Cessna 182 and Bonanza 35

Frogs97

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
401
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Display Name

Display name:
Frogs97
Looking through the different sale sites, it seems like when looking at planes of similar vintage, times and avionics, these planes are priced pretty similarly. Does that seem right?

I know insurance and MX will be a bit higher on the Bo than the 182. You get more speed while giving up a little useful load, but for a family traveling machine, it sure seems like there's a lot of value in the Bos right now.
 
Sure, they perform similar functions. There are a few caveats to each that would likely favor one or the other. Runway surface type would be one for sure, as grass/back country strips will favor the 182. The Bo's folding legs vs the straight-leg 182 offer less complexity and likely a bit lower insurance, as well as the fuel/CG concerns for the 35-series Bo. The Bo is significantly faster though, so if long-XC's are the mission, the Bo will do it better unless you run short on useful load. They have a lot of crossover, so their pricing will be similar.
 
Family? I wouldn't call a 35 a family machine. Maybe a 2+2 but not a 4 place trip hauler.
 
Back country strips favor the Bonanza.
 
Interestingly, these are the exact same two planes my wife and I were also interested in.
The Bonanza has, from what I heard, the most rugged gear and best prop clearance of all retractables. It can take off and land on relatively short strips as well. These capabilities make it even suitable for moderate back country strips. The additional maintenance of the gear also doesn't seem to be much of an factor.

My conclusion was, that unless somebody is afraid of gear up landings or wants a plane which can me modified for serious back country operations, a 35 Bonanza provides quite a bit more bang for the buck.
 
I looked at a lot of different aircraft - including the 182. If my elderly mom would have been a flier, I would have a 182 in the hangar right now. (I have a BIG momma - also considered the C210). But she barely likes to leave her house.

When I came to the reality is was mostly just my toy and sometimes my wife would travel, the 35 was an easy choice: I fly to a LOT of grass strips, easy to land, easy to fly, FAST and burns MOGAS. Then you add in the reality that the 35's are taking a beating in the market, it didn't take long to write the check.

(Of course, I then wrote even more checks :( )

Family? Get the 182.
Fast/fun travel for 2 (and maybe 4 skinny folks), a 35. (Start with a J35 or later. G35 or earlier gets you in the antique club.)

Want both (speed, 4 useable seats and grass) and have the cash? A 36. But that is at a six figure price point.
 
I know insurance and MX will be a bit higher on the Bo than the 182. You get more speed while giving up a little useful load, but for a family traveling machine, it sure seems like there's a lot of value in the Bos right now.

I am not an owner, but I aways thought the 182 was one step up from a 172 and a Bo is a further step up from the 182. Talking maintenance, annual inspection costs, insurance and fuel burn. Maybe I am wrong?

I though a 182RG about the same as a Bo. Maybe its time to include the fork tail in my research?
 
No. They don't.

No they don't is correct! If it's a nice smooth 2800 ft or more of grass it's doable with A competent pilot. No bonanza is a real backcountry plane unless one includes prepared dirt- gravel types strips say in Africa. Anything with a nose gear can be a disaster in an unprepared field, etc. It's why, for instance, cessna 180s and 185s demand such high prices as old as they are.
 
Last edited:
I would think that in order for the 182 to be better you'd need to take off the wheel pants, thereby losing _more_ speed over the 'bo, no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back country strips favor the Bonanza.
Clearly an exaggeration but perhaps with a grain of truthiness inside.

I have zero Bo' time but I've watched a couple operate out of our relatively rough grass strip and they did surprisingly well rain or shine. One flew in and out quite regularly for years.

Seems like a fine grass strip retractable.
 
I would think that in order for the 182 to be better you'd need to take off the wheel pants, thereby losing _more_ speed over the 'bo, no?

How do those low wings cope with the 4 foot tall bushes just off the sides of the 20ft wide runway?
 
I operate a Bo out of unimproved strips sometimes in NM, and TX. Of course grass is no problem. The Bonanza will also take the 8" Cleveland wheel and 6.50x8 tire on the main gear. It's the same size as the Baron tire, and does fine with modest gravel strips. It's not going to be suitable for a river gravel bar, but in comparison to a 182, it'll do fine.

