C-182 or C-1820RG, or C-210....

[[email protected]]

I'm thinking of buying a 182 or 182 RG.
I like cessnas and the 182 is such an honest airplane it's hard to beat.

I'd just like it to be a bit faster.

If all of the speed mods are done to a normal C-182 , Good wheel pants, speed fairings, gap seals etc.....
how fast is it?

For comparision how fast is the C-182 RG or a normall 210? (Not turbo)



Paul

[Jim]

I plan on an honest 140 IAS in the 182RG I rent, some may say faster but I
never count on it with this particular plane.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply


> wrote in message
...
> I'm thinking of buying a 182 or 182 RG.
> I like cessnas and the 182 is such an honest airplane it's hard to beat.
>
> I'd just like it to be a bit faster.
>
> If all of the speed mods are done to a normal C-182 , Good wheel pants,
speed fairings, gap seals etc.....
> how fast is it?
>
> For comparision how fast is the C-182 RG or a normall 210? (Not turbo)
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Jim" wrote:
> I plan on an honest 140 IAS in the 182RG I rent,

That doesn't tell us much if you don't say at what altitude you're
indicating 140.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:
> For comparision how fast is the C-182 RG

A 182RG can be as much as 20 or as little as 10 knots faster than a
straight-leg182. I've flown a non-turbo182RG that would true 155 knots,
but I am told that is exceptional. My friend's 1976 Skylane trues 133
knots at 6000'. I once rode in '99 Skylane that did 142 KTAS at 7,000.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Kevin Horton]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:33:29 -0600, Dan Luke wrote:

> "Jim" wrote:
>> I plan on an honest 140 IAS in the 182RG I rent,
>
> That doesn't tell us much if you don't say at what altitude you're
> indicating 140.

And I've read reports of airspeed indicators with instrument error of more
than 10 kt. Plus each aircraft has its own static source position error
which affects the accuracy of the airspeed indications.

Any conversions from IAS to TAS aren't worth too much unless you've done
the testing to calibrate your airspeed indication system. TAS determined
from GPS groundspeed on multiple tracks can be accurate, if you know how
to do the calculations properly.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[John Clonts]

> wrote in message
...
> I'm thinking of buying a 182 or 182 RG.
> I like cessnas and the 182 is such an honest airplane it's hard to beat.
>
> I'd just like it to be a bit faster.
>
> If all of the speed mods are done to a normal C-182 , Good wheel pants,
speed fairings, gap seals etc.....
> how fast is it?
>
> For comparision how fast is the C-182 RG or a normall 210? (Not turbo)
>

FYI I have a '78 210M, I fly it at 6000 ft, 2400/24, 70%, 88pph, 165 knots
TAS...

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[john smith]

wrote:
>
> I'm thinking of buying a 182 or 182 RG.
> I like cessnas and the 182 is such an honest airplane it's hard to beat.

Stay with the straight 182. More useful load and rear baggage
compartment volume with not much of a speed loss. Lower maintenance
costs are another plus.

[Michael 182]

'79 TR-182 150 TAS at 10,000, about 165 at FL180.


> wrote in message
...
> I'm thinking of buying a 182 or 182 RG.
> I like cessnas and the 182 is such an honest airplane it's hard to beat.
>
> I'd just like it to be a bit faster.
>
> If all of the speed mods are done to a normal C-182 , Good wheel pants,
speed fairings, gap seals etc.....
> how fast is it?
>
> For comparision how fast is the C-182 RG or a normall 210? (Not turbo)
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>

[Jim]

It normally trues out at 153
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim" wrote:
> > I plan on an honest 140 IAS in the 182RG I rent,
>
> That doesn't tell us much if you don't say at what altitude you're
> indicating 140.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[Pat Thronson]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:Wpzzb.414152$Tr4.1191400@attbi_s03...
> '79 TR-182 150 TAS at 10,000, about 165 at FL180.
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm thinking of buying a 182 or 182 RG.
> > I like cessnas and the 182 is such an honest airplane it's hard to beat.
> >
> > I'd just like it to be a bit faster.
> >
> > If all of the speed mods are done to a normal C-182 , Good wheel pants,
> speed fairings, gap seals etc.....
> > how fast is it?

