170 vs. 182

[plexon]

Dear fellows,

I´m in a big dillema:
I own a little lodge in western Brazil (Pantanal), located on a extensive ranch of ours. We do live here very far off civilization (90 miles) where the airplane is the only means of access half time of the year ...
Mostly we get couples as guest, and they have to fly-in with air-taxis from the capital (180 miles).
I´m planning to buy an airplane and have two in sight. Both are in very good conditions: a 170A 1950 (30k US$) and a 182 1974 (50k US$). I have seen on some sites like http://www.planequest.com that the flying cost per mile of both are almost the same. Do you believe these numbers ? What are trustful numbers for the 170A ? Would you prefer a 170 instead of 182 ? The only big advantage I see is the 20k US$ difference? Any others?

I´d need it mainly for flying me + 2 adults and some luggage, or me, my wife and 2 little kids 1 and 2 years old ...

Thank you a lot for your precious information, advice and attention.

Yours, Lucas.

[N170BP]

The 170 with full fuel and some baggage is a two person airplane
(I love my '54, just trying to be truthful/honest).

But it's true the direct cost per mile of operating a 170 vs a 182
will be very close (as far as fuel burned / distance traveled).
That is until you factor in the maintenance of the O-470 and
a constant speed prop vs the simple 170 powerplant / propeller combination.

I sometimes fly along side a good friend in a '53 C-180, and if
he throttles back to stay with me, we burn within 1/2 a gallon
of each other (when we pull up to the pumps, we take on
the same amount of gas).

I guess if I was going to haul people + stuff somewhere, I'd opt
for the 182 (truth be known, I'd opt for a 180, but that's beside
the point). You'll have a larger useful load, and you just
never know what you're passengers will want to bring (or
how large/heavy they'll be when you show up to pick them
up!).

[kimble]

Lucas,

Let your pocket book be the basic guide. If money is not the determining factor the 182 is faster, hauls more load and has a good long lived, dependable engine.
If your field conditions permit the operation of a 182 (tri-gear), personally, I would purchase the 182.

Ralph

[zero.one.victor]

No doubt,the 182 is a lot more capable airplane than the 170. But there's no free lunch-- costs (except the hangar) are about 50% more per hour than the 170.
Example (costs & speeds approximate):
170 takes about 3 hours at 115 to go 350 miles,at $50/hour = $150.
182 takes about 2.4 hours at 145 to go 350 miles, at $75/hour = $180.
Multiply this by a years worth of flying & you'll see why I own a 170, not a 180. Beside the 50% (or more) higher purchase price.
I've crunched the numbers many times,it always pencils out the same. If you doubt it,talk to anyone who's owned both a 170 & a 180.

Eric

[GAHorn]

The 170 will haul 4 adults and 3 hours of fuel. Or it will haul 3 adults, 120 lbs of baggage and 3 hours of fuel. Or it will haul 2 adults, 120 lbs of baggage and 4.5 hours of fuel.
The 182 is a better airplane from the point of dispatch reliability for a commercial operation.
But, if you are willing to consider other aircraft, ...a much better choice (in my opinion) would be a Cessna 206, which for only a few more dollars than a comparable 182 will haul it's own weight IN the cabin. It will carry up to 6 people. It will lift anything you can reasonably fit into it. It will operate at exactly the same speeds and hourly costs as a 182 but will carry so much more, and this also means that when lightly loaded it will also perform so much better in hot weather and short runways. In my opinion, a normally aspirated (non-turbocharged) Cessna 206 is the ideal single engined airplane for most purposes.

[Robert G. White]

I own a 182. I was shopping 170/172's and finally looked at an older 182 that was in the same price range. With twice the effective HP of a 170/172 it was love at first flight. It will land at anything that is called an airport on our sectional charts.... upwind, crosswind or even downwind if it's under 20 knots and 2000 feet. I can haul almost a 1000 pounds (450+KG) at 10 gallons (40 litres) per hour and operate off a 1000 foot (300 meters) stip if needed. I had the engine overhauled a couple of years ago for years ago... not for time.... only 1400 hours since 1966, but years!!! The shop's price for a six cylinder O-470 overhaul wasn't much more than for a 6 cylinder O-300. I would love to have a CLASSIC 170... but in truth, the 182 is much more practical as of the the tri-gear and load carrying ability.
Blue skies to you, Bob

[N170BP]

