Cessna 182 competitors?

[MAULE]

Please can you tell me which other aircraft would be comparable to Cessna 182,as regards load and fuel .

[27/09]

PA28-235 Dakota

[roundsounds]

Agree, PA28-236 Dakota. I was always a Cessna man, but started flying / training in a Dakota and now prefer them to a 182. Fly them by the book and they'll equal or better 182 performance (all phases of flight). As a bonus the Lycoming 540 rated at 235HP is bullet proof.

[glendalegoon]

and, when they made "GOLDFINGER" (james bond movie), if you look real close, the cherokees of the flying circus are 235s

Two of my favorite planes are in James Bond Movies. "Goldfinger" and the Cherokee, and "Moonraker" and the HP Jetstream. (while I didn't fly it in the movie, I flew the very one in line operations)

so, go with piper, fly it, you'll like it.

[westhawk]

Depends what you're going to use it for. I find the 182 preferable to the PA-28-235. The 182 has a wider and taller cabin and two doors. It's easier to ingress and egress. Those are personal preferences, but I also liked the Dakota too!

I didn't much appreciate the performance of the turbo Dakota though. (PA-28-200T) Long flat climbs with higher than I like cyl temps plague this model as they did the turbo Arrow and Mooney 231. It's TSIO-360 Connie just isn't up to the task as installed in this airframe. (much better in the turbo Senecas) The Lyc O-540 is much better suited and does exceptionally well in the 182RG as well as the straight Dakota. I haven't flown the newer straight 182 with the injected Lyc, but I'll bet it's a beauty too.

So yes the Dakota is about as close to parity with the later model 182 as you'll get in an aluminum semi monocoque constructed airplane. If one is willing to consider steel tube and fabric construction then look into the Maule airplanes with 235 hp Lycs too.

westhawk

[Chilli Monster]

I've found the TB20 a pretty much go anywhere, do anything machine. Ok, it won't do 4 adults and full fuel. However - 1000 miles on full tanks, or French Alps to the UK Midlands with 3 adults and a pile of tools is pretty good going.

[unusualAtitude]

Skylane Versus Dakota (http://www.airbum.com/articles/ArticleSkylaneDakota.html)

[Rod1]

What about a Maule :}

Rod1

[roundsounds]

The Maule just doesn't have the finish, room or load carrying capability of either the Cessna or Piper. I've used all three types for various roles, including private ops, charter, flight training, glider towing and banner towing. As a personal A to B aircraft I'd go for the PA28-236.

[ChickenHouse]

It all depends on where you go. If you are bushflying, there may be a runner upper with the Maule, while the Dakota definitely burns last. If you are the typical well hugged civilized european armchair flyer, then the Dakota is coming closest. There are TB's also, but only for the second case.

[dont overfil]

Skylane Versus Dakota (http://www.airbum.com/articles/ArticleSkylaneDakota.html)

A deciding factor could be that new C182's have been available since 1995. Is this also the case with the Dakota?

The fuel injected Lycoming in the newer Cessnas is much more economical than the previous models.

D.O.

[9 lives]

Though I entirely like to fly the legacy Piper Cherokees, I prefer to own a legacy Cessna rather than Cherokee.

Many primary structure parts for Cherokees are getting impossible to locate. I have dealt directly with Piper Tech Support in respect of a late '70's Piper, and was directly told that Piper would not support that aircraft [or others of that era], as Piper did not "want them flying any more". Piper seems to want attrition to ground them. This would be very worrying if I owned one. This is coupled with the fact that Piper is very poor to describe "negligible damage" (damage not requiring repair), so even the smallest dent in most Pipers (like hail damage) can require parts replacement - and the parts may not be available at all.

I was asked to assist with a one half square inch spot of corrosion on a 1969 Piper Arrow wing spar, right in the mainwheel bay. There was no repair or rework possible, and no spar available. The plane sold for scrap for $7000 (the engine value - no value assigned to the airframe). I was asked to assist with a hail damage repair (allowance of the damage) on a PA-28-161. Only very diligent research by the (then frantic) new owner got us through, in finding a little known Piper Service Letter for another model, and it still cost him about $10,000 to get it flying again with that letter. Without it would have written off the plane.

