182 v. Cherokee 6 or Dakota/235 ( Rating system)

[AdamZ]

Last week as Gary scooted across the front seat of the Cherokee he uttered the iconic words of the aviator " sigh.. Bigger and Faster" We all know what that means in pilot talk so as we often do we got to the what if conversation. Now the topic of "what plane should I get" has been had on this boar and I'm sure Red and Purple a number of times that might also be use to describe the National Debt. But here is a bit different take on it. For a Cherokee Driver the basics of bigger and faster might mean a Six or a 182. Yeah it could mean a 235 or Dakota family so lets include them just for the sake of comparison. All three are pretty solid planes and not to wiz-bang fancy. Plus IMHO they are similar in many ways. Comparing a 182 to say a Cirrus makes no sense but these three I think can be prepared Apples to Apples.

So lets use a scale of 0-5. 0 being it stinks I rather take my schwin and 5 being the best of the best.

Commonsense says we are not comparing a 1976 Piper Product to a 2007 Glass panel 182 and obviously many of the ratings will be the same for the six and Dakota.

Lets compare the following attributes and assign each a #
(BTW if you think of a better way to do this or a category I have not thought of speak up or add it in.)


1) Cost to purchase:




2) Cost of ownership over say 12 years ( usual TBO) includes annuals, Mx, ADs, Insurance etc:



3)Fuel Burn:



4)Load Carrying:



5) Endurance and Distance



6) Speed



7) Short Field Capability



8) Visability in all phases of flight


9) Comfort. ( Rate both seating and ingress/egress seperatly)


10)Handling in Turbulence


11) Ground Handling


12) Crosswind Handling



13)Ease of preflight:


14) General Comments: Do not assign a number but give some personal thoughts: For example you could say I don't like on the 182 that I have to climb up on a ladder to fuel the plane or I have to dip the tanks. Or I like the shade and rain protection that a 182 wing has to offer. On the other hand you may not like having to crawl under the Piper wing to sump the tanks.

 

[poadeleted20]

Comparing a Six to the other two is apples-oranges -- the Six is just plain bigger, with a bigger engine, bigger cabin, and bigger payload. Comparing a 182 to a Dakota is pretty much a subjective issue. The two planes have virtually identical performance, capability, and operating costs, although the Dakota has the typically lower purchase price of a Piper compared to a comparable Cessna -- there just seems to be more demand for Cessnas. Everything else is a matter of "fly both, buy one."

 

[Anthony]

I'm a low wing kinda guy but I would have to go with the C-182 over the Dakota. One of the best all around GA planes ever made, not that there's anything wrong with the Dakota. What am I basing this on? Hearsay and anecdotal info being around GA for 16 years. So take it with a grain of salt. Just my personal impression.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm a low wing kinda guy but I would have to go with the C-182 over the Dakota. One of the best all around GA planes ever made, not that there's anything wrong with the Dakota. What am I basing this on? Hearsay and anecdotal info being around GA for 16 years. So take it with a grain of salt. Just my personal impression.

Like I said -- between those two, it's purely subjective.

 

[Ddayle]

I'm a Cessna Guy by default, I just never had the chance to fly anything else. I recently began flying the club PA-28-180, & I love it. But I think love the 180 part most. the PA-28 part is just different than a Cessna. The clincher for me is my wife, She cannot gracefully enter a Cherokee(I mean it is really bad). and refuses to fly anything but a High wing. No rating needed, it HAS to be the 182 for me. DaveR

 

[sba55]

Personally, I think you should go with the 6. The others don't really provide a significant speed/space advantage, and if I were you, I know I'd be asking myself this same question again in a few years if I didn't go with the 6 now.

I guess another way of putting it - given the fairly high costs involved in switching airplanes, does it make sense to go with less capability to get some minimal cost-savings? The 6 isn't significantly more expensive to run, and you get a lot more utility out of it in your situation.

-Felix

 

[AdamZ]

Great Point felix and I'm not in the market other than in my dreams but I just thought the rating system was a neat way to compare it. But looks like no ones taking me up on that.

