cessna 182 cruise speed

• Search forums

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

• Pilot's Lounge
• Hangar Talk

Cessna 182 speed and fuel burn

• Thread starter cass-cove
• Start date Sep 3, 2014

Filing Flight Plan

• Sep 3, 2014

I recently bought a 1975 C182P. It has a zero timed engine with only 190 hours on it. It runs great and seems to have loads of power for what it is. I found another thread on fuel burn for the 182: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61014 which was helpful and interesting but did not quite answer my questions. I have been monitoring my fuel burn fairly closely. I'm doing a lot of touch and goes, climbing and descending and short flights so I would assume my burn would be a bit higher, but found that I am consistently burning 10.5 to 11.5 GPH. That is all fine, but I am really confused about speed/performance. My plane seems to be flying very slow compared to the speed I should be flying based on the cruise performance chart. I have tried flying at various altitudes and numerous MP and RPM combinations but it seems that basically no what I do, the plane will not fly over 115 knts (this is all for carefully trimmed level flight in smooth air). I have typically tried to fly at various MP/RPM settings which would give me around 60% HP, which should give me approximately 130kts. These settings along with my recorded fuel burn fall right in line to give me the 130kts in the charts, but my plane just cruises at 110 and will not go over about 115kts in smooth and level flight. I thought possibly the IAS was incorrect, but I have checked it against my foreflight speed (then calculating for a tail/head or cross wind) and IAS and foreflight are nearly exactly the same. Always getting the 110kts on IAS and about the same on foreflight. I have made sure my cowls are closed (which seem to affect speed by maybe 2 or 3kts), that I'm trimmed properly, numerous experiments with EGT (which I normally set to about 50ROP), etc. etc. My thoughts on what is going on (because I do think my airspeed indicator is correct): 1. MP gauge is incorrect so I'm flying at a significantly lower MP that I think I am (a user on the forum I linked above wrote: " I was at 8500ft, wide open throttle at 21mp, 2300 rpm". When I am at that altitude and if I did the same settings, I would probably only be at half throttle) 2. Very old ADF/GPS and possibly a couple other antennas have been added over the years. This seems like very limited drag but could this be affecting speed? Given all my setting experiments (EGT, RPM, MP, trim, Cowl, etc) and average fuel burn of about 11, everything I'm doing supports IAS of 130kts, but I'm not getting that. Why????? Ideas, thoughts, etc. would be very most appreciated! Thank you!!!  

MooneyDriver78

Check your POH for what the numbers are suppose to be at 8000', go up and set the RPM to 2400 or whatever RPM(s) is listed in the table for 8000', go full throttle, compare to POH: MP, FF, airspeed... you will need to adjust altitude if not standard conditions.  

poadeleted20

130 KTAS on under 11 gph is not happening with a 182. The fuel burn you're seeing is appropriate for a lower speed, and a higher speed would result in a higher fuel burn. You need to go back and check the calibration on all the instruments and systems involved, including MP, tach, fuel flow gauge, airspeed indicator, and pitot and static systems.  

Administrator

I have the POH for a 182R that I used to fly, and the cruise airspeeds given are true, not indicated. I can't imagine it'd be different for yours. 115 IAS is about 130 TAS at 8000' PA, which at least in the ballpark. It's not really the same plane, but for the record, the 21" and 2300 RPM show 138 KTAS and 12.1 gph at 8000' PA and standard temp.  

Pre-takeoff checklist

I regularly see 142-143 knots true airspeed. I am top of the green at 7500 (maybe a little lower mp, throttle firewalled). I burn about 15gal per hour in a 1979 182Q that is a couple hundred hours past TBO. Jim  

Ejection Handle Pulled

cass-cove said: I recently bought a 1975 C182P. It has a zero timed engine with only 190 hours on it. It runs great and seems to have loads of power for what it is. I found another thread on fuel burn for the 182: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61014 which was helpful and interesting but did not quite answer my questions. I have been monitoring my fuel burn fairly closely. I'm doing a lot of touch and goes, climbing and descending and short flights so I would assume my burn would be a bit higher, but found that I am consistently burning 10.5 to 11.5 GPH. That is all fine, but I am really confused about speed/performance. My plane seems to be flying very slow compared to the speed I should be flying based on the cruise performance chart. I have tried flying at various altitudes and numerous MP and RPM combinations but it seems that basically no what I do, the plane will not fly over 115 knts (this is all for carefully trimmed level flight in smooth air). I have typically tried to fly at various MP/RPM settings which would give me around 60% HP, which should give me approximately 130kts. These settings along with my recorded fuel burn fall right in line to give me the 130kts in the charts, but my plane just cruises at 110 and will not go over about 115kts in smooth and level flight. I thought possibly the IAS was incorrect, but I have checked it against my foreflight speed (then calculating for a tail/head or cross wind) and IAS and foreflight are nearly exactly the same. Always getting the 110kts on IAS and about the same on foreflight. I have made sure my cowls are closed (which seem to affect speed by maybe 2 or 3kts), that I'm trimmed properly, numerous experiments with EGT (which I normally set to about 50ROP), etc. etc. My thoughts on what is going on (because I do think my airspeed indicator is correct): 1. MP gauge is incorrect so I'm flying at a significantly lower MP that I think I am (a user on the forum I linked above wrote: " I was at 8500ft, wide open throttle at 21mp, 2300 rpm". When I am at that altitude and if I did the same settings, I would probably only be at half throttle) 2. Very old ADF/GPS and possibly a couple other antennas have been added over the years. This seems like very limited drag but could this be affecting speed? Given all my setting experiments (EGT, RPM, MP, trim, Cowl, etc) and average fuel burn of about 11, everything I'm doing supports IAS of 130kts, but I'm not getting that. Why????? Ideas, thoughts, etc. would be very most appreciated! Thank you!!! Click to expand...

Topper said: I regularly see 142-143 knots true airspeed. I am top of the green at 7500 (maybe a little lower mp, throttle firewalled). I burn about 15gal per hour in a 1979 182Q that is a couple hundred hours past TBO. Jim Click to expand...

AggieMike88

Touchdown greaser.

cass-cove said: Jim: this is helpful. What is your RPM? I can hit top of green at about 1/2 to 2/3 throttle . It's starting to feel like my MP gauge is inaccurate. Click to expand...

What Ron said in post #3. If that doesn't work you may have a rigging problem. Wings out of proper rig will slow you down. Link to a shop that does rigging. That may give a better explanation. http://www.cessnarigging.com/  

AggieMike88 said: I fly a 1975 C182P. Cass; you might need to qualify the quoted statement with what altitude you're at when you are "top of green at 1/2 to 2/3 throttle" to helps understand what you see. Click to expand...

Norman said: What Ron said in post #3. If that doesn't work you may have a rigging problem. Wings out of proper rig will slow you down. Link to a shop that does rigging. That may give a better explanation. http://www.cessnarigging.com/ Click to expand...

cass-cove said: Jim: this is helpful. What is your RPM? I can hit top of green at about 1/2 to 2/3 throttle. It's starting to feel like my MP gauge is inaccurate. Click to expand...

cass-cove said: Jim: this is helpful. What is your RPM? I can hit top of green at about 1/2 to 2/3 throttle. It's starting to feel like my MP gauge is inaccurate . Click to expand...

Topper said: The rpm stays at the top around 2450. Mp is 26-26 on take off Click to expand...

Ron Levy said: Unless you're flying from an airport at 4000 MSL or so, that's way too low for full throttle MP on takeoff. At SL, you should be pulling right near 30 inches, and 1 inch less for every 1000 feet above that. If you're not seeing that, something's wrong somewhere. Click to expand...

• Sep 4, 2014

AggieMike88 said: I know of John and his work. And his shop is in my home area. There is good reason he has earned the nomiker "The Cessna Whisperer" Click to expand...

Jeff Oslick

Final approach.

The main problem here is the OP's lack of conversion from IAS to TAS. No wheel pants also costs speed, don't know what the OP has going on there. Bad flap and flight control rigging can cost a couple knots too.  

Pattern Altitude

Ron Levy said: 130 KTAS on under 11 gph is not happening with a 182. Click to expand...

Jeff Oslick said: The main problem here is the OP's lack of conversion from IAS to TAS. No wheel pants also costs speed, don't know what the OP has going on there. Bad flap and flight control rigging can cost a couple knots too. Click to expand...

denverpilot

Ours averages 11.5 GPH over four years mostly at altitudes above 8500. We are a little slower than most 182s with stall fences on top a droop tips. No 182 I've ever flown makes Cessna book numbers. Usually 2-4 knots slower. Ours is 5. The tach is the first thing I'd check. Easy to do with a sodium light at the airport at night. 60 Hz. Pick a speed divisible by 60. See if the prop looks like it stopped in the light.  

• Sep 5, 2014

denverpilot said: No 182 I've ever flown makes Cessna book numbers. Click to expand...

Jeff Oslick said: I have done it many, many times. I've flown many times in the 12,000' to 14,000' range leaned out to as low as 9.2 gph at 13,500' getting 137 KTAS. Pretty close to standard temps. This is in Pponk (275 hp) 182. A little lower burning a little more fuel in a stock 182 and getting 135 KTAS is not a problem at all. Once you're above 10,000, just lean it out, you can't hurt anything running lean at that low a power setting. Click to expand...

onwards said: I averaged ~140KT Click to expand...

rednksurfer

• Nov 22, 2015

the above posts are all wrong and do not take into account the RB factor. If you will go to the prop and grasp both sides of the prop, pull about 5 inches you will be able to turn the prop while it is disengaged from the gear and that will allow you to wind the big rubber band tighter for a much faster flight experience. Jim  

Jeff Oslick said: After new paint, fairings and a rigging job we did get book numbers when we still had the stock O-470U engine. Click to expand...

Taxi to Parking

Far too many factors to address without inspecting the plane and flying it.  

