Help Kat buy a 'plane

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Katamarino, Dec 21, 2017.

  1. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    What the heck, I've seen enough of these threads, so I might as well start my own.

    I currently own a nice '85 172P with 180 AirPlains upgrade. Decent, but basic IFR panel (no GPS).

    My typical uses will be as they are now: 2 up (occasionally 3, rarely 4), and rarely very big people. A lot of cross-country touring with rear seats removed and camping gear stowed. I enjoy grass/dirt strips, and would like to go into some more adventurous places than I have so far. I don't want a tail-wheel though.

    I plan to take the new airplane internationally regularly; Canada, Central/South America, Caribbean, to Europe, and ultimately on a round-the-world. Good range is important to me, as is having both Mode-S and 8.33Khz capable radios.

    Currently my plan is simply to move up to a 182 similar to my current airplane but with better avionics. I've been looking for a few months and have seen a number of good options.

    I'll kick off with this one; what do they assembled experts think about it? It has almost everything I want; I'd probably just add Flint tanks and an engine monitor at some point.

    https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/22231171/1973-cessna-182p-skylane
     
  2. Clark1961

    Clark1961 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    15,579
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Throttle
    They seem to be proud of it...and it appears to be nice. The autopilot looks great on paper and no reason to think it doesn’t perform well.

    On a side note the JPI 701 is a fine engine monitor, no need to add another one.o_O
     
  3. TheGolfPilot

    TheGolfPilot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages:
    554
    Location:
    Walnut Creek, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Golfpilot
  4. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    I need to ask the agent if he ever returns my call, but my best guess was that they have only got the JPI fuel flow transducer (feeding into the 540 I guess) - I could not see anything that looked like an engine monitor on the panel...
     
  5. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    That's a lovely looking aircraft! I'll admit, I have never had a chance to fly a single Beech (just some time in a Travelair, which was very nice). I do have a fondness for high wings for the kind of touring I do; shade in the sun, shelter in the rain, and great views down for sightseeing.
     
    TheGolfPilot likes this.
  6. John221us

    John221us En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,984
    Location:
    Rocklin, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    John
    If you are really going to be doing that much over water flying, you should probably consider two engines (twin) or at least a turbine.
     
    Radar Contact likes this.
  7. Ravioli

    Ravioli En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2014
    Messages:
    4,288
    Location:
    Fort Worth
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pasta Man
    RV-9 and a good rental option for the times you need more seats.
     
  8. Clark1961

    Clark1961 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    15,579
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Throttle
    What’s the screen on the left side next to the AI? A 730 instead of the 701 reported in the text?
     
  9. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    That's also on my list of questions :p
     
  10. JOhnH

    JOhnH Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    10,065
    Location:
    Florida
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Spun Out
    I think you are right, but it is mounted sort of weird.

    Nice plane though Kat. A little slow for my tastes, but it has a lot else going for it.
     
  11. NordicDave

    NordicDave Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2015
    Messages:
    89
    Location:
    San Jose
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    NordicDave
    I tried a lot of A/C before deciding on a 182.

    GA aircraft are all about compromises and trade-offs. I'd grade the 182 a B in most categories; carry capability, comfort, cruise speed, short/soft field, visibility, with an A grade for servicing (parts a plenty & every field has a Cessna A&P). Transition from 172 180hp plane to 182 is easy. You will how much more stable it is turbulence. The wings are close to the same size a base on same NACA design, with higher wing loading due to the increase empty weight of the 182. Very nice IFR platform.

    Hope This helped.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017
    FloridaPilot and Katamarino like this.
  12. Clark1961

    Clark1961 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    15,579
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Throttle
    And the logo and switch labels are missing in the photo. Agree, weird mounting. I think most folks would trim the overlay instead of setting the instrument on top of it.
     
  13. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    Well spotted guys; looking at pictures of a JPI730 now and I think you might be right. That makes the airplane even more attractive!
     
  14. TheGolfPilot

    TheGolfPilot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages:
    554
    Location:
    Walnut Creek, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Golfpilot
    Also, don’t rule out the tricycle gear Maule! Full fuel payload on those things are ridiculous, great for backcountry. Little faster than the 172 but not complicated. May be able to trade some payload for more fuel I think they even make them with tip tanks optional ~60 gallons at 9 gallons a hour 135mph lots of range
     
  15. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    That's an interesting suggestion, that I hadn't thought of! I did fly a 160hp version of the Maule from the UK to Southern Egypt and back, and it was certainly a nice airplane to fly. I feel like it was rather cramped compared to a 182, but it was an MX and not an M. Does the M model offer significant extra space inside? Looking on Controller, you certainly seem to get a newer, better equipped Maule for the same money.
     
