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
|
|||
|
|||
C-182's to avoid?
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? Thanks, Alan. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
C-182's to avoid?
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? Thanks, Alan. You will always be able to cell a 182 no matter the year and even the condition to a certain extent. It like a Chevy or Ford truck. There is a 68 or 69 teo hangers down that has 1800 hours SMOH and runs like the day it came out of the factory. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
C-182's to avoid?
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
C-182's to avoid?
On Nov 13, 9:53 am, 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. I've owned a 1968 L model since 1987. I got 2475 hours on the engine's first run, 2100 hours on the second run. I'm on the third run on the same bottom end with new cylinders. Most of the fuel has been auto gas. Mine has a Horton stol kit, which added the cuffed wing leading edge which came standard in the later models. The Horton kit also includes drooped tips, stall fences, aileron gap seals (you dont want flap gap seals) and stall initiator blades at the inboard end. If I got one w/o the stol kit today, I would probably add VGs instead of the cuff. The unmodified older wing gives more speed (higher efficiency) compared to the stol kit. The place where the stol kit adds benefit is slow speed handling and stall speed. I prefer the mid sixties to mid seventies models. The early ones have a much smaller cabin. The later ones have wet wings (pain in the ass to reseal), 28V electrics, and Lycoming engines, none of which I like... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
C-182's to avoid?
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... 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.). First of all, the engine will go as long as it is operated and maintained properly. Second, be aware that the first hours after overhaul are the most likely to produce a mechanical failure. Thirdly, new paint and exterior are nice, but often used to cover up other forms of neglect (NOTE: often, not always), and are mostly window dressing. 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? No, a fairly new one can be a lemon if not cared for properly. Better an older 182 or a newer 177 with 180 hp constant speed? Better any 182 than a 177 (IMNSHO), but if possible (ie, $$$), I'd go with one that's fuel injected, rather than carburated. -- Matt Barrow Performance Homes, LLC. Cheyenne, WY |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
C-182's to avoid?
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
... ... Is there a line in time or models where 182's should be avoided? ... I would try to avoid the ones that keep getting bigger and bigger in the middle of your windscreen :-) -- Geoff The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
C-182's to avoid?
I owned a 182L from 97 thru 2001 when I went to a T310Q. I put 1100 hr on
the 182 in 4 yrs and I think I'll go back to a 182 when I get rid of the 310. The 68 model has the highest service ceiling (I believe) at 17,900. I dont think mine would get to that but I did have it up to 16,000 once crossing the Rockies. I had a modest panel and felt very comfortable flying IFR (IMC). Mark |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
C-182's to avoid?
Cessna pilots association has a nice buyer's guide to 182 available:
www.cessna.org I believe the 182 may have had a similar history to the 172. In the 172 line which I am quite familiar with, the original wing was not as cambered and hence not as efficient as the newer wings. That being said, the original straight tailed, fast backed versions were much more aerodynamic and produced much more overall lift that the newer designs. The back window and swept tail were added for looks and really messed up the aerodynamics. The O300 of the 172 line typically requires a top overhaul at the half way point to make it to TBO. It is a very reliable engine though and like most older engines can burn mogas which saves lots of money when pilgrimaging to OSH. If you join CPA, they have a wonderful web forum where you can talk to hundreds of 182 owners across the country. Helen 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? Thanks, Alan. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
C-182's to avoid?
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
C-182's to avoid?
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. Engine issue reads more like a G0-300 on a C-175 Better an older 182 or a newer 177 with 180 hp constant speed? That 177 sounds sweet, just remember the wing/flap is lower to the ground (about where my forehead meets the nose) when walking from the tail back towards the front... Large doors and lack of struts sure make for a nice plane to get in and out of... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |