With my Florida son now back in Indiana, it's somewhat possible that my mission has changed to shorter trips carrying greater loads. Which gets me to thinking about trading for a 182 or Dakota (maybe a Cherokee 6 or 206), mostly to save on maintenance.

I know that later 182s seem to be faster than the older ones, but I don't know why. So, which are the fastest, how fast do they go, and how much fuel do they burn? Will the IO-470 in a 182 run LOP? Budget-wise, I expect I'm limited to the pre-1990's models.

People say that a Bonanza doesn't cost a lot more to maintain than a 182 and, to some extent, I believe it. OTOH, my big maintenance expense has been the engine, which wouldn't be any better in a 182. But $2-3000 annuals are a bargain in the Bo, and I just can't believe that 182 drivers are paying that. What's more, any piston guy can work on a 182; there isn't this need to go somewhere in search of a renowned expert.

I can only answer a couple of your questions. I have a good friend with a '77 182RG. I fly it with him regularly. We flight plan for 160 kts. and the fuel burn is around 12 gph. I say "around," as that is the best we can figure with no fancy monitors, just hr. flown vs. fuel burned. And we fly a combination of practice flights, air work, and occasional cross country.

We used to plan on 156 kts. cruise before he had the plane stripped and repainted. I thought he was kidding when he told me he'd gained the four knots, until he took me up and proved it.

I can't recall how those figures compare with a fixed-gear.

I had a 67 182 before the Bo, had it for 7 years. Annuals averaged about $1200. I had bigger tires and no wheel pants and got 150 MPH true. It would indicate 135 MPH in the summer and 140 in the winter. I have a friend who has the Pponk engine which is a carb'd 520 at 275 HP. She will indicate about 150 MPH in the summer, terrific performer. Newer ones get heavy and are ponderous at best. The early light ones are great performers but do seem to be a little slower.

My own opinion is if you already have a "known quality" in your Bonanza, keep it. I had a K35, then a B55, and now a project V35A. To keep me flying (in the GA world anyways) until the Bonanza is done, I purchased half of a 1962 182E that one of my friends was selling. I've known (and flown) this airplane for the past 20 years, usually as a CFI-I until the purchased. I found that while the 182 is a great airplane, it's not a Bonanza when it comes to trips. My normal flight is about 140NM and is about 10-15 minutes shorter in the Bonanza. I've found that the total round trip fuel burn will be about five gallons higher in the 182 than the Bonanza due to the decreased speed. I usually see 137KTAS from the 182 without the wheel pants, and expect to see one to three knots more with them on when I get around to installing them. I plan for 13GPH when running ROP, and haven't experimented with LOP much yet. My 182 is STC'd for autofuel, but I know it hasn't been run in it over the past 20 years.

I'm not a good source for maintenance costs, as I do almost all of my own maintenance under the supervision of my IA. The last annual we had $1254 in parts, including one overhauled cylinder, upgraded instrument light dimmer, oil, various filters, landing light, etc. This years bills have been $158 for a nose strut reseal and $900 bill from S-Tec for autopilot repair earlier this year. I can't imagine we'll see more than about $500 in parts this year (including this winters annual) as I've kept a close eye on anything needed this year and taken care of it. This year I will see some cost from a propeller IRAN, but the Bonanza would have the same cost. Other than that, our next big costs will be an engine, and since it'll be done in house, I don't anticipate it to be too bad. This airplane has sat alot (100 hours in the past seven years), so some of our recent costs are just catching up..

The 182 is simpler to work on in most cases, and like you said any maintenance personnel should be able to maintain it. I don't see a significant increase of labor in the Bonanza compared to the 182, but there obviously is some.

Parts availability seems to be a bit better with the 182, both used, new, and aftermarket. I honestly haven't see much of a noticeable difference in parts cost between the Beech and Cessna that was common in the past.

Insurance is probably slightly less, but I didn't see the bill (lumped together by my partner with hangar costs) so that's only an assumption.

Jason

The autofuel STC is intriguing if you can find a decent way to transport the fuel and fill the plane. Pricing in my area about $4/gallon for enthanol free autofuel vs $6.35 avgas. At 12 GPH you would save roughly $2400/yr assuming 100 hrs utilization.

Stuart,
My former aircraft, 1978 C182Q, burned 12.5 GPH at 133 kts. Would not run LOP smoothly. Useful load was 1100 lbs.

My favorite model is the 182N. Light, fast, STOL and all the important upgrades there. A major asset is if the aircraft was factory zinc-chromated (was an option). Late 70ies and all 80ies models you must really be careful because the sound proofing used invites corrosion.

1100#?

That's no better than the Bo, though I'm sure the CG is easier to work with. I need to carry about 600# of people and some 50# of bags. My Bo will do that, but barely.

And using 133kt and 12.5 gph for the 182, the Bo is looking pretty efficient at 12.5gph and 165KTAS. My typical 200nm trip is 18 minutes faster and almost 4 gallons cheaper in the Bonanza. Interesting what you get with analysis of real data.

