C182 or 172
Moderator
Condition being equal, and cabin size not being the priority, the older (straight back) 182's are faster, lighter, and better performers. Particularly with a STOL kit, they are amazing. The old 182A I used to fly cargo in, was my all time favourite. The standard carburetted O-470 is not an engine which is working hard to develop it's power, and will run for a long time if cared for. It will run Mogas happily in a 182, which may become more attractive in a world where 100LL is becoming less available.
The 182 RG is a delightful plane, and a deceivingly good hauler, though does not adapt well to short rough runways. Expensive to maintain, particularly if terminating action was not done for the landing gear AD.
Depending upon the model of 172 the engine could be simple too, or not so much. The "H" engine version (172N, I think) did have some engine challenges, which might be best avoided. The Continental IO-360 equipped version flies very nicely with all that power, particularly on floats, but the engine must have 100LL, and works harder. Certain maintenance costs associated with that engine are higer than the O-470 equivilent, though that's not a reason to dislike the plane, just be sure you want that engine, if you're buying it, 'cause it might cost a bit more to operate. There's nothing wrong with the older Continental O-300 powered version of the 172, they're just a little older, and require a little extra care.
My personal opinion is that the 172 RG is not worth the extra cost to purchase, maintain or insure. You'd be better spending that extra money on a straight 182 instead, and using the maintenance and insurance savings to cover the extra fuel cost. And you can really haul a load if you have to for time to time.
If you slow the 182 way back in cruise, they're nearly the same fuel burn as a big engined 172 at high power. Back when I was even less rich than I am now, I used to have free use of the 182 RG, but I obviously bought my own fuel. I used to fly around on the lowest cruise settings to keep the cost down on long trips, and was very happily surprized.
The 182 RG is a delightful plane, and a deceivingly good hauler, though does not adapt well to short rough runways. Expensive to maintain, particularly if terminating action was not done for the landing gear AD.
Depending upon the model of 172 the engine could be simple too, or not so much. The "H" engine version (172N, I think) did have some engine challenges, which might be best avoided. The Continental IO-360 equipped version flies very nicely with all that power, particularly on floats, but the engine must have 100LL, and works harder. Certain maintenance costs associated with that engine are higer than the O-470 equivilent, though that's not a reason to dislike the plane, just be sure you want that engine, if you're buying it, 'cause it might cost a bit more to operate. There's nothing wrong with the older Continental O-300 powered version of the 172, they're just a little older, and require a little extra care.
My personal opinion is that the 172 RG is not worth the extra cost to purchase, maintain or insure. You'd be better spending that extra money on a straight 182 instead, and using the maintenance and insurance savings to cover the extra fuel cost. And you can really haul a load if you have to for time to time.
If you slow the 182 way back in cruise, they're nearly the same fuel burn as a big engined 172 at high power. Back when I was even less rich than I am now, I used to have free use of the 182 RG, but I obviously bought my own fuel. I used to fly around on the lowest cruise settings to keep the cost down on long trips, and was very happily surprized.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
A have never experienced the need for full nose up trim even against 40 flap and I frequent a number of 350m strips. The Rocket/XP will go anywhere a 182 will go.
Cruise at 128kts is 23/2300 I would not describe that as high RPM. It is a proper 4 seat aircraft the same as the 182.
I hung on a number of years to get hold of mine as it gave the best balance of performance and economy as well as the ability to long distance tour. It is not a magic carpet but then no aircraft is, however it does tick a lot of boxes.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Godzone
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i was only playing devil's advocate before. My pick would be the O470 powered 182 with fixed gear. Cruise at 2200-2300 rpm - nice, quiet and lazy, good short field (doesn't seem to be an issue with the OP though) and well priced. Just a bit cooler and better performing than a 172 - and the stressed-engine 172 is good for a purpose, but imho across the board the 230hp 182 is the better all-round plane. I have about 1000hrs in 172/182, 750 in 206's and 500 in 210s.
until you have a mission clearly defined, you should not make a decision on type. who's to say a Bonanza or Mooney is not the best for you? Or if you're going to go for a 182 with the O540 or O470, then why not a 206 with an O520? Or a 210? Fuel burn might be 60lph, but would you rather burn 60lph on a 1 hour flight, or 40lph on a 90 minute one?
IMO for a comfortable reliable travelling machine you can't beat a good C 182. I personally favor the 1973 -1977 "P" versions. The Continental O-470R engine is smoother and a better performer than the later O-470U or Lycoming O-540 engine, you get the later style wide cabin and cuffed wing and high gross yet still have a relatively light airframe. Most have had the horrible Cessna radios replaced by modern avionics and the paint and interior redone.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cusco, Peru
Age: 50
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go with the 182. Much better cabin space, range as well as takeoff and climb performance.
Operating costs annualized will be in the same relative magnitude on both airplanes. 182 burns about 40% more fuel and is about 20% faster than 172. All other costs (insurance, hangar, maintenance etc) will be in the same ballpark for both a/c.
Your capital outlay is obviously greater on a 182 but both types have good residual value.
As for bringing one from the US, that generally makes most sense on later model aircraft due to the cost of ferry flight and "propina" for your friendly local Customs folks
Operating costs annualized will be in the same relative magnitude on both airplanes. 182 burns about 40% more fuel and is about 20% faster than 172. All other costs (insurance, hangar, maintenance etc) will be in the same ballpark for both a/c.
Your capital outlay is obviously greater on a 182 but both types have good residual value.
As for bringing one from the US, that generally makes most sense on later model aircraft due to the cost of ferry flight and "propina" for your friendly local Customs folks
