A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

C-182's to avoid?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 13th 07, 05:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default 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  
Old November 13th 07, 06:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Gig 601XL Builder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,317
Default 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  
Old November 13th 07, 06:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default 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  
Old November 13th 07, 10:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
mikem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default 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  
Old November 13th 07, 10:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Matt W. Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default 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  
Old November 13th 07, 11:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default 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  
Old November 14th 07, 02:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Mark Manes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default 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  
Old November 14th 07, 03:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Helen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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  
Old November 14th 07, 04:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,130
Default 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  
Old November 14th 07, 05:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Darrel Toepfer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 10:18 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 09:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.