C172 or a C182

[stevron]

Which one flys better in turbulence a cessna 172 or a 182 ? Which one is the best for 1 to 2 hour flights , no hills or mountain to cross, just flat land, stevron

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

182 is a better aircraft full fuel and full seats not a problem but more $$ so depends on what you want to carry and how much $$ you have!

 

 

[metalman]

a C182 is a great plane, the only one better is a C185, but, they're not that fast for the 55litres an hour, that works out to about $120 bucks to do 130 kias, cool planes ,I love em but they are pricey to live with . also got an expensive prop twirling away up front!

 

Matty

 

 

[rgmwa]

The 172 uses about 34-38 l/hr depending on the engine, but then it's a bit slower too at around 105-115kias. I haven't flown a 182, but it's probably not a lot different to a 172 in turbulence, except that you won't be in it for as long.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[planesmaker]

Go for a C182 better performance and throttle back to C172 speed for similar fuel burn. Just a little more expensive in maintenance. Or you could try a 4 seat jab with turbo rotax for better performance than a C172 at 17lt/hr!

 

Tom

 

 

[Ultralights]

which one is best for the flight? whats the fuel burn of both? the distance you need to go? and cruise speed? and the cargo? 4 adults and baggage, the 182. just yourself and a friend, the 172.

 

 

[kaz3g]

If you just love flying, the C172 will give more love time for the money. If you like the buzz of a constant speed and want to get there in a hurray (and cost isn't a real concern) the C182 is a very nice Aircraft to go touring in.

 

I did my AFR a few weeks ago in a C182R (retractable) and it's like a C210 with wing supports :-). Everything happens a lot quicker than in the Auster!

 

Kaz

 

 

[David Isaac]

C182 nice, strong and heavier than a C172 and lot better in turbulence due to the extra weight and penetration. They are a true 4 seater; you can carry 4 x bums, full fuel and baggage and typically be within weight and balance limits and still have good short field performance. But you will pay more for the fuel and maintenance of the 0-470 6 cylinder (235 HP) and CSU up front, 50+ litres per hour. A Q model will TAS at up o 135 knots, a C182RG will TAS at 155 knots, real nice.

 

C172, nice, strong, but lighter and less complex to fly, somewhat weight limited, not a true 4 seater (full fuel and 2 x bums or 4 x bums and half fuel) 0-360 4 cylinder (160HP) approx 32-34 litres per hour and fixed pitch prop almost bullet proof if operated correctly.

 

My recommendation for touring long distance is the C182RG, but a C172 is a very versatile aircraft and will cost a lot less to buy and operate than a C182. It will largely depend on what weight you propose to carry.

 

But my personal choice would be a C180.

 

 

[poteroo]

Have seen a few flying groups sell their 172's and buy into a C182. The utilisation decreased about in proportion to the fuel burn difference - leaving them trying to increase the 182 use to keep it all afloat. Many comments to the effect 'we shouldn't have been blinded by the performance' C182 requires much higher standard of piloting to avoid damage to firewall, and the Continental 0-470 engines needed to be worked hard to avoid cylinder glazing - not 'babied' as often happens in private/group flying.

 

Remember that there are several performance groupings within the 172 range.

 

1953-1969: Continental 0-300 engines of 145 HP/ 27-28 LPH/smooth,quiet/ 95-100 KTAS

 

1970-1985: Lycoming 0-320's 150-160HP / 28-32 LPH / 105-108 KTAS.... but fit a 180HP conversion and,

 

Lycoming 0-360 180HP/FP / 32-36 LPH / 105-113 KTAS - and you get another 45 kg onto your gross weight

 

1998-2003 Lycoming IO-360 160HP / 34-38 LPH / 105-110 KTAS (R models - very underpowered and heavy BEW)

 

2003-2013 Lycoming IO-360 180 HP/ 34-38 LPH / 110-118 KTAS (S models - still quite expensive)

 

If you were looking for a good performer which was simple to fly, then my pick would be a C172N or P, fitted with a Penn Yan or Air Plains 180 HP conversion and a fixed pitch Sensenich prop. There are several around, and lots in the US. You'd pickup one of these with good gear and TTR for far less than a 182.

