As I mentioned, the maintenance costs for the 182 with the O-470 can be higher. You are very likely to end up with cylinder work prior to TBO, and the labor to re-do the exhaust valves and even replace them from previous abuse when you buy one can add up. In my case, amortized over the last 475 hours since I've owned mine, is around $8 an hour (topped my engine last spring). It's not just the extra cylinders...it is the engine's characteristics. On the other hand, the lower end of the block often goes well beyond the recommended TBO.

As for the prop, a condition inspection or seal replacement looked like it would be nearly 2000. An overhaul can be twice that if the blades don't need replaced or extensively reconditioned. I was quoted at 4k with average recon for my stock Mac. Another fellow on the field said his O/H was nearly 6k with new metal. The stock Macs really last a long time. Folks sometimes have 3k-4k hours on them (not recommended, but....).

Aside from those items, and increased fuel consumption, there will be little difference between the two.

As far as an owner assisted annual, I think it is just a matter of finding a compatible mechanic who will allow a lot of involvement.

If you decide to go with the 172, look at the converted 175's too. They are the same plane with the extended range tanks. The 175 name still scares people off so the price usually isn't as high as a 172 with the big tanks.

Really depends on the size of the occupants, I'm 6'1" and 280 lbs, I've got about 30 hours in a 76 172m all flown around Bellingham Washington, with myself +1 no bags I found myself feeling very wary of the smaller mountains in the area because she really had to fight for altitude, id have never flown that airplane in Montana.

On the other hand flying a 1956 182 off of MT48 down in Paradise Valley where you have 8-13,000' peaks in the area, I was a lot more comfortable but still id have liked to have more power than what I did.

My machine of choice would be a 182 with a Pponk and a 3 blade, probably going to have to wait a while on that one.

Jaerl wrote:If you decide to go with the 172, look at the converted 175's too. They are the same plane with the extended range tanks. The 175 name still scares people off so the price usually isn't as high as a 172 with the big tanks.

I saw this on Barnstormers:

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_856490_1961+Cessna+175.html

It Looks like a great deal.

Jaerl wrote:If you decide to go with the 172, look at the converted 175's too. They are the same plane with the extended range tanks. The 175 name still scares people off so the price usually isn't as high as a 172 with the big tanks.

They also have much more usable panel space than the 172.

good call on the 182 for sure, i'm on #2, and like said before, the cash getting burned is up to your right hand....!

Thank you very much for the input everyone.

First, thank you all for your wonderful suggestions.

To those that haven't seen most Idaho strips, I would consider them hard pack of grass. In any case, most are actually fairly smooth. I wouldn't be doing any "off-airport" landings, and all these type of airports are ones the back country 135 charter operators reach with their typical mix of 172/182/206s.

There's some interesting coments + or - on both options. An interesting take from folks here that I didn't expect was the concentration on fuel consumption as the cost differentiator. Maybe this is the case, but I've noticed consistently across the board that 182's when rented are typically $40/hour more than a 172. (ie: $85 vs $125), so I figured where was more to it.

In any case thank youm, and keep the opinions coming. I'm listening to both sides of this.

When looking at fuel costs I think its really only fair to go by mpg or $/m. $/hr really means nothing if your going a lot faster. Unless you consistently fly the rentals at the same speed and still notice the $40/hr difference, but I doubt that.

That's right, my 180(10 GPH) and my 170(7GPH) would burn about the same amount of fuel on a typical 600 mile crosscountry, at altitude, however, the 180 would do it non-stop in 4 hours(40 gal) and the 170 would require a 1 hour fuel stop, plus 6 hours(42gal)

macktruckfarm wrote:That's right, my 180(10 GPH) and my 170(7GPH) would burn about the same amount of fuel on a typical 600 mile crosscountry, at altitude, however, the 180 would do it non-stop in 4 hours(40 gal) and the 170 would require a 1 hour fuel stop, plus 6 hours(42gal)

