Advise on C182 Options
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: YMIA
Age: 50
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advise on C182 Options
Hi Guys, first post!
The company I work for recently purchased a C182Q to get our foot into the business aviation world, 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. (also helps me build up my hours after 6 years out of the air!)
So we got the 182 a couple of months ago, great unit only had a TT of 2455 hours on it, not bad for a 1978 model, always hangered, great condition in and out, etc.
Had its last 100 hrly in September last year, and had only done another 9 hrs until we got it in May.
Since we have had it, I have done over 20 hrs in it, took a salesman from Mildura to Moree and back in a day, a few other trips here and there.
The alternator died on take-off from YSHT last week, so I put her back down and taxied it to the local LAME there to get it sorted, which got me thinking.
The more we use it, the more opportunities we find to make even more use of it except for the following limitations:
It is not IFR rated, only NVFR, so trip planning in advance can be hit and miss when depending on the clouds! (especially in winter)
Its a tad slow for longer flights.
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.
In reality, its over 30 years old, and reliability could be an issue.
The engine is on condition, so even at the next 100 hrly, we could be looking at a reco.
So, my question is: Would I be better off throwing money at this machine, as in maybe instead of reco-ing the O-470, we upgrade to an O-520. Then upgrade the avionics (all quite dated, even the Garmin GNC-250XL) and get it IFR certified,
Or just get a newer A/C?
I have seen a T206H - 2008 model in QLD with 700 hrs TT since new, G1000 etc going for 450K $US, where as our 182 was only $130K $AU and if we spent say, another $100K on it , i doubt we would get it back on the 182.
Sorry for the long post, just thinking out loud really!
Any other suggestions on different A/C to consider?
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.
The company I work for recently purchased a C182Q to get our foot into the business aviation world, 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. (also helps me build up my hours after 6 years out of the air!)
So we got the 182 a couple of months ago, great unit only had a TT of 2455 hours on it, not bad for a 1978 model, always hangered, great condition in and out, etc.
Had its last 100 hrly in September last year, and had only done another 9 hrs until we got it in May.
Since we have had it, I have done over 20 hrs in it, took a salesman from Mildura to Moree and back in a day, a few other trips here and there.
The alternator died on take-off from YSHT last week, so I put her back down and taxied it to the local LAME there to get it sorted, which got me thinking.
The more we use it, the more opportunities we find to make even more use of it except for the following limitations:
It is not IFR rated, only NVFR, so trip planning in advance can be hit and miss when depending on the clouds! (especially in winter)
Its a tad slow for longer flights.
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.
In reality, its over 30 years old, and reliability could be an issue.
The engine is on condition, so even at the next 100 hrly, we could be looking at a reco.
So, my question is: Would I be better off throwing money at this machine, as in maybe instead of reco-ing the O-470, we upgrade to an O-520. Then upgrade the avionics (all quite dated, even the Garmin GNC-250XL) and get it IFR certified,
Or just get a newer A/C?
I have seen a T206H - 2008 model in QLD with 700 hrs TT since new, G1000 etc going for 450K $US, where as our 182 was only $130K $AU and if we spent say, another $100K on it , i doubt we would get it back on the 182.
Sorry for the long post, just thinking out loud really!
Any other suggestions on different A/C to consider?
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: YMIA
Age: 50
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wishiwasupthere, i'd love that too !
The 6 figure price tag is a bit too much of a jump from the 182 though.
Also, one of our directors is halfway to his PPL, so it needs to be "L" plate friendly....
Unless he keeps the 182, and I get the 208
The 6 figure price tag is a bit too much of a jump from the 182 though.
Also, one of our directors is halfway to his PPL, so it needs to be "L" plate friendly....
Unless he keeps the 182, and I get the 208
The first question is how big is your aviation money bucket?
It's going to be hard to beat the 182 in many ways.
30 year old airframe? Yes, true, but a being a reliability issue? Not really if it's been properly looked after at the hours on the airframe.
A 206 will carry more pax but at about the same speed as the 182 burning about 15 litres more per hour.
Do you need a turbo? How often are you operating hot and high? How often will you need to carry more than 3 others? How much extra is going to cost for that luxury?
How long are your normal leg lengths? In other words how much fuel do you need to carry?
I don't know which year your Q model is but my rough calculations on a pre 1981 182Q tell me you can carry 4 100kg people (yourself plus 3 others) and have room for 2 hours and 30 minutes of gas. A post 1981 Q should give you about 4 hours and 40 minutes gas with 4 100kg people on board.