Just a comment - pattern work always has a lower fuel burn than cruise. Borrow someones GPS, even a car or sport GPS, and see what your ground speed is compared to IAS and then calculate what your TAS should be. Do runs with the wind, against the wind, and across the wind. Also get the wind data for that time from the nearest reporting station. You can calculate your TAS with those numbers and get an idea if your ASI is correct. MP gauge should match the reported barometer setting at the airport - with the engine off.. If it is close on the ground it is more likely than not it is close in the air. If you have an airplane portable GPS you can look at the GPS altitude offset while on the ground against your altimeter - and then do the same at various altitudes in flight and quickly determine if the altimeter is right. At that point only your tachometer needs checking - and as the guys point out a mercury or incandescent light at night will tell you that. Now fuel burn - are you filling the plane and calculating it against watch time - or taking it off the fuel flow meter? The only accurate way is a full tank. Take off on the other tank, switch in the air, do a timed run on the test tank, switch back, land and refill the test tank.  

I trued out at 139 knots today at 9,500 on a cold day burning 11.5 GPH over the 12 hours to Vegas and back ... Which is pretty standard for our 182 P model with the STOL kit and a bit of drag from the stall fences on top.  

P.S. that's flogging it for all its worth at 9500 with WOT and 2450 RPM, "top of the green" even though the green is generally meaningless on the 182P.  

denverpilot said: P.S. that's flogging it for all its worth at 9500 with WOT and 2450 RPM, "top of the green" even though the green is generally meaningless on the 182P. Click to expand...

• Nov 23, 2015

Henning said: You can fly a 182 WOT and Max RPM all day and never flog it. The 182 engines, either of them, are seriously derated engines. Click to expand...

Jim Rosenow

Line up and wait.

AggieMike88 said: I fly a 1975 C182P. FYI; keep this in mind if the price to replace or overhaul your MP/Tach gets up there in price: http://buy-ei.com/portfolio/cgr-30p-overview/ Our club just got a very economical quote from a local avionics shop to install this into our 182P. Covers lots of features we want/need and does it in one very useful package. Click to expand...

Toss the wimpy nose wheel off, and gain 5 knots to any of the claims above. Cessna 180. Too bad you can't buy a new one. Someone should STC a nose wheel removal on the "new" 182.  

kgruber said: Toss the wimpy nose wheel off, and gain 5 knots to any of the claims above. Cessna 180. Too bad you can't buy a new one. Someone should STC a nose wheel removal on the "new" 182. Click to expand...

Jim Rosenow said: Apologies for hijacking the thread, but are you willing to put a ballpark figure on 'very economical'? Thanks! Jim Click to expand...

James331 said: All straight tail 182s should do that. Click to expand...

.

• Forgot your password?
• Forgot your username?

Flying the Cessna 182

Former 182 owner and longtime A&P/IA Steve Ells offers many practical suggestions for operating a Cessna Skylane in this last “leg” of his four-part series on the 182.

“The pilot is no more than the manager of this tool and its champion. The pilot is the inspiration for flight and the airplane is the vehicle.” —Richard Coffey,  “The Skylane Pilots Companion”

The Cessna 182 is a damn fine airplane. I owned N777LJ, a 1966 Cessna 182J, for about four years. 

While the recommendations in this article may vary (at times, widely) from those written in both the engine and airframe manufacturer’s manual and handbooks, I wrote them based on my own experiences, the experiences of other very seasoned pilots and owner-operators, the writings of Richard Coffey in “The Skylane Pilots Companion” and John Schwaner in “Sky Ranch Engineering Manual,” the research of trained specialists, and suggestions from experienced C-182 owner and pilot Mike Jesch.

Weight and balance

Although 182s have wide CG envelopes and can carry a pretty good load, they all tend to be nose-heavy. Always be aware of the possibility of an out-of-limits forward CG, especially after any engine upgrade and when taking off with full fuel and big folks in the front seats. 

In early models (before 1965), it was not uncommon to run out of up elevator power in the flare for landing; this resulted in touching down nosewheel first, which, if rough enough, would result in a bent firewall. In 1965, Cessna extended the horizontal stabilizer and elevator span by 10 inches.

I, being a mechanic and a man that believes “if you have it with you, it won’t be needed,” always tied down my 60-pound toolbox in the baggage compartment, especially when I was flying by myself. 

I never ran out of elevator, and was always comforted by having my tools available—although I can’t remember ever needing them during my 182 time. 

It’s wise to create an airplane-specific checklist that better reflects the equipment installed on your airplane. For instance, if aftermarket speed brakes have been installed, a pre-takeoff operational check is not on the Cessna checklist in the owner’s manual or POH. 

Every engine has a “sweet spot” oil level. After some experimentation, I found that the sweet spot for oil was nine quarts in the Continental O-470-R engine in my 182. Any more than that would blow out of the engine breather tube and end up on the belly of the airplane. 

I was very wary of water egress into the bladder-type fuel tanks of my 1966 182. In my opinion, every bladder-equipped Cessna 182 owner must take every step possible to prevent water from entering the fuel tanks. This means replacing the original flush-style fuel caps with either the small Cessna raised flange two-tab caps, or the Monarch-style caps.

If you suspect that water may have gotten into the bladder, don’t hesitate to do what’s commonly known as the “rock-and-roll” preflight. This procedure is detailed in AD 84-10-01R1 and calls for the pilot to lower the tail to within five inches of the ground and move one wing or the other up 10 inches and then down 10 inches a minimum of 12 times. 

This technique is supposed to cause any water to flow to the wing sump drain valve. Drain the sumps before you raise the tail. You’ll need to recruit some help.  (More about Monarch fuel caps and the rock-and-roll procedure can be found in part three of Ells’ series published in the November 2016 issue. —Ed.)

During walkaround, grab the trailing edge of each cowl flap and try to wiggle it. You don’t want much back-and-forth movement since this indicates a worn flap hinge. New cowl flaps are very expensive; cowl flap hinges, not so much. 

Engine management

First off, treat your engine with care. Change the oil at 25- to 35-hour intervals or every four months, whichever comes first. Install a full flow oil filter and change the filter at every oil change. 

It’s been proven that fine wire spark plugs do save a little money in the long run and are more resistant to lead fouling, so if you can afford them, use them. 

An all-cylinder engine monitor is a valuable tool that aids management tasks: when setting power, when leaning, and during engine troubleshooting and problem diagnoses. 

Learn how many primer shots and what amount of throttle it takes to get your big Continental or Lycoming to come to life… gently! Just about the worst thing you can do for either of these two engines is to start them with a power setting that results in the engine roaring; gentle starts are key.

After start, set the power to get 1,000 rpm. That speed will allow for a gradual warm up and get the oil splashing around inside the engine.

After the engine stabilizes, reach over and pull your mixture control out to lean the engine. Pilots who learn to limit excess fuel will reduce the buildup of combustion chamber lead deposits, save fuel and won’t induce rapid combustion chamber temperature changes. 

Partially burned fuel that is pushed past the compression rings into the engine case is one of the causes of sludge and carbon formation.  

Always lean on the ground—idling with a rich mixture is the quickest way to foul spark plugs. That’s because the lead scavenging additive in 100LL is only active at higher combustion temperatures (900° F or higher). Since the additive doesn’t work at lower temperatures, leaning is the only way to reduce lead fouling at lower power settings. 

Continental bulletins advise preheating an engine that has been exposed to air temperatures of 20° F (-6.6° C) or lower. (See Continental service information letter SIL03-1 for more information. —Ed.) 

Lycoming service instruction SI 1505 says preheating is required at temperatures below 10° F (–12° C) except for -76 engines, where the low limits are 20° F (–6.6° C). 

Many pilots believe both of these temperatures are too low, so my advice is to start preheating whenever temperatures drop below 40° F (4.4° C). Preheating reduces wear. As engines age, preheating becomes more important to reduce engine stresses during start.

Pay particular attention to the engine during the first start of the day. If there’s any hiccupping, or if one or more cylinders are slow to pick and start firing, it’s time to check for a sticky exhaust valve. 

A slightly sticking valve needs to be looked at immediately, since a valve that sticks in flight will create a very noisy (read: expensive) and potentially dangerous situation. Sticking valves occur more often in Lycoming engines than Continentals. 

Wait until the oil temperature gets to 100° F (38° C) before doing your pre-takeoff “mag check” runup. It’s perfectly okay to do the mag check with the mixture leaned—you can’t hurt the engine. If it’s too lean, the engine will slowly lose power; just push the mixture in slightly and continue the checks detailed on the checklist. 

There should be an rpm drop-off for each magneto; if there’s no drop-off, it means the magneto is not being grounded during the test and that the mag is “hot” at all times. Do not pull it through by hand if you suspect it’s hot. 

During the propeller governor check, don’t let the rpm drop down more than 100 rpm. This test is to determine if the governor works; a couple of 100 rpm drops is all that’s needed. Do three or four of these small drop tests if the oil is cold.

Please don’t jam the throttle to the firewall at the start of your takeoff run—especially if you’re taking off from a long runway. Cylinder cooling airflow is very slight below 40 mph. It’s good practice to advance the throttle to mag check rpm after brake release, do a final check on engine parameters and, if every indication is in the green, gradually add full power. 

Sometime during the full-power run on the runway or soon after takeoff, look to see where the needle on the dial of the EGT gauge is (or, if you have an engine monitor, what temperature is showing on one of your six cylinders). Make a note about the needle position and/or EGT temp and which cylinder the number is from. 

That needle position or temperature on that same cylinder is your target when leaning before takeoff at a high altitude airport. Once you get used to what it takes to lean to that number, you’ll be able to set the proper takeoff mixture during high altitude takeoffs without the need to conduct a high rpm run up prior to takeoff.

Don’t do partial-throttle takeoffs. The carburetor and fuel injection systems in 182s are designed to provide extra fuel flow while at full throttle to provide cooling and prevent detonation during high power operations.

