The ownership affordability of a C182 vs. a C172…?

D

DMD3.

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
592
Display Name
DMD3.
Home Airfield
KABY
I’ve had a C182 tell me that ownership of one only costs marginally more than a 172, and that if I wanted to buy a 4-seater that I may as well go ahead and buy a 182 due to the roomier cockpit and better performance, payload, etc. How true would you say this is? I’m aware that when purchasing a used aircraft, a 172 that’s been neglected and has deferred maintenance would be financial suicide versus a 182 that’s been well kept & maintained. I also realize that some years an owner may only pay for routine maintenance, but another year you may get hit with a $15k+ repair bill, regardless of how well the aircraft is maintained. Of course, the initial purchase price is another factor to consider. If I can find a good used 172 for around $100k, but can’t find a 182 below $200k, that alone would solidify my decision.

If fuel is $6 per gallon and the 172 averages 8 gph, that’s $48 per hour and $4,800 per year if I fly 100 hours. If a 182 averages 13 gph, that’s $78 hourly and $7,800 per year. I could afford that as far as fuel is concerned. So again, the question is not whether it’s worth it to buy a 182 than a 172, as I have no doubt it is if it doesn’t break the budget. The question is if feeding, maintaining & insuring a 182 is out of reach, should I forget owning a 172 as well?
 
I can't speak to a 182, but my 172 has been pretty cheap to maintain until this year. Turn coordinator went out, alternator got weak, needed a new battery, and the muffler needed work. But that stuff could go wrong on any aircraft, and was really not that bad all considering I haven't needed to do much in the previous 8-9 years I've owned it. My insurance is under $1k/year due to my hours in it and it being a simple aircraft. The 182 will be more because 2 more cylinders to feed and maintain, prop and cowl controls, but there isn't much more complicated than that over a 172. It'll eat more fuel, Cessnas are a little draggy, but not a ton more.
 
That said, you will need to factor in some $ for maintenance, no matter what aircraft you get. You can always pull the throttle back on a 182 to get lower fuel burn rates, but you can't push the throttle through the firewall on a 172 to get better climb rates and airspeed. Fuel is just the cost of doing business. Don't get a twin. :cool:
 
It all depends on the airplane you buy; get a good one that's been well maintained and it will cost less than others. The 182 add constant speed prop and two cylinders over a 172. There is not much difference in maintenance.

Just last night I was asking a friend about the maintenance on her 182 - and she flies it almost every day. She has two years of data on the 182 and had a 150 prior to that. The 182 has been cheaper.
 
If you double the purchase cost, you’ll double the annual insurance cost.

I think routine maintenance cost will be about the same. Parts replacement about the same.

Look up a replacement engine and prop for the 182 vs 172. $$$
 
I would be hesitant of a 182. Usually twice the cost of a 172 to purchase.

Also while governors are cheap, constant speed prop hubs are very spendy. Most prop shops won't IRAN a hub, and a full overhaul is also spendy.... and if you need a new hub ad a few zero's on to that.
 
as long as you don't have to overhaul, i'd expect cost to be similar. also, unless you buy a newer variant, you may get most of your purchase price back when you sell, ultimate diff will be small.
 
Owned two 182's. Honestly a 172 is much cheaper to maintain. CS prop can be very expensive if corrosion gets inside. Fuel bladders are expensive to replace and you will need to replace them sometime. Never heard a 172 tank going bad. 6 cylinders as opposed to 4. Fuel flow more.
Prop governor. More apt to bend firewall in a 182. Starter drives can be problematic.

Saying all that a 182 can do things a 172 can't. 172 is painfully slow. 182 is to me the minimum speed I'm willing to endure.
 
You probably should tell us more about…own forever or sell in a couple years, payload requirements, size of passengers, etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
DMD3. said:
I’ve had a C182 tell me that ownership of one only costs marginally more than a 172, and that if I wanted to buy a 4-seater that I may as well go ahead and buy a 182 due to the roomier cockpit and better performance, payload, etc. How true would you say this is? …
Click to expand...
It’s as true as you want it to be. Or not. If you want to haul 4 adults for a weekend trip, you’re not taking a full bag of gas in a 182, but at least your taking the trip.

DMD3. said:
…. If I can find a good used 172 for around $100k, but can’t find a 182 below $200k, that alone would solidify my decision…
Click to expand...
Without knowing what “good” means, a TAA 172 is going to be about 35% cheaper to buy than an equivalent 182. By equivalent, I mean same TT, TSMOH, and avionics. Demand for TAA 172s exists at flight schools, demand for 182s is other private operators.

DMD3. said:
…. The question is if feeding, maintaining & insuring a 182 is out of reach, should I forget owning a 172 as well?
Click to expand...
Depends how comfortable you are dropping $100K on a ‘good’ 172 and having a $40K catastrophic engine failure tomorrow. Same goes for the 182, only expect to drop $60K on the engine.

Partnerships or clubs may be a better option for you.
 
pfarber said:
I would be hesitant of a 182. Usually twice the cost of a 172 to purchase.

Also while governors are cheap, constant speed prop hubs are very spendy. Most prop shops won't IRAN a hub, and a full overhaul is also spendy.... and if you need a new hub ad a few zero's on to that.
Click to expand...

