TR182 cost of ownership - maintenance, etc.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
Officially a retractable 182 is an R182. The turbo model is the TR182. It
is common to see 182RG and T182RG but to Cessna these are wrong.

Doesn't surprise me. I just wanted to alert John that there are people like
me going around using unofficial terms.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
Officially a retractable 182 is an R182. The turbo model is the TR182.
It
is common to see 182RG and T182RG but to Cessna these are wrong.

Doesn't surprise me. I just wanted to alert John that there are people
like
me going around using unofficial terms.


For FAA/ATC purposes, it's designator is C82R.

NW_PILOT wrote:


TR 182 Exelent Airplane!

If we could rate Usenet posts like customers do for Amazon.com's product
reviews, I would have to choose, "Not Helpful."


--
Peter

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, and
the carb is really hard to get at, as is the dual magneto. Many
scratches on the arms and hands and a temptation to use inappropriate
language.
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.
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, 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, and that float usually means a
faster-than-normal touchdown and flat-spotted tires because the tires
are small and the brakes are powerful. The airplane's Vso is 37 knots,
so you have to land it when it's ready to land. Not before. The
15x6.00-6 tires cost a lot more than the ordinary 6.00-6's.

Dan

I've owned a TR182 for about five years. Here are a few impressions:

1) The turbo is HOT, and the heat causes some engine problems. I've
replaced the turbo once, and had various waste gate and hose problems
along the way. Not a huge concern, but has probably averaged $500-700
a year over the five years.

2) The oil cooler is not efficient. Climb out on a hot day (especially
in Colorado, where I live) generally has to be done as a step climb to
keep the oil cool enough. There is an STC to add an additional cowling
hole in front of the oil cooler, but I believe it would trim a few
knots off the plane as well.

3) Given that the engine runs hot, it is a good idea to try and avoid
shock cooling. Plan ahead.

4) There is a carb heat knob. I've never used it. (See engine runs
hot, above....)

5) Always, always, always let the engine idle for at least four
minutes before shutdown to keep the turbo alive another day.

6) The turbo is, of course, a normalizer. I get 31" on climbout up to
about 8,000 feet. 28" at about 10,000. 17" at FL180. Obviously
different numbers in summer and winter, but that's a general idea.

7) Cruise speeds do not really match the book, at least in my plane. I
get roughly 140 at 5.000, 150 at 10,000, 160 at 17,000.

8) Although everyone talks about it, I've never had a landing gear
problem, except one self-induced problem when I did a carrier landing
after encountering some low wind shear and I got a hairline crack in
part of the gear. That was expensive - around $1,500 I believe.

9) I don't have a lot of experience with other planes, but I have to
say that the 182 is a very simple IFR platform. Very stable, trim
works excellently, easy to nail the ILS almost hands off.

10) Along the same lines, it is a very forgiving airplane. Having the
gear to drop is like being able to throw out an anchor - makes speed
management and descents pretty simple.

11) It can haul a lot of weight. Although I have not, of course, ever
exceeded the weight part of the W&B, no matter what load has been in
the plane I have been able to get 600 fpm climb out of my 5,000 foot
airport on a hot summer day. Alone on a cold winter day I can be at
17,000 feet in less than 15 minutes.

12) Fit and finish is typical of a 25 year old Cessna. Lots of air
leaks. Luckily it has a good heater. Don't expect to stay dry flying
through heavy rain.

13) I've run the engine at all types of settings, but I feel most
comfortable about protecting the cylinders by running about 100
degrees rich. This gives me fuel burn of about 15gph at 10,000 and
about 13 gph at 17,000. You can certainly run it much leaner, but I
believe it will show up in the annual compression checks.

By the way, the $160 K is high (although I wish it wasn't). There's
probably more, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Feel
free to email me off line.

Michael

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

I haven't owned a TR182 but I did own a 182 for 7 years and now a
Bonanza. After reading the info below I cannot believe anybody would
pick the TR182 with these deficiencies listed below. I'm assuming the
OP had to have a turbo because the list below just screams "don't buy
me." So you are considering a slow plane that you can't climb because
it will burn up. It leaks air like a sieve and oh, by the way, don't
land too hard or you'll crack the gear and all the brake fluid will leak
out. It's no wonder I never considered a Cessna when it was time to
upgrade.



