Cessna 182RG for sale

NC Pilot

NC Pilot

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
1,454
Location
NC
Display Name
Display name:
NC Pilot
Selling my '78 R182

5700 TT
1220 TSMO

July annual
all compressions 76+/80

Complete Logs
No damage history

Based in Northwestern North Carolina (KGEV)

Email: shilling.mark@gmail.com
Phone: 919.291.1216

Garmin 430W
Strikefinder
King KX-155 Nav/Com
Cessna 300 AP
King KN-64 DME
King KT-76A transponder
Wilco Gear mirror
Horizon P-1000 Electronic Tach
Whelen Strobe
Stormscope
Monarch Fuel Tanks (does away with bladders) 74 gallon/72 useable
Walker Air/Oil Separator
Horton Stol
Insight Engine analyzer
ADC oil filter
Rosen Visors
Flap Gap Seals
Standby vacuum

Solid, reliable and well equipped plane that flies regularly.

Asking $79,900

Will consider trade for Twin Comanche.











 
Last edited:
NC Pilot said:
Solid, reliable and well equipped plane that flies regularly.

Asking $85,000

Will consider trade for Twin Comanche.
Click to expand...

How about you take Henning's Twinkie, I take your 182RG and Henning can have my 172. I'll even kick in some cash to grease the deal.
 
JOhnH said:
How about you take Henning's Twinkie, I take your 182RG and Henning can have my 172. I'll even kick in some cash to grease the deal.
Click to expand...
If you can make that work, I'll go for the deal.

Is Henning's Twinkie for sale?
 
It's not a Twinkie, and was made prior to the time that Piper started making them, which was ~50 years ago. Aside from that, Mrs Lincoln, . . .

NC Pilot said:
If you can make that work, I'll go for the deal.

Is Henning's Twinkie for sale?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
It's not a Twinkie, and was made prior to the time that Piper started making them, which was ~50 years ago. Aside from that, Mrs Lincoln, . . .
Click to expand...
I guess I was confused. :redface: I think Henning has a Cessna 310.
And I 'think' it was for sale, but I am not sure about now.

Look up any of his posts and his sig has a slide show. Its actually a pretty cool plane from what I can tell.

I was just trying to find a way to get into that 182RG.
How fast does it cruise?
 
JOhnH said:
I guess I was confused. :redface: I think Henning has a Cessna 310.
And I 'think' it was for sale, but I am not sure about now.

Look up any of his posts and his sig has a slide show. Its actually a pretty cool plane from what I can tell.

I was just trying to find a way to get into that 182RG.
How fast does it cruise?
Click to expand...

I flight plan at 150 knots and 13 GPH.

Been a great plane, but am having to use it more for travel at work and want to upgrade to a light twin.

I do remember seeing that Henning has a 310 for sale.
 
Good luck with the sale. I really liked flying the 182RG I used to have access to. Lots of room, relatively fast, and very respectable useful load.
 
I thought that plane looked familiar when I taxied into Epps at PDK today.
 
Dave Theisen said:
I thought that plane looked familiar when I taxied into Epps at PDK today.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's me. I travel from home to PDK quite often. All you have to do is check FlightAware to see it's my most frequent destination. :yes:
 
You'll regret selling that plane.
 
weilke said:
You'll regret selling that plane.
Click to expand...
It is a great plane, but I want twin redundancy.

It is solid, reliable, comfortable and has never let me down in the past 10 years and 1000 hours of flying. Hard to beat.
 
NC Pilot said:
It is a great plane, but I want twin redundancy.

It is solid, reliable, comfortable and has never let me down in the past 10 years and 1000 hours of flying. Hard to beat.
Click to expand...

To get to a higher dispatch reliability than what you have right now in a small-engine twin, you will have to spend a fair amount of money and a lot of refurbishment time.
I love the PA30, but all of them are getting pretty long in the tooth. At any given time, there are few nicely updated ones on the market, most are junk. So unless you can find the one that had recent engines with new exhausts, motor mounts, overhauled accessories, heater replaced, bladders replaced etc. you are going to spend your time and money to get there (and it turns out, if you buy one that has evertying done, you are going to re-do about 1/2 the work with your own time and money). But you'll really love what you get after you spent twice the value of your current plane :wink2: .
 
I think you're too late. The Koolaid glass is empty.

weilke said:
To get to a higher dispatch reliability than what you have right now in a small-engine twin, you will have to spend a fair amount of money and a lot of refurbishment time.
I love the PA30, but all of them are getting pretty long in the tooth. At any given time, there are few nicely updated ones on the market, most are junk. So unless you can find the one that had recent engines with new exhausts, motor mounts, overhauled accessories, heater replaced, bladders replaced etc. you are going to spend your time and money to get there (and it turns out, if you buy one that has evertying done, you are going to re-do about 1/2 the work with your own time and money). But you'll really love what you get after you spent twice the value of your current plane :wink2: .
Click to expand...
 