If it were me I'd be looking still at the later version 182 and spend some money on a panel upgrade and stick with the O-470. You'll still have considerable cash left over from the price of the T206H.
If you want to go faster then you need to think about a 210 or Lance. The 210 will be faster but has smaller tyres than the Lance which may be a consideration on the dirt strips.
It's going to be hard to beat the 182 in many ways.
30 year old airframe? Yes, true, but a being a reliability issue? Not really if it's been properly looked after at the hours on the airframe.
A 206 will carry more pax but at about the same speed as the 182 burning about 15 litres more per hour.
Do you need a turbo? How often are you operating hot and high? How often will you need to carry more than 3 others? How much extra is going to cost for that luxury?
How long are your normal leg lengths? In other words how much fuel do you need to carry?
I don't know which year your Q model is but my rough calculations on a pre 1981 182Q tell me you can carry 4 100kg people (yourself plus 3 others) and have room for 2 hours and 30 minutes of gas. A post 1981 Q should give you about 4 hours and 40 minutes gas with 4 100kg people on board.
If it were me I'd be looking still at the later version 182 and spend some money on a panel upgrade and stick with the O-470. You'll still have considerable cash left over from the price of the T206H.
If you want to go faster then you need to think about a 210 or Lance. The 210 will be faster but has smaller tyres than the Lance which may be a consideration on the dirt strips.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't get anything too flash, some blokes might query how much they're paying for their green tractors 
If you rule out upgrading the 182, sounds like it'll come down to a 206 or 210. Have a look at the 210's currently on the field; between them you've got a Turbo, Normally Aspirated, and an Atlantic Aero IO550 conversion; that might give you some ideas. Have a talk to SO'H, he'll be able to find something for you.
Alternatively, when "TriMedGroup" gets his Chieftain/421/208/PC12/G550, there might be an under-utilised 206H with G1000 around the corner, you might get a local discount!
PK
If you rule out upgrading the 182, sounds like it'll come down to a 206 or 210. Have a look at the 210's currently on the field; between them you've got a Turbo, Normally Aspirated, and an Atlantic Aero IO550 conversion; that might give you some ideas. Have a talk to SO'H, he'll be able to find something for you.
Alternatively, when "TriMedGroup" gets his Chieftain/421/208/PC12/G550, there might be an under-utilised 206H with G1000 around the corner, you might get a local discount!
PK
Last edited by Plow King; 6th Aug 2011 at 11:41. Reason: Frivolous commentary, but someone needed to join the dots.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: YMIA
Age: 50
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plow King:
Thanks mate, I'll be catching up with S O'H soon, he actually put us on to the 182. When we looked initially, we didn't realize just how much we would utilize it once we had it.
I notice TristarMed's thread, and have already PM'd him
The one in QLD I mentioned is identical to his, colors, cargo pod and all - except its a Turbo.
27/09:
Id say our "bucket" is a typical "as shallow as possible" one...
Normal flights would be 2-3 hours return, but most destinations wont have fuel.
Again, if we had the ability to take mare that 3 pax, we would use it more often. (obviously have to justify the increase in price vs operational needs)
We did have an offer in on a Lance, but just missed out
Thanks for the input guys, and sorry if my replies are slow, being new- i'm still having my posts moderated.
Thanks mate, I'll be catching up with S O'H soon, he actually put us on to the 182. When we looked initially, we didn't realize just how much we would utilize it once we had it.
I notice TristarMed's thread, and have already PM'd him
The one in QLD I mentioned is identical to his, colors, cargo pod and all - except its a Turbo.
27/09:
Id say our "bucket" is a typical "as shallow as possible" one...
Normal flights would be 2-3 hours return, but most destinations wont have fuel.
Again, if we had the ability to take mare that 3 pax, we would use it more often. (obviously have to justify the increase in price vs operational needs)
We did have an offer in on a Lance, but just missed out
Thanks for the input guys, and sorry if my replies are slow, being new- i'm still having my posts moderated.
The 182 takes some beating. If you go to a C210 then the operating cost runs up, and your paddock options disappear.
After owning and operating a C180, and a C182 for over 20 years in the wheatbelt, I can tell you that you usually uplift fewer people than what you 'business planned'.
As for speed, be realistic here. It's not that much different if you start factoring in the ability to land on farm - instead of at the closest airport. Better to clock up a few more hours annually than have an aircraft costing lots more in fixed costs per hour.
