Piper Cherokee Six 300 vs c182 vs c182rg ???

J

joshplee

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
10
Display Name
Display name:
Josh = Flying
All,

Within the next year i will be looking to purchase my first plane, up to this point ive been part of a local flying club as a shareholder. Im also on the board of directors with the club so ive became pretty familiar with airplane ownership and maintenance, but im ready to buy my own plane due to concerns i wont disclose on this board. I have about 300 hrs total time, working on my instrument rating, I like doing long cross country flights from ohio to Florida, Oshkosh and Hilton Head and many places in between. Currently i fly a c182 primarily, and occasionally a c172, all of my time has been in a cessna except 1 hr in a Cherokee 180. My normal load is 500-700 lbs plus fuel, but my 7 yr old son is growing by the day. I want a airplane that has good utility, and good shortfield performance ( we like going to the lake erie islands), 130 knots +, and a good reputation for reasonable maintenance. I really like lycoming engines, but not a must, i really like the idea of fuel injection also. I keep thinking Piper Cherokee Six 300, then i go back to C182, then I start thinking C182rg (lycoming) and speed. Being involved with the current c182 the club owns, we have had consistent issues with fuel leaks ( fixed for a while, then the blue staining shows up and fixed again), not real pleasant when passengers ask what that is. I would like to be at 100k or less, what is your thoughts / opinion, everyone has one, but I know many of you have alot more time logged than me.
 
Cherokee 235 ... Comanche 250 ... (both Lycoming, big useful load, long range). Neither is as good a short-field airplane as the C-182, but both are better than a PA-32-300.
 
A good, well-equipped Cherokee Six 300 is a tough buy under $100k. They tend to command a pretty good premium. That said, the Six is a great utility airplane. It's not fast (135kts or so for planning, be happy if it's a few knots faster), burns a lot of gas (15+gph) and handles like a clapped-out moving truck. But it's got a wide and comfortable, it's easy to load and it'll haul just about anything that fit in it. Personally, I wouldn't buy one unless I had a very particular mission that called for it.

The straight-leg 182 is about the same speed as the Cherokee 6, but on less gas (12-13gph). Handles (and looks) better, too. The cabin isn't as wide, and it's harder to load (no back door).

The 182RG is, IMHO, the best of the bunch you've listed. Good speed, good load , decent comfort, etc. Biggest issue with the RG Cessnas is the quirky and expensive gear system. That should be a key focus in any pre-buy inspection. Assuming nothing in the gear system breaks, the 182RG shouldn't be significantly more expensive to own/maintain than the other two. A good 182RG is probably at the top of your budget, but that's what I'd be looking at if I were you.
I'd also be looking at Bonanzas, even if for no other reason than for comparison sake. I'm a big fan of looking at the ENTIRE market as a way of ensuring you're buying what really fits you best. To that end, I'd at least be looking at Bonanzas, Commander 114s, Super Vikings, Comanches, etc.
 
Thank you for your response, in the past i was a very big fan of the super viking, but im worried about the specialized maintenance required.


bradg33 said:
A good, well-equipped Cherokee Six 300 is a tough buy under $100k. They tend to command a pretty good premium. That said, the Six is a great utility airplane. It's not fast (135kts or so for planning, be happy if it's a few knots faster), burns a lot of gas (15+gph) and handles like a clapped-out moving truck. But it's got a wide and comfortable, it's easy to load and it'll haul just about anything that fit in it. Personally, I wouldn't buy one unless I had a very particular mission that called for it.

The straight-leg 182 is about the same speed as the Cherokee 6, but on less gas (12-13gph). Handles (and looks) better, too. The cabin isn't as wide, and it's harder to load (no back door).

The 182RG is, IMHO, the best of the bunch you've listed. Good speed, good load , decent comfort, etc. Biggest issue with the RG Cessnas is the quirky and expensive gear system. That should be a key focus in any pre-buy inspection. Assuming nothing in the gear system breaks, the 182RG shouldn't be significantly more expensive to own/maintain than the other two. A good 182RG is probably at the top of your budget, but that's what I'd be looking at if I were you.
I'd also be looking at Bonanzas, even if for no other reason than for comparison sake. I'm a big fan of looking at the ENTIRE market as a way of ensuring you're buying what really fits you best. To that end, I'd at least be looking at Bonanzas, Commander 114s, Super Vikings, Comanches, etc.
Click to expand...
 
