Buying First Plane - 182?
Posted by swoodshadow@reddit | flying | View on Reddit | 51 comments
I have my PPL and about 150 hours over the past 2 years. Pure hobby, no intention to make this a career. I’ve loved renting 172s from my local school, but the inflexibility is starting to get to me (4-hour max, booking weeks ahead of time, etc.).
That brought me to wanting to buy my first plane. Budget isn’t a big consideration - but obviously I don’t want to overpay for something I don’t need.
The immediate type of flying I’m going to be doing is:
- Short (1-2 hour) training or sightseeing flights in the immediate area.
- Hamburger/Dinner flights in Southern Ontario.
- A few overnight flights to places that are probably 150-300NM away.
In the future I’d like to add:
- Flying to some more remote destinations in Ontario / Quebec where I’d be landing on grass fields.
- Longer flights to places 1000-2000NM away.
- IFR rating (mostly for safety / challenge - no real desire to do long IFR trips).
- If I get really ambitious, I'd love to fly into remote lakes with floats.
I’m a very conservative pilot so the 182 seems like a great fit for what I’m looking for right now while only being a very small step up in complexity from what I’m use to with the 172.
In particular I’ve been looking for a 182S or early 2000-ish 182T. It seems like they don't have quite the “new plane” premium as a newer model but have some nice benefits like fuel injection and just generally better shape.
I’m not an expert though in plane types. So is there something else I should be looking at and considering?
kevinpet@reddit
150-300nm will be great. Your wife probably won’t put up with 1000nm in a 182.
I have a 182S. It’s a good compromise. The fuel burn isn’t horrible so i don’t feel stupid going up solo but it can haul my family.
It isn’t fast. If you have the money and don’t need the useful load a T182T will get you there faster.
Chat GPT is great for reviewing scanned logs. Check the magnetos time so you aren’t surprised at your first annual.
NO_SURF_IN_RI@reddit
182 nose gear is attached to the firewall and not as robust as you might imagine it is. If you can afford a newish 182 you can afford a 206 which has a stronger nose gear (attached to the engine mount) and will carry four real adults and bags.
swoodshadow@reddit (OP)
I was considering the 206. I ended up leaning towards the 182 because I felt like it would meet what I need the majority of the time and be cheaper / easier to run and maintain.
I kind of figured if the kids grow up and want to fly with me then I can always upgrade later.
NO_SURF_IN_RI@reddit
Plenty of time in life for plenty of airplanes!
skylaneguy@reddit
~1200lb useful in my 182. Most 206s only have about ~1400lbs. The gap isn’t that large. Where the 206 really wins in cargo carrying capability is the large aft baggage door.
In my experience it’s hard to find 3 passengers that want to fly and when you can find enough folks to fill a plane they typically don’t want to be in a GA piston for more than 3 hours at a time.
With some fuel reserve figure about 50 gallons or 335lbs of fuel for that 3 hour leg.
Gives me 865lbs of payload which is easily 4 normal sized adults (2M+2F or even 4M) and still have room left over for bags.
I’d love a 206 but I’m not sure it’s enough of a difference maker to justify the added acquisition cost, mx cost, and running costs. Just my 2 cents.
swoodshadow@reddit (OP)
This was sort of where I ended up as well. I think there’s a very small chance I’ll get to the point where I’ll fly with 3 adults a meaningful distance. And the only real scenario I see is when my kids all grow up and they all want to fly with me…
It seems not that likely in the grand scheme of things. And if in 10 years I find that it is something that we all want to happen, I’ll count myself incredibly lucky and happily pay the cost to upgrade. Especially figuring that the relative price of the 182 and 206 should stay about the same. Meaning if prices skyrocket, I’ll have made money on the 182 to help with the more expensive 206. If prices tank, the 206 should be cheaper and make up for not getting much for the 182.
rFlyingTower@reddit
This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:
I have my PPL and about 150 hours over the past 2 years. Pure hobby, no intention to make this a career. I’ve loved renting 172s from my local school, but the inflexibility is starting to get to me (4-hour max, booking weeks ahead of time, etc.).
