I was just wondering what you'all know about the 56 182? One just became available pretty close by. At $25,000 I'm thinking I might be able to convince my fiance we can afford it. I'm just starting the research process and I probably wont get to see the plane until next week so any suggestions would be great.

Thanks,
Sara

56 182? No.. you don't want it. Probably got all kinds of problems.
By the way, could I have the name and number of the seller?



Just kidding.. 182's are fantastic aircraft, and anything close to airworthy at that price is worth looking at. There are other posts in this forum discussing the 182 and things to look for when shopping for one. Search around. Good luck.

Make sure you look for corrosion. If it has too much of that it might not be worth $26000. Engine and prop times. A new engine can be almost as much as you are paying for the plane. Radios and additional equipment. It could cost over $350. each to have things like prop gov., vacuum pump overhauled. Depending on how many hours on the airframe, check the gear boxes, as that is a very expensive repair. I hate to spread doom and gloom, just trying to help. I think thats what we should do for other forum members.
Have an annual done on the plane before you buy it. Bob

I don't know much about airplanes in general, and next to nothing about 182's, but I do know that the purchase price of an airplane is a small factor in the overall cost of owning and operating an airplane. If $25k is your budget, I don't think a Cessna 182 is a good fit for you.

$25k for a 182 might be a really good price...for someone who has $100k to spend on a 182 and demands that it be set up just a certain way. I'd guess that if you only have $25~30k to spend on a airplane, it's NOT a good deal. So much so that you'd be far better off renting airplanes, regardless the rate.

182's might be the all time bargain in general aviation if you consider what they cost verses what they do. But that doesn't mean they are a good deal for everyone. I think you have to really NEED the performance and load carrying capacity of a 182 to justify the operational and maintenance costs.

You'll see several people on this forum alone who are trying to get out of their 182's...they ain't cheap to feed and maintain. Owning an aircraft is a financial burden. The larger the aircraft, the larger the burden. By in large, the cheaper the acquisition price, the larger the burden...if you actually want to fly it.

For the same money you could probably get into a Cessna 150/152, or an older Cessna 172, or a Piper Tri Pacer, or a ???, that would actually be airworthy and which you could afford to fly more than two weeks a year.

The propeller AD on a 182 alone could end up costing you more than a decent two-seat tail dragger. Engine/prop overhaul? Could make the purchase price look like chump-change.

This might be a great deal for someone, but it's probably only a good deal for someone who has a LOT more that 25k to spend.

Hammer wrote: I do know that the purchase price of an airplane is a small factor in the overall cost of owning and operating an airplane.

Quoted for truth!

I'm actually pretty happy I went with a lower end bird in terms of power and complexity. Less fuel, lower insurance, etc.

Definitely have a pre-purchase annual done, on any aircraft.

Sara,

if your fiance has to be talked into an airplane I say keep looking... for fiances that is, not airplanes.

and if you get near my husband, I'll cut you...

Older 182's are pretty tough airplanes, but one that's selling for $25K is no doubt pretty rough too. You usually get what you pay for, after all. I'm gonna take a chance here & venture to guess that it's an old jump plane with a runout engine. A guy I know bought one like this, for probably a bit more money, but had a couple years labor into the airframe and quite a bunch of money into the engine by the time he had it flying. Helluva airplane now though.
Sara, you might check the for sale forum here, there are some airplanes listed there. Including one real good old ragwing 170 (hint, hint).
Hammer, I assume that you guys got your 140 sold OK, how long did that take you?

Eric

Sometimes there are some items of deferred maintenance which need to be addressed; Prop, governor, magneto overhaul, brakes, tires, exhaust, avionics need attention. Add $10k to get it dialed in to a condition of reliability. That is still not a bad price for a good reliable 182. Analyze the hours to TBO and consider that in your hourly operational costs. 182's are good airplanes.

Hammer, I assume that you guys got your 140 sold OK, how long did that take you?