Those numbers seem skewed to me. The math on that would would mean your 180 would do 150mph at 10gph... And your 170 would do 100mph at 7gph. Most stock 170s are a 115-120mph airplane, mine would do 120 before big tires and seaplane prop. And 150mph seems fast for 10gph.... I could be completely wrong there as I've never flown a 180, 12gph seems like a more typical number that I've heard before. Let's do that again 170 at 115mph and 7gph would take 5.2 hours to go 600 miles burning 36.4 gallons. So a fuel stop would still be needed to have legal reserve, if you spend an hour on the ground for that, that's up to you. The 180 at 150 miles per hour and 12gph would take 4 hours to go 600 miles burning 48 gallons, 11.6 gallons more than the 170. Let's say fuel costs $5.25 a gallon, that would be a difference of $60.90. Maybe I'm off on the 180 but I know a stock 170 is a little faster than in your comparison. What do you other 180 pilots have to say? What are your typical cruise speeds and fuel burns?

Rob, from my limited experience, I would say at 7500ft+, TAS is around 150 mph at about 10.3-10.5 gph. I can pull it back and get below 10 pretty easily, but the speed bleeds off to low 140's. (This is with 8.00x6's). At 12 gph I'm really scooting up in this thin air.

robw56 wrote:

macktruckfarm wrote:That's right, my 180(10 GPH) and my 170(7GPH) would burn about the same amount of fuel on a typical 600 mile crosscountry, at altitude, however, the 180 would do it non-stop in 4 hours(40 gal) and the 170 would require a 1 hour fuel stop, plus 6 hours(42gal)

Those numbers seem skewed to me. The math on that would would mean your 180 would do 150mph at 10gph... And your 170 would do 100mph at 7gph. Most stock 170s are a 115-120mph airplane, mine would do 120 before big tires and seaplane prop. And 150mph seems fast for 10gph.... I could be completely wrong there as I've never flown a 180, 12gph seems like a more typical number that I've heard before. Let's do that again 170 at 115mph and 7gph would take 5.2 hours to go 600 miles burning 36.4 gallons. So a fuel stop would still be needed to have legal reserve, if you spend an hour on the ground for that, that's up to you. The 180 at 150 miles per hour and 12gph would take 4 hours to go 600 miles burning 48 gallons, 11.6 gallons more than the 170. Let's say fuel costs $5.25 a gallon, that would be a difference of $60.90. Maybe I'm off on the 180 but I know a stock 170 is a little faster than in your comparison. What do you other 180 pilots have to say? What are your typical cruise speeds and fuel burns?

At 11.5 gph in my C180, I see 130 KTAS at around 5000'. In my 170, I saw exactly 100 knots at 7.5 gph. The numbers that I put in to the mpg equation aren't accurate enough to account for the calculated difference in the mileage as anything other than a rounding error.

My 170 cost me 25k and my 180 cost me 65k. There is a lot of avgas that could be purchased with this difference in price. I absolutely love the O-470R engine. It is a confidence inspiring American classic that will roar or rumble. The O-360 Lycoming is bulletproof, but I don't like the way that it feels compared to a "six".

Unless you are making your living with your airplane, chances are the 172 vs 182 question is more an emotional rather than rational decision if both options are financially within reach.

It would be interesting to see my actual fuel burn while in cruise. I don't have a fuel flow so I have to calculate fuel burn after I fill the tanks after a flight. My longest leg I've ever flown in the 170 was 460sm from Cauldwell Idaho to Rio Vista Ca at 10,500 to 12,500ft it took me 4.2 hours and I put in 29 gallons when I landed. From pump to pump that's an average fuel burn of 6.9gph.

I do have to agree that for a longer XC, the 182 and the 172 will burn close to the same amount of gas for the trip. From CO to ID, a typical ride I take a few times a year at mostly at 12.5k', I burn around 10.5gph at 145 mph for a 600 mi trip. I flight plan for 12 gph to include climbs and diversions (it is easy to shovel 14 gph through the engine for an hour or so every trip). I usually arrive in 4.5 to 5 hours.

In a 172, the trip is 80 or more miles longer to go around rather than over things, plus there is always a fuel stop (and a long climb out) in the middle. It requires 6 hours or more to arrive, depending on the wind.

If you live down lower, without the climb penalty or TAS advantage up high, the advantages for economy favor the 172 IMHO.

