C182 or 172
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hampshire, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C182 or 172
Hello all, I am looking for some advice, I am new here so be gentle!
I am considering my first aircraft and am fairly concerned about running costs not hourly but in terms of annuals and major failures.
I have a fair experience of C172s' but none of the C182. I wish to fly out of the southern part of the UK generally with fairly frequent trips in Europe.
I hold an IR and have the intention of flying IFR often as I will be using the aircraft to get me to clients for my business. This leans me to the 182 rather than the 172 as it will run a bit faster and a bit higher I believe.I just wondered if anyone with more experience of owning or operating either of the a/c could offer some advice on the matter or indeed if anyone else thinks I should be considering an alternative to these two I'd appreciate your input.
Thanks
I am considering my first aircraft and am fairly concerned about running costs not hourly but in terms of annuals and major failures.
I have a fair experience of C172s' but none of the C182. I wish to fly out of the southern part of the UK generally with fairly frequent trips in Europe.
I hold an IR and have the intention of flying IFR often as I will be using the aircraft to get me to clients for my business. This leans me to the 182 rather than the 172 as it will run a bit faster and a bit higher I believe.I just wondered if anyone with more experience of owning or operating either of the a/c could offer some advice on the matter or indeed if anyone else thinks I should be considering an alternative to these two I'd appreciate your input.
Thanks
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on the 172 variant. I have a 210hp constant speed prop version that cruises at 128kts and will climb to over 18k. At 10k it does 32lph for a 145kt TAS. I rarely ever fly it VFR.
The 182 for the same performance is doing around 52lph.
Really depends non your profile, load requirements etc. A lot of the smaller 172 variants are pretty much a 2+2 if you want to go any distance. The bigger ones like mine are a 4 seat and 5hrs fuel. The 182 is similar.
You will get a 182 easier than an a big 172 though.
Maintenance is very similar.
The 182 for the same performance is doing around 52lph.
Really depends non your profile, load requirements etc. A lot of the smaller 172 variants are pretty much a 2+2 if you want to go any distance. The bigger ones like mine are a 4 seat and 5hrs fuel. The 182 is similar.
You will get a 182 easier than an a big 172 though.
Maintenance is very similar.
172-182
Both good aircraft in their own right.
However the 182 (especially the earlier ones) really do what they say on the tin.
It will carry a full load and full fuel and can drag its A.... in and out of grass strips if required.
They are a safe machine and very versatile, the fuel burn may be greater but it will be carrying more for further and faster.
Pm me if you want an "operators" opinion.
If you fly behind a "six" you will like it.
However the 182 (especially the earlier ones) really do what they say on the tin.
It will carry a full load and full fuel and can drag its A.... in and out of grass strips if required.
They are a safe machine and very versatile, the fuel burn may be greater but it will be carrying more for further and faster.
Pm me if you want an "operators" opinion.
If you fly behind a "six" you will like it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hampshire, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys
I am not too sure exactly what I need to do with the aircraft but I think that I will be flying myself and a max of 2 others each with an overnight bag to the South of France as a longest trip I can foresee, my budget is limited to around 80K and genuinely have no idea which way to go at the moment there seems to be a lot of choice for the 172s
I am not too sure exactly what I need to do with the aircraft but I think that I will be flying myself and a max of 2 others each with an overnight bag to the South of France as a longest trip I can foresee, my budget is limited to around 80K and genuinely have no idea which way to go at the moment there seems to be a lot of choice for the 172s
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hampshire, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the next thing is that trawling through the web I have found some good deals on both C172 xp and 182s' in the US.
Would I be insane to go and pick one of these up and pay the VAT on arrival in the UK?
Would I be insane to go and pick one of these up and pay the VAT on arrival in the UK?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The higher powerd 172's have there converts and are undoubtedly good aircraft but for load hauling the 182 is impressive I have flown both the fixed and retractable 182.
For me the best of the bunch was the retractable 182 with the Lycoming engine, I seem to remember the aircraft that I flew had low time engine and all the avionic toys and it sold for about £80K a few years back
For me the best of the bunch was the retractable 182 with the Lycoming engine, I seem to remember the aircraft that I flew had low time engine and all the avionic toys and it sold for about £80K a few years back
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would I be insane to go and pick one of these up and pay the VAT on arrival in the UK?
Seriously: Having flown various variants of both, I'd go for the 182. For what you are proposing to do I'd say it's the better a/c. Mind you, a 172RG does a very nice touring job as well, but simply doesn't have the lifting capacity of the 182.
