What model type of the Cessna 182 do you consider the "Sweet Spot" to purchase.

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by FloridaPilot, Jun 18, 2017.

  1. FloridaPilot

    FloridaPilot Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,456
    Location:
    Florida
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FloridaStudentPilot
    I didn't realize that there are so many different models of the 182:

    182 182Q
    182A T182
    182B 182R
    182C 182S
    182E 182T
    R182 T182T
    182G 182M
    182P

    I have never personally flown a Cessna 182 but I have extensive 172 experience. I've heard the 182 has a constant speed prop and it's a bit faster other then that it's pretty similar to a 172.

    I just wanted to know what model type have you flown do you prefer one over the other what is maintenance like and is there a club where I can find more detail about the type. It's looking like I might just join the Cessna club as a first airplane. The transition should be smooth as a first time owner with previous 172 experience. What is insurance like?

    Thanks as always for your feedback!
     
  2. sgenie

    sgenie Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2014
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Genie
    182 is not only a bit faster (130 kts up to 150 for RG), it gives you 4 people with lots of fuel option! I flew models Q, S and T - they are very similar with some minor differences, T being the latest and greatest. If you can get it, go for it.
     
  3. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,411
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    I've flown several fixed gear models. At similar weight, performance is quite similar. But later ones are chunkier. My favorites would be Q and R models.

    I don't care for G1000. Overkill.
     
    FloridaPilot likes this.
  4. sgenie

    sgenie Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2014
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Genie
    It's not just G1000 - T has difference engine and different prop. It is slightly slower than Q, the latter being a bit more speedier in approach.
     
  5. Clip4

    Clip4 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    5,638
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    1979 R182. Long range fuel, still has 40 degrees flaps, and the battery on the firewall.
     
    denverpilot likes this.
  6. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,411
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    While cool, I wouldn't think a difference engine would be all that useful in an airplane. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_engine
     
  7. Bonchie

    Bonchie Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,377
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bonchie
    Well, if money is an object, the sweet spot seems to be the P/Q models. Those are very popular.

    If money is no object, then an S/T obviously have more gizmos and a nicer interior.

    A 172 and a 182 are not quite as similar as often generalized. The 182 feels different landing because it's so nose heavy. It's heavier on the controls overall in flight and more rock solid in IFR. It's also going to feel more bearish on takeoff with the torque because you've got a lot more HP out front. It's a C/S prop, HP airplane that'll do a good 20 knots faster, haul 4 people, and let you fill the tanks.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017
  8. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,411
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    If you try flying a 206, a 182 sure will feel close to a 172. The big variable is wing loading, which really isn't all that different in any of the 100 series.

    Some 172s do have CS props.
     
  9. Bonchie

    Bonchie Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,377
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bonchie
    When we are talking the common 4 place airplanes, they all feel fairly similar to me when compared to something the size of a 206/210 or the bigger Pipers. So yeah, if that's the basis, a 182 is similar to a 172 is similar to a Cherokee.

    I was one of the few who never even flew a 172 until years after my ticket. Went from a Cherokees and flew a friends 172 for the first time. I'd of been hard pressed to feel uncomfortable or like things were markedly different feeling (in normal flight/takeoff/landing). When I bought into my 182, the biggest difference in feel to me between it and the 172s/Cherokees/Socatas I had flown was the torque and the weight in the nose.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017
  10. Shawn

    Shawn En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    4,039
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Shawn
    Step One...without questions buy this:

    Cessna 182 Buyer's Guide (1956-1986)


    For what was important for me and my missions, my research led me to ideally be a P or Q model and I wound up with a 1973 182P which is generally considered the "sweet spot" but that is a completely subjective term in what YOU value as important in your plane.