All of the engines installed in all Cessna 182 models are approved for continuous full power operations. There are no engine operating limitations except for temperature and pressure limits. However, Cessna manuals suggest that power be reduced to approximately 75 percent, 23 inches and 2,400 rpm during cruise climb. Use the power setting you need to fly safely.

Mike Jesch, who flies heavies for a 

living, flies the heck out of his P. Ponk-engine 182. He likes to set 10 degrees of flap for takeoff. He explains that “the rotation and lift off just feel better and more natural to me.” 

Unless noise is a concern, there’s no reason to reduce power soon after takeoff. Most of the noise comes from the propeller so if you need to reduce noise to be a good neighbor, reduce the rpm. 

Check temperatures during climb. Although the engine manufacturers cite very high limits for CHTs (500° F for Lycoming; 460° F for Continental), it can be wise to set 400° F as an upper limit. My recommendation of 400° F is based on research that shows the aluminum used in cylinder heads begins to degrade at temperatures over 400. As I remember, these effects are cumulative.

Tools to reduce and control CHTs are: (1) reduce the angle of climb to increase airflow over the cylinders; (2) open the cowl flaps and (3) and richen the mixture. 

Once at cruise altitude, there are a couple of tricks used by Continental-engine 182 pilots that have proven to better atomize the fuel in the induction system and better mix it with the airflow. This lessens the spread between the leanest and the richest mixtures across all six cylinders as indicated by EGTs. 

The first trick is to add a bit of carburetor heat. Since my 182 came equipped with a carburetor air temperature (CAT) gauge, I pulled the carb heat knob aft until the gauge read 50° F (10° C). 

Jesch, who flies a 182 with an O-470-50 engine modified by P. Ponk, sets his carb heat to 45° F. 

The second trick for the Continental crowd is to pull the throttle aft enough to get it off the full-in position; not enough to reduce manifold pressure (MAP), but enough to make it “twitch” a little bit. This cocks the throttle butterfly and creates a turbulent airflow upstream of the main discharge fuel nozzle, which also aids in fuel/air mixture mixing and distribution. 

Jesch, who flew us to AirVenture and back in 2016, uses a very simple power management plan. The throttle is left wide open (except for the twitch) and rpm is adjusted to the top of the green band. Using this scheme and the two tricks outlined above, he can successfully lean to 11 gph in cruise at 65 percent power. 

Lycoming-powered 182s are all fuel-injected, so these tricks are not applicable. GAMIjectors will reduce the differential between fuels flows across each cylinder. This will let Lycoming owners take full advantage of lean-of-peak mixture settings, if desired. 

According to the manufacturer’s printed bulletins, Continental engines can be leaned to peak EGT at 65 percent power and below; Lycomings at 75 percent power and below. 

Descent and landing

Cessna owner’s manuals and POHs advise pilots to adjust the mixture as needed during descent and to move the mixture control to full rich prior to landing. In my experience, there’s no reason to adjust any control except the throttle during descent. 

As the power is reduced, the prop governor will continue to control prop rpm until the throttle is almost full aft and the manifold pressure is quite low. 

The governor reduces blade pitch to maintain rpm until the blades are in the high rpm position and rest against the low pitch stop in the prop hub. 

This is the correct time to move the prop control to the high rpm position to prepare for final approach, touchdown and a possible go-around. 

This practice lessens noise since the prop is not “revved up” under power, nor do the passengers feel the rpm surge that’s part of pushing the prop control full forward while under power. 

Pushing the mixture to the full rich position prior to let down is not necessary. You’ve set the mixture for cruise power and as you reduce power, the amount of fuel needed for combustion will go down. 

Pushing the mixture forward will dump unneeded fuel into the mixture and cause a rapid change in internal cylinder temperatures. 

Jesch doesn’t like to use full flaps (i.e., 40 degrees) for landing, explaining that it lowers the pitch attitude a bit, and all that extra drag “kind of makes the airframe shake a bit.” He uses 20 degrees for landing. 

The key to spot landings in a 182 is speed control on final. Jesch uses 65 kias. The suggested final approach speed is 1.3 Vso. Most pilots land too fast. 

A second reason to get in the habit of landing with 20 degrees of flaps is because it reduces the number of tasks required to transition from a landing configuration to power-up-and-go settings. 

182s can climb with 40 degrees of flaps, but a 20-degree setting presents sensations and sights that are much closer to a normal takeoff. The last thing anyone needs during a go-around is a new set of sight pictures and performance anomalies. 

The only time you again need full-rich mixture between cruise and touchdown is if you suddenly have to go around. If an airplane unexpectedly pulls onto the runway when you’re on short final, there will be time to advance the mixture and throttle.

Taxiing and refueling

Once on the ground and off the runway, open the cowl flaps, raise the flaps and lean the mixture. By reducing the amount of fuel flowing through the engine on the ground, you’re doing all you can do to reduce lead accumulation on the pistons and exhaust valves. 

Move the fuel selector valve to “left” or “right” when fueling and whenever you park for the night on a ramp, stop for a $100 hamburger or make any other short trip away from the airplane. This simple step prevents fuel from crossfeeding from one tank to the other through the “both” setting on fuel selector valve. 

These are only some of the 182-specific flying tips and tricks. Please take the time to share your favorite 182 flying tip, so we can pass it on to other Cessna Flyer readers. (Visit the forums at CessnaFlyer.org or email your favorite 182 tip to [email protected] . —Ed.)

Finally, I recommend that every Cessna 182 pilot and owner read “The Skylane Pilots Companion” by Richard Coffey. New copies are no longer available but it is available online, and Coffey has given his permission for its free distribution. 

These recommendations are for information only. When attempting new procedures, consider taking along a safety pilot or CFI. 

Steve Ells has been an A&P/IA for 44 years and is a commercial pilot with instrument and multi-engine ratings. Ells also loves utility and bush-style airplanes and operations. He’s a former tech rep and editor for Cessna Pilots Association and served as associate editor for AOPA Pilot until 2008. Ells is the owner of Ells Aviation ( EllsAviation.com ) and lives in Templeton, Calif. with his wife Audrey. Send questions and comments to [email protected] .

Further reading (e-books)

Cold weather ops – manufacturer information

Engine STCs

• 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 182 “SKYLANE”€

By Plane and Pilot Updated January 28, 2016 Save Article

Because of its extra size and power, many consider the 182 Skylane as the best all-round Cessna ever built. The only other fixed-gear four-place airplane that has chalked up more sales is its little brother, the 172 Skyhawk. Using the 180 series airframe, Cessna installed a tricycle landing gear, and the 182 came into being. The deluxe Skylane model appeared in 1958 and, along with most of the Cessna line, the swept vertical fin was added in 1960. The wrap-around rear window and electric flaps were new features in 1962.

With a constant-speed prop in front of a 230-hp Continental engine, the 182 Skylane carries four adults, their luggage, and a full load of fuel at 160 mph for more than 600 miles. A spacious panel provides ample room for installation of full IFR equipment for the instrument-rated owner. The 1969 features included a restyled panel with electro-lummescent lighting and a revised flap control indicator that retained the preselect feature. In 1972, a tubular spring-steel gear was installed on the 182 Skylane, bringing what was formerly a maximum landing weight of 2,800 pounds up to the gross weight of 2,950. Other changes included the addition of cuffed leading edges similar to the Robertson wing; restyled gear fairings, wing root fairings, fuel tank covers, fin tip, and rudder fairings to improve airflow and reduce drag; new stronger wheels and brakes; and optional electric elevator trim.

For 1977, the Skylane made use of a new powerplant that is capable of providing 230 hp at 200 RPMs less than the previous engine. Also, its higher compression ratio makes more efficient use of readily available 100-octane fuel. The Skylane will fly about 52 miles farther than its predecessors. A bonded wing added in 1979 provides an added standard fuel capacity of 12 gallons more than the previous year’s optional longrange tanks, or 1,013 miles at 166 mph compared to 599 miles with the earlier standard tanks. There is also the added benefit of a decrease in unusable fuel.

For 1981, the Skylane was joined by a turbocharged stablemate powered by the same turbocharged 235-hp Lycoming engine found in the Turbo Skylane RG. Both the Skylane and Turbo Skylane now have a 3,100-pound maximum takeoff weight. That gives the normally aspirated Skylane 150 pounds of extra takeoff weight. The Turbo 182 has a top speed of 168 knots and cruises at 158 knots at 75% power and 20,000 feet and 145 knots (167 mph) at 75% power and 10,000 feet. When production of Piper’s Turbo Dakota discontinued, the Turbo Skylane was the only player in its class.

Related Stories

Boeing 737 200–900.

What‘s Going On with Cessna Denali Turboprop?

Daher TBM 940 Achieves Milestone

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

• 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
• Register Now
• Customer Service
• Reset Password

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

LSA-Based Exploding Drones Used In Attacks On Russia

Archer Reports Success With Battery-Pack Drop Testing

Beta Technologies Alia CTOL Impresses At Cape Cod Debut

DoT Inspector General To Audit FAA Efforts On Drone Integration

CEO Of The Cockpit: Master Of My Domain

Sun ‘n Fun 2024: Innovation And Grit

From The Inside, Things Look Even Worse For Air Traffic Control

Going Boeing

Enforcement Action Against Wing Walking Business Goes Over The Top

Picture Of The Week: April 26, 2024

Featured Video: Airthre’s Cabin Oxygen Generator

Picture Of The Week: April 19, 2024

FAA Fit? Wingman Med Backstops

Short Final: Student Workout

Short Final: Mirage Alert

New T-Shirt Line Launched By Aeroswag

Short Final: More Information, Please

Alaskan Instructor Wins Martha King Scholarship

Sun ‘n Fun 2024: Bose A30 Headset

Sun ‘n Fun 2024: Garmin VHF Radios

Sun ‘n Fun 2024: Dynon Unveils 12-Inch Display

C-54 Fuel Transport Down In Alaska (Updated With Video Link)

MOSAIC Final Rule Now Expected In 2025

Swiss Crew Aborts Takeoff For Four Other Planes Crossing JFK Runway

SMS Final Rule Issued

NATA Challenges GAMI’s Assertion Of ‘Commercial Availability’ of G100UL

EAGLE Projects Approval For PAFI Unleaded Fuel In 2025 (Corrected)

Continental Introduces Diesel For Helicopters

Lycoming Says Aromatics In Fuel, Leaning Techniques May Have Caused Valve…

uAvionix Gets FAA Airport Surface Situational Awareness Contract

Sun ‘n Fun 2024: Garmin’s GTN 750Xi Radar Interface

Booking Tool Allows Passengers To Opt Out Of Boeing 737 MAX…

• 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

• About AeroAvion
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Buying Guide
• 2021 Aircraft Selling Guide
• Recommended Gear

Cessna 172 vs Cessna 182 – The Ultimate Buyers Guide

• Aircraft Ownership
• Comparisons

Cessna 172 vs Cessna 182

Just got your pilot’s license, are you in the market to purchase a Cessna but still trying to decide between a Cessna 172 and a Cessna 182?

