wrote in message
ups.com...
We have run both the R182 and the TR182, and found that the
turbo and its systems gave some trouble. The exhaust piping runs hotter
and springs more leaks, the wastegate linkage can be troublesome,

Yup, that matches my experience with my turbocharger. But wouldn't it be
the same issue whether we're talking about a TR182 or a T210?

and
the carb is really hard to get at, as is the dual magneto.

No carb on my airplane, but it has the dual magneto. Tucked under the turbo
discharge of course. Mechanics just *love* working on that thing.

Many
scratches on the arms and hands and a temptation to use inappropriate
language.

Like I said.

The gear needs watching. The pivot has to be kept properly
adjusted or the airplane's weight ends up on the wrong place on the
trunnion and cracks it, letting out the brake fluid which runs through
a channel drilled in it. The nosegear has a locking pin that's subject
to cracking and falling out.

Isn't the retractable gear on the 182 similar to the gear on the 210? That
was my point, that yes these problems exist, but I think that going with a
TR182 doesn't reduce one's exposure, compared to a T210.

That's all from my standpoint as a mechanic. If you have $30K
to spend, someone else will fuss with those problems. From my other
position as a pilot, the turbo makes high-altitude cruising possible,
if you have oxygen,

After having flown my turbocharged airplane for almost 12 years now, I would
not own a normally-aspirated airplane except as a local-hop toy. The turbo
is just WAY too useful, whether for high-altitude airports or the big boost
in cruise speed at altitude.

and this airplane is a sweetheart to fly, with no
bad habits other than a wicked float if you don't get intelligent about
approach speeds versus weight,

Heh...never occurred to me to complain about float for any Cessna. But yes,
I suppose if you land with way too much speed, you'll spend your sweet time
slowing down. Heck, in my early years of flying, I once managed to use up
nearly all of an 1800' runway in a C172. No, there was no 50' obstacle. So
anything's possible.

But then that's an issue with any airplane. Too-high approach and landing
speeds result in much-longer-than-necessary landing distances. I wouldn't
call that a "bad habit" on the part of the 182. If anything, I'd say the
182's short-field capability is one good selling point over the 210 (which
is no runway hog itself).

Pete