Michael 182 wrote:
I've owned a TR182 for about five years. Here are a few impressions:

1) The turbo is HOT, and the heat causes some engine problems. I've
replaced the turbo once, and had various waste gate and hose problems
along the way. Not a huge concern, but has probably averaged $500-700
a year over the five years.

2) The oil cooler is not efficient. Climb out on a hot day (especially
in Colorado, where I live) generally has to be done as a step climb to
keep the oil cool enough. There is an STC to add an additional cowling
hole in front of the oil cooler, but I believe it would trim a few
knots off the plane as well.

3) Given that the engine runs hot, it is a good idea to try and avoid
shock cooling. Plan ahead.

4) There is a carb heat knob. I've never used it. (See engine runs
hot, above....)

5) Always, always, always let the engine idle for at least four
minutes before shutdown to keep the turbo alive another day.

6) The turbo is, of course, a normalizer. I get 31" on climbout up to
about 8,000 feet. 28" at about 10,000. 17" at FL180. Obviously
different numbers in summer and winter, but that's a general idea.

7) Cruise speeds do not really match the book, at least in my plane. I
get roughly 140 at 5.000, 150 at 10,000, 160 at 17,000.

8) Although everyone talks about it, I've never had a landing gear
problem, except one self-induced problem when I did a carrier landing
after encountering some low wind shear and I got a hairline crack in
part of the gear. That was expensive - around $1,500 I believe.

9) I don't have a lot of experience with other planes, but I have to
say that the 182 is a very simple IFR platform. Very stable, trim
works excellently, easy to nail the ILS almost hands off.

10) Along the same lines, it is a very forgiving airplane. Having the
gear to drop is like being able to throw out an anchor - makes speed
management and descents pretty simple.

11) It can haul a lot of weight. Although I have not, of course, ever
exceeded the weight part of the W&B, no matter what load has been in
the plane I have been able to get 600 fpm climb out of my 5,000 foot
airport on a hot summer day. Alone on a cold winter day I can be at
17,000 feet in less than 15 minutes.

12) Fit and finish is typical of a 25 year old Cessna. Lots of air
leaks. Luckily it has a good heater. Don't expect to stay dry flying
through heavy rain.

13) I've run the engine at all types of settings, but I feel most
comfortable about protecting the cylinders by running about 100
degrees rich. This gives me fuel burn of about 15gph at 10,000 and
about 13 gph at 17,000. You can certainly run it much leaner, but I
believe it will show up in the annual compression checks.

By the way, the $160 K is high (although I wish it wasn't). There's
probably more, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Feel
free to email me off line.

Michael

Michael 182 wrote:

6) The turbo is, of course, a normalizer. I get 31" on climbout up to
about 8,000 feet. 28" at about 10,000. 17" at FL180. Obviously
different numbers in summer and winter, but that's a general idea.

Interesting. My Bonanza V35 is equipped with a Tornado Alley
turbo-normalized IO-520 and MP remains at 29.92 (top of the green arc) from
sea level to roughly FL200. Above this altitude, MP begins to drop off.

I am not a qualified mechanic, nor do I have years and years of aviation
experience in many different aircraft, but the idea of losing MP at 8,000
feet in a turbo-equipped aircraft just doesn't seem right to me.

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:

Michael 182 wrote:


6) The turbo is, of course, a normalizer. I get 31" on climbout up to
about 8,000 feet. 28" at about 10,000. 17" at FL180. Obviously
different numbers in summer and winter, but that's a general idea.


Interesting. My Bonanza V35 is equipped with a Tornado Alley
turbo-normalized IO-520 and MP remains at 29.92 (top of the green arc) from
sea level to roughly FL200. Above this altitude, MP begins to drop off.

