how big of a difference is it from a 172m to a 182m-q regarding Mx and repairs?

[Stewartb]

More airplane is easy to manage when light. More weight is where you'll see handling differences, especially given that the 182 can fly with 400-500# + more gross. Power is the great equalizer for getting that weight up but gravity is always trying to bring it down, and the wings are the same on both planes. Is that a deal breaker? Heck no, but it is something to consider as you ponder one or the other.

 

[James331]

Yes, we all know how perfect you say you are.

??

Maybe re read my post, as a CFI ones flying skills are irrelevant, but I will take that complement on behalf of the awsome students I've been lucky to have.


Really though it's just basic fundamentals, on the same note looking both ways before crossing the street, thus avoiding getting run over, it doesn't make me a "perfect" pedestrian, just means my mom and dad taught me a good and basic lesson early on.

If you consider folks who don't land on the nose wheel first and don't PIO "perfect", you should consider raising your bar just a wee little bit.

 

[asicer]

This might be the most confusing thing ever wrote.

Yeah, it's much easier to demo/explain in the plane. It's basically just a simple quick flow check whenever you plan a change in pitch attitude.

 

[denverpilot]

More airplane is easy to manage when light. More weight is where you'll see handling differences, especially given that the 182 can fly with 400-500# + more gross. Power is the great equalizer for getting that weight up but gravity is always trying to bring it down, and the wings are the same on both planes. Is that a deal breaker? Heck no, but it is something to consider as you ponder one or the other.

13.8 lb/sq ft wing loading in a fully loaded Skyhawk, which you'll be close to most of the time.

Just over 15 lb/sq ft in a fully loaded 182, which you'll rarely be near during flight training.

The 182 will have gobs of power to spare. The Skyhawk won't unless it's a 180hp conversion.

 

[James331]

More wing loading can be easier in winds and chop. Besides a couple pounds per spft isn't much of a difference.

 

[Pilawt]

IMHO the "challenge" of moving up from a 172 to a 182, is something akin to the challenge of moving up from a Corolla to a Camry. No biggie.

 

[N747JB]

That's what I was figuring also, I'd hate to buy a 172 just to sell it in a few years.

It usually costs a lot to buy and sell an airplane, then buy another one. Two pre-buys, maybe more, sales taxes, escrow fees, commissions if you broker, and of course it never sells for what you think it will! I learned from 0 hours in a 182P and my son did the same in our 182Q, my dad had about 25 hours when he bought his new 182P that I learned to fly in. Find a good one and go for it! We'll need pictures!

 

[denverpilot]

More wing loading can be easier in winds and chop. Besides a couple pounds per spft isn't much of a difference.

Maybe I was too subtle. The guy was saying the "wings are different". They're so close to being the same it's not even funny. If anything a lightly loaded 182 will get knocked around a little (and I mean very little) more than a gross 172 in turbulence.

 

[Stewartb]

Sublety isn't your problem but reading English may be.

 

[James331]

Maybe I was too subtle. The guy was saying the "wings are different". They're so close to being the same it's not even funny. If anything a lightly loaded 182 will get knocked around a little (and I mean very little) more than a gross 172 in turbulence.

For sure, also depends on mods and flaps, think you got the same mods as me, but with a cuff and a Robertson STOL, my 185 turn into a different plane once I pull flaps.

But a stockish 172 vs stockish 182, it's a rounding error.

 

[Stewartb]

For discussion, comparing standard 1975 model 172 to 182. Wing loading 13.2# to 16.9#. Power loading 15.2# to 12.8#. There is indeed a difference. Anyone who's flown either light and then heavy knows what the difference feels like. Sporty to sluggish. To go from a 172 to a 182 is more of the same. Not unmanageable but different. Airplane performance is best when light and moves on a curve toward less fun as the plane gets heavier. My own no-fun line in my own 180 (same wing) is right at 17# wing loading. I'd rather make two light trips than one heavy one over the 17# threshold. Subjective for my kind of flying? Absolutely, but it's relevant to the conversation.

 

[James331]

For discussion, comparing standard 1975 model 172 to 182. Wing loading 13.2# to 16.9#. Power loading 15.2# to 12.8#. There is indeed a difference. Anyone who's flown either light and then heavy knows what the difference feels like. Sporty to sluggish. To go from a 172 to a 182 is more of the same. Not unmanageable but different. Airplane performance is best when light and moves on a curve toward less fun as the plane gets heavier. My own no-fun line in my own 180 (same wing) is right at 17# wing loading. I'd rather make two light trips than one heavy one over the 17# threshold. Subjective for my kind of flying? Absolutely, but it's relevant to the conversation.

I go back and forth between my skywagon and a 37lbs sqft loaded plane, it's a whatever, and frankly comparing +/- 3lbs sqft isn't much of a factor, you're going to see more of a difference between the summer and winter with DA, than you will ever feel between the wing loading between the 72 and the 82.

 

[midcap]

More airplane is easy to manage when light. More weight is where you'll see handling differences, especially given that the 182 can fly with 400-500# + more gross. Power is the great equalizer for getting that weight up but gravity is always trying to bring it down, and the wings are the same on both planes. Is that a deal breaker? Heck no, but it is something to consider as you ponder one or the other.

