On the fence....172 or 182

Unit74

Unit74

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
6,992
Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
So here is my head scratcher......

I'm on the fence between buying a 172 or a 182. My heart is telling me I need the 182, but my gut is saying I should buy a 172.

My usage will be a mix of $100 hamburgers, trips originating from Little Rock, AR to several places such as OKC, Arlington, TX, Jacksonville, FL and once or twice a year to SBA in SoCal.

About 60% of my flying will be local trips/time building.

I've already got some numbers on cost per hour and my wallet agrees the 172 is the way to go. However, I will get some use out of the utility of the 182 dragging the wife plus two kids here and there.

I do travel some for work and can use the airplane instead of ground or common carrier. I just don't know if the extra cost of fuel per hour is worth the luxury of owing the 182. I would certainly fly less due to fuel costs.

And the flip side is that I'd have to rent a larger aircraft if I owned the 172 for those longer hauls with the family. But, I could afford to fly about 40% more hours in the 172.

Anyone care to opine one way or the other?
 
You can run a 182 about the same speed as a 172 and burn darn near the same amount of fuel as the 172. In the 182 I fly, I can burn about 8.5 gph and cruise around 110 KTAS at 4000' if I want to.
 
The most popular airplane in the world is a Cessna 172. Years ago their owners were polled. The most common response was that they wanted a 182.
 
How does she handle at those speeds? Any notable slop in the plane?
 
The 182 will do things the 172 never will. Like was said if you want to fly slow the 182 will do it about as cheap. The 182 is much more comfortable with the extra width also.
 
JasonM said:
You can run a 182 about the same speed as a 172 and burn darn near the same amount of fuel as the 172. In the 182 I fly, I can burn about 8.5 gph and cruise around 110 KTAS at 4000' if I want to.
Click to expand...

I can dial back the io470 in my Bo if I wanted to....never have wanted to.
 
Wife + 2 kids = 182. Unless you know for certain the family will not fly with you.
 
If you own a plane you'll feel stupid still having to rent. Get the 182.
 
I can afford it for sure. My trouble is with burning 40% more fuel to spin doughnuts in the pattern or short cross countries. I'm not worried about fuel on purposeful trips.
 
Another vote for the 182 if you can afford the purchase and ownership. It is a nice fit for the mission items you stated. And as some pointed out, nice and roomy both side to side and in the back.
 
I have flown both the 172 and 182, with wife and two kiddos.

182 you can actually travel, as in bring a bag. When we went in the 172 for w/b...very small overnight bag for the four of us, and no buying any souvenirs.

If its an option, the 182 is a nice airplane.
 
The 172 is a nice step up airplane,go with the 182. If you want to save money pull the throttle back.
 
I own a 172 and am happy with it. Then I got the keys to my friends 182, my 172 sits a lot now.
 
Unit74 said:
How does she handle at those speeds? Any notable slop in the plane?
Click to expand...

Handles good but I do prefer going faster. Not any slop at all at those speeds. That's not slow flight speeds at 110 KTAS, that is just a slow cruise speed. You will want some more power in to climb efficiently but the 182 is a very stable airplane. I would say much more stable than the 172. In my case I can push the power in at 4000' and cruise along near 150 KTAS if I want to as well. I am tending to stay around the 135 KTAS and 70% power for my motors sake.
 
I have owned brand new copies of both...

I recommend the 182.
 
Get off the fence and get the 182. You can dial back speed if you need to. But, it does everything else better than the 172, IMO
 
I had the same question and got the 182. Couldn't be happier!
 
I have a 172N with the 180 hp O-360 conversion, fixed-pitch prop. It's still 172-style stone simple, with good load capability and reasonably good performance (125-130 KTAS with Power-Flow, gap seals, exhaust stack fairing and original wheel and brake fairings). Its downside is that it still has the original 40-gallon tanks, so range is limited.

You mentioned trips to the west coast from Arkansas ... A couple of years ago we flew our airplane from Vancouver WA to Olathe KS. It was 13.2 hours on the tach eastbound, with five stops enroute (RLD, MSO, BIL, RAP, GRI); and 12.2 hours on a shorter route westbound (stops at LXN, SNY, RKS and MAN). Figure 10 gallons an hour on a trip like this.

