Advise on C182 Options
Moderator
if only it didn't take 12 hours for my posts to appear
Your posts are appearing immediately without Mod approval.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: YMIA
Age: 50
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Tailwheel,
Yes, I fully appreciate the spam protection
My last post went straight up. Just the ones I posted yesterday were delayed.
(I didn't want people to think i'd abandoned my own thread!)
In reply to your earlier post:
We always planned to upgrade from the 182, after seeing if in practice, a business A/C would be viable. It just seems to have become more viable for our business than we thought.
I don't think we need a turbo, the only bonus was the additional TAS, but as probably 70% of our flights wont get up to an altitude that will make effective use of the turbo, it is irrelevant, It just "happened to have one".
IFR is what I feel to be the next biggest requirement for our needs, even above speed and payload. If the directors plan a meeting for a specific date, we need to be able to stick to it as close as possible, regardless of clouds and VMC.
Not being pilots, I don't think the directors took into account that weather is a factor, you cant go anywhere at the drop of a hat unless you operate can IFR if needed.
I suppose my initial question could be re-worded, "While we have plans in the future to get a newer, larger, IFR certified A/C, - Is it worth getting our 30 year old 182 IFR-certified, taking into account that the engine will need a reco in the near future?"
Also, our 182 already has spats
Yes, I fully appreciate the spam protection
My last post went straight up. Just the ones I posted yesterday were delayed.
(I didn't want people to think i'd abandoned my own thread!)
In reply to your earlier post:
We always planned to upgrade from the 182, after seeing if in practice, a business A/C would be viable. It just seems to have become more viable for our business than we thought.
I don't think we need a turbo, the only bonus was the additional TAS, but as probably 70% of our flights wont get up to an altitude that will make effective use of the turbo, it is irrelevant, It just "happened to have one".
IFR is what I feel to be the next biggest requirement for our needs, even above speed and payload. If the directors plan a meeting for a specific date, we need to be able to stick to it as close as possible, regardless of clouds and VMC.
Not being pilots, I don't think the directors took into account that weather is a factor, you cant go anywhere at the drop of a hat unless you operate can IFR if needed.
I suppose my initial question could be re-worded, "While we have plans in the future to get a newer, larger, IFR certified A/C, - Is it worth getting our 30 year old 182 IFR-certified, taking into account that the engine will need a reco in the near future?"
Also, our 182 already has spats
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our business footprint is expanding, and long distance travel is becoming more of a necessity.
Remember the best aeroplane/ boat/ car is the one that's a bit bigger/ faster/ flasher that the one you've already got.
You all have to be dreamers or kidding!
1. You haven't flown for 6 years
2. You have only had the 182 for a couple of months and only done 20 hours
To assess the impact of an aeroplane on your business you will have to have owned one for at least a couple of years. Without being pessimistic, you will be lucky to recoup your 130K if the engine is timex, IMHO half of that would be optimistic. Selling it for more than this could take loads of time, perhaps put it on the market and see.
Keep the 182 (unless someone will give you your money back) and concentrate on getting the business really cashed up, AG is booming at the minute but the global economy seems fragile and having a cashed up business is good sense! Get some real hours under your belt and live with what you
have! A 182 is a very capable ship. Try not to spend money on it unless you have money to burn.
1. You haven't flown for 6 years
2. You have only had the 182 for a couple of months and only done 20 hours
To assess the impact of an aeroplane on your business you will have to have owned one for at least a couple of years. Without being pessimistic, you will be lucky to recoup your 130K if the engine is timex, IMHO half of that would be optimistic. Selling it for more than this could take loads of time, perhaps put it on the market and see.
Keep the 182 (unless someone will give you your money back) and concentrate on getting the business really cashed up, AG is booming at the minute but the global economy seems fragile and having a cashed up business is good sense! Get some real hours under your belt and live with what you
have! A 182 is a very capable ship. Try not to spend money on it unless you have money to burn.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 65
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In another life the rural-based company I worked for had a clapped out 172, 180, 185, 210, among 1 or 2 others. None of them glorious machines, the first 3 were considered real workhorses, utilities of the air, and were treated as such & used frequently, less so the 210. They were "goto" vehicles & could operate into and out of farm strips. We've all heard of the 3 "F"s, can you not retain the 182 and cross-hire something larger on occasion?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You think "emergency parts drop off etc" would warrant around $5 per nm freight delivery costs? Looked at BN2 SB190 costs? If the 182 is "a tad slow for longer flights" why does he want an even slower, specialised STOL aircraft with relatively high operating costs? He is reluctant to overhaul one Continental, why would he relish overhauling two Lycomings? 
