First airplane purchase: C182 or 180hp 172

txflyer said:
There's another option. A C-170 with the 180h.p. upgrade. Lot's cheaper, and your cool factor just popped about ten points.
Click to expand...

Remember we were talking about a big guy. The 170/early 172 are narrow. Not that a good one won't do the job but he won't like it. Plus he has a wife and 13 year old. and you do not get a gross weight increase in the 180 horse mod for the 170.

max gross weight on all C-170s is 2200 pounds.
 
I missed the part where the OP was a big dude

Yep, a early wide body 182 with a 550 swap, his glass upgrade and wingtip extensions would serve his mission and then some!
 
ChitDisturber said:
I missed the part where the OP was a big dude

Yep, a early wide body 182 with a 550 swap, his glass upgrade and wingtip extensions would serve his mission and then some!
Click to expand...

So would the 300 horse super Viking, seeing he is living in Nv. where you gotta go great distances to get any where he needs all the speed he can get within his budget.
 
Tom-D said:
Remember we were talking about a big guy. The 170/early 172 are narrow. Not that a good one won't do the job but he won't like it. Plus he has a wife and 13 year old. and you do not get a gross weight increase in the 180 horse mod for the 170.

max gross weight on all C-170s is 2200 pounds.
Click to expand...


They might like a 180, or 185. I know you can get a mogas STC because mine has one. I don't know 182's very well, but I'm assuming if they made any with the 0-470 or 0-520, they can be STC'd too.

Mogas would save him a ton of money as much flying as he's talking about.

I've been in a 182, and I will concede that for a big guy, a lot of flying, stable IFR platform, utility, comfort, and all around maintenance, it will be hard to beat. But the Turbo Vikings speed and high flying ability would tempt me too.
 
timwinters said:
No you didn't, Tom referenced the wrong thread. The guy going from TN to OK and back regularly is the big dude. Not this guy.
Click to expand...

oops,, guilty,, but he is still doing 4 up, the 170 won't be a ride in that job.
 
DesertNomad said:
My budget is anywhere $60K - $150K, so that should cover a wide range.
Click to expand...

oops again,, that blows this whole thread open to some very nice aircraft.

The 185 would be a great choice with proper training as would a 300 horse Lance. Saratoga, or a late turbo 210.
 
I would definitely suggest the 182 given the options and the fact that you're operating out of 4500 MSL.

I'm not entirely sure what your mission is, though, so the real question is whether a 182 will fit or not. How far do you want to fly and in what time period are you trying to fly it? Distance? Etc.
 
I missed the part about operating out of a 4500' elevation strip. I think I'd want a turbo.

My 0-470 is noticeably more anemic when I fly to KHRX. Especially in summer, and it's only about 4000 elevation. You gotta lean for take off.
 
txflyer said:
I missed the part about operating out of a 4500' elevation strip. I think I'd want a turbo.

My 0-470 is noticeably more anemic when I fly to KHRX. Especially in summer, and it's only about 4000 elevation. You gotta lean for take off.
Click to expand...

550 > turbo

PERFORMANCE
Cruise speed @ 6,500 ft. (kts.): *
75% power: 162
65% power: 159
55% power:
148
* *
Max range (w/ reserve)(88 gals.)(nm): *
75% power:
850
65% power:
976
55% power:
1084
* *
Fuel consumption (gph):
*
75% power: 15
65% power: 13
55% power:
11
* *
Estimated endurance (65%) (1-hr. reserve) (hrs): 5.7
Vs (kts.):
50
Vso (kts.):
45
Best rate of climb (fpm):
1600
Service ceiling (ft.): 22,000*
Takeoff ground roll (ft.): 400
Landing ground roll (ft.): 600
Max level speed (knots): 170
Click to expand...
 
txflyer said:
I missed the part about operating out of a 4500' elevation strip. I think I'd want a turbo.

My 0-470 is noticeably more anemic when I fly to KHRX. Especially in summer, and it's only about 4000 elevation. You gotta lean for take off.
Click to expand...
every thing is higher in Tx. Nevada not so much. :)

When you get higher it will cool. not that you won't calculate the DA

what's the DA for a 4500' airport at 80 degrees? is that higher than the service ceiling of the aircraft?

I'm certain it would not be for that 300 horse Viking with a wooden wing which rides a lot better than a spam can, but scares the hell out of those who think about bugs :)
 
Tom-D said:
every thing is higher in Tx. Nevada not so much. :)

When you get higher it will cool. not that you won't calculate the DA

what's the DA for a 4500' airport at 80 degrees? is that higher than the service ceiling of the aircraft?

I'm certain it would not be for that 300 horse Viking with a wooden wing which rides a lot better than a spam can, but scares the hell out of those who think about bugs :)
Click to expand...


Density Altitude at KHRX at 80 Fahrenheit, 29.92in., dew point 60 Fahrenheit

6222 feet

As long as you keep a Viking hangared, and spray some raid inside the wings once in while, it'll be just fine. ;) I remember back when I got my PPL in the seventies the Vikings were like the uber single to own. Especially in TX where we cover distance.
 
txflyer said:
Density Altitude at KHRX at 80 Fahrenheit, 29.92in., dew point 60 Fahrenheit

6222 feet

As long as you keep a Viking hangared, and spray some raid inside the wings once in while, it'll be just fine. ;) I remember back when I got my PPL in the seventies the Vikings were like the uber single to own. Especially in TX where we cover distance.
Click to expand...

AS much as I like to see all aircraft under cover, there is no reason this viking needs it any more than any other aircraft.

Back in the 90s early 2000s the flight school at Bellingham had a Viking on the line used as a complex trainer, they beat the hell out of it for well over 10 years, I flew it twice just prior to its demise in a gear up, and it flew great, the controls were a little loose at 9k hours the seats were beat as hell, but it sure was sweet.

and it never saw a hangar in its life except when it was in for annual..
 
Tom-D said:
AS much as I like to see all aircraft under cover, there is no reason this viking needs it any more than any other aircraft.

Back in the 90s early 2000s the flight school at Bellingham had a Viking on the line used as a complex trainer, they beat the hell out of it for well over 10 years, I flew it twice just prior to its demise in a gear up, and it flew great, the controls were a little loose at 9k hours the seats were beat as hell, but it sure was sweet.

and it never saw a hangar in its life except when it was in for annual..
Click to expand...

Fabric and blazin sun....

We need to get you familiarized with sun Tom, you've been in the PNW too long :goofy:
 
JOhnH said:
My 172n with the 180 has just about the same usable load (1050 #) as the 182, or about 810# with full (40gal) fuel. But the n model may start out with a lower weight than a newer model.

But I would still prefer the 182 for speed and comfort.
Click to expand...

Our club's 172N has the 180 hp, but also long range tanks (50 gal). 755 pounds in the cabin with full tanks. The 182 with full long range tanks (74 gal) can carry 643 pounds at take-off. Yeah, I know you can carry more in the 182 by leaving some fuel behind, but the club rules are put them away with full tanks. If I owned I could trade off fuel for passengers.

That said, I agree, the 182 wins for speed and comfort.
 
ChitDisturber said:
Fabric and blazin sun....

We need to get you familiarized with sun Tom, you've been in the PNW too long :goofy:
Click to expand...
Sun ??

we need to school you on new paint and recovery systems.
Poly-Fiber estimates 50 years in the open with their system.

Stewarts are almost as optimistic at 30 years.

Airtech has been on ag-croppers over 30 years.

This ain't your granddad's cotton any more.
 
Really worried about the sun damage? get covers.
 
The Texas sun can crack kryptonite.

If I had my druthers, I'd rather keep a fabric plane in a hangar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top