My father is thinking it's time to sell the Mooney and get in his "last airplane". He's got a grass strip at the house and a nice hanger. A 182 is the perfect choice for his situation and mission. The question is, does he buy a legacy 182 (no older than a Q) and build exactly what he wants (IO550) or pick up a newer Lycoming 182. He needs/wants the higher horsepower, so I'm in favor of a legacy big engine 182. What sayeth the brain trust?

why the limit to the Q ? most of them are heavier

When it comes to old airplanes, its condition, condition, condition. Flown regularly. With at least most of the features you want.

It’s not just money, 550’s are hard to get. Figure a year. So if you bought an airplane with a runout engine, you better be able to keep flying it while you gather all the parts.

It’s a funny time.

I do think there will be a lot of people selling nice airplanes in the next 12 months.

You could build a legacy 182 just like he wants for way less money than the new one costs which comes with a base price of $653K. The new one is turbocharged with a TIO 540 not a 550. If you found a nice legacy 182 for say $150K and spent another $250K on it you'd have a really nice bird for way less money.

Dave

Don’t forget to add a ‘chute!

If you want big engine for short strips, and have the funds, a King Katmai 182 conversion would be a dream airplane for the role.

The newer 182s don't have more power, so there's no real advantage to getting one unless he likes the newer appointments and avionics. The trade off is a higher empty weight.

Can he fly a standard 182 while he waits for a 550 to be available?

It will be a better deal if he finds someone a few years further down the road than he is and they have gone overboard upgrading their airplane and now it's time to hang it up. Even though the price is going to seem high it's still a lot cheaper than having it all done yourself. Especially now.

I wouldn't limit which model. Personally I love early 182s. I like the 40 degrees of manual flaps. If you find someone that has completely re-done one of those they are a blast to fly. Being able to land that slow makes the airplane very flexible, especially if he has his own strip.

I'm not a huge fan of the TIO-540 Lycoming in the new 182s. (The only TIO-540 that I like is the -AF1B that Lycoming modified for the Mooney Bravo. With the oil-cooled wet-heads they make it to TBO if they are flown correctly)

Cessna 180 or 185 is better at that if tailwheel is an option.

I had a Cessna 1780B with 180 HP and CS prop. Tons of fun and could operate from 1000 ft strips.

182s have somewhat delicate nose gear, common issue is firewall damage from someone landing too fast or on rough strips. If you don't have a nose gear, no problem and less weight.


I would go older.

I flew in a 182 with an engine upgrade and it did 155 knots. That was very impressive to me.

Might want to look for airplanes which can run on mogas or UL94 fuel given the looming issues with 100LL. This almost always favors the older airplanes.

Mike C.

I have a 74 P that I am finishing up repairing some fairly light damage from a landing over run. It has a beautiful new leather interior and a 31.5 hr factory reman. It is a little light on avionics. It will be on the market in a month or so. If interested PM me.

Man I love BeechTalk. I posted this and then ran out the door for a quick flight to KRAS to pick up my daughter. Came back to lots of great comments. I was told on my way to the airport (by a buddy with a Q) the same thing about the P. I'm good with that.

Tailwheel would totally be no problem for him. He loves them. He has a Husky A1B in the hanger now. The mission is to retire out of the Mooney before insurance quits on him. He'll be 73 in September. He's insured with me on the 421, but I know that's coming to an end soon. We've also got some youngsters about to start training and my wife wants some co-pilot training. That takes the tailwheel out of the profile. The 182 will serve us all very well.

We've had a few 540's over the years and they were great, in their application. How reliable is this 540? I've only seen one HP upgrade on the newer models to 260hp IIRC. Again, my preference is a light bird with a IO550.

Lance - I agree, it's always cheaper to let someone else build their dream setup versus doing it yourself. However in this situation, he has the time (retired and healthy) and other aircraft to fly while he waits. And if it's in fact his last airplane, I don't think he cares if it cost more to build exactly what he wants.

Mike C.- I've heard of people seeing 155 knots. That's good enough to not miss the Ovation too much.

Mike M. - You're so right about condition. Dad has owned about 50 different aircraft in his flying career (that list is fun to talk about). We've certainly learned the condition lesson the hard way a few times. Fun fact. I love to tell people he's typed in both Albatross aircraft. The Grumman and the Aero Vodochody. I would think that's pretty rare.

Bob - As much as I hate to say it, a chute will probably give his wife peace of mind. (I wouldn't do it. Co-pilot training is my pref) When he croaks flying his wife to a horse show, I want her to save the airplane!!!

The 182Q is a sweet spot in Europe as the Reims built were zinc chromate corrosion proofed. They also have the wing cuff.

I have a fair amount of time in the Lycoming 182T and they are quite heavy, coming in at around 2,100 lbs empty, and with a tendency to be more nose heavy than the earlier types. Good comfortable seating, relatively noisy cockpit despite three blade propeller and lower max RPM.

An important consideration is the introduction of the wet wing in 1979. The bladder fuel system from earlier version is starting to generate some wing spar corrosion issues and is being monitored by maintenance and regulators.

My opinion is that a legacy post 1979 182Q or 182R with excellent history may be the ideal candidate.

FWIW I flew a restart (Lyc) turbo 182 for about 1600 hours. Lots of time on small (<1600') grass strips and it performed very well. Happy to answer any questions about the restart version, many more experts on the legacy ones here.

It’s a question that we will all come to someday. Hang it up, or get a more docile, easier to fly plane, or at least one that has a lower likelihood of making a large smoking hole in somebody’s house.

I don’t like the Cessna 182. It just feels old, hard to get in, and it feels like looking out a periscope through the windshield. If your dad doesn’t need the weight lifting capabilities of a 182, or the impressive short field capabilities, but he likes power, then I might suggest the fixed gear Cessna Cardinal with a 200 hp Lycoming. Not the RG… the fixed gear plane with the IO-360 from the RG.

For one thing, it’s easy for an old guy to get in and out of. So easy, in fact, that folks with disabilities prefer them. It flies very nicely. They are still relatively cheap, with a loyal group of owners. Mostly well supported, as any Cessna might be.

But the new ones have cup holders!