First airplane purchase: C182 or 180hp 172

DesertNomad

DesertNomad

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
2,443
Location
Northern NV
Display Name
Display name:
DesertNomad
I am considering my first plane. I earned my PPL earlier this year and am starting my Instrument Rating soon. I learned in a C172 and have recently been flying a C182. The 172 I trained in was a 160hp but I've also flown a 2005 172SP which is 180hp.

I'd like to buy a C182 or 180hp C172.

My budget is anywhere $60K - $150K, so that should cover a wide range. I expect a hanger to cost $250-$400/mo in my area and have not yet looked at insurance. I have about 110 hours overall. I am not sure what I should expect an average annual to cost but I know that a new engine for the 172/180hp would be around $30K once we hit overhaul time.

While the G1000 is nice of course, I would not mind a steam-gaugee C172SP from the early 2000s. At my budget any 182 will be steam-gauge. I'd like the airplane to have a G430, 480 or 530.

I live in Nevada at 4500' and would normally just be carrying my wife and I, but we have another couple (he's a pilot too) that we may fly with.

Any thoughts, suggestions or tips?

I have been looking here:

http://www.controller.com/list/list...etype=1&Manu=CESSNA&bcatid=13&Pref=0&Thumbs=1

and here:

http://www.aircraftdealer.com/aircraft_for_sale_by_type/7/Single_Engine_Props/page-1.html
 
Last edited:
Just two up, with weekend baggage, the C-172SP should do fine. I like the fuel injected 180 HP 172s.

Flying with another couple, based on total weight, the 182 would be a better choice. Fixed gear or retract.

Local flight school at VGT just picked up a 182RG on lease back. Max GW takeoffs (4 up and fuel) lead to long takeoff runs and slow climb rates at 2200MSL and summer temps, = high DA. Using 20degree flap short field procedure helps a lot.

One pilot commented that a no flap take off from RNO with 4 pax and light fuel for the trip to VGT with appropriate reserves used a lot if runway.

Personally, if I could find a nice fixed gear 182 with a solid IFR panel and autopilot, that would be my choice for desert operations. You can do that for $50-$80K and have $$ for fuel out of that $150K budget. I was just reviewing one on Barnstormers.com
 
If I was interested in a high wing I would get the 182. Flew a182 RG and loved it. Beats the 172SP hands down IMO
 
Between the two suggested, the 182. Many good examples out there in your budget range.

You will come to appreciate the additional load, range, and slight bit of speed over the 172. Oh, and did I mention the larger cabin?

Many 182P's and Q's are out there in the 80's and 90's with good avionics already. One already kitted out as your "last airplane" and at the top of your budget range is this one: http://aeronav.faa.gov/content/aeronav/online/pdf_files/Chart_Users_Guide_12thEd.pdf
http://www.controller.com/listingsd...-SKYLANE/1980-CESSNA-182Q-SKYLANE/1293127.htm

But there are others not as "glassed" out that will serve you just as good.

And again, if you're looking for something that will serve you well as a single pilot as well as a good family traveler, the 182 will always edge out the 172 by enough to make it worth considering.
 
Last edited:
AggieMike88 said:
Between the two suggested, the 182. Many good examples out there in your budget range.

You will come to appreciate the additional load, range, and slight bit of speed over the 172. Oh, and did I mention the larger cabin?

Many 182P's and Q's are out there in the 80's and 90's with good avionics already. One already kitted out as your "last airplane" and at the top of your budget range is this one: http://aeronav.faa.gov/content/aeronav/online/pdf_files/Chart_Users_Guide_12thEd.pdf

But there are others not as "glassed" out that will serve you just as good.

And again, if you're looking for something that will serve you well as a single pilot as well as a good family traveler, the 182 will always edge out the 172 by enough to make it worth considering.
Click to expand...

Bad link, Chart Users Guide?
 
Fixed it.... thanks Bill!
 
172's are so tough to buy used because most have been used and abused as trainers. Those few that haven't are constant targets for someone wanting to turn them into a trainer.

