Not that I have anything more to say than all the other posters, I can only say I have looked at upgrading to a 180/182 more times than I can remember. I bought an older 172 in the late 80's and over the years it has taken me over a good portion of the lower 48. I always thought how much nicer it would be to have something bigger and faster. Everytime I would sit down and crunch the numbers I realized it would cost me much more in the long run to own and operate the bigger plane. As has been said the fuel cost difference in time/distance traveled is not that much different. It all came down to the much more exxpensive overall costs that come with owning a more complex airplane.

The main reason I fly is because I like to fly for pleasure, no other reason, except the occasional long cross country. Having an economical plane to just 'go for a quick ride' makes more sense to me, and wallet. If most of my flying was business or travel I would upgrade.

In 2003, when I purchased my first airplane (1954 C170), I stopped in Duluth, MN on my return flight to Wyoming. I was speaking with a local pilot who seemed wise and knowledgable. He was admiring my new purchase. I told him that I really wanted a 180, but... He said "no matter what you have you will always want more". I enjoyed the 170 immensely through the years, but always wanted more HP, and drooled over 180s when i saw them on the ramp. I have an eye for design details, and the 180s definitely have the appearance of an evolved 170. I flew the 170 until 2012, then got a 180. I'm pretty confident that I have all the plane that I want now. Can't imagine wanting more power, payload or capability. Any heavier, and it would start to become less fun. I am not alone in my belief that Cessna struck a very sweet spot in the design balance for a personal airplane when they came up with the 180/182 models.

While neither are thoroughbreds in the handling department, I have found the 172 a nicer, more balanced aircraft. The 182 in its later variants is nose heavy and more truck like - an early 180 hp 172, eg the fastback 172C with bigger tyres, strengthened nose fork and Sportsman STOL and a simple panel would be a good compromise. Two up and half tanks should not find DA too challenging, except high noon, high summer - and who flies then?

However, if only two up I would vote for a PA18 or PA12.

You can sit around and calculate fuel costs and burn rates till the cows come home. In the end, you will need something that fits your mission profile and puts a smile on your face when you open the hangar door

Someone once told me not to try and calculate what my airplane costs on a per hour basis- just fly the plane you can afford, fits your mission statement and enjoy it. That was very good advice

We all simply work to hard for our money and the emotional aspect of an airplane can sometimes get lost in the calculations. I love my 182 and I really mean that literally! I have seen some awesome older 182's for sale within the last 6 months for less than $45k. This market is crazy. Searching for the right airplane is half the fun. Enjoy!

DBI wrote:Someone once told me not to try and calculate what my airplane costs on a per hour basis- just fly the plane you can afford, fits your mission statement and enjoy it. That was very good advice

I couldn't agree more! If you examine the purchase too deeply from an analytical perspective, you will talk yourself out of the hobby. For me, it is impossible to rationalize this stuff, so I quit trying.

L18C-95 wrote:However, if only two up I would vote for a PA18 or PA12.

Yes, why does this 2-person-only plane need to be a 172 or 182? Cost? Don't like tandem seating? What is the mission?

There are many 2-place airplanes that are suitable for the back country that are way more fun to fly than a 172. One of the best all-around 2-place airplanes (expensive though) is the Husky. Probably faster and slower than a 172.

Or Pipers (as above), Scout, Citabria, Decathalon, Taylorcraft, and many other great planes.

Good luck and happy hunting.

What can I say? I love my 63 P172D with a 180hp Lycoming and CS prop. I've owned in partnership a 182, a TR182, and a T210. I flew SE charter and instructed in 172s and 182s and an Archer and a 206. But my little airplane is fun to fly, relatively easy on the wallet as airplanes go (which means it's frightfully expensive ), and it does everything I want it to do. I can take 4 sight-seeing if I have only half tanks and off load my usual junk; I can fly into the mountains and get up to 14,000' reasonably easily with part tanks and a light load; and I can go places if I want to that take all day to get there--and enjoy every minute of it. I can go IFR safely if I plan properly. I can get in and out of small strips, as long as they're relatively smooth. There have been unexpected expenses, but that's part of airplane ownership. Most of the 10 years I've owned my Little Red Bird, I have been pretty happy with her.

Cary