182rg cruise speed

• Browse by Topic
• Magazine & Index
• For Members
• Business Directory
• Join / Renew

Select Page

Cessna 182RG Specs and Performance – Skylane Specs and Review

Posted by Bill Cox | Jul 13, 2015 | Featured Plane

Cessna 182RG Specs and Performance Summary

Thirty years after its official demise, pilots still love the Cessna Skylane RG, normally aspirated or turbo.

The Skylane RG was introduced in 1978 to almost unanimous rave reviews from both the aviation press and, more importantly, the flying/buying public. A turbocharged version premiered a year later with essentially the identical engine supplemented by a blower. Turbocharging further expanded the airplane’s utility value and made it a viable model in the high country of the west.

Unfortunately, the timing was all wrong. Skylanes had always been popular airplanes in any configuration, but the market was turning downhill in the early 1980s, and Cessna, Piper, and Beech all scaled back production to meet diminishing demand. I was delivering airplanes to Europe and Africa at the time, and I still remember how much I liked the retractable gear. Retractable gear was the final improvement that made the 182 RG a standout design in those heady days. The 182RG was stable, didn’t object to being flown 25 percent of gross (with a ferry permit, of course), and handled nearly as well as a 182 at normal weights.

Over 200 Skylane RGs and Turbo Skylane RGs were produced before Cessna shut down all piston production in 1986. This gave the retractable Skylanes the dubious distinction of being two of the shortest-lived Cessna models, through no fault of their own. In 1986, the last year of Skylane RG production, a normally aspirated RG sold for $136,680 and a turbo model had an average list of $150,755.

Buy My Sky: The Flights and Times of Bill Cox for more insights from Bill Cox

So, here we are in 2015, and the Skylane RG has been laid to rest for some 30 years. As if we needed an excuse, it seemed a logical idea to look back at the old Skylane RG and consider what preceded it and what followed it. The airplane we found at Channel Islands Aviation in Camarillo, CA, was, in many respects, typical of the type. A 1979 turbo model with only 2700 hours total time and 970 hours on the engine, the airplane was fitted with a standard stack of Cessna radios plus a King DME. The paint was new, but the rest of the airplane was original: a 36-year old, middle-of-the-road family station wagon without a mean bone in its aluminum body.

Perhaps for that very reason, many pilots regard the folding-foot Skylanes as among the best used-plane buys on the market. In addition to simple systems, docile handling, and good load-lifting capability, Skylanes of all types have long enjoyed outstanding resale value.

Inevitably, some readers are bound to ask up front about the relative advantages of the Skylane, Skylane RG, and Turbo Skylane RG, so we fell back on our trusty library of Jane’s All-The-World’s Aircraft for a look at 1979 comparative specs and consulted Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest to examine prices. It’s apparent that the big jump in price comes for retractable gear and that turbocharging was relatively minor delta, both in 1979 and today. It’s also interesting that the normally-aspirated Skylane RG is the strongest climber, despite its heavier weight. Both of the retractables offer better payloads than the higher gross weight. All three airplanes are essentially four-seat, full-fuel machines, always one of the Skylanes’ strongest recommendations.

Aside from the obvious addition of retractable gear, another major change on the Skylane RG was a switch from the carbureted Continental O-470 to a Lycoming O-540 engine, primarily to accommodate the retractable-nosewheel housing. In other applications, the big 540-cubic-inch Lycoming churns out as much as 350 hp (Navajo Chieftain, Mirage), and Cessna considered upgrading horsepower on the RG. In the inevitable domino effect of any design change, more power would have precipitated a higher fuel burn. In turn, that might have necessitated a larger fuel capacity to preserve range, demanding a higher gross weight which could have increased stall speed, possibly requiring aerodynamic changes. The result would have been substantial design and certification expense. As a result, the finished airplane was rated for only 235 hp, a mere 5 hp more than the original Skylane.

Max rpm for both climb and cruise was set a neighborly 2400 rpm, relegating use of the prop control to the ramp. Such severe derating meant the big Lyc was hardly working, and the result was a 2000-hour TBO on both the normally-aspirated and turbocharged RGs.

While the minuscule horsepower increase by itself made no difference in climb or cruise, one might logically have expected the shift from fixed to retractable gear to yield more than 12 knots of speedup. One explanation may be that a standard Skylane would be working hard to generate 144 knots, whereas virtually all the Skylane RGs could score 156 knots. In other words, the real gap between the two models may have been slightly greater than book numbers suggest.

Flying the RG is reminiscent of flying a standard Skylane in almost all respects. It’s true that the numbers on the gauge at cruise are a little higher, but that’s hardly noticeable in the way the airplane handles, especially during takeoff and landing. Liftoffs are a decidedly casual affair with only 235 hp pushing 3100 pounds of airplane. The turbo surge grants the airplane notably more enthusiasm, but you need to monitor the power manually, as the wastegate isn’t automatic. The engine is essentially turbo-normalized rather than turbo-supercharged, with maximum manifold pressure set at 31 inches. This also means any change in manifold pressure, rpm, or mixture dictates changes to all other settings. Similarly, any changes in ram air pressure caused by climb or descent affect higher manifold pressure, and that also demands adjusting prop and mixture.

Gear retraction is a decidedly simple affair, with no significant pitch change and wheels swinging down and then arcing back into the belly wells with the help of 1500 pounds of hydraulic pressure. The sprung steel legs are so slim that there’s very little drag associated with the gear, so there’s minimal aerodynamics effect on gear retraction or extension. We’re certain none of our readers would make this mistake, but it’s important to remember that the gear drops straight down about one foot before retracting. More than one hotdog RG pilot has retracted the feet a little early, letting the wheels slam into the runway, sometimes resulting in a noseover and major prop dings.

Like its big brother, the Cessna 210, the Turbo Skylane RG didn’t use gear doors. Early 210s did employ doors, but the sequencing mechanism was more trouble than it was worth, causing a number of accidents. All later Cessna retractable singles (the Cardinal, Skylane and Cutlass) swing the wheels back into simple wells. Speed loss by eliminating the gear doors was only two knots, and the reduction in headaches with gear doors proved well worth the change.

Once the airplane clears the runway and starts uphill, climb rate settles on an easy 1000 fpm or more if the 182RG is lightly loaded. The standard-breathing Skylane RG suffers a slightly lower service ceiling than the stiff-legged airplane, because of the additional weight of turbocharging. Predictably, the heavy breather does its best work up high and is approved for 75 percent cruise at 20,000 feet. This means that critical altitude (the maximum height at which the engine can produce sea-level power) is about 14,000 feet.

Perhaps the primary advantage of a turbo in day-to-day operation is the preservation of climb, a safety benefit that has more meaning than fast cruise. Accident reports often cite crashes because of a lack of climb rate, but I’ve never heard of an airplane crashing because of slow cruise speed. At 12,000 feet, when the other two 182s are running out of steam, the Turbo Skylane RG can still deliver 800 fpm. That’s a significant safety factor if your flying takes you into high-altitude strips in summer when density altitude can easily climb to five figures.

If you’re like most people who fly behind turbos, you may prefer to operate at non-oxygen altitudes—typically 11,500 or 12,500 feet. At these heights, you can expect about 160 knots true on 14 gph. Any pilot willing to strap on a mask and high jump to the flight levels will find the basic speed advantage is an extra 15 knots of cruise. Those who’ve explored the airspace above 14,500 feet, however, know that there are other benefits to high flight. First, you’ll most often top all the weather rather than having to slog along in the scud down below. Turbulence is minimal at higher altitudes, and terrain clearance most often isn’t even a consideration.

If the airplane does well up high, it does even better down low. Handling in the pattern is simple as long as you keep the trim moving. Inexplicably, stall speed doesn’t increase at the higher weight. It remains a low 50 knots, and that means approaches as slow as 60 to 65 knots aren’t unreasonable. Cessna recommends a 66-knot short-field approach speed, equal to 1.3 Vso, but I’ve used 60 knots many times with power on and never experienced that “verge of destruction” feeling.

Like all the Skylanes that went before it, the Turbo Skylane RG is magnificently mediocre. It doesn’t do anything at the head of the class, but it does so many things acceptably well, it’s hard to ignore. Even if you’re not a big fan of Cessnas, even if you don’t like high-wing airplanes, the Turbo Skylane RG offers so much talent that it just may be one of the best used four-seat retractables on the market.

Complete Cessna 182RG Specs and Performance – Cessna Skylane RGII

All specs and performance numbers are taken from official sources whenever possible. in some cases on older airplanes where there were significant variations between year models of the same airplane, specs may disagree with those from various other sources but will always be within one percent., about the author.

Bill Cox took his first flight in a Piper J-3 Cub in 1953 and has logged some 15,000 hours in 311 different types of aircraft since. He has authored more than 2,200 magazine articles and was the on-camera host of the 1980s TV series “ ABC’s Wide World of Flying.” Bill is currently rated Commercial/Multi/Instrument/Seaplane/Glider/Helicopter. He can be contacted via email at [email protected]. Learn About Bill's Book Here

Related Posts

Packed With Pizzazz

June 23, 2023

Cessna 172 Review: The Sensational Skyhawk

May 27, 2015

Cessna 182 Turbo Skylane: Business Turbo for the Family Man

Cessna Citation 500

May 13, 2020

Box A Zone 1

Box b zone 2, box c zone 3, box d zone 4, free digital magazine & newsletters.

Click HERE to choose your FREE download: 172 Owners Guide, 182 Owners Guide, or Digital Magazine.

You have successfully subscribed.

Flying the Cessna 182RG

By john miller.

• March 23, 2020

Photograph:

Cessna R182 Skylane RG II VH-PUF (c/n R182-01788) at Cowra, NSW in September 2010 (David C Eyre)

Country of origin:

United States of America

Description:

Four-seat cabin monoplane

Power Plant:

One 175 kw (235 hp) Avco Lycoming O-540-J3C5D six-cylinder horizontally-opposed air-cooled engine

Specifications:

• Wingspan: 10.92 m (35 ft 10 in)
• Length: 8.72 m (28 ft 7½ in)
• Height: 2.72 m (8 ft 11 in)
• Wing area: 16.2 m² (174 sq ft)
• Max speed at sea level: 296 km/h (184 mph)
• Cruising speed at 75% power at 2,286 m (7,500 ft): 289 km/h (180 mph)
• Stalling speed flaps down: 93 km/h (58 mph)
• Initial rate of climb: 347 m/min (1,140 ft/min)
• Service ceiling: 4,359 m (14,300 ft)
• Max range at 3,048 m (10,000 ft): 2,102 km (1,316 miles)
• Take-off run: 250 m (820 ft)
• Landing run over 15 m (50 ft) obstacle: 479 m (1,570 ft)
• Landing run: 183 m (600 ft)
• Fuel capacity: 348 litres (76.55 Imp gals)
• Empty weight: 786 kg (1,732 lb)
• Loaded weight: 1,406 kg (3,100 lb)

Following the production of almost 17,000 Cessna 182 Skylanes, Cessna in 1977 decided to build a model of the well proven design with a retractable undercarriage, thus providing an aircraft with the proven reliability of its predecessor with the increased speed and fuel efficiency of a retractable undercarriage. The new model proved quite successful on the market, and in 1979 Cessna introduced the Turbo Skylane RG model, this having the turbocharged Avco Lycoming O-540-L3C5D engine of similar power but providing a max speed at 6,096 m (20,000 ft) of 346 km/h (215 mph), permitting this model to have a range at that altitude of 1,880 km (1,168 miles).

The 182RG model was said to be introduced in response to customer demand for improved performance combined with established Skylane economy. Apart from the retractable undercarriage the RG was substantially identical with the Skylane but was fitted with a de-rated Lycoming engine in place of the Teledyne Continental unit installed in fixed undercarriage models. The undercarriage retracted into the fuselage in similar fashion to the Centurion, the main undercarriage legs folding back and the nose wheel forward. The turbocharged variant was added to the range in 1979, at that time introducing the Lycoming engine rather than the Continental unit, and introducing a bonded wing structure which increased the fuel capacity by 45.4 litres (10 Imp gals).

First examples of the Skylane RG were seen in Australia early in 1980 and the type proved quite popular with more than 80 examples of both the standard Model 182RG and the turbocharged model being imported.

• No categories
• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.org
• June 26, 2020

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• + - Font Size

Cessna 182: An In-Depth Guide & Review

September 9, 2022

This article may contain affiliate links where we earn a commission from qualifying purchases.

The Cessna 182 is a single-engine piston plane, great for both training and seasoned pilots. It’s a fan favorite with a well-received legacy.

Skylanes have been in production on and off since 1956. These aircraft are powerful and versatile while maintaining reliability and accessibility to a range of pilots and flight missions. A Cessna 182 Skylane can get you where you need to go and get you there comfortably. But that’s not to say that they don’t have their own set of faults or trade-offs.

Cessna 182s are strong, well-rounded aircraft without achieving exceptionalism in almost any area. They are good but not great, yet come through as a popular favorite for pilots from a variety of backgrounds with different utility preferences. Skylanes are contenders for “best decent plane.”