The 170 will haul 4 adults and 3 hours of fuel. Or it will haul 3 adults, 120 lbs of baggage and 3 hours of fuel. Or it will haul 2 adults, 120 lbs of baggage and 4.5 hours of fuel.
The 182 is a better airplane from the point of dispatch reliability for a commercial operation.
But, if you are willing to consider other aircraft, ...a much better choice (in my opinion) would be a Cessna 206, which for only a few more dollars than a comparable 182 will haul it's own weight IN the cabin. It will carry up to 6 people. It will lift anything you can reasonably fit into it. It will operate at exactly the same speeds and hourly costs as a 182 but will carry so much more, and this also means that when lightly loaded it will also perform so much better in hot weather and short runways. In my opinion, a normally aspirated (non-turbocharged) Cessna 206 is the ideal single engined airplane for most purposes.

George, I think your points are dead-nuts, but please define your
version of an "adult" <grins>. An FAA "standard" adult (whatever
weight they're specifying these days)? Or a real, American adult
(we call 'em "Bigguns" around here, and when you got two bigguns
in yer 170, then bofum, or all'em are in there, 'cause that's all she'll
take).

I've often wondered why the FAA hasn't "updated" their
version/weight of a "standard" adult to reflect reality these days....

I'm 6 feet tall and weigh 230 lbs. In my '54, with me & another
bruise brother & full fuel plus a few things in the back, we're
all done.... Not to mention the fact (as was mentioned by
someone else on another thread here), the last 200 lbs of
weight are what really turns the 170 into a, well.... (call
a spade a spade, I always say) a pig!

It's probably not worth repeating, but I'll do it anyway....
I'm not bashing the 170, just trying to be honest about
it's capabilities (in stock form anyway....).

[russfarris]

As some of you guys might remember, I've been looking for an older 180 for over a year now. It's a hard airplane to shop for - either I find a beat up war horse or a nice, low time well-maintained airplane that's located in Infected Animal Bite, Wyoming and priced 90 to 100,000 dollars.

At Sun-N-Fun, I talked to a few owners of older 182s, who ran into exactly the same problem I've had. So, they started looking at 182s and found that there is a greater number of nice airplanes for sale, at a price approaching 40 % in some cases less than a 180. Example: 1957 182, Vref price is about 54,000. A 180 the same year, airframe time and equipment is 84,000!!! I hate to give up the tailwheel, but for that kind of money I guess I will.

I've already found a 2,700 TT 1957 182, with a low time engine and prop less than 100 miles away. I guess I'm a sucker for the original look...like my present 170, it's polished aluminum in the factory red and black scheme, right down to the large wing N-numbers. (In fact, it's the first polished 182 I've ever seen.) I've set up an annual with a IA who owns a 1959 182, by happy coincidence. If it checks out, I've got a new airplane...Russ Farris

[N170BP]

If you do all the work yourself, you can convert
an early 182 to tailwheel for around $10K - $15K.

[russfarris]

That's right Bela, BUT...it's still not a Cessna 180, contrary to what people think. The 1956 through 1958 182 didn't have cowl flaps; the 180 does. Operationally, of course it's a 180, but the prices of converted 182s reflect the fact that the market doesn't view the tailwheel mod as an instant 180; in fact it seems to add only about 10 to 20% to the value. I hate to get underwater with any airplane, if I can help it.

I'm not so sure about Eric's operating cost numbers. For starters, I got an insurance quote of 700 a year for a 182, versus 1300 for the 170 - a difference of 600 dollars! I'm too tired and lazy to run some numbers, but certainly lower insurance costs should enter into the picture. Russ Farris

[GAHorn]

The 170 will haul 4 adults and 3 hours of fuel. Or it will haul 3 adults, 120 lbs of baggage and 3 hours of fuel. Or it will haul 2 adults, 120 lbs of baggage and 4.5 hours of fuel.
The 182 is a better airplane from the point of dispatch reliability for a commercial operation.
But, if you are willing to consider other aircraft, ...a much better choice (in my opinion) would be a Cessna 206, which for only a few more dollars than a comparable 182 will haul it's own weight IN the cabin. It will carry up to 6 people. It will lift anything you can reasonably fit into it. It will operate at exactly the same speeds and hourly costs as a 182 but will carry so much more, and this also means that when lightly loaded it will also perform so much better in hot weather and short runways. In my opinion, a normally aspirated (non-turbocharged) Cessna 206 is the ideal single engined airplane for most purposes.

