TR182 cost of ownership - maintenance, etc.

[john szpara]

I've decided that a TR182 (turbo, retract) would be a better choice
for me, economically than a T210. It was a tough decision, because I
love 210s, but right now it's the right choice.

I would appreciate any input you have on the TR182. Yearly costs,
major mechanical work, fuel burn and even the performance numbers you
are getting.

My purchase budget is $160,000, cash, and it should include
everything. I'm talking purchase, taxes, annual/prepurchase and a
slush fund for fixing any discrepancies. I hope that will cover any
needed avionics upgrades, as well.

My operating budget is currently $30,000/yr.

Does it look like I can afford this plane?

John Szpara
Private pilot
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Steven Barnes]

Will you adopt me?


"john szpara" > wrote in message
...
> I've decided that a TR182 (turbo, retract) would be a better choice
> for me, economically than a T210. It was a tough decision, because I
> love 210s, but right now it's the right choice.
>
> I would appreciate any input you have on the TR182. Yearly costs,
> major mechanical work, fuel burn and even the performance numbers you
> are getting.
>
> My purchase budget is $160,000, cash, and it should include
> everything. I'm talking purchase, taxes, annual/prepurchase and a
> slush fund for fixing any discrepancies. I hope that will cover any
> needed avionics upgrades, as well.
>
> My operating budget is currently $30,000/yr.
>
> Does it look like I can afford this plane?
>
> John Szpara
> Private pilot
> Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Matt Barrow]

"john szpara" > wrote in message
...
> I've decided that a TR182 (turbo, retract) would be a better choice
> for me, economically than a T210. It was a tough decision, because I
> love 210s, but right now it's the right choice.

I had a T210 and most of the maintenance was for the landing gear (pretty
much identical to the 182RG). Now, mine was "newer" when I bought it (1983
model bought in Nov. 1999), but it was a lemon, even given he prepurchase
inspection. I sold it after just seven months.

>
> I would appreciate any input you have on the TR182. Yearly costs,
> major mechanical work, fuel burn and even the performance numbers you
> are getting.

See remarks about landing gear.

Any other models you considered?

>
> My purchase budget is $160,000, cash, and it should include
> everything. I'm talking purchase, taxes, annual/prepurchase and a
> slush fund for fixing any discrepancies. I hope that will cover any
> needed avionics upgrades, as well.

That should buy just about any 182RG out there with some reserve (figure
$5K-7K).
>
> My operating budget is currently $30,000/yr.

For how many hours? Average business usage is about 160 hours/year and
around $120-140/hour. How does your expected use fit with that?

>
> Does it look like I can afford this plane?

Most definitely!

[john szpara]

>See remarks about landing gear.

I thought the gear was simpler than the T210? If not, I guess I'll
just have to suck it up, and stay on top of maintenance.

>
>Any other models you considered?

Sure, I've thought about all sorts of a/c. T210, Mooney 231, and some
twins. I have a bunch of time in 182s, so the transition should be
minimal (from n/a, fixed gear. I've flown turbos before).

>
>>
>> My purchase budget is $160,000, cash, and it should include
>> everything. I'm talking purchase, taxes, annual/prepurchase and a
>> slush fund for fixing any discrepancies. I hope that will cover any
>> needed avionics upgrades, as well.
>
>That should buy just about any 182RG out there with some reserve (figure
>$5K-7K).
>>
>> My operating budget is currently $30,000/yr.
>
>For how many hours? Average business usage is about 160 hours/year and
>around $120-140/hour. How does your expected use fit with that?

Sorry, forgot to mention that. I'd say 100-150 hours, some business,
some pleasure. The total will depend on business use. I like to fly at
least once a week, to stay current and sharp, and put on 1-2 hours a
week, minimum, with some longer trips now and then.

John Szpara
Private pilot
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Doug]

If you don't like the gear issues, just get a 206.

[Peter Duniho]

"john szpara" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> My purchase budget is $160,000, cash, and it should include
> everything. I'm talking purchase, taxes, annual/prepurchase and a
> slush fund for fixing any discrepancies. I hope that will cover any
> needed avionics upgrades, as well.
>
> My operating budget is currently $30,000/yr.

Does that budget include fuel and oil?

Where do you plan to keep the airplane, and what does a hangar there cost?
Or tie-down, if you plan to go that route?

All that said, it seems to me that $30K/year is plenty for any airplane in
that class, including the TR182 you're talking about. I have a seaplane
that is otherwise similar (turbocharged, retractable landing gear) and my
annual costs aren't even close to that (maybe half? I try not to write the
final total down :) ), including a pretty steep insurance bill.

The biggest thing to watch out for is that the maintenance the first year,
and maybe the first three years, is going to be above average, as you work
the kinks out of the airplane. You can never really predict the costs, but
as a very rough back-of-the-envelope calculation, you can take the base cost
of an annual inspection (probably around $1000-2000, depending on the
mechanic and locale), double that to get the total cost of an annual
(including whatever repairs may be required), and figure you'll spend about
the same on incidental maintenance during the rest of the year.

