all the 172 jokes have finally gotten to me

Mahneuvers

Mahneuvers

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
1,665
Display Name
Mahneuvers
Seriously, I had all but given up on a 182 partnership but one just opened that I'm seriously considering. Would love to hear due diligence advice from those who have gone this route.

I know I'm still subject to high wing ridicule but you can't have everything.
 
Nose is a little longer so the sight picture in the flare will look a little different.

What year 182? There can be significant differences between variants.
 
Mahneuvers said:
1976 182P

It has 5800 TT which is a little concerning.
Click to expand...

I have the same year and model.

Absolutely no reason for concern at that TT, especially if it looks well maintained and logs are complete.

Nice stable IFR airframe if you’re into that.

Because of nose-heaviness, some have, or have had & repaired, firewall damage.

Fuel feeding can be uneven, a lot of us fly right tank during cruise as a partial remedy.

I’m sure by now the fuel caps have been updated from the “killer caps” and the seat lock/ratchet installed.

Make sure to keep the tanks full if sitting long. They are bladders and will help longevity.

Carb ice. Be diligent.

And pics are required here…
 
The extra speed is nice (I saw 82kts headwind flying home from Uluru yesterday) and even nicer for me, compared to my old 172, was the added range.
 
I don't speak Cessna all that well, but have a friend who has a 182 and absolutely loves it. Translating to Piper, and Dakota vs Cherokee, I wouldn't go 182 vs 172 for speed, they're all kinda slow. But the ability to have 4 people plus a little baggage plus a decent amount of fuel? A good thing. Similarly being able to be 2 up, full fuel, some baggage and not having to worry about a hot day here in the cool and low NE.
 
I see my 182P as a Honda CRV (or RAV 4, take your pick) with wings. It goes just fast enough to do X country (135k + TAS at altitude), can carry wife and all the luggage and never worry about over weight, but can land and take off on just about any field. As there were so many built and are still flying, you'll be able to get parts and keep it flying without drama. For my mission ( flying to fun places as well as local fun flying ) a 172, although a great plane, just wouldn't work.

A few examples. I've got an Angel Flight today; ATL area to Chattanooga to Augusta Burn Center and back. Would be harder to do in a slower, more cramped 172. Given the appointment time, etc., not even sure a 172 could do it. A few weeks ago went up to Chicago for grandchild's 2nd B day. Again, a slower 172 without the "wife luggage capacity" wouldn't have worked for us.

Net net, it comes down to what you want to do with your flying.

Oh, and the TT hours? 5000 isn't even broken in yet.......
 
Jim K said:
On this, we can agree
Click to expand...
I rent a ‘75P, like flying it. Is there a difference between a ‘75 and a ‘76?

Oh, and vs a 172? Even solo, when I’m flying over the Sierra Nevada, I feel safer and more comfortable with the extra HP as opposed to a skyhawk. The extra speed is nice, but not my primary motivation in choosing the 182 in that situation-of course I don’t like burning more fuel-
 
CPA offers classes on that model, might be something online. I think Paul New taught mine.
 
4RNB said:
CPA offers classes on that model, might be something online. I think Paul New taught mine.
Click to expand...
Yes, CPA online versions are available. I completed the 'late' model 210 course prior to shopping for one. This past summer, I attended the live version at Jackson, TN. The comraderie and the ability to ask questions was the only difference. I highly recommend his course.
 
All's not great w/ the partnership research but we'll see where it goes. A resident expert here (I'm sure he wouldn't call himself that but I sure think he is) thinks the plane is overpriced by 25-30K. The partnership has no reserves and the engine his half way to TBO. Also, in reading the partnership agreement, only a majority approves maintenance decisions which means it could be two against one. I doubt they'd do this, but, it would be in their rights to keep the plane grounded for a large repair in particular b/c there is no reserve.
 
500 hours in a 77’ model. Perfect first plane.
Not a STOL plane but damn close.
Should of kept it but they are slow.
 
Mahneuvers said:
All's not great w/ the partnership research but we'll see where it goes. A resident expert here (I'm sure he wouldn't call himself that but I sure think he is) thinks the plane is overpriced by 25-30K. The partnership has no reserves and the engine his half way to TBO. Also, in reading the partnership agreement, only a majority approves maintenance decisions which means it could be two against one. I doubt they'd do this, but, it would be in their rights to keep the plane grounded for a large repair in particular b/c there is no reserve.
Click to expand...

30K total, or just your share? I would not walk away from a good plane over 10K. There is always a subjective component to value, which can be negotiated.

Lack of reserve is a concern, but not a show stopper. If all 3 owners have the personal means to cover a worst case hit and are willing to fund ongoing maintenance at a high level, it's OK.

I would prefer majority rule over a unanimous requirement. Perhaps the partnership agreement could set a threshold limit, eg 3 votes in favor for improvements over 10K?
 
@Ed Haywood, I agree w/ everything you said. The seller is asking 75K for one share. So, ~10K/share asking too much and ~10K/share underfunded reserve. Seems unlikely he'll drop the price to 55K but you never know.
 
Mahneuvers said:
@Ed Haywood, I agree w/ everything you said. The seller is asking 75K for one share. So, ~10K/share asking too much and ~10K/share underfunded reserve. Seems unlikely he'll drop the price to 55K but you never know.
Click to expand...
share prices are, like you said, ASKING prices. state your concerns to them. this will be a great first test to see how flexible they are, which would be incredibly important in a partnership relationship. not saying he has to come down, but his reasoning will be very telling.
 
Here's a (foolish) thought. Can you negotiate with them an agreement that the money you pay for the share becomes the reserve (with the appropriate controls in place)? Or are they still making payments on the plane and were they hoping your purchase could reduce the principle?

Please note I know nothing (read: Zero; Zilch; Nada) about plane partnerships.
 
Mahneuvers said:
@Ed Haywood, I agree w/ everything you said. The seller is asking 75K for one share. So, ~10K/share asking too much and ~10K/share underfunded reserve. Seems unlikely he'll drop the price to 55K but you never know.
Click to expand...

If you know what the hull is insured for, that will give you an idea whether the insurer will make you whole in the event of a total loss.

I’ve seen incredibly undervalued and overvalued hull policies on 182s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top