't see it on leaseback.

Buy a generic 172 for leaseback. Buy a 182 (of whatever stripe) as your golden chariot. You don't want to get into and ask yourself, "did that last rube who flew this thing wheelbarrow it in?"

Hey no kiddin....!

 

[gprellwitz]

The owners of the FBO are friends of ours, and they'd love to have it on line. The drawback are so numerous, though: much higher insurance, higher maintenance (both due to wear & tear and because of 100 hour inspections), the uncertainty of how others are treating the plane, the lack of immediate availability to us, etc. OTOH, it would make our friends happy, provide a little income to help offset the cost of operating the plane, and maybe allow a tax deduction. As Dr. Bruce said, "decisions, decisions."

That said, I'm seriously leaning to the "no leaseback" side of the fence. When someone put the Turbo 182 on the line, I thought they must be crazy. (Not that it kept me from renting it )

I just compared the manuals for the 182S and the T182T that I have.
at 14000' (the highest they both have performance charts)
182S: 2100/16" 45% 105KTAS 8.2GPH
T182T: 2000/18" 45% 110KTAS 8.5GPH
T182T: 2200/24" 70% 145KTAS 12.7GPH
T182T: 2000/28" 74% 150KTAS 13.2GPH
T182T: 2400/28" 87% 160KTAS 17.8GPH (approved for cruising, but see Bruce's note)

Down at 8000':
182S: 2100/18" 48% 111KTAS 8.7GPH
182S: 2400/21" 69% 133KTAS 11.6GPH
T182T: 2000/18" 44% 106KTAS 8.3GPH
T182T: 2200/24" 70% 138KTAS 12.7GPH
T182T: 2400/28" 86% 152KTAS 17.8GPH

And, if we were to get it in time, we'd be using the "new" bird to fly up to Alaska next year, and we've already done one trip to Yellowstone and Glacier Nat'l in Montana, though that was in a 310. I know a non-turbo 182 could do that, but I'd certainly feel better on that with the turbo.

 

[Vinny]

Hi Grant. I see you're already in CPA, suggest you also ask around at Cessna Pilots Society as well. Plenty of advice and opinions to be had there. Of course, you know what they say about opinions...

Good luck in the search!

 

[wsuffa]

Grant, the TR182 has a bolted on turbocharger with a linkage that moves the wastegate some with every mm of throttle movement. Fairly Primiitive.

However, if you fly any weather at all, and youse guys are IR pilots, you will enjoy flying along on top, even in the midwest, above the "cloud lift" line between 9K and 16K. In the winter, on top is warm and sunny.

Just run the turbo at conservative power settings. You guys are smart and can do the compromise power settings- some guys can't- they want 75-80% all day and they pay.

You can't go wrong with ANY of the choices. Let me also add, that if you do ANY Colorado and Great Basin flying, and into the Snake River basin, you'll really be happy that you have all 230 hp available. There is NO SUBSTITUTE for power, and you can always throttle back.

BUT NEVER put a turbo bird on leaseback. NEVER.

As a turbo driver with a similar mechanical linkage, I agree with Bruce 110%.

It's nice being able to go high, but no one else flys my bird.

 

[SCCutler]

Leslie and Grant: If you have not read Jason Hegel's excellent treatise on leasebacks, you should. It includes some very practical advice, much of it gained by Jason, in the school of hard knocks.

I'll hunt for it...

-------

Edit: Here it is. http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16545&postcount=2

 

[gprellwitz]

Leslie and Grant: If you have not read Jason Hegel's excellent treatise on leasebacks, you should. It includes some very practical advice, much of it gained by Jason, in the school of hard knocks. http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16545&postcount=2

Yeah, I remember reading it at the time, and learned a lot from it. Some of the things he said in there are precisely why I'm leary of doing a leaseback, especially on the sort of plane we're considering.

 

[ScottM]

Yeah, I remember reading it at the time, and learned a lot from it. Some of the things he said in there are precisely why I'm leary of doing a leaseback, especially on the sort of plane we're considering.