  16. Radar Contact

    Radar Contact Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2016
    Messages:
    825
    Location:
    Illinois
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kevin
    @Katamarino with the grass/dirt strip idea with wanting to stay tri I am thinking 182.

    That said, I would also echo what @John221us said about considering a twin. With a lot of over-water I'd want something that can lose one and still maintain a comfy altitude to an airport.

    Good luck on your search. Looking/buying is a fun time.
     
    Katamarino likes this.
  17. James331

    James331 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    14,402
    Location:
    Behind you!
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    James331
    Just find a good CFI and get comfy in a Tailwheel, WAAAY better for your mission and the ground handling and cross wind and off field stuff really is better.

    With your off field work, wanting to take some good voyages, camping, IFR, and not having to deal with doubble wide people, C180, especially one with a larger engine sounds like a perfect match, this dude did some MAJOR expeditions in his, faster than a 182, and can also be equipped with everything from tundra tires to skis to amphibs.

    Perfect balance of speed, size and utility.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    http://www.claytor.com
     
  18. sardonux

    sardonux Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Messages:
    40
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mr Smith
    That’s absolutely a 730. Mine, pictured below for your reference, when mounted properly:

    A3D5F4E5-F65C-401B-B454-C1A333CDE6EC.jpeg
     
    Katamarino likes this.
  19. James331

    James331 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    14,402
    Location:
    Behind you!
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    James331
    That thing screams semi well off VFR private pilot with the panel layout and the junk mounted on the yoke, and sure enough lol

    It looks like Richard got his private in June of 2013, and bought the plane from Philip in 2015 who traded up for a SR22, who appears to have been the owner during the prop striking, interesting Philip is a ATP flying 747s as a capt for Atlas, but gusts happen.

    "Occurrence Date 2012-04-21 Aircraft Make CESSNA
    Aircraft Model 182P Damage MINOR
    Document Last Modified 2012-05-07
    Narrative PILOT DEPARTED LNK DIRECT GRI, WITH GRI ATIS REPORTING WINDS AT 330 APPROXIMATELY 18, GUSTING TO 29. FINAL APPROACH WAS MADE TO RUNWAY 35 WITH FULL FLAPS. CLOSE TO TOUCH DOWN, THE AIRCRAFT BEGAN TO DRIFT RIGHT, WHILE TOUCHING DOWN ON THE RIGHT MAIN LANDING GEAR. AT THIS TIME, A WIND GUST PICKED UP THE LEFT WING, CAUSING THE NOSE TO DIP, CAUSING THE PROPELLER BLADES TO CONTACT THE RUNWAY. THE AIRCRAFT SETTLED ONTO ALL THREE LANDING GEAR, AND AIRCRAFT TAXIED OFF RUNWAY. MINOR DAMAGE TO THE PROPELLER TIPS WAS OBSERVED AND CONSISTENT TO THE PILOT REPORT. NO OTHER DAMAGE REPORTED OR OBSERVED."


    Seems to have had a few owners too.

    For a 0-470 powered 182, not a canard or anything,I'd say it's a nice plane for $80k.
     
  20. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    Interesting information, thanks James...
     
  21. skiermike

    skiermike Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    44
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Skiermike
    You haven’t really said anything that screams one plane or another, so a 182 makes a lot of sense cuz it’s reasonably good at most things. That said, it’s really not that different that a 180hp 172 so unless you specifically said I’m desperate for greater load hauling or longer legs (which you did mention and I guess you’d need for an around-the-world), I’m not seeing a really compelling reason for leaving the plane you already have.

    If I had your basic requirements and was confident I would be happy limited to basic grass and gravel strips, I would definitely be considering a retractable 182 or early 210 (or later 210 if the budget allows).

    FWIW I have owned planes with complicated advanced panels and planes with basic panels. I have not found that an expensive panel is worth the increase in cost, personally.
     