George, I think your points are dead-nuts, but please define your
version of an "adult" <grins>. An FAA "standard" adult (whatever
weight they're specifying these days)? Or a real, American adult
(we call 'em "Bigguns" around here, and when you got two bigguns
in yer 170, then bofum, or all'em are in there, 'cause that's all she'll
take).

I've often wondered why the FAA hasn't "updated" their
version/weight of a "standard" adult to reflect reality these days....

I'm 6 feet tall and weigh 230 lbs. In my '54, with me & another
bruise brother & full fuel plus a few things in the back, we're
all done.... Not to mention the fact (as was mentioned by
someone else on another thread here), the last 200 lbs of
weight are what really turns the 170 into a, well.... (call
a spade a spade, I always say) a pig!

It's probably not worth repeating, but I'll do it anyway....
I'm not bashing the 170, just trying to be honest about
it's capabilities (in stock form anyway....).

Bela, I'm not sure what you mean by "dead-nuts" ...but it's third grade arithmetic to figure out how much a 170 will haul.
1300 lb empt weight from 2200 lb gross leaves 900 lbs to do what you wish with it.
30 gallons fuel (180 lbs) worth about 3 hours leaves 720 lbs to do whatever you wish with it.
The FAA says the average adult is 170 (well, OK they recently said 180, but ....the 2 times 170 is 340. I'm 220 and Jamie is 120 so that's the same thing....two aduts....340 lbs. That leaves another 340 llbs (another couple). So that's where I came up with four adults, 3 hours fuel, in a 170 being a full load.

1300
340
340
180
Total = 2160 (plus 40 lbs of misc, is a grossed out 170)
You're right that last 200 lbs makes a 170 work for it's living...but that 2200 lb gross wt is the figure all those performance specs are based on.

Let's face it: we all like hot performers. Cessna 170 a hot performer is not. BUT....it's a heck of an airplane with great handling, affordable operating costs that will do what the book claims. The question in THIS thread is: How does it compare to a 182 in a commercial operation hauling paying customers and their junk? Answer: The 182 is better at that task.... not that the 170 won't do it with it's factory numbers.....it's just that the 182 was designed to do more. It's like asking "which is better for hauling lumber home from the lumber yard...my MG Sprite or my Ford F-150? Answer: they both do what they were designed to do. But if you want to haul lumber get a pick up truck. If you want to go joy riding on the weekend and occasionally haul another couple with you not too far...the 170 does real fine....with a touch of class!
Dead-nuts? That's a new one for me.

[russfarris]

Funny how an expression can be familiar to some but not to all. I've heard the phrase "dead-nuts on" for years, meaning right on the money. I had to laugh, Ole' George couldn't decide if he had been insulted or not! (I'm sure you Texans could come up with phrases I've never heard before either.) Russ Farris

[zero.one.victor]

Russ, ya got me! I admit that all my number crunching was comparing my 170 with an early 180. The lower insurance costs for a lower-priced & easier-handling (trike) 182 would make it pencil out closer to the 170.
George, mathematics aside, the way a 170 flies at gross (2200) with 145 horses is a whole lot different than the way a 180 flies at gross (2550) with 230 horses! Another math exercise--power loading. 2200#/145 hp = 15.2 #/hp, 2550#/230 hp = 11.1. Quite a difference--and it shows in performance.
I agree with Bela- the 170 is a good 2 people plus gear airplane, especially when you get away from the flat country.

Eric

[russfarris]

The original mission of my 170 was local fun flying, with a friend or by myself, with an occasional long cross-country to Sun-n-Fun or Oshkosh.
IFR if neccesary to finish the trip.

In the four years and almost 500 hours I've owned 43A, it's worked out very differently.

200 nm trips every other weekend to pickup my kids, often in IFR weather pushing the 170s limitations, i.e. 20 knot direct crosswinds on occasion. Even with my 2,500 hours of tailwheel time, I don't enjoy that!

Long cross-countries to the Winter Palace in Florida...the 170 has to stop for gas; a 180/182 can make it non-stop, taking two hours off the travel time.

The ability to haul all my junk and my Significant Other's Imelda Marco's Jr. shoe collection and climb quickly to 10 or 11,000 feet above the hot bumpy air, which the 170 can't do.

