DJ Balla, you seem like a straight up player. A dope bro who knows that a pimp's life is much different than that of a square. Draggin 6 holes around means that you can do things that 4 just can't do. Being laid back with the left knob means that you can roll low and slow like a 172, or pump up the volume (along with the tempo) and roll heavier. Me and my ladies can burn less of the stinky stuff for the same speed as the 172. I also get much more play when I'm light, from the extra extra that the 6 delivers.

DJ Balla wrote:Part of my reasoning is that a 182 is big and heavy and needs 6-cylinders to do its thing vs the other two planes in my original post which are not as heavy and use 4-cylinders. My assumption is that this would result in lower fuel and overhaul costs vs the 182

The flip side is (that I've heard) losing a jug on a 6 cylinder is an inconvenience, losing one on a 4 cylinder is a forced landing.

Tri-pacer? Tri-Maule? How about tri-A-taildragger?

LOL

DJ Balla wrote:Part of my reasoning is that a 182 is big and heavy and needs 6-cylinders to do its thing vs the other two planes in my original post which are not as heavy and use 4-cylinders. My assumption is that this would result in lower fuel and overhaul costs vs the 182

For the most part, flown under the same conditions, a large engine plane will burn only a little more gas than the small engine plane at the same load and airspeed.

Or, it will be going faster at a higher burn rate partially mitagating the fuel flow disadvantage.

On the other hand it will be safer due to better climb rate, cruise speed over hazardous terrain (less time in jeapordy), and improved performace at high weights and density altitude.

My 180 HP Maule is an EXCELLENT airplane, but I should have bought a 235, or even a 260. If I had to do it all over again thats what I'd do.

DJ Balla wrote:Part of my reasoning is that a 182 is big and heavy and needs 6-cylinders to do its thing vs the other two planes in my original post which are not as heavy and use 4-cylinders. My assumption is that this would result in lower fuel and overhaul costs vs the 182

Good point. A 180hp 172 then? I instruct in an old 172K with an O360 conversion that straight leaps off the ground. We have 850s on the mains and I'd take it anywhere that I would've taken my C180. Sure, that's probably because I cared about the condition of my 180, but still, this 172 performs. It cruises at 120kts burning 9gph, and has the same cabin width as an early 182. Off the runway in a couple hundred feet at sea level with 10deg of flaps, the extra 20hp in 172's truly add a lot. I formerly instructed in a newer 172S with the injected Lyc IO360 which also performed great, and I'm a sucker for fuel injection, but being seen in a brand new 172 is akeen to being seen in a trimaule.

See the mud on the horizontal? That doesn't come from paved runways.

DJ Balla wrote:...

I’m looking to get 4 small people in and out of 2000’ strips without taking any branches at the end of the runways with me. I wanted initially to cruise at 150mph, but I’m ok with 130mph now.

Thx

Short answer: For what you want you need a 182.

Long answer:

I don't know what your DA's typically are or how high the trees grow in your neck of the woods, but four people in a 160hp airplane is not going to work at most of the 2,000-foot backcountry strips I'm familiar with. Fact is that recipe isn't going to work at most of the 4,000-foot Idaho or Utah or Montana backcountry airstrips in anything but ideal conditions.

I consider my 180hp 170 with a stol kit to be a good two-person backcountry airplane, a passable 3-person backcountry airplane, and a VERY marginal 4-person backcountry airplane, and I come from an ultra-light backpacking background, so my kit is minimal.

I think you either need something considerably more powerful than what you're looking at, or you need to lower your performance expectations. Four people + above-sea level DA + backcountry airstrip + trees = 200+hp, in my experience anyway. But I'm cautious...just enough margin to make it isn't enough margin for me when the stakes are life and death.

Everyone wants a magic airplane that's cheap to buy, and cheap to operate, and will cary a big load, and fly fast. And everyone figures out eventually that you're doing good to just get two of those attributes.

Unless your flight environment is dominated by low elevation and cool temperatures and wide-open approaches, I wouldn't consider either a Tri-Pacer or a 180hp Maule. If you can't afford anything more powerful, then accept that you might not get the access to the backcountry you think you will now.

Hammer wrote:

DJ Balla wrote:...

I’m looking to get 4 small people in and out of 2000’ strips without taking any branches at the end of the runways with me. I wanted initially to cruise at 150mph, but I’m ok with 130mph now.

Thx

Short answer: For what you want you need a 182.

Long answer:

I don't know what your DA's typically are or how high the trees grow in your neck of the woods, but four people in a 160hp airplane is not going to work at most of the 2,000-foot backcountry strips I'm familiar with. Fact is that recipe isn't going to work at most of the 4,000-foot Idaho or Utah or Montana backcountry airstrips in anything but ideal conditions.