They had been at parity during the training craze until most recently. 182s are starting to have an asking price gap between them and comparable 172s again, but it's a pretty small gap IMHO. There have been some real absurdities in asking prices for both.

Iunno OP, do you want a Corolla or a Camry? That's about what this boils down to.
 
182 will cost more. 182 will be worth more. Fuel use/cost in a Cessna is easy to qualify. If you factor useful load and speed the fuel cost per pound/hours is very similar. If you need speed and useful load, the scale tilts toward the 182. If you want to fly around lightly loaded and not in a hurry, the 172 looks fine.

I’ve used a saying thousands of times in discussions like this one. I’ve never met a pilot who got out of his plane at the end of a flight and said he wished he had less power.
 
I had a 172 for 5 or 6 years, coming up on 18 in my 182. Took them both all over the country with a lot of time in the west. Both pretty comparable in costs, not comparable in performance. If you want to go places and do things - especially with others - you want a 182.
 
I will say the cost difference between the two favors the 182.
To me the 182 is far more capable plane.
 
Consider that whatever their relative values today, if they appreciate or depreciate the same percentage, you’re looking at a larger dollar gain or loss in equity in the 182 when selling.
 
Randomskylane said:
You probably should tell us more about…own forever or sell in a couple years, payload requirements, size of passengers, etc
Click to expand...

This. Your original post is about expenses, but you should first start with a list of what you need to accomplish and then figure out how to get and pay for it. That list should be both what type of flying today as well as in the future - will your needs change? Bottom line is that getting a less expensive plane that doesn't do what you need it to do would be wasting money.

Do a self evaluation. Do you have access to both 172's and 182's? If so, think about when you picked a 182 and why, and when did you pick a 172 and why. What kind of flying / what do you want to be doing with this new plane? Who is going to be in the plane with you?

Example: If you like going places, want a stable IFR platform, want to take the wife/significant other, as well as a plane that can do short hops for $100 hamburgers, get the 182.

If you just want to poke around locally, $100 burgers, have a ton of free time to occasionally travel, you don't care how long it takes to get somewhere, don't live in an area where density altitude is often an issue, and might have one extra person max and very small bag for luggage, a 172 might work.
 
Last edited:
There’s also a big capability difference between sub models. Early 182s are a lot closer to a 172xp. The later you get, the more capable the 182 gets, and the bigger the performance gap. More comfortable, quieter, faster, way more range, way more useful load.
 
Paul Thomas said:
It all depends on the airplane you buy; get a good one that's been well maintained and it will cost less than others. The 182 add constant speed prop and two cylinders over a 172. There is not much difference in maintenance.

Just last night I was asking a friend about the maintenance on her 182 - and she flies it almost every day. She has two years of data on the 182 and had a 150 prior to that. The 182 has been cheaper.
Click to expand...
Does the 182 have that Hartzall prop with the pesky AD?
 
bonefishpete said:
The sweet spot might be a 172 180hp conversion.
Click to expand...
A Hawk XP with the Isham 210hp STC is an impressive performer. Great floatplanes on PeeKay B2300s. Not so good for ski flying, which is why I sold mine and bought the 180 I still have nearly 30 years later. I’d take a 180 over a 182 every time.
 
I rented 172s for years. I remember flying a 172 M model between Southern California and the Grand Canyon. It was painfully slow, and the high altitude performance restricted our load. I vowed when I bought my first plane it would be at least a 180 hp 172. However, the cost of a 172 with a 180 hp conversion and long range tanks approached the cost of a 182. I ended up buying a 182 RG. When I feel like saving money I just throttle back. I cant imagine ever going back to a 172 unless my mission profile changed to short hops at low weights and low altitudes.
 
Have you looked at a Cessna 172XP.... All the fun of a 182, with the operating cost of a 172...
 
182 uses 50% more fuel, needs 50% more oil, and has 50% more cylinders to overhaul. More costs for constant speed prop and some have 50% more blades too. Higher insurance to reflect the higher value. Rest is about the same, I think. I'm happy with my 182.

Personally, I think the most important financial concern is having the capacity to drop a few $10Ks on short notice. A single bad news can throw off an operating budget, maybe for years to come. Imagine having to sell the airplane because of a sudden need to overhaul the engine. The loss will be huge.
 
CA182R said:
182 uses 50% more fuel, needs 50% more oil, and has 50% more cylinders to overhaul. More costs for constant speed prop and some have 50% more blades too. Higher insurance to reflect the higher value. Rest is about the same, I think. I'm happy with my 182.

Personally, I think the most important financial concern is having the capacity to drop a few $10Ks on short notice. A single bad news can throw off an operating budget, maybe for years to come. Imagine having to sell the airplane because of a sudden need to overhaul the engine. The loss will be huge.
Click to expand...
Well said - for any plane, you have the risk of a "oops" that could cost a few $10k.

To be fair, yes the cost for fuel burn is higher, etc., but in exchange you get what I consider an acceptable speed for X country, every day acceptable hauling capacity, and a slightly roomier/wider cockpit.

It just comes down to what type of flying you want to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top