![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 13, 10:50 am, Newps wrote:
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 Except that those cylinders already have ADs against them... Dan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Ray Andraka wrote: wrote: On Nov 13, 10:50 am, Newps wrote: 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 Except that those cylinders already have ADs against them... Dan Only the ECI classic cast cylinders for ECI. If you get their premium ECI Titans, those do not have an AD against them. I don't know about Superior. Superiors had an AD for a short run of cylinders. Like ECI, Superior took care of the problem at no cost to the owner, other than the downtime. Lyc and Continental could learn some things from these guys. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
See & Avoid | Ol Shy & Bashful | Piloting | 27 | August 2nd 07 01:27 PM |
See and avoid... | Ramy | Soaring | 22 | January 30th 07 09:18 PM |
See and Avoid applies to both IFR and VFR | Brad Z | Piloting | 14 | July 17th 04 05:48 AM |
Avoid CSA website | F.L. Whiteley | Soaring | 2 | June 23rd 04 10:21 PM |
See and avoid | Kees Mies | Piloting | 39 | March 22nd 04 08:31 PM |