Check out the 260se 182.... anybody comment on the negatives of this mod?
price/performance/ comparably priced different aircraft?

http://www.260se.com/features.html


> > For comparision how fast is the C-182 RG or a normall 210? (Not turbo)
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul

Pat Thronson 260se 182 wanabe owner

[Dick Meade]

Pat,

E-mail me for some info on 182 vs 260 SE. Your e-mail bounces.

Dick Meade

"Pat Thronson" > wrote in message
t...
>
>
> Check out the 260se 182.... anybody comment on the negatives of this mod?
> price/performance/ comparably priced different aircraft?
>
> http://www.260se.com/features.html
>
>
>>
> Pat Thronson 260se 182 wanabe owner
>
>

[Montblack]

("Dick Meade" wrote)
> E-mail me for some info on 182 vs 260 SE. Your e-mail bounces.

> > Check out the 260se 182.... anybody comment on the negatives of this
mod?
> > price/performance/ comparably priced different aircraft?
> >
> > http://www.260se.com/features.html


Dick, Please post the info here too. I am curious about the 260SE (canard)
182 Peterson conversion.

Here's a 260SE canard question:

High wing Cessna 182.
Canard conversion wing is set up "inches" from the prop. :-)
How does that darn canard work?

I (somewhat) understand a Burt Rutan design - smaller area canard, losses
lift before the larger aft wing, nose drops first, etc.

On this 260SE (Cessna 182) design, doesn't the prop wash do nutty things to
the air over that (very close) canard wing?

Wouldn't the prop'd air, moving over this small canard wing, fool the canard
into thinking it's flying at (maybe) 65k, while the large high wings on a
182 (mostly out of the prop wash) are actually only in the 55k range?

(I just pulled some numbers out of the air)

If the forward canard on the (Cessna 182) 260SE is for extra lift only, then
I guess that Rutan stuff doesn't apply to this design - nose stalls (and
drops) first, etc.

Web page does use this phrase: "stall-resistant attitude"

[Just reread my post]
Maybe the canard wing gets extra lift by being close to the prop. Maybe it
is *supposed* to get extra lift from its placement near the prop. Maybe it's
ALL about extra lift, and nothing about anti-stall. Hmm??]

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Max T, CFI]

I used to own a T210--great plane, but I wouldn't recommend a 210 just to get
more speed, unless you need the extra seats and hauling ability, and are willing
to pay the higher insurance rates (6 seats means more potential liability so rates are higher).
The difference in speed probably wouldn't save a lot of time vs. a 182RG on a typical trip.

I'd run it at around 60% power, 13 gph, lean of peak, and it was always 150 kts between 6 and 8000 feet.
We had the Flint tip tanks and Horton STOL, which together probably trimmed a few knots
off of what it might otherwise have flown at.
Max T, MCFI

> wrote in message ...
> I'm thinking of buying a 182 or 182 RG.
> I like cessnas and the 182 is such an honest airplane it's hard to beat.
>
> I'd just like it to be a bit faster.
>
> If all of the speed mods are done to a normal C-182 , Good wheel pants, speed fairings, gap seals etc.....
> how fast is it?
>
> For comparision how fast is the C-182 RG or a normall 210? (Not turbo)
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>

[JerryK]

I saw about the same numbers when I had a TR182. It is a great plane, but
it is better sized for 3 adults and luggage vs 4 adults and luggage for a
fixed gear 182.


