Old vs. older Cessna 182s

jhoyt

jhoyt

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
46
Location
Yakima
Display Name
Display name:
Jim
About to get PP cert. Looking at 182s in particular. Love the 1960 airframe look but wondered about chronic problems with older vs "old"(e.g. 1975) planes. For the guys with the circa 1960 planes, are they constantly needing fixes at a rate greater than the mid-70s planes, or have you been happy with yearly repair frequency and cost? I'm thinking about $30K difference in similar equipped planes (avionics and engine time). Thanks for any comments.
 
Mosey over to Ellensburg and speak with Ed Beeson. He's a Cessna expert, and I beileve he's at Midstate Aviation.
 
I believe you'll find the "chronic" problems of an older 182 (1960s vs 1970s) to not be airframe-related - in fact the older airframes had better corrosion-proofing done at the factory than the mid-late 70's models. Where the difference will be is in electrical and mechanical systems. Pulleys and cables will be more likely to be worn out, degraded wiring issues could be more common, stuff like that. Also, the spring-steel gear attachment points should be looked at closely.

There are still plenty of nice 1960s-vintage 182 out there.
 
No, I see the 182 line being equally rugged throughout the models from the very beginning. They did grow in size and panel designs through the years, but all of the "Pre restart" 182s with the exception of the RG and turbo models, all had the same Continental O-470 power plant. The early models didn't have a trim tab on the elevator, they trimmed the horizontal stabilizer. This, combined with the narrower fuselage, made them the fastest of the fixed gear 182s. Mooney uses this same principle, but they hinge the entire tail.

The wider cabin and modern panel design of later models may prove out a better buy if you are looking for an IFR platform to put a family in and don't want to put money into a glass panel.

For a lot more money you can get into the "post restart" era planes with a Lycoming 540 and available G-1000.

Early 70s machines look to be the best all around value if you don't want to upgrade, because many already have upgrades installed and you get them cheap that way. If all your budget allows though is a 50s vintage machine, they are still a great plane with great potential in the future.
 
can't speak for the 182, but my '65 mooney is holding its own. A big factor with many planes is how well it was maintained up to this point. Adding to Theboys' post, my plane is simpler than the newer mooneys: carbureted, manual gear and flaps, lighter airframe putting less strain on the gear.
 
The only 182 I flew was a old slant tail narrow body with an 550 and three blade. Nice plane but a wee bit nose heavy compared to a U206.

Mx wise, what the others said, if the mx has been up to par, it should have less required compared to a newer more complex and plastic airframe.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
The early models didn't have a trim tab on the elevator, they trimmed the horizontal stabilizer. This, combined with the narrower fuselage, made them the fastest of the fixed gear 182s.
Click to expand...
Yup. Up through the 1961 model year (182D) the 182 was really just a tri-gear 180 (with a swept tail on the '60 and '61). Nothing wrong with that at all. I've always thought they were the best handling of the 182s, too.
 
I occasionally fly the 182 prototype. It seems to be holding up very well mechanically airframe-wise even though our club has been towing gliders with it since the mid 1960s...
 
Great comments by all. I'm still working on the "mission". I'm located in Yakima, and eastern Washington has great stuff within 2-3 hr flight, but many times density altitude etc.. comes into play so really like the 182 platform. Wife might never get excited about flying so probably mainly myself and a fishing/golf buddy. 172 would prob be fine but loving the 182 stability with our occasionally wild winds. So I'm not ready to drop 100K into a plane until I have it all figured out. Probably will try to get IR ticket to really learn how to fly, but in Northwest IFR=Ice. Not like Bay Area--w coastal fog-- where my dad flew out of back in the 70s. Clouds here mean ice, and I'm too old of the excitement. I'd like the precision of an IR pilot but don't really need the plane for such flying at the moment.
 
Basically Airframe total time takes its toll on all systems.

There was no difference in the corrosion treatment at the factory thru out the whole run. With the exception of a seaplane kit. they were primed inside and out prior to assembly.
 
jhoyt said:
Great comments by all. I'm still working on the "mission". I'm located in Yakima, and eastern Washington has great stuff within 2-3 hr flight, but many times density altitude etc.. comes into play so really like the 182 platform. Wife might never get excited about flying so probably mainly myself and a fishing/golf buddy. 172 would prob be fine but loving the 182 stability with our occasionally wild winds. So I'm not ready to drop 100K into a plane until I have it all figured out. Probably will try to get IR ticket to really learn how to fly, but in Northwest IFR=Ice. Not like Bay Area--w coastal fog-- where my dad flew out of back in the 70s. Clouds here mean ice, and I'm too old of the excitement. I'd like the precision of an IR pilot but don't really need the plane for such flying at the moment.
Click to expand...

If you like the stability and speed of the 182, you'll love a early 210. go ride one see for your self.

nice

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_949215_1961+Cessna+210A.html
 
Last edited:
I looked at all the variations up thru the late 60's, although I like the straight tails and manual flaps, it didn't like the narrow fuselage from a comfort standpoint. Having to ask your right seat passenger to watch themselves so you can grab the flaps.

The wider cabin just feels nicer, and was well worth the hunt to find one.


I did find a 1961 p-Ponk with vortex generators and bigger gear. That one was really tempting.
 