Eric, we did sell the 140, took about 2 months. We had a 747 captain ready to buy, he was eager, but when he started looking at the realities of a 60 year old plane, he got cold feet. The plane was sitting out in front of our field mechanics shop when a local fellow strolled by and said "I hope you're going to buy that bird so I don't have to." Well, the captain bowed out and the local guy handed us a check the next day. The 140 now lives just 2 hangars down and seems quite content in her new digs. The local guy still hasn't told his wife...

sstjames,

I definitely concur with everyone replying to your question. Only advice I can give is to make SURE you NEED a 182. They are one of the most versatile planes out there if you need 4 seats for the long haul. I went through the same thing 21 years ago and nearly bought a 182. I kept wracking my brain to make sure that is what I needed. It wasn't.....I realized I could do 99% of what I needed/wanted to do with a trusty ol 172. I figured the maintainance and added fuel cost were nearly double of a 172.

The mistake I made was buying one probably similar to what you are looking at. I bought a 'rough' 1960 model that had a recent overhaul. So I did get a good engine, it just needed everything else. Well, after all new windows, complete new interior, new paint and various odds and ends....over the 20+ years of owning it, I have nearly $40,000 in an old 172. What I am saying is DO NOT buy a project if you want to fly. Took me nearly two years to get my license due to the rebuild/repairs.

I am not sorry I did it. It has been a great plane, cheap to maintain, easy on fuel and I've flown it nearly all over the US and wouldn't hesitate to jump in it now and go anywhere. Unfortunately I am at that point in life where I will be letting my medical expire and fly under Sport Pilot. I have purchased a Champ that is LSA and will be selling the 172.

Good luck,
Keith

Hammer wrote:182's might be the all time bargain in general aviation if you consider what they cost verses what they do. But that doesn't mean they are a good deal for everyone. I think you have to really NEED the performance and load carrying capacity of a 182 to justify the operational and maintenance costs.

25k seems awfully low and sounds like runout engine and deferred maintenance are likely part of the package.

There's not that much difference in cost between 182s and other planes in the same price range (45-65k), though. The differences between the older 182 and the other planes are constant speed prop, larger cylinders and two more cylinders. That's it.

A whole new prop costs around 7k, I think, and the A/D conversion to red die in the hub can be done for a lot less than that. A quality MOH for the O470 is around 20k. That seems like a lot, but O470s are excellent candidates for making tbo and beyond, which means 15-20 years of service @ 100 hours/year. Everything else about the 182 is comparable to other airplanes in its price range (fuel economy has been discussed in other threads; burn rate is higher if you flog it; mpg is actually better).

The load carrying capacity of the 182 may seem like overkill at sea level, but at higher DAs on short strips, it's just adequate for 2 people + gear. Granted, that's plenty of gear, but unless you (and your passenger) are content with traveling backpacker light, it's nice to be able to bring along bikes and some comforts of home.

I'm not saying the 182 costs the same to operate as a comparably-priced 170, Stinson, M%*$@ or 172, but I doubt if the difference is great enough to make the difference between being able to afford to fly one but not the other. I can't speak for the guys selling their 182s now, but I suspect that it has more to do with personal circumstances and the overall expense of flying certified aircraft, period, than any marginally-greater expense the 182 represents over other airplanes.

FWIW.


CAVU

Isn't this about the time someone is supposed to tell him to buy a Maule?
You guy's know how I feel about a 182. Of the nose dragger Cessna's it's the first real use-able airplane in my opinion. I don't have a clue about this particular one, but I can't see how it would be as expensive to operate as a Maule of similar capability.

Like the other guy said, only difference maintenance-wise
between a 172 and a 182 is the prop, governer, horizontal
stabilizer trim jackscrews (for the early ones) and fuel bladders.

If we are talking point A to point B cross country trips, I think
that from a fuel efficiency stand-point, you will find that the 172
and 182 are awefully close (the 172 will probably be a little more
fuel efficient). The 172 burns less fuel, but takes longer to get there.

