cessna 182 carrying 900lbs of people/bags and 3 hrs fuel?

rbridges

rbridges

En-Route
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,749
Location
Warner Robins, GA
Display Name
Display name:
rbridges
I'm figuring 4-200 lb adults and 100 lbs of stuff. 3 hours of fuel (2-2.5 hrs flight with reserve) would be 50 gallons, so 300 lbs.

Is a 1200lb useful load realistic in a 182, or in certain models of the 182?
 
Yeah, pretty sure 1200 lbs useful is available in 182s. It's been a long time since I used one as a hauler, but yeah, from what I remember putting 900 in the cabin was a pretty doable thing.
 
yes it can be done. You should look at P & Q models with the TrollTune STC
 
rbridges said:
I'm figuring 4-200 lb adults and 100 lbs of stuff. 3 hours of fuel (2-2.5 hrs flight with reserve) would be 50 gallons, so 300 lbs.

Is a 1200lb useful load realistic in a 182, or in certain models of the 182?
Click to expand...

Easily done on the R, e.g. see here. And fuel consumption should be around 11 GPH at 70%, so 3 hrs total would be more like 40 gallons.
 
Last edited:
rbridges said:
Is 11/hr typical for a 182? I thought it would be closer to 13.
Click to expand...

Not sure how typical, but on 3 engines on the R model over thousands of hours, it's always been very close to 11 GPH, at around 65%, peak EGT.
 
I just did the math on my '75 P model. With your weight requirements, I can carry 37 gallons of fuel. That's about 2:15 allowing a :30 daytime VFR reserve.

I don't have the Fresh Pick STC that raises the TO weight from 2950 to 3100, but if I did, you could carry 60 gallons, provided you burn off 150lbs in flight (about two hours or so).
 
Like Brad Z mentioned check if the 182 has an increased gross weight stc. It is only paperwork, no work needed on some models.
 
rbridges said:
I'm figuring 4-200 lb adults and 100 lbs of stuff. 3 hours of fuel (2-2.5 hrs flight with reserve) would be 50 gallons, so 300 lbs.
Click to expand...
3 hours of fuel for a 2.5 hour flight is not enough for my comfort by about 30 minutes (even with great VFR weather), but that's just me.

Is a 1200lb useful load realistic in a 182, or in certain models of the 182?
Click to expand...
You'll have to shop carefully to find that. Early 182's are lighter, but have lower MGW. Later 182's have higher MGW's but significantly higher empty weights (useful loads around 1100 lb are typical for current production 182S's). There are STC's which increase useful load, but you'll have to research them and see if a) one of them is installed in the plane you're thinking of purchasing, or b) you're willing to pay for that STC after purchasing a stock 182.
 
Ron Levy said:
3 hours of fuel for a 2.5 hour flight is not enough for my comfort by about 30 minutes (even with great VFR weather), but that's just me.

You'll have to shop carefully to find that. Early 182's are lighter, but have lower MGW. Later 182's have higher MGW's but significantly higher empty weights (useful loads around 1100 lb are typical for current production 182S's). There are STC's which increase useful load, but you'll have to research them and see if a) one of them is installed in the plane you're thinking of purchasing, or b) you're willing to pay for that STC after purchasing a stock 182.
Click to expand...

I don't see us flying more than 2 hours. My wife's plane endurance is somewhat lacking :lol: I figured 3 would give me an hour at the worst. I don't like pushing my luck with fuel, either.

I did some research, and it looks like the STC is $750. It's hard to find exact useable load numbers without looking at a particular planes W&B, but this thread gives me the impression that it's reasonable.
 
I think the last few models before the restart models are the best value, and if they don't have the full weight, the STC is not that expensive from what I recall reported, in fact I recall it as a fairly good value like a MoGas STC almost. I'm not sure if the Flint kit for the 182 increases gross with the fuel or not.:dunno:

I would rather have a 470 than a 540 on the nose. If you want the ultimate 182 (and can afford it) take a look at a Katmai with a 260hp IO-470 with a Canard. That is one awesome all around aircraft, the most impressive performer I have flow outside of an empty Bull Thush with 1435hp on tap from an R-1820.