You know I have just not ever found anyway that I would want to get into a lease back. It is a win-lose situation. Win for the FBO lose for the owner. I know a person who bought a new 172 and put it on lease back, three years later he had to put a new engine in it. He was very proud that the leaseback paid for the new engine but then it was pointed out that had he not leased back the airplane he would not have needed the new engine nor would he have a 3 year old airplane with 10 years of flying on it. The resale price is considerably lower for being a rental.

Besides that the number one reason you are buying a plane is so you can go when you want and where you want. IF you put it on lease back your plane may not be available to you when you want to use it. Everything else being equal this would be good enough reason for me to not want to get into a lease back.

 

[Baron 55]

Having had some leasebacks, and supporting the idea so other pilots have something to rent, I must say that anyone even joking about putting a retract/turbo on leaseback simply hasn't done it yet and hasn't been friendly with someone who has. Of course, like I said, having them on leaseback gave me cool planes to rent over the years. My leasebacks were not turbo, by the way.

Your friends who have the FBO...I'm sure they are really, really nice people, but if they like you a lot they won't want your airplane on line, for your sake. FBOs will usually eagerly grab a chance for a leaseback of a 210, 310, Baron, Bonanza, T182RG, etc., as not many places have them for rent. There are many good reasons for this. And, I taught at a school for ten yr. that had many leasebacks. Every so often, someone would put something like this on line. The planes would usually stay for 6 months or so, almost all left at the first year otherwise, and it was great for me, wonderful, because the other CFIs lost faith and would not pay to check out in them. I was, by then, checked out in pretty much anything, so any teaching or checking out in them was business for me. But the planes didn't stay around very long, in most cases.

I realize you prefer maximum availability so you guys can use your plane [if it becomes your plane] but I might suggest you mull over a partnership. Adding one partner halves all costs, does not raise insurance [in my experience, if the partner you add isn't a brand-new pilot or something], and usually doesn't reduce the availability of the plane. I'm in a 3-partner thing, and in three years since I got into it, there has been one [!!] time only that someone else wanted the plane and had first dibs. Of course, you need the right partner.

 

[gismo]

The owners of the FBO are friends of ours, and they'd love to have it on line. The drawback are so numerous, though: much higher insurance, higher maintenance (both due to wear & tear and because of 100 hour inspections), the uncertainty of how others are treating the plane, the lack of immediate availability to us, etc. OTOH, it would make our friends happy, provide a little income to help offset the cost of operating the plane, and maybe allow a tax deduction. As Dr. Bruce said, "decisions, decisions."

That said, I'm seriously leaning to the "no leaseback" side of the fence. When someone put the Turbo 182 on the line, I thought they must be crazy. (Not that it kept me from renting it )

I just compared the manuals for the 182S and the T182T that I have.
at 14000' (the highest they both have performance charts)
182S: 2100/16" 45% 105KTAS 8.2GPH
T182T: 2000/18" 45% 110KTAS 8.5GPH
T182T: 2200/24" 70% 145KTAS 12.7GPH
T182T: 2000/28" 74% 150KTAS 13.2GPH
T182T: 2400/28" 87% 160KTAS 17.8GPH (approved for cruising, but see Bruce's note)

Down at 8000':
182S: 2100/18" 48% 111KTAS 8.7GPH
182S: 2400/21" 69% 133KTAS 11.6GPH
T182T: 2000/18" 44% 106KTAS 8.3GPH
T182T: 2200/24" 70% 138KTAS 12.7GPH
T182T: 2400/28" 86% 152KTAS 17.8GPH

And, if we were to get it in time, we'd be using the "new" bird to fly up to Alaska next year, and we've already done one trip to Yellowstone and Glacier Nat'l in Montana, though that was in a 310. I know a non-turbo 182 could do that, but I'd certainly feel better on that with the turbo.

WRT the leaseback, some work and some don't, but none that I know of that work involve a "personal" airplane. If you want all the joys of ownership, and want to get into a leaseback, get two airplanes. If you are happy renting but want to equip an airplane to your tastes, a leaseback could possibly work but you'll still be just a special class of renter.

 

[gprellwitz]

I think I'm pretty well sold that a leaseback isn't for us. The right partnership; maybe. It would need to be based at either Clow (1C5) or Lewis (KLOT), though, and we'd need to find the fight partner.