We have created the ultimate guide to understanding the differences between the two.

Doesn’t matter if this is your first aircraft or your 7th. We try to put the facts down so that you will understand which aircraft is best for your needs.

Cessna 172 “Skyhawk”

The Cessna 172 is considered by many as the most successful aircraft in history. Developed by Cessna, the aircraft took its maiden flight on June 12 th , 1955. It is one of the most popular training platforms in the world. Many aviators started with the 172 which is probably why you are looking to explore or purchase. The company and partners have built more than 50,000 units and it still remains in production today.

The Cessna 172 comes in a variety of models from A-S and including a few military variants. The Cessna has a meaty history with a great reliability record. You can often find one very cheap as they are well maintained. This is often a direct result of so many parts being available for the aircraft as they are produced in mass quantities. 

Often you may here to it referred to as the Skyhawk, Or Cessna 172 Skyhawk as made by its platform.

General Specifications (Cessna 172)

First, we must preface that these specifications are not unique to all variants or models of the Cessna 172. These are just standard specs from the Aircraft POH.

If you are looking to purchase the Cessna 172 or rent you should be glad to know that it is one of the most capable 4-seater aircraft available on the market. The Cessna 172 seats 4, three passengers, and at minimum one crew. 27ft in (8.28 m) length, with a wingspan of about 36 ft (11.00 m), this makes for a pretty sizeable footprint. The aircraft has a height of 8 ft 11 in (2.72 m), which can really be felt when refueling. However, the aircraft has feet holds on each strut enabling easy access to the top wing-mounted fuel tanks.

Interior (Cessna 172)

The interior of the Cessna 172 is fairly standard. Most models can be fitted with a G1000 dual-screen system. However, there are many others that still sport a steam gauge configuration. The main difference between the 172 and the 182 is that you do not have a control for a variable pitch propeller. In the center console, you will see that there is only a throttle and a mixture for adjustment. Other than that, the two are nearly similar in size and shape. The Cessna 172 is the smaller one of the two.

As far as its profile the Cessna 172 has a gross weight of 2,450 lb (1,111 kg) with an empty weight of 1,691 lb. (767 kg). Last but not least the Cessna 172 features a 56-gallon fuel tank which normally has around 50 usable gallons. This is incredibly impressive for its form factor. At around 75% power or around cruise, the aircraft burns at a rate of 8.5 gallons per hour. That’s nearly 6 hours of flight time for you and your family. This can also be extended with various auxiliary fuel tank options available in the Cessna line. Like most Cessna in its class the 172 generally features a Lycoming engine, four cylinder, horizontally opposed aircraft engine.

Performance

As far as the performance, the Cessna 172 does impress. With a cruise speed of 125 kts the aircraft does a great job of getting you where you need efficiently. According to Cessna, the aircraft has a range of 696 nm. (801 mi, 1,289 km) with 45-minute reserve, 55% power, at 12,000 ft. Incredibly, the aircraft has a service ceiling of 13,500 ft which is the upper limits of class E airspace.

Cessna 182 “Skylane”

Featuring the same platform, the Cessna 182 is the ultimate 4-seater aircraft. The Cessna 182 was introduced in 1956 and stands as the second most popular platform in the world following the Cessna 172. The construct is mostly of metal and aluminum alloys allowing the aircraft to keep its durability and rigidity. The most attractive quality of the 182 is its upgrades in terms of usability and features. As you read you will find the aircraft can be fitted with more avionics, larger fuel capacity, and more efficient weight requirements.

Just like the 172 the 182 has nearly 25 variants all ranging from military to complex (with retractable gears). And that’s one of the most appealing things about the 182, increased variety and the same platform as the 172 offerings a plethora of parts and reliability. The newer variants have landing gear retraction, increased fuel economies, with reduced maintenance costs. The 182 is commonly monikered as the Skylane.

General Specifications (Cessna 182)

These specifications are not unique to all variants or models of the Cessna 182. These are just standard specs from the Aircraft POH, Cessna, and AOPA. Most if not all specs listed below are in reference to the Cessna 182T model (latest).

The Cessna 182 is based on the 172 however the most attractive appeal is that it comes in a much larger size variant. The 182 comes in with a length of 29 ft (8.84 m) and a height of 9 ft 4 in (2.84 m). The wingspan is 36 ft (10.97 m) which is the same as the Cessna 172. Just like the Cessna 172 the 182 has roof-mounted fuel tanks. On each strut, there are foot mounts for easy access enabling pilots to refuel with ease.

Interior (Cessna 182)

The interior of the 182 nearly identical, almost indistinguishable. The cabin of the 182 is slightly larger than the 172 however their panel setups can be identical if necessary. The main difference on the console is the added variable propeller shift. Other than that, the 182 often sports a G1000 set up in most that are on the market. However, there are a few with traditional steam gauges if that is what you are more interested in.

In terms of a profile, the 182 has an empty weight of 1,970 lb (894 kg) and a gross weight of 3,100 lb (1,406 kg). Unlike the two-blade propeller of the Cessna 172, one defining characteristic of the 182 is that most models add an additional propeller blade. These propellers are generally powered by a Lycoming four-cylinder, horizontally opposed aircraft engine, similar to most Cessna in this category.

The newer Cessna 182T Skylane features a 92-gallon tank, nearly 20 more gallons than the original 182 and a 40-gallon increase over the Cessna 172. However, the tradeoff is this generally means the fuel consumption takes an increase, the 182 takes at 14 gallons per hour versus the 8 gallons per hour in the Cessna 172.

The 182 is truly the best in its class, the performance is what draws many to purchase. The Cessna 182 has a cruise speed of 145 kts which is a 20 kts increase over its predecessor, offering a more efficient ride. This new cruise speed, in combination with its increased fuel capacity, gives you an excellent range of 930 nm. For reference, 930 nm is about a third of the United States. The service ceiling of the 182 is 18,100 ft (5,500 m), and with new modifications, many equip the aircraft with oxygen systems for such a trip.

The Comparison (Cessna 172 vs. Cessna 182)

Below we have listed 4 models, 2 models for each aircraft. this should give you a scope of what the original model was equipped with, but with also the added capabilities of the latest model..

Disclaimer: Information on this site may not be accurate or current and is not valid for flight planning or any other aircraft operations. No warranty of fitness for any purpose is made or implied. Flight planning or any other aircraft operations should only be done using official technical information provided by the manufacture or FAA.

The Better Buy

Now there are many considerations when purchasing an aircraft in general, but when comparing between these two, these considerations can be narrowed down.  

What Would Your Common Destinations Or Routes Be?

One of the most important questions you can ask is where do I plan to go. If you are looking to travel long cross-country trips that span more than 600 nm, the Cessna 182 would be your better bet. But if you only see yourself traveling distances of under 600 nm then the Cessna 172 would be a better buy. For context, The Cessna 182 has a range of about 930 nm, this is roughly the distance between New York and Florida. In contrast, the Cessna 172 may have to take a fuel stop which depending on your needs could be a lot of wasted time.

In terms of landing characteristics, the two aircraft are very similar, with their landing and take-off lengths only being (at most) a 50 ft-100 ft difference. Even though this may seem small this can be the difference of landing or a detour. 

This means both are fairly versatile in landing at similar destinations.

However, 50-100ft is a large difference when it comes to the runway!

Are There Budget Parameters For Your Purchase?

One of the most universal questions to ask is what are your budget parameters. This can be a huge determining factor when choosing between the Cessna 182 and the Cessna 172. It’s important to understand the extensive financing opportunities or leasing arrangements available to us as pilots.

Generally speaking, you will find the Cessna 182 will outprice the Cessna 172. This is mostly due to the performance increases. An aircraft that can fly higher and faster, but can also increase its utility, has a better value. However, this does not mean anything negative for the 172, as the price to performance ratio is often better than the 182.

Often, we see nearly a $50,000 dollar price difference to the 182/172 category on our site. This is a massive price difference for the performance and one you may have to consider. Is a smoother ride, faster cruise speed, and increased utility worth the cost of $50,000, this is a question you may have to ask yourself in the purchase decision.

AOPA offers an amazing aircraft loan calculator that should give you an idea of where you stand.

Check it out here https://finance.aopa.org/loan-calculator

Here are a couple 172/182 offerings on the market to give you a gauge for price.

2016 cessna t206h.

• Single Engine

1/5 Ownership of Cessna 182P 1974 Great Condition

• New Orleans

1960 Cessna 172A Skyhawk

• Rosehill Cemetery

Many variants of the 182 offer retractable gears or a variable pitch propeller. This is something to factor in to your purchase as the added complexity can increase maintenance and insurance costs. Many aviators know that an aircraft that has a retractable gear operation with often cost more with insurance than one without. These additions often equate to a smoother ride and increased performance, but come with the downside of an increased overall cost. It is worth mentioning that not all models of the 182 offer a retractable gear so choosing one that doesn’t may help in the long run.

