Best all-around plane? Here's one of them… (and why)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 май 2024
- I believe the Cessna 182 is still one of the best all-around general aviation airplanes you can buy. It has a great combination of capability and affordability (relative to other airplanes, at least) that I think is hard to beat. It might not win in any one category, but it's one of the few airplanes that can truly do a little bit of everything. And for that reason, I think a Cessna 182 is always a safe bet to own.
Full webinar for how to buy a plane in 2024: • The Ultimate Guide to ...
More about Charlie: More info about Charlie: airplaneacademy.com/charlie-g...
Want my help 1:1? More info at airplaneacademy.com/hire-charlie
It’s also an EXCELLENT IFR trainer Rock solid on ILS.
Totally agree. I have worked my way up to a 182, and stopping there. My brother owns a Bonanza so we always have the friendly back & forth “arguments” on which is best. I’ll admit, I had Bonanza fever for a time, but the more I learn about the extra complexity, annual costs, insurance costs, etc., the happier I am with my 182. The more I fly with him, the more I like mine. Easier to get in & out of for sure, our aging parents won’t fly with him because of this, but can still get in/out of the 182. Plus, we’re in Texas… I like sitting in the shade! Another point, in an engine out emergency landing off airport, I’d much rather be in the 182.
I am absolutely in love with my c177rg. I think the cardinal is the most slept on plane in the Cessna lineup.
It goes 145kts, burns 9.5 gallons per hour, carries 1000lbs, has a super wide and roomy cabin (6 inches wider than a 182), the doors open 90 degrees and are massive. Great for getting people in and out.
Before I flew one, I would never have bought one.... now that I own one, I don't know what I was thinking.
Downsides of the plane, it's a cessna retract that requires thoughtful maintenance. The early 210s gave the goose legs a bad reputation. These aren't bad, but they do need to be kept up with.
Insurance is higher because it's a retract.
Additional downside that I didnt think about....
They are not kind to bad landing technique. It has a very different wing than your typical cessna. Closer to a 210 than anything else. Its very slick. It does not forgive being fast the way a 172 or 182 does. It also has an extremely effective stabilator instead of the normal elevator and is therefore easy to accidentally horse around in the flare. It likes nice, easy, smooth control application.
This combination has bent more than 1 airplane due to bad technique. I find that if you fly it on speed, its an absolute dream... it takes some getting used to and a couple of go arounds if you're transitioning from a 172.
DO NOT EVER force the airplane down. It will not forgive you and you will regret it. If you're floating too far, you've got to go around.
What about the poor accident history and the main spar AD, Is the 1981 onwards 182T RG not the better option with its turbo normalised engine, far greater performance, wet wing, 2000 TBO engine time and significantly better payload, ultra reliable retract system with only 2 undercarriage doors instead of 10 and those being redundant mechanical in operation, so no insurance issues, I had a 84 one and it was for me the best 4 seat single Cessna has ever made, if had not been for the forward C of G, limited cabin width and difficult vis over the tall panel I would have kept mine, just do not understand why they are still not being made today, perhaps product lability insurance of making retracts?
Poor accident history? Surely, you jest. And the main spar AD is seriously a no big deal in these planes (find me one that has actually failed that wasn't abandoned and/or still being flown). You get the EC done and that's that. The 177RG flies a lot nicer than ALL the 182s (I have about 100 plus in both, 182 was FG though) and is definitely cheaper to maintain than a 182T RG. There are two main issues with the 177: 1) The CG is so forward climb performance suffers and 2) Textron doesn't want them in the fleet so parts are going to be an issue as time marches on. The 182 is still the ultimate all-arounder though. @@wayneelliott2462
Do you really want to start me on the accident history? it was a lemon from inception always under powered a real slippery handful with the forward C of G lack of elevator authority requiring a stabilator design mod, some struggle with porpoising on landing and the inadequate nose gear damping with lack of robustness. remind me how much it cost to get the EC done? and what the plane is worth? more importantly what it cost to insure. I had a third share in one moons ago and could not wait to get out of it, I have over 2000 hrs in 182s and around 300 hrs cardinals and nearly 900 in Trinidad's for me personally hands down the Trinidad I have is best option for my missions by far!! @@pisymbol
@wayneelliott2462 an interesting discussion.