I note that you are planning to go IFR or NVFR too. That's fine, but consider your time & duty hours. Just because you might fly only 2-3 hrs in a day, that doesn't mean this is your duty time. If you are in full time employment with a machinery firm - then you need to count from when you walk out the front door each day..............until you get back in.
That's how your real duty time will be calculated by the ATSB when you have an incident due fatigue, as you inevitably will by trying to make each day into a 12 hr one..
Believe me, I've flown in a business role over the WA wheatbelt since 1970, and damned near killed myself because of fatigue caused by working too long hours. Take care.
happy days,
After owning and operating a C180, and a C182 for over 20 years in the wheatbelt, I can tell you that you usually uplift fewer people than what you 'business planned'.
As for speed, be realistic here. It's not that much different if you start factoring in the ability to land on farm - instead of at the closest airport. Better to clock up a few more hours annually than have an aircraft costing lots more in fixed costs per hour.
I note that you are planning to go IFR or NVFR too. That's fine, but consider your time & duty hours. Just because you might fly only 2-3 hrs in a day, that doesn't mean this is your duty time. If you are in full time employment with a machinery firm - then you need to count from when you walk out the front door each day..............until you get back in.
That's how your real duty time will be calculated by the ATSB when you have an incident due fatigue, as you inevitably will by trying to make each day into a 12 hr one..
Believe me, I've flown in a business role over the WA wheatbelt since 1970, and damned near killed myself because of fatigue caused by working too long hours. Take care.
happy days,
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
BN2 Islander
With wingtip tanks, rear luggage extension and the landing weight restriction removed, you'll be laughing
Even non-turbine, they'll still do 130kts.
With the big tip tanks giving you just under 700ltrs of fuel you can generally fit a bit over 400kg in them.
Thats about 5.8hrs @ 120l/hr and 696nm @120kts till it runs dry (but you'll get better than that)
Even if you didnt have the landing weight restriction removed on any Islander, from MTOW you'd only need to fly for about 1.5hrs to get down to landing weight.
You can take the Islander anywhere, even land it on the the farms if you want.
Heaps of space if you are sometimes carrying spare parts for the farm equip - and big doors means loading is easy.
Config it out into club seating for the first 2 pax rows and have a 3rd row and don't worry about the 4th, with ANR headests for each pax and their own intercom so that your salespeople etc can discuss what they need to discuss.
2 mostly bulletproof engines.
IFR.
You can even buy them brand new- so none of this "30yr old aircraft" crap applies!
Am prepared for the Islander bashing, but those who bash really do not know what wonderful things the Bongo can do
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MyNameIsIs
BN2 Islander...
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
Forget about your particular aircraft except to factor in it has done an average of 33 hours per annum since 1978. Only 9 hours in the previous year. An "on condition" engine for serious commercial work??
Think about that when you consider rubber hoses are just about rat**** by then irrespective of hours, the barrels will have probably a lip, the front seats probably have the original tracks, the magneto's WILL fail shortly, but probably not together.
Then think about the wriggle room insurance company's factor into their payout's.
I love the C182, but for an alternate aircraft, a 210M, lots of room), will cruise easy at 140 Kts. The H model, (4 seats + some midgets), about 160 Kts. One litre per minute in either but they will both get you into and out of short strips. Four hundred meters in the tropics at sea level. Depends on how fat the passengers are though, but better than a tired 182.
A twin will only get you to the scene of the accident a bit later. But I do like the Islander.
Think about that when you consider rubber hoses are just about rat**** by then irrespective of hours, the barrels will have probably a lip, the front seats probably have the original tracks, the magneto's WILL fail shortly, but probably not together.
Then think about the wriggle room insurance company's factor into their payout's.
I love the C182, but for an alternate aircraft, a 210M, lots of room), will cruise easy at 140 Kts. The H model, (4 seats + some midgets), about 160 Kts. One litre per minute in either but they will both get you into and out of short strips. Four hundred meters in the tropics at sea level. Depends on how fat the passengers are though, but better than a tired 182.
A twin will only get you to the scene of the accident a bit later. But I do like the Islander.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget upgrading your Q. Its old.... old wiring, old airframe, old avionics, old seats etc, probably no corrsion protection etc etc. Once you start upgrading, you never stop.. When/if you eventually get it back with its new engine, new avionics, maybe new paint and new interior (whatever you do to it the new bits will be attached to something old somewhere.) it won't work properly anyway... and it will have cost you an arm and leg whilst you cannot use it for maybe a year or so. Been there, done that, too many times!
