C-182's to avoid?

[Alan Browne]

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.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

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.

[Newps]

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.

[mikem]

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...

[Matt W. Barrow]

"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

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"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.

[Mark Manes]

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

[Helen]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[Darrel Toepfer]

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...

[Ray Andraka]

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.

[Newps]

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...

All were fixed, at no charge.

[Newps]

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.

[Jay Honeck]

> 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?

IMHO it's a dicey time to be buying any big-bore, fuel-injected, 200+
horsepower airplane. With 100 LL on its way out -- and no approved
replacement in the wings -- prices of these birds have no where to go
but down.

If I were looking for a plane like this (and I own a very similar
airplane) I would restrict my search to normally-aspirated, low
compression engines that can run on mogas. (Although even that is a
crap-shoot now, with mandatory ethanol pollution in many states.) At
least you'll have a plane that can be used (and sold) at some point
down the line.

Unless oil prices stabilize -- which seems unlikely -- the market for
gasoline-powered, high-compression aircraft will remain very, very
uncertain.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RST Engineering]

The O-470 is a low compression engine that runs on mogas. You ought to
know, Jay, you've filled our 182 up from the Grape several times now.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> 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?
>
> IMHO it's a dicey time to be buying any big-bore, fuel-injected, 200+
> horsepower airplane. With 100 LL on its way out -- and no approved
> replacement in the wings -- prices of these birds have no where to go
> but down.
>
> If I were looking for a plane like this (and I own a very similar
> airplane) I would restrict my search to normally-aspirated, low
> compression engines that can run on mogas. (Although even that is a
> crap-shoot now, with mandatory ethanol pollution in many states.) At
> least you'll have a plane that can be used (and sold) at some point
> down the line.
>
> Unless oil prices stabilize -- which seems unlikely -- the market for
> gasoline-powered, high-compression aircraft will remain very, very
> uncertain.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> 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?
>
> IMHO it's a dicey time to be buying any big-bore, fuel-injected, 200+
> horsepower airplane. With 100 LL on its way out -- and no approved
> replacement in the wings -- prices of these birds have no where to go
> but down.
>
> If I were looking for a plane like this (and I own a very similar
> airplane) I would restrict my search to normally-aspirated, low
> compression engines that can run on mogas. (Although even that is a
> crap-shoot now, with mandatory ethanol pollution in many states.) At
> least you'll have a plane that can be used (and sold) at some point
> down the line.

Jay, my 1967 C-182 ran just fine on auto gas.

Matt

[Alan Browne]

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> I was speaking with a somewhat smug fellow the other day who claimed

Thanks everyone for your replies.

Cheers,
Alan

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> IMHO it's a dicey time to be buying any big-bore, fuel-injected, 200+
> horsepower airplane. With 100 LL on its way out

I've been hearing that for 15 years. It's no more true today than back
then.




-- and no approved
> replacement in the wings


92UL is but a few signatures away. A very tiny number of engines can't
use it but everything else can.




-- prices of these birds have no where to go
> but down.

Merely a downturn as in the 70's. Aviation is cyclical.


>
> If I were looking for a plane like this (and I own a very similar
> airplane) I would restrict my search to normally-aspirated, low
> compression engines that can run on mogas. (Although even that is a
> crap-shoot now, with mandatory ethanol pollution in many states.) At
> least you'll have a plane that can be used (and sold) at some point
> down the line.


Buying a plane that can run on mogas has a lower life expectancy than
100LL. Won't be long before all mogas has alcohol.

[nrp]

Check:

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2007/071114epa.pdf

[Jay Honeck]

> The O-470 is a low compression engine that runs on mogas. You ought to
> know, Jay, you've filled our 182 up from the Grape several times now.

Yep, I know. But the OP was asking about which models to avoid, so I
was suggesting that he avoid the later fuel-injected, high compression
models that can only run on 100 LL.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > IMHO it's a dicey time to be buying any big-bore, fuel-injected, 200+
> > horsepower airplane. With 100 LL on its way out
>
> I've been hearing that for 15 years. It's no more true today than back
> then.

I hope you're right. However, the "80/20" rule of 100 LL use is
starting to really hurt us. 80% of 100 LL has traditionally been used
by 20% of the market, meaning the big-bore piston twins. With Cessna
421s and Navajos being replaced more and more with Jet-A-swilling
turbine-powered King Airs in the charter world, that 80% of the market
is disappearing.

When it's only guys like you and me buying 100 LL, it *will* go away.
Every industry source I can find points to its demise, sooner than
later. (There are already FBOs reporting difficulty obtaining
supplies.)