I consider my 180hp 170 with a stol kit to be a good two-person backcountry airplane, a passable 3-person backcountry airplane, and a VERY marginal 4-person backcountry airplane, and I come from an ultra-light backpacking background, so my kit is minimal.

I think you either need something considerably more powerful than what you're looking at, or you need to lower your performance expectations. Four people + above-sea level DA + backcountry airstrip + trees = 200+hp, in my experience anyway. But I'm cautious...just enough margin to make it isn't enough margin for me when the stakes are life and death.

Everyone wants a magic airplane that's cheap to buy, and cheap to operate, and will cary a big load, and fly fast. And everyone figures out eventually that you're doing good to just get two of those attributes.

Unless your flight environment is dominated by low elevation and cool temperatures and wide-open approaches, I wouldn't consider either a Tri-Pacer or a 180hp Maule. If you can't afford anything more powerful, then accept that you might not get the access to the backcountry you think you will now.

I totally agree with this. I have a 170A with the 145hp engine and stol kit, and while I can operate in 1000 feet with 2 people, I'm doing it in negative density altitude, counting my gas, and asking the passenger if they poo'd yet this morning.

If you want to pack around 4 people and any amount of gear, you need a constant speed and north of 200HP.

The 182 is a fantastic airplane, and the 180 is even better, but more insurance and cost.

Just go buy something like this and be happy:

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... a+182.html

DJ Balla wrote:Part of my reasoning is that a 182 is big and heavy and needs 6-cylinders to do its thing vs the other two planes in my original post which are not as heavy and use 4-cylinders. My assumption is that this would result in lower fuel and overhaul costs vs the 182

If you have fuel injection and know your way around a mixture control, then you can get the same performance from a 6-cyl as a 4-cyl in terms of efficiency.

Overhaul difference is marginal, maybe $20 per hour or similar, and if you own the plane outright (cash) then you can ignore that cost entirely and go flying.

DJ Balla wrote:Part of my reasoning is that a 182 is big and heavy and needs 6-cylinders to do its thing vs the other two planes in my original post which are not as heavy and use 4-cylinders. My assumption is that this would result in lower fuel and overhaul costs vs the 182

So despite the educated opinions of others, I agree that a big six-cylinder engine is going to cost a considerable amount more to maintain and feed than a four-cylinder engine, day to day.

What I don't agree with is the concept that once you put four people and gear in a light airplane with a small engine you've broken even with that same load in a heavy airplane with a larger engine.

Regardless of the load, a 182 is going to blow the doors off a tri-pacer or 180hp Maul, and the heaver the load or the shorter the strip, the better the 182 will look.

If you want to cary four people, it doesn't really matter how much more economical a four-cylinder engine is...it won't work for you. Not for the backcountry airstrips in the Rocky Mountains, anyway. You need a big engine and a CS prop, regardless of make or model.

asa wrote:Tri-maule's are disgusting. Get a tripacer. They are at least ugly in a good/endearing way.

Also, btw Troy I spotted your PA22 in King Salmon last week, I'm a fan. We got 2 tri pacers to do flight instruction in and one of them is painted nearly identical to yours.

asa, there are 3 tripacers on the ramp at the moment in King Salmon. Apparently, tripacer love is a communicable disease.

However, the more I think about this post, the more it seems like the wrong plane for the OP. It is not much of a 4 seat airplane, though he claims all 4 are small, so in that circumstance it might work okay. It also doesn’t fly 130, regardless of the engine, unless you have tiny tires, perfect rigging, and every imaginable fairing. But if you have all that and you are operating from sea level strips, then sure.

But if you have a $75k budget, and want more performance than a tripacer offers, you would be better off spending it on an airplane that has that increased performance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thx for the replies on the 6v4 and overall HP topic.

I live in central NC at 500’ msl; we see DA over 2000’ in the summer and I plan to fly into the Shenandoah valley for fishing and camping. Those will be trips to charted grass strips; no rock bars or true backcountry setups there.

DJ Balla wrote:Thx for the replies on the 6v4 and overall HP topic.

I live in central NC at 500’ msl; we see DA over 2000’ in the summer and I plan to fly into the Shenandoah valley for fishing and camping. Those will be trips to charted grass strips; no rock bars or true backcountry setups there.

Well, that's a bit different than Idaho...you might well be able to use a bit less airplane than a 182, though a 182 would definitely simplify things. Once you put four people in an airplane there just isn't a lot of wiggle room for gear, gas, or performance. I'd still be pretty unhappy with anything less than 180hp, and a CS prop wouldn't break my heart...

Some things to consider:

What is the departure from these grass strips...do you just need to be airborne in 2,000 feet, or do you need to be a couple hundred feet in the air?