I guess Ron could be right about the Six not being in the same class but a lot of folks I know who have thought to move Up have debated between the six and the 182. I think primarly because the six is much less expensive than the 6 seat cessnas I've seen out there so regarless I still think they are somewhat comparable in terms of what folks want to move upto from a 172 or an Archer.

From my perusal of the TAPs and ASOs etc the Dakotas have been much more expensive than the 182s

 

[NC Pilot]

I agree with Ron, the Cherokee 6 is totally different than the other two, but you can add another plane to the mix and that is the 182RG. Great combination of load, speed, range, engine, comfort and ease of handling. They are rock bottom on the pricing scale as well and Piper never made a comparable plane. The RG adds a little to the cost of maintenance, but if you keep on top of the required work it is really not a big deal.

 

[Clark1961]

From my perusal of the TAPs and ASOs etc the Dakotas have been much more expensive than the 182s

That's 'cause they're much better aircraft. Even in the turbo variant.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Lets compare the following attributes and assign each a #
(BTW if you think of a better way to do this or a category I have not thought of speak up or add it in.)


1) Cost to purchase:

Dunno. 182 and Six are both high-demand and hold their values well, but seeing what you said about Dakotas below... Compare the Cherokee 235/Pathfinder as well, it's very similar to the Dakota the same way the Cherokee 180 is similar to the Archer.

2) Cost of ownership over say 12 years ( usual TBO) includes annuals, Mx, ADs, Insurance etc:

They're all going to be similar here, with the exception of the Six which will have higher insurance costs due to the extra seats.

3)Fuel Burn:

I plan for 13gph in the 182. Mike's PA28-235 burns more like 15 according to his JPI. The Six will depend on whether you get a 260 or 300 but will clearly be higher than the other two.

4)Load Carrying:

Again, similar and it depends on which exact airplane you get too. For reference, in our 1971 182 I can take 747 pounds and full (slightly over 6 hours) fuel, or 903 pounds and 4 hours of fuel - That's what I did going to the FlyBQ a couple years ago.

5) Endurance and Distance

Dunno about the Six. Dakota and 182 are similar. C235 carries less fuel. 182 with LR tanks is 79 gallons, Dakota is 72.

6) Speed

Plan 130 in either the Dakota or the 182. You might get 135. I think the Six will be a little faster, maybe 145.

7) Short Field Capability

I've had the 182 in (and perhaps more importantly, out!) of an 1100-foot grass strip. I don't think the others will be significantly worse, though.

8) Visability in all phases of flight

182, you can see straight back (on the "later", ie post-1964 or so, models) and you can see the ground better. Six/Dakota/C235, you can see up better and you can keep your eyes on the runway during turns in the pattern. Pretty much a wash here too.

9) Comfort. ( Rate both seating and ingress/egress seperatly)

182, hands down. The Cherokee Six will be as wide as the 182, but the 182's upright seating position allows for looooooooooong flights without needing a stretch. The Dakota/C235 is just like any other Cherokee, and does not compare to the comfort of the 182.

Same for ingress and egress - No climbing on the wing to get in the 182, and there are nice big doors on both sides of the airplane. Having two full-size doors in case of an accident is nice, too. Oh, and getting in and out in the rain is MUCH nicer in a high-wing.

10)Handling in Turbulence

I don't think you'll find any significant difference here.

11) Ground Handling

The Pipers win on this one. Pushrods instead of bungees to the nose gear, so it's a much more positive feel. Once you're used to the 182, though, you won't notice it.

12) Crosswind Handling

Probably a wash, maybe a slight advantage to the 182 as it has less pronounced ground effect with the high wing and doesn't have any tendency to want to fly again after touchdown. I've landed it in a direct crosswind of 20G29, and lesser angles of 21G28, 25G31, etc. I have not yet hit the stops on the rudder in doing so.

13)Ease of preflight:

Some may say Piper wins, I say it's a wash. With the high wing you have to get up on a ladder (or crawl up the plane if it's got the steps) to check fuel, but on the Piper you have to crawl around on the ground to sump the tanks, check the pitot, and other under-the-wing stuff. Pick your poison.