As for alcohol in mogas, there will always be boaters, snowmobilers
and custom car guys who can't use the stuff -- which means we'll
always have alcohol-free mogas. It just won't be as easy and
convenient (or as cheap) as it is now.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Denny]

100LL is a high profit, low volume, boutique item for the refiners...
As long as they can make their hefty profit per gallon it will be
available... Whether you will buy it at that price is a separate
issue...

denny

[Blueskies]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
> As for alcohol in mogas, there will always be boaters, snowmobilers
> and custom car guys who can't use the stuff -- which means we'll
> always have alcohol-free mogas. It just won't be as easy and
> convenient (or as cheap) as it is now.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


About the only way to find true gasoline around here is to go to a marina...maybe I need to put floats on the 172!

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> As for alcohol in mogas, there will always be boaters, snowmobilers
> and custom car guys who can't use the stuff -- which means we'll
> always have alcohol-free mogas. It just won't be as easy and
> convenient (or as cheap) as it is now.
> --





I have a boat, a 20 foot speed boat with a Chevy 5.7L. I wouldn't care
if the gas had alcohol, can't imagine why I would. I'm not aware of any
boats that can't use it although I suppose there are some. There's no
prohibition in any of the boat brochures/manuals I've seen. Same for
snomobiles and I'm not sure why the custom car guys would care. Here in
Montana you have to really look to find ethanol. In Minnesota you have
to really look to find gas without it. We spend time in MN every
summer, if boating and ethanol were a problem I'd have heard about it.

[kontiki]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> When it's only guys like you and me buying 100 LL, it *will* go away.
> Every industry source I can find points to its demise, sooner than
> later. (There are already FBOs reporting difficulty obtaining
> supplies.)
>

And that's really what the Feds want... after all... the FET tax
is higher for JET-A than for 100LL.

JET-A used to be significantly lower in cost than AVGAS but of
late the price has gone up to where there isn't really a lot of
difference in price between it and 100LL. Federal taxes are
higher on JET and that's what government likes so eventually
having everyone be a slave to JET-A creates a nice warm fuzzy
environment.

Eliminate choices... force everyone into a single fuel then
when they do... sock it to 'em. We lose they win.

[kontiki]

Denny wrote:
> 100LL is a high profit, low volume, boutique item for the refiners...
> As long as they can make their hefty profit per gallon it will be
> available... Whether you will buy it at that price is a separate
> issue...
>
> denny

Then move to JET-A... that's a bigger profit for government. Plus
you'll spend a _lot_ more $$$ for an airplane that can burn it.

You can pay me now or you can pay me later.

[Blueskies]

"kontiki" > wrote in message ...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>
>> When it's only guys like you and me buying 100 LL, it *will* go away.
>> Every industry source I can find points to its demise, sooner than
>> later. (There are already FBOs reporting difficulty obtaining
>> supplies.)
>>
>
> And that's really what the Feds want... after all... the FET tax
> is higher for JET-A than for 100LL.
>
> JET-A used to be significantly lower in cost than AVGAS but of
> late the price has gone up to where there isn't really a lot of
> difference in price between it and 100LL. Federal taxes are
> higher on JET and that's what government likes so eventually
> having everyone be a slave to JET-A creates a nice warm fuzzy
> environment.
>
> Eliminate choices... force everyone into a single fuel then
> when they do... sock it to 'em. We lose they win.
>
>

We bought a diesel truck a number of years ago when the price of diesel was pretty low. Not long after, diesel prices
soared and surpassed 'gasoline' prices. We recently got rid of the old truck and went back to gas powered, and
remarkably the price of diesel is still about the same as 'gasoline', so maybe they haven't figured out we sold the
truck yet ;-)

[Matt W. Barrow]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>
>> When it's only guys like you and me buying 100 LL, it *will* go away.
>> Every industry source I can find points to its demise, sooner than
>> later. (There are already FBOs reporting difficulty obtaining
>> supplies.)
>>
>
> And that's really what the Feds want... after all... the FET tax
> is higher for JET-A than for 100LL.
>
> JET-A used to be significantly lower in cost than AVGAS but of
> late the price has gone up to where there isn't really a lot of
> difference in price between it and 100LL. Federal taxes are
> higher on JET and that's what government likes so eventually
> having everyone be a slave to JET-A creates a nice warm fuzzy
> environment.
>
> Eliminate choices... force everyone into a single fuel then
> when they do... sock it to 'em. We lose they win.

And that would do the proverbial "Kill the goose that laid the golden egg".

The 100LL burners are only going to be replaced piecemeal, and over ten or
more years at that. In the interim, the feds lose whatever revenue they
would have garnered.

You must realize that revenue to the feds is like heroin to an addict --
they WANT IT NOW!!!