As with everything, there's a point of diminishing returns. Picking up stones, and gravel, and spraying it on the tail of the plane just isn't something most Bo owners are willing to put up with for the most part.

That said, the amount of time you are spending getting in and out of the rough strips is a function of how you want to handle ground work. Maybe the 182 will be better for the rough stuff up in Idaho, and MT. It is what it is.

In the air, there is just no comparison. The Bo has it all over the 182. Of course, the Bo is rated to Utility category, right up to gross weight, unlike the 182 which is sadly, only rated to normal category standards. Speed/efficiency is better, but you only get one door. So, if you need two doors, well - you'll have to settle for the Cessna.

Now, ask yourself how often you are going to operate at full gross, out of rough strips? If you are needing that big load, and gravel capability, get the 182. Just cuz it drives like a Chevy truck, and uses more gas than a Lamborghini is no reason to avoid them. There's lots of Cessna folks out there that are perfectly happy with their 182. Lots of Chevy owners out there too. :yes:
 
I own 1/16 of a C182 and a BE35.

PM me and I will take you on a flight in both. I can tell you the good and bad parts of both.

I belong to Metro Flyers. We are based out of KDTO.
 
Seems about right.

Personally id only buy a 182 if I were starting a DZ.

But yeah, demographic wise, about the same for most folks
 
Join TexasAg93 and AggieMike88's club and get both.


Wait you are an aggie though right?
 
Looking through the different sale sites, it seems like when looking at planes of similar vintage, times and avionics, these planes are priced pretty similarly. Does that seem right?

I know insurance and MX will be a bit higher on the Bo than the 182. You get more speed while giving up a little useful load, but for a family traveling machine, it sure seems like there's a lot of value in the Bos right now.

These two are to what we have here in Denton. Why. It set up a time come visit and ask us some of your questions.
 
different airplanes for different missions. I had a 182 for awhile, it's a jack of all trades master of none in my opinion. Wasn't for me.
 
Join TexasAg93 and AggieMike88's club and get both.


Wait you are an aggie though right?

HA! I thought the same thing when I saw TexasAg93 was in Metro Flyers ... "Are they ALL Aggies?"

Guys, I may just take you up on that. Not sure I'm up for the 45 minute drive anytime I want to go fly. But, I'd sure like to take a look at those planes and get to meet some local pilots.
 
3 of the 16 are Aggies.

Come on up. I will show you the goods and the bads of both.

I live 10 minutes from the airport, so I understand the 45 minute objection on an ongoing basis.

If you do not mind a 'Gig'em' comment every once in a while, flying with an Aggie is not bad for a Horn Frog.

You are ranked #2 right now, so we cannot give you too much grief.
 
This Saturday is a good day to come,to DTO and meet some of the other members. The club is putting on its quarterly WINGS event and Brian is making sure no one goes away hungry. Food starts at 11:00, presentation at 12:00.

When we get back from Gastons, I'll work up a time with you to see and experience the Skylane.

And don't fret the drive from FTW too much. Two of our members also,live there and are frequent users of the aircraft. The good deal we have trumps the 40 minute drive.
 
Brian, who's the third Aggie in our club?
 
I own 1/16 of a C182 and a BE35.

PM me and I will take you on a flight in both. I can tell you the good and bad parts of both.

I belong to Metro Flyers. We are based out of KDTO.

And while you're there, Froggy, take your checkbook and by a share. It's an easy drive for you and you'll have BOTH planes!

What could be better?

We've got some of them thar Aggies in Six4aSix too.. Seems you can't swing a dead cat without hitting an Aggie. Sorry Sam (my Aggie nephew).
 
Last edited:
Just a little time in a Bo, a lot more in a 182. If you're flying out of prepared surfaces, with just one or two of you most of the time, I think the Bo wins. A 182 isn't fun to fly; it handles like a pig; the vis is awful, and it's slow-ish. . .it has utility, fer sure, but not a hoot to fly. Not a particularly great IFR platform, either. I mean it's O.K., but not great.
 
