C182 Downsides

182 is a great airplane. Watch for firewall damage, especially in early models. People like to land them flat, or on the nose.
 
If I were in the price range of a 182 for personal use, I would only be looking at experimental.
 
Why such a high price tag for parts? I get they have to be approved, carry a TSO etc. What was described previously in this thread is just ludacris. I could see if a jug had to be overhauled, that costing an arm and a leg, but a door handle?
 
First, a 182 is a fine airplane. My wife, who is a nervous flier, likes the stability and room in a 182. A 182RG is the first plane she actually said she could see us owning. The extra cost of the RG makes it a lot more expensive for an extra 15 kts.

esa17 said:
Just about the only retract I would consider is a Johnson-bar mooney but someone who has never looked at the cabin dimensions of a bonanza will be along shortly to tell you how much smaller they are. (Hint: headroom doesn't equal legroom)
Click to expand...

I don't get the "Mooney's have no room" crowd. I hit my head on the ceiling on a Bonanza/Baron unless the seat cushions are entirely worn out, but the Mooney was fine. You sit with your legs more in front of you than under you, but plenty of room. I mean, I'll take a 210 if you want room, speed, and payload.
 
msmspilot said:
First, a 182 is a fine airplane. My wife, who is a nervous flier, likes the stability and room in a 182. A 182RG is the first plane she actually said she could see us owning. The extra cost of the RG makes it a lot more expensive for an extra 15 kts.



I don't get the "Mooney's have no room" crowd. I hit my head on the ceiling on a Bonanza/Baron unless the seat cushions are entirely worn out, but the Mooney was fine. You sit with your legs more in front of you than under you, but plenty of room. I mean, I'll take a 210 if you want room, speed, and payload.
Click to expand...


The price is higher, but I'd take this 182 over a 182RG. they have about the same speed.

http://m.controller.com/ListingDetail/Index?industryName=CONTROLLER&listingId=1370421&categoryId=6
 
msmspilot said:
The inherent problem with the New Cessnas is the reduction in payload over the old ones. I realize that that's mostly because of soundproofing and safer seats, but on the 172s the reduction was horrendous. I haven't looked as closely at the new 182s.
Click to expand...


182T....T is for "Tank." I'm not sure how the empty weights compare, but the T is a 150+ KTAS aircraft. The redline is 2400 RPM and runs nice and smooth. With just me at 9000 was trueing at 153-4 and running at the top of the green arcs. When I grow up and get a real job...I'll get a 182T....right after a helicopter. :-) ...and Powerball.

FWIW, 2001 was the first year of the T. The S was slower and there was a lot of aerodynamic improvements in the T. 2004 was the first run of the G1000 with the King KAP 140 autopilot. Watch for the crank SB.
 
deadstick said:
182T....T is for "Tank." I'm not sure how the empty weights compare, but the T is a 150+ KTAS aircraft. The redline is 2400 RPM and runs nice and smooth. With just me at 9000 was trueing at 153-4 and running at the top of the green arcs. When I grow up and get a real job...I'll get a 182T....right after a helicopter. :) ...and Powerball.

FWIW, 2001 was the first year of the T. The S was slower and there was a lot of aerodynamic improvements in the T. 2004 was the first run of the G1000 with the King KAP 140 autopilot. Watch for the crank SB.
Click to expand...

Good info. I'll have to give them a look.
 
I appreciate the info so far. A 182T looks like a nice airplane but now we're talking WAY out of my price range. I was looking to stay under 100k. Also I was told by a Boeing engineer for was former Cessna that the machining and workmanship quality after Cessna closed and reopened is noticeably lower quality. Not sure how true that is but I've never flown a new Cessna. Definitely prefer the Continental engines too. Either way there are lots of really nice 182L-R models that are well under 100k but those T's are well beyond that. I agree though, it looks like that would be a better value than a 182RG.
 
The 182Q's are a pretty good buy. Wet wing, highest payload (1150 useful with the gross weight increase). Wide Landing gear. 145+ True Airspeed with a RPM increase STC.

The STEC 55X (STEC 55 for non GPSS) autopilot are the nicest autopilots on the market for the 182. So if you see one that has it, it will probabaly be more expensive. But they are pretty nice. The older autopilots are not supported that well.
 
A 182Q was my real choice but I just found a 1968 L model that's really nice. I would say literally 9-10/10 on paint/interior/panel. Low time engine/prop, recent paint and leather interior, full IFR/garmin 430. I was looking for newer but might be the right buy. With the lower price for age I could get an autopilot or some other upgrade.
 
The membership is waning, but Cessna Pilots Association is worth the one year subscription to get some fellow ownership perspective.
 
Dan208B said:
Actually there's a Cherokee 260 for sale at my local airport but they're just so darn ugly. I might have to go look at it anyways.
Click to expand...
See, I think Pipers are pretty and Cessnas are bland. If it were me I'd keep it and throw on some bushwheels and a borer prop.
 
I Love the 182. That would be my pick, or an SR20 for a lot more. The 182 performs well on day to day operations in all circumstances except power-on stalls. I've found that the rudder inputs have to be spot on, or it will try to spin on you. It is not forgiving in this realm.

You'll be using this as a daily driver, so not really an issue outside of normal use. Be aware on go arounds, high pitch climbs, and short field takeoffs. Otherwise it operates very well at low speeds and low power. Respect the engine and everything is fine.
 
Dan208B said:
I appreciate the info so far. A 182T looks like a nice airplane but now we're talking WAY out of my price range. I was looking to stay under 100k. Also I was told by a Boeing engineer for was former Cessna that the machining and workmanship quality after Cessna closed and reopened is noticeably lower quality. Not sure how true that is but I've never flown a new Cessna. Definitely prefer the Continental engines too. Either way there are lots of really nice 182L-R models that are well under 100k but those T's are well beyond that. I agree though, it looks like that would be a better value than a 182RG.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top