Thinking of The Dark Side, C182

[Steve Pierce]

Cathy and I have been looking at 182s. Doesn't help that someone dropped their airplane off and their ride home was a 1960 C180. Cathy liked the fit and the speeds the owner got. Funny thing was it sold the next morning. She learned to fly in a Tri-Pacer but it is a bit tight and slow. I'd love a C180 but not in the budget and she wouldn't feel comfortable flying it. Goal is to go places at speeds greater than my Super Cubs 90 mph and in an airplane she feels comfortable flying. She gets sick in the back of the Super Cub and isn't always comfortable in the front. We are kinda on a fact finding mission right now trying to learn all we can. I really like the straight tails and the prices though they seem high to me are more in line with what we have budgeted and they have dodged the door post AD that looks like it can be expensive. Any does, don't definite gotchas and things to look out for? Kinda out of my comfort zone.

[S2D]

Altho the early ones are neat airplanes, dont count out the mid to late 60s versions. They are great traveling planes.
Had a 69 that I wish i still had.

On the other hand those early 60s versions are just ugly!!

Also dont count out a good 172 or 175 with a clean 180 lyc conversion.

[G44]

Steve, you are on the right track. The 182 old and newer are fantastic airplanes. Seems like we get too focused on where the single wheel is located and not the mission and by doing so we overlook some great airplanes. Having owned a 182 briefly I can recommend one. Wish I still had mine.

Kurt

[mike mcs repair]

One of the guides up here uses them. One he converted to a 180 decades later. Was a slant tail. Big nose fork and 29” gar aeros.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

[mike mcs repair]

http://www.airglas.com/FixedWing/Pro...3/Default.aspx


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

[behindpropellers]

SPAM CAN?? Pierce??

Are you OK?

[skukum12]

Dad just picked up a 206. I have a mission list as long as my arm for that one. Different planes for different roles. A 182 is a great choice and seem to be under valued.

Some O470s have a 1500 hour TBO. There has been a discussion about some sort of mandatory wing attach corrosion inspection, not sure which cessnas are involved. Be sure to install one of the mods to keep the pilot seat from rolling back on take off.

[Eddie Foy]

Welcome to the dark side. 140 mph is good!

[mam90]

You’ll never regret going to a 182.

[RaisedByWolves]

I flew a friends fast back slant tail on. Big tires for a little while. It’s going to do 90% of what most 180 guys do with it realistically. Especially sense your not going to go on floats or skis. seems like the straight tails are gaining popularity. The fast back slant tails still had the trimable stab. If you’re going to put vg’s on wait and do the sportsman stol. It wasn’t near as bad as I thought it would be. Plus, you’ll get to laugh at your 180 buddies when you’re traveling somewhere and the wind is screaming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Charlie Longley]

I owned a 1959 182 with an Avion panel briefly. Wish I still had it!

[stewartb]

Dark side? Hardly. Welcome to the light!

If I was looking for a 182 to travel I'd want a '62 or later. The cabin is 4" wider and a little taller. That was also the year 182s got electric flaps and a fixed stabilizer but gross weight increased, too. Great airplanes.

Have you considered a Maule?

[mvivion]

Steve,

Just learn to protect that nose gear, which is no big deal....just has to be top of list on unprepared surfaces. We switched from working a 185 to a 206, and I thought I’d died and gone to heaven.

MTV

[JohnnyR]

After hundreds of hours flying one around the southwest, I’d concur with folks and agree that a 182 is a good solid airplane for moving two people around comfortably, at reasonable speed, at relatively low maintenance costs and at comparatively low acquisition costs. Certainly your elbows will thank you for it, and the family dog, and the spouse, and your luggage, and your...
you get the picture.
J

[Cub junkie]

There has never been a undesirable 182 ever built, they're all great airplanes. I like the '56 tall gear model. Its a STOL airplane in stock form.

[porcuypine]

Cathy and I have been looking at 182s. Doesn't help that someone dropped their airplane off and their ride home was a 1960 C180. Cathy liked the fit and the speeds the owner got. Funny thing was it sold the next morning. She learned to fly in a Tri-Pacer but it is a bit tight and slow. I'd love a C180 but not in the budget and she wouldn't feel comfortable flying it. Goal is to go places at speeds greater than my Super Cubs 90 mph and in an airplane she feels comfortable flying. She gets sick in the back of the Super Cub and isn't always comfortable in the front. We are kinda on a fact finding mission right now trying to learn all we can. I really like the straight tails and the prices though they seem high to me are more in line with what we have budgeted and they have dodged the door post AD that looks like it can be expensive. Any does, don't definite gotchas and things to look out for? Kinda out of my comfort zone.