182's, faster, more power, bigger (nice), hauls more, other than fuel burn I can't see any downside.

Besides I expect at 4500' in Nevada you will face some density altitude challenges in the summer, rather have the 182 for that.

Others may disagree, but I would rather have a restart and you can get either airplane in a restart for the money you are talking about.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Fixed it.... thanks Bill!
Click to expand...

That is a sweet looking 182. Paying top dollar for the $$$ avionics package.
Interesting two different configurations shown with the Dynon Stby attitude, they moved a VOR CDI lower in the stack. So which is the current configuration.

It is a Q model with new paint, new interior and new panel.

Start with a $125K offer.
 
Alexb2000 said:
172's are so tough to buy used because most have been used and abused as trainers. Those few that haven't are constant targets for someone wanting to turn them into a trainer.

out of 27,000 172s built I'll bet there are a lot more in private hands than flight schools.

182's, faster, more power, bigger (nice), hauls more, other than fuel burn I can't see any downside.

Why not a 210? they will do the job better at the same cost


Besides I expect at 4500' in Nevada you will face some density altitude challenges in the summer, rather have the 182 for that.
think weight to horse power ratio. they are about the same.
Others may disagree, but I would rather have a restart and you can get either airplane in a restart for the money you are talking about.
Click to expand...

almost any of the 180 horse 4 place aircraft will do the job
 
If you would be happy with a 172 buy one. I'm all for having the smallest machine that will do the job
 
Take a hard look at what your primary mission would be and what you will want to do with the plane. If it is just the two of ya for short hops, the 172 will probably suit you just fine, if you are looking at 4 adults for any distance...look at the 182 for space and useful load. For me, I wanted to be able to take three...sometimes four adults, a few overnight bags and a few hours fuel for 200-300 mile trips so the 182 was a no brainier for me...and I am glad that is what I went for. Space and useful load where the most important factors for me. At full gross, I have no worries about taking off with the 6 banger...and when solo I enjoy getting to pattern altitude before turning cross wind!

I trained on a G1000 and it was sweet...I knew that would be the way to go, but was out of my budget. My only criteria was a two axis auto pilot and IFR GPS. I wound up in a 182P that has an Aspen panel, 430, 496, and autopilot. Honestly, with the 430 and my Ipad and Foreflight/Stratus combo...I could easily do without the Aspen and 496. I actually use the steam gauges more than the glass panel and I am one of those that always favors the latest technology. The coupled autopilot with WAAS steering is all I need to make me a happy camper!

There is PLENTY in your budget range...hard part is going to be narrowing down what is important to YOU.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
almost any of the 180 horse 4 place aircraft will do the job
Click to expand...

I have no idea how many are in private hands, if I am just looking subjectively at Controller there are many 172's with 5-10K hours or more. Makes the privately owned ones stand out and demand more IMO.

I limited my suggestions to the two choices the OP gave, so no 210, Bo, or ?.

Power to weight might be close, all I can say is that I'd much rather have a 182 in every flight situation except at the fuel pump.
 
BillTIZ said:
Flying with another couple, based on total weight, the 182 would be a better choice. Fixed gear or retract.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The 172SPs come with more doodads, but a 180 HP Converted 172N outperforms that in every way except total range. For moutains especially, the lighter weight means better climb performance. Max gross is the same, but the N is 250 lb lighter empty. And it will still go for 4.5 hours including reserve on a full tank.

But, for your mission, I would strongly suggest a retract. Not for speed (frankly, the converted 172N is almost as fast as a 172RG, 177RG, or 182 fixed gear), but because that's worth an extra 3000 feet of service ceiling.

I've been blasting an N like that around the Bay Area at 120 KIAS lately.
 
Last edited:
If you're going to be carrying four adults in the plane, even just occasionally, the 180HP 172 is a non-starter, especially in higher elevations. Get the 182. For what you want to do, you need the extra 50HP (or 55 for the later Lycoming-powered models).
 
