What are your thoughts in general about a late 70s C-172N with a 180HP conversion and a fixed pitch climb prop for backcountry use (IE: Idaho/Johnson Creek) for use by one or two people only? The back seat will never be used.

How does it compare to the alternative of a stock 182 in this application?

The operating costs of a 172 being lower makes it more appealing if it's not a compromise.

170

Of course it is a compromise, less power less payload, etc. But it is still a perfectly capable airplane, and a pretty nice one for the parameters you list.

Straight tail 182 will get the job done .

I have hours in both. I'd say (what is obvious) the 182 has a broader mission envelope and an older one can be had for relatively cheap. The 172/180 is a great, bulletproof bird, but you're not going to see much improved performance, especially at higher DA's.

My vote would be for an older, straight tailed 182. You won't be sorry!

Jim

My Father-in-law has a '69 172 with the PennYan 180 conversion, VG's, flap gap seals, power flow exhaust, cruise prop. It's quite a performer, I can shoehorn in/out of his one way 950' farm strip without much concern, even with a cruise prop. Load it up to max gross and it still gets airborne in 1400'-1500' on an average day (1000' msl). Fuel flow is around 9.5gal/hr at 2550rpm, but it has a power flow exhaust which has increased the fuel burn a tad.

In short form here's how his stacks up:
120-125kts cruise @ 2550rpm @ 4500'
500' ground roll when light and max performance
1500' ground roll when loaded

The only real disadvantage of the PennYan, and maybe the other conversions, they limit the flaps to 30* per the STC. That turns the airplane into a bit of a floater if you don't have the speed dialed in. If it were mine, the flaps would go back to 40* except during the annual.


nkh

I am partners on a 172N with the 180 hp Air Plains conversion and own a 1953 180, which is essentially a 182 in terms of performance. Both have a gross weight of 2550. The 180 weighs 80-100 lbs more than the 172. Here's my take. IF you can keep the 172 to 2 FAA type people (170#), half tanks or less, and 100 lbs of gear or less it will hang In there at all but the highest DA. You will still have to quit flying before the 180/182 does on a given day. IF there is the off chance you don't miss many meals like me (240#) carry a couple kids that are getting heavier each year, and like having something a little more extensive than backpacking gear to camp with (beer cooler, grill, etc.) spend your money and get an older 182- Cost wise they are close. The fixed pitch cruise prop that comes with the STC conversion from Air Plains (and I believe Penn Yan) has some limitations at high DA, especially when loaded. There is no comparison there, even if they perform closer at sea level.

Flynengr

I've thought a lot about this over the last few years. Having flown 160hp 172's, then owned a 145hp 170, and now currently renting a 172/180hp for most of my camping trips, I will recommend the 182.

From a cost standpoint, the 172 is cheaper mostly for maintenance. Fewer cylinders, fixed pitch prop. For the initial purchase price, for 2 aircraft of similar year and condition, yes, the 182 will be a little higher priced, but this market is weird. There are great deals on 182s out there, some of them pop up here on occasion.

For fuel costs, the burn just isn't that much more. Pull that O-470 back in cruise and you can nearly burn the same as an O-360. But on takeoff, the performance difference is the reason you opt for the 182. The handling and feel of the 182 isn't much different from the 172, but the improved trim system and the flush rivets are worth having.

It's like the reason I've chosen the O-540 in my personal aircraft vs my early desires for an O-360 or IO-390. When you want more power, YOU WANT MORE POWER. For backcountry flying, density altitude is so often a factor that having more displacement is the safe choice.

I'm going to guess that the strips you plan on flying into are manacured grass strips or well groomed gravel strips, in either case it doesn't matter what plane you choose because neither is an off-airport plane, it's what you can afford to fly more often. 1 or 2 people only, you could save a bunch of money and buy a 152 and invest the rest of your money into fuel. Guess which one will make you a better pilot???

Ditto on Z's post.