Z06_Mir said:
I ran into the previous owner of my 182rg. He regretted selling it so much he's selling his 172 for another.
Click to expand...

I really love the R182, but this is where I fly and want a twin. Now picture this at night.
 

Attachments

  • 100_0394.JPG
    100_0394.JPG
    1.8 MB · Views: 126
NC Pilot said:
I really love the R182, but this is where I fly and want a twin. Now picture this at night.
Click to expand...

That's why I have a twin as well. If you want a 310, get hold of me, we might work something out.
 
Henning said:
That's why I have a twin as well. If you want a 310, get hold of me, we might work something out.
Click to expand...

Henning, did you read my post where I suggested a variation of this?
Do you want a really nice 172 who's only problem is probably a figment of my imagination and can be cured by proper leaning?

I would really love to find a way to get into that 182RG.
 
JOhnH said:
Henning, did you read my post where I suggested a variation of this?
Do you want a really nice 172 who's only problem is probably a figment of my imagination and can be cured by proper leaning?

I would really love to find a way to get into that 182RG.
Click to expand...

Anything is possible, though I'd want the 172 on floats lol.
 
NC Pilot said:
Been a great plane, but am having to use it more for travel at work and want to upgrade to a light twin.
Click to expand...

Honestly, unless you're looking at adding de-ice on on-board radar, I don't think there's a ton of a point. Add a second GPS, an Aspen/G500, and a second alternator to your 182 and you've then got redundant power for your instruments (vacuum/double electric), two GPSs, and the only thing you have one of is the engine. I think you can even get TKS for the 182 if you really want. Remember that also means you have four magnetos, two starters, etc. and if any of them break you're still just as grounded. I carry spares for good reason.

A Twinkie is not a good de-ice airplane, if nothing else because the boots are very expensive. We'll ignore the fact that I don't think the Comanche wing is the best for ice, and you only have 320 HP combined. You will get a bit more speed vs. the 182RG, and you'll have that second engine. But then if you don't end up using your plane to travel as much for work in another year or two, you'll still have the twin. It'll also take you a year or two to get the twin where you want it reliability wise. I've done this twice, and add another time that I was involved in it on a friend's Navajo.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Add a second GPS, an Aspen/G500, and a second alternator to your 182 and you've then got redundant power for your instruments (vacuum/double electric), two GPSs, and the only thing you have one of is the engine.
Click to expand...

A BRS chute can be added to a 182, and it provides much of the intended life-saving benefit of a 2nd engine. Lose an engine while flying over a forest, you'll survive with the chute. At 85 pounds, it's lighter than a 2nd engine, adds no drag, and burns no fuel.
 
Last edited:
NoHeat said:
A BRS chute can be added to a 182, and it provides much of the intended life-saving benefit of a 2nd engine. Lose an engine while flying over a forest, you'll survive with the chute. At 85 pounds, it's lighter than a 2nd engine, adds no drag, and burns no fuel.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it can be added to a 182RG and it takes up much of the rear luggage space.
 
NoHeat said:
A BRS chute can be added to a 182, and it provides much of the intended life-saving benefit of a 2nd engine. Lose an engine while flying over a forest, you'll survive with the chute. At 85 pounds, it's lighter than a 2nd engine, adds no drag, and burns no fuel.
Click to expand...

As mentioned, it takes up luggage space. And while you might survive the crash, you may or may not survive to be found. 406 ELTs/PLBs help there.

To me the de-ice is a big issue. Maybe if you're based in NC and flying mostly south and west it doesn't matter much. I know for us, a lack of de-ice would mean we'd be unable to travel a number of months out of the year. Although Twinkies are available with de-ice, the boots are hideously expensive to replace, even vs. other twins with expensive boots.

Personally, I'd look into a 310 or 55 Baron. Much more speed, get de-ice, etc.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
As mentioned, it takes up luggage space. And while you might survive the crash, you may or may not survive to be found. 406 ELTs/PLBs help there.

To me the de-ice is a big issue. Maybe if you're based in NC and flying mostly south and west it doesn't matter much. I know for us, a lack of de-ice would mean we'd be unable to travel a number of months out of the year. Although Twinkies are available with de-ice, the boots are hideously expensive to replace, even vs. other twins with expensive boots.