"If the 182 is "a tad slow for longer flights" why does he want an even slower...."
You must have missed the very first sentence in my initial reply that quite clearly said "Remove speed from the equation....."
Do I think that emergency parts may require spending the extra money? Well, yes. The OP has also stated it too.
"If a farmer just spent upwards of half a million dollars on a new machine he will turn over in 3 years, and it breaks down - our mission is to get him running ASAP, whatever is needed. Happy farmers stay brand loyal"
What if his single engine aircraft has trouble fitting a part in thru the door? What if the broken machinery is in the hardest to reach part of the property? Islander can probably carry said part and even touch down much closer to the machinery than many.
Heck, I've done charters in KingAirs for single items weighing less than 2kg! If the part is needed, its needed- and kept the customers happy.
Yes SB190 adds some cost. But all aircraft will corrode and BN have this in place to make your aircraft last longer. Buy a new one, only needs to be conducted after 5 years, from memory.
There are that many Islanders out there that you'll be able to sell one off to somebody at a later date without any real trouble. They fill a need that nearly no other aircraft can- part of the reason why the BN2 and the Twotter are back in production.
I have very limited Conti experience, but I was lead to believe by the mechanics working for us that the Lyco 540's were easier to deal with. It was those guys working on them afterall.
The injected Lycos were even easier to start than the Conti especially hot. Maybe I just had a ****e Conti..
Working on an Islander out in the field isn't overly difficult either.
Surprisingly comfortable to sleep in too, heaps of space. You can remove and replace the 4 rows of passenger seats in less than 5 minutes, and without ANY tooling, not even a screwdriver.
lilflyboy262
"You need to look at the operations that he is doing."
I am looking at the operations that he is doing.
"Again, if we had the ability to take mare that 3 pax, we would use it more often......Once you get 4 average blokes in it (farmers size), you can only put in about enough fuel to get to the end of the runway without going outside the CG limits." - The BN2 will not have any trouble with either payload, range or CofG with the loads he has mentioned.
"We just need it to carry 4-6 people (if only 4, then 4 bigger people) cruise at more than 150-160kts and be IFR ready. Also, we use a lot of dirt strips, so sturdy landing gear and tyres are a must." - Like I said In my first post, remove speed from the equation and the BN2 will be right at home with that sort of operation. Dual mainwheels either side and a solid landing gear construction (no firewall issues that Cessnas have) and no retract complexities. Main and nose wheel itself interchangeable (can't recall if the tyres are the same off the top of my head) so less 'spares' and some commonality. It is also IFR, and with two engines you have dual vac pumps and alternators. Some out there will say that you can put extra gear into singles for redundancy to help them out if an alternator or vac pump fails- yep there's an added cost that they probably overlooked in the cost/maintenance comparison!
"He doesnt need to lift 10."
I was putting the 10 people into an easily-understandable (I thought anyway!) perspective comparison. Frank mentioned that a 210 could do 400m "depending on how fat the passengers are" and I was simply stating that the Islander had a better capacity and capability. What if the OP had 4 fatties to carry? 182 won't work, 210 might struggle, BN2 will eat it up for brekky.
The BN2 is a very easy aircraft to operate. It still has its tricks like any other aircraft and things that will kill you if you don't respect it or are an idiot. But it is stable and does what you tell it to do, fairly forgiving and sedate, will stall before you put it on its back asymmetrically. Takes 30kts of crosswind but cannot remember if this figure is demo'd or limiting. Excellent slow speed handling that can get you out of tricky situations.
The extra capability and flexibility that the BN2 offers I reckon would be highly advantageous for the OP. He can carry parts easily. Operate to crap strips without the risk of damage- it'll take a bigger beating than a 182 or similar. Config the interior easily to carry parts or the bosses, or both, without cramming it in making it too squishy for the pax. Meet and exceed the OP's ability to go IFR and at night in complete confidence.
The aircraft is capable of doing what he does now, with the extra capacity that is likely to be needed in the future- saves upgrading in two stages.
I'll repeat myself- those who bash the Islander really don't know what wonderful things it can do.
Pity you are writing twins off for now Modesetter.
Maybe an Airvan?
Last edited by MyNameIsIs; 7th Aug 2011 at 05:32.
Bonanza
I agree - Modesetter, you have just talked yourself into a V35 or an A36.
Many farmers around the Swan Hill VIC way have always used 182 & A36's.
182's were great for getting through fences on their farm paddocks, and clearance above paddock bushes and channel walls when parking due to their high-wing.
A36's were great for long distance, IFR, weight payload, loading with double doors, and very durable on a dirt strip. STOL performance as well.