It's so perfectly balanced with the Canard and IO-470, and performs so well, I would have to fly the IO-550, 300hp King Katmai before I would believe it an all around greater performer and value. With the 260 it was about as perfect as I would want.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
. . . take a look at a Katmai with a 260hp IO-470 with a Canard. That is one awesome all around aircraft, the most impressive performer I have flow outside of an empty Bull Thush with 1435hp on tap from an R-1820 . . .
Click to expand...

The Katmai is a great option, but it would definitely cost him to get one. They aren't cheap, especially with the 260HP conversion, and he'd really have to need the STOL capabilities in order to justify it. I think the Katmai conversion alone on a stock 182 is something like $30K+ isn't it?
 
rbridges said:
It's hard to find exact useable load numbers without looking at a particular planes W&B,
Click to expand...
Then you got my main point.

but this thread gives me the impression that it's reasonable.
Click to expand...
Using that word, I'd say it's "reasonable" to expect you can find a plane which has that load if you look hard enough and are willing to pay for an STC if necessary.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The Katmai is a great option, but it would definitely cost him to get one. They aren't cheap, especially with the 260HP conversion, and he'd really have to need the STOL capabilities in order to justify it. I think the Katmai conversion alone on a stock 182 is something like $30K+ isn't it?
Click to expand...

If you can just put the Canard on for $30k, that would be a no brainier.
 
Buy a 180. Especially a later model w/ seaplane tail and add a Kenmore up gross kit. 1400-1500 useful. Fast, slow, easy to load. Same with a 185.
 
Or find a Dakota. Ours can haul that load and 45 gal of fuel and be 50lbs under gross at TO.:D
 
My 182P has a useful load of 1060lbs with recent W&B as currently configured. I am about the Pponk the sucker and add the Fresh Pick STC in the next few months to get the extra 150lbs.

I too travel 2-3 hours sometimes with 3-4 people and bags and it can get uncomfortably close on fuel with headwinds or delays and still stay under gross.

I am a pretty consistent 13 GPH but I do not baby it.
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
My 182P has a useful load of 1060lbs with recent W&B as currently configured. I am about the Pponk the sucker and add the Fresh Pick STC in the next few months to get the extra 150lbs.

I too travel 2-3 hours sometimes with 3-4 people and bags and it can get uncomfortably close on fuel with headwinds or delays and still stay under gross.

I am a pretty consistent 13 GPH but I do not baby it.
Click to expand...

What is the premium for doing the Pponk over a regular overhaul of the same grade?(same new cylinders and new accessories)
 
Our 182 P model... IFR and STOL equipped.

Empty weight: 1815.9
Useful load: 1134.1
80 gal @ 6 lbs/gal = 480
Full fuel useful load : 654.1

We've looked at doing the paperwork STC for 3100 MGTOW but there's a limit to it in real world practice.

If we are trying to haul lots of stuff, climb performance suffers. If we don't mind that, it can be used to lengthen the legs back out and/or carry a larger fuel reserve. But...

There's also a considerably low weight limit on the baggage area in the aircraft limitations that isn't based on balance, it's based on structural limits, so you really have to put the majority of the weight in or under the seats. Or in the fuel tanks.

There is a very small space under the rear seats of a 182. Not large enough for most luggage. Nothing useful up front either. It's going in your lap.

With four people on board, if I recall correctly, each can have a 37.5 lb bag (150 total pounds) and then you are maxed out behind the seats, unless they'll put it in their lap. I'll have to go check that. But not right now. Tired. It's close.

We ran into the limitation once and realized that even getting another 150 lbs of crap in the back, would be difficult. We've had the back seat and the rear area maxed out before with stuff piled so high you couldn't see out the back window. Unless your load is dense, you simply run out of space.

Don't get me wrong. It'll carry a ton of crap. But when you switch from two people to four, they don't want their luggage sitting in their lap. And you hit the baggage area limitation. STC or not.

Plus... You're stuck aloft if you don't have an emergency and decide to land early. You must be below 2950 to land, even with the STC.

Obviously in an emergency you'll just land and have someone inspect the aircraft. But you have to watch out for legs that are short if using the STC as a way to haul more stuff.

If you're using the full 150 lbs of the STC for additional fuel, you also technically need to carry more. 150 lbs plus legal reserve. And you're eating into reserve as soon as you've burnt down enough to legally land. Maybe you want a little more.

Honestly the STC doesn't give many scenarios so many great options that it's always worth doing. You need to run the numbers and just decide if shorter legs will get the job done with less restriction. It's a juggling act.