14) General Comments: Do not assign a number but give some personal thoughts:

I've flown the 182 a ton, but I also have time in the Dakota and C235. I've never specifically flown a Cherokee Six, but I have several hours in Senecas and a bit in a FG Saratoga which are the same airframe as the Six, with a different wing ('toga is tapered) or two engines and retracts (Seneca - But it does have the same hershey-bar wing).

Given the same general characteristics, I generally prefer Pipers to Cessnas (I'll generally take an Archer rather than a 180hp 172, for example) but Piper never made an airplane like the 182. Its comfort, toughness, and versatility are hard to beat.

However, the types in question are really fairly similar. The Six will be more comfy than the Cherokees but less so than the 182, will cost more in insurance, and will go faster but burn more fuel. I suppose theoretically it can carry 6 people but they'd best be small-ish.

The C235/Dakota will have better ground handling, but is beat or tied in pretty much every other area by the 182. And really, who cares about the ground handling, I wanna FLY!

The 182 is as close to a perfect airplane as you'll get, should you only be able to own one airplane. It's not the best at anything, but it's pretty damn good at EVERYTHING. I've grown quite fond of ours over the last few years - It's taken me from Wisconsin to the east coast, west coast, and gulf coast; it's landed me at the highest and lowest airports in the ConUS; I've landed it on pavement, grass, dirt, and gravel; I've done a mountain flying course and landed at some beautiful backcountry strips... It may not be particularly fast or sexy, but it's fast enough to get places and boy does it get the job done!

 

[Anthony]

I agree with Ron, the Cherokee 6 is totally different than the other two, but you can add another plane to the mix and that is the 182RG. Great combination of load, speed, range, engine, comfort and ease of handling. They are rock bottom on the pricing scale as well and Piper never made a comparable plane. The RG adds a little to the cost of maintenance, but if you keep on top of the required work it is really not a big deal.

Mark. What is your KTAS in cruise? I think Mark is on to something. That is a sweet combination.

 

[timwinters]

This is all from memory so don't slap me too hard if I'm misremembering...

When I was based at HRO there was a Cherokee 235 on the field with a fixed pitch prop. Every time I walked by that bird I just shook my head and mumbled "why".

I believe 235s were available in both fixed and constant speed versions. So, if you seriously look at any 235s make sure they have a CS before you pass go.

Am I correct here?

 

[gprellwitz]

I had a response typed up, but lost it, and now Kent's said about everything I was going to say.

 

[AdamZ]

Sorry Grant you need to do your own work.

 

[Skip Miller]

182, hands down. The Cherokee Six will be as wide as the 182, but the 182's upright seating position allows for looooooooooong flights without needing a stretch.

In the PA-28 you sit on the wing spar. In the PA-32 you sit in front of it. For a tall pilot, the PA-32 has cramped legroom. I have more legroom in the PA-28!

-Skip

 

[gprellwitz]

Sorry Grant you need to do your own work.

Okay,
Comfort in the 182 is unsurpassed. Having 2 doors makes it much easier for both the pilot and the passengers. 8+ hours in a day in a 182 with no discomfort and only one fuel stop. Chicago to Florida panhandle non-stop. The built-in steps make it possible to check the fuel level, albeit with some agility required, or you can use a ladder. The high wing is good when it's raining and going into rough strips where you may have low scrub around the narrow runway. The baggage door is big enough to allow a good-sized cooler in.

The 182 is just about the best all around aircraft for this type of use. Jack of all trades, but master of none.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Okay,
The 182 is just about the best all around aircraft for this type of use.

Except, of course, for the 185...

 

[NC Pilot]

Mark. What is your KTAS in cruise? I think Mark is on to something. That is a sweet combination.

Trues out at 150 knots at 13 GPH. Biggest disadvantage is it is not a great rough field plane.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Mark. What is your KTAS in cruise? I think Mark is on to something. That is a sweet combination.

If it's not fast enough, then the next step up is the TURBO 182-RG...

 

[Clark1961]

Trues out at 150 knots at 13 GPH. Biggest disadvantage is it is not a great rough field plane.

Heck, I can do more on less. Of course I've gotta go way up high to do it...