There's no better looking airplane than the 170. A square tail 182 only comes close in the original paint scheme, IMHO (a convienent rationalzation.)

As a weekend flyer and short haul machine, the 170 can't be beat. But, as we all know, it has limitations as a load hauler and X-C airplane, not to mention IFR. I wish my needs could be met by my 170, but I really would be happier with more performance. Russ Farris

[N170BP]

The 170 will haul 4 adults and 3 hours of fuel. Or it will haul 3 adults, 120 lbs of baggage and 3 hours of fuel. Or it will haul 2 adults, 120 lbs of baggage and 4.5 hours of fuel.
The 182 is a better airplane from the point of dispatch reliability for a commercial operation.
But, if you are willing to consider other aircraft, ...a much better choice (in my opinion) would be a Cessna 206, which for only a few more dollars than a comparable 182 will haul it's own weight IN the cabin. It will carry up to 6 people. It will lift anything you can reasonably fit into it. It will operate at exactly the same speeds and hourly costs as a 182 but will carry so much more, and this also means that when lightly loaded it will also perform so much better in hot weather and short runways. In my opinion, a normally aspirated (non-turbocharged) Cessna 206 is the ideal single engined airplane for most purposes.

George, I think your points are dead-nuts, but please define your
version of an "adult" <grins>. An FAA "standard" adult (whatever
weight they're specifying these days)? Or a real, American adult
(we call 'em "Bigguns" around here, and when you got two bigguns
in yer 170, then bofum, or all'em are in there, 'cause that's all she'll
take).

I've often wondered why the FAA hasn't "updated" their
version/weight of a "standard" adult to reflect reality these days....

I'm 6 feet tall and weigh 230 lbs. In my '54, with me & another
bruise brother & full fuel plus a few things in the back, we're
all done.... Not to mention the fact (as was mentioned by
someone else on another thread here), the last 200 lbs of
weight are what really turns the 170 into a, well.... (call
a spade a spade, I always say) a pig!

It's probably not worth repeating, but I'll do it anyway....
I'm not bashing the 170, just trying to be honest about
it's capabilities (in stock form anyway....).

Bela, I'm not sure what you mean by "dead-nuts" ...but it's third grade arithmetic to figure out how much a 170 will haul.
1300 lb empt weight from 2200 lb gross leaves 900 lbs to do what you wish with it.
30 gallons fuel (180 lbs) worth about 3 hours leaves 720 lbs to do whatever you wish with it.
The FAA says the average adult is 170 (well, OK they recently said 180, but ....the 2 times 170 is 340. I'm 220 and Jamie is 120 so that's the same thing....two aduts....340 lbs. That leaves another 340 llbs (another couple). So that's where I came up with four adults, 3 hours fuel, in a 170 being a full load.

1300
340
340
180
Total = 2160 (plus 40 lbs of misc, is a grossed out 170)
You're right that last 200 lbs makes a 170 work for it's living...but that 2200 lb gross wt is the figure all those performance specs are based on.

Let's face it: we all like hot performers. Cessna 170 a hot performer is not. BUT....it's a heck of an airplane with great handling, affordable operating costs that will do what the book claims. The question in THIS thread is: How does it compare to a 182 in a commercial operation hauling paying customers and their junk? Answer: The 182 is better at that task.... not that the 170 won't do it with it's factory numbers.....it's just that the 182 was designed to do more. It's like asking "which is better for hauling lumber home from the lumber yard...my MG Sprite or my Ford F-150? Answer: they both do what they were designed to do. But if you want to haul lumber get a pick up truck. If you want to go joy riding on the weekend and occasionally haul another couple with you not too far...the 170 does real fine....with a touch of class!
Dead-nuts? That's a new one for me.

Dead nuts = you're right on the money (I'm a "young" whipper
snapper, it's an old saying, I'm 1/2 surprised I'm familiar with
it and you're not!!!).

Thanks for the 3rd grade level math lesson. My point (which I
apparently didn't make quite clear enough) is a stock 170 flies
like a turkey with a full diaper load at 2200 lbs (certified
gross weight). So while you can load the airplane as you
describe, and be completely legal about it, it will still suck
hind tit when it comes to getting out of it's own way. A stock
170 loaded to gross weight is only good for flat-land flying on
relatively cool days. Mind you, I agree it's a really cool way
to get around on such days.....