Skylanes have seen major changes throughout history, some more incremental than others. By diving into the history of different models as well as the specifications and features of these aircraft in production today, we can see how this overall average plane has become such a go-to for so many varied flight missions and pilots at different performance levels.

Produced by Cessna and sold in the marketplace through Textron Aviation, Skylanes have a robust history of acceptable performance and outshining some of its predecessors, like the Cessna 172 Skyhawk. Many factors have contributed to its changes over the years, including design flaws early on as well as a federal regulation that brought Cessna’s piston planes back from the dead in the 1990s.

Table of contents

‍ specs and performance.

Let’s take a peek at the specifications for a new Cessna 182 Skylane:

These planes are sleek and durable with Cessna’s tried and true high wing. Mostly composed of aluminum alloy, the high wing design gives it added stability because the center of lift is above the center of mass. The external wing struts can cause some drag, and because the fuel tanks are in the wings, you will probably need a ladder to refuel.

High wings can be sensitive to crosswinds, but at the same time, the positioning of the wings and the fuel tanks help the flow of fuel without a pump, and you have more ground clearance than you might in a low-wing aircraft. You have restricted visibility above you which is a tradeoff for added visibility below.

One variant in particular, the Skylane RG, featured retractable landing gear, which improved fuel economy but increased maintenance costs. The offset wasn’t worth it, and Cessna scrapped that idea with the very next design. Most models, including newer ones, have fixed landing gear that is tough enough for more rugged runways, given proper trimming.

You’ve got a Lycoming IO-540-AB1A5 engine, producing up to 230hp, and a three-blade McCauley constant speed heated prop. This combination screams high performance. If you’re looking for a bigger airplane to work with while sticking to a single piston, this engine and prop make a Skylane worth considering.

The newest 182 cockpits are integrated with Garmin G1000 NXi avionics for a really up-to-date graphical interface. The glass cockpit can be intimidating for someone more accustomed to a six-pack but once you adjust, it is truly luxurious, in my opinion. There are two matrix LCDs for all of your flight, engine, and sensor data. The hardware is stronger than previous Garmin avionics and has additional features that improve situational awareness for pilots during flight. Initially, it can be easy to get lost in the new age of digital readings, so pilots that are unfamiliar may want to take some time to get to know the cockpit before takeoff.

The cabin is comfy enough for a longer flight and seats four total passengers, including the pilots. You’ve got a two-door entry, so you don’t have to climb around, and space for luggage behind the passenger seats in addition to the external baggage hatch. The seats are adjustable and depending on the model, might have dual vent fans or even air conditioning built in for more comfort on those warm summer flights. Alternatively, heat is effective up front but less so for rear passengers.

The wrap-around windshield is big, but you might need to find a nice cushion to sit on to elevate your view forward since the panel is set pretty high, especially for shorter pilots. The side windows are low and can require a bit of a hunch down to see through due to the high wing design. Skylanes also have a steep rear window which gives it an even sleeker look and provides some additional viewing opportunities for backseat passengers.

Performance

The high-performance reputation of Skylanes is no joke. These aircraft can get up and go with newer models offering a max range of 915 nautical miles, about the distance from Central Illinois to New York. Its speed tops out at 175ktas, though cruise speeds fall quite a bit lower. With its 87-gallon fuel tank, you can easily fly 6 -7 hours from a single takeoff. Max climb is 924 fpm, which outdoes a Cessna 172 by more than 200 feet.

Takeoff and Landing

A Skylane’s takeoff distance is around 1500 ft with a ground roll of just under 800 ft. Its climb rate is an impressive 924 fpm. Its flight ceiling is about 18,000 ft, making it a high-flier in comparison to most of its competition. It can clear a 50 ft obstacle at around 1100 feet but should be given some breadth on that metric to be safe.

They have decent landing control, except for their tendency for nose-drag, which can put the firewall at risk. Skylanes are notorious for this issue which has spanned its entire lifetime, impacting every model that has come into production. But still, Cessnas, in general, are aerodynamically designed to minimize slip, and the 182 takes that to another level with its power and weight. Still, you’ll want to do plenty of trimming up to and during landing, flares to avoid slamming the nose gear to the landing strip.

The fixed tricycle landing gear has had room for improvement over the years, and one improvement that has lasted well with many Cessnas is a rugged design that provides more tolerance for soft field runways. This was more of a necessity than anything, given the frequency of expensive firewall repairs after banging the nose to the pavement. Although this problem has persisted throughout the production life of the 182, Cessna has yet to fully eliminate the need for extra caution. However, adjustments made to the landing gear over time, as well as reputational awareness among pilots, have contributed to the gains made by Cessna in this regard.

Handling and Cruising

Cessnas are known for their stability, and the Skylane is no exception. They cruise comfortably and quickly with a max cruise speed of 145 ktas. They aren’t the fastest plane on the market, but they certainly aren’t the slowest. It’s notably difficult, as with all of Cessna’s high-wing designs, to put this aircraft into a spin, and although it may try to overbank on a turn, it’s nothing your average or even training pilot shouldn’t be able to handle.

The three-blade constant speed prop uses a variable pitch to maintain its speed with different levels of power, providing better cruise performance. So, while you still have throttle control, you also have a prop lever that allows you to change the pitch of your propeller to adjust your RPM for consistent and ideal performance throughout the flight.

Another benefit to a constant-speed propeller is that if your engine fails, you can pull the prop lever back to reduce pitch and feather the propeller, which will reduce drag. This gives you more glide time to get yourself and your plane to safety.

Overall, Skylane's handling is forgiving enough to make up for the nose-heavy short fallings. The ease of its cruise is a gift for pilots that just want to get in the air and enjoy the scenery below them and out front.

The Cessna 182 was first built in 1956 as an evolution from the Cessna 180 taildragger with a tri-gear design and some changes to the exhaust and fuel vent systems. The tri-gear landing gear created the nose-heavy propensity that remains with Skylanes to this day.

Cessna gave the original 182s a Continental O-470-L engine with 230 horsepower, which remained consistent by some variation in each Skylane model for 30 years. The first redesign of the Cessna 182 was the 182A which had wider and lower landing gear as well as external baggage. Gross weight increased from 2550 pounds from the original 182 to 2650 pounds for the 182A.

It was in 1958 that the Cessna 182 achieved the nickname Skylane when a deluxe version of the aircraft was put on the market. The upgrade came with wheel pants, standard radios, and a full paint job. New models came out every year with minor changes such as cowl flaps, a rear window, and a stylized swept tail, as well as another lowering of the landing gear in an attempt to mitigate the nose-heavy landing problems, though without much success.

In 1962 Cessna released the 182E, which contained a wider fuselage and a slightly lower cabin, making more room for passengers. It also came with electrical flaps, an updated panel, and a trim tab stabilizer. Gross weight increased to 2800 pounds with the installation of a different engine, an O-470-R, as well as bladders and auxiliaries added to the fuel system. Although these changes only brought the weight of the aircraft up by 10 pounds, climb, takeoff performance, and its service ceiling were all reduced.

Ground handling during landings finally saw a small improvement in 1970 with the 182N, thanks to further widening of the track to 13.5 feet. Gross weight was bumped up again to 2950 pounds with tapered tubular steel legs replacing the spring-steel gear. In 1972 low-speed handling was improved further by adding a leading-edge cuff, extending the dorsal fin, and shock-mounting the cowling. This model (182P) stayed in production for 4 years, outlasting each of its predecessors.

Cessna dropped their problematic bladders in 1978 and in ’81 boosted gross weight up to a clean 3100 pounds. This 182R saw an increase in fuel capacity up to 88 gallons and an upgrade to a 28-volt electrical system. They came out with a turbocharged version called the T-182RII which was powered by a Lycoming O-540 before ceasing production in 1986.

Cessna put an end to all of its piston plane production in 1986 due to liability issues that allowed individuals to sue aircraft companies for issues with their product which resulted in accidents or injury regardless of how old the aircraft was or what sort of maintenance it had undertaken over the years. It was no longer feasible for them to continue production with such liability, especially considering the unpredictable nature of claims on aircraft that were three decades old. They wrapped up production for the ten years that followed until new legislation came into the mix that provided a reprieve for aviation manufacturers.

Congress passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 , which imposed a statute of limitations on such lawsuits at 18 years, and in 1997 Cessna resumed operations in a new facility in Independence, Kansas, reintroducing the Skylane with some major changes. They switched out the Lycoming O-470 for a Lycoming IO-40-AB1A5 which is a fuel-injected engine and resolved some issues with the O-470 related to carb icing. The interior was revamped with anti-corrosion materials and painted metal instrument panels. Cessna had made their seats more crashworthy and improved the fuel drains as required by the FAA due to issues causing water leaks.

It was 2006 when Cessna introduced the Garmin glass cockpit, bringing its planes into the modern era with digital tools rather than standard steam gauges.

Purchase cost for a Cessna 182 is definitely a pain point. It can be fairly unobtainable, especially for younger pilots, to find a Skylane that is both affordable and in good flying condition. Be prepared to fork over a pretty penny for one of these planes in comparison to similar aircraft like the Skyhawk. Average cost of the Skylane is going to be around $50,000 more than the smaller 172.  If you’re looking for a cheap airplane, the Cessna 182 is not going to be your first choice. Its high cost is justified by its popularity and versatility of flight mission capabilities.

That being said, finding a cheap 182 is both a challenge and a risk. If someone is selling a Skylane for less than $100,000 be wary; it’s likely to have some problems that will require additional investments before it’s flight ready. Even older models can trend above 100K, while newer ones like the 182T can run up to half a million dollars with ease, offsetting its accessibility in flight with inaccessibility in cost. It is a popular club plane though, which can tamp down some of the financial burdens by spreading it among members.

Maintenance, however, is typically more affordable and can offset some of the purchase cost when compared to similar aircraft. Since it’s a smaller plane you can rent a hanger for a relatively low price, and a Skylane in good shape (and being flown properly) isn’t likely to need a lot of frequent repairs. They’re durable and reliable, often going two or more annuals without any issues.

One maintenance complaint, which is actually quite simple, is that the external baggage latch tends to break. While it is easily replaced, Cessna doesn’t sell just the spring which is usually the problem. Instead, they offer an entirely new latch that can run upwards of $2000. This is likely to ensure that the parts don’t wear at different rates and remain compatible over time but can be a really annoying cost for such a simple fix. Duct tape will hold it just fine but stands zero chance of passing inspection.

Pros / Cons

Every aircraft is going to have benefits and shortfalls. The best place for you is going to depend on your mission and what sort of utility you’re looking for. The Skylane is no different; it comes with perks and pits like any other.

• Lycoming IO-540-AB1A5 / 230 hp / McCauley three-blade constant speed propeller
• allows you to go farther, faster, and carry more than its smaller counterparts
• 4-seater and useful load of 1100 pounds
• great for bringing family and friends along
• New models have enhanced ventilation and can be equipped with air conditioning
• This tends to benefit the front passengers more than the rear
• Safety features include airbags in the seatbelts as well as Garmin ESP and USP
• Comfortable cabin
• Firewall wrinkling
• This is a common issue to see with Skylanes, and a result of nose-hard landings
• Baggage door latch is prone to snapping
• Cessna doesn’t sell springs for this latch individually. Instead, you have to buy a whole new latch which can run around $2,000
• Expensive purchasing cost
• Can be nose-heavy
• Noticeable when flaring and can contribute to firewall wrinkling

Skyhawk Comparison

The biggest difference between a Cessna 172 and a 182 is the added flexibility and performance improvement of a constant speed propeller. The 172 is a great plane, but the 182 is the next tier up when it comes to speed, distance, reliability, and performance. Its engine is much more powerful, allowing for not only higher speeds but also a faster climb. Both planes are commonly used for pilot training, but if you ask around, you’ll find that the consensus is in favor of the 182. While the 172 can be cheaper, the Skylane is an obvious choice for comfort, power, and performance. It is bigger (though only slightly), faster, and stronger than the Skyhawk with more avionics options as well. Cessna is known for their high-quality aircraft and neither the Skyhawk or Skylane are an exception to that rule.

They both offer forgiving controls and can be nearly impossible to spin, due to their high mounted wings. If you’re stuck between the 172 and 182, consider what you’ll use the plane for. If you need a faster plane that goes farther and higher, you’ll want to go with the 182. But if you’re looking for cost efficiency and don’t mind that it’s a bit less powerful, the 172 is an easy choice.

While it outdoes the 172 in nearly every metric, the Skylane is a remarkably unremarkable aircraft that has contributed to its reputation as an all-around good plane. It isn’t the best at really anything, but it is a well-rounded and reliable go-to for tons of aviators regardless of experience. It’s a great hobby aircraft, while also maintaining a great reputation for training and other utilities.

The Cessna 172 is the most popular Cessna aircraft, with the 182 taking a close second. One can only assume that the financial accessibility of the 172 is a contributing factor to taking that first prize ribbon. A lot of pilots may not consider the bigger and stronger nature of the Skylane worth the cost difference, given that it is essentially a sized-up version of its predecessor. The two are neck-in-neck in ratings and pilot preference because they are just very similar aircraft. Cessna executives knew what worked when it came to the Skyhawk and made it bigger and better in the Skylane.