I just gave a ride to a 182 guy this am. He's only been in a Bo once before, and we flitted around for a while. He can't stop raving about the control harmony, and visibility. We took off and he was interested in the climb rate. So, I pushed it up to 1200 FPM and he didn't think we could keep doing that. I told him I can go up like this for ~3000' but the engine is gonna overheat after a while in 90F temps. He's sold on the Bo.
 
Second the Debbie. I've seen quite a few Beech 33s with a useful load 1,000+. Will cruise at 150 TAS on less than 10 gph (55%) Can push it to 170ktas burning 14+.
 
When you land on gravel the mains spit the gravel and sometimes they hit the bottom of the horizontal stabilizer. But, you know, it can be done.
 
Second the Debbie. I've seen quite a few Beech 33s with a useful load 1,000+. Will cruise at 150 TAS on less than 10 gph (55%) Can push it to 170ktas burning 14+.

Yea, those 33's will likely be north of $100K. Might get lucky though.
 
brian];1909480 said:
Yea, those 33's will likely be north of $100K. Might get lucky though.


Was actually just looking this morning. Here's a high time (16,000) hours with low time motor 450 SMOH. Looks like it's flown over 1,000 hours in the past two years. $60k

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...ANZA/1978-BEECHCRAFT-F33A-BONANZA/1299693.htm

Here's one for $98k with a 1,100 SMOH but lots of goodies in the panel:
http://www.controller.com/listingsd...ANZA/1971-BEECHCRAFT-F33A-BONANZA/1388923.htm
 
This Saturday is a good day to come,to DTO and meet some of the other members. The club is putting on its quarterly WINGS event and Brian is making sure no one goes away hungry. Food starts at 11:00, presentation at 12:00.

When we get back from Gastons, I'll work up a time with you to see and experience the Skylane.

And don't fret the drive from FTW too much. Two of our members also,live there and are frequent users of the aircraft. The good deal we have trumps the 40 minute drive.

Saturdays are generally out ... my kids' sports/scouts things pretty well figure out ways to chew up the entire day (well, that and TCU football). But, I'd definitely love to come by when y'all get back, if only to meet you guys.
 
And while you're there, Froggy, take your checkbook and by a share. It's an easy drive for you and you'll have BOTH planes!

What could be better?

We've got some of them thar Aggies in Six4aSix too.. Seems you can't swing a dead cat without hitting an Aggie. Sorry Sam (my Aggie nephew).

Aggies alone are generally wonderful people ... get too many in a room, though ... I dunno. :goofy:
 
I don't always use "generally" in my posts. But, when I do, it's generally at the end of a long week ... generally.
 
I flew a 182RG the other day. I'm just not a fan.

Yeah, it's roomy but the visibility sucks unless you want to look at the ground. I hate how high the panel is. It's freaking towering and bugged me, especially on the ground. They burn a lot of gas for the speed.

There's also the high vs. low wing thing to take into account. In high wings, I feel like I'm having to break my neck to look for traffic half the time, especially in the pattern.

But people love them. You need to actually sit in both and decide vs. just worrying about the numbers.

The 182 can do things the Bo can't. But in normal lower 48 usage, I'd much rather have the speed and visibility of the Bonanza. Plus it's an absolute joy to fly.
 
Last edited:
Not a big fan of Cessnas in general but they have their merits. I do like the Cessna twins.
 
Sure, they perform similar functions. There are a few caveats to each that would likely favor one or the other. Runway surface type would be one for sure, as grass/back country strips will favor the 182. The Bo's folding legs vs the straight-leg 182 offer less complexity and likely a bit lower insurance, as well as the fuel/CG concerns for the 35-series Bo. The Bo is significantly faster though, so if long-XC's are the mission, the Bo will do it better unless you run short on useful load. They have a lot of crossover, so their pricing will be similar.

This depends on the models you're considering, though.

A 182RG comes reasonably close to many Bos in terms of speed. Never was a huge fan of the retractable gear system, though.
 
This depends on the models you're considering, though.

A 182RG comes reasonably close to many Bos in terms of speed. Never was a huge fan of the retractable gear system, though.

The one I flew couldn't even make 145 knots.

I'm not sure how many are actually getting them to the 150 knots they are supposed to get.
 
Back
Top