If you are looking to buy an aircraft you are probably planning to fly longer trips. This is why it is important to get an aircraft that is comfortable for all your needs. We often find people appreciate the 182 over the 172 due to its increased interior space. Not by much, however, it makes a huge increase in how comfortable the aircraft is for longer periods of time. We suggest sitting in both to understand how it feels based on your size and weight.

Even though this is a variable topic, it is still worth mentioning. Often times you will find both the 172 and the 182 fitted with similar cockpit avionics. However, we find there are more 182s on the market with newer technological advancements such as the G1000 outfit. The Cessna 172 can often be found with the more traditional steam gauge cockpit. Depending on your price parameters and comfort level, an equivalent 172 with a steam gauge cockpit may run you much cheaper with initial costs and maintenance cost versus a 182 with the same. This may be a consideration depending on your comfort level with newer avionics.

How Many Passengers Are You Looking To Accommodate?

Now it’s common knowledge within the aviation community that even though a Cessna 172 sports 4 seats, often it’s not the best choice to fly with 4 full-sized adults. Depending on the aircraft configuration, it’s important to note that the Cessna 172 may not support a full tank and 3 additional passengers. Even though the 182 does not drastically differ, it still offers a better utility and increased weight and balance parameters. This often makes it possible to carry 4 adults as passengers with the 182 platform versus the 172.

Other Considerations

Buying an aircraft can be one of the most enjoyable endeavors of a pilot’s career. So, it is imperative that you ask the right questions to figure out what’s best for you. Make sure you understand the full range of costs and considerations before making your purchase. We have created a guide for buying an aircraft and other considerations you should consider.

Check it out here: Buying Your First Aircraft, Questions to Ask Yourself

The Bottom Line

When it comes down to it, it really depends on your preference of efficiency. Both the 172 and the 182 are very similar in style however differ drastically when it comes to performance. The 182 is faster than the 172, offering more complexity and increased weight and balance specs. 

The 182 is simply a faster, smoother, and more efficient beast than the 172 so when it comes down to it, the question is your budget and how much you are willing to spend.

Even though this puts the 182 in a positive light, it’s important to understand the 172 is still the go-to platform, offering very similar performance for a much cheaper price. We know you cannot go wrong with either one, as aircraft ownership is a rewarding experience for all. We hope we have shed some light on the differences between the two platforms to help you make a better purchase decision.

Check our Offerings

Check out our blog post on 5 Easy and Cheap Ways to start flight school , in which we also discuss how contracting a personal flight instructor can prove to be significantly cheaper in your own aircraft.

Are you interested in purchasing an aircraft? Check out some of our listings below, as you can see the prices are on par in comparison to buying a new car.

Piper PA32RT-300

• Pembroke Pines

2008 Gobosh G700S

• Harry Reid International Airport

1966 Piper Cherokee 140

Table of contents, subscribe to our newsletter.

Get our latest Posts & Aircraft listings from AeroAvion.

latest Blog Posts

Check out our latest blog posts

Lookup Aviation Acquires Aircraft Marketplace AeroAvion

Mike Ojo, of popular aviation YouTube channel “MojoGrip,” along with a savvy team of pilots, initially launched LookUpAviation earlier this year. The goal of LookUpAviation is to create modern solutions and great customer service for a rather dated industry.

Best Way to Finance A Small Aircraft – Top 5 Aviation Lenders (2021)

Buying a new aircraft can be an exciting endeavor. We have created this guide to help you specifically with Smaller Single Engine or Multi-Engine aircraft financing.

Stratus Insight Vs. ForeFlight – Best EFB Options of 2021

Stratus Insight by Appareo and ForeFlight By Boeing. The two biggest names in aviation tech now each offer amazing EFB options. Either you are a new pilot or an experienced pilot who has been flying with both for the longest while.

• No comments yet.

Add a comment

Leave a reply · cancel reply.

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

Ask For A Quote!

Get in touch with the seller online fill out the form below and we'll reach out to you within 8 hours., please fill with your information.

Select Country Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua And Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas The Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo The Democratic Republic Of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Croatia (Hrvatska) Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Fiji Islands Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia The Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey and Alderney Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard and McDonald Islands Honduras Hong Kong S.A.R. Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea North Korea South Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau S.A.R. Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Man (Isle of) Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles Netherlands The New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Occupied Panama Papua new Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Island Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts And Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent And The Grenadines Saint-Barthelemy Saint-Martin (French part) Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard And Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad And Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks And Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City State (Holy See) Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (US) Wallis And Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Select State

• Manufacturers
• CESSNA 182T Skylane

What feature of our site is most important to you?

• Aircraft for sale
• Operating Costs
• Performance Specs
• Used Aircraft Values
• Aircraft Sales and Accident History

2001 - 2018 CESSNA 182T Skylane

Log in to compare." data-placement="left" data-activity="click on '+ add to compare cessna 182t skylane'" > view comparison.

Single engine piston aircraft with fixed landing gear. The 182T Skylane seats up to 3 passengers plus 1 pilot.

View 289 CESSNA 182 For Sale

PAPI™ Price Estimate

Market stats.

Performance specifications

Horsepower:

Best Cruise Speed:

Best Range (i):

Fuel Burn @ 75%:

Stall Speed:

Rate of climb:

Takeoff distance:

Landing distance:

Takeoff distance over 50ft obstacle:

Landing distance over 50ft obstacle:

Gross Weight:

Empty Weight:

Maximum Payload:

Fuel capacity:

Ownership Costs 2001

Total cost of ownership:.

Total Fixed Cost:

Total Variable Cost:

Total Fixed Cost

Annual inspection cost:

Weather service:

Refurbishing and modernization:

Depreciation:

Total Variable Cost ( 110.3 Hrs ) Cost Per Hour = $113.56 Cost Per Mile = $0.78

Fuel cost per hour: (12.5 gallons/hr @ $5.40/gal)

Oil cost per hour:

Overhaul reserves:

Hourly maintenance:

Misc: landing, parking, supplies, catering, etc

Engine (x1)

Manufacturer:

IO-540-AB1A5

Overhaul (HT):

Years before overhaul:

Also Consider

Cessna 182s skylane (1997 - 2000).

Typical Price: $304,389.00 Total Cost of Ownership: $30,226.00 Best Cruise: 140 KIAS ( 5 ) Best Range: 820 NM ( 148 ) Fuelburn: 12.5 GPH ( 0.0 )

Adjust ownership costs parameters

• Cost Per Mile
• Cost Per Hour

Leave Us Feedback PlanePhD is only as good as its community. Everyone wins if you share.

Please tell us: - Features that would be useful to you. - Aircraft data that you believe is inaccurate or have specific experiences. - Aircraft specific reviews and articles. Please send us your experiences on your aircraft. - Send us pictures of your plane. - Use this form or email to reach out to us: [email protected]

Thank you for contacting us!

One of our Planephd Experts will be in touch with you shortly.

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 ii rg turbo skylane - performance data.

Related Specs:

• R182-RG II Skylane (optl EGT reg. on svc. ceil.)
• 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.

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

Cessna R182RG

Turn a straight-legged skylane into a retractable and youll gain speed yet lose none of the airplanes roominess, range and utility..

Wh ats the use of takng a Chevy Impala, throwing on some extras and pretending its a Jaguar?

Some pilots wondered the same thing when Cessna took that sedan of airplanes, the roomy, drafty but handy straight-legged 182 and gave it folding gear and the option of a turbo for that big Lycoming O-540. Those who love the 182s all-around utility and mostly good manners had no problem understanding what Cessna had done. The airplanes decent but less-than-stellar cruise speed had been its big drawback but, in one bold stroke, Cessna had made the airplane go 15 knots faster at the same 12 to 14 GPH fuel burn. No wonder the model sold well initially, until the industry hit a brick wall within a few years of the retractable Skylanes introduction. 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. 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 (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 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 and for easier access. A new muffler for better cabin heating, especially in the rear seats, addressed another Skylane complaint. 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 “standard” FAA grownups can go on a long trip-close to 1000 miles, depending -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 bear 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. 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 10 years of Service Difficulty Reports (1996 to 2006) confirms that landing gear malfunctions and problems continue to top the list of R/RT182 maintenance woes. Out of 85 SDRs during that period, 17 or 20 percent had to do with sheared bolts, failed downlock pins, cracked pivot assemblies, stuck doors and the like. Thats an improvement over the rate seen in earlier SDR reviews. Owners who wrote us recently had no complaints about the gear. One said its better for grass strips than the fixed-gear Skylane because its sturdy and there are no wheel pants. 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 internal engine problems, including worn or stuck valves (six out of 85); cracked spinner back plates, six cases; magneto woes, such as missing teeth on the distributor gear, six cases; and carburetor trouble, including a failed inlet nipple that allowed fuel to spray inside the cowling and ignite, burning a hole in the belly aft of the firewall. Shimmy damper problems have plagued the RG but do not stand out in the most recent SDRs. A Cessna service bulletin (80-67) was aimed at correcting the problem with a mod kit and it appears to have been successful. Also in the past, service bulletins dealt with balky throttles. Any RG should have the recommended mods installed. 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 R/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. Notable old ones involve leaky flush-type fuel caps and wrinkles in the 1978 fuel bladders that trapped water. More recently, AD 2000-06-01 requires inspection of the fuel strainer assembly and, of course, AD 2005-19-11 is the infamous Lycoming crankshaft replacement directive. Mods, Owner Group The Cessna Pilots Association is a great source of information for all Cessna owners. A membership is $45. 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 (620-326-2241) 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/ ). Owner Feedback I bought N79MR, a 1979 TR182, in 1998 with 4500 hours. It now has 5300 hours and 450 SMOH, which included new Millennium cylinders and new three-blade prop. I owned an Archer for 10 years and was looking for speed.