Tom-D said:
There was no difference in the corrosion treatment at the factory thru out the whole run.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect, there were differences. I think they are documented in the 182 Buyers Guide that Cessna Pilots Association publishes, but ~1976-~198? they did not zinc-chromate prime many of the pieces that had previously been treated, except for seaplane-optioned ones. We have 1977Q (actually built in late '76) and we are lacking much of the primer present in earlier models, so we have to aggressively treat with Corrosion X every few years.

There are actually a few odd pieces here-and-there in our plane that do have the zinc chromate paint (other than ones more recently replaced parts). I figure those are "leftovers" in stock because ours was one of the early ones done with less primer. They probably dropped the primer to save weight, as 182s were starting to "pork up" starting in '76.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
This is incorrect, there were differences. I think they are documented in the 182 Buyers Guide that Cessna Pilots Association publishes, but ~1976-~198? they did not zinc-chromate prime many of the pieces that had previously been treated, except for seaplane-optioned ones. We have 1977Q (actually built in late '76) and we are lacking much of the primer present in earlier models, so we have to aggressively treat with Corrosion X every few years.

There are actually a few odd pieces here-and-there in our plane that do have the zinc chromate paint (other than ones more recently replaced parts). I figure those are "leftovers" in stock because ours was one of the early ones done with less primer. They probably dropped the primer to save weight, as 182s were starting to "pork up" starting in '76.
Click to expand...

If there were changes in the manufacturing process it would be well known. Even my 48 170 was not primed it was not factory procedure to add corrosion protection to any of the 100 line unless it was bought and paid for as an option. You could have had any aircraft primered for 145.00 until end of production. there was no change in policy between early and late models.
If you have proof otherwise show it to me.
 
Only the cessna seaplanes were zinc chromated, and none of the Continental powered 182's had a factory seaplane option.
 
It all depends on the individual plane and the maintenance it had.
My Lane was a straight tail and was a bit faster than the slant tails that were a couple of years newer.
 
There will be some parts on the aircraft that will need replacement probably once in the craft's useful life. Two examples that immediately come to mind from recent annuals include an aileron bearing and the Dukes electric fuel pump for my fuel injected 177RG built in 1977. These parts failed when the aircraft was 36 years old. The replacement parts will probably last at least 30 years again, and by then I will almost certainly not be flying that particular airplane even if someone is. I'd suggest looking for a forum or type club for the specific aircraft you're interested in to find out about when some of these long life items typically fail.

If you buy a newer plane these parts are probably original and might require replacement soon. If you buy a somewhat older plane you might find that many of these parts have already been replaced. That's probably a big plus because you won't have to replace them, and parts that are replaced rarely are frequently quite expensive. On the other hand an older plane without much recent maintenance work done might be a red flag. Take a look back through the logbook and cross check that against a type club/forum's suggestions about what failures have been cropping up.
 
Tom-D said:
If there were changes in the manufacturing process it would be well known. Even my 48 170 was not primed it was not factory procedure to add corrosion protection to any of the 100 line unless it was bought and paid for as an option. You could have had any aircraft primered for 145.00 until end of production. there was no change in policy between early and late models.
If you have proof otherwise show it to me.
Click to expand...


It seems crazy that they wouldn't automatically add the corrosion treatment if it only cost $145.
 
charheep said:
Thats a great plane. I guess I have to add in early 210's into my search and research.
Click to expand...

a friend of mine had one, and he liked it. of course it get's you into the retrac world, and that may be something to consider if you're worried about maintenance. I know my friend had a gremlin associated with his front gear door that aggravated him for a while.
 
Depends on how well the individual airplane was maintained.
 
Cessna never did a good job of corrosion control. They painted the inside surfaces after assembly.

Piper,OTOH, painted the parts and then assembled them.
 
As to the $145 for chromate coating 1958 Cessnas, if you do the math it makes it $1200 in 2014 dollars.

Here is a cream puff '58 182 that was torn apart down to the guts, reupholstered, re-instrumented, re-radioed, and rebuilt, painted, and still is WAY less than a doggy 70s version would have cost.

Make it a fun project. Do it all yourself by finding a friendly mechanic and you will know more about that airplane than anybody in the world. And you may even find it fun. Remember, you only have to have 30 months of logged work on airplanes to sit for your own A&P cert.

attachment.php


Jim
 
Last edited:
That 210 is a beauty! I love the 210s--my dad had one for a while long ago. Wondered though about insurance, etc… I've read about needing 200hrs; must be instrument rated. Can a new pilot qualify?
 
jhoyt said:
Are the older 210s a 6-seat plane w huge insurance premiums? I've read about requirements of 200hr, instrument rating needed, etc.
Click to expand...
210s from 1960 through 1963 (210C) are four-seat airplanes. The 1964 210D (first to use the name "Centurion") through 1969 210J offered two child-sized foldaway seats mounted atop the main gear well hump in the baggage area. For 1970 (210K) the main gear was redesigned, moving the wells aft and opening up room for a snug third row of floor-mounted seats.
 
kgruber said:
Cessna never did a good job of corrosion control. They painted the inside surfaces after assembly.

Piper,OTOH, painted the parts and then assembled them.
Click to expand...

The two repairs that I have done on aircraft with factory float kits were painted prior to assembly.

aircraft that were retrofitted in the field weren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top