Based on some reading on the CPA board, I'm also starting to wonder whether we can actually afford a TR182, or if maybe we shouldn't just get a straight-legged 182. I really WANT (not NEED) the extra speed (read efficiency) though!

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Ron's analysis of your situation/mission is the same as mine. I have a '77 straight-leg, stock, no engine or aero mods. I can cruise at 75% in the ~7,000 ft range at 143 KTAS (book values, and I get book), on 14 gph (at about 90 degrees rich-of-peak). I can also cruise at 11,000 and about 55% at 130 KTAS on about 9.8 gph, agressively leaned with an engine monitor. I don't think you're going to see anywhere near 30 knots difference with the retract -maybe 15-18.

The ice-making reputation of the O-470 is well earned, but easily dealt with by installing a carb temp gauge (not expensive).

Another option, one we will likely be doing to our bird this winter, is getting a straight-leg 182 with an engine upgrade. We're likely going with the Pponk, which is a 470 bottom end with 520 cylinders (coded a 470-50). I've flown a Pponk'd 182, and I expect we'll see another 8 knots or so in cruise for another 1.5-2gph. I've also been told that the Pponk engine might run lean-of-peak (our current engine won't). As with any engine upgrade, there is always the option to slow down if you want to slow your transfer of funds to the oil companies. There are also several more expensive options for 520 and 550 engines up to about 300 hp.

Needing folding legs for your commercial rating is not a good reason to buy a retract. That's easy enough to rent for a few hours. For the power/speed equation, it's your choice for either a blower or just more base horses. I'm from the old-school muscle car philosophy of more displacement = good.

Jeff

P.S. - Don't forget to buy the 182 Buyer's Guide from CPA.

 

[NC Pilot]

I think I'm pretty well sold that a leaseback isn't for us. The right partnership; maybe. It would need to be based at either Clow (1C5) or Lewis (KLOT), though, and we'd need to find the fight partner.

Based on some reading on the CPA board, I'm also starting to wonder whether we can actually afford a TR182, or if maybe we shouldn't just get a straight-legged 182. I really WANT (not NEED) the extra speed (read efficiency) though!

If you have another pilot or two who you trust and meets the insurance requirements to fly the plane you can also allow limited use to cover the costs of ownership.

 

[jdwatson]

I think I'm pretty well sold that a leaseback isn't for us. The right partnership; maybe. It would need to be based at either Clow (1C5) or Lewis (KLOT), though, and we'd need to find the fight partner.

Based on some reading on the CPA board, I'm also starting to wonder whether we can actually afford a TR182, or if maybe we shouldn't just get a straight-legged 182. I really WANT (not NEED) the extra speed (read efficiency) though!

What did you read to lead you to questioning a retract ?

 

[bbchien]

There is nothing wrong with a good-ol-bird mid 60's 182 with an updated panel. Just have to be happy with 135 kts.

 

[gprellwitz]

I don't think you're going to see anywhere near 30 knots difference with the retract -maybe 15-18.

I agree. The 30KTs would only come with a turbo retract.

Another option, one we will likely be doing to our bird this winter, is getting a straight-leg 182 with an engine upgrade. We're likely going with the Pponk, which is a 470 bottom end with 520 cylinders (coded a 470-50). I've flown a Pponk'd 182, and I expect we'll see another 8 knots or so in cruise for another 1.5-2gph. I've also been told that the Pponk engine might run lean-of-peak (our current engine won't). As with any engine upgrade, there is always the option to slow down if you want to slow your transfer of funds to the oil companies. There are also several more expensive options for 520 and 550 engines up to about 300 hp.

Needing folding legs for your commercial rating is not a good reason to buy a retract. That's easy enough to rent for a few hours. For the power/speed equation, it's your choice for either a blower or just more base horses. I'm from the old-school muscle car philosophy of more displacement = good.

Unfortunately, more displacement = more fuel burn = more fuel $$$.

P.S. - Don't forget to buy the 182 Buyer's Guide from CPA.

Already bought it and have read it. Unfortunately, it explicitly does not cover the retracts.

 

[gprellwitz]

What did you read to lead you to questioning a retract ?