    Would have loved a restart with a G1000 but the benefits didn't justify the price jump as I would up with a very nicely equipped panel for what I paid that does the job amazingly well. If I was looking to spend that much I probably would have just gone with an SR-22.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017
  11. N747JB

    N747JB Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,072
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    John
    My dad bought a P New in 1972,we both learned to fly in it! We bought Q a few years ago for my son to train in, the Q has a slower turning engine with a longer TBO, but not a huge amount of differences. The Q after 1978 have 24 volt electrical systems, but our 77 does fine with the 12 volt system. It's all about your budget. :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017
  12. BrianNC

    BrianNC En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,585
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    BrianATL
    I think the earliest model I would buy would be when they switched over to wet wing from bladders ('79/'80?) just to not have to deal with replacing them at some point or any other inherent problems.
     
  13. Shawn

    Shawn En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    4,039
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Shawn
    Non issue IMO. I replaced one and it ran me a whopping $1,200 installed. I have talked to quite a few A/P that all said the same thing...replacing a bladder will be a helluv a lot cheaper than chasing a potential problem with a wet wing!

    Bladder age should simply just be a pricing consideration as possible deferred Mx, not a deal breaker. While they certainly do have their considerations to take into account, in reality the avoid the bladder mantra is a bit of an overblown old wives tale IMO.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017
    GRG55 likes this.
  14. 455 Bravo Uniform

    455 Bravo Uniform En-Route

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    KLAF
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    455 Bravo Uniform
    Get the buyer's guide like @Shawn said.

    I bought a '76 P. I actually wanted bladders from a maintenance standpoint, again for the reason Shawn mentioned.

    Has anyone ever looked into whether bladders are safer or more dangerous in an impact, from a leak/fire standpoint?
     
    FloridaPilot likes this.
  15. gsengle

    gsengle Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 9, 2016
    Messages:
    2,050
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Gsengle
    The only issue is that the bladders are supposedly notorious for trapping water, i.e. sumping isn't reliable, as water can get trapped in bladder folds. Can be an issue if you park outdoors.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  16. Sundancer

    Sundancer En-Route

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2015
    Messages:
    2,986
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Sundog
    Solid, but not great, IFR platforms. Comfy, too. Handle like pigs - roll rate is measured with a calendar. Visibility is O.K., as long as you're just looking down, from the pilot side. Otherwise, it's like sitting 10 feet inside a cave mouth. It's a lot worse from the backseat. . .

    IMHO, if you're gonna travel, trips of 300-400 miles, with some IFR, a 182 is probably O.K. If you like to crash-and-dash, yank-and-bank, scoot across the way for a $100 burger, probably not.
     
    Steven Untet likes this.
  17. Shawn

    Shawn En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    4,039
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Shawn
    Many consider them the Ford F150 of the skies...certainly not the BMW 3 series!

    Getting off on a tangent as we all do so well as the OP was asking within the 182 line...but curious why do you say not great IFR platform?
     
  18. BrianNC

    BrianNC En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,585
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    BrianATL
    Totally disagree with this. I did all my instrument training in a 182. Nice solid IFR platform. Is it a Bonanza? No. But for what it is, what it's meant to be, and what it does, it's a nice plane.
     
  19. tspear

    tspear Pattern Altitude PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,415
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Timothy
    Depends on what you did initial training in. I trained in an SR20, I found the C172 and C182 harder to adjust too for IFR. Basic reason is the higher lag time meant I had a tendency to over correct because I was not getting the reaction I expected. This takes longer to adjust too then I initially accounted for.

    Tim
     
  20. Sundancer

    Sundancer En-Route

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2015
    Messages:
    2,986
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Sundog
    If you think it handles well, no worries; that's certainly a subjective and personal perception. It's an OK IFR platform but not super-stable, by any means; better than adequate, but not stellar. If it was meant meant to be a straight-and-level x-ctry traveler, then yeah, it's fine, middle of the pack. As a VFR "bush plane", or fun flyer, the handling is heavy and slow, and the vis is poor. If you gave me one, I'd sell it and buy something else.
     
    Tantalum likes this.
  21. WannFly

    WannFly Final Approach

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,600
    Location:
    KFAR
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Priyo
    Very limited to none 182 experience, but I used to fly 172 and first time I was in 182 I realized what the trim wheel is for

    Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
     
    Shawn likes this.
  22. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,411
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    It's not too hard to fly a 172 while ignoring trim, but it IS hard to fly one well like that.

