faster 182?

"John T" wrote:


...it trued 147 knots! Non-turbo at 5,500 feet,
10 deg. C OAT, 135 KIAS. ... The bad news is
that we were burning 15.5 GPH to get that speed.

The '67 182K I fly typically trues a good bit slower (~120), but I get much
better fuel burn. I'm typically burning about 12.5 gph at that altitude.

Lessee... 422nm trip @ 147 knots and 15.5 gph = 2.9 hours and $200 (no
wind and 100LL @ $4.50/gal). Same trip @ 120 kt & 12.5 gph = 3.5 hr and
$197.

Three dollars to buy 30 minutes? Tempting deal.

That's about the same mileage as Mobile to Houston, a frequent trip of mine.

In my airplane, that's 422nm/135KTAS = 3hrs 7 min. * 10.5gph * $4.50/g=
$148.00.

Hmm...$52 more to save 13 minutes. Not very exciting, but then the Skylane
is a much roomier ride than mine. Comfort counts.


My real question is: What power setting were you guys using? I'm usually in
the 65-70% range during cruise.


I believe it was 75% power, 23 X 2300, 25 deg. ROP.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

On Feb 12, 8:38 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:
Got a demo flight in a new Skylane Saturday morning. Very nice airplane.
The G1000 stuff was a bit bewildering at first but otherwise it flew just
like any good 182...

...except for one thing: it trued 147 knots! Non-turbo at 5,500 feet, 10 deg.
C OAT, 135 KIAS. Wow! That is 10 knots faster than my buddy's 1980 model.

The guy who runs the FBO that rents it ($190/hr) says their other Skylane is
just as fast. He said changes Cessna made to the cowl and wheel pants
starting in 2005 make the difference. The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

Oh, yeah, one other difference I noticed: the view forward is much better
than in older 182s, a combination of new glare shield and seat designs, I
suppose.

Ask them what the useful load is on that 182S. Our new G1000 182 has
much less useful load than my 76 Mooney, the 182 is slower and burns
almost 50% more fuel. However, I do enjoy flying the 182's G1000.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Ask them what the useful load is on that 182S.

1140 lbs.

Our new G1000 182 has
much less useful load than my 76 Mooney,

Eh? A quick web search tells me Mooneys of that vintage have less. What is
your Mooney's useful load?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Feb 13, 4:06 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Ask them what the useful load is on that 182S.

1140 lbs.

1140 lbs with the G1000 system?

Our new G1000 182 has
much less useful load than my 76 Mooney,

Eh? A quick web search tells me Mooneys of that vintage have less. What is
your Mooney's useful load?

My Mooney useful load is 1006 lbs. Our 182T's useful load is 900 lbs.
In addition the 182T requires almost 40% more fuel for the same
airtime but probably more like 50% more fuel for the same distance
covered (because the 182T is slower than the Mooney).

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Our 182T's useful load is 900 lbs.

Why so low? That's 68 lbs less than my 172RG.

On Feb 13, 1:06 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Our 182T's useful load is 900 lbs.

Why so low? That's 68 lbs less than my 172RG.

Now I'm starting to wonder. We do have some extra equipment (Sat
computer hook up in the back so back seat to surf the web va the XM on
laptop link up), but that stuff shouldn't weigh 200 lbs. I figured the
G1000 LRU's were just heavy.

-Robret

Ask them what the useful load is on that 182S.

It's a 182T