Are you bringing camping gear, or just a credit card and a change of clothes?

Can you land with minimal fuel, then make a ten-minute hop to a longer runway and put on fuel there? Is that option completely reliable, or does the fuel stop risk being fogged in when the grass strip isn't? How much comfort fuel do you need to cary? Do you have a lot of landing options en-route and near your home airport, or are you looking at a thirty-minute flight if you can't land?

Finally, are the compromises and work-arounds really worth the money you'd save verses just buying enough airplane to load-n-go, even if it costs you another $50 in fuel and engine time for the weekend?

The endless finagling of fuel, cargo, temperature, etc. can take a lot of the enjoyment out of flying, especially when you're operating on the ragged edge of success and the kids are grumpy and you really have to be in the office Monday morning. Buying too little airplane in the hopes of saving a few dollars is just wasting money, though where exactly that line is for you is something you'll have to figure out.

DJ Balla wrote:Thx for the replies on the 6v4 and overall HP topic.

I live in central NC at 500’ msl; we see DA over 2000’ in the summer and I plan to fly into the Shenandoah valley for fishing and camping. Those will be trips to charted grass strips; no rock bars or true backcountry setups there.

Okay, so if you want to count gas, weigh things, and look closely at the approach and departure then a smallish 4 person airplane might work.

Be sure that you and your passengers aren't overt 450lbs, keep the gear in the 100lb range, don't put more than 25 gallons of fuel in it, make sure you have at least 2000 ft runway, be very skilled and careful, and never make a mistake.

or....

Just buy a 182, toss 800lbs and 50 gallons in it and work in 2000 feet all day long at sea level.

schu

You folks make a compelling argument for the 182....the straight tail ones look great and completely slipped my radar. Glad we got back on track even after essentially being off track the entire time given the subject of my original post.

There is some really great info here and some funny nonsense as well. I thank you all for the comments.

Although I wonder if I start a thread entitled “C-182a vs. C-182b” if I won’t get a bunch of replies to “buy a Maule” or “have you considered a tri-pacer”?

DJ Balla wrote:...
Although I wonder if I start a thread entitled “C-182a vs. C-182b” if I won’t get a bunch of replies to “buy a Maule” or “have you considered a tri-pacer”?

Oh, undoubtably someone would tell you to buy a Maule...probably still will. But when you stipulate carrying four people, I doubt anyone is going to suggest a tri-pacer...

No doubt there are other planes that will work for you, but 182's are THE bargain for someone wanting to take three passengers and gear into shortish strips.

DJ Balla wrote:You folks make a compelling argument for the 182....the straight tail ones look great and completely slipped my radar. Glad we got back on track even after essentially being off track the entire time given the subject of my original post.

There is some really great info here and some funny nonsense as well. I thank you all for the comments.

Although I wonder if I start a thread entitled “C-182a vs. C-182b” if I won’t get a bunch of replies to “buy a Maule” or “have you considered a tri-pacer”?

It would be really hard to beat an early 182 for what you want to do. They are greatly capable aircraft. And you would never be disappointed with having a big O-470 out front vs. a four banger. An overhaul is going to cost more but this is not an inexpensive deal, owning an airplane.

And if/when it's hot, and you have a good load in the plane, the big motor will snort right out of there.

182A, B, or C would be great. Probably the best bang for the buck in aviation in the fill 4 seats and go category.

This thread should have been started a year ago. I stopped at Kitty Hawk just under a year ago. If you had gone for a ride with me you would not be talked out of an old 182



And at Green River Intergalactic Spaceport in Wyoming just few days later



I spent 20 days covering 7500 miles around this country. Such a dependable old gal

Poking around online it seems that the 182 has a reputation for high maintenance which I realize is a relative term. Is that due to a big motor with a low TBO time or are there some nasty AD’s to deal with?

What is the typical cost for annual on a straight tail 182?

Hammer wrote:But when you stipulate carrying four people, I doubt anyone is going to suggest a tri-pacer...

Ha!

Too true!

I tell folks it’s a 4-seat airplane... just like how a Trans Am is a 4- seat car!

DJ Balla wrote:Poking around online it seems that the 182 has a reputation for high maintenance which I realize is a relative term. Is that due to a big motor with a low TBO time or are there some nasty AD’s to deal with?

What is the typical cost for annual on a straight tail 182?

<sigh> I'm done.

We have steered you away from marginal/low performance aircraft in an attempt to keep you safe and so that you get the right tool for the job, and more specifically towards the 182 because they are the bargain in the segment which puts them in your price range, and because you don't have a requirement for skis or bushwheels, but it doesn't seem like you listen very well and keep circling back.

So read away on the internet, and keep circling around (which has become trolling), but don't expect people to spend more time on this as it's pointless to do so....