    As I point out your nearly all CAP cadets, the point of trim isn't to minimize effort or fatigue. It's precision.

    Even a 12 year old kid can change altitude in a 182 with both hands without touching trim. Like a drunk sailor.
     
    WannFly likes this.
  23. saddletramp

    saddletramp Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2015
    Messages:
    597
    Location:
    Walla Walla
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    saddletramp
    I bought an A model a year ago for a specific purpose...to tow gliders. It's proven to be a great tow plane but also a great airplane for our cross country needs. I think it's more fun to fly than the newer 182s in which I have lots of time too. It's lighter on the controls & has a spectacular rate of climb. The old ones are lighter.

    For my situation, if I were to buy one for a personal airplane it would be a 182RG or a 182R.

    That said,I've never flown the new models with the glass panels. It seems voodoo to me. LOL.
     
  24. Blueangel

    Blueangel Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    814
    Location:
    San Diego
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Scott
    If I were to get a 182, my vote would go for a 182Q model. I am not a fan of the flying characteristics of the 182 as they feel like a heavy pickup truck. Flying planes like the Piper Arrow, Socata Trinidad and Beechcraft Bonanzas are more enjoyable to me.
     
    FloridaPilot and Tantalum like this.
  25. Ghery

    Ghery Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    10,327
    Location:
    Olympia, Washington
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ghery Pettit
    Well, not quite. Our club has a C-172N with the Penn Yan 180hp conversion and a C-182P. Both have the long range tank option (50 gal in the 172, 74 gal in the 182). The 172 has a full fuel payload of about 755 pounds, while the 182 has a full fuel payload of around 643 pounds.

    Now, the 182 is a nose heavy 172 with a couple extra controls. Prop and cowl flaps. Best glide is 5 kts higher than a 172. It is faster and more comfortable. Of the three planes in the club (C-172N, C-172P and C-182P) it is my favorite cross country cruising machine. My list of planes I've flown is limited, but of those I've flown, this is my favorite.

    Or, you can do as our club has done. A C-182P with the Q engine. :)
     
    N747JB likes this.
  26. N747JB

    N747JB Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,072
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    John
    That was resolved partially by the new style fuel caps that stop the water from entering the tanks! Our Q is hangared and I don't think I've ever found water in the gas! Our old P, with the old caps always had water in the tanks!!
     
    FloridaPilot likes this.
  27. GRG55

    GRG55 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    8,134
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Aztec Flyer
    Metal fuel tanks are far from trouble free. There's a reason Piper built their leading edge fuel tanks on the Cherokee derivatives to be removable.

    What kills bladders prematurely is leaving them near empty with the plane parked outside in the sun all the time.
     
    FloridaPilot and N747JB like this.
  28. James331

    James331 Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    20,310
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    James331
    Meh, whichever one has the most useful load, cheapest price and can turn skydiving loads the fastest all day.

    Save up a little and get a C180, much better for a personal plane.
     
  29. Tantalum

    Tantalum Final Approach

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    6,364
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    San_Diego_Pilot
    Are you absolutely set on high wing? Like someone else noted to me they don't fly as nice as a low wing. Low wings, even a humble Archer, feels a lot more stable and sporty to me, it just flies where you pointed it like it's on train tracks. If you need load hauling ability why not a Six/Lance/Saratoga?

    My time is split pretty evenly between low wing (PA28-161 and 181/SR20) and high wing Cessnas

    Granted, the 172 with 180 conversion climbs the best
     
  30. labbadabba

    labbadabba Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2014
    Messages:
    2,326
    Location:
    Lawrence, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    labbadabba
    I'll say that the difference in landing a 172 vs a 182 is pretty significant.

    I had no trouble transitioning between c172, PA-28, DA-40. But learning to stick a 182 gave me some trouble. It develops a heavier sink than smaller planes. I kept trying to recreate the sight picture of landing a 172 only to find that I was too aggressive with the flare in the 182.

