Easy C-182 Question

[flyingcheesehead]

During my transition training into the 182, I remember the instructor asking as we cruised to some BBQ if I'd like to go 3-5 knots faster.

"Sure!" I says.

And he reaches down and closed the cowl flaps.

Crazy what that "small" amount of stuff in the slipstream does to add drag and reduce speed.

Things that are constantly getting bathed in propwash like cowl flaps make a significant difference - The airspeed in those areas is quite a bit higher than your actual indicated airspeed, thus the drag they create is more than something that's outside the propeller slipstream. That's part of why otherwise-similar airplanes that are taildraggers instead of tricycle gear tend to go faster.

 

[AggieMike88]

Don't forget that it also depends on how long it takes to climb to altitude in each plane and how fast they're going when you do. The 182's climb speeds aren't much different than the 172's, but the climb rates are about doubled in the 182 so you'll get to cruise altitude much faster, and thus be able to accelerate to cruise speed faster as well.

And, OP, don't forget to factor in hot days, when both climb performance is going to suffer over winter days.

One aspect of being in a "good climber" aircraft, getting up to the cooler smoother air at altitude quicker than that clap trapped trainer.

 

[AggieMike88]

Things that are constantly getting bathed in propwash like cowl flaps make a significant difference - The airspeed in those areas is quite a bit higher than your actual indicated airspeed, thus the drag they create is more than something that's outside the propeller slipstream. That's part of why otherwise-similar airplanes that are taildraggers instead of tricycle gear tend to go faster.

Then that adds to the knowledge of why the one piece belly on the Mooney's is a desirable upgrade.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Have you considered an older Cessna 210? They are roomy and have great useful load plus much faster than a 182. If I was on the market for a Cessna that would be my choice.

The problem with older 210's is the gear system isn't all that robust and there have been enough issues now that insurance companies are starting to get reluctant to cover them, and those that will charge a premium. You'll also spend a lot of extra $$$ in maintenance compared to a 182.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

I've had a 1977 182Q for 10 years. I flight plan for 135 KTAS. We had a stock engine and that was the 75% power setting for the ~6,000' MSL altitudes I typically fly. That was with stock wheel pants, no aero mods, an engine at TBO and a fairly worn out prop.

We put a Pponk engine in it, nominally 275 hp, and I still flight plan for 135 KTAS, just at a lower power setting for the engine, and the same 12-13 gph fuel burn. It will go faster, but if you want 140 KTAS, it will run 16 gph, which just ain't worth it. If you like to fly high in mountainous areas, you can see 135 KTAS at 9.5 gph with a Pponk at around 13-14,000'.

IMO a mid-70's 182 that is seeing significantly less than book numbers probably needs a flight controls (rigging) tune up or has an engine problem.

Jeff

 

[Dan Thomas]

The problem with older 210's is the gear system isn't all that robust and there have been enough issues now that insurance companies are starting to get reluctant to cover them, and those that will charge a premium. You'll also spend a lot of extra $$$ in maintenance compared to a 182.

Yes. Much more expensive to maintain. And any buyer needs a good prepurchase inspection to see that the spar carrythrough isn't corroded and that the recent AD against the lower wing spar caps has been done and no cracks have been found. Cessna has also issued an airworthiness limitation on that airframe because of the cracking spars.

The gear pivots also have a habit of cracking (as do the R182's) and they're many dollars to replace. Many many dollars.

A cracked spar or corroded carrythrough could easily write the airplane off. Fixing those could involve incredible expense.

Dan

 

[nosehair]

Thanks for all the responses. After reading all the comments it seems that the 182 still is my best bet. 130 knots (150mph) is plenty fast enough. My main concern is the load and cabin space and it seems to fit the bill the best (at least in my budget constraints). My CFI was right then, I should probably look into getting one sooner than later so I can get the 25 hours logged and only have to pay for it once. My new CFI is great, and I owe switching to him to an earlier post and comments from this site. He is a retired commercial pilot that does training more to keep him active than trying to earn a living at it. Thanks again for all the comments and suggestions.

There you havit - no need for any advice from internet advisors.
U already have your mind made up.

 

[MD11Pilot]

EXREMELY GOOD ADVICE

I love the 210 and love going fast but I can't afford the maintenance and I am an A&P and will soon have my IA. The spar AD is expensive and can get very expensive. I have access to a 182 for "free", I do all the maintenance and the annuals (except for the sign off) for free as well as the owners 170B. I also pay for some parts but the owner doesn't know....a super good friend.
I have done enough work through my IA to watch for maintenance weak spots and watched owners write some big checks. The speed/time difference on the trips I fly are not worth the cost difference. I quit building time for the majors a long time ago and I enjoy flying so the 182 is a fantastic airplane for me.
My other airplane cruise at 550 knots so that takes care of speed.

Yes. Much more expensive to maintain. And any buyer needs a good prepurchase inspection to see that the spar carrythrough isn't corroded and that the recent AD against the lower wing spar caps has been done and no cracks have been found. Cessna has also issued an airworthiness limitation on that airframe because of the cracking spars.

The gear pivots also have a habit of cracking (as do the R182's) and they're many dollars to replace. Many many dollars.

A cracked spar or corroded carrythrough could easily write the airplane off. Fixing those could involve incredible expense.

Dan

 

[Perezhr]

For your typical 200 mile trip speed should not be a major factor in your decision, unless 15 minutes is really that important to you (if it is then you should be looking at a Mooney instead). A 182 would be a good choice. Good payload, roomy, everyone knows how to work on them. I also think when it's your airplane and your gas you will often opt for something a little less than 75% power because a few knots is not worth the extra gas and wear on your very expensive engine.

