You all have convinced me to give the early 182s a shot. I doubt I will get to fly a 59 & 60 back to back but is there a noticeable difference in handing between the straight tail vs slant tail while still remaining with the lighter narrow body variant?

Thx

I know folks that have flown both. They have said that the strait tail looks better but the swept tail is faster. Not because of the tail but because on 1960 they put a bit more headroom in the back seat and that decreased the drag just a touch. The only reason for the strait tail is that piper had a swept tail and it looked faster. Marketing not engineering asked for the swept tail.

The 1961 has just a little lower stance. Less prop clearance. I like all the narrow bodied 182's. They all handle the same on the ground and in the air.

If it's handling you're looking for, you should really consider a tri-pacer or even a Maule trike! Those planes will make that 182 feel like a lead sled, and they can haul a decent load if your DA's are below 3k...

Seriously though...you're overthinking this by WAY too much. The right 182 for you is one you can afford, in good shape, within a day's drive of you. Everything past that...year, straight tail or slant tail or skinny or wide body...it's all just mental masturbation. Nothing that one gives you or the other takes away is nearly as significant as just getting a good airplane at a fair price without spending thousands of dollars looking at "select models" that are spread all over the country.

182's are pretty common...shop local and just buy a decent airplane at a decent price and don't get your panties in a wad regarding the differences between models. A good example of any model is better than a marginal example of any other.

I've dealt with people who wanted to know every minute detail about every possible option, and that's fine if you're buying brand new corporate jets...but it doesn't work when you're buying an aluminum box that's older than you are.

Hammer wrote:If it's handling you're looking for, you should really consider a tri-pacer or even a Maule trike! Those planes will make that 182 feel like a lead sled, and they can haul a decent load if your DA's are below 3k...

Seriously though...you're overthinking this by WAY too much. The right 182 for you is one you can afford, in good shape, within a day's drive of you. Everything past that...year, straight tail or slant tail or skinny or wide body...it's all just mental masturbation. Nothing that one gives you or the other takes away is nearly as significant as just getting a good airplane at a fair price without spending thousands of dollars looking at "select models" that are spread all over the country.

182's are pretty common...shop local and just buy a decent airplane at a decent price and don't get your panties in a wad regarding the differences between models. A good example of any model is better than a marginal example of any other.

I've dealt with people who wanted to know every minute detail about every possible option, and that's fine if you're buying brand new corporate jets...but it doesn't work when you're buying an aluminum box that's older than you are.

Way to reference the Red Rocker Hammer.

Hammer wrote:
The right 182 for you is one you can afford, in good shape, within a day's drive of you.

I bought a 182B in Providence, RI and flew it to Northern Cal . The best part was flying it home and mooching board and room from BCP folks. And flying from one end of the country to the other was a real lot of fun. But then the last one I bought was 15 miles from home.

What Hammer said about airplanes is accurate. Like qmdv, I have bought close and far and like to fly across the country. The psychological pressure to complete a far deal can be expensive, unless you just make it a no deal trip.

I know nothing about the 56-61 182s in the original question. I just wanted to say I love my 64 182G. It lives on Aerocet amphib floats most of the time, but today I got to have some fun and complete a goal, before I put it back on floats for the summer.

I landed at my home this morning. 900' of sheep pasture. Boxed in on four sides. Barbed wire fence at threshold, plus 2.5 ft. deep dtich., Fence on the east side. Irrigation ditch on the west side. Fence, ditch, 50' tree line, and utility poles on the north end.

https://youtu.be/afA4FPc8toI

https://youtu.be/bnAOBBu5CX8

Not short like Valdez, but plenty short to get me into my little gentleman's ranch this spring, before the sheep take up residence!

Floats going back on soon.

Pierre

Pierre_R wrote:I know nothing about the 56-61 182s in the original question. I just wanted to say I love my 64 182G. It lives on Aerocet amphib floats most of the time, but today I got to have some fun and complete a goal, before I put it back on floats for the summer.