    Some hard landings resulted from me being too afraid to get slow and trying to land it like a Skyhawk.

    They're not as similar as they seem.
     
  31. Blueangel

    Blueangel Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    814
    Location:
    San Diego
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Scott
    The 182 is nose heavy and needs a touch of power for approach due to that characteristic to arrest too rapid a sink rate. Piper Arrows have that a little but not as dramatic as the 182.
     
  32. FloridaPilot

    FloridaPilot Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,456
    Location:
    Florida
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FloridaStudentPilot
    Just purchased, can't wait to read it!

    Although I would love to get a Mooney or a Bonanza right out of the gate, my experience is just minimal with under 100 hours of total flight time. The insurance would eat though my budget. This will also be my first airplane purchase so I would like to dip my toe in before jumping in fully. Maintenance costs shouldn't be that bad with a 182. But it can get me to where I would like to be...slowly but surely. Once I hit 500 hrs then I would consider faster airplanes.

    James, why do you say that? What characteristics make a C180 better than a C182?

    Not totally set on it, but it does have advantages like double doors which my wife would love better than the single door. I would hold the door for her ever time and check to make sure her door is secured. I can't do that in the low wings....not with my budget anyway.
     
  33. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,411
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    I make almost every landing in a 182 power off with full flap. It's not hard at all. Just hold it off the runway until the stall warning sounds like we were trained as student pilots.

    I think people get wimpy with the controls due to fear of tail strikes. 182s are NOT prone to that.

    I don't understand the nose heavy comment. It's nose behaves like any other Cessna if you trim it.
     
    MtnMarcus and neilw2 like this.
  34. GeorgeC

    GeorgeC Administrator Management Council Member PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,324
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    GeorgeC
    When do you pull power to idle? I get wimpy with the controls due to fear of nose strikes.
     
  35. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,411
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    Generally over the fence. Later if there is a long displaced threshold.
     
  36. tspear

    tspear Pattern Altitude PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,415
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Timothy
    More myth then reality. Talk to a couple of insurance brokers. The main issue you will have with Mooney and Bonanza will be retract time. Not speed or other factors. In addition, you have not considered how much money is lost when you switch airplanes. Depending on the budget, you may consider an older SR20 or Columbia 350. Both are fixed gear, fast travel planes, very comfortable.

    Tim
     
  37. Bonchie

    Bonchie Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,377
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bonchie
    Long range tanks in a 182 are 84 gallons, not 74. And that'll take you almost 1000 miles if you don't flog it.

    With only 643 pounds of payload with 84 gallons on board, that'd put your useful around 1150. That has to be with the old 2950 MGW for the P. There's a pencil-whipped, paper STC that'll increase that to 3100 pounds with no modifications.

    Trust me, your 182, in reality (not telling you to ignore book numbers here, to be clear), will far out haul that 172 if push came to shove. For the same range that 172 gives you at full tanks, you could instead put 50 gallons in your 182 and have 850 pounds payload (or 1000 pounds if you have the STC to make it legal).
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  38. James331

    James331 Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    20,310
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    James331
    Jackscrew trim is standard, better CG range and lower drag

    Factory float plane options, even if you don't go on floats or skis, you not only have the option and better resale, but you have a factory reinforced and anti corrosion airframe.

    Better cruise speed due to the cleaner design of a Tailwheel configuration

    Better off field and short field abilities



    Factory standard manual flaps, hands down better once you learn how to work them.

    More nimble and lighter controls

    Many have Robertson STOL kits, bubble Windows etc, basically on average people also take better care of and spend more money on skywagons.

    Just look at the market
     
  39. Lachlan

    Lachlan En-Route

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,386
    Location:
    North Creek, NY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Lachlan
    So you're saying there's a lot of swearing involved?
     
  40. labbadabba

    labbadabba Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2014
    Messages:
    2,326
    Location:
    Lawrence, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    labbadabba
    Do you find the sight picture to be significantly different? For whatever reason, I over-flare our 182T. Proper flare to me feels like we're landing flat and I'm afraid of coming down on the nose wheel.