TR182 vs Turbo Normalized 177R

westslopeco

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
537
Display Name
Westslopeco
Working on trying to find my next plane. Because I live in Colorado, I really want something with a turbo. I wanted to get some opinions on the TR182 vs the 177RG with a Turbo Normalized added. Any advantages or disadvantages between the two planes? The smaller useful load of the 177 still fits with what I need to carry. I will rarely have 4 people, and when I do it will be for shorter local flights. Longer cross countries will be with two adults, two medium dogs, and baggage. I think that with the addition of the Turbo on the 177 the performance should be fairly similar to the TR182, maybe a bit slower and less climb rate? I like the idea of maintaining a 4 cyl vs a 6 cyl engine. What do you all think?

Tony
 
Aside from this 15 year old article, I know little about TN’d cardinals.


Parts support is what I’d find answers to before I spent much time trying to find one.

 
I read that article, which is what made me start to consider the 177 as in a normally aspirated configuration, it is definitely not a good choice for high DA departures. Luckily Tornado Ally Turbo looks to still be in business and still offers the TN service on 177's. They also have a separate website just for parts.
 
I’ve flown both. Out of KAPA. The issue with the 177 and high D-Alt departures is real. Great cruiser but not departure.the turbo might help with that, but I have trouble picturing it meeting the 160+ speed of the TR182.
 
I don't like takeoffs in the 177RG even in Midland during the summers when it's 100 degrees outside. DA is a real thing with the Cardinal.
 
I read that article, which is what made me start to consider the 177 as in a normally aspirated configuration, it is definitely not a good choice for high DA departures. Luckily Tornado Ally Turbo looks to still be in business and still offers the TN service on 177's. They also have a separate website just for parts.

Yeah, I wouldn’t be looking at buying one that ain’t already converted.
 
TR182 is a lot more airplane. And flying it well below its capacity only improves things. Unless converted, 177 does not have an pressure controller, so you have to manually operate the waste gate using the throttle. Not a big deal, but different than other turbos in a descent. Cardinal also has its own spar AD, but presumably anything still flying has had that done (similar to strutless 210). Both have some expensive gear attach fittings that must be looked at for cracking.
 
I read that article, which is what made me start to consider the 177 as in a normally aspirated configuration, it is definitely not a good choice for high DA departures. Luckily Tornado Ally Turbo looks to still be in business and still offers the TN service on 177's. They also have a separate website just for parts.
Besides the engine, think about the rest of the plane. The Cardinal is an Orphan. Getting parts is not easy some times. I owned one. There weren't a whole helluva a lot made and the inventory just keeps getting smaller. I would suggest joining https://www.cardinalflyers.com/home/_home.php and start doing some homework before buying one.
 
On the 177, the wing spar carry through must be rigorously inspected. It is made from Unobtanium. Seriously. I looked into buying a 177B about 10 years ago, and I just couldn’t get comfortable with that risk. But, as usual, YMMV.

-Skip
 
The 177, while a beloved aircraft by those that enjoy the large doors, is also a lesson in sequential unintended consequences of engineering changes.

It’s a plane with relatively high maintenance costs, when you add in the spar stuff, and the Cessna-type insect-inspired landing gear, it wouldn’t make my list over a 182.
 
nothing to add. 182 would be the safer bet long term. It's all orphany stuff these days anyways....
 
While I really like Cessna retract models, one has to go in eyes open that Cessna isn’t supporting these models with many landing gear parts these days. This includes gear doors, steering bungees and other parts.

There was only about 2000 R182s built and probably less 177RGs.

Also the TR182 is a carbureted engine with a turbo and the Bendix single drive mag.
 
Honestly your best bet is a T182T. Forget the older ones that you can over boost and forget a turbo 177. That will be a mess.
 