 

I've owned all of them. Loved my C180 and C182 - but the fuel bill!!!

 

 

[David Isaac]

Good advice Pots ....

 

 

[cooperplace]

Have seen a few flying groups sell their 172's and buy into a C182. The utilisation decreased about in proportion to the fuel burn difference - leaving them trying to increase the 182 use to keep it all afloat. Many comments to the effect 'we shouldn't have been blinded by the performance' C182 requires much higher standard of piloting to avoid damage to firewall, and the Continental 0-470 engines needed to be worked hard to avoid cylinder glazing - not 'babied' as often happens in private/group flying.Remember that there are several performance groupings within the 172 range.

 

1953-1969: Continental 0-300 engines of 145 HP/ 27-28 LPH/smooth,quiet/ 95-100 KTAS

 

1970-1985: Lycoming 0-320's 150-160HP / 28-32 LPH / 105-108 KTAS.... but fit a 180HP conversion and,

 

Lycoming 0-360 180HP/FP / 32-36 LPH / 105-113 KTAS - and you get another 45 kg onto your gross weight

 

1998-2003 Lycoming IO-360 160HP / 34-38 LPH / 105-110 KTAS (R models - very underpowered and heavy BEW)

 

2003-2013 Lycoming IO-360 180 HP/ 34-38 LPH / 110-118 KTAS (S models - still quite expensive)

 

If you were looking for a good performer which was simple to fly, then my pick would be a C172N or P, fitted with a Penn Yan or Air Plains 180 HP conversion and a fixed pitch Sensenich prop. There are several around, and lots in the US. You'd pickup one of these with good gear and TTR for far less than a 182.

 

I've owned all of them. Loved my C180 and C182 - but the fuel bill!!!

Hi Potoroo,

do you have any advice re corrosion in a 172?

 

 

[David Isaac]

..... C172, nice, strong, but lighter and less complex to fly, somewhat weight limited, not a true 4 seater (full fuel and 2 x bums or 4 x bums and half fuel) 0-360 4 cylinder (160HP) .....

Just realised a typo in my post. The older C172s had 0-320s standard NOT an 0-360. Pots has the accurate sizes and numbers in his post above. A C172 with an 0-360 would be a damn good aircraft, especially if it was an older 172 conversion that still had the 40 degree flap capability for short field operations (if you needed it). All later models were limited to 30 degrees and many older 172s had the STC flap limiting mod which gave an extra few kilos for MTOW.

[metalman]

A local pilot has an old straight rail 172 with a tail dragger conversion , Io360 and a CSU ,a STOL kit, beautiful paint and interior trim ,,,,,I reckon it's about perfect for cost fun and perve factor

 

Matty

 

 

[poteroo]

Hi Potoroo,do you have any advice re corrosion in a 172?

Expect it to be there to a varying extent. Depends a lot on the aircrafts' location history and hangarage times. But there are only 'so many' Cessnas that have spent their entire life in a dry hangar in the desert 50nm west of Birdsville! And, the same goes for the USA.....the true number of 'desert based' aircraft has long since become zero. Sometimes the higher hour 172's, (over 10k), were well looked after and look reasonable. The future according to SIDS is going to be the decider for many 172 buyers. If it is continued, (and there are murmours that it may not be), then those aircraft which have completed SIDS will be worth much more than the non-compliant - but it's a little like engine life. You'll never recoup the full value of what has been spent to bring the aircraft up to speed, but without doing that - the aircraft is much more difficult to sell. Classic Catch-22!

 

The flap restriction is interesting. If you instal the flap limiters to a 160HP x 40 deg 172 ...... then 45 kgs extra GW is allowed. Same for 180 HP. But you don't get 90 kg if you do both because the STC's are exclusive. I'm not a great proponent of keeping the 40 deg capability because it's too easy to get behind the power curve on a short field approach at GW. Anyway, with the 172's it's usually been the case that you can get into a short strip - but without the extra HP - you can't get out at the same GW. These STC's for the 0-360 Lycoming go a long way to resolving that.