I agree that the airplane is very slippery, which is why I added my second comment about it being unkind to bad landing technique. (No more unkind than a mooney though)
Your point about elevator authority isn't quite right. The early 177s had too much stabilator authority. They were a bit twitchy in ground effect. After the mods that issue was resolved. It still has a boatload of elevator authority though, so you can't go horsing on it. Nice even control pressure is all she needs for a nice flare. I havent found it to be any more challenging to fly than any other slick wing airplane. (Mooney, 210, bonanza). It surely doesnt forgive you the way a 172 does though.
As far as forwars CG goes, they do run forward, that is a fact of life with the cardinal. A sandbag in the baggage compartment helps when you are running big boys in the front seat and nobody in the back.
I havent found the airplane to be underpowered at all, the IO360 puts out 200hp at 2700 rpm. At full gross on a warm day I think she still holds her own.
The 177rg didn't have the same gear door problems as the 210s. The main gear dont have any doors at all for that matter.
We also have a 2000 hour tbo on our engine.
Other huge benefits of the 182 are low insurance costs and a huge parts inventory. There are also many approved after market parts for common items that offer both lower cost and greater selection. Additionally, every piece of gear made gets certified in the 182 before anything else. Now, take all the fantastic attributes of the 182 and jack them up even more, and you have the TR 182 - the most undiscovered jewel in aviation.
I own a PA-28 which I finished my training on, and now I have a brand-new Sling TSi on order. I can't wait to get out of the certified world, and it's hard to beat a capable four seater that gets 153kts TAS on 7-8 GPH mogas with FADEC, turbocharger, and 1100 FPM climb.
but at almost 300k? what are the insurance costs and requirements? how easy are replacement parts to get? I took a look at the sling and it's a tight fit for 4.
@@josephschenk2631 Eh, more like $400K with all the options and with factory build assist (meaning I only need to spend two weeks there building it). Insurance is not too ridiculous, quotes vary from $4K to $7K or so and have been going down. It's pretty comfortable with four adults, but need to be careful about aft CG especially with the parachute. Parts are the best part, and a huge advantage of experimental-- you can do whatever you want with parts (not to mention you won't even need to worry about parts much since it's a brand-new, very reliable aircraft).
I was in a club with a 172 and a 182 at different hourly rates. One time I did the math and for a destination like ~80min away the 182 was actually cheaper because of the speed diff. The 172 taking an extra 10-15min to get there starts to add up.
I flew the 172exclusively for like 200 hrs to get my ppl. I knew no better until I bought a 1973 piper warrior and that changed everything. Never flown a 182but I prefer low wing much better. The warrior is very forgiving. The Piper cherokee6 has similar numbers with excellent payload and of course it’s a low wing. Your plane looks amazing though.
I LOVE my 177B Cardinal
Just under 1000lb useful with 60gal and those doors...
I appreciate your passion in your videos, thank you for producing each one!
I do like the 182 and have some time in them. For our mission the Cherokee 180 fits well. Our kids are grown and we travel alone usually. Space, payload aren’t an issue. Even when camping. Full tanks and everything we can fit is under gross. 4+ hour/600 mile range is just right. 125-130kt cruise. 9000+ under 8gph. I have even landed in the backcountry here and there. We flew from CA to Osh last year and will again in 24. It won’t fit every mission but it fits mine perfectly. Cheap to own, insure, and maintain
Actually, the perfect airplane for me is a champ or a cub....all I care to do is go low and slow with the window open.
I do enjoy your videos and have been through the mill more than once finding the best fit GA aircraft for four place, good comfort go anywhere, haul anything IFR plane to match my go too requirements, had a number of 182s and a 210, a Cherokee six and then on to the TB20 and then finally the best fit of all the TB21 GT turbo for my money its the best of the best. The easiest for passenger ingress and egress, with gull wing doors giving immediate access to all seats, the most well balanced from the get go with no forward CG to overcome in the loadings, its a heavy hauler full fuel full seats and around 120lbs of luggage staying within limits and leaving a huge margin in available wing loading, 1200ft min climb rate 160 knot full weight cruise, typically around 170 knot at 8000ft, capable of staying above most weather 25000ft ceiling and 190 knots at 12gph, 170 knots at 13gph at 9000ft full IFR incredibly stable in turbulence and high winds, land anywhere with trailing link undercarriage, best visibility, the tall panel of the 182 and 210 can be a pain, and it has 31cu ft more cabin room than the 182 and almost 6 inches wider. For me Bonanzas have never measured up in cabin width to be a consideration, they are I feel overpriced, to heavy on maintenance and therefore way down my list. The only real downside that I can find with the Trinidad is not every repair shop works on them, I have had no real issues with parts etc or squawks, its a great plane!!