Working on trying to find my next plane. Because I live in Colorado, I really want something with a turbo. I wanted to get some opinions on the TR182 vs the 177RG with a Turbo Normalized added. Any advantages or disadvantages between the two planes? The smaller useful load of the 177 still fits with what I need to carry. I will rarely have 4 people, and when I do it will be for shorter local flights. Longer cross countries will be with two adults, two medium dogs, and baggage. I think that with the addition of the Turbo on the 177 the performance should be fairly similar to the TR182, maybe a bit slower and less climb rate? I like the idea of maintaining a 4 cyl vs a 6 cyl engine. What do you all think?

Tony
My pick would be a plain-jane 182.. plenty of power and cheap to keep
 
If you want a turbo, get one that is standard to the model. When it comes to engines (not so much with avionics or anything), I was long ago advised to try to keep them as stock as possible. And regarding turbochargers, I had to learn that lesson twice before it sunk in. Trust me, stick with the stock configuration of the TR182 if that’s what you want (it’s a way better plane anyway just in general, too).
 
Turbo normalizing does not stress the engine any more than flying at sea level. It is limited to 30 inches manifold pressure.
 
Honestly your best bet is a T182T. Forget the older ones that you can over boost and forget a turbo 177. That will be a mess.
After thousands of hours in one, along with nearly all the other Cessna singles, can say the T182T is probably the best Cessna ever built.
 
After thousands of hours in one, along with nearly all the other Cessna singles, can say the T182T is probably the best Cessna ever built.
Considering very near-term purchase of a T182T. Have a few questions for knowledgeable folks on here. 1. Engine TBO is 2000 hours...does that apply to the turbocharger, too? 2. How is the turbocharger condition evaluated in a pre-buy inspection? 3. How is the wastegate automatically controlled on this setup to manage manifold pressure to 30 inches constantly? 4. What's everyone's experience with favorite cross country flight altitude and speed to get best mileage out of it? 14k - 16k feet and what indicated vs. true airpeed? Thanks to any and all comments. Note on me and my experience. Own a '56 Piper Tri-Pacer and have about 600 hours PIC total time in various C-152, 172, and PA22-150 planes. Also about 200 skydives out of an old C182 20 years ago.
 
Skylanes are great airplanes. What is your situation that is driving the decision to get a turbo?
 
Considering very near-term purchase of a T182T. Have a few questions for knowledgeable folks on here. 1. Engine TBO is 2000 hours...does that apply to the turbocharger, too? 2. How is the turbocharger condition evaluated in a pre-buy inspection? 3. How is the wastegate automatically controlled on this setup to manage manifold pressure to 30 inches constantly? 4. What's everyone's experience with favorite cross country flight altitude and speed to get best mileage out of it? 14k - 16k feet and what indicated vs. true airpeed? Thanks to any and all comments. Note on me and my experience. Own a '56 Piper Tri-Pacer and have about 600 hours PIC total time in various C-152, 172, and PA22-150 planes. Also about 200 skydives out of an old C182 20 years ago.
At overhaul, the turbo is one of the components that must also be overhauled. Along with wastegate, controller, and relief valve(s). Plus the usual NA stuff. When you choose to do the overhaul for a Part 91 airplane may vary from the 2000 hours however.

Turbo can be peered into by removing the induction side. Pitting, corrosion of the blades or housing if present might be seen. Should also turn freely. In my experience the turbocharger itself is a fairly reliable piece of the system if not subjected to excessive temps or loss of oil pressure. A new one is probably in the 8k range; an overhaul maybe half of that. My data may be data as everything seems to have skyrocketed lately.

There's an automatic pressure controller in the system. From experience, it's a set and forget system going up and down. Very well tuned. So you pick the MP and there it will stay. The critical altitude of the turbo system (max altitude it can make full boost) is above the certificated altitude of the aircraft.

The aircraft will do about 150-152 ktas at 10k feet, rising to about 155-157 ktas at 16k feet both at 15 gph. The sweet spot is 13k-18k, for that's a region with little traffic and the oxygen will last a long time.

I think that installation is also affected by the v-band clamp AD between the turbo outlet and the exhaust. These clamps were (are?) in short supply and now have a 500 hour life. Think the situation has improved, but make sure you review this one for applicability and TIS.