Steve,Besides the usual things one can find in a Cessna aircraft older then ourselves one needs to think about the fuel bladders and lower firewall where the nose gear fitting attaches.


The new empanage AD applies to the models with the trimable tail.


It's all about the mission isn't it. You have a choice:


-keep the tires tinny and go fast then get a wide body cause you won't need the trimable stab and electric flaps will work just fine.
-big tires and soft fields then you need manual flaps, the trimable stab, big wheels and tires, airglas nose fork and big tire, stol kit and VG's, ...


After a couple thousand hours checking most of the boxes in my Tripacer, good and bad, I acquired a B model, fugly, put a pair of 10x10 bush weeks and some used beaver tires 8x10 and an 8:50 on the airglass fork, super low pressures, and never looked back. No stol kit. No VG's cause I can't do the wing covers with the darn things without a whole lot of jacking around when it's -10f or colder. Took about 300 hours to really get to be one with her but that was in one year. An early 182 can land so much slower once you get the hang of it and you stuff some weight in the back and for dogs sake don't move the battery to the firewall.


I had about a 100 hours in a wide body, E model I think, it's the one I won the engine out power line lottery in a few years ago. It was nice but I'm mostly trim, 5'8" and under 195lbs normally. I didn't notice any difference between the two except I had to reach farther to open the glove box and I had to duck when walking under the wings.


Regardless, buy the bird with the best low time engine and the rest will follow if you don't get trapped into a gold plated panel or going all Oshkosh, these bird are tough.


I would stay away from an A model for a few reasons. I think the B is the best if you get the stc for the later engine model, don't have the particulars in front of me but betting someone has the details handy.


Rocket

[skukum12]

....an addendum, 182 yes. 172, no. 172 in my opinion could be the most boring airplane ever built. I have flown in, flown and watched a guy try to work one. All I thought was get me out of this thing.

[stewartb]

210hp Hawk XP. Good fun.

[DENNY]

I went for a ride in a wide body a while back, very impressed with the space. That is what I would look for in a machine meant to travel.
DENNY

[Utah-Jay]

An S-21 with a Titan or a 915 would be just as fast I would think

https://3bf21215-1086-4c74-9760-9481...e22ae30719.pdf

[SuperCub MD]

Steve, nothing wrong with a 182, if you are going nose dragger. But giving you can do your own maintenance, there are a lot of options out there under 50k. If I was looking for a 182, I would also be looking hard for a 205, lot's more plane for a 182 price, if you can find a old work horse. For a family cruiser, any comanche is a good buy these days, pick your horse power that suits your needs. Light twins are being sold at salvage price now. Twin comanche, apache, there is a twin navion on tap now I would be looking at. If you are not needing floats or skis it is a buyers market, take your time, explore all your options, and enjoy the ride.

[phdigger123]

I had a 182 for a few years. They fly great, carry a good load, ride well in turbulence, handle cross winds well and are also easy to get in and out of. It is also the easiest landing airplane I ever flew. The only reason I sold it was to help pay for my new hangar. I think the 1962 and newer are a better choice as the have a wider fuselage and a lower center of gravity on the ground. Mine had an O-470U and that engine has a 2000 hour tbo. Get a good one, you will get your money back if you decide to sell it.

[N3243A]

Nice to hear all the buck 82 love here! I have '67 182K with a 300 hp P-ponk "Sealane" conversion. Since I'm 6'-6" the extra room really works for me. That heavy engine with a 3 blade McCauley on just an 8:00 nose tire can get you stuck though. I'm pretty careful with where I take it after one gravel bar adventure shortened my blades a tad...

[SJ]

When you flight instruct, everybody asks you what the "perfect" airplane is and I have always said it is hard to beat a 182. There is a lot to know. I personally prefer the johnson bar flaps, but those were only on the earliest smaller ones, there are lots of opinions around bladders or wet wings - some people say bladders is the only way and the wet wings when they start to leak can be an expensive proposition, others say the opposite.

Steve the one you saw me in the other day was a 69 (8:50's, airglass front fork, wing stol cuff) and it was a darn nice airplane. The two we have here that are Pponked are very popular also.

