Cessnas gone wild! Looks good without her panties on. Wooo!

Cessnas gone wild! Looks good without her panties on. Wooo!

....And she's a 'fast back', too! WOHOO!

Thanks everybody for the compliments and comments on the plane. Its no show plane, but a really good work horse. Does everything I need it to, and being the flashiest bird on the ramp isn't something I need.

180Marty wrote:So is the horse picture at the Alvie Cole ranch?

No sir, that picture is at my strip in front of the hangar. The horses can be a real pain in the butt when the hangar doors are open....especially since there is some alfalfa inside.



The Alvie Cole strip (64F) is about 10 miles south of my airport. They ought to take it off the map. It hasn't been maintained for several years now. There are, however, six other usable ranch airports within the county that are not on the map. Go figure.

Emory Bored wrote:What kind of speed can you get at 10gph? Very nice looking 182. I was running the numbers with my wife last night on our old Mooney vs a straight tail 182. She prefers a high wing, I prefer the Mooney. We've had both and I don't care really except for taking care of the prop and the bigger fuel burn of a complex/high performance. We did 144kts at 25/2500 and 9.5gph in the M20C with a 940# useful. Apples and Oranges, not trying to hijack or start something I can't finish but I just can't justify 12.5gph on a retired income. What I can justify is time. I've got lots of it. So a 172 does 112k-115k on something less than 10gph. Can you run a 182 there?

Well if you're considering a Mooney then consider a Bo like mine. I have an S35 with more prop clearance than the 182 I used to have with a 6.00x6 on the nose. At 75%(15 GPH) I'll get low 170's knots true. I give up a little because of VG's and 3 blade MT but it works real well off road. If I'm trying to save gas I can go at 23 squared(65%) for 12.5 GPH, 19"/2300 for 10.5 GPH which gets me about 130 knots true and for a real long range cruise I can go to 19"/2100 at 8.5 GPH and get low 120's knots true. I only do that in the local area when I want to let the 182's keep up. No gear issues off road like a Mooney has. The Mooney is more efficient but a poor choice off pavement.

I like the extra horse power but at the price of hay this year...........

Bonanza Man wrote:Well if you're considering a Mooney then consider a Bo like mine. I have an S35 with more prop clearance than the 182 I used to have with a 6.00x6 on the nose. At 75%(15 GPH) I'll get low 170's knots true. I give up a little because of VG's and 3 blade MT but it works real well off road. If I'm trying to save gas I can go at 23 squared(65%) for 12.5 GPH, 19"/2300 for 10.5 GPH which gets me about 130 knots true and for a real long range cruise I can go to 19"/2100 at 8.5 GPH and get low 120's knots true. I only do that in the local area when I want to let the 182's keep up. No gear issues off road like a Mooney has. The Mooney is more efficient but a poor choice off pavement.

Thread hijack complete. (Hangs head) I like the sound of that B Man. I'm more of an H,K,J or M man personally. Or even better, a C33. I'm under the delusion that 470 cubic inch Bonanzas are more durable. Now, back to the Jolly Rancher.

Back to another thread jack

I always been wondering. Who's Caravan is that always parked on the Junction Airport's ramp? I see it parked there about every trip rolling through Junction on I-10

Sorry, back to "Panties Gone"

Bonanza Man wrote:

Emory Bored wrote:What kind of speed can you get at 10gph? Very nice looking 182. I was running the numbers with my wife last night on our old Mooney vs a straight tail 182. She prefers a high wing, I prefer the Mooney. We've had both and I don't care really except for taking care of the prop and the bigger fuel burn of a complex/high performance. We did 144kts at 25/2500 and 9.5gph in the M20C with a 940# useful. Apples and Oranges, not trying to hijack or start something I can't finish but I just can't justify 12.5gph on a retired income. What I can justify is time. I've got lots of it. So a 172 does 112k-115k on something less than 10gph. Can you run a 182 there?

Well if you're considering a Mooney then consider a Bo like mine. I have an S35 with more prop clearance than the 182 I used to have with a 6.00x6 on the nose. At 75%(15 GPH) I'll get low 170's knots true. I give up a little because of VG's and 3 blade MT but it works real well off road. If I'm trying to save gas I can go at 23 squared(65%) for 12.5 GPH, 19"/2300 for 10.5 GPH which gets me about 130 knots true and for a real long range cruise I can go to 19"/2100 at 8.5 GPH and get low 120's knots true. I only do that in the local area when I want to let the 182's keep up. No gear issues off road like a Mooney has. The Mooney is more efficient but a poor choice off pavement.

Sounds great, but sounds a little $$pricey$$ too. I don't think I could touch a descent Bo for what $$ I have in my old 182.

RWM wrote:Sounds great, but sounds a little $$pricey$$ too. I don't think I could touch a descent Bo for what $$ I have in my old 182.

It's your thread RWM so take a look at this:

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/Sin ... 15920.html

Maybe rip out the KR-86 and throw it away. Put in a mode S and you're ready to fly. Factory I0470N build. Probably not enough power for Bonanza Man but never the less an impressive bird at a depressed price.

58Skylane wrote:Back to another thread jack

I always been wondering. Who's Caravan is that always parked on the Junction Airport's ramp? I see it parked there about every trip rolling through Junction on I-10

Sorry, back to "Panties Gone"

I don't know who the Caravan belongs to. There's a lot of big money folks in central and West Texas. A lot of big landowners with substantial oil/gas/wind energy income. Junction is on the edge of the hill country where there is a lot of recreational land ownership. Caravan driver may be an absentee owner coming out to "the ranch" to play....or may be local Joe.