The 182!!!Definitely!I owned a 172 and loved that too!
Cost to own/operate and building hours/experience were factors for me. I have a 172D and though it may not be my dream plane, it has served my purpose very well. Low fuel burn, low insurance cost, and great parts availability. It's slower but I reside in a rural and very scenic area, so I don't consider it as too big a loss and the majority of my flying is by myself or taking one other occasionally.
I agree. The 182 is awesome.
I agree. Thank you and all the best.
I considered the 182, 177RG, 210 and Saratoga before purchasing my turbo 206. Just a bigger 182 with additional payload capability. Weight and balance is never an issue. Two couples and loads of baggage going cross country or 6 onboard with full fuel and 120 pounds of baggage. It handles like a 182. Very docile stall and very stable. No speed demon but I can cruise 135-145k at 12-14 GPH LOP for far longer than my endurance. It is all about compromise, insurance cost and availability.
I agree wholeheartedly! The Cessna 182 Skylane is the Honda Accord of GA aircraft: it doesn’t excel in one category but is excellent in all categories. However, it leads in one category that doesn’t show up on spec sheets: popularity. The Cessna 172/182 is the favorite aircraft of more GA pilots than any other. As you say, everybody loves them and you can’t go wrong with them.
I'm over here in Euless with the hopes of one day creating a private free of charge ZERO $$$ changing hands} aviation network primarily for the F & L community, and with lots of thinking and watching your fantastic videos, I have decided that the Cessna 182 is the aircraft of choice. I think I have decided I'm going to dedicate the rest of my aviation life to the Cessna 182. It's ironic you mentioned the Cessna 180. Growing up, my dad owned 2 Cessna 180's. The first one we didn't have very long. The second one, we flew it all over the East Coast. Its tail number was N2238C. It was sold and someone from Minnesota bought it and fully restored it, and apparently they used it for business because it then flew on frequent trips on both coasts. But I do appreciate your videos.
The 206 I think is a TRUCK ! Carry a ton, not fast, but reliably. And fun to fly !!
I think is a great plane. However, it depends on your needs. I have a 1956 C-172. It does everything well. It burns around 8 gallons per hour and a little less if leaned properly. It fits my needs nicely.
Spot on with your analysis. I share your opinion on the 182. That being said, I own a Beech Debonair (and a Aeronca Champ, Chief, and a 1928 Travel Air 4000) which is my version of a 182.
I own both a 182 and a G36 bonanza. We fly the bonanza just about everywhere now on trips over 100 miles. My Bonanza is turbo-normalized so we take the 182 for short hops and for runways shorter than 3k feet. The turbo normalizer really adds to your takeoff distance. My hangar neighbor has a G36 Bonanza that is naturally aspirated and that is what is really the best all-around if you are just going to have one airplane. We can fly his G36 in and out of 2500ft grass strips and cruise home at 170KTAS burning 15 gal/hr. Love my 182 but fly a couple 400-500 mile trips in a 182 and you will be wishing you had a bonanza.
Thank you for explaining this! I’ve been going back and forth between the Cessna 206 and the bonanza. The extra speed of the bonanza seems attractive to me. I’d be making a lot of trips around 5-600 miles going slower than 170KTAS seems a little too slow.
@@dylanbarrett599 We were looking at buying a new T206 and demo'd one. I love the 206 as well but then I learned that if you add tip tanks to the Bonanza and get the 4000lb gross weight increase, you have more fuel than a 206 and have practically the same useful load. You can also take the back 4 seats out of a 36 Bonanza and have pretty much the same cargo area as a 206 with the seats removed.
The Bonanza has a reputation for flying beautifully, but there are always trade-offs. The 182 is much easier to work on. An A&P IA good friend of mine refuses to work on them for this reason. Another Bonanza-owning friend gets frustrated often working on his. Insurance for retracts tends to be more expensive. Not saying to not get a Bonanza, just know what you are getting into beforehand.
Do you land Bonanza on short, grass strips often?
How would the turbo decrease performance? "Normalization" sounds like it just tries to maintain sea level manifold pressure at altitude, so at take off the performance should match N/A?