I did a comparison with my old C-170B and my current early 180,
and the 170 was slightly more fuel efficient on a cross country
trip. Factor in the extra load-carrying capability of the 180,
and the higher cross country speeds, and it doesn't take
much to justify the slightly higher operating cost of owning
the 180 vs the 170. I just wish I could afford to own both...

200nm trip

C-170; 100 knots @ 8gph = 16 gallons (@ $5.00/gallon = $80.00) for 2 hours of flight, nmpg = 12.5 nmpg (14 smpg)

C-180; 130 knots @ 12gph = 18.46 gallons (@ $5.00/gallon = $92.30) for 1.54 hours of flight = 10.83 nmpg (12.13 smpg)

I'll also agree that a cheap airplane (172 or 182) isn't always
the best airplane... That being said, a friend bought an early
182 for about the same money (mid-20s) several years ago.
It had (still has) a run-out motor, bad paint + worn interior,
but the airframe is "arrow-straight" + corrosion-free (he seems
to have fun with it just as it is...).

I own a '56 182 and find some of what has been said so far to be a little fuzzy. Like any other airplane, if you buy one in good condition (and with the big AD's taken care of) it'll serve you well with no more ongoing maintenance than any other Cessna. Having owned a '53 Bonanza, a '40 Luscombe and '56 182, I can state unequivocally there are many good, older airplanes out there that, if well kept during their lives, will last a lifetime and will not cost any more to maintain than a later model airplane. I paid roughly twice what you're looking to pay, but then again I got a new Penn Yan Aero overhaul and a new prop and prop governor. The cosmetics were sad (I've since painted it), but the airframe was clean as a whistle (spent its whole life hangared in Nebraska). As for flight characteristics, it's a great backcountry bird. It's the lightest 182 made and the power-to-weight ratio is excellent. It has the tallest landing gear of any model 182 (mine will soon be taller as I'm adding the Airglas nose fork and 6x8 tires all around), which gives you great ground clearance and allows a 6-footer to walk under the wing without ducking. As for handling, it flies much more like a 172 than a later model 182; in other words, it is not nose heavy, as many 182's are reputed to be. As for trip expenses, if you want to fly it at the speed and fuel consumption of a 172, you can. The reverse is not true. I fly it with the back seat out, so can load it with pretty much anything it'll hold without exceeding gross weight or screwing up the CG. I fly with a lot of 185 drivers and can land as short as they do and routinely get off the ground quicker (though I can't haul the same loads at the same speeds). I also didn't pay $125,000 for the airplane. As you can see, I think pretty highly of the '56 182 in general. However, that is not to say the one you're looking at is a smart buy. Get a good pre-purchase inspection by someone who knows what they doing. If the airplane is in good shape, you'll enjoy the heck out of flying it. Best of luck.

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that a 182 is an excellent do-it-all bird. Most of the eyebrows raised in this thread pertain to the fact that they're looking at a $25,000 182, not because it's a great deal, but because it's within their budget.

Don't forget that you have to operate it after you buy it. Cost/time effectiveness on a trip may be comparable, but if you're buying an airplane for fun flying (as opposed to strictly travel) I think a 170/172 class airplane will be easier on your wallet than a 180/182. If you're on a budget (like I am) it can make the difference between affordable and unaffordable flying. Sure you can pull the 182 back to comparable speed & fuel burn-- but not too many people do. Why own a hotrod & not hotrod it? I know lots of people who've "graduated" from a 170/172 to a 180/182, and most have told me that their overall costs have also "graduated" to about 150% of their old costs. Higher fuel burn, more stuff to maintain, parts cost more, higher overhaul costs, higher insurance costs..... pretty much everything except the hangar costs more.
If you need that much airplane, go for it-- after all, there's no replacement for displacement. But you might take a hard look at 170/172's, Pacer's,& Stinson's to consider if one of these more modest airplanes would meet your needs. One of these with a bigger engine is a pretty good compromise between economy and ability.

