My 1959 Cessna 182 had been a jump plane, so I had to do a lot of work to it to get it flyable. I did get an engine with 200 Hr. SMOH and a freshly overhauled prop. I overhauled all the accesories, put in new interior, new glass, tires, batteries, Elt. radios, replaced a few instruments, controls, and rewired the plane,
. I paid $26000, and by the time I was finished I had about $42000. total into it. However the plane has reached TBO and has given me very little trouble. I have flown it since 1995. I could have paid $42000. for a plane that was flyable and still spent that much more. Bob

zero.one.victor wrote: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 do that all the time in the 180. If I'm just up bopping around
on a sunny day with nowhere in particular to go, I'll drive it
around at 18 inches and 2200 rpm (makes for about an 8-9GPH
fuel burn @ 120mph).

I also own a couple of "hotrod" cars, but I don't floor them
every time the light turns green.

At least you *can* pull the big knob back in a 180/182 to save
fuel, but you can't push the big knob in any further on a 170/172
to make it go faster....

Anyway, you're probably right that not many people do the
above....

Amen, Bela!

I haven't been doing any local flying in my 180 at much more than 17"map lately. Pull it back, lean it out and save big. But, if I want to haul some bubbas around, and worry not about fuel load, I have that option on all but the most severely short and high strips. But, I don't do them anyway so no big loss.

I fully agree that there is no such thing as too much available horsepower, but use it WISELY and when necessary to complete the mission at hand. Down here in NM, during the summer the DA pretty much makes the 180 a 170 anyway. So, still a good airplane and very capable. Not so if you start out with 145/150 hp. You're looking at more "no go" decisions vs. "go". I paid for a four seat airplane, and like to have all of them available. Do I fill them with bodies all the time? Certainly not. But I've been really wracking up the Young Eagle flights lately, their parents, coworkers and their spouses, etc. And, nobody is small anymore! Bubba factors are on the rise.

Maintenance is maintenance. Pay with your time and a few scraped knuckles, or pay BIGtime out the wallet. I do almost all of it myself, with an A&P overlooker and another IA to cross-check the both of us. They work for mostly beer and charge few hours labor for logbook/AD checking/endorsing time. If I wasn't capable of this, I couldn't afford to fly much of anything.

Now, if avgas hits $6 and keeps climbing, my flying will be relegated to electric R/C! That would apply to most any single engine, non-LSA airplane. Which, gets me off on the "why isn't a C-150 LSA worthy" tangent.

So, I'll stop now while I'm ahead.

Go give Rodney a shoulder smack for me. Tell him I'm taking good care of his airplane and it's taking care of me too.

Brian

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.

Sara,
Sounds like you do need some load hauling capacity. I guess my next question would be whether a 182 is enough plane for what you want to do? Maybe some 182 drivers with backcountry experience can pipe in here.

Figure 25 gallons of fuel on landing: 150lb
Clothing/personal gear per person: 25lb x 2 or 3
Camping gear & food: 100lb
Survival gear/tools: 30lb
Stuff you should leave home but didn't: 30lb
Total: 360 pounds of baggage/fuel. Yes, you could shave quite a bit of weight off of the camping gear and clothing allowance, but most people would actually be doing pretty well to keep it within those numbers.

With 500 to 700 pounds of flesh alone, plus fuel, camping gear, survival gear, game carcases...well, keeping in mind the performance characteristics that a lot of backcountry strips require, I'm not so sure you wouldn't need a 185 or a 206 for that kind of weight.


I'm not suggesting you look at 185's or 206's...but it might be worth figuring out whether a 182 will actually do what you think it will before you buy one. Especially if you're planning on bringing your 300 pound friend.

It's always been my impression that unless your airplane has a turbocharger on it (and sometimes even then), Idaho backcountry opps need to be done at significantly less than gross weight.

I don't know where 840~1000 pounds falls in the 182 useful load spectrum, but it seems like a lot of weight.

There's a lot of 182 drivers on this forum...I'd be interested to hear what they think about those loads for the backcountry.