When Do Doors Close On An Airplane Before Flight?

What Is A Very Light Jet?

Does Cessna Make Jets?

How Much Does A Plane Cost?

About THE AUTHOR

Joe Haygood

Obsessed with Planes and Flying

Trending Now

How High Can A Piper Fly?

The Best Small Planes You Can Buy Right Now

How Much Does A Boeing Plane Cost?

How Much Does It Really Cost To Paint A Plane?

Learn all about planes and pilots, and even how to fly, with SkyTough. We'll explore the ins and outs of the sky and how to travel through it. Read more about us, here .

©2024 SkyTough. All rights reserved.

We can be reached at [email protected]

SkyTough.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon. This site also participates in other affiliate programs including but not limited to ShareASale, CJ, and ClickBank, and is compensated for referring traffic and business to these companies.

• Brands/Models
• Buyer’s Guide
• Glass Cockpits
• Auto-Pilots
• Legacy Instruments
• Instruments
• Safety Systems
• Portable Electronics
• Modifications
• Maintenance
• Partnerships
• Pilot Courses
• Plane & Pilot 2024 Photo Contest
• Past Contests
• Aviation Education Training
• Proficiency
• Free Newsletter

Cessna’s Turbo Skylane RG

What a difference it makes when you can say, ’€œLook ma, no legs!’€

By Scott Perdue , Photography by James Lawrence Updated February 6, 2016 Save Article

Lowe’s father, a World War II B-17 and B-29 radio operator, worked for Cessna. Cessna and flying were in his blood. “My dad joined the Cessna Flying Club and learned to fly. It was an incredible deal—you could fly for virtually the cost of fuel,” says Rod.

Rod worked for Cessna as well and joined the Cessna Flying Club right away. “I started in C-150s for my private and then moved to the C-172s and C-182s. The club had C-206s and high-performance airplanes, like the C-210 and turbo 210s. We’d fly to Colorado to ski during the weekends with friends. I had a great time!” he recalls.

Along the way, Rod married Donna, who was supportive of his flying and liked the freedom that it provided, in no small part because they didn’t have to drive for hours to get out of Kansas. Rod says, “The club had several Cessna 182RGs. I did my commercial license in one because of the retractable gear and constant-speed propeller. Before long, Donna teased me that I was spending as much money at the club as it would cost me to own an airplane. At first, I was skeptical, but she worked the numbers, and it was cheaper. We bought our first airplane, a really nice 172 Skyhawk.”

With their own airplane, both Rod and Donna took to flying in a big way. Rod clearly remembers, “Our kids grew up in airplanes. It was like a car. Our first child flew at four weeks old, and our second at eight weeks. When we moved to Dallas, the airplane allowed us to stay in touch with our families. We were doing so much flying that Donna decided she needed to learn how to fly. She sold her Corvette and learned how to fly in our Skyhawk.”

With a growing family, Rod bought a Cessna 182 Skylane. “It was faster and carried more. With four of us, for sure, we needed the room,” he explains.

With a new airplane came the move to Albuquerque, N.M. The high altitudes of New Mexico challenged the Skylane, which was perfect for flatland flying, but it became anemic on hot days. “We took off once in the Cessna 182 from the big airport and it took us a long time to start climbing. Donna poked me in the ribs and said, ’Okay, you made your point. Go ahead and climb.’ I told her I’m not doing this on purpose. We’ve got to get some speed up before we can climb.”

The normally aspirated Skylane’s high-density altitude performance then provoked Donna to crunch her numbers again. With a valid need for a completely new airplane (for Rod, Cessna was the only real option), he began looking for a turbocharged Cessna 182RG. According to Rod, “This airplane is a sleeper—with the turbo and the retractable gear, it just makes a huge difference. I looked at Bonanzas, C-210s and whatever, but for speed and high-altitude performance, there really is no choice. Cessna just builds one heck of an airplane.”

“We bought N756GZ in 1993,” says Rod. “It’s now our fourth airplane, and we couldn’t be any happier. Just maybe one day when we’re ready to slow down, we’ll go back to a straight-legged Cessna 182. But for now, this airplane couldn’t be better for what we do.”

Cessna has taken an evolutionary approach to building airplanes. If something works on one airframe, it will just adapt it and make it better on others. The company has been successful using this approach. Cessna started building C-120 and C-140 two-seat taildraggers. They saw a need to fill an expanding business market and built the four-seat 170. Now, virtually all of Cessna’s single-engine line can trace all their roots back to the venerable Cessna 170. The Cessna Skywagon, the C-180 and, later, the C-185 were upgraded versions of the 170, with improved weight, horsepower and interior volume. The Cessna Skyhawk was a tricycle-gear 170, and the Skylane was essentially a tricycle-gear version of the 180/185 taildragger. It was simple to manufacture and maintain, with each airplane retaining docile flying qualities and prodigious performance numbers.

The Cessna turbo Skylane is quite the perfect evolutionary airplane. Cessna took the standard Cessna 182 and inserted a retractable-gear system, adding 12 to 15 knots. But the company wasn’t finished yet; it installed a manually controlled turbocharger to a reliable Lycoming O-540 engine for an extra boost and punch at altitude, which gained another 20 knots. Overall, the turbo Skylane RG achieved a performance gain of nearly 35 knots over standard Skylanes.

And that’s how Cessna succeeded in turning America’s most popular single-engine airplane, the C-182 Skylane, into a high, fast flier. With oxygen, the turbo 182 Skylane can cruise at FL200 at speeds in excess of 173 knots. Not too bad for a high-wing, single-engine airplane, with a strut hanging out in the breeze.

Rod uses the Cessna 182 several times a week. He explains, “The turbo Skylane has a 92-gallon wet wing, which is usually much more than enough fuel for both me and my wife. Nowadays, I fly about 100 hours a year and it’s strictly for pleasure. The trickiest thing to the turbo is the manual waste gate. But it’s easy once you accept that you have to watch it. An over-boost of more than 31 inches usually occurs on takeoff, especially on cold days. You just have to pay attention.

“I never wanted to be a professional pilot; I just really love the freedom of flying. I’m sure sold on the Cessna 182. It’s amazing how much you can pack in with the airplane flying just fine. I had an engine failure once in another Cessna, and I put it down in a field just fine. The airplane glides really well, and with the turbo and retractable gear, it has amazing performance. This is a wonderful airplane in which to carry anything my wife and I want to pack and go anywhere we want. Best of all, we can go just about anytime we want to go!”

SPECS: Cessna Turbo Skylane RG II N756GZ

Related Stories

NBAA 2019: Textron/Cessna And GE Update Denali Program

This Incredible Plane: Cessna 140

Four-Seat Piston Singles Round-Up

Stay in touch with Plane & Pilot

America’s owner-flown aircraft enthusiasts and active-pilot resource, delivered to your inbox!

Save Your Favorites

Already have an account? Sign in

Save This Article

Cessna 182 Guide and Specs : Pricing and Performance

Table of Contents

The Cessna 182, quickly baptized Skylane in its early days, is a tricycle gear aircraft developed from the robust backcountry all-star Cessna 180.

Introduced in 1956, the 182 quickly became a hit due to its flexibility and ease of operation, spawning a total of 23 variants over time. Whether in its regular, retractable-gear, or turbocharged versions, it has made its name as an honest aircraft that gets owners their money’s worth without needless excesses.

1956 / Cessna / 182 Specs

The Cessna 182 has gone through many iterations since its introduction in 1956, and therefore specifications have gone through plenty of changes over the years. There are two major factors in the Skylane, which Cessna allowed owners to mix and match based on their needs and budget.

The first one is the landing gear, which can be fixed or retractable. Fixed gear increases drag and thus brings a performance penalty, while the retractable gear increases the aircraft’s overall weight and maintenance costs, a given for any additional moving parts added to an airplane.

The second variable is the engine type. Between 1956 and 1980, all Cessna 182 models came with a 230 hp engine. Originally these were made by Continental, but a contractual break between the two companies eventually opened the doors for Lycoming engines to be installed.

The major change came with the Cessna T128 Skylane, certified on August 15th, 1980. The “T” in the designation stood for the turbocharger on the Lycoming O-540-L3C5D engine, which greatly increased performance and fuel efficiency at higher altitudes at the cost of increased maintenance hours.

There is some common ground between variants. The Cessna 182 Skylane family seats up to four people, including one pilot.

All engines used in the family are 6-cylinder models with 230 hp for the non-turbocharged versions and 235 hp for those with it installed, driving a constant speed propeller. In standard conditions, fuel burn will be between 14 and 13 gallons an hour, with newer variants being slightly more efficient across the board.

The original Skylane had a take-off weight of 2650 lbs with a useful load of 1029 lbs, of which 120 lbs could be fitted in the luggage compartment. The 1980s models like the Cessna 182R brought the take-off weight up to 3100 lbs with 1377 lbs of useful payload plus 200 lbs in the luggage, a very significant increase.

Turbocharged versions currently in production match this take-off weight and luggage, but with a slightly smaller useful load of 1186 lbs. This is because of the turbocharger’s weight. Oil capacity on earlier models was 12 quarts, increased to 13 quarts on the 182R, then reduced to only 9 quarts with the T182T.

Fuel capacity for the Skylane started at 65 gallons, being expanded to 68 with the Cessna 182R, with an option for a 92-gallon long-range tank add-on, before this finally became a standard fit on turbocharged aircraft. The fuel is fed by gravity from the wing tanks to the auxiliary fuel pump.

This gives most Skylane variants around 6.5 hours in the air or trips as far out as 850 nmi. Electrical powered is provided by a 28v DC system coupled with a 60A alternator and a 24v battery.

Equipment aboard is powered by two primary buses, an essential bus and a crossfeed bus between them. A push-to-reset circuit breaker controls the connection of the primary bus to the avionics bus.

Cessna 182 / Model Prices

Since production was restarted in 2015, Textron has been offering newly-built Cessna 182 models for $530000 with the standard kit fitted. With this in mind, it can be hard to believe that way back in 1956, the very first new Cessna 182 was on the market for only $17700 – around $172000 in FY2020, adjusted for inflation.

The high cost for new aircraft is a combination of many factors, mainly the overall price growth for general aviation aircraft, the turbocharged engine, and the new top-of-the-line avionics package that comes installed by default, saving the owner from a future similar investment to keep the aircraft in line with new regulations coming into place.

Cessna 182 / Performance and Handling

The Skylane’s cruise speeds range from 136 to 140 KCAS depending on the model, while do not exceed speeds grew from 160 to 171 KCAS over the years. For pilots not in a hurry, cruising at around 117 KCAS brings around a 15% loss of speed, but the throttle reduction cuts fuel burn by 30%, a very good trade-off in most situations.

Unlike other Cessna high-wing models, which underwent significant aerodynamic refinements and wing redesigns, the 182 has remained largely the same throughout its long service history.

This has led to stall speeds remaining the same across the board – 54 KCAS when clean and 49 KCAS when configured for landing. This was not quite within STOL requirements but still placed it in the next best bracket.

The aircraft’s best climb rate is 1030 fpm for the lighter 1959 Cessna 182A, dipping to 865 fpm with the Cessna 182R and picking up again to 925 fpm with the turbocharged T182T.

Original Skylane models are slightly more responsive and maneuverable, with a wing loading of 15.2 lbs/sq ft. The weight increase over the years increased this value to 17.8 lbs/sq ft. On the other hand, power loading grew from 11.5 lbs/hp to 13.5 lbs/hp.

The service ceiling for the first Skylanes was 20000ft, with the 182R suffering a significant reduction to 14900ft before the turbocharged variants brought it up to 18100ft.

The Cessna 182’s type certificate is filed in the normal category, which prohibits intentional spins and aerobatic maneuvers.

While not rated for aerobatics, the Skylane is popular among pilots for having responsive controls and extremely predictive behavior in the air, giving its pilots plenty of hints and chances to correct mistakes before a departure.

For those who do not heed the warnings, it is also very easy to recover, a feature common to most Cessna high-wing aircraft. Thanks to its tricycle gear arrangement, the aircraft is a pleasant ride during take-offs, landings and when taxiing, rid of the tailwheel vices that plagued the Cessna 180.

Cessna 182 / Model Maintenance Schedule

For aircraft equipped with the early Continental O-470 engine, the time between overhaul (TBO) is set at 1500 hours. This may seem a little modest by modern standards, but back in the 1950s, when this aircraft first took to the skies, it was stupendous engine longevity.

Many owners have reported this figure to be a little on the optimistic side. The O-470 is still renowned for its reliability, but most will require cylinder work before reaching 1500 hours, occasionally even speeding up the overhaul.

In 1977, the O-470-U extended the TBO to 2000 hours. This number remained unchanged after the transition to the Lycoming IO-540 series, both with and without the supercharger.

Cessna 182 / Modifications and Upgrades

Since 1956, the Cessna 182 has been produced in a whooping 23 distinct variants. Changes in gross weight, powerplant, and landing gear arrangement make up the brunt of these. Early models used the Continental O-470 engine series common to the Cessna 180, in a version rated for 230 hp.

This was eventually changed to the Lycoming O-540 series with similar power. A major break came in 1986: after product liability suits began weighing heavily on the company’s finances and reputation, Cessna announced the end of all single-engine piston aircraft production.