 

Have a look on the Air Plains and Penn Yann sites and you can get their STC details. The STC conversions can be, and have been, done here in Aus. RACWA used to have several 180 HP C172N and P models on line. You wont' see a great speed improvement with the extra HP though - maybe 6-8 KTAS. Co-incidentally - if you replace the 160 for a 180 in most RV's ....the speed increase is about the same.

 

happy days,

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm not going to buy into this except to say a real clean 182 is a pretty nice aeroplane. You are getting into a lot of maintenance with them, especially with RG. re the FULL flap, mostly used by bulldozer drivers to recover a high approach and is fairly airspeed limited, doing damage to the wings if speed exceeded. Makes go arounds a bit complicated if you don't watch what you are doing. I prefer the manual flaps rather than electric, but that's going back a long way. As a project an early 172 with the C 0-300 vertical tail and T/W mod. and no corrosion and a couple of stol enhancements would be OK. The six is so much more smooth than any of the fours..Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

We used to affectionately call those old 0-300 equipped C172s 'slab backs', they are apparently collectors items in the US of A?????

 

I am reliably told it is getting difficult to get spares for the old 0-300 especially crankcases. That could be a limiting factor for an otherwise very nice 6 cylinder aircraft.

 

The problems with the 40 degree flap models was with the pilots, not the aircraft. The short field approach capability and precautionary landing capability made it an asset ( as long as you flew out lighter in some cases). As for getting behind the power curve, I agree, but whose incompetence is that? The only reason Cessna removed the 40 degree capability was because of a law suit in the US where some dumb ass pilot tried to go around at 40- degrees, crashed, survived and sued Cessna. 'What the' ... obviously never read the POH or was ever taught/ converted correctly.

 

Hell if you are an idiot, you can get behind the power curve in a 300 HP C185 on a short field final at Gross weight ....

 

 

[facthunter]

The most dangerous thing in those older Cessna's (besides the nut that holds the control wheel) is the seat locking mechanism. Check the pins are engaged carefully before opening the throttles. Especially in the 180's and their ilk Nev

 

 

[cooperplace]

Expect it to be there to a varying extent. Depends a lot on the aircrafts' location history and hangarage times. But there are only 'so many' Cessnas that have spent their entire life in a dry hangar in the desert 50nm west of Birdsville! And, the same goes for the USA.....the true number of 'desert based' aircraft has long since become zero. Sometimes the higher hour 172's, (over 10k), were well looked after and look reasonable. The future according to SIDS is going to be the decider for many 172 buyers. If it is continued, (and there are murmours that it may not be), then those aircraft which have completed SIDS will be worth much more than the non-compliant - but it's a little like engine life. You'll never recoup the full value of what has been spent to bring the aircraft up to speed, but without doing that - the aircraft is much more difficult to sell. Classic Catch-22!The flap restriction is interesting. If you instal the flap limiters to a 160HP x 40 deg 172 ...... then 45 kgs extra GW is allowed. Same for 180 HP. But you don't get 90 kg if you do both because the STC's are exclusive. I'm not a great proponent of keeping the 40 deg capability because it's too easy to get behind the power curve on a short field approach at GW. Anyway, with the 172's it's usually been the case that you can get into a short strip - but without the extra HP - you can't get out at the same GW. These STC's for the 0-360 Lycoming go a long way to resolving that.

 

Have a look on the Air Plains and Penn Yann sites and you can get their STC details. The STC conversions can be, and have been, done here in Aus. RACWA used to have several 180 HP C172N and P models on line. You wont' see a great speed improvement with the extra HP though - maybe 6-8 KTAS. Co-incidentally - if you replace the 160 for a 180 in most RV's ....the speed increase is about the same.

 

happy days,

excellent, thank you

 

 

[metalman]

The most dangerous thing in those older Cessna's (besides the nut that holds the control wheel) is the seat locking mechanism. Check the pins are engaged carefully before opening the throttles. Especially in the 180's and their ilk Nev

gotta do the cessna wriggle everytime !!