I would recommend upgrading the 182 when the time comes, and reassess your business requirements in 1-2 years. Maybe find an A36 that you could cross-hire for long distance, and then assess the figures on that.
Cheers, KP
Many farmers around the Swan Hill VIC way have always used 182 & A36's.
182's were great for getting through fences on their farm paddocks, and clearance above paddock bushes and channel walls when parking due to their high-wing.
A36's were great for long distance, IFR, weight payload, loading with double doors, and very durable on a dirt strip. STOL performance as well.
I would recommend upgrading the 182 when the time comes, and reassess your business requirements in 1-2 years. Maybe find an A36 that you could cross-hire for long distance, and then assess the figures on that.
Cheers, KP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: YMIA
Age: 50
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, possibly like the one in the hangar next door.
I shall ask around then. I was going to talk to S O'H about hiring his 210 occasionally as well.
Hope we are thinking of the same hangar, I share one with an E33, RV-10 and R-44.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Eastern Oz
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this the 206t you're looking at Cessna 205/206/U206/207 aircraft for sale - PlaneSales (Australia) ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: YMIA
Age: 50
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this the 206t you're looking at?
Pre-owned Single Engine Aircraft when I was looking.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a network of Ag Machinery dealerships across Victoria, and the main idea of the A/C was to cart directors around between dealerships for meetings, take salesmen out to customers properties, emergency parts drop off etc. - Generally as a time saver.
Bev Whitaker took a '59 Skylane as trade from a Mundubbera grazier on a few secondhand trucks and tractors, when he was an IH dealer with branches in Maryborough, Gympie and Rockhampton. After 2 years operating it on company running, (and getting a charter AOC to use it for Charter as well) he sold it to a local resort owner and upgraded to a 36 Bonanza for a further couple of years. Then that was traded on a 55 Baron. A couple of years later that Baron was still doing the company running and charter, but was backing up the other aircraft in the fleet on the ANR 203 Exemption commuter service for his company NoosaAir. From that came Sunstate Airlines....
The 36 was nice, it was the early model, - FWZ, - last I heard it was still flying charter out of Darwin. So you never know just what may be in the future.
They all fly well, no matter what age, as long as the maintenance is good.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been through exactly what you are doing, using a C182 R (R, not RG) for that exact job. It was the perfect aeroplane for the task. It was IFR and had 300lt (usable) wet wings. It went everywhere we needed to go, carried everything we needed to carry, and did it relatively cheaply. Not the worlds fastest aircraft, but still managed a couple of trans-Oz trips in good time.
Despite the ARC radios, the basic wing-leveler a/p and the Garmin 100, it was super reliable. Always cranked up when it was needed, bloody near impossible to kill. With the huge 40+ flaps, it could and did land just about anywhere.
Went through the 'wot if we had a bigger / faster / flasher aircraft' routine, spent a motza, still ended up using the 182 for most of the work and making more out of it than the twin.
Tart up the 182 (a bit, don't go overboard) or get a fresher 182 if that's what floats your boat. Add-on an Airhawk motorcycle seat cushion, your arse and lumbar spine will love you for it.
My two bobs worth.
Despite the ARC radios, the basic wing-leveler a/p and the Garmin 100, it was super reliable. Always cranked up when it was needed, bloody near impossible to kill. With the huge 40+ flaps, it could and did land just about anywhere.
Went through the 'wot if we had a bigger / faster / flasher aircraft' routine, spent a motza, still ended up using the 182 for most of the work and making more out of it than the twin.
Tart up the 182 (a bit, don't go overboard) or get a fresher 182 if that's what floats your boat. Add-on an Airhawk motorcycle seat cushion, your arse and lumbar spine will love you for it.
My two bobs worth.
Last edited by Jamair; 8th Aug 2011 at 04:07.
Modesetter, you don't indicate how much experience you have, but I have been doing similar to what you propose, in a somewhat different senario, for almost 40 yrs now. Have been thinking about this since reading your post - have used the following aircraft: C150/152/172/172RG/182/182RG/T182RG/185/206/210/310/402, PA28, M20, BE35/36/55/58. Often used whatever I could get my hands on, but obviously you sometimes can't take a C402 into places you can go with a 185. I have operated all of the above IFR, bar the 150/152.
I agree with Jamjar that the 182 is a fine, honest aeroplane and a useful IFR platform if appropriately equipped. 20 hrs of ops doesn't seem like enough time to get a feel for what may suit your ops.
Personally, I would not touch a turbo'd single (unless someone gave me a turbonormalised V35B!), even though I enjoy operating in the flight levels. For most ops in Oz they just burn more fuel, and I can get to the flight levels I am happy operating in quite comfortably in a NA aeroplane.
