Sorry for not adding all details in the comparison. The Cessna 172 has an average fuel burn per hour at 75% power and standard conditions of around 8.5 gallons an hour. While the Cessna 182 with those same parameters has a fuel burn of around 14 gallons per hour.
They are different aircraft, like Toyota Corollas and Camrys. I've flown both 172 and 182's. The 172 is 4 cylinder, fix pitched prop. You have to watch your aft center of gravity and gross weight if you want to carry 4 adults, and then you can carry about 2 hours of fuel, plus reserves. The 182 is 6 cylinder, constant speed prop, which easily carries 4 adults and full fuel. Its 20 mph faster, which shortens a 500-mile trip by at least an hour. The 60-70 added hp gets you out of the higher airports on hot days a lot better than the 172. The 182 has over 200 hp so it takes a complex airplane endorsement on your license. It has a wider cockpit so shoulders aren't touching. Its 300 lb heavier so it make a good instrument platform. And, yes it is more expensive to fly. Gas mileage is about 10% less, and with 2 more cylinders and a variable pitch prop maintenance costs too. Purchase prices are about $20K - $50 more., but its more like a deposit. You get most of that back when you sell it. In summary, a 172 is great for building hours if you are working towards a commercial license, but if you want to take the wife and kids to Tahoe for the weekend you will need 182. I hope this gives some useful comparisons.
You missed the best part after all that, when you go from a 172 to a 182 you get the first impression of what a really good solid airplane “feels like”. You Don’t get that when when you go from a 152 to a 172, they both feel like really cheap tin cans. When you first fly a 182 you feel like your flying a 747 compared to the garbage you were flying before. The plane just feels solid as a tank unlike its lower siblings, penetration into turbulence is a hell of a lot better, all that extra build quality makes the plane more quiet. Want even better “Peterson Kenai” best go anywhere plane in the world. There’s faster planes but they won’t get you into all those those short runways where the really cool small towns are.
here is a cool fact i went 200 knots in the 182 (this was a 2018 model and had 1 turbo and inter-cooler and thick glass) and i would say if your a pilot looking to get your HP rating and IFR rating get the 182 . But if you are a entry level pilot get the 172 then graduate your self to a 182T to get some ratings and what not . Not saying you cannot get ratings in a 172 im just saying the 182 can get you your ratings and get you used to higher speeds and essentially more useful load.
This video is very misleading. I have owned both and they are very different aircraft. The 182 handles like a heavier aircraft. It takes a lot more effort to hold the nose wheel off during landing. It can handle 4 adults and full fuel. It is a long distance hauler. The 172 is a 2 adult and maybe small children. You need to watch your gross weight especially in the summer. High temperature days take a lot of runway with a full load. It is a great trainer and hour builder, but if you are going long distances with a load, it won't work. These videos give a very brief overview, but pilots need to do research on the actual full fuel load carrying capacity. The 182 info given is a for a T, which is a Turbo model. It is much more expensive to maintain and its efficiency occurs above 9000 feet. I put more than 700 hours on my 182 and it did everything I asked it to do.
Also rear windows are worth mentioning, 182s do not have that strip going down the back, while 172s do. Also 182s have cowl flaps, which are absent on the 172.
Most of my flying time is been in Cessna 152 , love the little bugger. Never flew a 182 before attract me the power and the speed. Flying the 172 I never felt confortable. Tks for sharing.
A lot of good information, but some mistakes: angle of attack has nothing to do with wing placement. Also, the 182 is not newer. Both models were first introduced in 1956, and both are still being made today. And please, the plural of aircraft is aircraft; not aircrafts. This is one of the odd quirks of the English language.
Great Content, thanks. One thing to add might be the interior cabin size. It is the main reason folks like me like the 182 over the 172. Flew to Oshkosh one year in a 172. That was a 7 hour flight. My uncle and I are both larger. I'm 6'8" I had to fly the plane with my arm behind his back for most of the flight because the cockpit was much narrower. Don't have that issue with the 182.
One point is incorrect. A low-wing isn't inherently better than a high wing in some crashes and the fuselage of a high-wing isn't necessarily going to make contact first. The landing gear are and absorb a surprising amount of energy. And even if at an angle at impact if you're yawing or rolling....the wingtip takes a hit next. I survived a crash that entirely removed the nose gear, flattened the pilot side gear, and crushed the passenger site gear, removed much of the prop, and bent the wing from direct contact. Secondarily, it crumpled the empengage in places that didn't make direct impact from the force, and I walked away without a scratch. The C172 takes a licking...and doesn't tick afterwards, but does save the occupants pretty well.