In both those cases, were it to have been a Cessna, all the information to return the plane to service was right in the maintenance manual, and no Cessna parts would have been required.

Know the whole picture before you take on the operational responsibility for legacy aircraft.

[27/09]

Steep Turn

Your comments regarding the repairability of Pipers does not reflect my experience. I know they have recently made parts for out of production 50 year old models.

So far as parts go Piper still make these airframes so there should be no problems with parts. One thing Piper do well is make parts that are used on a variety of aircraft. The 161 181 236 models use the same basic airframe. The Cherokee 6 and Seneca fuselages are basically the same, a Seminole is a Twin Arrow IV etc.

[9 lives]

Probably the best thing for a prospective legacy Piper Cherokee (and derivatives) purchaser to do would be to contact Piper, and ask for a list of parts available - in stock - for that model. The PA-28R-180, 28-161, and Seneca II have each been a real problem for my experience. The only thing that got the Seneca back in the air is that Piper did provide the information on the material that the spar carry through was made of, so "made parts" could be fabricated as replacements. This cost more than $10,000 by the time it was approved.

It's just a buyer beware situation. If the Cherokee series is being supported, I could not be happier, they're great planes, as long as you can keep them flying!

[27/09]

Steep Turn

One should adopt a similar policy with legacy Cessnas so far as the SIDS programme goes. Before purchase, the prospective owner should research the cost of the SIDS programme.

I know in the US, and possibly Canada, SIDS are not mandatory for private or Part 91 ops however in many parts of the world SIDS are mandatory for private ops. As a result there are a good few legacy Cessnas that have been permanently grounded due to the cost of complying with the SIDS.

[olasek]

would be comparable to Cessna 182,as regards load and fuel
Cirrus SR22 (non-turbo) is quite comparable.

[27/09]

Cirrus SR22 (non-turbo) is quite comparable. Yes, but how does it handle the shorter grass strips, say 700 metres/2100' long with 4 POB?

[2high2fastagain]

The Piper Commanche (o540 powered 260hp version ) would probably be worth considering. It has a fast cruise speed (150 knots or more and over 1000lb useful load. It's a bit quicker than the fastest 182 (the TR182) at low altitudes and a bit slower when the TR182's turbonormaliser makes an impact above 10,000ft.

I've seen the Commanche landed by experienced pilots on short fields (e.g. LDA 310m), though the TR182 can be driven down at a slower approach speed (58 knots in no wind) and land shorter. I've landed the TR182 on 261m of grass with 4 up and 40 gallons of fuel on board though there was a stiff headwind.

I think both aircraft are real thoroughbreds, though I plumped for the TR182 and I didn't regret it.

[snchater]

Quote:
Cirrus SR22 (non-turbo) is quite comparable.
Yes, but how does it handle the shorter grass strips, say 700 metres/2100' long with 4 POB?

Suggest you ask Lord Sugar ;)

[2high2fastagain]

Now now, 'tis the season of goodwill.

[smarthawke]

To avoid confusion with the model mentioned designations above:

1. Piper PA28-236 Dakota - later tapered wing, 235hp Lycoming O-540

2. Piper PA28-235 Pathfinder - Hershey bar wing, 235hp Lyoming O-540

3. Piper PA28-201T Turbo Dakota is basically a fixed gear Arrow III.

[Model numbers add a '1'to denote tapered wings 161/236/201 etc]

Piper had problems supplying parts earlier in 2014 (after computer glitches at the factory apparently) but not a real problem for PA28s in my experience.

Dakota is superb load hauler at a genuine 135 KIAS. There are many more C182s to choose from though.

Dakotas haven't been made since the early 80s.

[olasek]

yes, but how does it handle the shorter grass strips, say 700 metres/2100' long with 4 POB?
Read the question again, I don't see anything there about grass field, only useful load and fuel.
By the way, SR22 handles grass fields just fine.