"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:Wpzzb.414152$Tr4.1191400@attbi_s03...
> '79 TR-182 150 TAS at 10,000, about 165 at FL180.
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm thinking of buying a 182 or 182 RG.
> > I like cessnas and the 182 is such an honest airplane it's hard to beat.
> >
> > I'd just like it to be a bit faster.
> >
> > If all of the speed mods are done to a normal C-182 , Good wheel pants,
> speed fairings, gap seals etc.....
> > how fast is it?
> >
> > For comparision how fast is the C-182 RG or a normall 210? (Not turbo)
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Michael 182]

Are fixed gear 182's bigger? My TR 182 actually has a bit more storage than
the '67 fixed gear 182 I had before it since the fixed didn't have a shelf
in the baggage compartment.

"JerryK" > wrote in message
...
> I saw about the same numbers when I had a TR182. It is a great plane, but
> it is better sized for 3 adults and luggage vs 4 adults and luggage for a
> fixed gear 182.
>
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:Wpzzb.414152$Tr4.1191400@attbi_s03...
> > '79 TR-182 150 TAS at 10,000, about 165 at FL180.

[john smith]

Michael 182 wrote:

> Are fixed gear 182's bigger? My TR 182 actually has a bit more storage than
> the '67 fixed gear 182 I had before it since the fixed didn't have a shelf
> in the baggage compartment.

Later models (Q and R) have the hat shelf.
TR182 lose baggage volume because of the main landing gear stowage.

[Mike Adams]

My 67 182 fixed gear has the Horton speed mods and will do an honest 150 KT
TAS with a higher power setting at lower altitudes. I flight plan 145 KT at
higher altitudes, say 10K, where we're at around 65% and about 11.5 gal/hr.
This airplane has an O470-U, 230 HP. And as stated below, no hat shelf in the
baggage area. Useful load is 1020 lb, with 120 max in the baggage area.

Mike

In article <OgQzb.304501$275.1045781@attbi_s53>, "Michael 182"
> wrote:
>Are fixed gear 182's bigger? My TR 182 actually has a bit more storage than
>the '67 fixed gear 182 I had before it since the fixed didn't have a shelf
>in the baggage compartment.
>
>"JerryK" > wrote in message
...
>> I saw about the same numbers when I had a TR182. It is a great plane, but
>> it is better sized for 3 adults and luggage vs 4 adults and luggage for a
>> fixed gear 182.
>>
>>
>> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
>> news:Wpzzb.414152$Tr4.1191400@attbi_s03...
>> > '79 TR-182 150 TAS at 10,000, about 165 at FL180.
>
>

[Dick Meade]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...

> Dick, Please post the info here too. I am curious about the 260SE
(canard)
> 182 Peterson conversion.
>
<Detailed questions about canards snipped>

Sorry if I mislead you, Montblack. I'm no expert on this conversion. My
info is based on observations of a 260 SE based at my local airport, and a
comparison of that plane to my 182 with a Pponk conversion (520 cu. in, 260
hp), flap and aileron gap seals, and mild droop tips. .

The Peterson conversion is expensive. The aerodynamic clean-ups seem to be
offset by the increased drag of the canard, as there is virtually no
difference in speeds between the planes. Relative climb rates are tough to
quantify, but gut feeling says they are pretty similar. I can peg the VSI
on climb out without doing anything heroic. The 260 may have an edge on
stall speed; I'm not certain. Mine stalls somewhere below 45 mph indicated,
no doubt helped by the gap seals. I can't speak to any change in the 'feel'
of the plane, as I haven't flown the 260.

The canard adds complexity under the cowl. To clarify, I should mention
that the canard is not stationary, it moves in concert with the elevators.
Thus, more pushrods, bellcranks, bearings, etc. I imagine rigging is also
somewhat more complicated. The airflow over the canard (I guess) gives the
plane a unique sound as it goes overhead, lending credence to your thought
about the airflow doing "nutty things".