 

[BillTIZ]

As I recall, the Cessna O-1 "Bird Dog" had a Continental O-470 (230 hp) engine and a fixed pitch prop.

Club Pawnee, O-540, 235HP and ficed pitch. We upped it to 250HP with an STC on rebuild, still fixed pitch.

 

[denverpilot]

I rented a 182Q model for a trip to oshkosh and we flight planned 125kts. Only complaint was the fbo begged you to run 75 deg ROP because renters were over leaning and destroying the cylinders, which resulted in 14-15 gal/hr fuel burn.

Climb. Seriously. We have to run ROP in ours, and have a draggy STOL kit and we have averaged 11.5 over four years of fuel burn, but all of our flying is done at 8,000 MSL or higher due to the airport being at 6,000.

If you're flying a 182 around at full rental power down low, it's going to go about 5 knots faster and burn 2-4 more gallons an hour in fuel. Not worth it.

Climb up to where the engine isn't producing full power and re-lean as appropriate. Even with the loss in engine power at higher altitudes, once in cruise, the difference in True airspeed is enough that I flight plan 130 knots true in ours and it comes out "damn close". At max gross it'll be 125, especially if you can't load it as far aft as you'd like.

(If smooth in cruise, slide your seat all the way back to the lawyer-induced seat text stop, and you'll have to trip nose-down about three "bumps" on the trim wheel. Plus it's a fun trim exercise when you want to see how accurately you can trim it, since the wheel is hard to reach from there, and if you lean forward to re-trim you can see the pitch change on the altimeter. Heh. So far my best is 30 minutes without touching the trim wheel. If you get it right on, you can fly a 50' block just by shifting you weight fore and aft. LOL! The stuff you do to entertain yourself on a long long long XC in smooth air...)

I do NOT flight plan 130 for the climb, though, the 182, especially heavily loaded is a dog speed-wise in a climb. You'll see 90-100, depending on how shallow you can make the climb, when coming home from a lower elevation location. Climbs well, but it's slow.

This is why I miss time to climb speeds from some now-forever-unmentionable in flight chart software that I wouldn't ever use ever again because of the unmentionable things they did to push patent law to the limits of civilized behavior.

Foreflight has never bothered to do in their planning module, and it's long long long overdue. There's a profile view now, but the planner has no concept of different speeds in that profile, so I have no idea what the point of adding it was. Terrain, I guess. Doesn't show weather layers from the enroute METARs over the profile like the unmentionable software did either. Foreflight now almost a decade behind on that feature.

I don't bother pulling much if any power off in the descent, unless turbulence dictates, but that's only s few minutes at the higher speed and doesn't make that much of a difference on a long flight. It isn't a Mooney... You can pull the throttle back slowly a few mikes from the airport and it'll slow up to a wallowing lumbering 90 knot Cessna in the blink of an eye.

If you really want 140, go find a Mooney M20C that's been well cared for and forget hauling large loads. Trade-offs...

 

[denverpilot]

The gear pivots also have a habit of cracking (as do the R182's) and they're many dollars to replace. Many many dollars.

From someone I heard had to do it, $12K now from Cessna and $6K for aftermarket parts. Just for the saddle.

 

[FlyingTiger]

One of the aircraft I log time in is a 172 with the 180hp conversion and it is a joy to fly. You might want to consider one. Similar performance for a better price.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The gear pivots also have a habit of cracking (as do the R182's) and they're many dollars to replace. Many many dollars.

And they're expensive even by aviation standards. We just found a crack on one of ours this past summer.

$19,000. For the part.

Oh, and a three-month wait too.

Luckily, there's a company in Oregon with an STC'd process to repair your existing one instead. Takes "only" six weeks and about $6,000 for the repair.

Retract on the 182 buys you 20 knots, but can cost you a lot of money. Choose wisely.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

One of the aircraft I log time in is a 172 with the 180hp conversion and it is a joy to fly. You might want to consider one. Similar performance for a better price.

I've never seen a 172, even the XP with 210hp and a constant speed prop, get performance that I'd call "similar" to a 182... And the useful load probably isn't there either.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

the 182, especially heavily loaded is a dog speed-wise in a climb.

Sounds like you need a Pponk.

 

[jsstevens]

And they're expensive even by aviation standards. We just found a crack on one of ours this past summer.

$19,000. For the part.

Oh, and a three-month wait too.

Luckily, there's a company in Oregon with an STC'd process to repair your existing one instead. Takes "only" six weeks and about $6,000 for the repair.

Retract on the 182 buys you 20 knots, but can cost you a lot of money. Choose wisely.

I've always cringed at the Cessna high wing retract mechanism. It just looks Rube Golberg-ish.

John

 

[denverpilot]

Sounds like you need a Pponk.

Once the engine dies, probably.

 

[weirdjim]

The A model 182 (1958) has been a joy to my life for the last 20+ years. Bought it as a complete "parts plane" and spent two years replacing every damned bolt, screw, and other rusted part on it, new (at the time) avionics, upholstery, and paint. Still came in under $20k for the lot.

And I get priority parking as a classic showplane at every fly-in.

Jim

 

[txshooter]

I have a 77 Q model and yesterday while flying at 3500 feet I was indicating 135 knots. I only have about 200 hours on a rebuild.

Yep, same here. I get anywhere from 125 to 135 on average depending upon altitude, and of course winds on my 77 Q model. I replaced the engine about 100 hours ago and find that the plane meets my mission requirements. Easy to fly, stable, good IFR platform, hauls 4 adults at an acceptable speed, and excellent for both business and pleasure. Cost of operation is reasonable, particularly the insurance.