Yip - LOVE my 182!
I gotta get an airplane some day. Probably too old now. My dad has a 182, and my brother has a 182 and an Aeronca Champ. We all have broad shoulders and I like that when sitting next to each other it feels like a larger SxS, rather than a trail model SxS like a a 172.
I don't have my pilot's license but if I did I'd look at a 182 first because of its price and useful load. Ideally, I'd like to have a 206 because we are a family of 5 even though the kids are almost all out of high school. Definitely high-wing though because we live around the Rocky Mountains and like to fly into some backcountry air strips and the views seem better from. a high-wing.
Your POV is well thought out. I had a share in an OurPlane franchise with a new 172, two identical new 182s and two Cirrus SR20s. I only flew and thoroughly enjoyed the 182s and travelled as far as Oshkosh to the SE, Tofino to the west and Tuktoyaktuk (TUK) in the North West Territories. Comfortable planes with lots of useful load, good speed and comfortable to fly. I got my IFR rating in the 182s and wanted to have a glass cockpit. I looked at a local 182T with the G1000, but migrated to a four person partnership in a Diamond DA40 with the G1000 configuration, Still lots of useful load but more comfortable and faster with less fuel burn, and of course, the glass panel. And I ended up covering the same geographic area with another trip to Oshkosh and Tuk. On balance, they each had their pros and cons and were both excellent IFR platforms in IMC.
How does a DA40 have lots of useful load? (particularly compared to a 182)
Thanks for sharing here. Sounds like a lot of very fun adventures!!
speed on a xcountry flight is very important. on an 800-mile trip at 150 knots 4.75 hours and 200 knots 3.5 hours.
SO EVERY 4TH TRIP IS FREE, in the faster plane.
This seems all very well and good, but I would like to add (and in no way take away because these videos are awesome), that this is very USA / North America based.
Here in Europe, where everything is a bit smaller and more expensive, that maintenance is a much bigger issue.
I am French and like I live quite near the sea, therefore Cessna and Piper are more of a no-go because they rust so easily...
This is why the French "ROBIN" is so popular in France and in western Europe in general...
Also, back-country isn't a thing here as it is basically impossible to get the right to land anywhere other than an established airfield.
Nevertheless, thank you again for the brilliant videos !
I look forward to see the next one ! 😀
Good perspective and thanks for sharing it here. I've never flown in Europe so you're right my perspective is US-based. Thanks for adding to the conversation.
I agree with you and well said. I fly a CAP 182 pretty often, and respect its versitality and good natured flying. I own a Mooney Turbo. Speed and Range will change your use of the airplane, or mission. If your current mission is Dallas to Shreveport, with 3-4 people, the 182 is great, maybe pefect. But you won't really be thinking about Dallas to Hilton Head.. Once you have a Bo or Mooney (especially either in a Turbo), Dallas to Hilton Head becomse, sure, why not. ADS - HXB in a 182T at 8,000 feet today (21 kt tailwind) is 5.2 in your logbook, with a 67 gal fuel burn. In a Mooney 252 at FL210, that's 3.7 logbook on 42 gals. If you wanted to go the other way, KADS to Phoenix-Mesa Gateway (KIWA), in the 182T, at 8000 feet, that's 6.5 hours flying on 83 gallons (so, .7.5 at least for a fuel stop somewhere). In the Mooney 252 (also at 8000 due to headwinds), that's 5.7 hours, on 66 gal - no fuel stop. Not stopping for fuel is the magic button. Pretty fast and efficient beats really fast and thirsty almost all the time beyond 600 miles. When you're in a Mooney in the flight levels (with a good tailwind), you can get 1000nm on 6 hour flights consistently. So the possibilities change dramatically. Not everyone wants to do those long cross countries (you'll need to be instrument rated and proficient to make those work). No, we don't backcountry, and I only do 2 hour trips with 4 people on board (~300nm), but me+1 can get from COS to Glacier NP, or Joshuah Tree NP non-stop, and that makes for an easy 4-day weekend. The Cardinal RG is a great plane too, roomy and effieicnt. Thanks for your video
It’s ALL about Budget and mission and everyone is different and specific needs! I do have to say the C-182 is an awesome aircraft!
I own a 67 Mooney M20E. Love it
ROP 167KTAS 10.8GPH 4hrs plus reserves
LOP 143KTAS 7.0 GPH 7hrs plus reserves.