The experiences one of the members was having in September last year finding a suitable R182 on a $160K budget (including initial upgrades). He wound up opting for a 210 instead.

 

[NC Pilot]

I agree. The 30KTs would only come with a turbo retract.

Already bought it and have read it. Unfortunately, it explicitly does not cover the retracts.

There is also the Skylane Pilots Companion, which is out of print, but if you promise to send it back I will send you mine to borrow.

From my experience is that the 182RG has the same fuel burn on a trip as my 172 used to have, it just gets there much faster.

Also, if you ever get out in this area (Raleigh, NC) I would be more than happy to let you sample my R182.

 

[Laurie]

Grant, you said you joined CPA - have you bought their buyers guide for the 182? I'm looking at a 182 in my future (a stiff leg next spring-ish) and found that book extremely helpful in describing the pros and cons and simply different amenities with the different models. I believe that a book is published by them that focuses on the R182 and T182. Check the website. It's worth the $40 for the book.

 

[gprellwitz]

Grant, you said you joined CPA - have you bought their buyers guide for the 182? I'm looking at a 182 in my future (a stiff leg next spring-ish) and found that book extremely helpful in describing the pros and cons and simply different amenities with the different models. I believe that a book is published by them that focuses on the R182 and T182. Check the website. It's worth the $40 for the book.

Yes, I bought it at Oshkosh, when we joined CPA. In fact, my elbow's on it right now, because we were checking out dimensions against a hangar.

The wingspan is 36', and the hangar is 39'. That would be too tight to do a preflight in a low wing, but might be alright in a high wing. And about $100/month cheaper than the 44', the next size up. The difference almost pays for the insurance!

 

[gprellwitz]

There is also the Skylane Pilots Companion, which is out of print, but if you promise to send it back I will send you mine to borrow.

From my experience is that the 182RG has the same fuel burn on a trip as my 172 used to have, it just gets there much faster.

Also, if you ever get out in this area (Raleigh, NC) I would be more than happy to let you sample my R182.

I'd love to borrow it, and I promise to send it back, along with one of my books that's ready to join the PoA Book Club! I'll PM you my address. How about bringing the R182 up to 6Y9 next month?

That's really good economy on the RG. I usually figure 10gph for a 172 (full rental power ), so that must be throttled back to about 60% and leaned well. What speed where you getting there, about 130KTS at 8000'?

 

[gismo]

Yes, I bought it at Oshkosh, when we joined CPA. In fact, my elbow's on it right now, because we were checking out dimensions against a hangar.

The wingspan is 36', and the hangar is 39'. That would be too tight to do a preflight in a low wing, but might be alright in a high wing. And about $100/month cheaper than the 44', the next size up. The difference almost pays for the insurance!

Greg, my hangar is 41 ft wide (40 ft door opening) and my Baron has almost a 39 ft wingspan. I have no trouble at all getting the plane in/out or preflighting the plane. I do normally cock the plane to one side to provide more room to get around the wing on the side with the baggage door. I was concerned that the space would be too small when I was considering the purchase of the hangar, but I was able to get a "trial fit" which clearly showed that there was enough room.

 

[gprellwitz]

There is also the Skylane Pilots Companion, which is out of print, but if you promise to send it back I will send you mine to borrow.

According to http://www.mnflyer.com/skylane.html it's been republished, but the home page at that site says the site hasn't been updated since 2003. I've sent an email to check on current availability, and will report back.

 

[gprellwitz]

Greg, my hangar is 41 ft wide (40 ft door opening) and my Baron has almost a 39 ft wingspan. I have no trouble at all getting the plane in/out or preflighting the plane. I do normally cock the plane to one side to provide more room to get around the wing on the side with the baggage door. I was concerned that the space would be too small when I was considering the purchase of the hangar, but I was able to get a "trial fit" which clearly showed that there was enough room.

That's good to hear, and helps assuage my fears. The only hangar I've been in there is a corporate one that houses both a Pilatus PC-12 (that Leslie got to fly) and a Columbia 400. Man, am I jealous!

 

[tonycondon]

grant i usually run the 182RG at top of the green on manifold and about 150 rpms off redline and get a good 12.5-13 gph on 145-150 knots. very economical.