While the General Aviation Revitalization Act was signed in 1994, it took another three years for a new Skylane to leave the production line, a Cessna 182S model.

There were some major milestones in Skylane production. The aircraft initially had the iconic square-tipped vertical stabilizer in its first models, but this was replaced with a swept one in 1960 with the introduction of the Cessna 182C. To help with ground stability, the 182D in 1961 shortened the landing gear legs.

While previous models were nominally four-seaters by design, the 182E was the first member of the family able to do that comfortably.

It also brought significant changes to the aircraft as a whole. The empennage was redesigned to accommodate a slanted rearview window for better visibility, the mechanically actuated flaps were replaced by electric ones, and the cabin’s dimensions were revised for additional comfort.

These changes led to an increase in gross weight to 2800 lbs from the original 2550 lbs, which brought a landing gear reinforcement and a new O-470-R engine to compensate for it.

The option for 84-gallon additional bladder tanks was also introduced, becoming such a success that some analysts believe there were fewer aircraft without it than those equipped.

Starting in 1963, the Cessna 182F introduced a one-piece windshield and rear window, which considerably increased visibility from the cabin.

The instrument panel adopted the new industry standard basic-T shape, and the horizontal stabilizer was increased by 10 inches to improve low-speed elevator response. Instead of incremental flap positioning, the 182F had preset positions.

By then, the Skylane design had reached maturity, so changes became more incremental. The 182G gave the option for a child seat to be installed in lieu of the baggage area, the 182J introduced the alternator instead of the older generator, and in 1970 the 182N brought landing gear revisions which increased gross weight to 2950 lbs.

Low-speed handling was improved in 1972 with the use of leading-edge cuffs on the wings. In 1978, the extended fuel tanks became factory standards. Shortly before the 1986 production break, Cessna began offering the turbocharged Skylane in 1981, with a 235 hp Lycoming IO-540 engine.

After production resumed in 1997, both regular and turbocharged Cessna 182 models were produced with versions of the IO-540 to help standardize the fleet. Thanks to new manufacturing facilities originally destined for the business jet market, the build quality of post-break Skylanes is said to be even better than before.

With the design already a classic by then, Cessna changed focus to smaller improvements such as more crashworthy seats, better fuel drains, numerous small aerodynamic changes that improved speeds when combined, and a redesigned interior.

There was one major change introduced in the Cessna 182T from 2006: the option to install the Garmin G1000 avionics to turn the Cessna 182’s panel into a glass cockpit. This option turned out to be so popular that all new Skylanes leaving the factory now already have it by default.

Cessna 182 / Where to Find Replacement Parts

Like other Cessna piston-engined aircraft, the parts commonality between models and ease of maintenance have made it a very comfortable plane to own. Most shops in the world stock replacement parts for the Cessna 182, and mechanics are deeply familiar with them, making maintenance a breeze by most standards.

Cessna 182 / Model Common Problems

Already in the early 1960s, the Skylane was beginning to grow both as a commercial success and in weight.

Faced with increasing gross weights but wanting to keep performance within the same bracket without major powerplant changes, engineers at Cessna decided to introduce a lighter aluminum alloy on areas that do not bear loads.

While this allowed them to keep the aircraft’s weight within the targets set, it also brought along fuselage ripples. To remedy this, Cessna brought about the end of the ‘naked’ 182, opting to fully paint the aircraft instead to prevent wrinkling.

A problem common to both the 182 and its Skywagon predecessor is the visibility over the nose: the large instrument panel can make it a little lacking during landing for pilots without generous stature.

Visibility over the sides is also slightly short of ideal, with those in the two front seats needing to lean down to get a good look outside.

Due to the increased weight from the Cessna 182S models onwards, the aircraft’s center of gravity (CG) has become an issue depending on the loading arrangements.

If the crew has to cut a flight short with a full tank of fuel and two large people alone in the front seats, there is a risk that elevator authority will not be sufficient during landing. This compounded with a relatively heavy nose that requires finer and more constant trimming changes than other aircraft in its class.

Officially, this was addressed with the introduction of a 2950 lbs landing weight limit, but emergencies are usually not very flexible about when they happen, so it is advised to keep weights below that number unless the mission forbids it.

Though they have become increasingly rare, some older aircraft in the Cessna 182 market still have vices that were rectified in later models. Units built in the 1960s came equipped with VHF and HF avionics made by the Aircraft Radio Corporation (ARC).

While these work well on a good day, they have developed a bad reputation in terms of reliability in Cessna aircraft, particularly due to overheating issues. Another holdover common to early Cessnas is the use of rubber bladder fuel tanks, which may lead to fuel getting trapped by wrinkles and starving the engine.

The FAA has issued an airworthiness directive (AD) mandating more fuel drains on each tank, but the bill is expensive for aircraft that have not had this work done already.

Despite Cessna’s work to position the gear to avoid this, repeated hard landings or the wrong attitude during touchdown might lead to wrinkled firewalls, which can get rather expensive and time-consuming to fix.

Cessna 182 / Insurance Options

Thanks to the type’s good safety record and reliability, the Cessna 182 often gets fairly reduced insurance quotes compared to its competitors.

According to BWI Fly, an experienced pilot can get a yearly $260 to $350 in liability coverage plus $530 to $1200 in hull coverage, for a total of $790 to $1550.

Customers in the high-risk category, such as student pilots, will find those ranges increased to $375-$750 and $1200-$1900, adding up to between $1575 and $2650.

Cessna 182 / Model Resale Value

A noteworthy achievement for the Cessna 182 family is its resale value. Despite being in ongoing production and lacking the specialization some of its other Cessna cousins boast, prices for the Skylane have been on a near-constant rise over the years, and the type is known for having one of the shortest time to sell in the market.

Between 2017 and 2020, the asking price for plenty of Cessna 182 units in the market grew twofold, and despite this increase, they quickly found themselves in the hands of new owners.

According to Plane & Pilot Magazine, prices for second-hand Skylanes hover around $40000 for the 1959 Cessna 182B, between $97000 and $108000 for the Cessna 182R, and from $175000 to $395000 for 182T models.

The jump in the T-series is because these can be steam gauge aircraft with the standard IO-540 engine and fixed gear or glass cockpit rides with retractable landing gear and turbocharged engines.

Cessna 182 / Owner Reviews

The Skylane’s reliability and handling have made it almost impossible to find someone who dislikes the design. It does not have the crazy performance of the Cessna 185.

It cannot do bush flying as well as the Cessna 180, it is not as cheap as the Cessna 172, and it cannot do aerobatics like certain Cessna 150 models. What the 182 does do well, though, is deliver perfectly adequate yet ordinary performance every time.

This jack-of-all-trades excels not by being a world-beater but by having next to no shortcomings for its class. Hardly a bragging point by most standards, a large reason why owners love their Skylane is because it can actually live up to its four-seater reputation in most conditions.

The Cessna 182 can comfortably fly with all four souls aboard and a full tank of fuel without any noteworthy performance penalties.

A popular ‘party trick’ of the Cessna 182 is its roughly identical take-off and landing requirements. Most pilots hold the belief that any place they fly off from is good enough to return, and in tighter situations, this has led to many unpleasant surprises.

The Skylane, however, lives up to this expectation, putting its runway requirements just slightly above aircraft equipped with Roberston STOL conversions.

Cessna 182 / Similar Aircraft

The Skylane fits a niche of its own, bridging the gap between lighter four-seaters like the Cessna 172 and more robust and expensive high-performance options.

The Cirrus SR.20 or the Diamond DA.40 have been trying to nibble into its territory, yet they have found more competition with the Cessna 172 instead.

Many pilots agree that the only aircraft that could provide direct head-to-head competition was the Piper Dakota, and while it is still available in the used market, its production run ceased in 1994.

Cessna 182 / Clubs You can Join

The Cessna Flyer Association and the Cessna Owner Association cater for Skylane owners as well as other Cessna products, while smaller forums and Facebook groups focused on the Cessna 182 are readily available for advice trading and other type-related matters.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions

Question: how much does it cost to fly a cessna 182 per hour.

Answer: Depending on the model and owner-specific variants, such as insurance and parking fees, costs per hour run between $180 and $220.

Question: How Much Does a Cessna 182 Skylane Cost?

Answer: Depending on the variant, costs can range from $40000 to $400000 for used aircraft, going up to $595000 for newly-built aircraft.

Question: Is the Cessna 182 Pressurized?

Answer: No. While the aircraft can reach up to 20000 ft, this requires the usage of oxygen masks and the appropriate cautions for high altitude flight.

Question: Is the Cessna 182 a Good First Plane?

Answer: It depends. The aircraft is pleasant to handle and forgiving of newcomers. However, it does have higher operating costs than most student aircraft.

Question: Can You Buy a New Cessna 182?

Answer: Yes. The Skylane has been in near-continuous production since 1956, with no plans to cease its manufacturing any time soon.

Research Citations

https://bwifly.com/cessna-182-insurance-cost/

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/1956-cessna-182-n4966e-2/

http://www.falconsquadron.org/files/cessna_skylane.pdf

https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/aircraft-fact-sheets/cessna-182

www.avweb.com/ownership/cessna-182-pre-buy-check/

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/used-cessna-182-skylanes/

https://www.aircraftcostcalculator.com/AircraftOperatingCosts/336/Cessna+T182T

• Latest Posts

• Learjet vs Gulfstream Fleet Comparison - July 18, 2023
• Embraer 175 vs Boeing 737 - June 7, 2023
• King Air 200 vs 350 - June 7, 2023

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Forgot your password?
• Forgot your username?

Peterson’s Performance Planes: Efficiency, safety and speed in a modified Cessna 182

Former owner and longtime enthusiast Kevin Moore takes a look at Peterson's Performance Plus 182 conversions old and new.

The white Cessna 182 glistened in the bright October sun. As I approached from the rear I noted the landing gear speed kit, and then the nose-mounted canard and three-blade propeller which revealed that this was not your father’s Skylane. The Kenai logo on the tail along with “300 hp fuel injection by Peterson” on the cowling further evinced something special.

“Climb aboard,” said Todd Peterson.

Todd’s wife Jo, who is his business partner—and like him, an accomplished aerobatic pilot—graciously granted me the copilot’s seat and relaxed in the back. I settled comfortably into the plush leather. The functional and luxurious cabin environment rekindled my memories. For more than a decade, I’d owned and flown a similar airplane from Peterson’s Performance Plus.

After a brief pulse of the boost pump, Todd brought the IO-550-D engine promptly to life. Multiple avionics displays put on their game faces and we taxied to El Dorado Municipal’s Runway 22. We had KEQA, the quintessential bucolic Kansas airport, to ourselves. Some disinterested cattle grazed placidly in a nearby pasture.

Preflight checks complete, Todd taxied onto 22 while advancing the throttle. The IO-550 was turbine smooth—I could hear it, but could barely feel it. With scarcely enough time to check instruments, we flew off between 35 and 40 kias in little more than 300 feet and accelerated smartly.

Passing through 50 knots just seconds later, Todd lowered the nose to a flat attitude and the Kenai levitated like an express elevator while we entered a steep bank well before midfield.

After retracting flaps, we climbed at well over 1,500 fpm in a surprisingly level attitude—at least 10 knots faster than VY. I briefly felt sharp discomfort in the center of my forehead.

“Todd,” I remarked incredulously, “I’ve had sinus pain before in a 182, but never in a climb !”

Skylane mods since the 1970s

The Kenai is the latest Cessna 182 modification offered by Peterson’s Performance Plus, Inc. The company’s story began in the late 1970s when the Petersons acquired the STC and tooling for the Wren 460 conversion of the Cessna 182 from the bankrupt original company.

The Wren achieved then-unheard-of STOL capabilities and slow flight maneuverability through use of full-span slotted flaps, moveable spoilers atop the wings (“Wren’s teeth”), and most notably a canard, the aft section of which is a control surface.

However, compared to the stock Skylane, the Wren suffered reduced 172-like cruise speed and payload, and was expensive to produce—compromises that proved too substantial for most owners.

Confronting these issues to ensure the company’s survival, the Petersons certified their 260SE/STOL (“260SE”) conversion through STC in 1987. Customers’ desire for greater speed was addressed through aerodynamic cleanup of the engine cowling and landing gear, along with a more powerful 260 hp fuel-injected IO-470-F engine.

The 260SE utilized the canard but retained the stock Cessna wing. Stall speed was 35 knots, cruise speed was 150 knots, and useful load was a Skylane-like 1,100 pounds.

The new design at once significantly improved the Skylane’s cross-country speed and range, cut runway required by at least half, and markedly enhanced rate of climb, stall resistance and slow speed maneuverability. Over the next 20 years the Petersons produced more than 400 260SE aircraft for customers worldwide.

The secret to STOL success

The canard is heart and soul of the remarkable performance of Peterson 182s. Bolted to the engine mount a few inches behind the propeller, its control surface moves in concert with the elevators (seven degrees down to one degree up) in a manner completely transparent to the pilot, providing additional pitch authority and relieving down-loads on the horizontal stabilizer.

