Cessna 182N vs Piper Cherokee 235B

I hate necro threads for the reminder of those who have flown west. Although I suppose it's not a bad thing.
 
Racerx said:
I hate necro threads for the reminder of those who have flown west. Although I suppose it's not a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Same, but also interesting to see those who have not posted in a while or were b*nned…
 
ateamer said:
I’ll take the Cessna 100 times out of 100. Easier to load, more comfortable, better ventilation.
Click to expand...
Two doors isn’t a big deal when you are …(under 60, have original knees, whatever) but someday it’s a really big deal

Also, having a rear window is great for pushing your plane back into the hangar etc
 
Have owned both. C182 is a much better airplane. Wings for shade and dryness, no Dutch roll coupling. Only the useful load is higher in the Cherokee.

Both do about 130-135 ktas. Also right now anyhow seems to be faster and cheaper to overhaul a Continental.
 
The only question you need to ask is do I want one or two doors... in the event of an emergency, let alone getting in and out on a regular basis.

There is also a Beech Sierra...
 
If the pilot is inside doing his check list, and a missed item is outside, Cessna wins big.

I did my Commercial and Instrument in Pipers, and went back to Cessna's, 150's through 182's for the rest of my flying.

Pipers are much easier to land, but since I learned in J 3's and C 150, I did not need help there.
 
Is the Dakota's cabin bigger/wider than a Cherokee 235? I was told the Dakota is a better comparison to the 182
 
Mooneymayhem said:
Is the Dakota's cabin bigger/wider than a Cherokee 235? I was told the Dakota is a better comparison to the 182
Click to expand...
Dakota is a taperwing 235. May be a little longer, I’m not sure, but all PA28s are the same width. 182 is much more comfortable
 
Skyrys62 said:
When you say stable in flight are you referring to turbulence in the moving around aspect?
Probably a silly question....but I guess my initial thought was 'susceptability' to jarring and bumps. My girlfriend hates the bumps.
Wing loading on Cessna is 17.8 and Dakota is 17.6 would that make them about even in that respect?
Click to expand...
Get a turbo aircraft and fly above the bumps. :)
 
The Dakota will wallow more in my experience due to the lack of pendulum stability afforded by the Cessna with its underslung fuselage.
 
Albany Tom said:
Wasn't this thread started when both types were new?
Click to expand...
You must be new here. 2018 is recent compared to some of the necroposts we get. Like the time Lindbergh necroposted on a thread that Orville himself had started about what kind of flight controls would be used on the first Atlantic crossing, and nobody replied to at first. And then another newb re-necroed it during the pandemic.
 
EdFred said:
All the speed of a fixed gear, with all the maintenance of a complex.
Click to expand...


Point taken.... I often wonder why they didn't put that engine/prop configuration in the Sundowner.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Point taken.... I often wonder why they didn't put that engine/prop configuration in the Sundowner.
Click to expand...
You mean put the 200 hp engine in the fixed gear 23 series? They did for a year or two. All it does is improve take off distance and climb rate. As do most horsepower changes in airplanes. V^2 does that to you. It's a wide, slab-sided, easy to fly, SLOW airplane. All of them. Even the Cherokee and Arrow beat it, and they are not screamers at all.
 
EdFred said:
But they are super comfortable. Did my commercial in one.
Click to expand...
They'll accommodate very wide people, that's for sure. No small (SEP) aircraft is comfortable after three hours for the most part. Most training is in 1-2 blocks, so the aircraft really doesn't matter.

But they are sort of annoying from an engineering efficiency standpoint, since they are up to 15 knots slower than other aircraft with the same 180-200 hp. They also have some interesting sealing/bonding techniques at some places that seems to make them occasionally corrode at places where it can be hard to address.

In their favor, they do not wallow like the Cherokee.
 
Steamflyer said:
They'll accommodate very wide people, that's for sure. No small (SEP) aircraft is comfortable after three hours for the most part. Most training is in 1-2 blocks, so the aircraft really doesn't matter.

But they are sort of annoying from an engineering efficiency standpoint, since they are up to 15 knots slower than other aircraft with the same 180-200 hp. They also have some interesting sealing/bonding techniques at some places that seems to make them occasionally corrode at places where it can be hard to address.

In their favor, they do not wallow like the Cherokee.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the insights...
 
kayoh190 said:
I want to know who the hell is *honestly* doing 143 knots in a straight legged, non-turbo 182???
Click to expand...
I cruse in the low to mid 140s in my 1973 182P. but I have the PPONK engine. I haven’t seen a stock 182 that could curse much over 135.
 
Steamflyer said:
They'll accommodate very wide people, that's for sure. No small (SEP) aircraft is comfortable after three hours for the most part. Most training is in 1-2 blocks, so the aircraft really doesn't matter.

But they are sort of annoying from an engineering efficiency standpoint, since they are up to 15 knots slower than other aircraft with the same 180-200 hp. They also have some interesting sealing/bonding techniques at some places that seems to make them occasionally corrode at places where it can be hard to address.

In their favor, they do not wallow like the Cherokee.
Click to expand...
11.1 is my longest day in my 182. Very comfortable airplane
 
S is a restart and is faster by a few knots with the Lyc. T even more so. Higher fuel burn typically than Continental versions by 1-3 gph.

For a P-Ponk, basically a carbureted 520, and worth maybe 270 hp, then increase in possible (providing fuel is provided for the hp demand) speed goes roughly as square root of the ratio of available hp. So root(270/230) ~8% increase for the same power percentage. If the stock gives 134 ktas at 70% power, then a p-ponk should run in the 142-144 ktas range, which seems to be what is being reported.
 
kayoh190 said:
I want to know who the hell is *honestly* doing 143 knots in a straight legged, non-turbo 182???
Click to expand...
What's funny is when you pull their tail numbers, look em up on your adsb website of choice, and look up winds aloft, they rarely/never show the claimed speeds.
 
Steamflyer said:
S is a restart and is faster by a few knots with the Lyc. T even more so. Higher fuel burn typically than Continental versions by 1-3 gph.
Click to expand...
In addition to the aerodynamic cleanup, 182S/182T Lycomings are de-rated so book MCP is 80%.
Steamflyer said:
For a P-Ponk, basically a carbureted 520, and worth maybe 270 hp, then increase in possible (providing fuel is provided for the hp demand) speed goes roughly as square root of the ratio of available hp. So root(270/230) ~8% increase for the same power percentage. If the stock gives 134 ktas at 70% power, then a p-ponk should run in the 142-144 ktas range, which seems to be what is being reported.
Click to expand...
It's actually cube root rather than square root, so the math works out to be closer to 141 kts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top