That brought me to wanting to buy my first plane. Budget isn’t a big consideration - but obviously I don’t want to overpay for something I don’t need.
The immediate type of flying I’m going to be doing is:
In the future I’d like to add:
I’m a very conservative pilot so the 182 seems like a great fit for what I’m looking for right now while only being a very small step up in complexity from what I’m use to with the 172.
In particular I’ve been looking for a 182S or early 2000-ish 182T. It seems like they don't have quite the “new plane” premium as a newer model but have some nice benefits like fuel injection and just generally better shape.
I’m not an expert though in plane types. So is there something else I should be looking at and considering?
Please downvote this comment until it collapses.
Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.
maverickps1@reddit
I did the same, 182p just after PPL.
Comfortable, good cargo. 98% of my flights are day trips, just now starting to use it for family travel. Easy to work on. Lots of mods.
You can add a parachute for 40k if you want.
One day I may get a sr22 or a 206. But this fits 95% of my needs.
swoodshadow@reddit (OP)
Have you ever thought about adding the parachute? It seems like good peace of mind. But I’m also flying VFR in mostly rural areas with lots of landing spots. So I’m not sure it doesn’t make sense to just land in a field most of the time.
But as I mentioned in another post, I haven’t actually looked into the details and pros/cons a whole lot. Just enough to know that it’s an option for not that much money and not that much weight.
maverickps1@reddit
Yes. Got a quote.
I like to fly at night, way less turbulence. Kids can sleep. Less traffic.
mirassou3416@reddit
I have a 1981 TR182 that I've had for 23 years and love it. I've been casually looking at newer T182 and T182T models. I wouldn't want the hassle of the KP140 auto pilot so 2007 or newer for me. Otherwise an older R182 or TR182 is excellent
appenz@reddit
The 182 is not a bad choice. If you happen to have vast quantities of money (and no other ideas what to do with it) an SR20 or SR22T could be an option.
I transitioned around 200 hours to an SR22T and looking back that was the perfect plane for me.
nickjohnson@reddit
Or, skip the Cirrus and get a DA40.
thewizbizman@reddit
Or a 42…
x4457@reddit
Remote grass work with a Cirrus is a poor choice.
swoodshadow@reddit (OP)
Yeah, the SR20 was what I was originally looking at. But I realized that it would really limit the fields I could fly in (and out!) of. And since I’m not really looking for long distance and fast flying, the 182 seemed better.
I love the parachute concept, but I don’t know how important it is to me without diving into it a lot more. And the 182 sounds like it could support the parachute option if I really wanted it down the road.
[I had to switch back to my main account from my no-sports spoilers Reddit account!]
blame_lagg@reddit
You can add a BRS chute to the 182, there's an STC for it.
Quirky-Advisor9323@reddit
182 is a superior choice for any pilot who wants to prioritize safety and conservative risk management. The parachute argument goes nowhere as you’ve stated: you can install a parachute in a 182, and for less money, so claiming the chute as a reason to buy Cirrus is a non-starter. Of greater value is your ability to safely glide the 182 to even a small patch of dirt in an emergency. I installed airbag-deploying seatbelts in mine to add to the probability of a life preserving landing.
While you can get bigger fuel tanks, the standard tanks allow for 5 hours of flying. You can decide this for yourself but I don’t like sitting in the cockpit for more than 2.5 hours without taking a break anyway. So I have no use for more fuel capacity. And added speed is also useless to me. I’m not flying to Jakarta. For my adventure to Reno, I can land 15 minutes later than I would in a Cirrus. That 15 minutes is irrelevant to my life.
I differ from you mainly in that I prefer older models, because I like the mechanical simplicity of manual flaps. I got a vintage 1960s Skylane, which has a 2020s engine, 2020s avionics, and as I said a state of the art airbag system. I’d go for a turbo if that was an easy option, so that’s a consideration.
swoodshadow@reddit (OP)
Cool, thanks. I hadn’t really thought about an older plane with a newer engine.