The canard has little effect on speed or handling in cruise, but below about 65 knots the benefits become abundantly clear. The stall speed reduction to 35 knots is notable enough, but fails to describe the canard’s complete transformation of the Skylane’s flight characteristics. Loitering flight at 50 to 60 knots in a near-level attitude is a trifle even for inexperienced pilots.

Completely cross-controlled flight in this regime is utterly bereft of surprises, and trimmed, hands-off steep turns at 45 to 50 knots are easily done. The canard not only enables STOL operations but additionally confers responsive, safe handling at slow speeds in a flat attitude.

Two new 182 products

In 2006, perhaps a bit restless after 20 years producing the 260SE/STOL, Todd heeded the call of his Inner Backcountry Pilot and further modified the 260SE to tackle short, rough unimproved strips. He called the new aircraft “Katmai,” evoking the Alaska National Park and Preserve wilderness.

In addition to a number of enhancements to improve landing gear ruggedness, Peterson lengthened the wing by three feet using WING-X STOL from Air Research Technology, reducing stall speed to 31 knots and further shortening takeoff and landing distances by nearly 20 percent.

The final touch came in 2010 with certification of the 300 hp IO-550-D. The added horsepower reduced takeoff roll an additional seven percent and boosted rate of climb to at least 1,800 fpm for the newly-christened “King Katmai.”

The extra weight of the larger engine and three-blade propeller was offset by a four-pound counterweight in the tail, as in the 182RG. (The counterweight was part of a Service Kit issued by Cessna for installation with a three-blade propeller. —Ed.) The configuration was embraced enthusiastically by the backcountry pilot community, which snapped up King Katmais as fast as the Petersons could build them.

Still, the earlier success of the 260SE showed that many potential customers had no real desire to land on anything rougher than pavement or well-groomed turf. Rather, they valued the plane’s enhanced climb rate, stall resistance, slow speed safety and STOL capabilities, as well as its superior cross-country talents (i.e., speed and range).

Equipping the 260SE with the IO-550-D—a simple “drag-and-drop” exercise—seemed the next logical step. Todd and Jo thus introduced the Kenai in late 2014 and its performance has more than lived up to expectations.

Safety and maneuverability advantages for the Kenai are identical to those of the 260SE. As with the King Katmai, the extra power confers a nearly 40 percent faster climb rate and proportionately reduces takeoff roll. Cruise speed is enhanced commensurate with the additional power and what may be a somewhat more efficient engine-propeller combination.

The Petersons advertise 156 ktas at approximately 8,000 feet, 75 percent power, rich-of-peak-EGT (ROP), consuming 16.5 gph. Importantly, the fuel injected IO-550 enables lean-of-peak (LOP) operation, greatly enhancing efficiency and range at the expense of only a few knots cruise speed.

When cruising LOP, 152 ktas is cited, burning approximately 13 gph. This latter figure is especially noteworthy: the Kenai’s portfolio of modifications has increased the stock Skylane’s real-world cruise by some 15 knots on the same fuel flow as the less-efficient carbureted O-470.

Flying the Kenai

We leveled off at 5,500 feet and set up for ROP cruise. On this day the Kenai was a couple of hundred pounds under MGTOW—despite the fine lunch we had just consumed at the Hutchinson, Kan. airport restaurant—and apparently in an exultant mood, effortlessly accelerating to and holding 159 ktas.

Todd then leaned to 13.5 gph (LOP) and we settled into an easy 152–153 ktas cruise. Only occasional light chop marred an otherwise pristine CAVU flight.

Entranced by the fall landscape passing beneath us and reflecting on my nearly 1,400 hours flying 260SE STOL and Katmai aircraft, I concluded that with the King Katmai and Kenai, the Petersons have now fully realized the potential of the 182 airframe in a way that neither the original manufacturer nor numerous other modifications could achieve.

We descended at the top of the green arc to a crosswind entry for left traffic, Runway 15 at KEQA. On downwind Todd reduced speed to 65 knots with 20 degrees flaps, then controlled descent with power. At 60 to 65 knots, everything happened in slow motion as we descended lazily.

On base I noted the same herd of cattle, pointed to the push-to-talk switch and asked, “May I?”

Todd nodded assent and I announced, “El Dorado Traffic, Kenai 58565; left base for 15, over the cows , full stop.”

Todd rolled out on final, then gradually reduced power and applied aft trim to achieve just below 50 knots. With plenty of lift reserve and pitch authority remaining for the roundout and flare, the Kenai alighted well below 40 knots like a butterfly with sore feet and we had to add power to taxi to the midfield turnoff.

Steady success

Peterson’s Performance Plus turns out a dozen or so airplanes a year, a pace that enables Todd and Jo to enjoy life and occasional flying to social gatherings with owners of their aircraft. The owner community is a very close-knit and loyal group; customers stay in touch with Todd and Jo out of friendship as well as for advice.

Todd suspects that Kenai sales may eventually equal or overtake those of the King Katmai. “The Kenai only uses about 60 feet more runway for takeoff or landing, and its 22 knots higher VNE makes cruise descents a simpler exercise,” he explained. “Install bushwheels on the Kenai and it’s also a very capable backcountry aircraft.”

Indeed, several King Katmai and Kenai owners have both standard gear and bushwheels, swapping one for the other as flying needs dictate.

For more than 30 years the Petersons have enjoyed steady success in both good times and bad. It is often said that if you want to make a million dollars in aviation, you’d better start with at least two million, but Peterson’s Performance Plus is a striking exception.

Todd and Jo Peterson offer a unique, “boutique” product with the performance and high quality that can command a premium price. Cost for Kenai/King Katmai aircraft can range from $200,000 to $480,000, depending on airframe and options/avionics selected. All 1970 to 1980 Cessna 182 (N, P and Q) airframes are eligible for both Kenai and King Katmai conversions.

With a high priority on customer service, and not sales volume—including the willingness to give up a sale if the product won’t meet a customer’s needs—the Petersons found that their customers have become their best advertisement.

Todd and Jo feel that there is little more to do to improve their products, and owners seem to agree. With the Kenai and King Katmai and a sound business philosophy, I judge it likely their success will continue for as long as they wish to build airplanes.

Kevin Moore recently retired from a 30-year career in biotechnology research and development. Moore is a 2,600-hour instrument rated private pilot and has nearly 1,400 hours in 260SE and Katmai aircraft. He spends retired life reading, writing, exercising, consulting, traveling and being a nuisance to his long-suffering wife, Tina. Send questions or comments to [email protected] .

WING-X STOL – CFA supporter

Air Research Technology Inc.

wingxstol.com

Kenai and King Katmai upgrades

Peterson’s Performance Plus, Inc.

katmai-kenai.com

“Fresh Pick” STC (for 182P, 182Q)

Trolltune Corp.

trolltune.com

Further viewing

Kenai/King Katmai training videos

katmai-kenai.com/training.php

Further reading

Continental Motors Aircraft Engine Service Information Letter SIL98-9C

“Time Between Overhaul Periods” CessnaFlyer.org/forums under “Magazine Extras”

Peterson’s Performance Plus Forum

katmai-kenai.com/kwmoor/forums

Contact | RisingUp Home

• Aircraft Specs
• Aviation Message Board
• FAA Regulations
• Aircraft Pictures
• Avation Links
• Practice FAA Tests
• Manufacturer List
• Cessna Aircraft
• Advanced Search

Aircraft Performance Data

Cessna r182-rg ii skylane (optl egt reg. on svc. ceil.) - performance data.

Related Specs:

• R182 II RG Turbo Skylane
• T-182Q II Turbo Skylane
• 182Q II (1981 & up)
• 182P,Q (prior'79 = 8-12 gal less fuel) thru 1980
• 182 N Skylane
• 182 J,K,L,M Skylane
• 182 E,F,G,H
• 182 A,B,C,D

Manufacturer Aeronca Aerostar American Champion American General Beechcraft Bellanca Cessna Commander EADS Socata Lake Luscombe Aircraft Maule Mooney Piper PZL Aircraft Model Search for aircraft meeting your performance criteria!

Copyright © 1998-2011 RisingUp Aviation . All rights reserved.

• AVwebFlash Current Issue
• AVwebFlash Archives
• Aviation Consumer
• Aviation Safety
• IFR Refresher
• Business & Military
• eVTOLs/Urban Mobility
• Experimentals
• Spaceflight
• Unmanned Vehicles
• Who’s Who
• Video of the Week
• Adventure Flying
• AVWeb Classics
• CEO of the Cockpit
• Eye of Experience
• From The CFI
• Leading Edge
• Pelican’s Perch
• The Pilot’s Lounge
• Brainteasers
• Company Profile
• Flying Media Offers
• Question of the Week
• Reader Mail
• Short Final
• This Month In Aviation Consumer Magazine
• This Month In IFR Magazine
• Farnborough
• HAI Heli Expo
• Social Flight
• Sun ‘N Fun
• Women in Aviation
• Accidents/NTSB
• Aeromedical
• FAA and Regs
• Flight Planning
• Flight Schools
• Flight Tracking
• Flight Training
• Flight Universities
• Instrument Flight
• Learn to Fly
• Probable Cause
• Proficiency
• Risk Management
• Accessories and Consummables
• Aircraft Upgrades
• Equipment Reviews
• Maintenance
• Refurb of the Month
• The Savvy Aviator
• Tires/Brakes
• Used Aircraft Guide Digest
• Electronic Flight Bag
• Engine Monitors
• Portable Nav/Comm
• Specifications
• Sign in / Join
• Register Now
• Customer Service
• Reset Password

• Sign up for AVweb Flash
• Read AVweb Flash
• Aviation Publications
• Contact AVweb

Starliner Crewed Launch Scrubbed

Joby Completes Pre-Production Flight Testing, Eyes Air Certification For Electric Air…

LSA-Based Exploding Drones Used In Attacks On Russia

Archer Reports Success With Battery-Pack Drop Testing

Talk Like A Pirate Pilot

A California Mom May Tip The Fuel Battle Scales

Guest Blog: Beloved Late Southwest President Colleen Barrett Led With Heart

NATA’s Hard Line Complicates Fuel Quest

Featured Video: A Tribute To Bud Anderson

Picture Of The Week, May 17, 2024

Best Of The Web: Washington Flyby

Best Of The Web: Pure Power

Short Final: Seeing The Light

Short Final: Quick Avionics Upgrade

Short Final: Better-Than-Passing Grade

Short Final: Student Workout

NTSB: Rule Violation Contributed To Fatal Midair Collision At EAA AirVenture

Alaskan Instructor Wins Martha King Scholarship

Sun ‘n Fun 2024: Bose A30 Headset

Sun ‘n Fun 2024: Garmin VHF Radios

FAA Corrects United: Restrictions Still In Place

Passenger Killed In Turbulence On Singapore Flight

Bipartisan FAA Reauthorization Act Signed Into Law

VP Racing Responds To Fuel Suitability Comments

California Pilots Urged To Contact Senators Over Leaded Fuel Ban

Citizens Group Targets EAGLE Co-Chair And NATA Head Castagna

Court Action Looms Over California Unleaded Fuel Availability

Unjammable ‘Quantum Navigation’ Tested in U.K.

ForeFlight Introduces Reported Turbulence Map

uAvionix Gets FAA Airport Surface Situational Awareness Contract

• features_old

Used Aircraft Guide: Cessna R182 Skylane

Fast enough for a retract with reasonable fuel consumption. payload and range make up for any sins..

Live the likes of new-age airplane companies like Cirrus and Diamond one thing: They have resisted the overwhelming urge to fit their airplanes with folding gear. But manufacturers of the 1960s and 1970s had no such resistance, including Cessna when it added retractable gear to the venerable 182. Was the effort worth it? It did add about 15 knots of cruise speed without too much of a hit in fuel burn. But it also introduced a complex, maintenance-hungry gear

system that owners say will work acceptably well if looked after. Owners generally like the airplane and it sold well initially from its introduction in 1978 until the bottom dropped out in the early 1980s. By 1986, the model was gone, along with the rest of Cessnas piston production. Model History Cessna introduced the R182 Skylane RG in 1978, making almost 600 of them that year. The total run, including the turbocharged version, would reach 2032 through 1986, when a mere nine were built before Cessna took a powder from the single-engine market. Thats not many airplanes compared to all the M20 Mooneys or Bonanzas out there, so the choice on the used market isnt as wide as with straight-leg Skylanes. Prices of the newest models hover around the $100,000 mark. To create the model, Cessna took the popular 182 and gave it a variation of the folding electro-hydraulic gear used on the 200-HP Cardinal RG, which had been introduced two years before. The R182 II Skylane RG (thats the correct type designation, not 182RG) got a bigger Lycoming than the 182s 230-HP Continental O-470; the retractable came with the Lycoming O-540-J3C5D, which required adding four inches to the length of the cowling. The turbo option was offered on the 1979 model, when Cessna first began building the line with integral fuel tanks instead of those troublesome bladders, which leaked and trapped water in wrinkles. The integral tank never needs resealing or repair. Some 727 R182s and TR182s or TurboR182 IIs were built that year. Fewer than half that number were built during the 1980 model year and the total fell off each year thereafter. Aside from the switch from bladders after 1978, Cessna made only minor changes in the airplane through its eight-year run. The alternator and over-voltage sensor were swapped for an alternator control unit and the high-voltage warning light was switched to a low-voltage light in 1979. The next year a new latch and pin system was introduced to reduce the notoriously drafty fit of the doors-there are two on the Skylane, which is as celebrated for its ease of entry and loading as it is reviled (or patiently accepted) for its so-called “gappy” Cessna construction and fit. In 1980, an avionics cooling fan became standard and the oil cooler was relocated from the left forward baffle to the firewall. Also, the battery was moved from the firewall to the less hostile environment of the tail cone, where access is also easier. A new muffler for better cabin heating, especially in the rear seats, addressed another Skylane complaint.

