Good & Bad on 182s

[Northernboy70]

Hello,

I am looking into purchasing a 182 and would like any inputs on what years to avoid or any other known issues. I would like to start on wheels and then if all goes good I plan to add a float kit and floats. To me it seems like a 182 on floats is a more useful float plane than a 172 on floats.

Thanks
NB

[Bulawrench]

go right to a 185 if you intend on going on floats.In the long run you will be better off.

[c170b53]

Why stop there if money is falling out of his pants? But because he mentions $72 there's price constrains involved which puts a 185 out of the running. 182 price has plummeted because the price of Avg gas is averaging between 4.50-4.75 a gallon up considerably from two years ago in the states and pilots are finding it hard to feed them. It will be hard to get the costs of the upgrade investment out of the plane whereas a plane with a commercial purpose might fare better. So if your looking at that plane ask yourself if you can afford to feed it?

[kevinsky18]

A 182 makes a great wheel plane and a great float plane. Anyone that thinks a 185 is the way to go isn't in touch with all the STCs and modifications that are available these days for the 182.

The 182 has a wider cabin so you get more room. The Seaplanes West float kit and heavy duty engine mount beef up the airframe far beyond 185 specs. You can get IO-550 engine upgrades which with some port and polishing are dynoing out at 330hp (big step up over the stock IO-520 engines in 185s.) You can get an up gross STC to 3350lbs on floats which is the same as a stock 185 and I can assure you the plane climbs like a home sick angle even at full gross of 3350lbs.

There are thousands of 182 out there so lots of parts and lots people with experience fixing, flying and modifying them. There are way fewer 185 out there and no new ones have been made in a couple of decades.

The 185 is a great bush plane. But with the fleet slowly disappearing there is a lot of effort being put towards modifications and upgrades to make the 182 a great replacement.

On wheels, in great shape, very low airframe time, with full IFR packages and autopilots you can find 182 in the $60,000 range. Hard to find a 185 in the same shape even if you're willing to pay twice that.

[Bulawrench]

I guess I am mis informed.Maybe the 182 could be a good float plane.
Since the 180 and 185 are getting worn out it may be an option.

[c170b53]

I'd settle for the versatility of a 180 over a 182 but like you say where do you find one that's missed being in battle.

[Hedley]

First thing I look at on a 182 is the firewall. Pilots transitioning from lighter 172's don't bother trimming back on final, so when they slow in the flare, the nose is heavier than they expect, so they don't flare, and the nosewheel hits the pavement hard. This can pop rivets and even wrinkle the firewall.

Bladders can be a pain in the *ss. Flap motors can fail, as well as microswitches in the flap selector.

The O-470 and 2-blade metal prop is pretty sturdy. Idles like crap. Builds ice in the carb like a refrigerator.

If I had to fly a Cessna, I would get a 185 with G530, good autopilot, and turbo-normalizer, with a kevlar O2 tank and cannulas, and I'd fly it everywhere at 14 to 17 thousand feet. Nobody there, you can get IFR direct anywhere, and you've got a great true/indicated airspeed spread.

[Bede]

If I had to fly a Cessna, I would get a 185 with G530, good autopilot, and turbo-normalizer, with a kevlar O2 tank and cannulas, and I'd fly it everywhere at 14 to 17 thousand feet. Nobody there, you can get IFR direct anywhere, and you've got a great true/indicated airspeed spread.

Emphasis on "I" meaning you. A geared engine might work for you because of your experience in them, but most guys would ruin that engine. I'd go for a C207 with an Allison in it;)

[Shiny Side Up]

A geared engine might work for you because of your experience in them, but most guys would ruin that engine.

I think Hedley was referring to a Garmin 530. But then again, maybe not.

First thing I look at on a 182 is the firewall. Pilots transitioning from lighter 172's don't bother trimming back on final, so when they slow in the flare, the nose is heavier than they expect, so they don't flare, and the nosewheel hits the pavement hard. This can pop rivets and even wrinkle the firewall.