Some folks are talking like you need a lot of HP to get out of the Idaho strips. I've flown 150's, a Pacer, a Colt, and of course 172's to most of the strips, including the Big Creek 4. So have lots of folks, and last summer I met a high school kid flying a 150 out of Cabin Creek with some nice cutthroats in his cooler. It should be remembered that some of these strips were created when Jennies and their contemporaries were considered to be just fine to fly back there. I do appreciate the extra oomph from the 182 to get me out of the canyon and on my way faster, but it certainly doesn't leave me thinking it helps me arrive and depart any more safely.

robw56 wrote:It would be interesting to see my actual fuel burn while in cruise. I don't have a fuel flow so I have to calculate fuel burn after I fill the tanks after a flight. My longest leg I've ever flown in the 170 was 460sm from Cauldwell Idaho to Rio Vista Ca at 10,500 to 12,500ft it took me 4.2 hours and I put in 29 gallons when I landed. From pump to pump that's an average fuel burn of 6.9gph.

I remember seeing sub 7 gph fuel burns in my 170 at 2350 rpm running lean when my prop was pitched for cruise. What a smooth running and dependable engine the O-300 is.

Okay here's my take on it.i owned my 55 170B with a 0-360 and constant speed propfor ten years. I made many trips from caldwell idaho to Fresno ca. I always figured fuel at 10 gal and burned around 8 gal. One stop at lovelock for fuel an bathroom then straight over Yosemite never around a mountain. I have had my 57 180 with 520 and A sea plane prop for four years. The same trip the same way 10 gal an hour ,I still stop at lovelock for fuel and bathroom. Just when I think how much faster it is I will get a headwind that kicks my ass. My 170 has been like my favorite old dog, the longer its been gone the better I remember it. So I am I'm the process of putting together a 1955 170B with a lycoming an a constant speed prop. If its my imagination i will sell it , if not I might sell the 180 . The visibility with the small panel , light feel in the air and on the ground , have been missed. If you ask my wife her vote is for the 180 , the weight of the big six and added plane weight makes for a smoother ride. She could care less about dry creek beds and mountain sides for landing . All I know for sure happiness sure costs a lot of money. But who,s complaining.
Jess

Rarely cruised below 10,000' , routinely got 150 MPH, 170 took longer for two climb outs, about 115 w/ climb prop. Always leaned. Leaving Laramie (7165) eastbound, got lift off LaramieRange east of town, not long to get to11,500.

172 has a lot going for it. I may be partial as I own one.

That said, whenever I experience plane envy I think about what I use the airplane for. Same answer every time. The 172 will do 90% of whatever I dream up, and 100% of what I actually do.

As others have said, look at the flying you expect to do and get a plane that has performance that fits.

As far as 180hp 172 vs. 182, I would go 172. Nothing against the 182 at all. There are a couple of local ones that give me plane envy.

If you are looking for an economical jack-of-all-trades, it is hard to beat the 172. I have noticed that when not using the 206 or 207, local 135 operators around here use the 172. I figure it’s because they make money with the 172. If another 4 seat was better or more economical, they would use that.

Sometimes showing up in a 172 is like taking your cousin to the prom - not much to brag about. You need to look on the bright side, at least you have a date, and for the most part it gets the job done.

I have a good friend of mine who flies a 150 like he wears it. It is all he has and he makes use of it. He is not ever bragging about his adventures and has a humble style. He loves and knows the history of aviation and the backcountry like he grew up back there. I have seen pictures of him at Mile High, Dewey Moore, Vines, and "not so simple Simonds" and have been amazed at the skill and knowledge of density altitude, temp, and all the other factors. I would love to see some pictures of anyone who says they have done the Big 4 in a cessna 150...there is a big difference between performance in a 182 on those strips...Just my experience. I know a lot of the BC strips can be done in these type of airplanes but I would not say it is easy or terribly safe. Post some of those pics...I would love to see them. Nice job. I value the pilot who flies because he/she loves it...I also respect those who do it in lower performance airplanes giving up some options. I flew with a number of guys this last summer in the Montana BC who were like that. I think Rob on this site is one of those. He makes that 170 work, he does it with class and with his family. Impressive.

There's an awesome 172 for sale on barnstormers. 220 franklin, sportsman stol, VGs, big tires, V brace etc... I would jump all over that if I was looking for a high powered 172.