I’ve done a good bit in a 182RG that my friend owned. The “Stiletto” tires need to be watched on grass very carefully, same as the 172RG. Short field performance is truly amazing. I went 3 up, bags, full fuel out of 400m of short wet grass over high cables on the climb out. I also remember landing on a 700m strip, where there was something parked at the halfway point. You just hung it on the prop and got stopped easily. Fuel burn was about 54L per hour, I didn’t lean it hard. Seem to remember 145kts TAS was about what I was getting. Given the high price of Cessna Rotary actuators for the MLG, I’d be slow to operate one out of rough places. Anything in the 180/182 line begins to become a seriously useful aircraft. I love that big Cessna feel, even if the wind would blow the door off the hinges you can still fly.
I have a few hundred hours in three different 182RG’s, all very satisfying aircraft. They have a much more refined retraction mechanism than the 177RG, even though they appear to work the same way. Take good care to prevent hard landings though, some of the landing gear parts are difficult to get as replacement parts if you damage the main landing gear.
Just out of curiosity as we talked about 182s today.
What might be the reasons to be interested in a Cessna 182?
Some of the following?
-can haul three adults plus full fuel long range
-stable IFR-platform plus the point above
-modest runway requirements
-full grass/gravel capability (only true for the fixed gear version?)
-fast for a hefty four seater
-reliable, sturdy
-comfortable, roomy
If IFR and three people long range are not needed at the same time, it hasn’t much going for it, right?
Just contemplating about todays bimble of 2 hours altogether, fuel 70€ as opposed to [edited, miscalculation corrected] 300€ for the Cessna. So that’s a plane for ‘serious’ flying for an owner whose account (and probably more relevant: psychological) balance and isn’t affected by half a grand?
Assume 16 USG for the first hour, and 12 USG for the second hour that’s 106 litres, or €265 in fuel, not quite €500. Although using the rule of thumb of 2.5x fuel for all in hourly costs, then the two hour bimble is closer to €700.
65/90HP ragwings tend to win on the bimble economy stakes, even though per seat miles per gallon actually favour the 182.
Thanks for the correction, adapted the text.
You don’t have to recur on ragwings to be way cheaper than a 182 while being not that much slower, if ever. There are twoseaters emerging which cruise in the 130 KTAS range, some even faster, on a Rotax 100HP.
This is not to argue about undisputed advantages of a 182 (sturdiness, roominess, load capacity, IFR legal and sensible) but my honest question was about the selling point versus a Beech, a Mooney, a Vans RV, an IFR-certified Elixir with Rotax 915, a RG Ultralight, you name it. Only the need to transport Family and luggage under IFR came to my mind.
Again, mogas. Take the comparison with the ubiquitous Piper Arrow for example. If you have access to proper mogas, then the fuel cost in Germany (52 litres * 1,80€ on average vs. 38 litres * 2,40€ on average) is the same. But the Arrow is 10-15 knots slower, climbs less well, doesn’t perform as well on short fields, etc.
Any comparison with VFR-only light two-seaters would indeed be absurd.
I just think the selling point of a C182 appart from speed and load is it does very well on very very rough ground/air, I can’t see how Mooney or Vans will cope with lot of turbulence/crosswind in both the air/ground?
Talking about VFR capability, IFR is a probably a different topic, setting aside avionics and ceiling, I think even C152 does very well in hard-core IMC as most GA aircrafts ;)
The only problem I have with the 182RG is how high off the hangar floor I have to get the aircraft to do a landing gear retraction test.
So, I have now completed my first real trip in this bird (to the northern Med, brilliant by the way…) and basically, my first impressions have been confirmed:
- it‘s a good, honest touring workhorse. Nothing glorious, nothing shiny, nothing elegant. But a great tool. If you have access to 1.60€/l mogas (as in some places in Germany and Austria), it also has an acceptable DOC
-time will tell how many maintenance headaches it will produce. But it being a relatively simple Cessna, the odds are it will be ok (it‘s owned by a friend of mine).
-with this aircraft, one can really almost forget about weight (3 big persons, lots of luggage and full fuel is fine, 4 average persons are possible with almost full fuel) and balance (very hard to get out of the envelope). Likewise, with the exception of VERY soft fields, one can almost forget about runway lengths – it will have no problem.
-not really possible to get any more than 150 knots out of it at 50 lph. Down low, it is a few knots slower. Investing 55-60lph, one might get 152-154 knots out of it, but it hardly seems worth the effort. This is not far from book speeds – max cruise speed is 156 knots according to the POH
-it climbs nicely. Whilst we did not try to get to the ceiling yet (no need) it climbed to 10,500 feet very quickly.
-we did get what seemed like some occasional carb icing on a humid day. So this has to be taken in consideration.
All in all, a great plane, which is hard to fall in love with. ;-)
At FL95:
Over the Austrian Alps
At Figari, in good company
Climbing through FL65, doing 700fpm at 105KIAS…
VFR below the cloud in France. This is where we got some occasional carb ice, we believe:
Approaching Mosbach EDGM for some cheap SP98. At 615 meters of runway length, this is NO problem, whatever the loading or the OAT..
Slightly less truck like handling than the 210, and while RG parts are expensive not as rare as the early steel landing gear of the early 210 (A through G).
I fly a 182T quite a lot and see 145KTAS at F090 on 50lph, so the late model fixed gear 182 are no slouches. An early 182C with the nose wheel clean up kit will do close to 150KTAS.