Depending on what you are carrying, an old Bo V-Tail would do the job and fit the budget. Not as short field performer as a C182, but can get in/out of plenty short runways.

Tim
 
joshplee said:
Thank you for your response, in the past i was a very big fan of the super viking, but im worried about the specialized maintenance required.
Click to expand...

"Specialized maintenance" is a myth (I own one). It's a very easy airplane to maintain, despite what some people, usually non-owners, will have you believe. Sure, you need someone who understands wood and fabric, but most A&Ps have enough knowledge to do routine maintenance on those things (and there's not much "routine" maintenance to do in those areas). If you need major work on those parts, you seek out a specialist just like you would on a "normal" airplane. But your normal day to day and annual maintenance can be done by any shop willing to learn just a little about the Viking's handful of special quirks.

Mine has a useful load of over 1100lbs, meaning I can carry 4 adults, weekend bags, and over 3 hours worth of gas.
 
joshplee said:
All,

Within the next year i will be looking to purchase my first plane, up to this point ive been part of a local flying club as a shareholder. Im also on the board of directors with the club so ive became pretty familiar with airplane ownership and maintenance, but im ready to buy my own plane due to concerns i wont disclose on this board. I have about 300 hrs total time, working on my instrument rating, I like doing long cross country flights from ohio to Florida, Oshkosh and Hilton Head and many places in between. Currently i fly a c182 primarily, and occasionally a c172, all of my time has been in a cessna except 1 hr in a Cherokee 180. My normal load is 500-700 lbs plus fuel, but my 7 yr old son is growing by the day. I want a airplane that has good utility, and good shortfield performance ( we like going to the lake erie islands), 130 knots +, and a good reputation for reasonable maintenance. I really like lycoming engines, but not a must, i really like the idea of fuel injection also. I keep thinking Piper Cherokee Six 300, then i go back to C182, then I start thinking C182rg (lycoming) and speed. Being involved with the current c182 the club owns, we have had consistent issues with fuel leaks ( fixed for a while, then the blue staining shows up and fixed again), not real pleasant when passengers ask what that is. I would like to be at 100k or less, what is your thoughts / opinion, everyone has one, but I know many of you have alot more time logged than me.
Click to expand...
I'd go with the 6, or a Lance if you want more speed.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Am I reading that 182 STC correctly - the 150 lb additional useful load is applied to the max take-off weight only?
Click to expand...

Yes...basically allows you to take off with and assumes you are gonna burn 25 gallons of fuel if you are gonna depart max gross with the added STC weight.
 
Shawn said:
Yes...basically allows you to take off with and assumes you are gonna burn 25 gallons of fuel if you are gonna depart max gross with the added STC weight.
Click to expand...

So what happens structurally or performance wise if one needs to land right after take-off at 150 lbs over gross? Test-pilot or no big deal? (Sorry for thread creep or hijack).
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
So what happens structurally or performance wise if one needs to land right after take-off at 150 lbs over gross? Test-pilot or no big deal? (Sorry for thread creep or hijack).
Click to expand...

Technically inspection is required before return to service...see 18-6

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...craft/amt_handbook/media/FAA-8083-30_Ch08.pdf

Hard or Overweight Landing Inspection

The structural stress induced by a landing depends not only upon the gross weight at the time but also upon the severity of impact. However, because of the difficulty in estimating vertical velocity at the time of contact, it is hard to judge whether or not a landing has been sufficiently severe to cause structural damage. For this reason, a special inspection should be performed after a landing is made at a weight known to exceed the design landing weight or after a rough landing, even though the latter may have occurred when the aircraft did not exceed the design landing weight.

Wrinkled wing skin is the most easily detected sign of an excessive load having been imposed during a land- ing. Another indication which can be detected easily is fuel leakage along riveted seams. Other possible loca- tions of damage are spar webs, bulkheads, nacelle skin and attachments, firewall skin, and wing and fuselage stringers. If none of these areas show adverse effects, it is reasonable to assume that no serious damage has occurred. If damage is detected, a more extensive inspection and alignment check may be necessary


Reality...normal landing in a 182 a bit over gross is not gonna have any impact.
 
tspear said:
Depending on what you are carrying, an old Bo V-Tail would do the job and fit the budget. Not as short field performer as a C182, but can get in/out of plenty short runways.