So far, we haven't had a scenario where the STC would actually be worth it. We just hop in smaller hops with an hour reserve, and keep hopping.

We pretty consistently fly at 9000-9500. We see 11.5 gph as an average over multiple years.

Lower altitudes, 13 gph.

0-3000 MSL, 15 gph.
 
Our 182 P model... IFR and STOL equipped.

Empty weight: 1815.9
Useful load: 1134.1
80 gal @ 6 lbs/gal = 480
Full fuel useful load : 654.1

We've looked at doing the paperwork STC for 3100 MGTOW but there's a limit to it in real world practice.

If we are trying to haul lots of stuff, climb performance suffers. If we don't mind that, it can be used to lengthen the legs back out and/or carry a larger fuel reserve. But...

There's also a considerably low weight limit on the baggage area in the aircraft limitations that isn't based on balance, it's based on structural limits, so you really have to put the majority of the weight in or under the seats. Or in the fuel tanks.

There is a very small space under the rear seats of a 182. Not large enough for most luggage. Nothing useful up front either. It's going in your lap.

With four people on board, if I recall correctly, each can have a 37.5 lb bag (150 total pounds) and then you are maxed out behind the seats, unless they'll put it in their lap. I'll have to go check that. But not right now. Tired. It's close.

We ran into the limitation once and realized that even getting another 150 lbs of crap in the back, would be difficult. We've had the back seat and the rear area maxed out before with stuff piled so high you couldn't see out the back window. Unless your load is dense, you simply run out of space.

Don't get me wrong. It'll carry a ton of crap. But when you switch from two people to four, they don't want their luggage sitting in their lap. And you hit the baggage area limitation. STC or not.

Plus... You're stuck aloft if you don't have an emergency and decide to land early. You must be below 2950 to land, even with the STC.

Obviously in an emergency you'll just land and have someone inspect the aircraft. But you have to watch out for legs that are short if using the STC as a way to haul more stuff.

If you're using the full 150 lbs of the STC for additional fuel, you also technically need to carry more. 150 lbs plus legal reserve. And you're eating into reserve as soon as you've burnt down enough to legally land. Maybe you want a little more.

Honestly the STC doesn't give many scenarios so many great options that it's always worth doing. You need to run the numbers and just decide if shorter legs will get the job done with less restriction. It's a juggling act.

So far, we haven't had a scenario where the STC would actually be worth it. We just hop in smaller hops with an hour reserve, and keep hopping.

We pretty consistently fly at 9000-9500. We see 11.5 gph as an average over multiple years.

Lower altitudes, 13 gph.

0-3000 MSL, 15 gph.
 
You bring up an excellent point, to use a 182 as a hauler you have to take out the back seat to be useful volume wise.
 
thanks for all the responses. I was originally leaning towards a cherokee 6 b/c I know it would be better suited for this mission, but there are a couple of others involved, and they prefer the 182.
 
rbridges said:
thanks for all the responses. I was originally leaning towards a cherokee 6 b/c I know it would be better suited for this mission, but there are a couple of others involved, and they prefer the 182.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they are not comparable aircraft, you need to look at a 205/206 to be comparable. Personally I would never buy a plane that was maxed out at the mission I intend for it.
 
We have a '77 182Q, with the Trolltune MGTOW increase STC. We can legally fly full fuel (75 gal, or 5.5 hrs), and still have 814# payload (1836 empty, 3100 MGTOW). Leave 15 gallons on the ground and the right 182 can meet that mission. The catch is you need to burn off another 25 gallons before landing, as the max landing weight is still 2950#. If you have to land overweight, there is a minor inspection required. One smooth overweight landing isn't likely to break something, but if you brick it in or do it a lot, you might bend some metal.

We also have 275-hp Pponk suitable for hauling around that extra weight.
 
I just checked the POH for a 77 182Q ( which I have ) and it shows the baggage limits as 200 lbs not 150.
 
rbridges said:
thanks for all the responses. I was originally leaning towards a cherokee 6 b/c I know it would be better suited for this mission, but there are a couple of others involved, and they prefer the 182.
Click to expand...
Have you considered a Cessna 206, which is pretty much just a stretched 182? That would give you the Six-like load but 182-like characteristics otherwise.
 