 

[poadeleted20]

a lot of folks I know who have thought to move Up have debated between the six and the 182.

If so, either they don't have a grip on their mission requirements or they're indifferent to higher ownership costs. The Six is more expensive to own and operate because of the larger engine (fuel and overhaul) and extra seats (higher liability insurance) but you get more payload for that. If you don't use that extra payload, you're paying extra for something you don't use, and if that doesn't bother you, then you're not making a rational cost-benefit decision.

 

[poadeleted20]

you can add another plane to the mix and that is the 182RG. Great combination of load, speed, range, engine, comfort and ease of handling. They are rock bottom on the pricing scale as well and Piper never made a comparable plane. The RG adds a little to the cost of maintenance, but if you keep on top of the required work it is really not a big deal.

Another orange in the apple basket. And significantly more expensive to own, since insurance will be another thousand or more a year for the RG.

 

[poadeleted20]

When I was based at HRO there was a Cherokee 235 on the field with a fixed pitch prop. Every time I walked by that bird I just shook my head and mumbled "why".

I believe 235s were available in both fixed and constant speed versions.

The first year or two were fixed pitch, but after that they were all c/s.

So, if you seriously look at any 235s make sure they have a CS before you pass go.

Only the very earliest ones are FP, but it's worth checking.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If so, either they don't have a grip on their mission requirements or they're indifferent to higher ownership costs. The Six is more expensive to own and operate because of the larger engine (fuel and overhaul) and extra seats (higher liability insurance) but you get more payload for that. If you don't use that extra payload, you're paying extra for something you don't use, and if that doesn't bother you, then you're not making a rational cost-benefit decision.

Ron,

I think the reason people make the 182/Six comparison is that Piper simply never made a 182 equivalent and they're trying to get the 182 in a low-wing version. They'll get the cabin width and room, but at the additional costs of everything you say above. I can't imagine being so high-wing-averse as to spend the extra money myself, but some folks are...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Except, of course, for the 185...

Oh, and there are few airplane noises sweeter than that of a 185. LOVE that bird. Wish they weren't so friggin' expensive.

In the PA-28 you sit on the wing spar. In the PA-32 you sit in front of it. For a tall pilot, the PA-32 has cramped legroom. I have more legroom in the PA-28!

I've never noticed that problem - What I notice most is the lack of ability to recline in a plane with club seating. That plus the low seating gives me a backache after a while...

Mark. What is your KTAS in cruise? I think Mark is on to something. That is a sweet combination.

I finished my commercial in the 182RG. Nice bird - For the extra mx/insurance costs, you pick up another 20 or so knots (to 150) in cruise for the same fuel burn.

My only concern would be landing on rough strips, as Mark says, but I will say that the gear system is a lot more stout than it looks from a distance.

 

[Pilawt]

The first year or two were fixed pitch, but after that they were all c/s.
Only the very earliest ones are FP, but it's worth checking.

Fixed pitch prop was standard equipment on the PA-28-235 from its introduction in 1963 through the 1972 model year -- though most examples during that time were ordered with the optional constant-speed propeller.

Likewise, constant-speed prop was an option on the PA-32-260 from 1965 through 1972, but standard on the -300.

 

[NC Pilot]

Another orange in the apple basket. And significantly more expensive to own, since insurance will be another thousand or more a year for the RG.

My insurance is $1800/year for $1 mil smooth. I don't know the insurance cost of a straight 182, but my 172 was $900/year for less coverage. I think that a thousand a year more for insurance is slightly over inflated. Perhaps only $600 to $700/year more. Some of that will be paid back for in fuel cost savings.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think the reason people make the 182/Six comparison is that Piper simply never made a 182 equivalent

But they did -- it's the 235 Cherokee/Dakota. The later 182's even used the same 235 HP Lyc O-540 engine.

 

[Anthony]

But they did -- it's the 235 Cherokee/Dakota. The later 182's even used the same 235 HP Lyc O-540 engine.

And thus the performance is remarkably similar. Some prefer the 182 for its high wing for more rough strip operations.