Tim
Click to expand...

The Bonanza cabin seems noticeably smaller than the Cherokee's. I think it would become cramped with a growing kiddo.

Would a Bellanca or Socata would have the occasional expensive maintenance issue due to their rarity and age?
 
Insurance is going to be a big difference between the fixed and retractable's. I had my heart set on a 182 RG but ended up buying a straight gear after pricing insuance. My current mission couldn't justify the additional expense for speed.
 
3393RP said:
The Bonanza cabin seems noticeably smaller than the Cherokee's. I think it would become cramped with a growing kiddo.

Would a Bellanca or Socata would have the occasional expensive maintenance issue due to their rarity and age?
Click to expand...

Not as much as you think. There are baggage mods that give you a place for luggage, and a single person in the back seat is fine. Where it gets crowded is loading four in the plane.

Tim
 
There is a Cherokee 6-300 that parks next to my plane, and he flies down to Mexico a lot... Service work flying Doctors around. He lands at little dirt strips or on the beach all the time... loves it. Replaced the C-182 that they were using due to better load. On the Piper Forum there is a member that has a nice Cherokee 6 for 57K... good numbers and all.

The fixed gear would be better than a Lance retract for the soft field work, and the load capability is really good... the one next to me has 1530 lb useful load... Has all the speed mods and is pretty fast. Overall the 6 has a lot going for it....

I hope to step up to a Turbo Saratoga after the kids are out of collage as my wife wants bigger and faster.. Flying up to Idaho the Turbo would be very helpful...
 
I fly my fixed gear Saratoga LOP at 14gph / 145 knots all day. Hoping to push closer to 150 knots with a couple recent changes (eliminate coffee can strobe on tail) and add nose wheel fairing.

I find it interesting that there would be a net benefit to a plane that burned 12gph at similar speed... if the insurance were higher and the retractable landing gear higher to maintain. Robbing peter to pay Paul imho.

I'll keep my stiff legged Toga and the 14gph fuel burn. And it's a personal preference but I do find her sexy too;)
 
bradg33 said:
A good, well-equipped Cherokee Six 300 is a tough buy under $100k. They tend to command a pretty good premium. That said, the Six is a great utility airplane. It's not fast (135kts or so for planning, be happy if it's a few knots faster), burns a lot of gas (15+gph) and handles like a clapped-out moving truck. But it's got a wide and comfortable, it's easy to load and it'll haul just about anything that fit in it. Personally, I wouldn't buy one unless I had a very particular mission that called for it.

The straight-leg 182 is about the same speed as the Cherokee 6, but on less gas (12-13gph). Handles (and looks) better, too. The cabin isn't as wide, and it's harder to load (no back door).

The 182RG is, IMHO, the best of the bunch you've listed. Good speed, good load , decent comfort, etc. Biggest issue with the RG Cessnas is the quirky and expensive gear system. That should be a key focus in any pre-buy inspection. Assuming nothing in the gear system breaks, the 182RG shouldn't be significantly more expensive to own/maintain than the other two. A good 182RG is probably at the top of your budget, but that's what I'd be looking at if I were you.
I'd also be looking at Bonanzas, even if for no other reason than for comparison sake. I'm a big fan of looking at the ENTIRE market as a way of ensuring you're buying what really fits you best. To that end, I'd at least be looking at Bonanzas, Commander 114s, Super Vikings, Comanches, etc.
Click to expand...

Another vote for a 182RG. I sat in each model mentioned in the thread to date before we purchased ours. The RG was the largest cabin (IMHO...YMMV). Our useful load is 1060 well-equipped (strike-finder, remote compass, you name it, etc). With 235hp we cruise w/in 5 knots of a bud's F33 Bo w/ 285, with a similar load (based on side-by-side comparison...again YMMV). 88 gallons usable gas will take a couple people to FL non-stop from KBJJ on a good day, or trade gas for more folks/bags. Short field?....it's a 182 :)

Concur...a good pre-buy is mandatory, concentrating on the gear. I know several folks with R182s, including two based on grass strips (one since new)....no gear issues in the collective experience.