I've owned 10 airplanes in the last 40 years starting with a 172. One trip to Truckee convinced me that it was not enough airplane. A 182 would be a great choice. If I were looking for one in your price range, in your location, I would look for one of the converted PPonks with the 520 engine.
My personal preference is Bonanza for traveling and Husky for fun.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not with four adults in the high desert. Not even close.
Click to expand...

I guess that is why so many operate there.

4500' isn't considered "HIGH"

when it 115 degrees no one flys anyway.
 
Ray Etcheverry said:
I've owned 10 airplanes in the last 40 years starting with a 172. One trip to Truckee convinced me that it was not enough airplane. A 182 would be a great choice. If I were looking for one in your price range, in your location, I would look for one of the converted PPonks with the 520 engine.
My personal preference is Bonanza for traveling and Husky for fun.
Click to expand...

I have been to Truckee many times in a 160hp 172 but they were all winter flights.
 
it will top out at 80 degrees today in Vegas today

there are about 2-3 months per year that I would't take 4 FAA average folks flying in a 172/180.
 
The 182 will cost a little more to operate, a couple more GPH, 2 more cylinders to care for and a constant speed prop that will require some maintenance. The 182 does have a bigger cabin, if that appeals to you, I don't know the cruise speeds on 180hp/172's, but a P or Q model 182 will true around 135 knots, that could make a difference on longer trips, not so much on shorter ones. Very few 182's in the rental or training market, but there have been enough 172's built that finding one that has been used for personal use isn't an issue, especially a 180HP conversion, flight schools just don't spend money to burn more gas.;)
It's hard to go wrong with a good 182, all airplanes are great in one or two areas, 182's are good in just about all areas. Not the fastest, not the sexiest, good short field capability, roomy, decent speed, 12-13 GPH, anyone can work on them.
I'd fly them both and see what your wife likes. :D
 
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...

You are still 200-300lbs of the loads that the 182s I'm familer with will haul
 
I think you will outgrow a 172 quickly, but a 182 gives you room to "grow into" in terms of distance adventures and more challenging airports (higher elevation)
 
Tom-D said:
out of 27,000 172s built I'll bet there are a lot more in private hands than flight schools.
Click to expand...
Make that over 43,000 fixed-gear 172s ...

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.
Click to expand...
That's the down side to the 172N/180 ... the original standard 40 gallon fuel capacity is pretty skimpy for a 180 hp engine.

MAKG1 said:
frankly, the converted 172N is almost as fast as a 172RG, 177RG, or 182 fixed gear
Click to expand...
With the wheel pants on, my 172N/180 (with gap seals, Power Flow and exhaust fairing) is only about five knots slower than the 172RGs I've flown. But with the 172RG's 62 gallon fuel capacity one can often skip a fuel stop, which improves the block-to-block speed significantly.
 
I had a 150hp Cherokee and it was perfect. It would have been nice to have that 180hp for a bit higher useful load, faster climb, better speed at altitude, higher usefulness. The Cutlass RG adds a bit of maintenance and insurance cost.

When going on a 3 hr trip you would/could climb up to 8000'-10,000' and burn 60% fuel rate giving you close to 5 hrs endurance on 40 gallons and better range even with 180hp.

I know the 172's tanks are 10 gallons less than Cherokees 50 gallon tanks but I think I would still like the 180hp and just make a stop now and again. I have heard the cutlass has some real maintenance issues but i have no first hand knowledge of same.

When I was burning 6 gph at 8000' I never stayed aloft 7 or 8 hrs. 5 hrs was about my max tolerance and my pax had less tolerance than I did. So if you were burning 7 or 8 gph at 8k', 9k' or 10k' you should still be able to get a reasonable endurance and range for a 172.

During 110 d F summers we seldom filled the Cherokee above standard which is 36 gallons and it was not a problem even going 400 NM. The difference between 150hp and 180 hp is about 1 gph so while I was burning 6 gph a 180 might be 7gph.

I would tend to stay with the most inexpensive to operate that met my mission.
 