As far as your experience, should be fine. Flying one or two up without baggage will have you near the forward c.g. limit which can make the aircraft feel nose heavy in the flare. Like any other aircraft in such a case, slow decceleration will allow for a proper 2 + 1 point landing, but lack of flare control can lead to a three point or nose wheel first landing which can be very expensive. Suspect you will need ten hours of CFI time to be insurable anyway, so this will be covered and practiced.

IMHO the utility of a turbo is not just for high terrain out west - imagine a summer flight east of the Mississippi - in a T182T you can climb above the inversion quickly to say 10 to 13l and cruise along in nice smooth 60 degree air while the NA guys are bouncing around at 6-8k. Even at reduced pitch angles, the aircraft will go 750 fpm indefinitely, and can be made to go way above 1000 fpm all the way up to where you need to go without overheating.

Get the Mountain High O2 regulator if you get the aircraft.
 
Skylanes are great airplanes. What is your situation that is driving the decision to get a turbo?
The high altitude advantages. Smooth, cool air. I live in Florida. Higher true air speeds. Higher climb rate above 7K feet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
The high altitude advantages. Smooth, cool air. I live in Florida. Higher true air speeds. Higher climb rate above 7K feet.
It’s also a true cross country traveling airplane. Lots of sibling family back in California and the kids are in Maine. Crossing the Rockies is now a possibility instead of going the southern desert route at lower altitudes every time.
 
And I’d also like to know from those of you with 182’s about your nose heavy experiences on landing. How many of you put your second person in the backseat? I tell my wife she’s traveling in first class sitting behind me in my PA 22, which also prefers an aft-weight bias. With respect to the T182T I’m thinking all the luggage goes in the proper luggage compartment. Would you say this airplane needs aft weight bias under just about every condition?
 
The wastegate on the TR182 is not automatic- but it is coupled to the throttle cable so you can just continuously advance the throttle to get whatever MP it will add. It's very easy to boost it over 31" so you are supposed to be careful on TO when setting power to avoid over boost. In practice its very easy to use since it's all just throttle control.

MP will drop off as usual as you climb so you just continue to push in the throttle during climb to get the MP you want.

If you run it at the max recommended power settings, fully loaded, at 18-20k the engine won't go anywhere near 2000. But if you use reasonable power settings for cruising, manage temps with cowl flaps, and just use the 31" allowed for takeoff when you need it- it can contend for the 2000.
 
Last edited:
And I’d also like to know from those of you with 182’s about your nose heavy experiences on landing. How many of you put your second person in the backseat? I tell my wife she’s traveling in first class sitting behind me in my PA 22, which also prefers an aft-weight bias. With respect to the T182T I’m thinking all the luggage goes in the proper luggage compartment. Would you say this airplane needs aft weight bias under just about every condition?
Not an issue. How many hours do you have in a 182?
 
The T182 and TR182 is a different airplane - carbureted, O- engine STC’d at factory. Manual watergate coupled to throttle with much more though not difficult to manage requirements. Retract version is only slightly faster than T182T as latter got some aero cleanup when going from S to T model.

Restarts are epoxy primed inside and out and are two wire airplanes. Same wet wing and fuel capacity however.

True cross country machine is correct - have gone coast to coast multiple times in 1.5 days, once eastbound in the same day.

Never had issue with motor and took it to 80% of TBO from new before selling. But utilization was very high so YMMV.

Load pax in front no problem - learn to land it that’s oil. Case of oil in the back never hurts for many four and six seat Cessnas. But can be flown empty just fine.
 
I’d probably just get a 210 if you’re going down this road

Or a higher power PA24

I’ve flown around there before, not having a turbo isn’t that big of a deal unless you’re trying to get into the flight levels and I’m far too spoiled to do that in something that’s not pressurized

Not really a fan of the 177 honestly, just didn’t like how it flew
 
Back
Top