I wouldn't trade a 182 for a Bonanza for your stated mission. Even in good circumstances, the potential transaction costs are going to swamp any maintenance savings for a long time. A couple modest surprises in the 182 and you'll never get ahead.

I'm sure an IO-470 would run LOP in a 182, but that's not the engine most 182s have. Everything prior to the restarts ('97) was carbureted and they don't have a great reputation for running LOP. In addition to the draggy gear, the 182 uses a 7:1 compression ratio engine. Allows mogas but decreases efficiency.

Stuart,

I have had my 1976 Skylane for just over 10 years. I am not looking to go fast, just enjoy the ride. I have a stock engine and propeller. I set power to around 65% (22", 2200rpm) and lean aggressively. I get 130kts TAS @ 10-11GPH depending on altitude. My 1976 was the last year for the auto fuel STC which is why I selected this model. (although I have never used auto gas).

My annuals have run about what Scott indicated although it was a LOT more when I first got the aircraft. (no big surprise there). Since I replaced the fuel cells and about every accessory during the first 3 years, I have had no issues except what is normally expected.

The airplane is a very stable IFR platform with a fairly good sized interior that will comfortably seat 4. Assuming you purchase one without the gross weight increase STC, you can usual fit 3 200# people and full fuel (75gal usable), or 4 200# people and 50gal of fuel (about 4 hours). My aircraft empty weight is 1825# which makes my useful load 1125#. (1275# with the STC).

I will let others offer advice on whether it makes sense to sell your beautiful "V" for a Skylane as I am not qualified to do so Should you have specific questions about my vintage Skylane, feel free to pm me.

Kevin

Stewart. I owned a 74 182P for 8 yrs. Bought it with 1100 TT. and paid 19K for it in 82. It had long range fuel 84 gallons usable, and I burned mostly auto fuel except when I was on long trips and could not find mogas. That was before airnav.com and other mogas sites. I paid a hundred bucks for my supervised annuals, John Brown, the ol duffer worked out of the back of his rabbit diesel and had a loyal following of los angeles based customers. He used to call me a dirty bird! He was pretty sharp and taught me a lot about my plane. I had another old fart inspector that was more concerned about my paperwork than the actual condition of my plane, I only used him once.

With the original engine I could cruise at 150 mph, wide open throttle and leaned out above 10K, burning just under 12 gallons an hr. Longest flight was 7 hrs 15 minutes, originating from a small strip just south of the canadian border landing on fumes in cottonwood arizona. Yes that 182 was a real load hauler! With # 5 in the oven I felt it was time for a bigger plane. The beech18 really fit the bill, 400 gallons of mo gas, The wife and 7 kids and room for a friend or two to come along.

Les Leonard in eagles roost arizona installed flap gap seals, for 275.00 He said if I didnt get at least 8mph, come on back and he would refund me my money. I swear to god I got 160mph!.

That vintage of O 470 was bullit proof. 230 hp. It finally had it overhauled at 2100TT by a friend at KWHP. 2700.00 in parts and I traded labor working on his honda car. Back then it was a 10K caper for a major. I have seen these boutique 0 470 engines go for 35K!

John Brown tried to convince me to keep the 182 and not straight trade for my beech18. He said with the "Charlie Siebel Speed" kit the 182 would do 180 mph, 3 miles a minute.

I personally think you should keep your bonanza, why get rid of a known airplane that you have maintained.

Those numbers are one of the reasons why I started looking for an A36 a few months ago. I currently have a 1980 182Q, UL ~1200lbs no CG worries, 92 Gal. fuel, and I flight plan 135 kts at 13 gph. All of the legacy planes will be carb'd and most will not do very good LOP. I absolutely love my 182 and it will be a hard decision if I ever decide to sell it, but one of the biggest factors for wanting an A36 is my family. We fit in the 182 fine but after being in and around a Bonanza my wife says it just seems like such a more substantial plane plus they like the big doors and club seating.

Here are some photos of the seibel speed kit. Modified nose wheel fairing, streamlining of main gear wheel covers covering brake calipers, exhaust fairing, prop spinner fairing, flap gap seals. All aerodynamic clean ups. The kit used to be about 3500.00 plus labor. Not sure you could even find this stuff anymore?

http://pilotbrian.blogspot.com/2008/05/ ... ments.html

Putting aside the insane capital outlay,how many have looked at Cessna 182 JT-A (diesel, 155 kt @ 11gal/hr). Myself, I see a plane of the future.

You might want to toss the C205 into the mix. Priced like a C182. Hauls like a C206.
Fuel-injected, so it can run LOP. But the IO-470 won't run on Mogas without the
Petersen STC for water injection ... and that STC is currently unavailable.

With full fuel, I've got 1,047# left for the cabin.

All C205's have the P206 door arrangement; not the U206 barn doors.

Doug