Manual gear/all speed mods/ great avionics it’s a super efficient machine! Most of the time it’s just myself or myself plus 1. So it’s the perfect balance of room/comfort/speed/range
Another plus: Plenty of room for full-size people. My 6'3" frame has my head pressed into the roof of most GA aircraft. Comfort is key and the 182 provides it.
Not to mention that high wings are just more convenient.
Eventually I am likely to own a 182… and maybe a Citabria too. We’re one and done on kids, and fortunately just about everyone we go visit has a pack ‘n play and everything else. It’s often more involved to bring the dogs along, and that’s the one piece I haven’t figured out just yet.
I seriously looked at the 182 and it was a top contender for all the reasons stated. I went with a Cherokee Six because I have a large family and it gave me 6 seats instead of 4 and the same useful load as a twin engine Baron… speed is about the same. I average about 135 knots.
We love our cherokee 6! It checks a lot of the same boxes, although probably not the best back country rig.
Debating the Cherokee 6 and 182, for myself !
When we bought our plane 10 years ago a 182 was on the short list to consider. We ended up with a NAvion and have no regrets. It's comparable to a 182 in every performance category, plus has a much wider and more comfortable cabin. It was also a lot cheaper than a comparably equipped 182 at the time. The flip side of that is that today it's a fraction of the cost of a 182 because NAvions haven't been hit by inflation to nearly the same extent. Probably the only place a 182 does better is insurance cost, but if we were comparing it to a 182RG I suspect the numbers are much closer.
Make sure you change out that Gasca, later. My navy on lost all power on takeoff and the three souls aboard are lucky to be alive. Others aren’t. There is a fix, make sure you get it done.
Swap your nose wheel for a tail wheel and now you have a Cessna 180. So utterly versatile. I love mine and wouldn't trade it for anything, but yes, they are pricey. You get more bang for your buck with the 182.
I would say the 172 is probably one of the best all around planes. Yes, the 182 is a little better but the 172 for the most part does a great job and it is the most produced GA airplane. So in numbers it’s everywhere.
I agree, The 182 is a BOSS!
My flight school was leasing some local guys 182RG. I loved flying that thing and got my complex and high performance done in it. I was looking forward to using it for cross countries and commercial stuff but another student w/instructor did a touch and go in it and the student flipped the gear switch instead of the flaps and the gear went up and the plane went skidding down the runway. Sucked. I have really been interested in a Navion though...
I bought a 2025 182 because of your videos. Comes first quarter of 2025. Cant wait.................
I really appreciate the burger b roll
1. Bonanza G36
2. 206 Turbo Syationair
What's your thoughts on the future of avgas?
3:50 Although somewhat to the point you were making. This made me think of that guy who passes you speeding on the highway. Within a minutes, you see him getting a ticket on the side of the road as you pass him. And have you noticed that he doesn't pass you again. Was going fast and getting pulled over really necessary?
182 is a great airplane it loves to fly
The ol jack of all trades, master of non mantra. I share your opinion with the 2 very small kids, having the wife in the back seat to do tantrum control would be a GAME CHANGER! spot on with the burger reference (Mooney M20F)
172N model with the AirPlains 180HP & 2550 lbs. Gross Weight increase STCs.
Could you fit two golf bags in the rear of a 182 ? This may determine if we go for the 182 or Cherokee 6 !
I've done it before but I had to take the driver and woods out and lay them separately... the irons were able to still lay down in the bag and be flush on the floor, but the longer clubs wouldn't.
I've had a 1973 Cardinal RG C177 for a couple years. Have you flown one? Priced between the 172 and 182. I thought about a 182 but couldn't justify the additional cost and fuel burn for mostly solo xc/time building and training. With the wings farther back the pilot sits more forward giving a much better view especially in the bank. No wing struts and big doors that open 90 degrees makes loading so easy. Take the back seat out to get even more cargo space. I get about 160+MPH TAS 10.2 GPH ROP if I'm in a hurry. Only thing it won't do is back country with the wonky landing gear. It's been great for my mission which is mostly solo XC, training, time building. It's also the best looking Cessna single piston especially with gear up. 😊
Every Cardinal owner I've talked to raves about them (I mean that in a good way). They are good airplanes!