 

[poadeleted20]

Fixed pitch prop was standard equipment on the PA-28-235 from its introduction in 1963 through the 1972 model year

I think you're confusing the year of the switch to the extended cabin with the change to c/s prop. I don't believe Piper shipped any f/p props on 235's after about 1967.

 

[airdale]

I have about 100 hours each in 182s and Sixs, and many more in various flavors of the PA-28, but no 235 time. So from that perspective, here are some comments:

Cabin size: Six is by far the biggest, but the 182 is noticeably wider than the PA-28. In a Six, you can't bump shoulders with your right seater unless you try. In the 182 you don't have to try very hard, and in the PA-28 you will be close friends.

Burn: Six will be maybe 2-3gph more than the 182.

Fuel Capacity: At 72 gallons IIRC, the 235 is the smallest, but all have range that's beyond mine!

Handling: The Hershey bar wing makes the Six fairly sloppy at landing speed (78 knots). It also has a tendency to wag its tail. The tail-wagging bothered me a lot for my first few hours in the airplane, but now I hardly notice it. I have never ridden in the back seats however. I would rate it as the least pleasant to fly, though certainly not unpleasant.

Flexibility: You can pull the four back seats out of a (conventional seating) Six in under two minutes. Pull up at the back, slide forward an inch, and lift. No tools. I watched a guy put a twin bed into a Six one day. Room to spare. There are tales of carrying spinet pianos.

Short Field: I don't have my POH copies handy, but I think the kinetic energy situation pretty much tells the tale: Max gross/landing speed for the Six is 3500#/78 knots, for the 182 3100#/65 knots. So the Six is gonna take more runway. I don't know the 235 numbers but for sure it is closer to the 182 than the Six.

Insurance: The two extra seats (aka potential liability lawsuits) in the Six are going to cost you.

Max gross: Both the 182 and the Six are unbothered by heavy loads, even moderate overloads. Later 182s have a landing weight limit of 2950# and 3100# for takeoff vs earlier ones have 3100# for both as does the RG. Minimum fuel load (tabs) on the Six is 70 gallons, on the later 182s 64 gallons (bottom of filler tube). Probably similar on earlier 182s. To go lower you'll need a calibrated dipstick. So you may end up carrying more fuel than you really need, compromising payload.

Engine: I sure do like the IO-540 in the newer 182s. The fuel system has some recirculation, which may be the reason hot starts have not been an issue for me. Because it is injected, very cold starts are not an issue either. Probably the newer Sixs (aka fixed gear Saratoga) are the same. With Continental engines, I always fear carb ice, but that may be because I don't have much time with them.

Post 1978, the 182s lost the problematical fuel bladders, which the Pipers never had.

Managing Piper fuel tanks is a PITA. "Both" is a wonderful concept for a fuel selector valve. For any of 'em, a fuel totalizer is a Very Good Thing on cross country trips, but it is most important on the Pipers.

Good article here: http://www.airbum.com/articles/ArticleSkylaneDakota.html

Personally, among the 235, 182 and Six I would choose the Six. All have similar speed, but the Six has more flexibility at a minimal cost in fuel burn. You can see the fuel caps, so no risk of a cocked cap siphoning fuel overboard. You can also see the sky and the runway, which I like. Add the RG to the mix and that's my choice because of the speed. Also, it's amazing how much more agile an RG feels (with wheels up) compared to a straight leg 182.

YMMV, IANL, and all opinions guaranteed worth price paid.

 

[Pilawt]

I think you're confusing the year of the switch to the extended cabin with the change to c/s prop. I don't believe Piper shipped any f/p props on 235's after about 1967.

I'm sure very few were delivered, but f/p was still standard in the catalog, and c/s optional, through 1972.

Below is a page from the "Demonstration Procedure" booklet published by Piper for use by their dealer salesmen in demonstrating the 1971 Cherokee line; along with the "Demonstration Profile" card specific to the '71 Cherokee 235E.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But they did -- it's the 235 Cherokee/Dakota. The later 182's even used the same 235 HP Lyc O-540 engine.

