Yes agree BRS has more use cases than just dead engine landings and it’s indeed very capable beast (my envy of that up to 1200lbs UL and 400m grass roll )
@boscomantico
All you say is (almost) true :-)
182T is not the hauler 182s used to be.
With full fuel, I do have 245kg before MTOW. MLW is also 66kg below MTOW which is often disregarded.
Clealry, speed is not where it shines. 135-140 KTAS above FL70 is what to expect in real life.
12GPH is a bit high it seems. Peter manages to get much less with more horsepower :-) Around FL100, you should see something like 10,5-11GPH at peak – LOP not being a problem on that engine.
When I chose to buy my 182 – and I was really unexperimented – I liked the safety aspects of the 182: gentle handling, low take off and landing speeds, BOTH fuel tank selector. Later, I decided to go even farther, and lost 2-3kts in exchange with vortex generators. It is the poor man’s chute
G1000 is not that bad. As everybody knows, going WAAS is a pain, although not impossible.
You get a good (reliable in my experience) integrated avionics, with possibility to add fancy stuff: Jeppview, TAWS, SVT and of course TAS. Your friend seems to have almost everything installed.
As an unexperimented pilot, I found it to be a good platform to get Instrument Rating. Since then, as i don’t fly tons of hours every year, but acquired a deep knowledge of the system, found it to be a good copilot for IFR flights.
Last two things not widely known:
- Cessna chose the most expensive EGT probes in the known universe (or so)
- the AMSAFE / airbag system is costly to maintain
- fuel senders are Rochester (totally unreliable after a few years) before 2007 (then, 182 got WAAS, GFC700 and decent capacitive senders)
PS: as for avionics, I have for example to experience with avidyne, and would be glad to read how you compare it (in a different post maybe ?)