There have been several BT'ers lately getting interested in 182's for a number of reasons. Having flown and loved 182's, I'm sympathetic. I've even considered a 180/182 as a "retirement airplane," thinking the maintenance might be less than the Bo.

But am I wrong? I've had my Bo coming up on 7 years. Almost all of the unscheduled maintenance money I've spent has been on the engine. Since the Cessnas also have big bore Continentals, it isn't clear that I'd spend less on engine repairs. I've also spent a little to repair Garmin things and Century things, but the cabin door is the only Beech part I've spent any money on at all.

I'm beginning to suspect trading the Bo on a 180/182 wouldn't help financially and might hurt.

For you who've owned both, what's the truth?

Haven't owned both, but have maintained several of each, of various year ranges. Hard to imagine the 182 costing more. May save a bit on the engine in regards to fuel system (carburetored and no pump). But the the 182 systems are simple. They are easier to maintain labor-wise. But if you think beech parts are expensive, Cessna might be worse.

It's all expensive.

No gear swings and gear motors and gear doors and gear ups and gear collapse.


Other than that, you write a similar check for both. I will say that some mechanics seem to salivate more when I bring in the Bo vs the 182.

Pavlov and his dog apparently traveled in a beech product.

Some later 182's have lycomings.

While not a "maintenance cost"

Guessing you'd also save a meaningful amount on insurance

I have a 182q with the PPonk (carb/520) mod.

It seems to eat cylinders like every other continental despite never getting cylinders over 380F. That has consumed far and away the majority of my maintenance dollars.

Outside of saving a gear swing during annual and a small savings in insurance I have always doubted that it's a cheaper plane. I suspect I waste lots of money every year feeding avgas to an engine that runs poorly (or at least unevenly between cylinders) LOP. It also takes me longer to get places, burning even more fuel.

I can, however, load pretty much whatever I want anywhere in the plane with massive amounts of fuel onboard and fly forever.

I have an F33A and a 182Q (O-520) expenses are comparable. Neither one causes me much grief. The Skylane insurance is $800ish, the Bonanza is $1100ish per year for similar hull values. I'm putting 250 some hours pear year on the Bonanza and about 100 on the Skylane. They are both airplanes and at any given time they have something wrong with them, they rarely have a problem that keeps them on the ground though.

Having owned a K35, a current project V35A, and currently a 182, both are nice airplane to have. Having said that, to me the Bonanza was a much more enjoyable airplane to fly and there is no doubt in my mine that if I sold a Bonanza for a 182, I'd regret it.

In most cases, the cost are similar enough that I wouldn't want to go through the headaches of purchase and unknowns of a replacement airplane..

Jason

So do the 182RG's. If you don't let them just sit, which results in corroded lifters and cam lobes, they almost always make 2000 hr TBO.





Edit: Stuart, as Jesse stated below, you have a beautiful V-Tail that you are familiar with, and know from spinner to rudder. Your plane is the envy of this particular Skylane owner.

If our have your current plane well maintained and sorted out.... keep it. Why trade for something's else that is, even with a prebuy, not as well known?

I could see trading down from a C421 to a 182 at retirement... but if you're already at 13 GPH on a single engine, and 10 GPH when just kicking around for fun.... keep the Bo until it's time to step down to renting.

Stuart

Have not owned both but I can come up with 10 years worth of numbers for my 182M. If I take out the upgrades (and there have been several) we average about 2000/year to maintain including annual, somewhat less than 100 hrs/year.

That has included a couple of 3 or 4 high years [new rt fuel cell, new lift strut once(big ouch, pull the cuffs and inspect with Cessna SB in hand at prebuy), couple OH cylinders - but motor has ~1800 hrs SMOH, STEC 50 computer repair last year ~800)] but a large part of that is my partner and I do a lot of the work with our A&P. If the Boy Scouts had a merit badge for opening and closing a 182 for annual I would own it now. Annual, when we open/close is flat fee .65AMU.

Insurance runs us ~750/year. Frankly, as good as the bottom end looked when we last swapped a cylinder 2 or 3 years ago I would have no concerns going north of 2K on the motor.

But for the paint and avionics work we have done (and the interior we are about to do ) plane has been pretty dirt cheap.

An early 35, S or before you might get away as cheap but hard to see how.

RAS

Thanks for the replies (and compliments for my current Bonanza). So far, it appears that I was right and a trade wouldn't save much if anything. When you consider that a carbureted 470 will burn significantly more fuel in cruise than an injected 520 LOP, it may be that the 182 winds up costing more.

I have owned an F33A for many years and a C-182-Q for two dozen years before that. The Skylane was less expensive to own and maintain. Annuals and insurance were less and because systems were simpler regular maintenance was cheaper too. This assumes all things being equal because a historically well maintained Bonanza will cost less than a 182 with deferred maintenance.

I don't think relative cost of ownership should be a significant factor. These are two very different airplanes each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Other factors are more important when determining which aircraft to own and maintain.

The Bonanza on any trip will get there sooner and burn less gas than the 182 for one simple reason, it gets better gas mileage. If you slow the Bonanza down to 182 max cruise speeds it's a huge difference, about 4-5 GPH.

Does the P-ponk O-520 help much in cruise speed, or just climb? Are any 182's really cruising at 150 knots?