Ron Levy said:
Have you considered a Cessna 206, which is pretty much just a stretched 182? That would give you the Six-like load but 182-like characteristics otherwise.
Click to expand...

If he has partners who want a high wing, a 206 would be the best bet, but they cost significantly more than a Cherokee 6.
 
Ron Levy said:
Have you considered a Cessna 206, which is pretty much just a stretched 182? That would give you the Six-like load but 182-like characteristics otherwise.
Click to expand...

Henning said:
If he has partners who want a high wing, a 206 would be the best bet, but they cost significantly more than a Cherokee 6.
Click to expand...

that's a nice looking plane, and I hadn't thought about it. It does appear to be more expensive, and at a glance, there's a smaller pool available. I will definitely bring it up.
 
If you guys are operating on paved runways, the Six seems like the way to go. If your mission is pushing the airplane's envelope every time you get in it, why not go for something with a bigger envelope. A Six/260 is roughly the same speed as a 182, but a huge amount of cabin space, and a retarded useful load around 1600#. A Six/300 gives you a little more speed (around 145-150kt, I think), a little higher service ceiling, the same cavernous cabin, and I think slightly less useful, but still huge. Of course you would burn a little more fuel with either one and lose some off field type utility if you need it, but you can comfortably operate within the envelope. Sounds like your cohort want a Tahoe when you could really use a Suburban.
 
rbridges said:
that's a nice looking plane, and I hadn't thought about it. It does appear to be more expensive, and at a glance, there's a smaller pool available. I will definitely bring it up.
Click to expand...

The 206 also has an optional belly pod available.
 
Ron Levy said:
3 hours of fuel for a 2.5 hour flight is not enough for my comfort by about 30 minutes (even with great VFR weather), but that's just me.

You'll have to shop carefully to find that. Early 182's are lighter, but have lower MGW. Later 182's have higher MGW's but significantly higher empty weights (useful loads around 1100 lb are typical for current production 182S's). There are STC's which increase useful load, but you'll have to research them and see if a) one of them is installed in the plane you're thinking of purchasing, or b) you're willing to pay for that STC after purchasing a stock 182.
Click to expand...

First off, forget the reserves and regs, I wouldn't be comfortable with 4 fat people in a 182 for 2.5hrs :yikes:

If you really must do this, get a early model wide body 182, ask around on the drop zone sites, plenty of info on carrying the most amount of weight possible in a 182 there. Only 182 I flew has a early model 550ed one, and it sucked compared to the 550ed U206.

You also might want to check into the 210s, good speed alternative to the 206 as long as you don't need the backcountry/float options.
 
James331 said:
First off, forget the reserves and regs, I wouldn't be comfortable with 4 fat people in a 182 for 2.5hrs :yikes:
Click to expand...

:lol:

I'm not fat, and my wife isn't 200 lbs. I was just using heavier than FAA averages for passenger weight, but point taken. :rofl:
 
James331 said:
First off, forget the reserves and regs, I wouldn't be comfortable with 4 fat people in a 182 for 2.5hrs :yikes:
Click to expand...

Yeah. I don't like 450lbs of front seat in our PA28 airframe. But instead of going on a diet I may get skinnier friends....

182's are great planes. Have fun hunting one done.

Or you could call they guy on barnstomers in middle GA looking for Six partners. :D :D
 
I've done four adult males plus baggage (and I enforced weight restrictions) in a C182. Planning for a one-hour reserve on what would otherwise have been a non-stop flight with full tanks required one fuel stop on the way there and two fuel stops on the way back. I think the longest leg was around 2.5 hours, but it has been several years. I think we burned 13 gph or less.
 
rbridges said:
I'm figuring 4-200 lb adults and 100 lbs of stuff. 3 hours of fuel (2-2.5 hrs flight with reserve) would be 50 gallons, so 300 lbs.

Is a 1200lb useful load realistic in a 182, or in certain models of the 182?
Click to expand...

Thinking out of the box, one thing to consider might be a G1 SR-22.

I believe they are 1100-1200lb useful on those. And the prices are comparable to a newer 182
 
My Skylane RG has 1300 usable. 772 usable with full fuel which is slightly less than 7 hours (88 gallons usable) so take away 150 pounds of fuel which is about 2 hours. So to answer your question, yes it's totally possible and I do it regularly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top