Oh....but I MAY be prejudiced :)

Jim
 
How strong is the 182 RG's gear? I don't mean the Frankenstein retract/extend mechanism-that's forced by the high wing geometry. I mean once down and locked is it tough enough for grass & dirt strips that may not be billiard table smooth? I'm just curious.

John
 
Its steel tubing, the main gear is fairly robust and we have landed on grass quite a bit. Just have always treated the nose gear gingerly, but thats on any 182 going into a rougher strip.
 
Any nose wheel on non-pavement is good to keep the weight off.
 
jsstevens said:
How strong is the 182 RG's gear? I don't mean the Frankenstein retract/extend mechanism-that's forced by the high wing geometry. I mean once down and locked is it tough enough for grass & dirt strips that may not be billiard table smooth? I'm just curious.

John
Click to expand...

I can't speak authoritatively to the question, John. Although we do take the R182 into grass strips, we are VERY selective, and only go to strips we know. Seems like cheap insurance :)

Jim
 
Jim Rosenow said:
. Our useful load is 1060... 88 gallons usable gas will take a couple people to FL non-stop from KBJJ on a good day, or trade gas for more folks/bags.
Click to expand...

Nothing against the 182RG but with useful loads not much N of 1,000 lbs it's really in a totally different mission category than earlier Sixes. My Saratoga has a useful of 1400 (102 gallons usable). I can depart with full fuel and 4 average adults and a few bags. Full fuel gives my 6+ hours of fuel though. Makes no sense to fill the tanks.

I guess where my Toga lags behind is burning an extra couple gallons of fuel and being less sexy (fixed gear).

The OP needs to determine the anticipated payload. That is often the most important criteria to determine IMHO. If its' really for 2-3 people only then your options are pretty much wide open. If my Toga had a useful of 1060 my mission profile would take a drastic hit. With 60 gallons (3 hours + reserve) I've got 1040 payload. Different birds for different missions. The early Sixes and some Lances will have useful loads N of 1500.

But lets all be honest here, the people that own one of these models (myself included) should really be ignored... We all think we have the best plane :D
 
Agreed with this....since I didn't need the 1,550 useful load I sold my Six, otherwise I'd still own one today.

I told the Mrs I "downsized" when I sold and bought the Bonanza. :D


arkvet said:
Nothing against the 182RG but with useful loads not much N of 1,000 lbs it's really in a totally different mission category than earlier Sixes. My Saratoga has a useful of 1400 (102 gallons usable). I can depart with full fuel and 4 average adults and a few bags. Full fuel gives my 6+ hours of fuel though. Makes no sense to fill the tanks.

I guess where my Toga lags behind is burning an extra couple gallons of fuel and being less sexy (fixed gear).

The OP needs to determine the anticipated payload. That is often the most important criteria to determine IMHO. If its' really for 2-3 people only then your options are pretty much wide open. If my Toga had a useful of 1060 my mission profile would take a drastic hit. With 60 gallons (3 hours + reserve) I've got 1040 payload. Different birds for different missions. The early Sixes and some Lances will have useful loads N of 1500.

But lets all be honest here, the people that own one of these models (myself included) should really be ignored... We all think we have the best plane :D
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Our 182RG is just shy of 1300lbs useful, IIRC its 1280 or so in useful load. Not a toga by any means but pretty solid, and with 88 usable (and a fuel selector you can set and forget on both) it makes it pretty flexible for loading on xc trips.

upload_2017-7-7_13-39-29.png
 
joshplee said:
All,

Within the next year i will be looking to purchase my first plane, up to this point ive been part of a local flying club as a shareholder. Im also on the board of directors with the club so ive became pretty familiar with airplane ownership and maintenance, but im ready to buy my own plane due to concerns i wont disclose on this board. I have about 300 hrs total time, working on my instrument rating, I like doing long cross country flights from ohio to Florida, Oshkosh and Hilton Head and many places in between. Currently i fly a c182 primarily, and occasionally a c172, all of my time has been in a cessna except 1 hr in a Cherokee 180. My normal load is 500-700 lbs plus fuel, but my 7 yr old son is growing by the day. I want a airplane that has good utility, and good shortfield performance ( we like going to the lake erie islands), 130 knots +, and a good reputation for reasonable maintenance. I really like lycoming engines, but not a must, i really like the idea of fuel injection also. I keep thinking Piper Cherokee Six 300, then i go back to C182, then I start thinking C182rg (lycoming) and speed. Being involved with the current c182 the club owns, we have had consistent issues with fuel leaks ( fixed for a while, then the blue staining shows up and fixed again), not real pleasant when passengers ask what that is. I would like to be at 100k or less, what is your thoughts / opinion, everyone has one, but I know many of you have alot more time logged than me.
Click to expand...