There also seems to be a de-icing kit out now for the 182 (and some 172s), have a look here, this may be of interest.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hampshire, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks A and C
I was into the 172 xp for a while but have reverted to the 182 as I think it will be more 'useable' for my purpose. i like the idea of good haulage and the 900 nm range for little fuel excess over the 172. It seems one needs to be careful what year and mods to look out for on this model though
I was into the 172 xp for a while but have reverted to the 182 as I think it will be more 'useable' for my purpose. i like the idea of good haulage and the 900 nm range for little fuel excess over the 172. It seems one needs to be careful what year and mods to look out for on this model though
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hampshire, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agreed 172driver and of course we are insane to even contemplate owning an aircraft of any sort. I am lucky enough to be involved in the marine industry for work where the same principle applies that you need to be insane to own a boat too.
I think I will go the 182 route
I think I will go the 182 route
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Godzone
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys
I am not too sure exactly what I need to do with the aircraft but I think that I will be flying myself and a max of 2 others each with an overnight bag to the South of France as a longest trip I can foresee, my budget is limited to around 80K and genuinely have no idea which way to go at the moment there seems to be a lot of choice for the 172s
I am not too sure exactly what I need to do with the aircraft but I think that I will be flying myself and a max of 2 others each with an overnight bag to the South of France as a longest trip I can foresee, my budget is limited to around 80K and genuinely have no idea which way to go at the moment there seems to be a lot of choice for the 172s
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Belgium
Age: 46
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm also thinking about buying a C182. Space, stability and
future diesel-technology make this (for me) the best choice for
Euro-IFR touring. Preferably a 1997 & later model. I love the analog panel...
future diesel-technology make this (for me) the best choice for
Euro-IFR touring. Preferably a 1997 & later model. I love the analog panel...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hampshire, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks toolowtoofast
Good advice but I think I will never know in a clearly defined way exactly what I will do with the aircraft so therefore it will all be somewhat of a compromise. Every trip will be different after all.
Having said that, I had not considered a Mooney or other a/c and perhaps I should,
Good advice but I think I will never know in a clearly defined way exactly what I will do with the aircraft so therefore it will all be somewhat of a compromise. Every trip will be different after all.
Having said that, I had not considered a Mooney or other a/c and perhaps I should,
Might be an idea to find a good friendly aircraft engineer and get some guidance from him as to pitfalls, problems, issues etc of the various types you are considering.Pilots tend to chose what looks nice and flies well, engineers tend to concentrate on what works and can be maintained at reasonable cost.
Not looking to start any arguements, just offering constructive advice before you commit a large sum of money to buy and an even larger sum to operate an aircraft.
Not looking to start any arguements, just offering constructive advice before you commit a large sum of money to buy and an even larger sum to operate an aircraft.
WHY a 182
A 182 (all of them) were designed to fly behind a 6 cylinder engine swinging a large dia prop at normal revs.They were derived from the 180 series of taildraggers that are very much "working" aircraft.
You put the four people,fuel,and luggage in and it still gets out of a strip.
You can even improve on that with a "cuff" on the wing and V/Gens.
I particularly like the early ones with the flat spring steel gear.
Because the aircraft/engine combo is as designed they are a good performer and handle well a slow speeds (and do not run out of trim)
The 172 Rocket (210) or Hawk XP (190) (derated for TBO) puts a heavier engine/prop combo into a standard 172 airframe.
The engine develops its power at a higher rpm,swings a shorter prop and gives less thrust.At low speeds for a field/strip landing they frequently need full n/up trim and even then there will be a stick load.On the plus side there are less engine icing issues (f/inj) and less fuel burn. I would suggest that if your normal requirement is for two people then a 172 Roc or XP will be fine.
In either case i do not consider the retract issue to be worth the cost and maintenance. If your need is speed then you go straight for the 210 but then you give up the benefits of a simple aircraft.
You put the four people,fuel,and luggage in and it still gets out of a strip.
You can even improve on that with a "cuff" on the wing and V/Gens.
I particularly like the early ones with the flat spring steel gear.
Because the aircraft/engine combo is as designed they are a good performer and handle well a slow speeds (and do not run out of trim)
The 172 Rocket (210) or Hawk XP (190) (derated for TBO) puts a heavier engine/prop combo into a standard 172 airframe.
The engine develops its power at a higher rpm,swings a shorter prop and gives less thrust.At low speeds for a field/strip landing they frequently need full n/up trim and even then there will be a stick load.On the plus side there are less engine icing issues (f/inj) and less fuel burn. I would suggest that if your normal requirement is for two people then a 172 Roc or XP will be fine.
In either case i do not consider the retract issue to be worth the cost and maintenance. If your need is speed then you go straight for the 210 but then you give up the benefits of a simple aircraft.