They went from bladders to wet-wings at some point. A couple more gallons of fuel and less risk of water contamination. All should have the updated (monarch) fuel caps to reduce the risk of water contamination.

If the eventual goal is an aviation career, consider getting her a 182RG. 235hp Lycoming engine (2000hr TBO and ticking, same hardware turns out 260hp in other applications) and it would give her plenty of complex hours.



No worse than a 2-axis century. IF they work, they are ok, if they dont, many dont bother to fix them.

One thing 182s are is super easy to fly, even easier than a 172 as you can compensate errors with power. My first hour in a 182 was a checkride .

John

If you are serious about a 182 you might want to ask to borrow someones copy of the CPA document laying out the changes by model year - it is really helpful. I lost mine somehow.

Pre 1971 or so has a much lower MGTOW and usefuls tend to be around 1000 lbs- Cessna changed the landing gear that year and got a good bit more (150 lbs or so) useful. Also, there is an STC for post 71 (182N? and on) from a company called Trolltune that adds 150 lbs with a piece of paper. That is to me the big reason for the price difference between otherwise similar 182s, 1300 useful as opposed to 1000. Pre 64? had a narrower cabin. Early years are fastback (no rear window) and taller gear. At some point in 1970s Cessna went to a different version of the 470 (higher compression/lower max RPM?) The O-470R engines can run Mogas just fine, cheap STC that amounts to a set of stickers. The 470 is essentially bulletproof on the bottom if you run it and keep oil in it. Cylinders, like all Continentals, are more of a problem. NBD to go over 2K among the folks I know before OH, as long as the cylinders are watched.

I trained in a 172 and bought a 182 shortly thereafter. Flying a 182 is a lot like a 172 EXCEPT the nose is a lot heavier. Folks who land them like a 172 by getting to the numbers and chopping power often learn how to pay for bent firewalls. To me trim is much more useful on a 182 than needed on a 172.

Annuals of a well cared for plane are not expensive - not much to break. The thing that bugs me the most is the cheap a$$ plastic Cessna used in the interior - with age it is about as durable as thin balsa wood.

RAS

PS, the 182 is complex HP, just not a retract

How so ?


§ 61.1 (b)

(3) Complex airplane means an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller, including airplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine control; or, in the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller, including seaplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine control.

Is there a different meaning to the word 'and' when it comes to reading laws ? The fact that the reg exempts seaplanes from the requirement to have retract gear would suggest that it is a required component of the complex definition for landplanes (they threw in the fadec definition to make the DA42 complex because if they didn't it couldn't be used for commercial MEL checkrides).

Aren't you a lawyer .

How so ?


§ 61.1 (b)

(3) Complex airplane means an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller, including airplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine control; or, in the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller, including seaplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine control.

Is there a different meaning to the word 'and' when it comes to reading laws ? The fact that the reg exempts seaplanes from the requirement to have retract gear would suggest that it is a required component of the complex definition for landplanes (they threw in the fadec definition to make the DA42 complex because if they didn't it couldn't be used for commercial MEL checkrides).

Aren't you a lawyer .

A T-38 is not a high performance airplane nor a complex airplane, based on the FAA definition because it doesn't have more than 200 HP or a controllable pitch propeller. It can climb to 30,000 feet in 60 seconds.

I've had both a 182 and a 177. It makes no sense as all to get a 177 when a 182 is available for the same or less. The 182 is far more aircraft and the operating cost difference is trivial.

40% more fuel is an extra 2 grand a year, based on 10 vs 14 GPH, 100 hours a year, and 5$ avgas. Plus a cylinder or two every annual. Lycomings eat cams so perhaps that part is a wash.

You won't be burning 4 GPH hour per hour more. If you want to make it closer then simply dial the 182 back to 177 speed and you won't notice any extra gas cost. Burn mogas when you can in the 182, the 177 can't. If you're changing out a couple cylinders every year you got a bad one.

We pulled the trigger on a 182

http://www.skywagons.com/_planes/42556/42556.html

Pre-buy is going on right now and we are flying to Sacramento this Sunday to pick it up.

I am grateful that we can do this but I wish I was half as excited about it as my partner (he is a student pilot). I'm afraid that the P Baron has spoiled me, I'm not too excited about flying a 182 through the mountains.

I bought my 182 from those folks in 1998, great people. A 182 is plenty capable in the mountains.

Scott,

That's great to know. They have been awesome so far. They agreed to do an annual on the airplane as a part of the pre-buy. We are operating on a verbal agreement - the old-fashion way (don't see that too much anymore). We fly out tomorrow and check out the plane and talk to the mechanic. Monday we wire the funds and fly back to MTJ.

Brian (the guy I'm buying this with) is a student pilot. He is so excited. I spent a couple of hours with him preparing for the cross-country (figured we'd make the most of the flight home). Navigation via Pilotage & Dead Reckoning (I don't allow radio-nav on a student's first XC (with me (CFI))), checkpoints every 10 minutes, E6B calculations, etc.... Remember all that stuff? It was pretty fun!

I considered both a 177 and 182 but would rather have a Debonair or Vtail Bonanza after I have my PPL and complex/high performance endorsements for same cost.

I haven't shopped 182s in a while, but that seems like a great price for that one.

Glad ya found one!

I'm excited about tooling around and going to some local airports just for fun again. The P is an awesome traveling machine but hard to justify for a hamburger run. It will be so fun to bring friends up for a little ride.

The P takes longer to pull out and preflight and climbing out at 34 GPH/side makes for a pretty expensive first hour. I envision a five minute preflight in the 182 and it will already be outside. I'll be able to take somebody out in the 182 for 6-7 gallons of fuel vs 30-50 in the P.

My club bought a really nice 182 6 months ago. I flew in it to do the GAMI testing. I've never flown it. I'd rather take the Bonanza anywhere I would fly in a 182. But if I had a PBaron I think it would be a great second plane. I hope you enjoy yours!