I landed at my home this morning. 900' of sheep pasture. Boxed in on four sides. Barbed wire fence at threshold, plus 2.5 ft. deep dtich., Fence on the east side. Irrigation ditch on the west side. Fence, ditch, 50' tree line, and utility poles on the north end.

https://youtu.be/afA4FPc8toI

https://youtu.be/bnAOBBu5CX8

Not short like Valdez, but plenty short to get me into my little gentleman's ranch this spring, before the sheep take up residence!

Floats going back on soon.

Pierre

Any 182 that you get good with will make you happy. I am just partial to the way the 56 to 61 trim up. Very light on the controles

For backcountry 1970s and earlier are the best, the ones with the Lycoming feel heavier.
182s are great.

motoadve wrote:For backcountry 1970s and earlier are the best, the ones with the Lycoming feel heavier.
182s are great.

I flew with this guy six years ago in Costa Rica. He really knows his plane and will land aty places that most will not go. Check out his videos.

Not sure I'd choose Hammer's vernacular, but the substance is right on. Unless you're a 30,000 hour expert on 182s, I'd be surprised if you can tell the difference in handling from early to late models, other than later models tend to feel "heavier". Yeah, there are nuances, and the late 50s versions definitely feel lighter than the mid 70s models, which feel lighter than the last ones made. And that's because they are. But they're all heavier than a 172 of any age, which feels heavier than a 152 of any age. And all of the 182s are easy to fly. Oh, and the actual question, does the straight tail feel any different than a slant tail? No.

Cary

When Wolfgang recommend paying attention to "what the airplane wants to do," Cessnas were light, as Cary mentioned. Weight and power masks that somewhat. If the computers go out on a B-2, game over, they have to eject. We're not there yet and in the older/lighter, we are not even close.

Fly the airplane. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Too be fair Jim, in our old rag bags we will never be in a situation that aviation, navigating, communication will ever be game over and eject. Hell I don't think there is an eject button in my 108! I guess I need to pay more attention during my next annual.

You can fly these things all the way to the ground, and miss the crash, or at least I hope.

I am currently looking for another plane and the 182 looks very interesting. What could I expect for average cruise speeds in the older 182's?


Thanks!

Kevin

Yukoner wrote:I am currently looking for another plane and the 182 looks very interesting. What could I expect for average cruise speeds in the older 182's?


Thanks!

Kevin

I was flying a '56 the other day and indicating 140mph @23 squared. I'll ne putting a Sportsman and 8.50s on it here shortly so will be interesting how much speed we lose. They are fast compared to the later models.

David

That is pretty fast!

Thanks for the info!

Same here as David. I didn't realize newer ones are slower. Don't they have bigger engines like newer 172s?

contactflying wrote:Same here as David. I didn't realize newer ones are slower. Don't they have bigger engines like newer 172s?

Most still have the 0-470 although they are rated for 5 more HP. But the extra width and girth sure seemed to slow them down. Any of the wide body ones that I have flown and flown with were slower.

A1Skinner wrote:

contactflying wrote:Same here as David. I didn't realize newer ones are slower. Don't they have bigger engines like newer 172s?

Most still have the 0-470 although they are rated for 5 more HP. But the extra width and girth sure seemed to slow them down. Any of the wide body ones that I have flown and flown with were slower.

I think the tails are bigger too.

DJ Balla wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:

contactflying wrote:Same here as David. I didn't realize newer ones are slower. Don't they have bigger engines like newer 172s?

Most still have the 0-470 although they are rated for 5 more HP. But the extra width and girth sure seemed to slow them down. Any of the wide body ones that I have flown and flown with were slower.

I think the tails are bigger too.

I'd bet the style of trim has more effect on the speed then the tail size. Having a streamlined stab and elevator will be faster then a tab sticking out in the breeze.