Not even close. The 182 has a WAY bigger, more comfy cabin than the Dakota and especially the Cherokee 235 - Ask Kate! When I flew the 182 to the FlyBQ a couple years ago, my brother and his girlfriend, both 6 feet plus, were comfortable in the back of the 182. Flying Mike's cherry Cherokee 235 to CT for the AOPA Expo a couple of years ago, Kate was in the back and at 5'4" (IIRC) she was very UNcomfortable. The Dakota improves the rear-seat room, but still not to the point that I'd even think about putting two 6-foot adults in it for a 6-hour trip.

While the 235/Dakota performs similarly to the 182, I look at it as simply a Cherokee 180/Archer with more horsepower, because that's exactly what it is - The cabin is more 172ish, and I wouldn't want to do some of the days I've done in the 182 in a cabin that small. No way.

Also, the NA straight-leg 182 never used the O-540, only the turbo/retract models used that. The NA FG 182's all used the O-470 until the 90's production restart when they switched to the IO-540 (the entire piston line switched to Lycoming fuel-injected engines).

 

[AdamZ]

If so, either they don't have a grip on their mission requirements or they're indifferent to higher ownership costs. The Six is more expensive to own and operate because of the larger engine (fuel and overhaul) and extra seats (higher liability insurance) but you get more payload for that. If you don't use that extra payload, you're paying extra for something you don't use, and if that doesn't bother you, then you're not making a rational cost-benefit decision.

I disagree Ron. The reason folks want to move up is 99% of the time to bigger faster. Yes the 235 is probably as fast as the 182 and probably carries the same load. The big difference is COMFORT. The back of a 182 is pretty darn roomy and comfortable. Heck I couldn't beleive the difference in the back of a 172 from that of an Archer. The back of a 235 is IMHO miserable. It may carry the same weight as the 182 but if that weight is people rather than coolers they aren't going to be too happy.

Right after I read you post I called Kent as I thought he flew with Kate and Mike Andres to CT a few years back for the then AOPA Expo. Kate who you know is petite was apparently very cramped in the back and had to sit side ways.

My point in all this is that the 182 and Six are often looked at equally for move ups is because the Six compares pax comfort wise to the 182 whereas the 235 does not. I think Airdales comparison is a good one above as is Kents. True the cabin config for the Six leaves somewhat tight seats in the middle but when I've flow the six as a back seat pax I've done it from the back row with the middle empty, Talk about leg room.

So anyway I don't think comparing the two means you are confused about your mission just that you are looking to move up to bigger faster carrying four people and not just luggage.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Fuel Capacity: At 72 gallons IIRC, the 235 is the smallest, but all have range that's beyond mine!

The 235 has 82 gallons useable according to the TCDS - The 182 with "short range" tanks would then be the smallest at 60 gallons, though I think most have the long range tanks which are 78 and the Dakota would then be smaller at 72.

Max gross: Both the 182 and the Six are unbothered by heavy loads, even moderate overloads. Later 182s have a landing weight limit of 2950# and 3100# for takeoff vs earlier ones have 3100# for both as does the RG.

Straight-leg 182's started out in 1956 with a max gross of only 2550 pounds. Even the 182A approved later that year was upped to 2650 though, and then they were upped again to 2800 pounds with the 182E model. There wasn't a landing weight until the 182N (2950 MGTOW/2800 MLW). That went away again with the P, which was 2950 for both. Then the 182R and the original turbo went to 3100 gross/2950 landing, which remains with the brand-new 182's today. The retracts were all 3100 lb. for both.

However, you can always remove fuel (or don't put it in in the first place) if you're going to be above MLW. It only takes about 2 hours to burn 150 pounds of fuel, and if you're going somewhere less than 2 hours away you can take a LOT of fuel out.

Minimum fuel load (tabs) on the Six is 70 gallons, on the later 182s 64 gallons (bottom of filler tube). Probably similar on earlier 182s. To go lower you'll need a calibrated dipstick. So you may end up carrying more fuel than you really need, compromising payload.

The nice thing is that with the popularity of the 182 you can buy a "pre-calibrated" dipstick. We have one of the FuelHawk (?) ones that we can read in gallons, as opposed to the ones where you have to read numbers and consult a chart (that you have to make). Another advantage for Cessna...