If you are thinking Cessna, get a restart, a G1000 one if the budget goes that far. A nice no damage history low time 2004 onwards non turbo 182T will probably go for low 2's in the US, maybe mid 2's upwards by the time it gets to and flying in Aus. These aircraft are really a different world, much better dual wiring, factory fitted state of the art avionics and fully integrated autopilots that work, fully corrosion protected, nice interiors, fuel injection, airbags etc etc. You just won't know yourself! There are a few on the market already here that seem to be going for around that price.
But the big downer... 182T's are heavy and so don't carry as much as a Q/R. Your are probably looking at over 900kg basic weight and 1406Kg MAUW. If your Q is a later model with wet wing, it probably has the same MAUW but is a lot lighter with nothing in it. So if you are carrying 3 big farmers and their gear in a 182T, you will have to offload fuel, but wet wing 182's do carry a hell of a lot of fuel, over 330 litres usable and so even with only half tanks you can still go almost to middle-aged human male bladder range - or alternatively, you might need a 206H... not many of those without a turbo though, which for some reason the Aus market does not seem to like as much as they do in the US.
If you are thinking Cessna, get a restart, a G1000 one if the budget goes that far. A nice no damage history low time 2004 onwards non turbo 182T will probably go for low 2's in the US, maybe mid 2's upwards by the time it gets to and flying in Aus. These aircraft are really a different world, much better dual wiring, factory fitted state of the art avionics and fully integrated autopilots that work, fully corrosion protected, nice interiors, fuel injection, airbags etc etc. You just won't know yourself! There are a few on the market already here that seem to be going for around that price.
But the big downer... 182T's are heavy and so don't carry as much as a Q/R. Your are probably looking at over 900kg basic weight and 1406Kg MAUW. If your Q is a later model with wet wing, it probably has the same MAUW but is a lot lighter with nothing in it. So if you are carrying 3 big farmers and their gear in a 182T, you will have to offload fuel, but wet wing 182's do carry a hell of a lot of fuel, over 330 litres usable and so even with only half tanks you can still go almost to middle-aged human male bladder range - or alternatively, you might need a 206H... not many of those without a turbo though, which for some reason the Aus market does not seem to like as much as they do in the US.
BN2?
Gotta be kidding?
hangar queen.
Heard the one about making a small fortune?
The T206 you mentioned (VH-DNU) would be great. Save heaps on a new one. Built in oxy. Altitude (high level winds) capability. Will carry 4 with decent range. G1000 is magic.
Gotta be kidding?
hangar queen.
Heard the one about making a small fortune?
The T206 you mentioned (VH-DNU) would be great. Save heaps on a new one. Built in oxy. Altitude (high level winds) capability. Will carry 4 with decent range. G1000 is magic.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MIHC, no I'm not kidding by suggesting a BN2.
The only thing I would suggest over the BN2 is the Twotter. But let's face it, he isnt't after that sort of capability!
Depends on the tractor spares that have been mentioned that get carried. But it might be easier to load such spares, plus pax and their gear, into an Islander than a 18' or 20' series Cessna.
More physical space inside.
Twin engine for not much more of a 'per hour' cost over a 210 - yes the 210 might only have 1 donk, but its got the added extra of retract to add to the maintenance bill. Let's also not forget that the single's onlyt have one vac pump able to supply the instruments - unless modded. One alternator. Etc.
Plus a safety factor of an 'out' if he wants to do more than day VFR!
Can config a BN2 into Club for the 'execs'. Can you do that in a 210? Never flown one, so I don't know.
Frank,
MTOW in a BN2, for those who do not know, will do 400m with ease. Depending on the distance of your hop that could be up to 10 adult POB. Let's see that in a 210!!!!
Yeah!
The only thing I would suggest over the BN2 is the Twotter. But let's face it, he isnt't after that sort of capability!
Depends on the tractor spares that have been mentioned that get carried. But it might be easier to load such spares, plus pax and their gear, into an Islander than a 18' or 20' series Cessna.
More physical space inside.
Twin engine for not much more of a 'per hour' cost over a 210 - yes the 210 might only have 1 donk, but its got the added extra of retract to add to the maintenance bill. Let's also not forget that the single's onlyt have one vac pump able to supply the instruments - unless modded. One alternator. Etc.
Plus a safety factor of an 'out' if he wants to do more than day VFR!
Can config a BN2 into Club for the 'execs'. Can you do that in a 210? Never flown one, so I don't know.
