What the heck does non-restart mean?

Legacy, or old. Before they quit and restarted making piston aircraft (I think in 1996?).

Not every 182 is nose heavy anymore. Mine has a two blade MT prop that removed 28 lb from the nose, VERY significant indeed !

I love the way the 182 flys as the Bo. If given the choice of the two I think it would be a hard decision then I'd go for the Bo. The Cessna is easier to mount and I'd never trade my 210 for a low wing for that reason. Does that make sense?

If you're looking at normally aspirated 182s, you can get many of the benefits of the RG by buying a big engined fixed gear 182. You'll also save some money on insurance and maintenance that way too.

I have the P. Ponk engine and MT prop. Essentially, P. Ponk puts 520 cylinders on a 470 bottom, it is officially called an O-470-50 (50 additional cubic inches displacement from a traditional 470). P. Ponk will only say it makes 265-275 HP and the conversion extends the TBO from the original 1,700 to 2,000 hours. The MT prop also provides greater static thrust, climb rate and cruise speed.

Within measurement error, I keep up with a 182RG on two hour flights (Flying Samaritans) but I burn a bit more fuel than he does to do it.

At 4,500 ft I see 150 KTAS on 14 GPH and at 9,500 ft I get 147 KTAS on 12.5 GPH. I also have 1,325 lb useful load, extended baggage area, etc.http://www.klrdmd.com/Speed.jpeg

To me, yes.

I had a TR182 for several years. It flight planned and it flew 155-160kts at 14gph. I climbed at 31" which was redline, full rich (others pull it back in climb but I never had temperature issues). You need to advance the throttle as you climb to keep it at 31". It would climb at 750-1000fpm to 17 or 18k when going x-c. Mine had a 1150lbs useful, so with full fuel (92gal) I had about 600lbs to play with. No way you could get it out of cg unless the pilot weights 300lbs.

I was lucky with maintenance I guess. I spent about $1000 on the landing gear and nothing on the turbo in 8 years. Of course with the gear swing at annual I suppose that added some cost.

It does land nose heavy and the main wheels are small so it is easy to lockup and flat side the tires (wonder how I know that). Once you understand it wants to wheel barrow on you it quickly is second nature to land nose high. The nose gear wants to shimmy unless you keep up with maint (see my $1000 above) so you remain light on the nose gear during take-off and landing. No biggie to figure out.

I tried LOP but it has a carb and it just would not do it smoothly.

Some have argued that going T210 doesn't really cost any more than a TR182 and you get just that much more performance. I can't argue against that point of view, but all in all mine was a great aircraft with very few headaches.

Jay, if we keep hanging out here the value of our airplanes may go up.

I looked at TR182s a lot prior to the Bo (along with regular 182s and Dakotas).

Useful load for the NA versions runs around 1200-1250. The turbos run less because all had built in O2...so about 1100-1150.

There was a demarcation line at the between the 1978 & 1979 models. 1978 models had bladders, and in 1979 they went to wet wings. There were small improvements from 1980 onward (battery location, door pins, etc).

The turbo is essentially a factory bolt on with the manual wastegate. The first 1/2 of the throttle movement controls the throttle, and the last half controls the wastegate. You push it in to open the throttle to max MP. As you climb, you continue to push the throttle in and that closes the wastegate to maintain MP. Simple in concept, but the linkage is kinda complicated. Nothing a regular dose of mouse milk won't keep going, though.

Gear parts are serious $$$$$. If you do nothing else on a pre-buy, go through the gear system completely with someone who knows SE Cessna retracts. As mentioned above, swivel fittings, saddles, and whatnot are really expensive. Standard 182 caveat to check the firewall for damage.

Good stout airplanes. Easy to fly and very stable IFR platforms. A ton still have the Cessna AP installed, and works well enough if maintained. Very comfy. Looked really close at a couple. Not all that many built after 1980, so those tend to be rarish. Some have factory AC if that matters.

FWIW, 1986 (when Cessna stopped making SE airplanes for a while) and previous are known as "legacy" and the 1996 and later models are known as "restarts", at least by Cessna types.

Best,
Rich

We have a non turbo 182RG in our group. Like others have said - somewhat nose heavy and you really need to hit your approach speed. Too fast and it likes to fish-tail down the runway. We've had a few blown tires or flat spots happen with new members due to that.

I have a ton of time in both R182 and TR182. For the flat land flying we do out here in the upper Midwest, no need for the turbo. The TR I fly has less useful load and an aft CG with the built in Oxy bottle (owner removing) than the R.

Solid, honest airplanes. Inexpensive to maintain, aside from the gear saddle. On the R182 I co-owned, we did need a saddle, but found a serviceable used one for $10k (gulp). However that plane paid us back in spades by going 2400+ hours (still going) on the factory overhaul. Big block Lycoming that is not stressed out at all (as compared to the ones on the Navajo). I planned on 13gph running 21" and 2300 rpm (max 2400) in the R182 and 14gph in the TR182.

It should be noted that the TR is turbo normalized. Max MP is 31".

Retract 182s use the O-540, where "legacy" C182s use th O-470. After the restart the Retract model was not restarted and the new C182 (S and T) were equipped with IO-540.

They haul a good load with decent speed. I regularity planned for 155ktas in the R182. The TR182 I fly is much slower for some reason. It does have VGs, but we are not sure that is the problem (could be, just not sure).

As a side note there are no sub-models of Retract 182s, like there are straight legs. They are either R182 or TR182 (no letter suffix). A 182R is a legacy fixed gear. But you file flight plans as C82R, as opposed to C182.

Finally the most important reason to get a R over a TR is the exhaust note. The TR has one exhaust stack post turbo. The extra piping and turbo quiet down an excellent sounding engine! The R182s have an exhaust stack exiting each cowl flap. Sound excellent at startup and taxiing in!

I think the R182s are overlooked and under appreciated planes that work hard, carry a load and are relatively quick.

This is great thread!

I have to say, I got used to having turbos. There's nothing better than catching a strong tailwind in the upper teens in the cool, smooth and empty air and doing some fast hauling.

Also, I really like sailing over the class B airspace with ease.

I'm looking at T210's and A36TC (the B36TC won't fit my hangar) but as I said, I don't need the extra seats at all and extra seats tend to drive up the insurance rates, since they figure you're going to kill two more people.

A turbo SR22 does the mission, but doesn't fit the hangar. Turbo Lance or Turbo Saratoga - well I have a Seneca II which is the same thing but better. C177 turbo RG are pretty rare, but I didn't consider one. Might look, but figured it was like a turbo arrow in most ways, and eliminated those too. Never been comfortable in a Mooney, so no go there. Turbo Viking, fast and cheap, but rare and cramped.

Not sure what else is out there with 4 seats, good utility, turbo and good speed/load/range.

Pull the center seats out of a T-210 and you have a great bubba 4 place.

I know of three airplanes locally that were built with six seats and their owners removed 2 and insure them as 4 seaters to save money. Jus sayin

I insure my S35 for 4 seats. Had I wanted to use the other two seats it would have been $75 per year per seat. That's trivial.