Cessna 182 competitors?

[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]

182 does what it says on the tin

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