  22. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    Thanks for the thoughts, Mike! My main needs from the panel are:

    WAAS GPS - Big capability improvement (LNAV and LPV approaches for example), and helps with ADS-B
    Autopilot - Really nice for longer legs and single pilot IFR, I do quite a lot of both
    Mode-S/ADS-B - Legal requirement EU/USA (and others)
    8.33 kHz spacing - Legal requirement EU

    I don't think it's cost effective to put all that into my 172, and I have a buyer lined up for the 172 for the same price I paid.

    I've definitely been looking at retractable 182s, as well as straight legged. The smaller wheels and potential for major bills if the gear needs parts put me off a little, but I really do love the way they look and fly. I was actually about to make an offer on one, but it sold!
     
  23. skiermike

    skiermike Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    44
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Skiermike
    Your panel and autopilot requirements are not really that extensive (depending somewhat on how sophisticated an autopilot you’re looking for). I definitely wouldn’t bother limiting your search to ADS-equipped planes because there just aren’t that many of them and it’s not that expensive - all things considered - to do yourself.

    I’m mostly making my comments on the panel because the plane you posted has a lot of whiz-bang features that don’t really change the basics of the plane, but they’re asking probably a $40,000 premium based on how it’s equipped. It’s reasonable to want an IFR GPS and a basic autopilot, but unless your budget is pretty generous and loose, I wouldn’t fall in love with the fancy screens - it’s just so expensive whether you do it yourself or buy it installed, and having a G5 doesn’t suddenly allow the plane to do anything that it wouldn’t have done without the G5. I really made a mistake once buying a 182 with all sorts of fancy gear and found out later that while it seemed really sexy, I spent money I didn’t need to spend and didn’t even use half of it. Oops.

    For example - if you spend your money on retracts, sure they might cost more, but at least you actually get a significant improvement in performance and efficiency for your money. That seems worth paying for to me, if it’s in the budget.
     
    Katamarino and James331 like this.
  24. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    It's a good point. It's easy to get carried away with the flashy screens, no doubt about it...
     
    N747JB likes this.
  25. edo2000

    edo2000 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2015
    Messages:
    243
    Location:
    Northern New Mexico
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    edo2000
    Definitely true. On the other hand, glass upgrades do have some big advantages. You get to do away with vacuum pumps and gyro instruments which fail often and are not cheap. You also get a way cleaner, simpler and more capable panel. And from watching Barnstormers and TAP, the glass-equipped birds seem to sell much more quickly, even with their higher prices. It remains to be seen how maintenance-free the the glass displays + ADHRS will be but they have to be much better - the only moving parts are buttons and knobs. I speak (from ignorance) as a long-time instrument pilot with nearly zero experience with glass-equipped aircraft. I would love to upgrade my aircraft to Dynon (it's an experimental) but the last quote I received gave me serious sticker shock. :)
     
    Katamarino likes this.
  26. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    I do love the idea of getting rid of the vacuum system. My 172 is on its' third AI in a year, and the DG isn't exactly great either.
     
    edo2000 likes this.
  27. skiermike

    skiermike Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    44
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Skiermike
    How much IFR flying do you (really) do?
     
  28. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    It varies a lot depending on where I am. On my London to Cape Town flight we were in a lot of IMC for roughly the first half of the trip, all through West Africa (sand/dust in the desert, and then could as it was the rainy season). Flying around the US, not so much when on vacation trips, but I've flown a lot of IMC in the past when commuting for work or doing weekend trips. The last few years I have flown a few hundred hours a year total.

    Outside the USA the majority of flying is IFR but not necessarily IMC.
     
  29. swingwing

    swingwing Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    164
    Location:
    Reading, Pennsylvania
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Swingwing
    About a year ago I did almost th exact same upgrade. I traded a nice 180hp 172M with a good non-gps IFR panel for a 182Q with WAAS gps, S-Tec auto pilot and weather.

    I am very happy with the move. The 182 is much more capable in weather, stable and can really haul a load
     
    edo2000 and Katamarino like this.
  30. OkieFlyer

    OkieFlyer Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    2,202
    Location:
    Lindsay, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Andrew L.
    High wing?
    Cargo room with rear seats removed?
    Short/Soft Field capable?
    International travel?
    Over the water travel?
    Around the world?

    I might take a beatin' for this, but I'm going to say it anyway.

    Cessna 337 Skymaster w/ Robertson STOL and long range tanks. 128 gal???