As you would say, it's only "cubic dollars"...

sj

[SJ]

When you flight instruct, everybody asks you what the "perfect" airplane is and I have always said it is hard to beat a 182. There is a lot to know. I personally prefer the johnson bar flaps, but those were only on the earliest smaller ones, there are lots of opinions around bladders or wet wings - some people say bladders is the only way and the wet wings when they start to leak can be an expensive proposition, others say the opposite.

Steve the one you saw me in the other day was a 69 (8:50's, airglass front fork, wing stol cuff) and it was a darn nice airplane. The two we have here that are Pponked are very popular also.

As you would say, it's only "cubic dollars"...

sj

P.S. there are some GREAT Cessna forums out there where you can spend the rest of your remaining time when you are not on here or shortwingpipers.org...

[JohnnyR]

Yep.
If I wasn't on skis or flying around AK with prop clearance/damage issues, I'd be in a 182 - they work well enough for most things for most people. "Almost perfect" 2-person plane?

When you flight instruct, everybody asks you what the "perfect" airplane is and I have always said it is hard to beat a 182. There is a lot to know. I personally prefer the johnson bar flaps, but those were only on the earliest smaller ones, there are lots of opinions around bladders or wet wings - some people say bladders is the only way and the wet wings when they start to leak can be an expensive proposition, others say the opposite.

Steve the one you saw me in the other day was a 69 (8:50's, airglass front fork, wing stol cuff) and it was a darn nice airplane. The two we have here that are Pponked are very popular also.

As you would say, it's only "cubic dollars"...

sj

[aflyer]

I have always thought that the C182 is the best all-around airplane out there. Also I think has the best safety record of any single. That is because it is so easy to fly, yet has the power to get you out of trouble.

It is also boring as can be to fly. Get one with an autopilot and you can leave your brain at home. That was the reason I went to a 180 years ago, most of the advantages, but landings will keep you humble. I know the 180/185 is bringing ridiculous money these days, but after the cub flying you've done, the 182 will be a snoozer.

Hard to beat an O-470U for a Continental. Stock in about '77 on.

John

[McBobKC]

Steve Pierce

SJ will give me a questionable reference as a person, and even less of a reference as a Pilot, I recently did some Commercial training with SJ here in KC....

I am a KMKC based 1977 IO-550 C182Q Owner Operator, I’m not as hands on maintenance and engineering-wise as seemingly a lot of folks here, and other Aviation Forums often are, but I’ve studied the C182 hard - I designed and “had my aircraft rebuilt” for traveling, not the Back Country per se

Some thoughts

1) Email me at McBobKC@gmail.com and I can send you some meaningful info
2) BeechTalk has a Forum “Brand X” that has some very good C182 discussions / Threads at www.BeechTalk.com - you have to register, then be accepted before you can Post or Search, not a big deal, just a process
3) Cessna Pilots Society aka CPS / www.Cessna-Pilots.net is also a very good source, same drill to have to register, then be accepted
4) Cessna Pilots Association aka CPA / www.Cessna.org / John Frank’s old organization (now deceased) 4 years ago “was” THE DEFINITIVE Cessna website / Forum group - a “paid admission” website, sadly, a website crash in early 2017 started a cascade of events that has left CPA a shadow of its former self, but still lots of great technical information available for maybe $75 a year ?

Some quick personal thoughts
1) AVOID Wet Wing C182s / 1979 and beyond have Wet Wings / Integral Fuel Tanks - the sealing of the integral fuel tanks is failing and a real struggle to ever really get fixed - maybe for a “Guy like Steve Pierce,” it wouldn’t be a big deal, but for the Common Man paying someone else to repair, I’ve heard numbers such as $15,000 per wing, 4 to 6 months, and NO Guarantees

2) Bladder Fuel tanks are a GOOD THING in the 1978 and earlier models

3) P and Q Models are The Sweet Spot, IMO

4) Given what I assume are your Back Country desires a Stock 230 carbureted engine is very good, added horsepower via a P Ponk, Air Plains IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion is GREAT - I’m personally not as much of a fan of the Texas Skyways O-550 Conversion, as Texas Skyways takes off the induction system and adds a carburetor, I personally prefer an injected engine, albeit all at a cost...

I took my aircraft to an illogical extreme towards serious cross country travel and IFR Operations, only since meeting SJ and Laura am I just now considering taking my pants off ( Wheel Pants ) and exploring and learning some Back Country flying

Really too much to type, SJ, feel free to give out my contact info, toward a call, etc

[DJ]

I have time in the 56, 57, 59, 60, 66, 79, 81 T182 and newer T182T.