(Photo: Marc Ulm.)

In 1983, Cessna replaced the amber gear-up light, which stayed on if the gear did not lock down, with a red gear-in-transit light, which stayed on whenever the gear motor was running. With the gear tucked up, the Skylane will build up speed when the nose drops. It helps that the first 10 degrees of flaps can extend at 140 knots. In 1983, Cessna beefed up the flaps further so they can be lowered to 20 degrees at up to 120 knots. The wing root ventilators were redesigned in 1980, but they are known for getting loose with age, spraying water into the cockpit in rain and popping open all by themselves. Duct tape over the wing inlets is the standard field solution. Skylane windshields also tend to leak and the R/TR182 is no exception. The only solution that works is removing the windshield and resealing it. Watch for shops that use silicone sealant instead of the proper felt stripping. Windshields expand and contract; hardened silicone does not. The R/TR182 has no main gear doors. But it does have nosegear doors and early on they occasionally caught the cowling skin and got stuck. A 1983 redesign addressed the problem. In 1984, the airplane got new composite fuel caps and rear-seat shoulder harnesses as standard equipment. Dual controls became standard instead of optional that year, but whos seen any single-control Skylane RGs around? Performance The Skylane retractable is a solid cross-country airplane with a 150-knot cruise commonly reported at a fuel burn of 12 to 14 GPH. With its 88-gallon usable standard tanks (on 1979 and later models), it can go far. Its range and its 1200- to 1300-pound useful load give it lots of flexibility as a good hauler. Those big tanks, which provide better range than early Mooneys and Bonanzas, leave less of a useful load than a 250-HP Piper Comanche with full tanks-but that comparison doesnt do justice to the airplanes flexibility. With full fuel, four FAA grownups can go on a long trip-close to 1000 miles-and share a single overnight bag. Fly with less fuel and you can carry just about anything you can fit into the airplane and still fly for hours. Weve said it before and cant resist saying it again: Your bladder cant last as long as the fuel supply when you cruise an R182 at lower power settings, say 55 to 60 percent. Another big attraction is that the R182, with its big, fat wing, big flaps, high flap extension speeds and good prop clearance, is just as handy getting into and out of smaller airports and rougher fields as it is keeping up the speed on the ILS into a Class Bravo airport, even as it drops full flaps at the last minute and gets out of the way at the first turnoff. Try that in a Mooney. A few owners do complain, however, that because the tires on the RG are smaller and inflated to higher pressures than those on the fixed-gear Skylane, it can be a little squirrelly in crosswinds and harder to control on the runway. Its 235 horses also take some pilots by surprise when they pour on the coal: A Mooney or Arrow pilot used to 200 HP might be surprised by the left-turning tendency of the Skylane RG at full power and high pitch. These traits, and the heaviness of the elevator, may explain a number of runway and go-around crack-ups over the years. Comparisons are not made between the R182 and the Bonanza, which pilots do not consider a lower-priced choice in the used market. So Aviation Consumer a few years ago conducted a side-by-side flyoff between the R182 and a 201. It found the R182 had the better climb rate and more dexterity getting into and out of a variety of airports. The Cessna hauled more, both in weight and volume, and was a little faster than the sleek 201, but of course at 20 to 40 percent more gallons per hour. The turbocharged version is significantly faster after its easy climb into the low teens, where it can achieve 165 knots TAS and more at higher altitudes. The normally aspirated R182 climbs well, too, with 1000 FPM typical at lower altitudes at gross weight and standard temperature. The turbo, its adoring pilots have told us, will lope up to FL 200 at 1000 FPM the whole way up. Handling, Cabin In the air, the 182RG is a gentle, forgiving beast with a solid ride and feel. An Avcon writer used it to practice airwork for his CFI certificate and found it gentler than a 172, unwilling to bite even in a fully cross-controlled stall. Still, it requires some skill to fly well. It is not a feet-on-the-floor airplane like the Cherokee and its derivatives.

(Photo: Gustavo Carujo.)

Pilots who dont use as much rudder to help roll out of a turn as they used rolling in will wallow all over the sky. (They never seem to notice how far the ball slid outside the cage.) The RG likewise needs nimble and firm rudder work on and near the runway to keep the nose straight on takeoff and in crosswinds. Most notorious is the heavy elevator feel, something youd expect pulling back on a DC-3 yoke. The heavy pitch and the Skylanes brick-like descent rate with full flaps and gear out-something youd expect of the Space Shuttle-have led to a fair number of hard landings and runway loss-of-control accidents. Dont try to land power-off with full flaps; the timing of the roundout and flare will be so critical as to invite a hit or a drop. Keep some power in. Watch out especially for forward-CG landings, with full fuel and only two aboard in the front seats. And before buying a used Skylane RG, check the logs, gear and the firewall carefully for evidence of damage. The Skylane cabin is famously roomy and easy to access with a wide door on each side and windows that open on both, in most models. The baggage door is low to the ground and convenient. That big box of a cabin, however, flexes and the door and windshield fit can get sloppy over the years. That makes for drafts and water leaks. The original seats are okay except for their cheesy plastic and fabric. They are adjustable in height and seatback angle with lots of parts and pieces. Watch out for broken adjusters as well as worn seat tracks, the subject of a well-known AD affecting many Cessna singles. Maintenance A look at the past Service Difficulty Reports confirms that landing gear malfunctions and problems continue to top the list of R/RT182 maintenance woes. Out of 73 SDRs submitted between 2000 and 2010, 20 percent had to do with sheared bolts, failed downlock pins, cracked pivot assemblies, stuck doors and the like in the gear system, a figure consistent with the last time we looked. Owners who wrote us recently had no serious complaints about the gear. Pilots who know how to avoid hard landings, we suspect, probably have landing gear systems that work just fine (as long as a previous owners mistakes have been properly repaired). The next most common issues found in the SDRs were engine issues of various sorts, including worn or stuck valves, magneto woes and carburetor trouble. This pattern hasnt changed much over the years. Other complaints over the years have included instrument lights that flicker out, leaks around the windshield and wing root, turbos leaking oil, shearing vacuum pump drive shafts, poorly aligned aileron hinge cotter key holes, failing Bendix starters, cracked exhaust stacks and worn alternator mount bolts. Be aware that in the past, the RT182 had more than its share of bugaboos. Recent history and owner comments suggest, however, that at least some of the old RG problems have been ironed out. There have been no ADs specific to the RG series in recent years. Mods, Owner Group The Cessna Pilots Association is a great source of information for all Cessna owners. A membership is $55. Visit www.cessna.org to sign up. AOPAs member section (www.aopa.org/) has a great summary of the hundreds of mods available for the Skylane, some of which can be applied to the RG series, including kits for drag reduction, STOL performance, replacement tanks, and caps for the 1978 bladders, and caps and backup vacuum and electrical systems. Well-respected speed mods come from Horton STOLcraft in Wellington, Kansas (800-835-2051 and www.hortonstackdoor.com) and Knots 2U, Ltd. of Burlington, Wisconsin (262-763-5100, www.knots2u.com). If there are still RGs out there with the old bladders, Monarch Air and Development, Inc. in Oakland, Oregon, has the fix (541-459-2056, www.airsport.com). Reader Feedback The Paramus Flying Club has owned and operated a 1979 Cessna 182 RG since 2003. The members collectively log around 200 hours a year on this aircraft. Despite its higher cost, a handful of members prefer this aircraft to all others in the fleet. They cite its speed, its power and the safety margin that that provides, and its versatility as primary factors. With retractable gear, the 182RG is a full 15 knots faster than our fixed-gear 182. And with 88-gallon tanks and 1200 pounds-plus useful load, this is indeed a very versatile aircraft. Members also note the intangibles-one pilot noted the “unmistakable growl coming from under the cowl” while another opined that somehow “this feels more like a real plane-maybe its the raising and lowering of the gear.” As might be expected, control forces are much heavier than a Cessna 172. Proper trim is critical to flying this aircraft well. And executing maneuvers where trim adjustment is not practical, or go arounds with the airplane set to landing trim, require quite a bit of muscle. As with all Cessna 182s, the RG feels nose heavy, especially in the flare, which can lead to bounced landings or worse if one is not careful. On the plus side, the inertia of the heavier aircraft makes for a more pleasant ride and a better instrument platform. Members also note that the 182RG makes a great training platform for those looking to move up to bigger and faster complex aircraft. The cost of annual inspections have been consistently around $4500 to $5000 over the last five years. We allow for an additional $6000 to $8000 per year for other maintenance-oil changes, 100-hour inspections, the inevitable repairs and so on. Insurance is expensive but still possible to get even in a club environment, although it does come with experience, training and currency requirements. On the plus side, time in the 182RG has made it easier for some of our members moving up to bigger aircraft to get insurance. Overall, the operating cost for the aircraft is about $145 per tach hour–$70 for gas and oil changes, $50 for maintenance (excluding annual), and $25 for reserves (engine overhaul at TBO, paint, etc.). As might be expected of an aircraft of this vintage, there have been a number of maintenance issues. Like many 182s, ours drains the left tank first even with the fuel switch set to both. The transponder had to be relocated-proximity to the heat

vent ducting was causing it to overheat and malfunction. A persistent nose-gear shimmy was ultimately traced to a faulty nose gear bungee, which was in turn damaging the rivets holding the nose gear assembly. Left unrepaired, this could have resulted in a nose gear collapse. (We corrected this, but only after a number of expensive false starts, which included a shimmy-damper replacement which may not have been necessary.) Most seriously, the aircraft began leaking exhaust into the cabin, tripping CO monitors on several occasions. After a lengthy investigation involving two shops, the problem was remedied. However, why the problem suddenly developed was never explained. Finally, the factory original autopilot has been inop for a while now, and will need to be replaced. Nevertheless, our 182RG has been a rock solid and predictable performer, taking on whatever our members can throw at it-from local weekend getaways, to commercial certificate training, and long-haul cross country trips. It even went to help out in the relief effort in Haiti, where it performed like a champ in the warm tropical environment ferrying personnel and supplies over the 10,000 foot Central Range of Hispaniola. Tomoharu Nishino, Paramus Flying Club In 1981, I sold my Cessna 172 and purchased a 1978 Cessna 182RG for $36,000 so I could fly IFR for business travel, and until recently, I never found reason to trade up (that is 29 years in the same airplane!). Now my use is primarily family travel and a 182RG fits the mission because it carries 780 pounds with full fuel. I can fly my family of four with lots of luggage, or two couples with light baggage. With the backseat removed, the cargo area is impressive with a nearly flat floor stretching from the front seats to the baggage compartment. Ive carried firewood, bags of crawfish, sculpture, industrial test equipment and a small surfboard. Two passenger doors are a bit high and awkward for the uninitiated, but this arrangement is still much better than walking on the wing. Plus the high wings provide a roof for loading in the rain. The aircraft typically flies 150 to 155 KTAS at 4000 to 6000 feet and 140 to 145 KTAS at 10,000 to 12,000 feet. Ive been up briefly to 14,000 feet, but it gets pretty sloppy. At 70 percent power, fuel consumption is 12 to 13 GPH at 50 degrees rich of peak. The fuel bladders were replaced when they were about 10 years old, but Ive had no leaks since then. Fuel capacity is adequate for the size of my personal bladder. I plan maximum 4.7-hour legs. Dispatch reliability has been very good, with only one trip postponed due to an oil leak in the cabin on departure because of a hole in the oil pressure gauge line (that was exciting). I usually put it in the shop for repairs once or twice a year. Annual inspections run from $2100 to $3000 (up from $500 in 1982). Repair and maintenance costs average $2100 per year over the last eight years. The original engine went to 2000 hours TBO without a top overhaul or any other major work. The overhaul (1992) cost was $15,500, including engine balance, battery, prop, carburetor, exhaust system, magneto, fuel pump and vacuum pump. Im on the second engine and it looks likely to go the distance, too, despite spending a lot of time in the hangar for a few years. Im a born skeptic, but in 2001, I installed a plug to let me use an IES DeSulfator battery conditioner whenever the airplane is in the hangar. The result is that the life of the pricey 24-volt batteries has improved two- or three-fold. Now Im a believer. I had to pump the gear down by hand once and that was fixed simply by replacing the hydraulic pump motor brushes. Parts are readily available except for one 30-day delay for a Cessna made to order hydraulic line. The airplane is a stable IFR platform and a few inadvertent and scary encounters with ice yielded no bad handling characteristics. The plastic interior trim is painfully fragile when it gets old, but replacement is not a big deal. Insurance cost is about $1200/year for $1 million liability, $100,000/passenger, $91,000 hull. In summary, this model provides a respectable speed, good reliability and impressive cabin load capacity for a reasonable acquisition cost. More important, operation costs are reasonable. It does not have the snazzy look of a Bonanza, Arrow, or Mooney, but for my money, it provides the best value on the performance vs. cost curve. If a general aviation plane can be called practical, this is the one. Marc McDaniel, Via e-mail I have been the owner of a 1978 Cessna R182 for 40 months as of February 2011. I have been pleased with the selection of the R182. First, it handles big and tall people well. I am seven-feet tall and over 270 pounds. It has great head and shoulder room for the front row. It has very good load-hauling capacity. I almost never have to worry about weight and balance.

