I was involved in getting a “traveller” for a club a few years back. They were operating two 172’s and a PA28-180 which got lost in an incident.
The club’s board wanted to offer a newer and better airframe but were violently opposed by the majority who did want another PA28 or a third 172 as the availability on the weekeds was too low with two. I looked around for them, the 172’s available as well as the PA28-180 were all dogs which would have needed a lot of money to upgrade or too expensive if in good condition. In the end I found a nice Arrow II locally with relatively new engine and prop as well as decent avionics for less than 40k Euros. It did convince the membership as it is as easy to fly as the PA28-180 and has similar load capacity and it was comparatively cheap. I understand they are happy with it as it fits both side’s needs and is only fractionally more expensive than the 180 used to be. There are plenty of them around and they make decent travellers even though I’d look for an Arrow III if I was shopping for myself due to the better range.
In Cambrai they operate an Arrow IV for as low as 160€/h!
What about a AA5 Tiger, maybe hard to find but faster than a C172. No wobbly prop or swinging gear. A travel machine but no real 4-seater..
Medres07 wrote:
What about a AA5 Tiger, maybe hard to find but faster than a C172. No wobbly prop or swinging gear. A travel machine but no real 4-seater..
Generally cheaper to buy and to operate than C172, too. Has a useful load of 380-390 kg, so it will easily take 4 people on a local bimble. More fun to fly than a Cessna.
My local club two Cessna 182, one with naturally aspirated engine and fixed gear and the other with turbo, oxygen system and retracting gear.
They are the club’s travel planes, and it shows in the reservation system: they are often reserved by the day, and not by the hour. When I got my PPL, I started to consider them as essential to “go anywhere”, anything more than a short burger run. They are steam gauges, crappy-to-not-working autopilot, but I actually prefer to fly them rather than the C172S with G1000, as soon as I go a moderate distance… Also because they are more available 
The price difference per nmi (not per hour…) is approx 5% to 12.5% compared to the P28A and C172 (depending on comparison with steam gauges ones or G1000 ones), so actually not a strong deterrent.
They fly less than the “basic trainers”, but still more than 200h/year.
Also, they open up possibilities of activities with two pilots and two spouses… Again a new mission profile.
I think they open up the horizons and are essential in the club mix, but that’s also because our club mix very much includes (a small minority) going places with the planes, beyond the short burger run. Alas, they are getting old, stuff is breaking down, replacement plans are… not happening, so in our club the future of that activity is unclear.
What does that mean for your club? Well, the question is: do you either have a group of pilots that would “grow” and use them, or would you attract new members that would use them?
The price difference per nmi (not per hour…) is approx 5% to 12.5% compared to the P28A and C172 (depending on comparison with steam gauges ones or G1000 ones), so actually not a strong deterrent.
Indeed; a faster plane costs the same per mile
they open up possibilities of activities with two pilots and two spouses
Or two girlfriends (or boyfriends) 
Suddenly, your flying has become 100x (or 10000%, if you read the Daily Trash) more fun
Letting our T182T at EUR270 is met with quite high demand in the Duesseldorf area. A large percentage is the fuel which we average with 50l/h, the “S” should be happy with 40+ l/h LOP. The criteria Peter mentions above are all valid. The 182 is a people hauler and goes places. I am 6’6", 260 lbs and travel with up to three people up to 500nm legs with ease. Autopilot for the 182S should be a KAP140 which is not state-of-the-art but has Altitude preselect and approach capability. The gear and systems are simple enough for a semi-affordable annual at +/-EUR2.000.
In our group we also operate a nice 182 S model. Great aircraft and a great performer. Its a true 4 seater aircraft that will go and take off from just about any field.
Maintenance wise it really depends on where you maintain it. Ours, touch wood has been super reliable with minimal outgoings except basic maintenance.
The IO-540 burns around 12us/g averagely and even less at altitude and when leaned out properly. ( It depends on what setting you fly it too)
I see prices to rent them vary alot, but I would not pay anywhere near those figures mentioned above. But as being a group/club they can be operated much much cheaper with a monthly fee that will cover all other costs.
I agree, SR20, DA40 are a nice aircraft too, priced quite similarly, but none will perform like the 182 does. 4 pax, bags, nearly full tanks, and still at 140kts, you just cant go wrong.
Peter wrote:
The C182 will outperform all the others when it comes to grass strips though. At a push, right conditions etc, you can do 200m grass.
That’s a problem with the DA40. I’d love to get one for my club, but it won’t operate out of a 630 m grass strip — the landing distance is too great.
(Well, of course you could use it with pilots who are used to the aircraft and careful both with the threshold speed and with not carrying more landing fuel than necessary but with the average member it would not be long before we had a runway overrun.)
(It is interesting looking at these normal category composite aircraft att AERO Friedrichshafen. At the Diamond stand they only had the ground roll figures posted. When I enquired about the DA40 landing distance from 50 ft there was much humming and mumbling until eventually someone produced a laptop and downloaded the POH performance diagrams from their web site. Another manufacturer — don’t remember which one — posted the take-off distance to 50 ft, but only the ground roll figure for landing — guess why…)
I am a member of the club Aviathor mentioned.
We have 2 C182T G1000 bought new in 2008. Their rate is 283€/h wet.
It is politics : they were bought for the president and his friends who wanted this kind of tourer.
They are that expensive in order to be for these membres only. In an ordinary club they would be cheaper, maybe 230€, to make them fly even with a loss.
Our club has 30 (three-zero) other Cessnas to make a profit with so these 182 don’t endanger the club.
For a small club, I think a 182 is unreasonable. I would love to fly these, but 80% of PPLs just want a 172 to fly around the local area once a month. So flying-wise and financially, it is a danger for a small club in my opinion.