Ive always favored high-wing aircraft. My choice was between a 210 and a 182 RG and I figured with the 210, I would be dragging a whole lot of expensive empty metal behind me most of the time. I would not get a normally-aspirated model in California due to the Sierras. I wanted an aircraft that would carry four adults, a full fuel load and some baggage at 150 knots-plus. There was an elusive intermittent gear-down lock switch problem that took five annuals to correct and a sticky turbo oil check valve that spit a lot of oil on the left fuselage, wing strut and gear strut. We replaced it but I found that if the aircraft sits and is run up to only intermediate settings, the check valve will allow oil to leak back into the turbocharger and spit out the exhaust. Once you get a high-power cycle on the engine and turbo, it acts normally. The O-540 is prone to a greasy bottom but a properly installed Airwolf oil separator has helped tremendously. I pay about $2500 for insurance. Annual this year was $6000 but $2200 was the HSI and I asked them to troubleshoot the gear-down lock light until they found the problem (a bad down-lock switch). Annuals average $2300 unless something significant has broken. It is an ideal cross-country aircraft with a decent 1000-mile range VFR. I will cruise between 10,000 and 14,000 feet depending on terrain and winds. I plan for 150 knots at 12,500 with fuel flow of 12 GPH average. I get high oil temps at altitude despite a good baffle seal. The oil cooler is half out of the airflow in the left front cowl so it is probably not as efficient as it could be. Ive flown it side by side with a straight-leg 182 and, at similar power settings, the RG literally walks away. The only drawback is the RG costs more for insurance and the smaller wheels give me pause for going into dirt strips. It excels at the things that are most important: safety, speed and reliability. Captain Denny Breslin via email I own a 1978 182RG with a partner. Prior to that, I owned a 1979 Skyhawk. Our RG has turned out to be a terrific cross-country machine: stable, fast, economical and very comfortable, although the back seat can be a bit drafty in the winter. Its a load hauler, 770 pounds usable with full fuel and a generous CG envelope. Fuel burn runs 10 to 11 GPH with a true airspeed of 150-plus knots. No surprises, maintenance-wise: Our RG actually spends less time in the shop than our friends Cirrus SR22. Our operating costs total $114.96 an hour (tach time). My Skyhawk was around $97. We replaced the original fuel bladder, doing most of the work ourselves. Our only complaint is oil related. Its difficult to get an accurate reading from the dipstick. We can check the oil during pre-flight and it might read 6.5 quarts. After we land, it will read 7.5 quarts. The airplane is a dream to fly. An STEC 55 autopilot coupled to a Garmin GNS430 GPS makes a nice IFR platform. Transitioning to the RG from the Skyhawk was straightforward, with more back pressure required on landing (lots of trim helps). Its easy to overshoot the airport on VFR descents with the gear and flaps up-it loves to stay airborne. Ed Reuss, Tim Hennessy via email I have been the happy and proud owner of a 1979 Cessna 182 Turbo RG for two years. My wife and I chose it for the combination of cabin size, stability, comfort, ease of entry, speed, range and payload. The turbo is wonderful for IFR operations. The turbo eliminates the carb icing issue because it keeps the induction air warm. An additional benefit is less noise. I have been told that the turbocharger acts as an additional muffler. An additional safety feature in winter operations is the power to climb on top to get out of icing. Two doors and a wide cabin are important as we make many trips with our two golden retrievers. Many of our trips are of the 400- to 900-mile length so speed is important. Typically, we fly IFR at 8000 to 12,000 feet. TAS at 23 squared and about 13 to 13.5 GPH runs about 156 to 158 knots at 10,000 feet. At 12,000 feet at 25 inches and 2400 RPM, I see 164 knots TAS. Range is excellent, with 89 usable gallons. My TAS runs a bit higher than book, likely a reflection of the gap seals from Knots 2U. The aircraft is extremely stable. Flying the ILS is a piece of cake. It maintains the trimmed airspeed solidly. It tracks the glideslope with 15 inches MP, 5 degrees of flaps and 105 to 110 knots IAS. The ability to drop the landing gear at 140 knots gives me greater flexibility in slowing down and getting lower if requested to do so by ATC. The first 10 degrees of flaps can go down at speeds up to 140 knots IAS. Load-carrying capability is great with a useful load of 1170 pounds. Short field operation is easy. We routinely operate out of grass airstrips and, in a pinch, with 20 degrees of flaps, the aircraft will break ground at 45 knots. The landing gear is very durable and we dont have to worry about wheel pants getting damaged. The Collins stack was costing a fortune to maintain and I felt it was too much of a liability for IFR so we installed a Garmin stack. The airplane came with a slaved Bendix/King HSI. I will not fly IFR without an HSI again. One good feature is the reliability of the engine. I have spoken with many other TR182 owners whose engines have made and exceeded TBO without a top overhaul. That makes me feel better when I cross the Bay of Fundy at night. This was a major selling point when comparing to the 210, which has a lower TBO and often does not make it to TBO. Cost of operation has been reasonable and there have been no maintenance surprises and no ADs. Insurance in Canada is running about $4000 (Canadian) per year. Eric Versnick Halifax, Nova Scotia I recently bought into a three-person partnership in a 1978 R182. The aircraft has very few bad habits but must be carefully managed during final approach, touchdown and rollout. Multiple gear-down checks are, of course, vital. Careful airspeed, pitch and power control on final approach are important to avoid prodigious rates of descent on the back side of the power curve or long airspeed-dissipation glides over the concrete. I try to peg 70 KIAS or slightly less over the numbers. Vigilance is required during touchdown and rollout. I think a lot of this has to do with the small high-pressure tires (50 PSI nose, 68 PSI main). The gear adds a lot to the utility of the airplane, even in this low-speed category. We typically fly at 150 knots TAS on 12 GPH at 6000 to 8000 feet. With 75 gallons useable, range is not an issue. Load-carrying capacity is excellent. A Garmin GPSmap 396 is a very useful augmentation to our early-1980s vintage radios (KX-155s, Loran, DME and ADF). The leaky cockpit can get pretty cold and uncomfortable at high altitude in the winter, even with the heater going full blast. One quirk of the R182 that I think also applies to the 210 is that exhaust enters the cabin in flight unless the cabin is kept at positive pressure by opening either the heater or the outside air intake. Another contributor to this potential problem is that, with the mixture knob all the way in, the engine is running too rich. Total cost of operation should be about $120 per hour. The Cessna Pilots Association forums have been excellent. One of the jewels I picked up is the fact that the aircraft (and other 182s also) makes a distinct howling sound flying through rain. Im glad I knew about that ahead of time! John Wilson Lebanon, New Hampshire Ive owned my normally aspirated R182 since August of 1980. It now has 3300 hours. I love this airplane! Its relatively fast (150 knots TAS), has a great useful load (about 1200 pounds) and has been cheap to keep. Annuals generally run around $1000 with insurance at $1800 annually. Fuel burn is around 11.8 GPH in cruise. In 2001, I added 23 gallons to the existing long-range tanks with Flint Aero fuel tanks, bringing my total fuel onboard to 98 gallons. That gives me quite a range, about eight hours. I also added flap gap seals from Knots 2U, which gave me about three additional knots at cruise. I had the airplane painted using a paint scheme from Scheme Designers and a new interior installed in 2002. The panel was upgraded in 2003 to include Garmin GNS530 and 430 GPSs, along with a Garmin GTX 330 Mode-S transponder, GMA 340 audio panel, Bendix/King KR-87 ADF, KCS-55A compass system including an HSI, KI-256 flight director system, KI-229 RMI and an STEC-55X autopilot. Bill Hunt Tucson, Arizona I own a 1979 Cessna R182 with a partner. We are both A&P mechanics and have done all the airframe maintenance including most of the work on the annuals alongside the AI.

The engine was replaced with a factory overhauled engine in 1997. We have over 1000 hours on the engine and have had success with it except for a stuck valve at around 400 hours. It was after returning from Phoenix in 112-degree weather, so that may have been a factor. We cruise at 2200 RPM and 22 inches or full throttle at higher altitudes for approximately 65-percent power and plan on 14 GPH for the first hour and 12.5 GPH at cruise altitude. An engine maintenance issue is the 500-hour AD on the magneto. Weve removed it and sent it to a local shop for a fresh overhaul for about $300. We also use fine wire plugs. We have STCs for the air-oil separator and a cooling tube for the vacuum pump. We have not had a failure and the belly is always clean. We have to replace the battery about every two years. The 1980 and newer airplanes have the batteries in the tail cone, where I assume it lasts longer away from the heat of the engine. The landing gear is easily maintained. We have replaced the hoses a couple of times. We have disassembled the powerpack a few times and have only replaced O-rings and fluids. The motor brushes have little wear. We have disassembled the main gear actuators and cleaned and inspected them. We found one of the sector gears had been installed backwards with only two gears holding the landing gear up. We replaced O-rings, reassembled and installed, per a service bulletin, safety wire to the mount bolts. A nosegear issue is to check the lock pins for movement and replace the plastic spring with metal, per service bulletin. The early RGs had a problem with the shimmy damper mount. That should be changed to the newer configuration. It rides much lighter on the gear than a fixed-gear 182 because of the nose-up attitude so crosswinds are trickier. It must be landed straight or it could get away from you. It climbs much faster than a fixed-gear 182. We have climbed at over 500 FPM at 10,000 feet with four people and usually at 120 knots. The 182RG has been safe and 15 knots faster than my old fixed-gear 182 at 65-percent power. Ray Tilton via email

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Piper Twin Comanche

Four-Place STOL: Look Beyond Macho

Featured video.

Garmin GNS 430: Throwaway or Keeper?