Worked the 66 in the jungle. The bigger cabin is cool and will fit three skinny folks on the bench but I hated the lowrider gear ('61-'71). When loaded anywhere near gross the tail sits super low.
P model (mid 70s) is the last for mogas although there is an STC to put the 470S in the Q as well.

Maintained a 1960 C model in Guyana for a year with WingX and sportsman. It was a workhorse. Loved the tall gear.

A few weeks ago we got a 1961 D model (fast back with low gear) donated for jungle work in Bolivia. They dinged the firewall and tail on a steep airstrip in PNG. It has about every possible mod and a new engine so we sent it to MMS in Ohio for rebuild. I want to try field approving taller gear on it. There is an optional tall gear but it seems to be rare.

BTW Pierce a friend developed a field approval for the 182 the allows a C310 fork with 6 or 7.00 tire and 8, 8.50 or 26 GY on the mains. Let me know if you need copies. We have put it on a bunch of them. Works great and much cheaper/lighter than the Airglass option.

For fun the early straight tails look the best are cheaper and fly nice and light.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using SuperCub.Org mobile app

[SJ]

Steve Pierce

SJ will give me a questionable reference as a person, and even less of a reference as a Pilot, I recently did some Commercial training with SJ here in KC....

I

Some people will carry self-deprecation to an extreme... we don't see that much here Mike!

FYI, Mike's 182 is the nicest I have ever flown in - including brand new ones fresh off the line. The deck angle at VX will water your eyes!

sj

[courierguy]

I have always thought that the C182 is the best all-around airplane out there. Also I think has the best safety record of any single. That is because it is so easy to fly, yet has the power to get you out of trouble.

It is also boring as can be to fly. Get one with an autopilot and you can leave your brain at home. That was the reason I went to a 180 years ago, most of the advantages, but landings will keep you humble. I know the 180/185 is bringing ridiculous money these days, but after the cub flying you've done, the 182 will be a snoozer.

Hard to beat an O-470U for a Continental. Stock in about '77 on.

John

One of the claimed reasons a friend sold his, was because his wife absolutely could not stay awake in it! The same plane had about $8,000.00 worth of damage once, by horses chewing on it, while parked at the Big Southern Butte airstrip.

[stewartb]

Cubs come and go. A Cessna becomes one of the family. Pick the right one. Grow old together.

[85Mike]

My first owned plane was a '58 182 with a Robertson STOL kit. Bought at age 40 with a partner. It had oversize tires and was a wonderful backcountry plane. Flew it to many Idaho back country strips for weekend campouts with the wife. Partner owned a ranch in the Chilcotin area of central BC which we flew to many times. He dinged the prop on a landing at his BC ranch once and announced we were going to buy a 185. No way I could afford to be in a 185 but he made it happen. My first tailwheel experience was in that 185. Not the best plane to learn tailwheel. Flew that plane for 26 years, almost every year to AK and BC. The '58 182 was an awesome airplane!!

[Narwhal]

I have a '59 that has been STOL modified with a Sportsman leading edge cuff, vg's, and 8.50s all around with an airglas 206 nose fork. It is reasonably fun to fly but gets slowed down by all the mods (125 mph IAS, trues out at about 140 mph at ~ 6000 ft).

My main advice would be to run a w&b on your particular airplane before buying. Our CG is very far forward (battery moved to firewall) which can make flying with very much fuel a problem. Probably common sense, but I didn't do it before I bought mine and regret overlooking that. Also the older ones like mine have a low gross (1750 empty, 2650 max).

[S2D]

77 model with new 252 hp engine conversion and way too much glass stuff!!
Acting as safety pilot for ifr practice.

Sent from my E6910 using Tapatalk

[OLDCROWE]

Only problem with a 182 is nobody ever ooh's and ah's over them when you pull up to the pump.

[SJ]

Only problem with a 182 is nobody ever ooh's and ah's over them when you pull up to the pump.

I think you might be mistaken...

[mam90]

I think you might be mistaken...

Ohhhh! Ahhhhh!

[Crash, Jr.]

I pity the pilot that has to keep all that aluminum polished. Sharp lookin plane though!

[McBobKC]

I studied, considered, and priced Todd Peterson / Peterson Performance’s IO-550 King Katmai conversion - my recollection is the canard system added about $25,000 in 2016, and I was more interested in SPEED than STOL at that time

My answer to adding whatever STOL Capabilities I might ever need was to add VGs, which DO make a difference