I am not a qualified mechanic, nor do I have years and years of aviation
experience in many different aircraft, but the idea of losing MP at 8,000
feet in a turbo-equipped aircraft just doesn't seem right to me.

Smaller turbo, yet another reason to scratch your head and say why?

Some additional comments to this excellent list.

I had a turbo normalized Mooney. Did not have an inter cooler which
would have helped reduce some heat especially CHT on climb out.
I'm here in Houston and in summer time I'd climb 10-15 mph faster than
published figures to keep engine well below red line (baby that baby).
This of course caused more time to altitude. At destination I'd pull
MP back 5 or so inches (keeping good power on engine to prevent
cooling shock) and run AS up to yellow line for descent. My block time
was as good or better than published even with the very slow climb.

On comment #5. 100% on the mark. This relates directly to $ and down
time to replace the turbo. Cool that baby off before shut down.

Additional. Don't over boost the engine. Again more $ exposure and
possible failure when you don't want a failure if you have stressed
the engine.

The Bo's a good bird. Most accidents in it are related to pilot
proficiency and bad decisions. I'd get a pencil and paper and lay out
the good and bad of the 210-182-Bo for my requirements before I put my
money down.

I've got time (and instructed in) 182-210 and a little in Bo. Also
T-34 time). All good birds if maintained properly.

If I were going to lay out hard cash I'd go fly (rent) each bird that
I didn't have time in and fly it on a typical mission to see how it
fit my requirements.

Keep the fan turning and the beer cold )

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:28:26 -0700, Michael 182
wrote:

I've owned a TR182 for about five years. Here are a few impressions:

1) The turbo is HOT, and the heat causes some engine problems. I've
replaced the turbo once, and had various waste gate and hose problems
along the way. Not a huge concern, but has probably averaged $500-700
a year over the five years.

2) The oil cooler is not efficient. Climb out on a hot day (especially
in Colorado, where I live) generally has to be done as a step climb to
keep the oil cool enough. There is an STC to add an additional cowling
hole in front of the oil cooler, but I believe it would trim a few
knots off the plane as well.

3) Given that the engine runs hot, it is a good idea to try and avoid
shock cooling. Plan ahead.

4) There is a carb heat knob. I've never used it. (See engine runs
hot, above....)

5) Always, always, always let the engine idle for at least four
minutes before shutdown to keep the turbo alive another day.

6) The turbo is, of course, a normalizer. I get 31" on climbout up to
about 8,000 feet. 28" at about 10,000. 17" at FL180. Obviously
different numbers in summer and winter, but that's a general idea.

7) Cruise speeds do not really match the book, at least in my plane. I
get roughly 140 at 5.000, 150 at 10,000, 160 at 17,000.

8) Although everyone talks about it, I've never had a landing gear
problem, except one self-induced problem when I did a carrier landing
after encountering some low wind shear and I got a hairline crack in
part of the gear. That was expensive - around $1,500 I believe.

9) I don't have a lot of experience with other planes, but I have to
say that the 182 is a very simple IFR platform. Very stable, trim
works excellently, easy to nail the ILS almost hands off.

10) Along the same lines, it is a very forgiving airplane. Having the
gear to drop is like being able to throw out an anchor - makes speed
management and descents pretty simple.

11) It can haul a lot of weight. Although I have not, of course, ever
exceeded the weight part of the W&B, no matter what load has been in
the plane I have been able to get 600 fpm climb out of my 5,000 foot
airport on a hot summer day. Alone on a cold winter day I can be at
17,000 feet in less than 15 minutes.

12) Fit and finish is typical of a 25 year old Cessna. Lots of air
leaks. Luckily it has a good heater. Don't expect to stay dry flying
through heavy rain.

13) I've run the engine at all types of settings, but I feel most
comfortable about protecting the cylinders by running about 100
degrees rich. This gives me fuel burn of about 15gph at 10,000 and
about 13 gph at 17,000. You can certainly run it much leaner, but I
believe it will show up in the annual compression checks.

By the way, the $160 K is high (although I wish it wasn't). There's
probably more, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Feel
free to email me off line.

Michael