KLRDMD Posted December 8, 2018 Report Share Posted December 8, 2018 11 hours ago, Andy95W said: I'm still with @steingar about the 182. It's not better than a Mooney, but it is a great airplane in its own, different way. -It's about as fast as a Piper Arrow -It can carry a crapload of stuff -It's about as easy to fly as a 172 with about the same insurance rates -When it comes time for a PPI, you don't have to look for a Mooney specific A&P. I'm pretty sure my mother could work on a 182. -It's engine is as bulletproof as the O-360, more reliable than the IO-360, and smoother than both of them -If you get bored, you can swap out the wheels for floats or skis -You can land it on a sandbar in Alaska or an insane mountain side airstrip in Idaho -Your wives will never call it cramped and uncomfortable 182s are good airplanes, but they are what they are. I've had two of 'em over the years. Always felt safe in them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midlifeflyer Posted December 8, 2018 Report Share Posted December 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Hank said: Hey, now! Don't drag politics into our nice airplane discussion! I wish it was limited to politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browncbr1 Posted December 8, 2018 Report Share Posted December 8, 2018 This is starting to sound like a Ford vs. Chevy debate. 182’s ain’t nuthin but Ford juuuuuunk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor05121 Posted December 8, 2018 Report Share Posted December 8, 2018 I got mine in a 182. IIRC it was 0.7 and three laps around the pattern. I got it because I plan to do jump ops once I get my commercial and some require 182 checkout 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skydvrboy Posted December 9, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2018 I’ve never flown a 182. How fast do they fly on 8 gallons an hour? My F does about 165 mph at that fuel flow. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted December 9, 2018 Report Share Posted December 9, 2018 13 hours ago, skydvrboy said: I’ve never flown a 182. How fast do they fly on 8 gallons an hour? My F does about 165 mph at that fuel flow. Probably a nice fast taxi . . . . My one flight in a 182 didn't include fuel flow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted December 9, 2018 Report Share Posted December 9, 2018 13 hours ago, skydvrboy said: I’ve never flown a 182. How fast do they fly on 8 gallons an hour? My F does about 165 mph at that fuel flow. How well does an F model take off and land in 650 ft at gross weight ? A Mooney and a 182 are different airplanes for different missions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy95W Posted December 9, 2018 Report Share Posted December 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, KLRDMD said: How well does an F model take off and land in 650 ft at gross weight ? A Mooney and a 182 are different airplanes for different missions. Or how well does the F takeoff and land on a river sandbar in Alaska? Tundra tires on the F might get stuck in the gear wells. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertGary1 Posted December 9, 2018 Report Share Posted December 9, 2018 I’ve got a ton of hours teaching in 182’s and 206’s. They’re wonderful for instruction because they are super dosile in stalls and have no challenging landing characteristics. Unlike a Mooney, if the student gets it too slow over the fense it doesn’t drop jn. Just mushes down to the runway. -Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsxrpilot Posted December 10, 2018 Report Share Posted December 10, 2018 10 hours ago, KLRDMD said: How well does an F model take off and land in 650 ft at gross weight ? A Mooney and a 182 are different airplanes for different missions. Your point is well taken of course. But gross weight is misleading. When I'm comparing airplanes, I compare the available payload with enough fuel on board to go a given distance. For example a 182 has a listed range of 550 miles with full fuel in standard tanks. With a typical UL of 1190 lbs and full fuel of 65 gal. it has a payload of 800 lbs. The M20F will have a typical UL of 1100 lbs and would only need about 40 gal of gas to go the same 550 miles with reserves (maybe less). This gives it a payload of 860 lbs. Or it could do the same trip as the Cessna but 60 lbs under gross. It still won't takeoff or land as short and doesn't like gravel bars in the river. But the M20F is no slouch when it comes to hauling a full load off of a typical hard surface runway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midlifeflyer Posted December 10, 2018 Report Share Posted December 10, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, gsxrpilot said: Your point is well taken of course. But gross weight is misleading. When I'm comparing airplanes, I compare the available payload with enough fuel on board to go a given distance. For example a 182 has a listed range of 550 miles with full fuel in standard tanks. With a typical UL of 1190 lbs and full fuel of 65 gal. it has a payload of 800 lbs. Funny. I have about 160 hours in at least 8 182 variants and don't recall even one with "standard" tanks. Edited December 10, 2018 by midlifeflyer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted December 10, 2018 Report Share Posted December 10, 2018 On 12/9/2018 at 9:48 AM, Andy95W said: Or how well does the F takeoff and land on a river sandbar in Alaska? Tundra tires on the F might get stuck in the gear wells. Check out piperpainter's videos on youtube. But then again, he went back-country flying with his tailwheel & tundra tire friends in an M20-C, not an F . . . . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy95W Posted December 10, 2018 Report Share Posted December 10, 2018 I've seen the videos, they're very impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsxrpilot Posted December 10, 2018 Report Share Posted December 10, 2018 5 hours ago, midlifeflyer said: Funny. I have about 160 hours in at least 8 182 variants and don't recall even one with "standard" tanks. That would make sense... they drink a lot of gas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midlifeflyer Posted December 10, 2018 Report Share Posted December 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said: That would make sense... they drink a lot of gas Most everything drinks a lot more gas than a Mooney. But that's why their missions are different. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n961jk Posted December 13, 2018 Report Share Posted December 13, 2018 On 12/7/2018 at 3:10 PM, steingar said: The Skylane is I think the best overall GA airplane ever made by anyone. It is the only one I've ever heard of that will fly with the seats and the tanks full. It'll happily land and blast out of short fields, but still moves at near Mooney speeds. Not for me, I like my Mooney. But they are impressive aircraft, and I've nothing bad to say about them. My 76F will fly with 4 average size adults and full tanks @ Mooney speeds and Mooney fuel burns of 9 to 10 gallon hr. For 6 hours. Unfortunately when I am flying i count for 1.5 adults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n961jk Posted December 13, 2018 Report Share Posted December 13, 2018 On 12/9/2018 at 10:40 AM, KLRDMD said: How well does an F model take off and land in 650 ft at gross weight ? A Mooney and a 182 are different airplanes for different missions. Does that 650 ft runway have trees at both ends? Then the 182 wont make it out of that field at gross weight. Positive you wouldn't land it at gross weight in that distance either with the obstacles. Ground Roll: 620 ft Over 50 ft obstacle: 1020 ft for a 230HP 182. So these numbers are impressive and the 182 is a good plane. Mooney's are just better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskytango Posted December 13, 2018 Report Share Posted December 13, 2018 On 12/10/2018 at 8:44 AM, bluehighwayflyer said: I don't have tons of hours teaching in 182s and 206s, but I do have a few hundred hours flying them. Both are absolute pussycats in the air and the 206 is, too, on the ground, but I personally find the retractable R182 to be a surprisingly challenging airplane to land well, much more so that the Mooney, and especially with a full 40 degrees of flaps. The R182 has really small diameter high pressure main gear tires and a heavy nose and can humble you. Its "just" a 182, after all. But back to the which-is-better discussion at hand. I prefer blondes, FWIW. Jim I bought a TR182 after my first 231 K model had an engine failure and I had to land on a street (Ms. Whiskey Tango refused to fly in the K after the engine was repaired). I agree that landing a TR182 was tricky compared to a straight leg 182. The TR182 is certainly a capable airplane, but I found it boring to fly compared to a Mooney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted December 14, 2018 Report Share Posted December 14, 2018 3 hours ago, n961jk said: Mooney's are just better. No, Mooneys are just different. I've owned four Mooneys and two 182s so I have some experience with both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.