• Online Account Activation
• Privacy Policy
• Aircraft For Sale

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

Select Page

Cessna 182 Turbo Skylane: Business Turbo for the Family Man

Posted by Bill Cox | May 27, 2015 | Featured Plane

Like many of you, I’ve logged my share of hours in C-182s of one description or another, fixed-gear and retractable, normally-aspirated and turbocharged. By any measure, Skylanes are almost universally regarded as wonderful machines, blessed with docile handling, reasonable performance, good reliability, and (in some cases) full fuel, four-place capability.

These days, creature comforts are generally excellent, regardless of the size of your creatures, the avionics suite is nothing short of amazing, and the airplane continues to carry a phenomenal payload. Still, position an old and a new Skylane side-by-side in bare aluminum trim, and you might be hard-pressed to tell the difference. Despite the basic model’s age, the Skylane and Turbo Skylane continue to represent the state-of-the-art from the Independence, Kansas, manufacturer.

Rumors have been flying for years about the Cessna Next Generation Piston airplane, and indeed, many of us saw the airplane at an AOPA Convention in Palm Springs a few years ago. Cessna is unlikely to pursue that design until the market turns around, however. For the nonce, the Skylane is Cessna’s top, four-seat single.

Just as the Piper Cub was regarded the generic airplane of the ‘30s and ‘40s, and the butterfly-tail Beech Bonanza dominated the ‘50s and ‘60s, the Skylane has come to be regarded as the definitive general aviation design of the ‘70s and ‘80s. Discontinued with all other Cessna piston singles in 1986, the revived Skylane has evolved into a handsome package that continues to endear itself and give the competition a run for the money, specifically BECAUSE the basic design remains true to the original.

If the basic airplane’s comparative lack of innovation and aerodynamic improvement seem almost anachronistic in this age of composite construction, NLF airfoils, ballistic parachutes, and innovative fuselage design, that’s not necessarily such a bad thing—assuming you got it right the first time. Cessna did. Like the DC-3 and Boeing Stearman in other general aviation markets, the venerable Skylane is far from perfect, but almost a half century after its introduction, it continues to offer perhaps the best combination of simplicity, performance, comfort, economy, and payload in the industry.

If you accept the premise that the Skylane is one of the world’s definitive singles, the Turbo Skylane represents perhaps the best of the best. In Western skies where runways often perch a mile or more above the sea, the trend is definitely toward turbos. Combine a 90 degree F day with the field elevation of Albuquerque or Denver, and many normally-aspirated airplanes simply need not apply.

Cessna uses essentially the same 540 cubic inch Lycoming engine in both the normally-aspirated and turbocharged Skylanes, but the sloped controller in the heavy-breathing Lycoming TIO-540-AK1A Turbo Skylane maintains full-rated power (235 hp) all the way to the airplane’s maximum operating altitude of 20,000 feet. High density altitudes are less of a challenge with such power on tap.

The Cessna store in my neck of the woods is Pacific Air Center, one of the world’s largest piston Cessna dealers. Sales manager Rich Manor put me in touch with Mike Bastien, owner of a late-model Turbo-Skylane. Bastien also owns Universal Flooring Systems, a commercial flooring company with contracts up and down the West Coast and as far east as Phoenix. Bastien purchased his Skylane specifically to service his company’s interests. “It’s truly a marvelous airplane,” says Bastien. “For me, the Skylane was the perfect follow-on to my Skyhawk XP.”

Bastien was first licensed in 1977, and the flooring executive wanted a stable IFR platform to service his projects in San Francisco, San Diego, and other locations out West. “I use the airplane probably 90 percent for business, 10 percent for family transport, and it’s ideal for operation in the mountains. Once you’re trained in the use of the G1000 in the Skylane, the combination of gentle handling and simple, straightforward avionics makes IFR flying almost intuitive,” Bastien explains.

Today’s basic Skylane includes a list of accoutrements the old Skylane could only dream of. Perhaps the most innovative safety improvement is the AmSafe Aviation Inflatable Restraint (inevitably A-I-R), a system of seatbelt-mounted airbags designed to inflate within milliseconds of detecting a 16 G impact. Automotive-style airbags were out of the question because of weight, airframe, and certification considerations, so Cessna contracted with AmSafe to create a simpler, but similarly effective, method of restraint.

The new generation of Skylanes also features the Garmin G1000 glass cockpit. It’s hard to imagine a communication and navigation system with more talent. We’ve expounded on the virtues of the G1000 many times before, so we won’t belabor the point here, but the G1000 brings essentially all the tricks of airline cockpits to the ranks of general aviation.

Aircraft speeds can translate to impact G-loads that far outstrip anything you might experience in an automobile, so you probably shouldn’t expect to walk away after driving head-on into a mountain at cruise, but the AmSafe system will improve survivability in most “more reasonable” impacts. Yes, the thick belts are a little clumsier to use, with bulky, decompressed airbags tightly packed across your waist, but it’s comforting to know you have some protection in the event of a minor impact.

Other nice touches inside the Turbo Skylane include a 14-volt power outlet, Rosen visors, a classy, floor-mounted chart and cup-holder console between the front buckets, and a dramatically improved air circulation system that doesn’t shortchange the folks in back.

Any pilot who has flown a 182 knows it’s essentially a 172 with a hormone problem, and for that very reason, the secret to the Skylane’s personality is trim. At its full gross weight of 3100 pounds, the Skylane is 550 pounds heavier than the old Skyhawk SP, and the additional weight manifests itself primarily in pitch. The airplane’s elevator is notably heavier than that of the ‘Hawk, demanding immediate re-trimming for any sudden attitude change, such as a go-around.

The roll rate isn’t dramatic, but you wouldn’t expect it to be considering the airplane’s mission. As with most, current-generation Cessnas, adverse yaw is virtually non-existent, making rudder coordination unnecessary in banks shallower than 35 degrees.

The key to the T182’s personality is the turbo itself. An obvious primary benefit of turbocharging is that – most of the time – the effects of temperature and field elevation aren’t such limiting factors during takeoff and initial climb. The Turbo Skylane will turn in a 1000-fpm ascent or more at practically all heights to 10,000 feet, then 750-800 fpm on up to the airplane’s maximum operating height of 20,000 feet.

A turbo also expedites high altitude cruise for those pilots who don’t mind sucking on supplemental oxygen. A built-in, four-position oxygen system is standard on the T-Skylane, and the new generation of cannulas makes oxygen use more tolerable than the old, full facemasks. The gas still dries out your throat and sinuses, but it does facilitate travel four miles above the Earth for those pilots who are so inclined.

There are even some O2 systems available that attach an oxygen dispenser to a headset microphone stalk, blowing oxygen directly into the pilot’s nostrils and making the process of oxygen delivery almost totally transparent. If you fly regularly with a skittish non-pilot, these can be a valuable option.

A turbo offers the benefit of better speed at all heights above about 9000 feet, but higher altitude also provides better VHF radio range, reduced traffic congestion, less turbulence, and better weather. Use of oxygen does increase operating cost somewhat, (roughly $4/passenger/hour), but for many pilots, the benefits outweigh the costs.

Fortunately, the definition of high altitude doesn’t have to involve the flight levels. The Turbo Skylane can realize significant performance benefits at non-oxygen altitudes. The Lycoming is so severely de-rated, that max cruise power is listed as 88 percent. If you’re flying at 12,000 feet with power at the limit, you can expect 158-160 knots, depending upon weight. That’s easily equal to or better than the best efforts of some retractables, like the old Commander 114, SOCATA Trinidad, and the Piper Turbo Arrow.

For those who don’t mind the inconvenience and are willing to strap on a mask and climb to 18,000 feet or higher, the Turbo Skylane will turn an extra 15 knots of cruise, and it will scoot across country at 175 knots. With 87 gallons in the tanks and a typical burn of 17 gph at high cruise, plan on 600 nm plus reserve between fuel stops. For those pilots with long-range bladders who can endure eight-hour legs, dramatically reduced power settings can extend range to nearly 1000 nm.

The turbocharging and associated plumbing does inflict a 100-pound penalty on payload, and the result is the airplane will no longer lift four folks and full fuel. It’s more of a three-place machine with both tanks topped. If you fly with half fuel, however, you’ll have allowance for the fourth soul plus a little baggage, and you can still endure for two hours plus IFR reserves.

It wasn’t so many years ago that pilots were scared of turbos, and with good reason. TBOs were lower, turbocharged engines ran hotter, fuel burn was high, maintenance cost more, and pilots were justifiably concerned about reliability.

A turbo does add complexity, but blower manufacturers have refined and improved their systems so much that turbo TBOs are often the same as on the normally-aspirated models, the overheating problem is no longer a factor, maintenance isn’t a significant headache on modern turbochargers, and reliability is pretty much the same as on a normally-aspirated Skylane.

The airplane also returns to Earth with similar reliability, demanding minimum piloting skill. Stalls are gentle and forgiving, and easily recoverable. That contributes to excellent manners in the pattern. Takeoff and landing runway requirements are minimal, if not exactly in the STOL class. The Skylane’s leaf-sprung steel main gear allows it to land in places where other airplanes would fear to roll a tread. Just remember to remove the wheel pants if you fly off-airport. The Turbo Skylane’s bulbous, composite wheel fairings won’t tolerate truly rough strips.

To some extent, at least, the Skylane’s turbo defines the airplane. If you fly out west where the Earth demands airplanes to match its mountains, a Turbo Skylane may offer exactly the right combination of ingredients. Combine excellent reliability, plentiful performance, and reasonable comfort, and you have the formula that has made the 182 a winner for nearly a half-century.

Just when Cessna thought it was safe to discontinue the normally-aspirated and turbocharged avgas 182s in favor of the new Skylane JT-A, fate stepped in with a surprise. As the new JT-A was nearing certification, one of the test airplanes suffered a complete power failure and had to be landed off-airport. The test pilot did a good job and walked away, but the certification effort was set back quite a bit. This left Cessna in the unenviable position of having no Skylanes to sell, since the avgas models had been phased out. Stay tuned for the next chapter of the Skylane saga.

