C182 Downsides

Roger Roger said:
Cessna parts are approaching Beech in ridiculosity. Bought a door handle shaft for a 206/207 one week for $600 (already highway robbery) but the next week it was up to $1000. We spent thousands of dollars just on refurbing 2 pilot seats this winter. Then again on a private plane you won't see near the wear and tear and subsequent parts costs that we do. It may have a Conti but at least the bottom cowl comes off so the inevitable cylinder, intake rubber, and pushrod seal changes are a little easier.
Click to expand...
A $600 door handle... Dude, that's what ramp mummies are for!!!
 
Dan208B said:
Hey all, I'm looking at Cessna 182s to upgrade to from my current airplane. After a great deal of research it seems to be the right airplane to fit my mission (some fun/scenic flying with some cross countries and light IFR as well). I'm looking at year ranges from about 1968 - 1979 (L-Q models). I am pretty well sold on this airplane type and am pretty familiar with their capabilities and such. I have a bit of time in a 1974 P model but its been about 7 years since I've flown one. What I'm looking for is any input on downsides of these airplanes to be aware of, both from operational and maintenance perspectives. It seems like there are very few but I thought I would solicit this group as there are probably a lot of people with more 182 time than I have. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Look at a Jabiru. 120kts at about 4gph. 500lb useful load. Stressed to 7Gs. Spin approved. Sold as LSA in America, but as a real airplane in Australia. So throw the back seat back in, remove the governor from the engine and have yourself a merry christmas.
Oh, yeah. And it's new as opposed to 20-40 years old.
 
The 182 is about the best compromise of room, speed and utility you can get for the price range. I enjoyed my hours in old and late models. Just wish they had deice capabilities for this area.
 
trafficinsight said:
The build quality was always crappy, honestly. You wouldn't believe the things I've seen in 35+ year old airplanes.

One had an entire row of rivets in the belly that were pounded over like nails. I'd never get away with that, I can't figure out why the factory was allowed to.
Click to expand...
Those are special rivets, you can only get them from Yingling for $17 each, and they only make a production run in years when November has five Tuesdays, and there is one guy who works at Cessna who knows the parts supersedure history that lets you use a standard part in it's place, and he only works 8 am to noon eastern time on February 29th.
 
So speaking of Cherokees I am also looking at a Piper Turbo Arrow IV. Anyone have any experience in these? I've never flown an arrow. Economics seems impressive compared to a 182 for cross countries - less fuel burn and almost 20 knots faster. I'm also told the O-470 engine in the 182 is much more prone to cylinder issues than the TSIO-360 in the Arrow so even with gear maintenance the average annual costs may be about the same over the time you own the airplane. Any thoughts on general ownership and operation of a Turbo Arrow? I'm down to 2 airplanes right now that I'm considering making an offer on, also including a 1968 182L.
 
Dan208B said:
So speaking of Cherokees I am also looking at a Piper Turbo Arrow IV. Anyone have any experience in these? I've never flown an arrow. Economics seems impressive compared to a 182 for cross countries - less fuel burn and almost 20 knots faster. I'm also told the O-470 engine in the 182 is much more prone to cylinder issues than the TSIO-360 in the Arrow so even with gear maintenance the average annual costs may be about the same over the time you own the airplane. Any thoughts on general ownership and operation of a Turbo Arrow? I'm down to 2 airplanes right now that I'm considering making an offer on, also including a 1968 182L.
Click to expand...
If I were in the market for a personal airplane, I would stay away from anything with a turbo.
 
The Arrow III has a conventional tail and, personally, that's a plus. As for the engine, they're both Continentals, but the turbo is...particular. The only way I'd get one is with a runout engine (1st run) at the right price. Then I'd get the fresh OH with new cylinders, and have the automatic waste gate and intercooler installed if they weren't already.
 
I am very familiar with maintenance and operational costs and considerations of an RG and turbo. However I don't have any experience in this aircraft series. Looking for opinions on how they fly and pros and cons of the Arrow for 4 people and baggage loading ease and handling characteristics, etc.
 
The only Arrow IV I've had experience with was in the shop more than it was flying. I did like how it flew but that was about it.

Hate only one front door, oleo strut was always stuck, low wing took away the view and also seemed to hit every taxiway marker at small airports.
 
My school had 6 or 8 arrows for commercial training. They took a beating and I can't remember having any issues with reliability. They weren't all that much faster than the archers though, and at considerable cost. Though I'd kill for a constant speed prop.
 
z987k said:
My school had 6 or 8 arrows for commercial training. They took a beating and I can't remember having any issues with reliability. They weren't all that much faster than the archers though, and at considerable cost. Though I'd kill for a constant speed prop.
Click to expand...
Were they turbo arrows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top