I have a nice classic C-210 for sale for $35k. It will need an engine in a couple years, but even with that you'd only be in it for about $60k total. Easy 4-adult plane at 4500 feet.
www.Cessna210ForSale.com
 
N747JB said:
I don't know the cruise speeds on 180hp/172's,
Click to expand...
I made some notes a couple of days ago. 1978 C-172N, 180 hp O-360-A4M, fixed-pitch prop, long-stack Power Flow, gap seals, no wheel fairings. Full fuel but only one aboard, 6,770' density altitude:

22"/2550 rpm, 115 KIAS, 127 KTAS

21"/2510 rpm, 112 KIAS, 124 KTAS
 
I get about 135 knots at 6-7000 ft in my 182Q with two on board and 50 gallons of fuel. I should actually make notes, but I don't usually think about it while I'm flying. :dunno:

Pilawt said:
I made some notes a couple of days ago. 1978 C-172N, 180 hp O-360-A4M, fixed-pitch prop, long-stack Power Flow, gap seals, no wheel fairings. Full fuel but only one aboard, 6,770' density altitude:

22"/2550 rpm, 115 KIAS, 127 KTAS

21"/2510 rpm, 112 KIAS, 124 KTAS
Click to expand...
 
It is too bad Franklin Engine business is not more viable. The 172/220 hp Franklin was/is a rocket ship. It is a much better conversion than the 180 Lyc. What's his name in Vancouver WA did about 30 of them. Franklin now owns his STC. All the float pictures in HERE are on the Columbia in Vancouver(the real Vancouver.)
 
Last edited:
Both are kinda ho hum aircraft, but given those two as the options I'd go with the 182, there's slightly more you can do/haul with it.

Also dont be concerned with model year, it's not like buying a car, look at the maintenance, condition, etc.

Many of the older airframes are actually better, lighter, simpler and you can add glass to anything now days.

I'd get a older 182 wide body, with the new 550 conversion, through a Aspen panel into it and call it a day.


That is unless you want something more fun like a chang, or lance or something
 
I would go with the 182.if your not in a hurry throttle back ,when going cross country throttle up ,you will have more room a little more speed and a higher payload.
 
There's another option. A C-170 with the 180h.p. upgrade. Lot's cheaper, and your cool factor just popped about ten points.

Besides, you'll never be a real pilot in a nose dragger. ;):D:raspberry:
 
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.

Besides, you'll never be a real pilot in a nose dragger. ;):D:raspberry:
Click to expand...

Well if were going tailwheel and he's got over 100k to burn, who not just go all the way and get a 180/185?
 
T.I. there is no substitute for horsepower. The extra 50 hp esp a lighter 182 weights is just critical in the summer.

You can throttle a 182 back, but you can't exceed 180 hp in the 172. On a hot day you will have 70% power only available for departure.
 
bbchien said:
T.I. there is no substitute for horsepower. The extra 50 hp esp a lighter 182 weights is just critical in the summer.

You can throttle a 182 back, but you can't exceed 180 hp in the 172. On a hot day you will have 70% power only available for departure.
Click to expand...

I looking at 182s now. :)

I'd like to have something by spring and hopefully we will have better flying weather this winter than we did last winter.

Thanks Bruce!
 
If you have 150 hp and 2150 lb 172 = 14.3 lbs per hp
If you have 180 hp and a 2500 lb 172 = under 13.88 lbs per hp
If you have 235 hp and a 2900 lb 182 = over 12.34 lbs per hp

But if you fly a Cherokee 235 400 lb below GW =10.6 lbs per hp

Useful load on a 180 hp about #990 or so and #1100 on the 235 182 I guess you can assume to fly 110 lbs below gross weight but I think that is carrying a lot of extra overhead for that thin of difference in hp/weight ratio.

If you really want to stick with this logic the Cherokee 235 would be a better option as they often have 1300-1400 lbs useful load and you could fly 410 lbs below GW with and still have 990 useful load and a significant weight to hp ratio but you give up some back seat space.
 
Last edited:
Another thought: lots of 182's can be used with Mogas. Some 172's can, but as far as I'm aware none of the 180HP conversions are covered by a mogas STC.

Is E0 available where you live, and would you choose to use mogas if it were available?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top