Alan Browne wrote:

I was speaking with a somewhat smug fellow the other day who claimed
older C-182's (1968 that I'm looking at) had inefficient wings and that
the Continental would not make it to 1500 hours; 1300 if I'm lucky. (The
one I'm looking at has 61 SMOH; about 5000 total; new paint, interior,
etc.). As far as I can tell there has been only a minor (factory) wing
configuration mod on the 182.

Is there a line in time or models where 182's should be avoided?

Better an older 182 or a newer 177 with 180 hp constant speed?



Between those two, no comparison. Get the 182. I've had them both.
There was no meaningful wing change on the entire 182 series. At some
point in the 70's they made the cuffed leading edge standard, that's a
minor change that reduced the stall and cruise speed a few knots. The
newer the 182 the heavier it is. Do not ever look at a newer one and be
sucked in by the fact it advertises a higher gross and therefore a
higher useful load. Remember every 182 uses the same 230 HP engine.
More weight always means less performance. Alway, always, always look
for low empty weights. Mine was about 1750 leaving a useful of 1050.
You'll find several newer ones that you can get a 1300+ pound useful but
they are the definition of a dog when loaded up.
The earlier models from 56-61 were just the Cessna 180 with a
nosewheel. In 62 they gave the 182 the wide body, 4 inches wider.
About 66 or 67 they gave it a bigger elevator which helps when landing
at light weights with full flaps. I had the 67 model and the late 60's
are kind of a sweet spot for the 182's. Over the years Cessna lowered
the 182 a half a dozen times so the airplane wasn't so tippy in high
winds while taxiing. Really only a factor with low time pilots.
To this day I would not want Continental cylinders. They still
cannot make a cylinder that reliably goes to TBO. Their bottom ends
will go forever but get either ECI or Superior cylinders if you ever
have to make a change.
I did put VG's on my 182. With those installed , rear seat out and
40 gallons I was able to fly final on a calm day at 50 MPH indicated and
a 450 foot landing. Using 60 MPH on final made it real stable and still
allowed some short landings.
The downside to the 182 and one of the main reasons I sold it was the
lack of space inside. I did install the Selkirk extended baggage which
really helped.
I set mine up for landing off road, not really caring about speed. I
had the 8.00's on the mains and a 6.00 nosewheel and I got about 125-130
kts true. I have two friends who have 182's now. One has the 550 and
canard on the nose. He has 29" bushwheels on the mains and an 8.50
nosewheel. The plane sits so high the prop spinner is nearly eye level
to me and I'm 6'2". There's no place he can't land as long as the
lengtn is there, he needs about 250 feet at light weights and gets maybe
140 knots at 15.5 gph. The other friend has his 182 setup for speed.
He has the full speed kit, that goofy looking nosewheel pant, landing
gear strut covers, tailpipe fairing, the whole deal. He gets about 145
knots at 75%, which will cost you 12.5 gph. It's a ton of money to
spend to get an extra 10 knots out of the plane considering I get the
same speed at 8.5 gph in my Bonanza.
After you get some time you'll find the insurance premium to be right
at $900-1000 for that model 182. An instrument rating will give little
to no benefit as far as the premium is concerned.
Some things I didn't like about the 182 is any maintenence on the
front end. That cowl is a *******, especially the lower cowl. A god
awful design that makes an oil change no fun. It takes longer to remove
and replace the two cowl halves than to actually do the oil change. If
you're limber you can snake a hose up to the quick drain thru one of the
cowl flaps. All in all a pretty good plane.