Fuel leaks from where?
 
arkvet said:
I fly my fixed gear Saratoga LOP at 14gph / 145 knots all day.
Click to expand...

:eek: You gotta post pics of that thing doing 145 true at 14gph brother, or it didn't happen.....that's what a stock Lance does with the wheels in the well at that FF, and a full 10-15 knots faster than what a hershey 6-300 does on the same gas.
 
hindsight2020 said:
:eek: You gotta post pics of that thing doing 145 true at 14gph brother, or it didn't happen.....that's what a stock Lance does with the wheels in the well at that FF, and a full 10-15 knots faster than what a hershey 6-300 does on the same gas.
Click to expand...

Yup. The tapered wings and improved wheel pants / fairings make a substantial difference. FF is verified through the JPI 830. IAS is verified with garmin G5 that agrees with the Regular ASI. Interestingly I can run ROP at 16-17 gph and only gain maybe 1-2 knots.

65% HP at 14-14.5 gph LOP is the sweet spot.
 
Last edited:
Not unreasonable that a well rigged fixed gear aircraft with a cleaned up airframe, loaded with a favorable CG would fly as fast as the same aircraft with retractable gear that perhaps is not as fovorably configured. I fly a 180 Grumman Tiger (fixed gear & fixed pitch prop) that trues out at nearly 140 knots which is faster than some Arrows, and almost as fast as the venerable C model Mooney with the same engine.

The Cherokee 6 also suffers a significant take-off distance penalty if not loaded optimally, I would think cruise speed would be affected as well.
 
Even if there was a 10 knot difference in speed between a Lance and a fixed gear Cherokee 6, the savings in fuel will not make up for the extra expense of maintenance and insurance. If you fly 12,000 miles per year you will end up flying 7 hours less in a retractable Lance than you would in the Cherokee 6. Even if the difference was 10 hours I think the Cherokee 6 would still be noticeably cheaper.
 
TigerGene said:
Even if the difference was 10 hours I think the Cherokee 6 would still be noticeably cheaper.
Click to expand...
I go through the same ROI analysis regarding the wheel fairings on my 172. As I was skinning my knuckles this morning trying to get air in the nose tire through that little trap door, I wondered if those fairings actually save as much time in flight as I spend fussing with them on the ground.
 
Pilawt:

You make an excellent point and one that strikes very close to home. I have wheel pants on my Grumman Tiger and I can say for certain, that the 5 knot increase in true airspeed they buy me do not save nearly as much time spent adding air to the tires.

Regardless, I'll keep the wheel pants on. Sometimes we just like stuff, even if it isn't logical. Private airplanes themselves don't make much sense. Yet here we are!
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Fuel leaks from where?
Click to expand...
Multiple places over the years, usually though on the passenger side ( where my wife sits) right above the door inside the cabin, and outside behind passenger door.
 
joshplee said:
Multiple places over the years, usually though on the passenger side ( where my wife sits) right above the door inside the cabin, and outside behind passenger door.
Click to expand...

Those all sound like leaking fuel line connections. Cessna uses rubber fuel hose and claps to connect the fuel lines. With age they get hard and leak. If all had been replaced at the same time, your issue would have been solved.
 
I know the 210 has a reputation for $$ maintenance, but a buddy of mine had one for a few years, and it's a good solid plane you may want to consider, too. Any of your choices are good. I'm not sure about short field performance on them, though. The cherokee 6 will have the highest load, but a P or Q model 182 can get an STC to increase takeoff weight by 150 lbs. Insurance and maintenance on the 182 will be less, but I'd be interested in the higher speed of the RG if maintenance costs are reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top