My expenses for maintenance the first year were $7724, second year $6198 and third year $5270. These maintenance costs include my annuals, which alone are about $2800. These numbers do not include an engine reserve. My insurance for this fourth year will be $1357 for $1 million/$100,000 with a hull value of $115,000. I have 558 hours total and 471 hours in the R182. I upgraded to a Garmin 530W, GTX330, Century NSD360 HSI and digital encoder, and plan to do more upgrades over the next several years. The R182 flies well. It does not taxi well, probably due in part to its relatively small tires. But I did not buy an airplane to drive. The small tires make it harder to steer than many singles, but you get used to it. I have a Horton STOL kit, so my stall speed dirty can be as low as 37 knots. At first, the nose-heaviness was something to get used to, as I had a harder time “slicking” my landings. But now, its almost second nature. It had two gear-up landings before I bought it, by the first owner, but you would never know, except for the documentation. My R182 had a factory remanufactured Lycoming O-540 with just 65 hours on it when I bought it. I use Aeroshell 80W in the winter with a pint of ASL Camguard, and Aeroshell 100W in the summer, also with Camguard. Due to its short/soft field performance, I enjoy visiting many grass landing strips. My R182 is on its fourth prop control cable since 1978. Its not a major expense, but its about one new prop control cable every eight years. Thats too frequent. Cessna had me file a Product Condition Report. I have not heard a response. They claimed it had nothing to do with the fact my cable passes near the engine exhausts, which I hear can melt the Teflon coating inside the cable. Cessna has an updated design which re-routes the cable over the top of the engine and not below it, which they say is just an ease of operation concern. Its three times the cost. If my new prop cable cant make it more than 10 years, Ill get the MacFarlane part or switch to the new service kit. For my R182, parts availability is wide. Membership in a club like Cessna Pilots Association is a must. The parts locators and resources connected on this website are invaluable. Todd Fuller, Charlotte, North Carolina I bought a 1981 TR182 in 2006. After five years of ownership, I have concluded that this aircraft is the best tricycle 100 series Cessna has ever built. I was fortunate to buy from a gentleman who put it in perfect condition before I bought it, making my ownership experience very economical. Changing the oil and filter on this model is very easy and can be done by removing just the passengers side upper cowl. An owner can change the oil and filter in jig time, since the filter and oil drain are so accessible. Annuals and associated minor repairs inevitably found at each annual have been $2000 or less, not including my optional upgrades. Insurance for a hull value of $130,000, hangared, has been about $1200 per year. The gear has been absolutely trouble free. Gear-related expenses have been zero. The first upgrade I added was a JPI engine monitor with TIT and fuel flow. It is the singular most valuable and important upgrade I have ever done and critical for proper operation of this bird, in my opinion. I quickly found out that my CHTs were way too high due to old and partially functioning baffles. Replacement of all my flexible baffles solved this problem along with a modification of the metal baffle on number 1, which took that hot cylinder from hottest to fourth warmest. I have gone through the ignition system, IRANed the mags, checked resistance in the wiring harness and replaced the coiled spark plug leads on all six cylinders, plus replaced all the plugs with new Unison massives. After this maintenance, my cruise fuel flow was reduced by 1.5 GPH for the same speed. I cruise at 60 to 65 percent power setting with the prop pulled back to the bottom of the green, leaned to peak TIT or, when conditions permit, 10 degrees lean of peak. This yields 150-knots at a fuel flow of 10.5 GPH at 9500 to 11,500 feet. This gives you an amazing (no reserve) range of about 1300 statute miles on 88 gallons of usable fuel. Leaning to best power at the same altitudes gives speeds of 165 knots with higher fuel burns. TR182s have factory-installed oxygen systems which make high-altitude cruising a convenient matter of just plugging into the overhead oxygen ports. This ship will cruise over 20,000 feet at 200 MPH. My bird has a useful load of 1100 pounds, so with full fuel, two adults and two kids, plus some bags, we can get half-way across the country. The TR182s are factory turbonormalized, possibly the first turbonormalized factory set up in the industry at the time. The TR versions were only produced from 1979 to 1986, so they are more rare than fixed-gear 182s of the same vintage. The turbo setup is simple. The wastegate is manual with a straightforward mechanical linkage which needs minimum maintenance-mostly lubing, but it does require the pilot to understand and be aware how it works. The POH does not explain proper operation well. Any owner should join the Cessna Pilots Association to learn more about the proper operation of this capable aircraft. Its too bad Cessna doesnt bring this excellent design back into current production. It is a versatile, economical and fast strutted-Cessna with a trouble-free gear system. Virtually every A&P can work on it. Maintenance, insurance and operating costs are very economical for a retract. I think I may just keep mine forever. J. Hurst, Tahoe City, California I have owned my 1978 R182 for six years and 850 hours now. In my opinion, there is no better GA aircraft built by Cessna and may even be the best all-around airplane in the fleet. The airplane has been reliable, reasonably fast, economical, roomy, stable, virtually immune to loading out of CG and can carry a serious load. With full fuel (74 gallons) I can carry 800 pounds in the cabin at 150 to 155 knots on 13 GPH. I used to have a 180-HP 172 and on a trip, the R182 uses the same amount of fuel, but arrives much faster and more comfortably. The landing gear has had a bad rap in the past, but properly maintained it is great. There are only two hoses in the gear system and the rest is hard piped. The actuators get rebuilt every six years, which consists of replacing O-rings and seals and flushing the hydraulic fluid. Properly maintained, the system is as trouble free as any retract. The engine is the reliable O-540 rated at 235 HP and with proper maintenance on the engine will easily go to TBO. There is room in the cabin for four people and the comfort is better than most GA airplanes. Two doors helps entry and exit from the plane. It is a great IFR platform and heavy on the controls, especially pitch. It is not unusual for me to leave North Carolina, fly to Pennsylvania or Georgia for a business meeting, and return in time for dinner at home. It is a great traveling machine. This airplane is not as numerous as others in the fleet and will compare well to Mooneys, Comanche 260s and Bonanzas. With the current values of these airplanes, they are a true bargain in the market. Mark Shilling, via e-mail

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Log in or Register to leave a comment

AVweb Insider

Featured video.

• Privacy Policy

• Accessories
• Maintenance
• Used Aircraft Guide
• Industry News
• Free Newsletter
• Digital Issues
• Reset Password
• Customer Service
• Free Enewsletter
• Pay My Bill

Retract Step-Ups: Pre-201 Mooneys and Cessna 182RG

Plenty of choices if you want an entry-level retractable. pre-201 mooneys and the cessna 182rg are top picks..

While unloading the family Archer, you watch the hangar neighbor casually lift his gear legs before turning out of the pattern. Turning back to your fixed landing gear, you feel something inside tell you its time to step up to retracts. Its okay; your Archer will understand. The step-up doesnt have to be traumatic but plan on at least $35,000 to get anything serviceable and $50,000 and up for an airframe with decent numbers and good equipment. For this survey, our goal is a modest, first-time step up; non-turbocharged and cheaper than $100,000. Our sampler includes: The Piper Arrow, Beechcraft Sierra, Cessna RGs and the pre-201 Mooneys. All have good factory support despite various bankruptcies, lawsuits, pestilence and plague so none are the kiss of death. Yes, there are respectable and often cheaper alternatives, such as Navions, Comanches or Bellancas. But we don’t see these as practical for the first-time buyer. Parts can be a problem and you’ll need specialty mechanics to understand antiquated gear systems, such as in the Navions or the wooden wings of Bellancas. Other retracts, such as the Trinidad or Commander 114, are valid picks, too, but will easily top the $100,000 mark. The 200 HP Rockwell Commander 112, with its checkered history, is a roomy possibility, but relatively few were made and performance numbers are pathetic. Older 35-series Bonanzas are also a possibility, but we’ll examine those in a subsequent article on mid-priced step-ups. For space reasons, we have to draw the line somewhere and thats it. For now, think complex with less complexity, because buying too much airplane is the easiest way to kill the joy of stepping up. Speed and Performance Most of our choices have 200 HP engines. Tossing in the 235 HP Cessna 182RG may be comparing apples to cantaloupe, but its the only way Cessna gets to compete with Mooney and, in the retractable fruit salad, speed is what its all about. If speed is the overriding consideration, the Mooneys top the list. For this analysis, the oldest we would consider is the 1961 M20B or Mark 21, with a 180 HP Lycoming. That model sold we’ll and this begat the M20C, probably the most common of the pre-201 Mooneys. After 1968 its called the Ranger. Cruise at 75 percent yields about 150 knots. Most owners cruise more conservatively and report 130 to 140 knots on 9 GPH. The M20E or Super 21 came along later. Its also called the Chaparral and combines the M20C fuselage with a fuel-injected IO-360, 200 HP Lycoming. Its fairly quick at 160 knots (75 percent power) but the pax wanted more leg room, so Mooney stretched the M20E by 10 inches and the M20F Executive was born. This ones a keeper and its popularity has driven used prices through the roof. Its turns in 155 knots at 75 percent but owners report closer to 140 knots at lower power settings. Not content to leave we’ll enough alone, Mooney took the 200 HP Executive, reduced the horsepower to 180 and produced the sluggish (147 knots at 75 percent) but comfortable M20G Statesman. A caveat from the grain-of-salt department: Speeds on all these aircraft vary depending upon a myriad of factors, such as where the CG is or, more important, how we’ll the airplane is rigged. The prospective buyer need only take a GPS aloft for an hour to learn the truth. Cessnas Keeping pace with the Mooney F-model is the strutted Cessna 182RG, a reminder that its relatively easy to go faster by harnessing more horses. Built between 1978 and 1986, the 182 RG has a Lycoming O-540, de-rated to 235 HP, an engine that loves to run at 75 percent power without breaking a sweat. Owners consistently report cruise speeds of 147 knots at 65 percent power. Unlike Piper manuals, one owner told us (he also flies an Arrow II), the Skylanes manual approaches reality. For something cheaper in a Cessna retract, a svelte and strutless Cardinal RG (177RG) is a possibility, but not a fast one. It cruises around 140 knots depending whos telling the story; 130 knots might be more realistic at 65 percent power. Passing mention goes to the wallflower 172RG Cutlass. For what youd pay for a good 200 HP Arrow, you get a 180 HP 172 with expensive landing gear thats 8 knots slower than a Cardinal RG. don’t bother if speed is important. Workaday Arrows Jockeying for position with the Cardinal RGs are the Piper Arrows; never glamorous but always dependable. We recommend the pre-T-tail 200 HP selection. The Arrow II (PA-28R-200) with its constant chord (aka Hershey Bar) wing cruises at 144 knots at 75 percent or 140 knots at 65 percent power. In 1977 Piper converted to the semi-tapered wing Arrow III (PA-28R-201), which produced little change in speed. Either way, figure cruise speeds 10 to 15 knots behind the Mooney M20F, closer to the Cardinal RGs and definitely ahead of the thoroughly unglamorous Sierra. Beechcrafts Sierra Beechcraft apparently interviewed a bunch of Studebaker owners and came away convinced that the future would be in slow, dowdy machinery. The resultant Sierra A24R and B24R models are doggy, but a well-rigged C24R might give 130 knots at 65 percent power. All Sierras have 200 HP Lycoming IO-360s and should be considered semi-retractable because the wheels don’t tuck completely into the wing wells. The C24R added wheel well fairings and a longer propeller. The speed race finishes with a tie between the Mooney M20E and the Cessna 182 RG. Clustered in the middle are the Arrow II and III and Cessna 177RG with the Sierra bringing up the rear. However, speed doesnt mean much if you cant carry what you want. Payload In comparing airplanes, useful load numbers alone can be misleading, as some aircraft have CG limits that restrict placing all the weight where you want when you want. Most of these models have fairly wide CG ranges which adds to their appeal as step-up aircraft. Bonanzas and 172RGs, by contrast, get tricky with aft CG limits that can bite the uninformed. Built for comfort and not for speed, the Beech Sierra is roomy, a bit noisy but hauls a respectable load. The older models (A24R) with the smaller tanks have useful loads of 1140 pounds. The newer B and C24Rs have bigger fuel tanks but C models saw useful load shrink to 1065 pounds. With full fuel, that still leaves more than 700 pounds, enough to carry four 170 pound adults plus 25 pounds of baggage. If your definition of utility in our price range includes going a little faster while still getting the serum through, then back we go to the Cessna 182RG. Or, as owners love to say (although never on a ramp check) …if you can close the doors and the nosewheels still on the ground, itll carry it. Such bravado is backed up by numbers. The 1979 182RG we visited had a useful load of 1231 pounds. Top the tanks with 88 gallons (528 pounds) and there’s 703 pounds remaining. Skylane RGs are routinely operated over gross and with very few complaints from the survivors. Take only 50 gallons of fuel and you can, indeed, take off with just about anything thatll fit. For much less money than the bigger Cessna, the Cardinal RG offers Cessna comfort, shade in the summer and the biggest passenger doors in general aviation. As a bonus, you’ll get an ugly plastic interior (Royalite). With a smaller engine than the 182 RG, the Cardinal RG still carries a useful load in the neighborhood of 1100 pounds. Top off with 60 gallons (post 1972) and the book says it will accommodate four 170-pound adults and a few personal belongings. Caution tells us this may be pressing the limits on warm days. Mooneys go fast because there isn’t much dragging in the wind and the M20F offers a good combination of speed, range and Mooneyesque comfort, which is to say noisy and somewhat cramped. Of all the pre-201 models, the M20F has the highest useful load at 1100 pounds. With 64 gallons of fuel, it can carry three people and bags or four people and no bags. Not too shabby for a go fast airplane but shy of the Cessna 182RG. Piper Arrow useful loads are respectable with 1130 pounds for both the 1976 fat wing Arrow II and the 1977 Arrow III. A generous baggage area holds 200 pounds. Filling the Arrow IIIs 72-gallon fuel tanks may eat into your baggage capacity but even so, a fully fueled Arrow III still has nearly 700 pounds of payload. The champion load carrier is the Cessna 182RG. It has surplus fuel so you can easily offload gas in favor of payload, without suffering too much range penalty. Range, Endurance Speaking of which, how far can these things fly on a typical mission? The six-cylinder 235 HP Cessna 182RG drinks 11 to 13 GPH. With 88 gallons useable in two integral tanks, the 1979 and later models get six hours plus reserve endurance. The 1978s had smaller bladder tanks for pilots with smaller bladders. The Mooney M20F burns 8 to 10 GPH and carries 64 gallons, 12 more than the slightly faster M20E. Burning less per hour than the 182RG, the Executive needs less fuel for the same endurance as the bigger Cessna. With similar cruise speeds, they fly about the same distance. The Mooney is just cheaper. The 1976 fat wing Piper Arrow II has a useable fuel load of 48 gallons. At 9 GPH, thats almost five hours plus reserve. In 1977, when Piper tapered the wing, they added another 24 gallons of fuel.