I don’t even really care about the avionics at this point. I love flying the old no-gps no-autopilot 172s from the flight school. And I like that I could upgrade later to whatever my actual personal preference is.
81dank@reddit
I have a 182P that when I bought I did a major overhaul on the engine. So all the hours are mine. Plus it has a Texas Skyways conversion so a bump to an 0-520 and a 3 blade prop. I fly the couple hour flight around for fun and also a couple of 1300 mile trip a year. Would a little faster be nice? Sure, there could always be faster. But what does it cost to gain a little extra speed that only gets you there a couple of minutes quicker?
Quirky-Advisor9323@reddit
I don’t have an autopilot either, for now. In a bad weather situation autopilot is a good tool to have. On the other hand, when I hand fly everywhere you can barely tell from my ADSB track that I’m hand flying. I’m very used to flying strictly straight paths at the proper altitude, which I feel is a nice skill and habit to have. I can afford to install an AP but am just not that interested in doing so. Like I said: 2.5 hour flights max, and only in VFR conditions.
I choose not to fly at night except for currency. Also, I prohibit myself from any mountain flying at night for any reason. If I wanted to mountain fly at night, I’d want a parachute.
threeleafcloverspy@reddit
Yeah, the SR20 was what I was originally looking at. But I realized that it would really limit the fields I could fly in (and out!) of. And since I’m not really looking for long distance and fast flying, the 182 seemed better.
I love the parachute concept, but I don’t know how important it is to me without diving into it a lot more. The 182 sounds like it could support the parachute option if I really wanted it down the road.
x4457@reddit
I would quite literally never recommend an SR20 to anyone except a flight school, ever. That purchase money is much better spent elsewhere, including on a couple year older SR22.
swoodshadow@reddit (OP)
Yeah, I was sort of in the middle of that dilemna before realizing that the SR was just the wrong direction for how I imagine my flying missions will go.
WelderNo4099@reddit
We love our 182S. We got it when our pilots were similar hours as you and it has been perfect for them. Safe and reliable.
frisbee_wafflesnatch@reddit
If you have 182S money I would buy a 182Q and make it exactly what you want for the same money. And if you are involved in the work you’ll know your plane intimately.
skylaneguy@reddit
Totally agree. Could probably even find a nice Q/R that’s already complete for similar money and be able to skip the downtime associated with upgrading it.
skylaneguy@reddit
I’ve got a 182 and I think for what you’ve described as your mission it’s a perfect fit. It can haul enough, is fast enough, and affordable enough to do 95% of a GA pilots mission.
I have a 1970N model and the two big differences you get in the newer generations are fuel injection (not a deal breaker IMO) and the airframes came from the factory with corrosion protection. (This started in the late 70s)
If you’re trying to stretch your legs out and go somewhere further than 500NM on a consistent basis I would probably urge you towards a 210, SR22, Malibu/Mirage.
Feel free to message me if you have any other questions.
Dirty_Power@reddit
I’ve got a share of at 182 for sale in SW Ontario
Cessnateur@reddit
I think a 182 is the perfect solution, and others have wisely suggested that a 180-hp 172 provides much of that utility at a lower acquisition and ownership cost.
But don't forget the Cessna 175. Not one with the original geared engine, but one that has been upgraded with a 180-hp O-360. It's essentially a 180-hp 172 that tends to go unnoticed in the classified ads, since so few people think to click on the 175 section.
old_flying_fart@reddit
If you told me I could only have one plane for the rest of my life, it would be a 182 or a 206.
AtiumMist@reddit
Isnt the 206 the caravan?
old_flying_fart@reddit
That's the 208.
The 206 is generally known as the '206' but some variants were 'Super Skywagons' or 'StationAirs'
AtiumMist@reddit
Oh! Thank you for disabusing me!
palbertalamp@reddit
182 or Comanche 250.