My plane was (re)built to operate from short fields in Montana, although it
is far from Montana now. That's pretty much the mission of the 260 SE.
It's just 2 different ways to approach the same problem. Supporters from
both camps are almost religious (sorry Jay) in their support of the "best"
solution. Maybe slightly more so for the Petersonites. Both are
improvements to an already very capable aircraft, but the Pponk is
considerably less expensive.

Dick

[Montblack]

("Dick Meade" wrote)
<snips>
> Sorry if I mislead you, Montblack. I'm no expert on this conversion. My
info is based on observations of a 260 SE based at my local airport, and a
comparison of that plane to my 182 with a Pponk conversion (520 cu. in, 260
hp), flap and aileron gap seals, and mild droop tips.

>The canard adds complexity under the cowl. To clarify, I should mention
that the canard is not stationary, it moves in concert with the elevators.
Thus, more pushrods, bellcranks, bearings, etc. I imagine rigging is also
somewhat more complicated. The airflow over the canard (I guess) gives the
plane a unique sound as it goes overhead, lending credence to your thought
about the airflow doing "nutty things".


Thank you for the report - you've actually seen the beast. Cool.

I'm a sucker for that canard stuff (combined with my enthusiasm for the old
idea of the Free-Winged plane) I'd like to know what happens when those
canards get unhooked from that complex rigging and are allowed to pivot
freely, properly balanced of course - which might take some trial and error
to get it just right. <g>

http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propcalc.html
Fun tip speed calculator.

http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/O520_conversion.html
Wow! This one has me befuddled :-)
Fuel injection comes off, carburetor goes on? Huh?

Then this:
New low compression pistons are precision balanced to within .5 grams and
installed in your choice of cylinders, we'll be happy to discuss your
various options.

Huh?

I'm running a little low on cash these days. How bout only 2 of those low
compression pistons today?

People like their Pponk conversions, unfortunately I seem to have had a
(Huh?) experience reading their web info.

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Jim]

> People like their Pponk conversions, unfortunately I seem to have had a
> (Huh?) experience reading their web info.


I looked at their website a few weeks ago and came away with the same "Huh?"
Somebody please correct me 'cause I admit I'm confused. The '78 182RG I've
been flying has a Lycoming O-540 derated to 235hp. I understand that older
182's had the Continental O-470 rated at 230hp. Do newer 182's also have
the Continental? Did Cessna only use the Lycoming for the RG models due to
something such as ability to mount the carburator horizontally? I also
noted that the 260SE also uses the O470 rather than the Lycoming.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

[EDR]

In article >, Jim
> wrote:

> I looked at their website a few weeks ago and came away with the same "Huh?"
> Somebody please correct me 'cause I admit I'm confused. The '78 182RG I've
> been flying has a Lycoming O-540 derated to 235hp. I understand that older
> 182's had the Continental O-470 rated at 230hp. Do newer 182's also have
> the Continental? Did Cessna only use the Lycoming for the RG models due to
> something such as ability to mount the carburator horizontally? I also
> noted that the 260SE also uses the O470 rather than the Lycoming.

Up until the production line was restarted in the late 90's, the
derated 0-470 Continental was the engine from the factory.
There were/are Continental 0-520 conversions available.
When production was restarted in 97 (?), the aircraft came with the
Lycoming fuel injected engine installed. Remember that Textron owns
bothe Cessna and Lycoming.

[Montblack]

("EDR" wrote)
<snip>
> When production was restarted in 97 (?), the aircraft came with the
> Lycoming fuel injected engine installed. Remember that Textron owns
> bothe Cessna and Lycoming.

The Pponk conversion apparently removes the fuel injection and replaces it
with a carb...huh?

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Newps]

Montblack wrote:

>
> The Pponk conversion apparently removes the fuel injection and replaces it
> with a carb...huh?

Yep, get rid of all that needless crap. You start with either the
O470U, which has the case and crank of a 520, or one of a few different
kinds of the 520. My engine has about 1100 hours and when it's time I
will be going with the Pponk. With the flow ported valves you get 275
hp. All that and low compression too. I can hardly wait.