Eric

The really good Stinson up grade is to put an O470 in one. Oh guess what, an O470 is what is in a 182. So get a Stinson with the O470, burn the same fuel as the 182 and go about 25 mph slower.

Make sence to me. A Stinson with big fat tires does look good though.

Tim

01V,

You have a better way with words than I do. I was trying to say basically what you did. I know several people that own 182's and they fly a LOT less than I do. We compare maintainance costs by the same shop and their bill is always much more than my bill.

Their reason for getting a 182 was so they could load it up and go someplace.....well, guess what? They rarely "load it up and go some place". They miss the local fly-ins and the joy of just buzzing around because of the extra fuel burn and "it's just not that fun" to go buzzing around in their 182. Most of these guys might "need " their 182 once or twice a year.

I've loaded up my 172 and had it all over the US. The only time I found it lacking was when flying over the mountains of the west. It has an O-300 with a climb prop but it could use some more ponies when loaded and flying at those altitudes. Flying from Northern MN to southern AZ, I averaged 7.2 GPH.

I was still thinking of replacing it with a 180/182 before I decided to go LSA but could never get the "numbers" to work out. I have a friend that is willing to trade me his early model 180 for my 172! He is looking for something easier on fuel so he can fly more. At least he is honest with me and didn't sugar coat what ownership cost would be.

My opinion is the price on these bigger planes will drop due to the cost of fuel. The guys that don't want to give up flying are going to look at downsizing as they reevaluate their flying.

All that said.....if that $25,000 182 is in decent shape...jump on it!!

Thanks for all your thoughts.

To address the price range issue that most of you have brought up, I say 25,000 is in my price range because a good friend of mine who is an IA once told my when buying a used airplane (that can currently fly) take whatever it costs to buy it and then plan on spending about that much again on maintainence over the next 5 years so 50,000 I guess is my real range. My fiance would love to have a plane, he is just the realistic one of the two of us. We both have thought about it a lot and unfortunatly we have come to the conclusion that the 182/180 is the right plane for us. At our current weight with our very large dog we are 480lbs thats without any stuff. If we leave the dog behind we replace him with a friend or two. The friend that wants to go the most (a really good friend) is 6'5 weights just over 300lbs. Living in the west we routeinly fly in high density altitude conditions. So basicly if we have any hope of flying in the backcountry to camp, fich and hunt I think we need a 180/182. I am definetly not set on this one, I am being patient and am just trying to explore every viable opption.

Thanks again,
Sara

Good luck, Sara.

That double-the-acquisition-cost formula works at a certain level (like 25k), but I would definitely not expect to spend 50k over 5 years to maintain a 182 that I bought for 50k. That would qualify as a true disaster! I would, instead, make sure that you have the ability to pay for a major overhaul at any time on whatever plane you buy in addition to regular operating expenses. Even with a good prebuy/annual, you can get surprised (although the odds of catastrophic problem on the lower end of the O470 are low as long as it has been flown regularly).

For what it's worth, more important than the type of aircraft you buy (within limits) is finding a good A&P. A&Ps are under a lot of economic pressure these days and have to balance between staying in business (let alone making a decent living) and keeping customers happy for the long term. A run-in with a shop that doesn't care about making you happy for the long term can put you out of the flying business in a hurry. Of course, your expectations need to be reasonable to begin with, and older planes require more TLC than newer ones.

My A&P is also my dear friend. He lets me work along side of him, trying to learn and keep out of the way. He's 10 times the wrench I could ever be. I just think it's important to show him that I care as much about the airplane and flying as he does. So I take time off of work, get as greasy as necessary and stay at the hangar past midnight to put the interior back in etc.

Sorry for the digression, but there has been so much back and forth about affordability of different aircraft that I thought this was worth mentioning. And it's free--FWIW.

CAVU