    Should be good for 1000+nm or better and 160 kts, with plenty of room for gear, an extra engine on the back for ocean work, and gets in and out of the shorts strips.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2017
    MIFlyer and Katamarino like this.
  31. Matthew K

    Matthew K Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2016
    Messages:
    511
    Location:
    Georgia
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Broke Engineer
    I don't see it mentioned anywhere, but what's your budget?
     
  32. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    I must admit, I have been contemplating 337s myself, but purely on anecdotal evidence I feel like the maintenance and running costs might eat me alive?

    Budget-wise I'd consider up to maybe 180 but would prefer to stay at around 120 for the initial purchase. Flexible for the right aircraft.
     
    Matthew K likes this.
  33. skiermike

    skiermike Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    44
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Skiermike
    This really seems like 210 territory to me.
     
    overdrive148 and edo2000 like this.
  34. OkieFlyer

    OkieFlyer Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    2,202
    Location:
    Lindsay, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Andrew L.
    They do have a rep for being maintenance hogs (mostly from people that don't actually own them I suspect), but with that kind of budget, you could buy a good 337, fix everything that needs fixing, and have 20-30K left over for gas.


    A 206 or 210 would be great choices as well. If I were going to fly abroad, I think I'd want retract speed, but YMMV
     
  35. edo2000

    edo2000 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2015
    Messages:
    243
    Location:
    Northern New Mexico
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    edo2000
    I worked for an FBO in Alaska that operated two 336's and several 206's. They used the 336's for overwater operations, night IFR, etc. Two engines, easy to fly and good for gravel airstrips, except the rear prop took some extra abuse - protocol on unpaved runways was to always go to max power on the rear engine, then slowly bring in the front, to minimize rocks flying into the rear prop.

    As I remember, the 336's had twice as many maintenance squawks as the 206's. The 206's would haul more and were almost as fast. 337's would have to be significantly worse than the 336's.
     
  36. OkieFlyer

    OkieFlyer Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    2,202
    Location:
    Lindsay, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Andrew L.
    Yeah, I think it's pretty certain that the 337's retracts would require more maintenance than a 336, as with any retract aircraft. However, I think some of that can be alleviated by doing the Uvalde gear door mod, which eliminates the complicated gear door arrangement and get's rid of some of the moving parts. Also, I believe they increased the size of the rear engine air scoop and added bigger cowl flaps for better cooling, thus eliminating some of the cooling problems on the 336. They do have pretty complicated fuel system. I want to say some of the later ones were simplified, but I'm not sure of that. They are a solid 15 knots faster than the 336 and 20+ knots faster than the 206. However, they are no faster than a 210, burn more fuel, and have more systems. If the OP hadn't mentioned a lot of over the ocean flying, the 210 would be my top pick.
     
  37. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    I never thought we'd see a thread where a 337 might be the correct answer to "What airplane should I buy?"
     
    overdrive148 and GRG55 like this.
  38. GRG55

    GRG55 En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,570
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Aztec Flyer
    If you want a twin with long leg capability there's other choices that I think are more reliable and ruggged than a 337.

    Having said that, your initial 182 inclinations still seem a very good choice for the missions described so far.
     
    Katamarino likes this.
  39. Katamarino

    Katamarino Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Basra, Iraq
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Katamarino
    It's certainly not a conclusion I rushed to, I've been musing over it for a number of years now. The 210 is probably just a little too much airplane for my usual use, as much as I'd love to have one. I'm not ruling it out, though.
     
  40. GRG55

    GRG55 En-Route

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,570
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Aztec Flyer
    I wanted to log some time in a reasonably capable single and got checked out in a rental 2011 182T this year (Cessna's nomenclature is confusing as the "T" is not turbocharged).

    First time I've flown a 182. Logged about 16 or 17 hours over five cross country legs, and was pretty impressed with it. Only things I didn't care for is the empty weights have crept up over the years so useful load has really suffered (1060 lbs in this "T"), and the G1000 panel seemed over complicated for that airplane. But I sure had fun flying it. Roomy, easy access, full flap landings are a hoot, strapped my portable O2 in the back and with only two of us in the plane got it all the way up to 18,000 ASL dodging TCUs over the Rockies coming home one August afternoon. Pretty impressive for a naturally aspirated plane I thought, but I would look for an older one with more useful load and a simpler avionics suite if I was to consider owning one.