The 172 is a great airplane down lower...and it costs a bit less to own in maintenance. If I were to throw a number out there, perhaps $7-$9 an hour more for the engine and prop for major and ongoing maintenance differences (cylinders, probes, etc) would cover it IMHO. I've spent that much on cylinders (top end OH) and other items related to these items.

But -

1. The insurance costs are comparable (I pay 520 a year for mine).
2. The DA performance in the 182 is really hard to not have once you get used to it. A lot of the flights around the Rockies have comparable costs for same for a given flight because a) I don't have to climb forever or go around stuff, and b) I get there 20%-25% faster. For flights down low, the 172 wins cost-wise by quite a bit.
3. If you want to boat around at 172 speeds, you can pull it back to 17"/2000 and burn 8gph. I do on local low flights.
4. The purchase price is not very far apart between a 172 and a 182.
5. 182's often come better equipped on the used market for the price. While IFR might not interest everyone, having a better radio, transponder, and a reasonably recent GPS in the panel at almost no extra cost is nice.
6. For the occasions that you want to haul a load or fly a long cross country, the 182 will spoil you from weight and balance issues. It is pretty hard to get it outside the envelope.
7. The extra width in the '62 and later models makes long cross countries, and skis/ bikes in the back a lot easier.

I'd probably own a 172 XP if I didn't fly up high a lot. They can beat a 182 in climb, actually. But I also appreciate the space, load hauling ability, and speed the 182 offers.

For backcountry flying, if you pick your weather, temps, and loading very lightly, there is very little that will ever stop you from getting in or out of most strips in a 172. If you bring friends, food, and gear, you can do the same thing with a 182 and arrive with enough gas to enjoy another few strips for fishing and hiking without having to scuttle out to pick up more gas.

You can make do with the 172 just fine, especially with the 180hp. But why not a constant speed prop instead of the fixed pitch? I've had my 145hp 170 in and out of nearly all the Idaho and Utah backcountry strips, and places in the Sierras. A lot of them I was hauling 2 people an 80lb dog and gear also. Flying light by myself I'll go in and out of the real short "super cub only" strips, big creek 4, shorter gravel bars etc. I've even had it off airport on Nevada mountain tops at over 10k DA. If you learn to fly the airplane it's impressive what you can do with the lack of horsepower. The 8042 prop and sportsman stol have done a lot to help the performance compared to the stock configuration. With that being said, there is a lot of great deals out there on the old straight tail 182s, they seem to be cheaper than most 180hp converted 172s I've seen. That extra speed and climb performance would be great to have (I wish I had it) but it's not necessary for what you're planning on doing. Both planes will fit your mission, I say look at both planes while you shop and buy the best example you can that fits your budget. Take a look at the 172XP or T-41 also if you see any for sale.

robw56 wrote: If you learn to fly the airplane it's impressive what you can do with the lack of horsepower.

It should be noted that Rob is a fantastic stick, better that the majority of backcountry pilots (that I've been exposed to), and that I would not have had the confidence to operate the 170 the places he does. While it's true that excess power can sometimes make up for less developed piloting skills, it is an increased safety margin no matter how you look at it.

Thanks Zane! And for sure more power is always welcome. If I had the money I'd have a 0-360 or IO-360... Or 220 Frank under the cowling..... Or a fire breathing C-185.... Or both! And maybe a couple other planes Oh well I'll just have to wait until I win the lottery, until then it's the old 170 for me.

Question: Is there really that much difference maintenance cost wise between a 172/180 and a 182? 182 has 2 more cylinders and a CS and I can't see that costing so much extra that it makes it worth going for a 172/180.

I have basically zero experience in cessnas but my thinking is more aligned with Rob's. More horsepower is great but a 180hp 172 class plane will be fine for the Idaho backcountry with 2 people and camping gear. With that said I'd guess the purchase price for the 172/180 will be close to the same as an early 182 so I'd go with the 182. I have to admit, I'd be flying a straight tail 182 right now if the cost of an owner-assisted annual wasn't 3 times more that what it costs for my luscombe annual.

robw56 wrote:You can make do with the 172 just fine, especially with the 180hp. But why not a constant speed prop instead of the fixed pitch?