[27/09]

Read the question again, I don't see anything there about grass field, only useful load and fuel.
By the way, SR22 handles grass fields just fine.

Correct, there is no reference to grass strips, however compared to the US the UK (where the OP is from) tends to have proportionately a lot more grass strips.

Many of the more modern high performance singles do not do so well on grass compared to older aircraft, due to mainly higher empty weights and smaller tyres. It's good to hear the SR 22 is good on grass. What distance would it use to 50' at MAUW for T/O and what landing distance from 50'?

[ChickenHouse]

If you frequently go for i.e. 1.200ft gras strips, there is no competitor to a C182 and especially not a SR22 ...

[porterhouse]

I agree that if someone is specifically focused on grass fields then 182 would be a better choice than a Cirrus.

[9 lives]

And if it's serious grass field operations, the 180 or 185 will be superior to the 182. I have buried a 182 nosewheel in soft ground before. That said, if the conditions of the grass runway are such that the nosewheel is getting mired in, the operator of the runway might prefer that there be no traffic until it firms up, so the ability of the 180/185 to get in and out might create unhappiness.

Comparing apples to apples, the 180 is a little faster, will carry a bit more, and is less costly to maintain than the 182.

The 182 RG goes the other direction compared to the 182, more costly to maintain, and not as good in grass runways, with the smaller tires. A great plane, but better kept to firm runways.

[irish seaplane]

2high2fast - I want to meet the Comanche guru who can land in 310m strips. I thought getting my twin com stopped inside of 400m was tough. The single com might suit me better. It's not much slower than the twin. I rather fancy the PA24-250 as it has the manual flaps. It can do 150kts off grass with the big 6.00-6 nose wheel keeping it from digging in like a R182.

I think all the 4 seat comparables to the 182 have been mentioned.

[Cows getting bigger]

Throwing a curved ball, how about a Robin DR500?

[9 lives]

I want to meet the Comanche guru who can land in 310m strips

I know him, he operates in and out of 700 feet. But I hardly think this is an operation which is safely repeatable for most pilots in varying conditions. I have flown a 182 in and out of his runway, and really had to work at it.

Planning for repeated operations of just about any 4 place aircraft in and out of 300m would be foolish. A C182 (or 180/185) with a STOL kit would be your best common choice for short soft runways. Aircraft like the Helio Courier and Wilga are suited to these runway types, but they have their own unique ownership or operating demands.

[fatmanmedia]

another curve ball - Panthera from Pipistrel

fats

[2high2fastagain]

Quote:
I want to meet the Comanche guru who can land in 310m strips

I know him, he operates in and out of 700 feet. But I hardly think this is an operation which is safely repeatable for most pilots in varying conditions. I have flown a 182 in and out of his runway, and really had to work at it.

Given that this is an anonymous forum, it would be of me wrong to name him, but I don't think he's the '700 feet' Comanche pilot mentioned above. We're both based in the UK. I do agree with Step Change however, that 700ft (213m) is probably pushing it in terms of repeatability. I'd want a stiff wind on the nose before putting the 182 down on that length of strip.

[Cows getting bigger]

Never mind the stiff wind, I'ld want a stiff drink!! :)

[irish seaplane]

2high2fast - I think I know who you're talking about but PM me if you can. I am always keen to meet whoever can wring the most out of a type.

If it was a 182 you could manage 700 feet. I did use strips less than that in the 180 on calm days. The 182 is awesome though. I fly my friends 182Q and it is an exquisite example. The 182S needs much more room. Long live the 182.

[POBJOY]

The 182 is a real workhorse and at home on the tarmac or puddle jumping.
Also having two doors is useful and the visibility for strip operation very good and even better on the older ones.
When the distance is 'tight' or the surface a bit soft the 182 will give you an edge like no other standard machine,and with a STOL kit added its a real performer.
Of course this is no surprise as it was developed from the 180 (say no more).
PP