Post 1978, the 182s lost the problematical fuel bladders, which the Pipers never had.

They're not THAT problematic, are they? We finally had to replace ours 2 years ago for the first time. Not bad for a 36-year-old airplane. I'd bet that the newer ones use newer materials that are more resistant to degradation as well...

Managing Piper fuel tanks is a PITA. "Both" is a wonderful concept for a fuel selector valve. For any of 'em, a fuel totalizer is a Very Good Thing on cross country trips, but it is most important on the Pipers.

Yep. Note that on the Cherokee 235 you have FOUR tanks to manage instead of just two! The tip tanks need to be used for shorter times or they cause quite the rolling moment - Aileron trim would be a good thing to look for (or plan to add) in a 235.

 

[gprellwitz]

Oh, a downside to the newer 182's: 13 sumps. (five per wing, and three under the nose.)

As others mentioned, the "both" fuel setting is a great boon, though! And the newer ones have 87 gallons usable.

 

[Clark1961]

Oh, a downside to the newer 182's: 13 sumps. (five per wing, and three under the nose.)

As others mentioned, the "both" fuel setting is a great boon, though! And the newer ones have 87 gallons usable.

This is getting ridiculous. I can finish my preflight while you're still sumping!

And I'm perfectly happy to switch tanks every half hour. It's really no big deal. Just have the valve towards the front on the first half the hour and the handle towards the rear for the second half of the hour. No big deal even if you're a few minutes late.

Hint, hint: the Dakota really is better.

 

[airdale]

... the P, which was 2950 for both. ...

Sorry. I thought the P was 3100.

if you're going somewhere less than 2 hours away you can take a LOT of fuel out.

Well, yes, but if you actually have to take it OUT, it's a PITA. The calibrated dipsticks are nice, though, as you can measure what's in there and then just add what you need. I wish they made calibrated ones for the Piper tanks. Some day I am going to make my own.

Note that on the Cherokee 235 you have FOUR tanks to manage

On the Six, too.

I'm perfectly happy to switch tanks every half hour.

IMHO that is not the issue. The effect the four tanks is that you have to be willing to run tanks dry if your calculated reserve is to really be useful. Pax are not too keen on hearing the engine sputter though. Having three gallons each in four tanks is not the same as having all twelve in one tank or having that wonderful "Both" valve. (Of course the Piper would need an "All" valve!) At least with the Saratoga they tied the tips and the mains together so you only have two tanks to deal with.

... 13 sumps ...

My theory is there is one for each Cessna staff lawyer.

when I've flow the six as a back seat pax I've done it from the back row with the middle empty, Talk about leg room.

Another advantage of the roominess is that there is plenty of space for the jackets and blankets you'll need back there on a cold winter day. Those seats are a looong way from the engine muff.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well, yes, but if you actually have to take it OUT, it's a PITA. The calibrated dipsticks are nice, though, as you can measure what's in there and then just add what you need.

Yeah, depends on the FBO. Ours will readily de-fuel airplanes. Of course, if you own your own and know you have a "heavy" trip coming up you can just not fuel it too.

IMHO that is not the issue. The effect the four tanks is that you have to be willing to run tanks dry if your calculated reserve is to really be useful. Pax are not too keen on hearing the engine sputter though. Having three gallons each in four tanks is not the same as having all twelve in one tank or having that wonderful "Both" valve.

An excellent point.

My theory is there is one for each Cessna staff lawyer.

Hey, there's an ADVANTAGE to the bladders! The "old" (1980's and earlier) 182's with the bladders only have one sump on each wing plus the fuel strainer drain knob next to the oil dipstick. Quick and easy.

 

[gprellwitz]

Hey, there's an ADVANTAGE to the bladders! The "old" (1980's and earlier) 182's with the bladders only have one sump on each wing plus the fuel strainer drain knob next to the oil dipstick. Quick and easy.

My understanding is that the 5 sumps per wing in the later 172's and 182's is because the ribs in the integral (wet) wings could trap water which could make it to the engine after turbulence. Suddenly, it doesn't seem so useless, does it? (Not that it isn't still a hassle, but at least it isn't a pointless hassle! )