Pure laziness in most cases is to blame. I've used 182s for ab initio before and a 17 year old girl had no problems with it. While its heavier in the front end than its smaller brother (and has heavier elevator forces) its still managable by all users. That does bring up another point though, while also not as popular as its smaller brother, many 182s have also did their fair share of training, often as someone's first airplane and will have seen their fair share of bad landings.

Bladders can be a pain in the *ss. Flap motors can fail, as well as microswitches in the flap selector.

With the exception of the new 182s (production starting in 1998) they all deserve the "rock and roll" test during the walk around. Something also to check with bladders is take a look and make sure some idiot hasn't gouged the bladder with a fuel nozzel - be careful and fuel your own airplane. That goes for all airplanes, but bladders are especially vunlerable to it.

Personally I've yet to see a flap motor fail, but it is possible. If you're really worried about this the early model 182s still had the johnson bar flap from the initial production model and disappearing somewhere during the B model production where electric flaps became an option and standard on models there after.

The O-470 and 2-blade metal prop is pretty sturdy. Idles like crap. Builds ice in the carb like a refrigerator.

Much of what can be said of the 180 as well. The later models with the redesigned cowl I find have a more effective carb heat starting with the J model I believe. These ones also had the option to have carb temperature guages too to help.

Personally If you can't get a hold of one of its tail dragging brethren the 182 still makes a pretty good bush plane. Like the others it will haul anything you can get into it, barring a full load of drill bits or car batteries. The best ones were the initial production batch which still used the 180's gear, just shifted back and a long nose gear stuck on. Was the only plane I think I ever needed to use that shin scraper step to help getting into. It has a good foot and a half of prop clearance, I suspect they shortened the gear on the A model to facilitate entry. The square tail ones also still have plenty of ground clearance, and it should be noted that these ones usually are the most sprightly jumping out of the grass they also have the most useful load having the lightest airframe engine combos, most early model 182s had empty weights down around the 1600lb mark, where when the line got more streamlined and fatter were up around the 2000lb mark.

Something else to watch for, and which hasn't been mentioned is that many 182s have also seen service dumping jumpers. Any that have you need to take a good look at the engine. Along with that a minor issue is usually problems with the doors. I've seen quite a few with damage around the frame, usually the passenger side. It comes from the door being removed, which of course then gets banged up from leaning up against a wall in the hangar, re-installed and no longer fits very well, which in turn means a lot of slamming and banging to get them closed. Consequently you'll find many - especially in the mid model ones where Cessna switched to the large lever latch, where the internal lever has been stripped and no longer functions, and sometimes damage to the skin near the door latch (from when the door was slammed shut and someone didn't realise the latch wasn't quite lined up right).

If I had to fly a Cessna....

If you're going to fantasize Hedley, go all the way. Go for a super tweet.

[Hedley]

super tweet

Had to google that name. I'm quite familiar with the A-37B - the central america military use them. Never flown one, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_A-37_Dragonfly



I'll be honest that Cessna products generally don't exactly spin my crank. Not much fun to fly, generally.

[Shiny Side Up]

One could almost say that by definition a Cessna performs "averagely" and is consequently less "fun". They do well what they were designed for though, and if you need a working airplane then the ones spawned from Clyde's original designs fit the bill.

[Big Pistons Forever]

super tweet

Had to google that name. I'm quite familiar with the A-37B - the central america military use them. Never flown one, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_A-37_Dragonfly



I'll be honest that Cessna products generally don't exactly spin my crank. Not much fun to fly, generally.

Oh come on Hed, two J 85's in a fully aerobatic airplane with a 6000 lb empty weight ......that has just gotta be fun !
Back to the topic at hand. If you you want to go to floats go for one of the later square tails (1959-1960). They are lighter and have better rudder authority than the swept tail models. And yes firewall damage is very common.