Frank,
love the C182, but for an alternate aircraft, a 210M, lots of room), will cruise easy at 140 Kts. The H model, (4 seats + some midgets), about 160 Kts. One litre per minute in either but they will both get you into and out of short strips. Four hundred meters in the tropics at sea level. Depends on how fat the passengers are though, but better than a tired 182.
But I do like the Islander.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maun, Botswana
Age: 37
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to look at the operations that he is doing. He doesnt need to lift 10.
The islander is a good rugged short strip operator, but most are getting long in the tooth now and require a trip up to the hangar every few flights. They are cheaper than a C208 in fuel etc, but the maintence costs bring it back down on par.
A C206G model is good. You can remove the seats and carry things like gear boxes etc with no worries at all. The H model, correct me if I'm wrong, have those seats that cannot be removed,
If you get the Bonair conversion on the G engine, you can run them at 25mp/25rpm all day. Usually cruises at around 125-130kts depending on weight. Can get them off the deck at MTOW (Thats african MTOW) in around 400m.
Only issue I can see with those is that the instruments tend to be a little unreliable so I wouldn't want to take them IFR, and the Bonnair engines can be a little weak on the #5 cyclinder and sometimes don't make it to full life. Usually make it to around 1500hrs with a average on 8-10 sectors a day.
To get up to that speed of around 150kts, you will want to start getting retractables. Can start getting a few issues with them in bush operations when the strips get wet. Drives up the costs as well.
But like I said, depends on how much the company wants to spend!
The islander is a good rugged short strip operator, but most are getting long in the tooth now and require a trip up to the hangar every few flights. They are cheaper than a C208 in fuel etc, but the maintence costs bring it back down on par.
A C206G model is good. You can remove the seats and carry things like gear boxes etc with no worries at all. The H model, correct me if I'm wrong, have those seats that cannot be removed,
If you get the Bonair conversion on the G engine, you can run them at 25mp/25rpm all day. Usually cruises at around 125-130kts depending on weight. Can get them off the deck at MTOW (Thats african MTOW) in around 400m.
Only issue I can see with those is that the instruments tend to be a little unreliable so I wouldn't want to take them IFR, and the Bonnair engines can be a little weak on the #5 cyclinder and sometimes don't make it to full life. Usually make it to around 1500hrs with a average on 8-10 sectors a day.
To get up to that speed of around 150kts, you will want to start getting retractables. Can start getting a few issues with them in bush operations when the strips get wet. Drives up the costs as well.
But like I said, depends on how much the company wants to spend!
If age isn't an issue, the C185 is a perfect bush plane, seats 6, although the rear seats aren't adult size and can carry a load out of short strips.
C206 and even a PA-32-300 will give you good uplift with the PA32R giving you some more speed but sacrifices a bit on the payload side of things.
The PA-23 Aztec is a twin and will give you great uplift with a decent TAS and you can find some cheap ones around, but of course they come with all the issues an older plane will bring with it. It's a bit of a guzzler too.
Anything with aviation is a compromise, so figure out what's important to you and then go from there. It may be more economical to hire a bigger faster plane for those rare occasions where you go outside your standard operational parameters, than pay for something bigger and more expensive for "just in case" situations.
I'm sure the directors will love hoping in a Bonanza when they have to go a bit of distance for a meeting, but will be landing at an airport and won't be sharing the cabin with large and heavy machinery parts
C206 and even a PA-32-300 will give you good uplift with the PA32R giving you some more speed but sacrifices a bit on the payload side of things.
The PA-23 Aztec is a twin and will give you great uplift with a decent TAS and you can find some cheap ones around, but of course they come with all the issues an older plane will bring with it. It's a bit of a guzzler too.
Anything with aviation is a compromise, so figure out what's important to you and then go from there. It may be more economical to hire a bigger faster plane for those rare occasions where you go outside your standard operational parameters, than pay for something bigger and more expensive for "just in case" situations.
I'm sure the directors will love hoping in a Bonanza when they have to go a bit of distance for a meeting, but will be landing at an airport and won't be sharing the cabin with large and heavy machinery parts
I'm sure the directors will love hoping in a Bonanza when they have to go a bit of distance for a meeting,
but will be landing at an airport
The Bonanza has a very sturdy, wide track undercarriage. I would take a Bonanza into anywhere that I would take a standard C182/206/210 or PA 32 type. Certainly the typical property strip is not an issue.
If you are thinking of landing in paddocks, you will need a C206 with oversize gear or a C180/185 to minimise the chance of coming to grief. The nose wheels are a weak point of Cessna singles and a bent firewall is an expensive repair.
