I have a 56 182 that is a pretty good plane. 1050 pounds useful load. I have been following a post that is talking about a 172 and upgrading the engine to 180 hp. I have been reading all the compliments on how great this conversion is. So I am thinking of unloading my plane and buying a 172 and putting in an engine upgrade.

What do you think

Tim

I think you're trolling-otherwise

qmdv wrote:I have a 56 182 that is a pretty good plane. 1050 pounds useful load. I have been following a post that is talking about a 172 and upgrading the engine to 180 hp. I have been reading all the compliments on how great this conversion is. So I am thinking of unloading my plane and buying a 172 and putting in an engine upgrade.

What do you think

Tim

Is this a case of need-something-new-itis?

Sell 182, $45K, buy good airframe 172, $30K, buy airplains 180HP kit and install $55K. Spend $45K extra for a plane with less ability.....


Those economic numbers is why I got rid of my 172 and bought my 182. Just no way to reasonably justify putting a new 180HP kit into a 172.......$45K can buy alot of gallons of fuel, plus quite a few 470 top end jobs....

Well no more hot air so a guy in his declining years needs to have fun with you guys somehow.

Oh by the way, a plane just sold in Montague. (1O5). A 1956 182, 725 or so hrs on engine, inertia reel harnesses, fold up jump seats, extended baggage, Horton STOL, Landis fork, 25 hrs on new prop, EI fuel flow. Rest of avionics so so. $35,000. The new buyer had to spend about 2500 bucs to bring some other things to snuff and that included 3 new 8.50 x six tires.

Tim

qmdv wrote:Well no more hot air so a guy in his declining years needs to have fun with you guys somehow.

Oh by the way, a plane just sold in Montague. (1O5). A 1956 182, 725 or so hrs on engine, inertia reel harnesses, fold up jump seats, extended baggage, Horton STOL, Landis fork, 25 hrs on new prop, EI fuel flow. Rest of avionics so so. $35,000. The new buyer had to spend about 2500 bucs to bring some other things to snuff and that included 3 new 8.50 x six tires.

Tim

That's a good deal. How was the rest of the plane? Airframe hours, etc?

colopilot wrote:

qmdv wrote:Well no more hot air so a guy in his declining years needs to have fun with you guys somehow.

Oh by the way, a plane just sold in Montague. (1O5). A 1956 182, 725 or so hrs on engine, inertia reel harnesses, fold up jump seats, extended baggage, Horton STOL, Landis fork, 25 hrs on new prop, EI fuel flow. Rest of avionics so so. $35,000. The new buyer had to spend about 2500 bucs to bring some other things to snuff and that included 3 new 8.50 x six tires.

Tim

That's a good deal. How was the rest of the plane? Airframe hours, etc?

Very very little corrosion, Just over 4000 hrs on airframe, the cowl looks rough. A real solid plane. I wonder what all those STC's would add up to.

Tim

qmdv wrote:Well no more hot air so a guy in his declining years needs to have fun with you guys somehow.
Tim

Tim if you're bored you need to go over to the Red Board and tell all the Flying Divas that their Mooneys are uncomfortable to sit in.

You'll have a shizz-storm on your hands for weeks

Navy guys grrr...

Wow that was one heck of a deal. $15K alone in upgrades.

Nah, just get a Maule!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clearly this is a tongue-in-cheek thread, but if there's any seriousness to it at all, I can only say, mission comes first. My little O-360 180hp/CS P172D is a great little airplane, and of all the airplanes I've owned and flown, I do like it the best. But if I were to list the pros and cons of each, i.e., which wins each category, again depending on the mission, it would go something like this:

Fuel burn per hour: 172, <10 gph vs. >12 gph
Control pressures: 172, hands down
Pleasant to fly: 172, combination of light control pressures and stability
Ease of ground handling by hand, 172, because it's lighter
Maintenance costs, 172, slightly, because it's a 4 rather than a 6
Speed: 182, 130 knots vs. 115 knots
Load carrying: 182, 4 adults with full tanks vs. 3 adults with full tanks
Stability in turbulence: 182, somewhat, but with heavy control pressures
Range: 182, although both have greater range than my bladder
High altitude capability, 182

On the other hand, I don't have any country singer's mug painted on my airplane's tail--not sure if that would help or hinder.

Cary

Cary wrote:Clearly this is a tongue-in-cheek thread, but if there's any seriousness to it at all, I can only say, mission comes first. My little O-360 180hp/CS P172D is a great little airplane, and of all the airplanes I've owned and flown, I do like it the best. But if I were to list the pros and cons of each, i.e., which wins each category, again depending on the mission, it would go something like this:

Fuel burn per hour: 172, <10 gph vs. >12 gph
Control pressures: 172, hands down
Pleasant to fly: 172, combination of light control pressures and stability
Ease of ground handling by hand, 172, because it's lighter
Maintenance costs, 172, slightly, because it's a 4 rather than a 6
Speed: 182, 130 knots vs. 115 knots
Load carrying: 182, 4 adults with full tanks vs. 3 adults with full tanks
Stability in turbulence: 182, somewhat, but with heavy control pressures
Range: 182, although both have greater range than my bladder
High altitude capability, 182
Cary

Now lets talk about an early 182 with trimable horizontal stabilizer just like on the 180's amd 185's, Mine is 1496 pounds empty

Fuel burn. I run mine at 2200 RPM at 20 inches. 4 hour trip leaning the way you are supposed to I average 9.8 to 10.1 gpm
Control pressure. Mine is very light at 50 mph. Do not confuse the early 182 to a 1962 and later
Pleasant to fly Mine is as pleasant as yours
Ground handling Maybe you have me cus a few hundred pounds may be measurable
Maintenance costs You have me. The more it caries, higher it goes and the faster it is the price does go up
Speed. At my power setting, 10GPM I am at 120 knots. little differance
Load carrying. 1052 useful. Have I ever gone over 2550 pounds. Of course not
Stability in turbulence. the heavier they are the more stable. Little control pressure on the early models

When most folks talk about 182's their reference is the late ones

Oh, I forgot to mention I carry an oven to bake butter clams


Tim

To be fair, I have several friends that have 172's with O360's. I have flown a few of them and yes they are just a delightful plane to fly. Only thing I do not like about them is fuel capacity. But that can be remedied like most things if you add more money

Tim