If this kind of performance and range is adequate for you, a 180 hp 172 can be a good compromise.

That said, the greater fuel capacity of the 182 can be a bigger advantage on long trips than its slight additional cruising speed.
 
I find it interesting that you mentioned time building. Are you looking to go to the airlines or something like that? If so, the 172 is the way to go. Otherwise, look at a 182.


Unit74 said:
So here is my head scratcher......

I'm on the fence between buying a 172 or a 182. My heart is telling me I need the 182, but my gut is saying I should buy a 172.

My usage will be a mix of $100 hamburgers, trips originating from Little Rock, AR to several places such as OKC, Arlington, TX, Jacksonville, FL and once or twice a year to SBA in SoCal.

About 60% of my flying will be local trips/time building.

I've already got some numbers on cost per hour and my wallet agrees the 172 is the way to go. However, I will get some use out of the utility of the 182 dragging the wife plus two kids here and there.

I do travel some for work and can use the airplane instead of ground or common carrier. I just don't know if the extra cost of fuel per hour is worth the luxury of owing the 182. I would certainly fly less due to fuel costs.

And the flip side is that I'd have to rent a larger aircraft if I owned the 172 for those longer hauls with the family. But, I could afford to fly about 40% more hours in the 172.

Anyone care to opine one way or the other?
Click to expand...
 
This day, this age, this market

you'd b an idiot to buy a 172
 
I think you should buy MY 172!
So that I can buy a 182, like I should have done originally.
 
I just sold my share in a 172. I have probably 75 hours in 182T and 182RG. I definitely agree I'd choose a 182 over the 172 if travel is at all in the picture. Greater speed, stability, useful load, etc. 182 is a great plane.

I was looking for a 182 opportunity and ended up buying a share in a DA40. If you are looking at newer 182s, I'd check out a DA40 as well. Incredibly easy to fly, great avionics, and goes faster than the 182 at 172 operating costs. And they are cheaper than 182s. The only downside is useful load, but we keep ours filled to 30 gallons and that gives us 700 pounds which is enough for what I need.
 
I think you should buy MY 172!
So that I can buy a 182, like I should have done originally.
 
If you buy a 182 there is a good chance you'll never buy another aircraft. Get one with a mogas STC and you have options to control your cost for those local flights.
How big is your family ?
 
Unit74 said:
I can afford it for sure. My trouble is with burning 40% more fuel to spin doughnuts in the pattern or short cross countries. I'm not worried about fuel on purposeful trips.
Click to expand...

You will burn more fuel but it doesn't have to be that much more fuel. Throttle back loiter and you will burn a lot less. There is no doubt in my mind that if you get a 172, you will spend a lot of time wishing you had bought a 182.
 
Buy your second plane first. That's what I did.

You can always move the throttle and turn it magically into a 172. When I pull the airplane conversion lever, it will fly sorta like a Skyhawk, without the high wing and with pronounced ground effect. A 182 should turn into a slightly heavy 172 when you pull the conversion lever.
 
I've been thinking about this question lately, and have come to the conclusion that I would much prefer a 182, because its stability is a big help in IFR flying.
 
weilke said:
Get one with a mogas STC
Click to expand...
How long do you expect the fuel bags to last using auto fuel. A fuel cell costs about $1400 and requires about 8 hours labor to replace.
 
Theboys said:
The 182 will do things the 172 never will. Like was said if you want to fly slow the 182 will do it about as cheap.
Click to expand...
A 182 will never do the same things as a 172 "about as cheap" because you will have to pay more for the plane up front, pay more for maintenance (a few more moving parts including the c/s prop), and pay significantly more for six cylinders vice four at overhaul time.

That said, I would recommend deciding how much you have to spend on the purchase, and seeing if you can get a good 182 for the money you have available. If you're just barely able to afford a bottom-end 182, you can get a lot nicer 172 for the same money, and I think you'll be a lot happier in the long run if you buy better quality now as long as the 172 can do the mission. You might look for 172's with the 180HP STC, as those can haul nearly the payload of a 182 but can be bought for a lot less than a 182.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top