Specifications & Performance –  Cessna Turbo Skylane

All specs and performance numbers are drawn from official sources, often the aircraft flight manual or the manufacturer’s website. An alternate source on used airplanes is Jane’s All-The-World’s Aircraft.

Specifications

Engine make/model:                Lyc TIO-540-AK1A

Horsepower on takeoff:           235

TBO – hours:                              2000

Fuel type:                                   100/100LL

Propeller:                                   McCauley CS

Landing gear type:                    Tri/fxd

Max TO weight (lbs):                3100

Std empty weight (lbs):            2017

Useful load – std (lbs):             1083

Usable fuel – std (gal/lbs):       87/522

Payload – full std fuel (lbs):     561

Wingspan:                                   36’

Overall length:                           29’

Height:                                        9’ 4”

Wing area (sq ft):                      174

Wing loading (lbs/sq ft):          17.8

Power loading (lbs/hp):           13.2

Wheel size:                                 6.00 x 6

Seating capacity:                       4

Cabin doors:                               2

Cabin width (in):                       44

Cabin height (in):                      48.5

Performance

Cruise speed (kts – Max Crs):  158 (@ 12,000′)

Fuel Cons (gph – Max Crs):      14

Best rate of climb, SL (fpm):   1040

Max Operating Altitude (ft):   20,000

TO ground roll (ft):                  775

TO over 50 ft (ft):                     1385

Ldg ground roll (ft):                 590

Ldg over 50 ft (ft):                    1350

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

Cessna 210: high wing cruiser.

November 3, 2015

Cessna 190/195

February 4, 2021

Cessna 195: Single-Engine Businessliner

July 13, 2015

The Silver Hawk: A Legend in its Own Right

February 20, 2024

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.

Product Categories

• Business Jets
• Special Missions

Compare Products | View Site

Cessna Turbo Skylane

Turbocharge your adventures.

Take your adventures higher. Faster. Farther. The Cessna® Turbo Skylane® piston packs enough muscle to climb 1,040 ft per minute to a maximum cruising altitude of 20,000 ft, and then maintain its full 235 hp. Cruise comfortably at 165 ktas above unfriendly weather, challenging terrain and traffic. With its high-wing design and durable airframe, the Turbo Skylane® piston is poised and ready to rise to even the most challenging adventures.

Now with new interiors, these adventurous pistons provide you style and comfort, while emphasizing durability.

• Contact a sales rep Call 1.844.44.TXTAV OR 1.316.517.8270
• View Range Map
• Learn To Fly
• Purchase A Fleet
• Piston Aircraft Service
• Cessna Piston Brochure
• Turbo Skylane Product Card

Always #WithMyCessna

Designed to fly. Built for adventure. Share your Cessna® piston story using #WithMyCessna.

PROVEN AIRFRAME

Featuring a resilient airframe and a strong and durable tricycle landing system, the Turbo Skylane® piston is ideal for short runway takeoffs and landings.

LED LANDING LIGHTS

Dual LED landing and recognition lights with pulse recognition technology improve visibility and provide great illumination.

HIGH PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

The Turbo Skylane® piston is a true high-performance workhorse with nearly 1,000 lb of useful load capability and a 235 hp turbocharged engine.

RAMP VISION

ADVENTURE FOR FOUR

With ergonomically designed seats wrapped in durable Luxor 2 and Alcantara, the Turbo Skylane® piston offers a four-seat configuration, providing room to share your adventure with friends and colleagues.

The Turbocharged Lycoming TIO-540-AK1A Engine

Meet an engine that’s as reliable as it is powerful. Flexing an exhilarating 235 hp, the Turbo Skylane® piston has the muscle to climb to 20,000 ft at a rate of 1,040 ft a minute. Plus, the stamina to maintain full power at maximum altitude, cruising at 165 ktas. When adventure lives on the other side of the mountain, the Turbo Skylane® piston has the powerplant to get you there and back easily and confidently.

Interior Refresh

Updated cockpit experience includes all-black, updated instrument panel and new flight deck armrest for added convenience.

Improved Convenience

Upgrades include optional integrated air conditioning, USB power outlets and 6-pin powered headset plugs at each seat location.

AN ELEVATED FLIGHT DECK

Advanced display technology.

The Turbo Skylane® piston is powered by the latest technology in integrated cockpit avionics, the Garmin® G1000® NXi. The new Garmin® GI 275 electronic standby lets you keep the classic look of your standby instruments while upgrading to a modern, sleek glass touchscreen display.

• ADS-B out and in
• Wireless data base and flight plan loading
• Garmin® Electronic Stability and Protection (ESP)
• Garmin® Underspeed Protection (USP)
• Integrated VFR sectional charts
• IFR high and low charts with Night Mode
• Simplified maintenance
• COM frequency decoding
• Vertical Situation Display
• Selectable visual approaches

Textron Financial

Need financing.

Strong partnerships create convenient solutions. Our partners at Textron Financial can deliver simple financing solutions tailored to your needs.

Today is your day

The adventure begins here.

From manufacturing the world's most popular training airplane to a global network prepared to support you throughout the complete ownership experience, our lineup of solutions designed to move you and your business forward.

Buying a new aircraft is an exciting time, and we are here to help you along the way. For more information, simply download the product card. Or reach out directly to one of our aviation experts.

Specifications

29 ft (8.8 m)

9 ft 4 in (2.8 m)

36 ft (10.97 m)

Cabin interior, baggage capacity, performance.

Simple Flying

The most produced aircraft: what is the cessna 172's cruise speed.

The popular piston plane has benefited from speed enhancements over the decades.

The Cessna 172 Skyhawk is famous for being the most-produced aircraft of all time, with over 45,000 airframes built since the first rolled off the production line in 1956. This legendary general aviation light aircraft will go down in history as one of the most reliable, efficient, and versatile planes ever built, capable of performing all kinds of roles.

Interestingly, despite major advancements in technology and design since the 172 was released, the plane's cruise speed hasn't changed too much over the decades. Instead, upgrades to the aircraft have tended to boost its reliability, avionics, and safety. Nonetheless, modern Cessna 172 models are still almost 20% faster than the original, so some improvements have been made in this department.

Cessna 172 cruise speed

The current in-production model of the 172 series is the Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP, offering modern upgrades like a glass cockpit, Garmin G1000 NXi avionics suite and a 180-horsepower Lycoming IO-360-L2A engine. Compared to the previous model, the 172R, the 172S features an additional 20HP, and the Garmin G1000 suite comes as standard, among other tweaks.

As per Textron Aviation, the aircraft's maximum cruise speed is 124 knots (142 mph or 230 km/h), with a maximum range of 640 NM (1,185 km) and a climb rate of up to 730 fpm. However, this range can change depending on engine power, altitude, and weight of aircraft.

Discover more aviation news with Simple Flying.

Modest speed increases

As mentioned earlier, the Skyhawk's cruise speed has risen modestly over the decades, but improvements haven't been dramatic given the limitations of a single-engine piston aircraft. The first Cessna 172 model was fitted with a 145HP Continental O-300 engine before an upgrade to the Lycoming O-320 around a decade later.

According to 172guide , the first Cessna 172 had a cruise speed of 108 knots (132 mph or 212 km/h), which was gradually increased in future iterations:

• 172C (1962): Continental O-300-C - 114 knots at 7,000 ft altitude
• 172I (1968): Lycoming O-320-E2D - 114 knots at 9,000 ft altitude
• 172N (1979): Lycoming O-320-H2AD - 122 knots at 8,000 ft altitude

Let's compare some of the specs of the first Cessna 172 with the in-production 172S:

A Look At Why The Cessna 172 Is The Best Selling Aircraft In The World

Against the competition.

The 172 is well ahead of other trainers in terms of aircraft built and sold. However, when looking at its specs compared to those of its rivals, it doesn't outshine them in all departments. In fact, if we look at cruise speed alone (at 75% engine power), it is sometimes slightly slower than most of its counterparts.

Piper PA-28 Cherokee

Take the Piper PA-28 Cherokee, for example, which is generally considered the main rival to the Cessna 172 series. Entering service in the early 1960s, the PA-28 initially offered a higher cruise speed of over 120 knots, although the current in-production Piper's have a similar cruise speed to the Cessna 172S.

Diamond DA40

The Diamond DA40 is, without a doubt, a faster aircraft than the 172, with an initial cruise speed of 145 knots when it came out in 1997. The most up-to-date variant - the DA40 NG - is powered by a 168 hp Austro Engine AE300, which offers a cruise speed of 154 knots, as well as a higher service ceiling of 16,000ft.

Beechcraft Musketeer

The Beechcraft Musketeer is another popular trainer aircraft and one of the few that is slower than the 172. Take the Beechcraft Musketeer Sport II, for example, which has a cruise speed of 108 knots, well below the 172S' 124 knots, or the Musketeer Custom II, which offers a cruise speed of 102 knots.

Comparing the 172 and 182

Simple Flying recently took a deep dive into the differences between the 172 Skyhawk and the larger Cessna 182 Skylane , another popular trainer and general aviation aircraft. The Skylane is Cessna's second most popular aircraft still in production behind the 172 and a feasible alternative for flight schools and private owners.

The 182 features a more powerful Lycoming IO-540-AB1A5 engine, giving it a cruise speed of 145 knots - on top of this, its extra fuel capacity gives it almost 50% more range than the 172 at 930 NM.

A training favorite

The Cessna 172's ease of operation makes it a clear favorite for student pilots, and you can find a Cessna 172 at just about every flight school in the world. Cessna estimates an average of 75 flight hours to earn a private license.

5 Reasons The Cessna 172 Is A Favorite With Flight Training Schools

The plane also boasts exceptional reliability and an immaculate safety record, with a fatality rate of 0.56 fatal crashes per 100,000 flying hours, which is less than half the industry standard of 1.2-1.4 per 100,000.

Have you ever flown a Cessna 172? Let us know your stories in the comments.