All Cardinal RGs came from the factory with the 200 HP Lycoming. Buyers have two fuel options: The 1971 and 1972 models hold 50 gallons; after that the fuel load was upped to 60 gallons, giving endurance similar to the Arrow IIs. Catching up is the venerable Sierra. From the first model in 1970 (A24R) through the gussied up C24R that closed out the line in 1983, the Sierra has sported the 200 HP Lycoming with minor mods. In 1977, when the B24R changed to a C24R, the fuel load was increased from 52 gallons to 57 gallons. At 9 GPH, figure six hours to dry tanks. The endurance test shapes up with Mooney M20F and the Cessna 182RG running even, with the Cessna burning more but carrying more to burn. The Arrow IIIs arent far behind. The field opens up a bit with the Sierras, Cardinals and fat wing Arrows in the rear. Your mileage may vary. Our pick is the Mooney for pure range, the Cessna for best combination of range and payload. Joy Of Flight None of our picks stand out as sporty and none are particularly tricky to fly, although the Cessna 182 RG is heavy in pitch and Sierra can be a stinker on landing. Unless there’s weight in the back, it has a tendency to arrive nose first. Speed control is the secret. Approach too fast and it floats; hold it off too long and it drops hard. But the Sierra makes up for this shortcoming by delightful control balance in the air, as is typical of most Beech designs. A bit heavier on the controls but easier to land is the Arrow. Its a forgiving airplane for the fixed gear pilot, especially a Cherokee pilot making the transition. Thats why Arrows remain a popular training airplane; flying one is all but bulletproof. Compared to the fat wing Arrow II, the semi-tapered wing on the Arrow III should make for the better instrument platform but, frankly, either wing is fine. don’t let that Hershey Bar wing scare you, although you do have to watch for sinkfests if you get slow on final. It flies nicely and with the money saved over the newer model, you can buy an autopilot or an HSI. Some pilots consider Mooneys to have sports car-like handling but owners know different. Compared to the Sierra or Arrow, theyre stiff in roll but relatively light in pitch. Not unpleasant, mind you, but not ideal either. Mooneys arent easy to slow down; descents need to be planned we’ll in advance and this may require educating ATC to your needs. The slam dunk on a cold day doesnt cut it. The Sierra, 182 RG and Arrows have gear extension speeds close to cruise speed so the gear becomes a very effective speed brake. Not so in the Mooney. In terms of cabin size, comfort and visibility, the Cessna probably leads the pack or ties with the Sierra. The Cessnas side visibility is blocked somewhat by low window frames and although the high instrument panel also limits forward vis, you can see whats ahead we’ll enough. The cabin is comfortably wide and heat and ventilation are adequate, despite drafty cabins. The Sierra is, if anything, the low-wing equivalent, with a large windshield for good forward vis. Owners rate the cabin comfort as high, with a good heat and ventilation and tight door fits that minimize drafts. The pre-201 Mooneys drag up the rear on creature comforts and even the 201s arent much better. Theyre awkward to get in and out of and the windshield feels more like a welders mask. Spotting traffic at 12 oclock high requires considerable leaning into the glass. Side visibility is better but not great. Although the cabin is reasonably wide, its shape tends to force occupants into shoulder-to-shoulder intimacy. If youre a wide load 250-pounder with a mate to match, the Mooney wont be a good choice. In the joy-of-flight category, we rate the airplanes in this order: Sierra, Cessna, Mooney and Arrow. In cabin comfort, they rate about the same, except the Mooney is dead last. Systems, Maintenance System-wise, there’s weird and there’s simple and the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. The Cessna is probably the most conventional, with cable control circuitry and systems largely similar to the dirt-simple 172. However, compared to other models, the landing gear has been plagued with numerous failures and, occasionally chronic repair problems. Owners willing to pay for routine preventative maintenance on the gear, however, say its design is not a showstopper. Just don’t go cheap on inspection and repairs. Similarly, the Sierra has had its share of landing gear problems; hydraulic leaks, cracked yokes, broken rod ends on actuators and so on. Again, these shortcomings yield to careful maintenance but they will add to downtime and expense. And Beech parts can be ruinously expensive. In terms of basic systems, pre-201 Mooneys are quite similar to current production models. Basic construction is monocoque over a welded steel cage around the cabin, with push-pull tubes for controls. Some oddities stand out: Most of the early models have manual gear and hydraulic flaps, although some have been converted to electric gear. Like the Arrows flap handle, the manual gear is simple and reliable, but can be a knuckle basher for the uninitiated. Also, the Johnson bar takes up a little floor space. But the gear itself-whether electric or manual-is almost trouble free.

Pre-201 Mooneys also have something called Positive Control, a full-time, vacuum-driven wing lever with a pull-to-disable trigger on the yoke. Lots of these systems are permanently disabled because they soak up maintenance dollars. Since the Piper Arrow is a Cherokee, it has the same simple and unremarkable systems, with the exception of the electric/hydraulic gear. Again, this has proven to be a trouble spot, especially the automatic extension system that has its own pitot system to sense airspeed and slap the gear down automatically if the pilot is about to land with the wheels in the well. At one point, Piper ordered the auto-extend system deactivated due to concerns about liability but later withdrew the order, leaving pilots to fend for themselves. (The auto-extend can be manually overridden.) Overall, then, in this group, are there any standout hangar queens? Not really. The Cessnas and Sierra will require attention to the gear but are otherwise benign in terms of unusual or expensive ADs. Watch out for buying a tapped out Sierra that needs a lot of expensive Beech repair parts, however. The Arrow is commonplace and parts are both available and reasonably priced, with few expensive gotchas. Again, watch the gear maintenance. Mooneys are virtually bulletproof in the landing gear department-with the exception of nose trusses damaged by aggressive towing. But two biggies to watch for are leaky gas tanks-an expensive fix-and corrosion in the 4130 tubing structure, an even more expensive repair. In general, the Lycoming engines are off-the-shelf common with a few Airworthiness Directives. If youre leaning toward the 180 HP Lycomings, heads up for AD 98-2-8, which requires inspection of the crankshaft bore for corrosion. Replacing one is a major expense. Recently overhauled Lycs of all sizes are subject to a piston pin AD 97-15-11, although that may be deleted in the near future. Chances are any retractable gear airplane thats been around awhile has had a brush with a gear-up accident, so scour the log books for entries that casually mention the replacement of belly parts and propeller blades. The abbreviation NDH in an ad means, No Damage History (recorded). Parts cost is where you’ll see some variation between brands. Cessna, Piper and Mooney parts are almost reasonable in an airplane sense, although Mooney recently announced substantial price hikes. Anything with the Beechcraft logo, whether it goes into a King Air or a Skipper, will be eye-popping expensive at times. The Sierra bears that Beech crest and that family is dang proud of all their parts. Overall, in the maintenance area then, a dead heat. All of these airplanes have warts but none would scare us from buying them. Safety We reviewed fatal accidents dating back to 1995. Most accidents can be labeled pilot error, or, too much airplane for too little pilot. This includes everything from buzzing the family picnic in an Arrow only to hit the power lines, to navigating through mountainous terrain at night only to slam into, guess what? The terrain. Arrow pilots led the field in impacting terrain. Terrain always wins. To get full utilization out of the complex airplane, instrument competence is in order. Extra radios will eat into useful load, but the benefit of operating IFR should avoid the senseless continued VFR into IFR accident scenario which was the biggest killer of Mooney pilots. Once youve mastered the machine, youre almost home free. In-flight breakups for all these models are rare. Overall, the all metal Mooneys have hardly any break-ups and none in the last few years. Arrows had two; one related to thunderstorms and the other to spatial disorientation in haze. The Cessna 182 RG with its beefy wing struts looks like it could never pull apart and has a good record to match with only one fatal accident in our three-year survey, that from a VFR pilot who lost control on his third go-around and stalled and spun in. Looking at the Cardinal RG strutless wings, however, you might expect it to be a bit flimsy. Yet like the Mooney, it has a good safety record when it comes to important parts staying attached in rough air. Only two fatal Cardinal RG reports turned up. One was midair in France and the other VFR-into-IMC in thunderstorms. It should be noted that despite the thunderstorms, that one didnt break up until it hit the ground. The Sierra cant be pulled apart with a bulldozer but, wow, can pilots find ways to make bad landings, none fatal. The lone deadly Sierra report was a low-time CFI doing a rapid pull-up on departure and unintentionally demonstrating a departure stall/spin. Pilot error. The Arrows safety record is mixed. Stay out of mountainsides and thunderstorms and the airframes hold up well. Unsuccessful forced landings claimed four Arrows since 1995 and one unusual accident involved a CFI stepping off the front of the wing into a spinning prop. Interestingly, VFR-into-IMC accidents werent a problem with Arrow drivers, perhaps because theyre used so frequently as trainers. With automatic gear extension on older Arrows, youd think there would be no gear-up landings, but Arrow pilots seemed to make just as many as anyone else, many with collusion from a flight instructor whod disconnected the system for training. As for minor incidents, soft fields are an unfriendly environment for Mooneys, due to the low stance. Dinged props and bent gear doors arent unusual. Cessnas are we’ll suited for short field duty with their high wings and big flaps. Those wasplike Cessna gear legs and tiny tires, however, don’t appear up to a rough surface. The Sierra comes in a bit fast for short fields but its gear can handle the rougher surfaces. The Arrow handles either reasonably we’ll but neither superbly. Its best to keep them all on the pavement. Your insurance company might make the same request. Pick One Whats the best pick here? Depends on your mission but using our highly developed Aviation Consumer decision matrix, we see two best picks: Either the Mooney series or the Cessna 182RG. The Arrow, Sierra and Cessna 177RG are certainly worthy airplanes but in the final analysis, none stand out as being fast, good load haulers or cheap to fly. (The Cardinal is good looking and the Sierra comfortable but is that enough? Your call.) With cross-country speed in mind without regard to comfort or load hauling, the Mooney M20F is hard to beat, even though used prices have risen recently. The Cessna 182RG is the heavy hauler, but its prices are also inching into the classier neighborhoods. After that, the Arrows are the most well-rounded choice, particularly if you have training in mind, followed by the Cardinal and Sierra, especially if the price is right on any of these three. Also With This Article Click here to view the Retractable Comparisons . Click here to view the Retracts Price Guide . -by Paul Berge Paul Berge is a CFII and editor of Aviation Consumers sister magazine, IFR.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Four-Place STOL: Look Beyond Macho

Cessna Pressurized 210

Fly It for Less: Slow Down, Partner Up

Featured video.

Garmin GNS 430: Throwaway or Keeper?

• Online Account Activation
• Privacy Policy
• Aircraft For Sale