For what I do, a C206 is probably the ideal aeroplane (give me a couple of months and I will tell you what a G1000 C206 goes like), but I am having a Bonanza affair at the moment - Townsville to Darwin and return in 12 hrs total flying time is hard to beat.
If you need to cart machinery bits rather than bods, the double doors of the 206 and A36 are useful.
My two cents worth.
Dr
PS: Can't say I have ever considered an Islander - not likely to either!
I agree with Jamjar that the 182 is a fine, honest aeroplane and a useful IFR platform if appropriately equipped. 20 hrs of ops doesn't seem like enough time to get a feel for what may suit your ops.
Personally, I would not touch a turbo'd single (unless someone gave me a turbonormalised V35B!), even though I enjoy operating in the flight levels. For most ops in Oz they just burn more fuel, and I can get to the flight levels I am happy operating in quite comfortably in a NA aeroplane.
For what I do, a C206 is probably the ideal aeroplane (give me a couple of months and I will tell you what a G1000 C206 goes like), but I am having a Bonanza affair at the moment - Townsville to Darwin and return in 12 hrs total flying time is hard to beat.
If you need to cart machinery bits rather than bods, the double doors of the 206 and A36 are useful.
My two cents worth.
Dr
PS: Can't say I have ever considered an Islander - not likely to either!
Remove speed from the equation and I know of a minibus that can carry 10 people and their bags way cheaper than any aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I liked the crosshire idea.
If you NEED something IFR or more loadable for a task, then x-hire. won't take you long to work out if you should replace the 182 or not based on your number of x-hires.
You also mentioned that one of the directors is doing his PPL atm. He is surely going to want to make some use of the company bird. Being low time, the insurance co might get a bit antsy with him in something bigger. They will make enough noise about him in the 182 to begin with, tho that could be alleviated with getting a new engine in it, returning it to AWK and getting him to finish his ticket in it, at least that way he will have some supervised time on type to appease the bean counters at the insurance Co.
Looking at the initial price on your current 182, there is going to be no escaping a new donk, either to keep using it or sell it.
Unfortunately no 1 aeroplane is perfect for ALL your needs.
A couple that were mentioned but not commented on.
PA-32-300 GREAT bus!!! we call the one we have available, The Family Truckster. You'd get 5 fatties, full fuel and plenty of catalogues to keep the farmer reading until the next years models were released, all at 135 kts cruise.
Downsides, most getting a tad old now, crap visibility forward on the ground when loaded, and a bit of a handful for low time pilots.
Beech Travel-Air. I love these things.....thats the plus.
Bit old now, out of production for just a lil too long, parts are hard to get and the power calculator (computer a lot like a whizz wheel) is no longer available, so most people use generic settings and then complain when they struggle to get 150 knots out of them. Also, tho don't quote me, (not got the figures to hand to check) but i seriously doubt you can load as much into the Travel-air as you could into a c182.
Cheers
Jas
If you NEED something IFR or more loadable for a task, then x-hire. won't take you long to work out if you should replace the 182 or not based on your number of x-hires.
You also mentioned that one of the directors is doing his PPL atm. He is surely going to want to make some use of the company bird. Being low time, the insurance co might get a bit antsy with him in something bigger. They will make enough noise about him in the 182 to begin with, tho that could be alleviated with getting a new engine in it, returning it to AWK and getting him to finish his ticket in it, at least that way he will have some supervised time on type to appease the bean counters at the insurance Co.
Looking at the initial price on your current 182, there is going to be no escaping a new donk, either to keep using it or sell it.
Unfortunately no 1 aeroplane is perfect for ALL your needs.
A couple that were mentioned but not commented on.
PA-32-300 GREAT bus!!! we call the one we have available, The Family Truckster. You'd get 5 fatties, full fuel and plenty of catalogues to keep the farmer reading until the next years models were released, all at 135 kts cruise.
Downsides, most getting a tad old now, crap visibility forward on the ground when loaded, and a bit of a handful for low time pilots.
Beech Travel-Air. I love these things.....thats the plus.
Bit old now, out of production for just a lil too long, parts are hard to get and the power calculator (computer a lot like a whizz wheel) is no longer available, so most people use generic settings and then complain when they struggle to get 150 knots out of them. Also, tho don't quote me, (not got the figures to hand to check) but i seriously doubt you can load as much into the Travel-air as you could into a c182.
Cheers
Jas
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remove speed from the equation and I know of a minibus that can carry 10 people and their bags way cheaper than any aircraft.
soz for encouraging the thread drift
Jas
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what I do, a C206 is probably the ideal aeroplane (give me a couple of months and I will tell you what a G1000 C206 goes like), but I am having a Bonanza affair at the moment -