I just did Townsville - Darwin return in 12.2 hrs total in the A36. Lets see you do that in an Islander!
Dr
Moderator
The company I work for recently purchased a C182Q to get our foot into the business aviation world,
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.
So we got the 182 a couple of months ago, great unit only had a TT of 2455 hours on it, not bad for a 1978 model, always hangered, great condition in and out
I have seen a T206H - 2008 model in QLD with 700 hrs TT since new, G1000 etc going for 450K $US
I have the perfect aircraft for you!
BN2 Islander
BN2 Islander
I normally dislike "cut and paste" posts but in this case I fail to understand why you are seeking to change an aircraft which only a few months ago was deemed perfect for the task and still appears to be a cost effective, multi task solution, even if on the odd occasion it may have some operational limititations? Why throw even more money just to eliminate an occasional operational restriction?
If you understand the principals of depreciation and amortisation, you would realise an overhauled engine is an investment in your own future utilisation and should not be used to recapitalise the air frame. You think if you put an O/H engine in the aircraft you can recapitalise it at $200K then get that price after you put another 1,000 hours on it?
...helps me build up my hours after 6 years out of the air!
If you want an option on the C182, try wheel spats - that adds some bling!
BE95 Travellair... Will go all the places you want, very easy to fly, two little engines instead of one larger one to overhaul, ok fuel economy, decent looking, cheapish to buy and run, will give you the all important twin time I am guessing you a chasing and you can pretend to your mates you fly a Baron
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: YMIA
Age: 50
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys, great feedback! if only it didn't take 12 hours for my posts to appear
Some great ideas and points of view being put forward here.
This is exactly why I asked the question here, to get this input from experienced folk such as yourselves.
First off, we can rule out the idea of a twin. Apart from the the bonus of the added safety of a 2nd engine, the increased operating and maintenance costs rule this option out for now.
To answer some points that have been raised:
When we purchased the 182, we factored in the engine reco having to be done in the near future. It's done 450 odd hrs TSO, so its out on calendar time. While being a fair way off a "serious commercial operation" just yet, we do want to make sure any money we spend is not thrown after a bad cause.
1978 Model, with a wet wing, 335 usable L. I do like the range this 182 has, a 4 hour flight to YMOR and we still had just under 1/2 tanks. My bum was letting me know about the thin seats though!
As i mentioned, TriMedGroup has a local non-turbo 206H I am looking at next week
I saw the 206's as a good step up with the added capacity, another drawcard is the cargo door, as the 182 has a baggage door about the size of a postage stamp, unless you utilize the back seat area.
I look after all of the IT equipment for our business, so If in need to take a replacement server somewhere in a hurry, it would barely fit into a 182.
The 182 was always going to be our "initial" A/C, to see just how much we would use it, and since we started using it, further opportunites had been realised. The idea of "emergency parts drop off" would be a rare occurrence, and not something we would be charging customers for. 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
Our business footprint is expanding, and long distance travel is becoming more of a necessity.
Some great ideas and points of view being put forward here.
This is exactly why I asked the question here, to get this input from experienced folk such as yourselves.
First off, we can rule out the idea of a twin. Apart from the the bonus of the added safety of a 2nd engine, the increased operating and maintenance costs rule this option out for now.
To answer some points that have been raised:
Forget about your particular aircraft except to factor in it has done an average of 33 hours per annum since 1978. Only 9 hours in the previous year. An "on condition" engine for serious commercial work?
If your Q is a later model with wet wing, it probably has the same MAUW but is a lot lighter with nothing in it. So if you are carrying 3 big farmers and their gear in a 182T, you will have to offload fuel, but wet wing 182's do carry a hell of a lot of fuel, over 330 litres usable and so even with only half tanks you can still go almost to middle-aged human male bladder range
or alternatively, you might need a 206H... not many of those without a turbo though, which for some reason the Aus market does not seem to like as much as they do in the US.
I saw the 206's as a good step up with the added capacity, another drawcard is the cargo door, as the 182 has a baggage door about the size of a postage stamp, unless you utilize the back seat area.
I look after all of the IT equipment for our business, so If in need to take a replacement server somewhere in a hurry, it would barely fit into a 182.
The 182 was always going to be our "initial" A/C, to see just how much we would use it, and since we started using it, further opportunites had been realised. The idea of "emergency parts drop off" would be a rare occurrence, and not something we would be charging customers for. 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
Our business footprint is expanding, and long distance travel is becoming more of a necessity.