What he said! The CS prop is going to make a difference once you get up to the higher hp engines.

I think the Reims 172 XP Hawk is a great performer, if you like the 172 but wanted a bit more ommph up front. You can still cruise at around 7GPH too, if you know how to run lean of peak.

Is there really that much difference maintenance cost wise between a 172/180 and a 182? 182 has 2 more cylinders and a CS and I can't see that costing so much extra that it makes it worth going for a 172/180.

I have to admit, I'd be flying a straight tail 182 right now if the cost of an owner-assisted annual wasn't 3 times more that what it costs for my luscombe annual.

That kind of answered itself, really.

Sorry, I don't have any experience with a constant speed prop. But a fixed pitch is lighter and cheaper. Even though I don't know much about CS props, I am sure that they cost something to maintain, and they weigh more than a fixed pitch.

A 180 HP 172 would be simpler, both to operate and maintain, but the added complexity of a 182 gives a wider envelope to operate with. My opinion would be that it would hard to go wrong with either, with the deciding factor being along the lines of cost vs utility.

I figured someone would say that; couldn't figure out how to accurately write what I was thinking. My owner assisted annuals really consist of me doing everything with the IA inspecting the plane, noting any squawks, I fix the squawks then he looks over them to make sure I did it right then signs the book , I don't see how having 2 more cylinders and a CS prop would make that more expensive.

I'm sure a bigger engine and a CS prop add mx expense but how much? Few more quarts of oil and a prop overhaul every few years...probly worth it at the DA you will experience in Idaho.

Whee, recurring maintenance on a constant speed prop is primarily just lubrication....no big deal. The significant expense is when it comes time to overhaul...no big deal with a fixed pitch.....but it can be a REALLY big deal with a CS prop. That's assuming you comply with tho, which you're not required to under Part 91. But let that prop go too long and corrosion can cost a LOT more.

Prop overhauls run in the thousands, not the hundreds. Not sure of too on a 182 prop, but 1800 or is probably close.

Then, as I found out, the prop mfg can issue an AD and you wind up buying a new hub.....price that one out and you'll take a deep breath. That happened to me twice in 15 years. Last one the new hub was $6000, plus labor. Many blades can only be overhauled twice as well.....They aren't as gnarly as hubs, but not cheap either.

That said, in high DA ops, nothing converts horsepower to thrust like a CS prop.

You're going to find the maint cost for that 6 cylinder engine will be a little higher than a four, but again, overhaul will be bigger diff.

MTV

I watch the used market like a hawk (bad habits never die ) and I think the nice 172/180hp ships out there are expensive… obviously they are desirable for people who worry about the increased costs of a 182! They seem to be priced right in the mix of clean 182's so the savings isn't going to be huge up front. There are some that aren't as expensive but they are rare and/or have issues. And sometimes you end up with a 172 that has 36 gallon tanks that can limit the mission.

There are a bunch of narrow body 182's out there with great performance in the 35-50k range, just find a clean one. As others have pointed out, the throttle hand decides how much you want to spend on gas… from 8gph to 14gph… its up to you-

Years ago I was at the same crossroad, same mission profile, same airplanes. 172 vs T-41 vs 182.
I opted to get the straight tail 182. I can go to any airstrip I want to. The limitation was me, not the plane. I'm averaging 10+ backcountry camping/exploring trips each summer with the original mission profile: 1-2 people.
What changed was an additional mission profile. I now find myself doing more cross country with 4 people & full gear. What I mean by cross country is crossing 3-4 states. Averaging 6 of those a year. Visiting more friends and family. That would NOT have been happening with the T-41/172.

So in conclusion:
172=flying time=happiness=good life.
182=MORE flying time=GREATER happiness=AWESOME life.

Go with the 182