Hammer, put Rob and I, full fuel and the basic survival gear that I carry in my 182 we are about max gross, oh and by that I mean weight wise. It can be interesting with a high DA.
Bruce

It depends a lot on the year. My 182 (a 1962) was 1725 empty, so 2 adults + gear or 3 w/o gear was our max for flying around the Idaho backcountry. I understand that the earlier ones can be quite a bit lighter.

182s have grown heavier over the years. I know of a '79 that's 1860 empty, and an '05 that's 2007 lbs. empty (but oh, the glass and leather!). Cessna gradually upped the max gross weight along with the empty weight, while lowering the service ceiling. So they retained the same useful load on paper, but the reality is the later models can't lift as much as the old ones, unless you add a turbo ($$).

CAVU

P.S. A fuel totalizer is worth its weight in gold!

Hi Sara,

I've been flying my '79 180 (O-470U with seaplane prop) in the Idaho backcountry since I bought it in 1994. Here are my numbers:

empty wt: 1898
me and Louise: 320
minimum fuel 25 gal on landing: 150
Camping gear for 3 days: 100
food, beer and water for 3 days: 170
Survival gear, PLB, Radio: 20

total 2658

fudge factor 42lbs, call it 2700 lbs.

My original gross was 2800, but after the STC it's 3190.
I'd NEVER think of operating out of anywhere but a 5000 ft paved runway in Idaho in the summertime at 3190 lbs, so I use 2800 as a maximum takeoff weight. I might LAND at 3000, but that's it. The only dirt strips I'm willing to depart at 2800 lbs are Johnson Creek, Chamberlain, and Moose Creek, all with 4000+ ft runways.

I'll admit to being conservative, but I've been doing this for 40 years, and I still manage to cut it a little too close on occasion, prompting a downward revision of take-off weight at that strip.

SO....that means that for most of the Idaho backcountry, I would rather operate at around 2600 lbs in and 2500 lbs out. For some, I want to be below 2400 lbs and 60 degrees. That means me and Louise and 10 gallons of gas. NOT PRACTICAL!

Now you might find an old 182 at an empty weight of 1750 or so, and your 150 lbs of gas and 480 lbs people and dog will get you to 2380, and that's without ANY food or gear. Basically, an old 182 is a two person airplane in the Idaho summertime, and you're still going to want to depart below 70 degrees max. It is possible to ferry two loads in/out from Boise, Salmon, or McCall, but what a PITA.

Sure sounds to me like you need either a 185, a 180 with a 520 or 550 conversion, or a 206. Figure around $150,000!

Or you could decide to hunt and fish in October, when you might get in and out of these strips at 2700 lbs with no problem. Sorry to rain on your parade, but the figures you gave are basically impossible at 90% of the strips I'm guessing you'll want to go into in summer temperatures. I've seen WAY too many wrecked airplanes at the end of strips in 40 years of mountain flying to recommend a 182 as a viable choice at those weights. And most of those that lived said "But the book showed we could take-off in (insert number) feet!" Yeah, right, but that was the Cessna book, not Mother Nature's book.

Y'all be careful up there!

Rocky

My buddy just gave me a ride home from Twin Falls in his 1959 C182. We both left Salt Lake topped off and both of us uploaded 20.5 gallons of fuel in TWF. I was shocked thinking a 182 would burn 20-30% more fuel than my cherokee 180 but flying 10-15 knots quicker and climbing faster........dead heat on fuel.

That isn't scientific but it did show me that gallons per hour doesn't tell the whole story.

In Utah, more than half my trips are into 5,000ft+ elevation runways and summertime DA's can go off the chart. My 4 seater becomes a 2.

A 182 is on my short list for replacement when I win the lotto...uh....the Idaho lotto.

Don't mean to sound mean....but... at 300lbs...it's ok to have friends that you don't take into the back country camping with you... Take your bigger friends on less critical flights and maybe they'll get the bug and get a plane of their own... in the mean time take the hubby to be, the dog, pack light and have fun... We routinely camp out of a cub, realistically all you're adding is a dog. I would think a 182 flown within it's parameters would do just fine... In *our* family there are other considerations that would rule out the 182 long before the useful load (I was in a partener owned 182)... They're all compromises

We tend to get away when we camp, but if you want friends at camp, go to the fly-in type camp locations and you will have plenty

Maybe a soloy 206?