@@AirplaneAcademy I have both an RG and a FG 177 and love them both. The useful load isn't as robust as the 182 but with 1/2 fuel I can get about 850 pounds in the RG. Like you, I don't have a 4 hour bladder anyway, so who cares about the extra fuel. Pull out the back seat (an easy task) and I have a HUGE baggage area. Now, if I could find a really nice Turbo 182RG I would be very tempted to make a switch, but for now, I'm really happy with my little Cardinals. Let me say to the uninformed, unless you're flying around in an absolutely original 150hp 1968 177 without the elevator mod, you will have NO trouble landing a Cardinal. They are super stable, sweet handling airplanes that make great IFR platforms. I just flew the RG on a 500 mile trip at 7500' making 140K true and burning 8.8/hr. Is it the fastest? No. Is it the most fuel efficient? No. Is it everything I need and a joy to fly? Absolutely.
I like the 182, but I gotta say I love my Debonair. Hey Charlie, are you going to Sun N Fun?
Good airplanes. I don't think I'll be a S&F this year but hoping to in the future!
I fly a Cherokee 235 and there are two areas that I think the 182 is better:
1. Back country: the main gear not being oleo struts is huge
2. You get two doors.
And there's one area that I think the 235 is better:
1. Useful load. My airplane can carry 1373 lbs. If I had a bowling ball collection, I could take it with me.
Apart from that, I think the 235 and the 182 are neck and neck in all other aspects. Which isn't really surprising given that Piper specifically created the 235 to compete with the 182.
Personally I'm a big fan of the low wing. But if I win next year's AOPA 182, I promise you my feelings on what the best airplane is will change!
Thanks for sharing here. All good stats. I'm more of a high wing guy for the view and the shade. Pros and cons of each though! Enjoy that useful load :)
Ia it OK to land on grass with Retractable Gear version?
It really depends on what you mean by “grass”. There are tons grass strips that would be fine for a 182RG, but it’s not a good choice for rougher strips. The fixed gear is more robust and has larger tires (to soften the bumps). You can go even larger than stock on the fixed gear, but you are stuck with stock on the RG. A well maintained grass/dirt runway can be better than a well weathered tarmac runway. (One of my home airports has proof of that with a parallel turf/dirt runway - except after the rainy season.)
How about the Kodiak that you recently covered?
If you have a couple of million....
C182 it is a amasing aircraft. Ok. Rg is better in the air when the gear is retracted, the aircraft is more smoth in the air. I fly a old C182 from 1956 ho is very light, only 754 kg emty. This plane is a rocket in climb an cheap to fly if i use setting. 21/22, and i love to fly it. 177Rg is fast, and very good place onboard to. Regard Norway
I know its the missions but feel i will like more speed. Whats biggest engine to fit in 182? 350 HP? 0r TSIO 550?
Check out the Peterson built King Katmai with a canard great stol aircraft heavy lifter TSIO 550 a 182 on a mission.
A bigger engine will provide better climb, but for significantly more speed you will probably want a more aerodynamic airframe.
If you've got the bladder for it, the best speed mod you can do is often long range tanks. The difference between 130 knots and 160 knots on a 500 mile trip is about 40 minutes. If the 160 knot plane needs a fuel stop and the 130 knot plane doesn't it's a wash.
Agree with ya not the best but best all around
What do you think about the Cessna Cardiinal?
I haven't personally flown one but their stats on paper look pretty good. Every Cardinal owner I've met raves about them.
What about a 206 ??
I would rather have a BD4C. Four seats, same useful load, faster, more fuel efficient and much cheaper to maintain, especially if you build it yourself.
Why is a 180 your dream plane?
Cessna 182. Fixed gear, 4 people, some baggage, full fuel, and go.
You’re going to need a Cherokee Six with a growing family….
Cirrus pilots/owners are you feeling ignored?
Mooney is the best.
Other hicg
Far safer plane then most others.
Sling TSi...
I own a 182. It’s great, but I wish I had an experimental airplane instead. I’m so sick of government regulation and way overpriced parts. Textron deserves to go out of business. I’d love to see Elon Musk build an airplane.
I believe it is possible to convert your 182 to experimental category, opening the door for mods such as a small block Chevy.
Cessna 172 has an almost 50% less fatality rate overall compared to a 182. And no…. It does not matter how good of a pilot you are, you cannot outfly statistics.
The C-182 makes a great jump (Skydiving Plane) too. It can hold 4 jumpers and the pilot if you take out the seats and inner lining. ✈️🪂