Little faster, more complex ( retract gear ), takes off from grass faster.
WhskyTngoFxtrtBro@reddit
The jump from 172 to 182 is simple, I went with the early straight tail, manual flaps, no cowl flaps(haven’t had any issues with heat management) taller gear, I think the strait tails look better. I put an air glass fork and 6 bolt wheels on the mains with 800’s, and some wing x wing extensions (400# gross increase on the early birds). The 182 gets off the ground better and gets there faster. You won’t be disappointed with a 182.
CaptMcMooney@reddit
basically the same reasons i purchased my mooney, rental situation just wasn't working out.
make sure you understand the commitment. treat it like a well loved pet, it has to be taken out to excercise and it's doctor bills are HUGE.
182 is a great choice btw, you should have plenty of fun. Becareful, though, you'll get addicted to GA life.
equal2infinity@reddit
182’s are great planes and give you some room to grow your mission. Go with an older P or Q model. I personally prefer the O470 over the IO540. Lots of STCs and mods you can look into.
swoodshadow@reddit (OP)
I’m really struggling to find a good overview of the different models. Particularly what are the things that aren’t changeable.
Any good references?
hayesjaj@reddit
182Q. Unless your needs change significantly you could own it for 40 years. Plan your plan based on your 95% of flight requirements, not the outlier 5%.
imblegen@reddit
For your current mission, a 172 would be plenty. 182 really shines when it comes to distance flying in my opinion.
Confident-Travel9945@reddit
Yeah, you can do a lot with a 172. 180hp STC gets you a higher useful load, and a climb prop makes it takeoff like a rocket.
I wanted a 182, but the 172 is much more economical and does 90% of what I want. For bigger missions I could just rent a 182, fortunately.
threeleafcloverspy@reddit
I originally had the 172 in mind, but felt like I should challenge myself a bit more. And from reading it seems like nobody really regrets choosing the 182 over the 172.
The 182 also has some more room to grow in terms of useful load. I have young kids that I don’t really feel comfortable flying with yet but as they grow and I get more experience I’d like to fly with.
Menno_knight987@reddit
If money even the slightest concern 172, if you are saving consistently (457 maxed/401k etc) and STILL don’t have a concern about cost then consider a 182. Plenty of 172s out there with the 180HP conversion, not quite a 182 but reasonably close. Significantly cheaper to insure and maintain which can lead for more $ free for more flying, longer trips etc IMO.
You can also do the poor man’s Cirrus and get an RV-10, get your skydive license and just wear a parachute all the time but your passengers may not appreciate that.
swoodshadow@reddit (OP)
Hah, it’s going to be a long battle to get the kids and eventually my wife to fly with me. I think the parachute will raise some questions….
Menno_knight987@reddit
Sorry to your family are ardent communist’s
/s
ClassicWillow9261@reddit
Also the 182 seems like a plane that can do both the cross country stuff and basic pilot stuff ( stalls, slow flight, ground reference maneuvers etcetc) when you just want to fly. A Currus or Bonanza or Mooney don't strike me as that type of aircraft.
swoodshadow@reddit (OP)
Yeah, I don’t know much about the Bonanzas or Mooneys other than they exist and are in this category. But I didn’t dive deep into them because the consensus I seemed to get was that the 182 was a good at everything but great at nothing plane - which actually seems like what I want right now.
mtconnol@reddit
The 182 does most things pretty well. Short field, rough field, useful load, low mx costs, reasonable (better than a trainer) cruise speed, stable and forgiving. Each of these categories has its champion planes that do them much better but it’s hard to point to a plane that does them all.
ghjm@reddit
The 182 is a great airplane. Just keep in mind that a six cylinder engine will use more fuel for the same distance, and will be more expensive to maintain and eventually overhaul.
If you don't need the payload hauling of a 182, you might consider a Mooney.
dromzugg@reddit
I absolutely love the 182. Great plane. If I was buying a plane but didn't have beaver money it would be a 182.