Take care, Rob
PS... I PM'd you the number to a great Cessna guy in your area should you need a good pre-buy

I have #502 182 off the production line back in 1956 . 2550 Gross with about 1540 empty (with 2 front seats) . Sportsman STOL with LRI and Cleavland double puck brakes 700x6 mains,6x6 nose with extended baggage and firewall mounted battery . 1996 to now with 1400 hrs more on the airframe than when I got it. Great airplane for the 7,000 bucks I spent getting it . Have probably 20,000 bucks in it now (not counting my time ) and will do everything I want it to do. Have a spare engine and prop (0-470-L & -203 ) decent paint and Backcountry airstrip accessories . Got a bunch of pictures I'd like to post but not sure how.
I know of another 56 182 well decked out for 30k CASH in Los Angeles . Has Fiberglass cowl and fiberglass (monarch long range) fuel tanks. New paint and interior . Mine will be for sale next year when I finish my experimental -LSA . Bill Reid A&P/I.A. and lots of other nasty stuff they call me at the FAA . [/img]

182 STOL driver wrote:......I know of another 56 182 well decked out for 30k CASH in Los Angeles . Has Fiberglass cowl and fiberglass (monarch long range) fuel tanks. New paint and interior. ......

Have I stumbled through a rip in the space/time continuim? Hard to believe a price like that for a 182 with new P&I, & LR tanks to boot, in this day & age.

Eric

FWIW, both my Maule and C-210L will burn exactly the same amout of fuel per distance traveled. The 210 burns it faster, but obviously is a much faster airplane. If you figure the useful load into the equation, the 210 beats the Maule hands down.
Gallons per hour can sometimes not tell the whole truth.

My 170 burns somewhat less than 8 gph overall, & it cruises at around 120. Most 180 guys I know burn close to 12 gph overall, 1-1/2 times what the 170 does. Do they cruise at 180? I'd have to say it'd cost more to get there in the 180.
But I'll admit that if you factor the real-life payload into the equation, the 170 doesn't come off looking nearly as good.

Eric

zero.one.victor wrote:My 170 burns somewhat less than 8 gph overall, & it cruises at around 120. Most 180 guys I know burn close to 12 gph overall, 1-1/2 times what the 170 does. Do they cruise at 180? I'd have to say it'd cost more to get there in the 180.
But I'll admit that if you factor the real-life payload into the equation, the 170 doesn't come off looking nearly as good.

Eric

Eric,

Drag isn't a linear function of speed. 50% more fuel burn should translate into 50% more thrust, but that doesn't get anything close to 50% more speed. Apples:Apples is how many gph do two aircraft burn to achieve the same TAS under comparable conditions. Everything else is fruit salad.


CAVU

Well after the initial contact I haven't been able to get ahold of the cuple selling the 182. I'm starting to think they decided that they didn't actually want to sell. Bill keep me in mind when you finish your LSA.

Thanks everyone,
Sara

Sara,
If it's a 182 you want, I wouldn't worry too much about this plane getting away. There seem to be more and more of them for sale, and lots of them seem to be pretty good to extremely good bargains. As gas prices rise, I think they will become even better bargains.

CAVU wrote: ......
Drag isn't a linear function of speed. 50% more fuel burn should translate into 50% more thrust, but that doesn't get anything close to 50% more speed. Apples:Apples is how many gph do two aircraft burn to achieve the same TAS under comparable conditions. Everything else is fruit salad. CAVU

I was being facetious, I know what most 180's cruise at. My point was that 50% more fuel doesn't equal 50% more speed, not in that airframe anyway.

Eric

Hi sstjames,
If that is the 182 that was recently moved out of a hangar and on to the ramp at DVT you may want to talk to Dan about it before you look too hard. A couple other folks asked him to check it out already, The verdict was not favorable...
Take care, Rob

There are over 200 Cessna 182's for sale on Barnstormers, TAP, etc. Many, many are pre-1962.