C182 v Cherokee 6
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C182 v Cherokee 6
Sorry for dusting down a discussion that's probably already been done to death, but given fuel prices and that i now have my licences and ratings back, I'd welcome views on the following. I live in south east London and am looking to move up from renting the usual pa28/172 to either a cherokee 6 or 182 as my primary a/c (probably not quite ready to take the jump into equity share). My criteria
1) cost - £/hour wet
2) distance from me by car (se3)
3) cost - £/mile at usual cruise setting.
I know Stapleford has a 182 for rent and there used to be a c6 at white Waltham but I can't find any rental prices for the latter or anywhere else for that matter?
1) cost - £/hour wet
2) distance from me by car (se3)
3) cost - £/mile at usual cruise setting.
I know Stapleford has a 182 for rent and there used to be a c6 at white Waltham but I can't find any rental prices for the latter or anywhere else for that matter?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: South-East, United Kingdom
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you considered a group share in either? In the end, these would increase your options of finding a machine in this category to fly/hire, and ultimately reduce the per hour costs.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously?
You live in a land where you pay the same for a gallon of Avgas as we pay for a litre!
(A litre is just about the same as a US quart)MJ
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have quite a bit of time in cherokee six types.
And a few hours in the C182
I much prefer the Cherokee six and its offspring (saratoga etc).
More comfortable, more passengers etc.
AS to comparing the C182 to a Cherokee Six with the 260 hp engine, it really isn't fair as there are very few of the 260's out there and they will be very, very old.
So, it all depends on the flying you do. Money must be put aside for a moment anyway.
Will you be flying from unimproved fields? (gravel etc) The 182 might be better, but then the 180 would be even better!
But just regular flying the roominess and flexibility as to payload, the Cherokee Six should win out.
Good luck.
Take a lesson in both and see which one you like better. Club seating in back is nice for the passengers.
And a few hours in the C182
I much prefer the Cherokee six and its offspring (saratoga etc).
More comfortable, more passengers etc.
AS to comparing the C182 to a Cherokee Six with the 260 hp engine, it really isn't fair as there are very few of the 260's out there and they will be very, very old.
So, it all depends on the flying you do. Money must be put aside for a moment anyway.
Will you be flying from unimproved fields? (gravel etc) The 182 might be better, but then the 180 would be even better!
But just regular flying the roominess and flexibility as to payload, the Cherokee Six should win out.
Good luck.
Take a lesson in both and see which one you like better. Club seating in back is nice for the passengers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have some figures for
Hour rental rate (wet)
Fuel consumption
Cruise speed
For the 182 versus C6-300? I'm guessing the c177rg might fit between the two somewhere?
My usual profile would be 3 or 4px plus bag, a few hours of fuel. No need for excessively short field performance but perhaps 800m grass upwards.
Hour rental rate (wet)
Fuel consumption
Cruise speed
For the 182 versus C6-300? I'm guessing the c177rg might fit between the two somewhere?
My usual profile would be 3 or 4px plus bag, a few hours of fuel. No need for excessively short field performance but perhaps 800m grass upwards.
Aztruckdriver
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both aircraft benefit from being flown at FL60 plus which in the UK typically means airways.
For low level VFR would suggest the 182 uses 50 litres per hour, cruises at 120 -125 KTAS, and rents for around £230-250 per hour wet. Full throttle at FL80 and leaned it improves to 40-45 lph, and 130-135 KTAS.
Ensure you get a good checkout in particular technique for landing the 182 when at a forward CofG.
There are syndicate 6-300 in the London area and may be worth checking G-Info for London syndicate owned Sixes and approaching the owners.
For low level VFR would suggest the 182 uses 50 litres per hour, cruises at 120 -125 KTAS, and rents for around £230-250 per hour wet. Full throttle at FL80 and leaned it improves to 40-45 lph, and 130-135 KTAS.
Ensure you get a good checkout in particular technique for landing the 182 when at a forward CofG.
There are syndicate 6-300 in the London area and may be worth checking G-Info for London syndicate owned Sixes and approaching the owners.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For low level VFR would suggest the 182 uses 50 litres per hour, cruises at 120 -125 KTAS, and rents for around £230-250 per hour wet. Full throttle at FL80 and leaned it improves to 40-45 lph, and 130-135 KTAS.
Why would the fuel consumption be greater at lower altitudes? Are you not leaning? Piston engine fuel consumption is most significantly effected by HP. Set the same HP, get the same fuel flow. Presuming you're trying to compare equal power, of course.
Aztruckdriver
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinstaafl fair point - but practically if you want 125 knots you may have a higher setting low level, and renters don't seem to lean down low. The engine is also a bit more efficient at full throttle, at full throttle altitudes with a power setting of around 65%.
Ideally the 182 should be leaned whenever below 75 %, including taxying.
No experience of a 6-300, but expect similar performance for another six-ten litres per hour. It is fuel injected so fuel consumption per hp may be a bit better.
Ideally the 182 should be leaned whenever below 75 %, including taxying.
No experience of a 6-300, but expect similar performance for another six-ten litres per hour. It is fuel injected so fuel consumption per hp may be a bit better.
You can use ours for 'one-off' trips if you like.
C182 with six seats, SMA engine:
40L/hour of JET (about 80p/litre), giving 135-140kts and a range of over 900nm.
or 27L/hr, giving 120kts and a range of almost 1100nm.
Both ranges with a 45 minute reserve.
Longest flight I have personally made was 920nm, done in 7.5hrs (5-10kt headwind throughout) and landed with just under an hours fuel remaining. From South Africa to Angola without stopping in Namibia!
Cheers, Sam.
C182 with six seats, SMA engine:
40L/hour of JET (about 80p/litre), giving 135-140kts and a range of over 900nm.
or 27L/hr, giving 120kts and a range of almost 1100nm.
Both ranges with a 45 minute reserve.
Longest flight I have personally made was 920nm, done in 7.5hrs (5-10kt headwind throughout) and landed with just under an hours fuel remaining. From South Africa to Angola without stopping in Namibia!
Cheers, Sam.
Club seating in back is nice for the passengers.