Personally, I'd look into a 310 or 55 Baron. Much more speed, get de-ice, etc.
Click to expand...
I agree (surprise, surprise). The allure of the Twinkie is it's apparent economy of operation but IME unless you do most of the maintenance yourself (and either consider that to be entertaining or don't value your spare time) the cost per mile difference between Piper's little twin and it's higher powered brethren is pretty small and doesn't offset the significantly greater utility of a deiced 310 or Baron.
 
gismo said:
I agree (surprise, surprise). The allure of the Twinkie is it's apparent economy of operation but IME unless you do most of the maintenance yourself (and either consider that to be entertaining or don't value your spare time) the cost per mile difference between Piper's little twin and it's higher powered brethren is pretty small and doesn't offset the significantly greater utility of a deiced 310 or Baron.
Click to expand...

Yep. The Twinkie's primary utility to me is if you fly in an area where the second engine will benefit you (over water, primarily) and you don't need the de-ice. There's a reason that all the significant go-places planes have de-ice.

I leave the Aztec out of the mix because it really is a bunch slower than the other options, and unless you need the space, the 310 or Baron is a better package.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yep. The Twinkie's primary utility to me is if you fly in an area where the second engine will benefit you (over water, primarily) and you don't need the de-ice. There's a reason that all the significant go-places planes have de-ice.

I leave the Aztec out of the mix because it really is a bunch slower than the other options, and unless you need the space, the 310 or Baron is a better package.
Click to expand...
My philosophy as far as ice is simple. Don't go if it is forecast. If you think there is a potential for ice, even unforecast, always have an out (usually warmer conditions lower with ground below the freezing levels.

We can still get ice in North Carolina and I treat it with respect, but don't have enough days where it stops me to make it worth having de-ice.

I might be shifting my focus to a 55 Baron too. You can always throttle a Baron back for a little better economy, but it's hard to throttle a Twinkie up for more speed.
 
Last edited:
NC Pilot said:
My philosophy as far as ice is simple. Don't go if it is forecast. If you think there is a potential for ice, even unforecast, always have an out (usually warmer conditions lower with ground below the freezing levels.

We can still get ice in North Carolina and I treat it with respect, but don't have enough days where it stops me to make it worth having de-ice.

I might be shifting my focus to a 55 Baron too. You can always throttle a Baron back for a little better economy, but it's hard to throttle a Twinkie up for more speed.
Click to expand...

I understand and agree with your general philosophy on ice. But the wonderful think about de-ice equipment is that it does open up a lot of doors. It should always be respected, but it's really nice to have.

Your last paragraph hits the nail on the head. Lance can give you his numbers, but it's easy to go slower, hard to go faster. Along with a 55 Baron, I would consider looking into 310s. With 520s, boots, and VGs on our N model (all things that hurt efficiency), we still do 177-187 KTAS on 23-27 GPH. I don't think my numbers are much different than Lance's. 310s are great values, and really fun to fly. The only negative is that we don't go into grass strips with the 310 - our choice due to nose gear concerns. However, in the past 30 years and 5000 hours, the only time it had a gear failure was when someone forgot to put the handle in the "down" position.

If you're ever up this way or we cross paths down your way, I'd be glad to give you a ride in the 310.
 
NC Pilot said:
I might be shifting my focus to a 55 Baron too. You can always throttle a Baron back for a little better economy, but it's hard to throttle a Twinkie up for more speed.
Click to expand...

Nobody in the history of aviation has ever done that ;) .

I think you have better de-ice option in a Baron. Only few are known icing (I believe some E models and some with the $60k TKS panels), but many have full boots and alcohol props/windshields. Only few Twinkies have de-ice and you just have about 150hp less to make it out of ice upwards if yu have hills below you.

Also, where you fly, I would worry more about thunderstorms than icing. Not many Twinkies with the Norton radar nose, many more Barons with on-board radar.

Some very good deals on B55s out there.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
Nobody in the history of aviation has ever done that ;) .
Click to expand...

Not true at all. While I'm sometimes scared at the number of commonalities Henning and I are having these days, I always flew the Aztec at economy cruise. 155 KTAS @ 21 GPH combined instead of 165 KTAS @ 28 GPH combined. In the 310 I went from the previous owner's 190 KTAS @ 33 GPH combined to 175 KTAS @ 25, and now with the new engines we're doing 177 @ 23 or 187 @ 27.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Not true at all. While I'm sometimes scared at the number of commonalities Henning and I are having these days, I always flew the Aztec at economy cruise. 155 KTAS @ 21 GPH combined instead of 165 KTAS @ 28 GPH combined. In the 310 I went from the previous owner's 190 KTAS @ 33 GPH combined to 175 KTAS @ 25, and now with the new engines we're doing 177 @ 23 or 187 @ 27.
Click to expand...

I can fly 145kts at 2400rpm lean of peak at 8-8.5g/hr. Or I can fly 155kts at 2500rpm rich of peak at 11g/hr. (These numbers at 8-10000msl)

Nearly 30% more gas for an extra 10kts. I don't do it often, usually only when bucking a decent headwind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top