That winds up being between $4000 to $8000 per year on maintenance, total.
As a rough guess, I'd say you're more likely to tend toward to the lower of
those two numbers, but it depends on a lot of unpredictable things, and of
course a more conservative estimate is better for planning purposes. Also,
the higher number is probably a more appropriate guess for the first year or
so of ownership.

> Does it look like I can afford this plane?

Frankly, I think with your budget you could afford a T210 if you wanted to.
But certainly you should be able to obtain and keep a TR182, and a pretty
nice one at that.

BTW, I don't recall the official designation off the top of my head, but
I've always used the term "182RG" to describe a retractable gear Cessna 182,
and would normally call a turbocharged version a T182RG. I admit, it gets
confusing if you want to include the model letter as well, but just a
heads-up that you may not always see it called a "TR182". :)

Pete

[john szpara]

>> My operating budget is currently $30,000/yr.
>
>Does that budget include fuel and oil?

Yes.
>
>Where do you plan to keep the airplane, and what does a hangar there cost?
>Or tie-down, if you plan to go that route?

I'll be based in Hollister - 3O7. The last time I checked, there
weren't any hangars available. I'll get a tiedown, and wait for a
hangar. I need to contact them and get the fees.
>
>> Does it look like I can afford this plane?
>
>Frankly, I think with your budget you could afford a T210 if you wanted to.
>But certainly you should be able to obtain and keep a TR182, and a pretty
>nice one at that.

I thought I could, but was told that T210s can really bite you with
unexpected, expensive maintenance.
>
>BTW, I don't recall the official designation off the top of my head, but
>I've always used the term "182RG" to describe a retractable gear Cessna 182,
>and would normally call a turbocharged version a T182RG. I admit, it gets
>confusing if you want to include the model letter as well, but just a
>heads-up that you may not always see it called a "TR182". :)

Ok. I don't know where I picked that up.

Thanks for the info.

John Szpara
Private pilot
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
> BTW, I don't recall the official designation off the top of my head, but
> I've always used the term "182RG" to describe a retractable gear Cessna 182,
> and would normally call a turbocharged version a T182RG. I admit, it gets
> confusing if you want to include the model letter as well, but just a
> heads-up that you may not always see it called a "TR182". :)

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.

[NW_PILOT]

"john szpara" > wrote in message
...
> I've decided that a TR182 (turbo, retract) would be a better choice
> for me, economically than a T210. It was a tough decision, because I
> love 210s, but right now it's the right choice.
>
> I would appreciate any input you have on the TR182. Yearly costs,
> major mechanical work, fuel burn and even the performance numbers you
> are getting.
>
> My purchase budget is $160,000, cash, and it should include
> everything. I'm talking purchase, taxes, annual/prepurchase and a
> slush fund for fixing any discrepancies. I hope that will cover any
> needed avionics upgrades, as well.
>
> My operating budget is currently $30,000/yr.
>
> Does it look like I can afford this plane?
>
> John Szpara
> Private pilot
> Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT


TR 182 Exelent Airplane!

Steven L. Rhine
CP ASEL & AMEL Instrument Airplane
CFI (Student)

[Peter Duniho]

"john szpara" > wrote in message
...
>>Does that budget include fuel and oil?
>
> Yes.

Well, there's one area the 210 would cost more, being a thirstier airplane.
:) Other than that...

> [...]
> I thought I could, but was told that T210s can really bite you with
> unexpected, expensive maintenance.

I realize that I don't know the subtle differences between the 182 and the
210. But it's not clear to me how they would be dramatically different,
given that they are equipped with fundamentally the same kinds of things.

Having owned just the one plane, I can't speak from personal experience, but
I have had several people tell me that broadly speaking, the cost of
maintenance is directly related to the various features of the airplane.
Different airplanes have different quirks of course, and some may have
particular maintenance issues not found elsewhere. But the difference
between a retractable gear and fixed gear, or between normally-aspirated and
turbocharged, or between one engine or two, is much more significant when it
comes to maintenance costs.

Basically, the T182RG can really bite you with unexpected, expensive
maintenance as well. Unless the 210 has something extremely unusual (like
the wing spar issue with the larger Cessna twins), I would have thought
maintenance costs would be similar to the 182.

Did the person (or people) who told you that give you specific examples of
what a 210 might need with respect to maintenance that wouldn't be an issue
on a 182? Now you've got me curious.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"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. :)

[Michael Ware]

"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.

[Peter R.]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[Michael 182]

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

[Peter Duniho]

> 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

[Newps]

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
>
>

[Peter R.]

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

[Newps]

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?

[Big John]

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 :o)

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
>

[[email protected]]

>...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 not landing hard that does it. The gear is strong. We fly
off unimproved strips with it. It's not maintaining and adjusting it
properly that results in stress in the wrong places.

Dan