As things start to get more serious in the "give an old plane a new home" department, a 182 in the A through C vintage seems to be most likely what I'll pursue. Basically I'm hoping someone around here has one of these I could help sponsor a quick flight around the area in. I've flown several 182's over the years, but only from the P model on up - never an early vintage. The older ones are of course different in several respects, so I would like to just go fly in one when I'm not checking it out for a potential purchase and thinking about 100 other things.

If someone around here with an early 182 has some time to spare, I would love to set something up.

Cheers

When you do get the chance, you'll find that they feel a lot lighter than later models. I instructed and otherwise flew a 58 for awhile many years ago, and it was a lot more "joyful" than newer ones. Most are a bit quicker, too, because they're just a little narrower. Unless they've had extra tanks added, though, they're a little short on range--56 gallons at 13 gph gets gobbled up awfully quickly, it seems, 3 hours plus an hour reserve. Some think that the older ones with spring steel gear are harder to land--I think that's baloney. I don't think anyone who has flown an older one in good condition would denigrate it, other than the shorter range.

Cary

That's my general impression reading about them too. 13gph seems high (I can use less than that on a 285HP Skylane leaned in cruise here), but I can see how higher burn can cut the available time down considerably. Sometimes I get spoiled on the later models I rent which can stay up most of a day in economy settings. Then again *I* can't do that, so it should be fine with proper planning. I don't think I will find one with extended tanks in my price range, but who knows. It's always an option to add later.

I haven't heard the spring steel gear thing pop up too much actually, so I think it's really just a matter of technique and preference. The tubular models can be a bear too if you let the nose get heavy (which I've read is far less of an issue on the earlier models for whatever reason), so they all have their quirks. I've been in almost every variation of Skylane except the early ones so I'm sure I will enjoy the hell out of it, but still ... would like to experience it for myself before I take up some seller's time.

Thanks for the response!

I've always used 13 gph for flight planning any Skylane I've flown--lots better to plan to burn more than you actually burn. In reality, it's not hard to get it just under 12, but after awhile, it's penny wise and pound foolish as it starts to cut into cruise speeds as you reduce throttle and lean accordingly. I have no problem loafing along for sight-seeing purposes, but for going somewhere, I would typically run it at 21" (or as much as I could get depending on altitude) and 2400 rpm--coincidentally the same as I fly my hot rod P172D, which burns 9.8 gph at those figures at 8-10,000'.

Cary