That's a good perspective, I wouldn't need more UL than a 172 currently, so I would have a lot of hours in the 182 before I'd be anywhere near gross.

 

[midcap]

I go back and forth between my skywagon and a 37lbs sqft loaded plane, it's a whatever, and frankly comparing +/- 3lbs sqft isn't much of a factor, you're going to see more of a difference between the summer and winter with DA, than you will ever feel between the wing loading between the 72 and the 82.

So basically similar but different

 

[James331]

So basically similar but different

Long and short, go buy your 182 and have fun

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

yup....he worries too much.

 

[midcap]

yup....he worries too much.

Long and short, go buy your 182 and have fun

thanks guys!

 

[denverpilot]

That's a good perspective, I wouldn't need more UL than a 172 currently, so I would have a lot of hours in the 182 before I'd be anywhere near gross.

Only other thing you'll have to decide is if burning another 3 gallons per hour changes your budget plans at all. The 182 isn't exactly known for fuel sipping.

 

[midcap]

Only other thing you'll have to decide is if burning another 3 gallons per hour changes your budget plans at all. The 182 isn't exactly known for fuel sipping.

I've always heard you can pull the power back and burn about what a 172 burns? Any truth to that?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I've always heard you can pull the power back and burn about what a 172 burns? Any truth to that?

ya and the Bonanza can slow from 175 kts down to 172 speeds for less fuel burn.....but no one I know does that either.

 

[denverpilot]

I've always heard you can pull the power back and burn about what a 172 burns? Any truth to that?

Sure. But nobody does. Heh. When there's no speed limit, why not floor it?

 

[coloradobluesky]

Yes and you can pull a 172 back to 152 fuel burn too, if you want.

 

[midcap]

Sure. But nobody does. Heh. When there's no speed limit, why not floor it?

I guess you have a point there.

 

[denverpilot]

I guess you have a point there.

Hahah. Yeah. I've never gotten in any airplane where the pilot said, "I bought this thing instead of SlowAirplane Brand but I always fly it slower to save on gas." Maybe I'll meet one of these "pull the power back" pilots someday, but haven't found one yet, since 1991!

Engine room, Conn. Full rental power. Flog that thing.

 

[midcap]

Hahah. Yeah. I've never gotten in any airplane where the pilot said, "I bought this thing instead of SlowAirplane Brand but I always fly it slower to save on gas." Maybe I'll meet one of these "pull the power back" pilots someday, but haven't found one yet, since 1991!

Engine room, Conn. Full rental power. Flog that thing.

lol, I like that one.

 

[denverpilot]

lol, I like that one.

Can't take credit for it. First time I ever heard it was with my initial CFI. I gingerly pulled back the throttle to descend to the airport during my early training on a smooth day and he asked me why I slowed down... Give it full rental power man, or we will be up here all day!

 

[midcap]

Can't take credit for it. First time I ever heard it was with my initial CFI. I gingerly pulled back the throttle to descend to the airport during my early training on a smooth day and he asked me why I slowed down... Give it full rental power man, or we will be up here all day!

lol awesome

 

[James331]

Sure. But nobody does. Heh. When there's no speed limit, why not floor it?

I tend not to go balls to the wall in my 185, more noise, more fuel burn and not much more speed, besides I enjoy my time flying that plane, not a huge hurry, my ideal MPG isn't at full power.

 

[denverpilot]

I tend not to go balls to the wall in my 185, more noise, more fuel burn and not much more speed, besides I enjoy my time flying that plane, not a huge hurry, my ideal MPG isn't at full power.

Yeah it all depends if you're trying to go somewhere. If you're not, boring holes in the sky at max throttle is kinda silly. I've gone out at "loitered" in the 182 for no reason at all. Usually over a lake or reservoir watching boats make laps. For some reason I like watching that from above. Looks cool.

 

[midcap]

I've gotten quotes on a straight leg 182, now this quote is considering I have a IR and 100 hours.

But the quote was $1100 a year with $70k hull value.

That's not as bad as I thought

 

[denverpilot]

I've gotten quotes on a straight leg 182, now this quote is considering I have a IR and 100 hours.

But the quote was $1100 a year with $70k hull value.

That's not as bad as I thought

Get a few hours and it'll go down, too. We've fallen below the $1000 mark annually with our group of old fart owners now. Not that $1100 is all that much different. Less than a tank of gas.

 

[midcap]

Get a few hours and it'll go down, too. We've fallen below the $1000 mark annually with our group of old fart owners now. Not that $1100 is all that much different. Less than a tank of gas.

Since I normally only have a few hours of work to do on Fridays, I should be able to log quite a few hours over the course of a year.

 

[saddletramp]

I've been giving my wife lessons in our 182. I usually have her throttle back to 65% power for our flight maneuvers. We seem to only burn around 9 GPH while she practices. That said, we haven't started any touch & goes yet. That may increase our fuel consumption.

As far as insurance goes, I pay $465 a year for full coverage with 60K hull. I have a bit of time in 182's however. If my wife ever decided she wants to fly solo the insurance company quoted me around $1,500 a year. They must know my wife has a lead foot!