 

 

[frank marriott]

From my experience with aero clubs, once you put anything above a Warrier/C-172 on line for PPLs (too many of whom fly too irregularly) you get into the maintenance costs of firewall damage (dropping the nose wheel on landing) and cracking cylinders (incorrect leaning with the CSU).

 

Not a hard and fast rule but something to keep in mind and possibly involve check flights depending on recency.

 

 

[kgwilson]

A friend of mine bought an old M series 172 with an 0360 & coarse pitch prop at an FBI auction in the US for next to nothing & shipped it to NZ. It had been seized after being found full of cocaine. NZ customs even found traces when it arrived & there was quite a hassle with the importation. It was pretty rough & had been sitting around in the desert for years. I flew it a few times before he restored & painted it & it was like no other 172 I'd flown before. Went like a cut cat. You could climb out at 1000 feet a minute even with the cruise prop.

 

The lack of maintenance showed up pretty quickly when on one takeoff the seat latch failed & sent me fully aft. I was lucky not to stall as initially the yoke came with me as well as the control panel but somehow I managed to get the nose down in time & then wrestle the seat forward while at the same time trying to push the panel back into place. It sounds a bit funny now but at the time I was sh!!!ing myself.

 

 

[Virago]

It was a C172 seat rail failure that initiated all the litigation issues in the States about 20 years ago. That resulted in most piston engined aircraft manufacturers ceasing production for quite some time until it all the insurance issues got sorted out. It's also why aircraft cost so much more (relatively) that they did before. Hows your Sierra 100 coming along Kevin?

 

 

[cooperplace]

Expect it to be there to a varying extent. Depends a lot on the aircrafts' location history and hangarage times. But there are only 'so many' Cessnas that have spent their entire life in a dry hangar in the desert 50nm west of Birdsville! And, the same goes for the USA.....the true number of 'desert based' aircraft has long since become zero. Sometimes the higher hour 172's, (over 10k), were well looked after and look reasonable. The future according to SIDS is going to be the decider for many 172 buyers. If it is continued, (and there are murmours that it may not be), then those aircraft which have completed SIDS will be worth much more than the non-compliant - but it's a little like engine life. You'll never recoup the full value of what has been spent to bring the aircraft up to speed, but without doing that - the aircraft is much more difficult to sell. Classic Catch-22!The flap restriction is interesting. If you instal the flap limiters to a 160HP x 40 deg 172 ...... then 45 kgs extra GW is allowed. Same for 180 HP. But you don't get 90 kg if you do both because the STC's are exclusive. I'm not a great proponent of keeping the 40 deg capability because it's too easy to get behind the power curve on a short field approach at GW. Anyway, with the 172's it's usually been the case that you can get into a short strip - but without the extra HP - you can't get out at the same GW. These STC's for the 0-360 Lycoming go a long way to resolving that.

 

Have a look on the Air Plains and Penn Yann sites and you can get their STC details. The STC conversions can be, and have been, done here in Aus. RACWA used to have several 180 HP C172N and P models on line. You wont' see a great speed improvement with the extra HP though - maybe 6-8 KTAS. Co-incidentally - if you replace the 160 for a 180 in most RV's ....the speed increase is about the same.

 

happy days,

what sort of cost would a full SIDS compliance be in Australia, on a 172?

 

 

[kgwilson]

Hows your Sierra 100 coming along Kevin?

Hi John, Just got the cowling done so only the canopy, paint & Interior fit-out to do, plus the pushrods & flap motor, brakes & wheel spats. I have already pre-installed the panel & instruments but removed them. I'll post an update on the blog soon.

 

 

[David Isaac]

From my experience with aero clubs, once you put anything above a Warrier/C-172 on line for PPLs (too many of whom fly too irregularly) you get into the maintenance costs of firewall damage (dropping the nose wheel on landing) and cracking cylinders (incorrect leaning with the CSU). Not a hard and fast rule but something to keep in mind and possibly involve check flights depending on recency.

Sad but often true Frank. Makes you really question competency and training in some club environments. Cessnas are so easy to hold off and the only way to land them properly and without damage, although I have seen plenty of idiots trying to wheelbarrow 172s on as they come in too hot and try and force them on at flying speed.