No big money folks in the branches of my family tree though. No Caravan for me.

Emory Bored wrote:

RWM wrote:Sounds great, but sounds a little $$pricey$$ too. I don't think I could touch a descent Bo for what $$ I have in my old 182.

It's your thread RWM so take a look at this:

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/Sin ... 15920.html

Maybe rip out the KR-86 and throw it away. Put in a mode S and you're ready to fly. Factory I0470N build. Probably not enough power for Bonanza Man but never the less an impressive bird at a depressed price.

Hey Emory,

No doubt looks like a good deal on the Bonanza from here.

Just for reference, I paid 10k less (2 years ago) and got a factory reman with 400hrs and 500hrs on new prop. The meat and potatos are there. I have a few less bells and whistles in the panel. No autopilot or
glideslope, but panel Garmin GPS, audio panel, mode c, 2 coms....basic stuff.

I think one of the biggest dollar factors to consider is maintenance, annuals, and insurance premiums. I learned a lesson about this during a very brief experience with a 210. This is where the 182 will, year in-year out, cost less annually than a complex plane with similar features.

I don't want to start a huge debate on which is the best for you, or me , or best all around. I'm just expressing how I crunch the numbers for myself. I think personal preference and mission will weigh pretty heavy in all of our decisions on what we fly.

RWM wrote:I think one of the biggest dollar factors to consider is maintenance, annuals, and insurance premiums. I learned a lesson about this during a very brief experience with a 210. This is where the 182 will, year in-year out, cost less annually than a complex plane with similar features.

I don't want to start a huge debate on which is the best for you, or me , or best all around. I'm just expressing how I crunch the numbers for myself. I think personal preference and mission will weigh pretty heavy in all of our decisions on what we fly.

Amen. I'm not going to go retract again. I may not even go constant speed prop again. It's just too much to maintain. 90% is just getting in the air.

RWM wrote:
I think one of the biggest dollar factors to consider is maintenance, annuals, and insurance premiums. I learned a lesson about this during a very brief experience with a 210. This is where the 182 will, year in-year out, cost less annually than a complex plane with similar features.

I had a 182 for 7 years and about 1000 hours prior to my Bo. On the 182 the annuals averaged about $1,000, insurance was the same. I don't remember how much I spent on other maintenance but it was always something. Not always very expensive but it's a Cessna so shit just naturally rattles off. I've had my S35 for 6 years and it's in for annual right now, cylinders all mid to upper 70's so this will be a cheap one too. Here's the maintenance I've done since I've had it.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gicEX2tLfiOUcj3P2S0xsy-tzM_iFlMSUg9jEeJi21U/edit

I've had zero maintenance since last annual, only the four upgrades to stuff. Last year just tires and a vacuum pump. You can see what my annuals run, it's going to settle in at 50% more than the 182, annuals being done by the same guy. Insurance is $1250, second year in a row at that price for $75K hull. Where I make up some cost is fuel. I will always burn less than the 182 on any trip even if I go at 75%. If I go the same speed as the 182 I used to have could go at the top of the green(135-140 MPH IAS) I burn 5 GPH less. So overall I spend very little more than I did for the 182. Frankly the only real difference is the gear, other than that they're basically the same plane. I even have essentially the same radios, a couple Mark 12D's and a GX55 GPS. Stop by for a ride, we'll take it off road.

She will like Bullis a lot more now. Not that she didn't before, but.

I don't mean to be whipping a dead horse here, but this is a little photo evidence (post mod data )of what I had posted about the effects of the Landes Modification on my True Airspeed in cruise flight. I had 4 hours of cross country flying Thursday and Friday to check it out on. As you can see, I'm still getting 135kts True.

Believe me, I would have assumed the results would have been different, too, but the numbers don't lie.


21" and 2300-2325 rpm at 7500'

119kts indicated at 7500' level cruise

E6B >> alt + pressure + IAS + temp = TAS

Did a flight test today to validate some numbers seen here.
Details: C182A 7500 ft. 21" 2350 rpm. 55 deg. F. IAS=119 knots.
True airspeed 135 knots. Mains: 6.00-6 Nose: 5.00-5
There you have it....

sweet looking , looks like you may enjoy new airstrips near and farby!

Well this is interesting, I installed the Sports man STOL on my Franklin powered 172, it made no noticeable difference in cruse @ FL 8500 with the exact same power settings, big difference in low speed performance. I removed my wheel pants and checked it again, no noticeable change @ the same power settings, now if I can add the 800X6 all around and not lose anything , that would be great!

RWM wrote:I don't mean to be whipping a dead horse here, but this is a little photo evidence (post mod data )of what I had posted about the effects of the Landes Modification on my True Airspeed in cruise flight. I had 4 hours of cross country flying Thursday and Friday to check it out on. As you can see, I'm still getting 135kts True.

Believe me, I would have assumed the results would have been different, too, but the numbers don't lie.


21" and 2300-2325 rpm at 7500'

119kts indicated at 7500' level cruise

E6B >> alt + pressure + IAS + temp = TAS

I have a question, what brakes do you have? Dual or single piston, and if there single how does it stop? I have been told that the single is not sufficent with 800X6.

172heavy wrote:
I have a question, what brakes do you have? Dual or single piston, and if there single how does it stop? I have been told that the single is not sufficent with 800X6.

There's been lot's of talk about this on different threads. Put I have the singles on my brakes and I stop just fine. I'm pretty hard on the brakes, too. And 850's on all three points.