Barry Schiff had this to say in his recent AOPA story of flying a 1956 182:

"The rapid climb rate caught me off guard. The 1956 model is so much lighter than subsequent models, has the same horsepower (230), and easily outperforms them. The owner’s manual—there were no pilot’s operating handbooks in 1956—claims a climb rate of 220 fpm at 20,000 feet at the maximum-allowable gross weight of 2,550 pounds, outstanding numbers for an airplane without a turbocharger."

Ya, I remembered reading this article last year or something so I went back through my AOPA stack and re-read the article. I think I am pretty much convinced on the '56 and now just need to find the exact one I want. There are a couple out there ranging from $36k up to $75k...I want and need to be down around the lower end. The one I am considering has a low time rebuild and is in pretty good shape at least from the pics I have seen. Hopefully it will look as good in person.

MauleOne wrote:While the landing gear and the empty weight are issues don't over look the max gross weight.

It continued to change over the years and increased considerably.

I imagine there are gross weight increase STC's available.

I personally like the C182 a lot and think the new the better except for price.

Actually the newer they are the worse. They're all running 230 HP and the newer they are the heavier they are.

When you look at the first 100 lb gross weight increase, it looks like it was all chewed up with empty weight increase and thus no increase in useful, however....
About when they went from 2550 to 2650 the regs on useable fuel caused there to be ~10 gallons or more of "unuseable" fuel which of course is figured in the empty weight. Even though the fuel is listed as 55 gal, the tanks are 65 from 1957 on. Seems the '56 had a 60 gal tank? So the weight change is all fuel between 56 and 57, which isn't such a bad thing. Unuseable fuel decreased sometime in the early 60's? when additional fuel lines from the tank ensured the fuel could be used. Personally I would look from '56-61 models with the narrow cockpit and trimable stab. Weight variation within those model years seems to vary based on interior and avionics. Would give you more options to get a good deal on a quality aircraft. The '56 has the taller gear, but I don't think you'll notice it THAT much. You wouldn't be able to get it off the ground any quicker than a '59 - if you're hauling the nose up that high, you're doing something wrong.

http://www.wingxstol.com/

Their wing extension STOL kit gives you a 2950 gross weight on the early models. I haven't flown a 182 with the kit, but it works really nice on a 206.

Hi all A good freind has left us and a 182B 1959 with a P-punk conversion and 206 nose gear may me avalable if this is what you are looking for.

tar_stinson
PM me with particulars on the 59 182B

Darinh wrote :

"I think I am pretty much convinced on the '56 and now just need to find the exact one I want. There are a couple out there ranging from $36k up to $75k...I want and need to be down around the lower end. The one I am considering has a low time rebuild and is in pretty good shape at least from the pics I have seen. Hopefully it will look as good in person."

182STOLdriver from this forum is based in Las Vegas and has a significant amount of experience doing pre-buy inspections on most single engine Cessnas. I've seen him arrange for ferry permits, field repairs, mobile weight and balance jobs, and annual inspections on the fly. Good resource and a keen eye for finding something on an airplane that you can use to negotiate the fairest price.

Matt 7GCBC wrote:When you look at the first 100 lb gross weight increase, it looks like it was all chewed up with empty weight increase and thus no increase in useful, however....
About when they went from 2550 to 2650 the regs on useable fuel caused there to be ~10 gallons or more of "unuseable" fuel which of course is figured in the empty weight. Even though the fuel is listed as 55 gal, the tanks are 65 from 1957 on. Seems the '56 had a 60 gal tank? So the weight change is all fuel between 56 and 57, which isn't such a bad thing. Unuseable fuel decreased sometime in the early 60's? when additional fuel lines from the tank ensured the fuel could be used. Personally I would look from '56-61 models with the narrow cockpit and trimable stab. Weight variation within those model years seems to vary based on interior and avionics. Would give you more options to get a good deal on a quality aircraft. The '56 has the taller gear, but I don't think you'll notice it THAT much. You wouldn't be able to get it off the ground any quicker than a '59 - if you're hauling the nose up that high, you're doing something wrong.

I have a 1956 -number 502 off the line. Weighs 1510 empty -about 1040 useful . Yes I have a set of Digital scales that I weigh & balance airplanes. If you have less weight to power /and less weight to wing area= high rate of climb -short takeoff runs -Less weigh on wheels = lower landing speeds ---All around
better performance. Standard ? 0-470-R with McCall y -201 prop. Sportsman STOL and oversize wheels and brakes. Short field takeoff at high density
altitude is where N5502B really shines. 56 182 (Skylane didn't come on scene until 1958) is a supercub with 4 seats.

Sounds like a great bird, Bill! My previous '59 weighed right around 1700, which would actually be 1640 when subtracting the extra fuel load that your empty weight doesn't have to include. Doesn't mean that there's any difference in the operation of the fuel system, which is why after getting used to mine, I stopped figuring that extra 10 gallons unusable and considered it the required reserve. Still 1640 and 1510 is a hell of a lot of difference when you have the Sportsman, double pucks and larger tires - all those things can really add up, so 1510 is amazing. My "late model" 180 doesn't come close to the performance of my 182 in the takeoff /landing and climb rate categories, but I cringe just slightly less when operating on rough fields. As I've stated before, the 182 took me to beach landings, and many different farm fields (intentionally) with the 6.00 tires. If not for skis and float kit, I'm sure I'd still have the 182. I do miss that feeling of catching a ride with a "homesick angel" on takeoff!