C 182 Q
- Thread starter TommyG
- Start date
N747JB
Final Approach
Cessna built a bunch of them starting in 1977. The good is they have the 2000 hour TBO engine that turns 2400 RPM's vs the 1600 hour engine that I think maxed out at 2650? The 77's were basically P models with the new engine, starting in 78 the had 24 volt electrical systems and I think wet wings, my 77 has bladders. They are good at most things, not great at anything in particular. 130-135 knots, maintenance is pretty reasonable, good payload, decent short field capabilities. Bad: a lot of them still have old radios and old Cessna autopilots, they can't use Mogas, the P models can.
Good honest airplanes, this is our second one, my dad bought a new P model in 1972 and we both learned to fly in it. We bought this one a few years ago for my son to learn to fly.
Cessna built a bunch of them starting in 1977. The good is they have the 2000 hour TBO engine that turns 2400 RPM's vs the 1600 hour engine that I think maxed out at 2650? The 77's were basically P models with the new engine, starting in 78 the had 24 volt electrical systems and I think wet wings, my 77 has bladders. They are good at most things, not great at anything in particular. 130-135 knots, maintenance is pretty reasonable, good payload, decent short field capabilities. Bad: a lot of them still have old radios and old Cessna autopilots, they can't use Mogas, the P models can.
Good honest airplanes, this is our second one, my dad bought a new P model in 1972 and we both learned to fly in it. We bought this one a few years ago for my son to learn to fly.
Sounds good, thanks. Have my eye on one.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Q models have a passenger window that opens. P models don't.
I've had a c182q for about four years. Great plane. Like John mentioned about avionics, I have a 430w and stec55 which are good additions. I didn't want to deal with the fuel bladders, so I got a '79' but still have had a fuel leak. Hasn't been a huge deal. Love the plane overall.
AggieMike88
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 20,805
- Location
- Denton, TX
- Display Name
Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
I fly a 1975 C182P. REALLY like it.
If you can find a P or Q with a solid motor, good paint and interior, and a few of the items on your avionics checklist, you'll have a good airplane for just about any mission within its usable payload.
Like many say, the Cessna 182 might not be the top winner of any particular category, but it's really good at all of them combined.
If you can find a P or Q with a solid motor, good paint and interior, and a few of the items on your avionics checklist, you'll have a good airplane for just about any mission within its usable payload.
Like many say, the Cessna 182 might not be the top winner of any particular category, but it's really good at all of them combined.
Brad Z
Final Approach
No one mentioned it, but the Q model, like the P, qualifies for the 150lb takeoff gross weight increase STC. It brings the gross takeoff weight to 3100lbs. It's good to have on heavy flights two hours or more.
You can't go wrong with either the P or Q model.
You can't go wrong with either the P or Q model.
The lower RPM's were because of the switch to 100LL?
I believe they were optional.
Luvrv8
Line Up and Wait
I had use of a Q model. Very nice plane. It was just sold, had a 430W, 3 year old paint original nice interior. Total time airframe and engine was 1750 hrs so a engine was due, the family got 48K for it. I miss being able to fly her.
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,783
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,481
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Indirectly. It was a switch to a higher compression engine that would be less susceptible to lead fouling on 100 "low-lead". With higher compression the engine could generate the same hp (or even a little more) at lower rpm.
Same reason that around the same time Piper came out with the Dakota (lower rpm than the old Cherokee 235), 172s and Warriors switched to 160 hp engines, and Cessna replaced the 150 with the 152.
In the day of low-cost 80-octane fuel, low-compression engines were desirable. When the Cherokee first came out in 1961, buyers had a choice of 150 hp (80 octane) or 160 hp (min. 91 octane). The -160 was the first one certified. It was only slightly more expensive to purchase, and had noticeably better performance. But the -150's ability to use cheaper fuel made it far more popular, and the -160 was dropped in 1967 ... but came back ten years later (in the Warrior II) when 80 octane fuel went away.
The 150 hp Grumman American Cheetah never had a factory-built 160 hp counterpart. But many Cheetahs have been retrofitted with high-compression cylinders, going from 150 hp/2700 rpm to 157 hp/2650 rpm.
This.
Last edited:
ytodd
Pre-takeoff checklist
My 76 P has a passenger window that opens.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Some don't.
See?
We decided to put in a window that has a large camera port in it, to "fix" the window not opening over there "problem". Super simple and cheap compared to messing with the door and window frame.
Shawn
En-Route
If you are considering a 182, plunk down the $39.95 and buy the Cessna 182 Buyer's Guide. Goes through the whole line and was instrumental in helping me narrow down what model 182 would fit me best.
http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/cessna-182-buyer-s-guide-1956-1986.html
http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/cessna-182-buyer-s-guide-1956-1986.html
N747JB
Final Approach
Mine doesn't open and I wish it did! It was an option. Another option to look for in an adjustable right seat, our P model had it and I just assumed this one did as well, it doesn't.
I would be more comfortable in the right seat if I could lower it a inch or two, it's not a deal breaker, but something to look for that costs a lot to swap.
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
Mine doesn't open and I wish it did! It was an option. Another option to look for in an adjustable right seat, our P model had it and I just assumed this one did as well, it doesn't.
Does it adjust fore-aft only or not at all?
I've never seen one that adjusts up/down on the right side of any model letter. Just fore-aft.
Doesn't mean they don't exist, just never seen one ever.
neilw2
Line Up and Wait
I have owned a '79 Q for about a year now with a few partners. I transitioned to it from flying various Piper rentals (Warriors and Arrows)
I find the 182s to be one of the best planes for the type of flying I do. Like everyone says it does a lot of things very well but is not the best at anything. If you are looking for a well rounded, do anything type of plane its hard to beat a 182
Based on my research the Q's are some of the best 182s that were made.
Some of the reasons I say that:
-Wet wings, so no bladders to worry about
-Takes 88 gallons of fuel on at a time, can keep you going for a long, long time between fuel stops (with economy power you could get 7+ hrs out of a tank)
-24 V power supply
-Standard carb temp gauge (not standard on most older models)
-Quieter 2400 RPM motor with a long TBO (not that TBO matters much)
-STCs for different things available (max load increase, even a chute)
-The Qs have one of the highest useful loads of all 182s
Except for the Mogas STC there really isn't a downside to the Qs for a 182
Feel free to ask any more specific questions on the Q
I find the 182s to be one of the best planes for the type of flying I do. Like everyone says it does a lot of things very well but is not the best at anything. If you are looking for a well rounded, do anything type of plane its hard to beat a 182
Based on my research the Q's are some of the best 182s that were made.
Some of the reasons I say that:
-Wet wings, so no bladders to worry about
-Takes 88 gallons of fuel on at a time, can keep you going for a long, long time between fuel stops (with economy power you could get 7+ hrs out of a tank)
-24 V power supply
-Standard carb temp gauge (not standard on most older models)
-Quieter 2400 RPM motor with a long TBO (not that TBO matters much)
-STCs for different things available (max load increase, even a chute)
-The Qs have one of the highest useful loads of all 182s
Except for the Mogas STC there really isn't a downside to the Qs for a 182
Feel free to ask any more specific questions on the Q
N747JB
Final Approach
Just fore and aft, the "articulating" right seat was an option.