Thanks for the thoughts on this one. Gives me a lot to think about as I look for a plane.

qmdv wrote:Another thing. If a cylinder has only been to TBO one time and has been overhauled correctly with new everything including pistons there is no reason not for it to go to TBO if the plane is flown regularly. And chrome is the way to go if plane is at Oregon coast and only flown 25 hrs a year.

Tim

There are many reasons O/H cylinders don't usually make TBO..with wear being at the bottom. Aluminum fatigues and cracks after repeated cycles of hot cold and high cylinder pressures. Sure in most cases cracks can be welded but you just changed the structure around the HAZ and most likely there's another area not too far behind to have an issue arise.

corefile wrote: Also my 0.02, if you are going to get a swept tail, might as well just get a 62+ wide body, if you want the narrow body get it with the straight tail.

Why is that? Just curious- seems like the cart before the horse dealio

According to the '59 B and '60 C POH's, the perf. numbers are identical except the swept tail is faster. According to John Frank who wrote the 182 buying guide, the swept-tailed narrow bodies are the fastest of all N/A 182's.

I'll reiterate how important a good prebuy by your own IA/A&P is to a successful buy, if this is the airplane you think you want to buy, especially with that particular damage history. Based on the lawsuit I was involved with last year, which I've described here in the past, these are the particular concerns I would have:

I would be looking for proper rebuilding of the wingtip, including especially the rerigging of the control surfaces in that wing. I would look very hard for any damage and proper rebuilding of the firewall and all of the structure behind the firewall under the pedal area. I would also look for any damage to the main gear on that side, and proper repairs if there was any. Just that the repairs were "properly signed off" isn't good enough, because in that case I had, an IA had signed off on all of the repairs. But it would take more room than Zane allows for me to list all of the improper repairs that were made. Yet from 50', it was a good looking airplane (it was a 67 Skylane), with nice upholstery and good paint.

The best advice I heard during the process of my case, with which I totally agree, is that there are lots of 182s. There's no reason to travel very far to buy one, and there's no reason to buy one that has questionable damage history.

Cary

Would be much more concerned with the prop strike and the accompanying documentation there. That is a full tear down, magnaflux crank, accessory case gears, etc. by a very competent shop. Continental crankshafts break very frequently when a stoppage occurs, and it may or may not mic straight.

SixTwoLeemer wrote:

corefile wrote: Also my 0.02, if you are going to get a swept tail, might as well just get a 62+ wide body, if you want the narrow body get it with the straight tail.

Why is that? Just curious- seems like the cart before the horse dealio

According to the '59 B and '60 C POH's, the perf. numbers are identical except the swept tail is faster. According to John Frank who wrote the 182 buying guide, the swept-tailed narrow bodies are the fastest of all N/A 182's.

Yeah it's something like 1-2 knots.... I have John's buying guide. They also have different procedures for spin recovery. My reason isn't in the POH's, it's because the straight tail looks nicer. Again why I preficed it with my 0.02

If i were to buy a 182 again i would by a 61. Sure my 57 is a fine plane BUT. The things that i really like about the 61 over the oldies are...

1. Camlock cowl. Way easier to remove.
2. Nice cowl flaps with the BIG lever not that wimpy cable.
3. Extra rear window.
4. Long range fuel was a possibility.