I've been told that by adding a STOL upgrade to a 172, the 172 exceeds the 182 in various ways. The STOL kit is about $3,000 and takes about 40 hours to install. What is your opinion?
Mark Sill I’ll say this, I flew and old 182 for about 25 hours and it would pull 1500 feet per minute Easy on a cold day with full fuel. The plane was an absolute monster. Now I fly a newer one and on climb out I can expect 1000 feet per minute. Also the newer 182 can cruise at about 155 knots if you get up high. 172 truly will never be able to compare to a 182 in performance and weight
The cutlass RG that I've flown wasn't to bad if it had a 200 hp constant speed Prop beside the 180 but overall it was great for commercial training skills but I got mine in the Piper Arrow 200 . The 172SP model is my favorite for IFR training for students and flight schools love them and my best of the best single engine high performance Aircraft I choose is the 182 Skylane
It all depends on what I need it for say I'm flying by myself or with one other I'd take the 172, but if I were to go with the family or need to carry things (with reason) I'd take the 182 hands down.
if you have a family or just like the fact you can carry six people get a 210 centurion it is like a 182 but can carry more and has more range and the wheels retract (unless your wanting a 182RG)
You missed the with reason part didn't you. Because if I'm carrying six people I'm going to be between a 206 citation or a 210 Centurian. ( I could go for the 337 skymaster but I don't have my twin engine rating)
To buy used one, 172 or 182? A lot of used 172 are flight school operated with very high hours and not that cheap either. Many used 182 are personally owned, has much less hours compared to 172. Its price isn't terribly expensive. I would go for 182 if I want own for long time.
You didn’t mention fuel burn rate, number of cylinders, cabin space, or cost of maintenance. All of which would be a factor in one’s purchasing decision.
I do not know where you got your information on safety of the low wing vs the high wing and the low wing aircraft absorbing more impact better on a hard landing or crash, but you better get some input from some real engineers before you spout off on you tube about the safety pros and cons of aircraft.
This comparision is valid....but in terms of the question its easy to answer in those terms: Performance? 182 Safty (because of performance) 182 Engine smoothness? 182 (6 cylinders runs much smoother) Comfort? 182 (because as mentioned above) There are down-sides on the 182 as well, but the points i pointed at above, weights a lot....for me more then the down-sides.
The 182 is 5 inches wider which equals some level of comfort. The 182 also hauls significantly more weight and can do it at high density altitude (particularly the turbo charged version.)
If you actually are an aviator you should know these are not "aircrafts". They are "airplanes". Aircraft is a general term that describes anything that flies in the air, including airplanes, rotorcraft, powered parachutes, etc. Also, the word aircraft is never used in plural form; there is no such word as "aircrafts".
Performance wise the 182 is definitely a better plane. If most of your flying is done with no passengers or just two people you’re wasting your money. Thank goodness I went the 172 route. I hardly ever have a passenger. I’m a lil bit slower than I like but the cost to operate is cheaper in all aspects.
I have flown the 172 for hundreds of hours and it is great but it really is a 2 place plus baggage plane. Once my kids were over the age where I could carry each in an arm, the 182 became a minimum requirement for my family. As they grow, the 182 will still be enough while the 172 would require me to leave so much fuel behind for weight savings that it would become useless. This is all without factoring in shot runways, density altitude and overall space. The 172 is a great plane but comparing it to the 182 isn’t exactly an apples to apples comparison.
Awe, I try not to say it, but what’s the difference between watching this video and looking at specs on a brochure? No mention of constant speed variable pitch prop vs fixed pitch propeller. I am a novice. Would prefer more horse power for safety. Incase you error & need to get over obstacles at far end of runway. Never ever exceed your limits when flying, the are old pilots and bold pilots but no old and bold pilots. I am learning much from the comments. I must scratch from my mind that a 172 is a 4 seater.
They range from as low as 35K up to the new price. I wouldn't expect to spend less than 40K for a good one, then I'd spend another chunk to get it configured the way I want it. There is nothing more expensive than a "cheap plane".
Check out trade a plane dot com. But when pricing them out, expect maintenance issues, annuals, insurance, airport / hanger fee's. All the fun stuff. If you can do it though, go for it.
The cost of the purchase of a 172S 2020 model is different than the ones with the GFC700 and specs but unfortunately you can get one and leasing it basically back to a flight school and it will pay off in the long haul and you can schedule your own plane and still make money 💰
LOL, oh but it won't. When you lease back the airplane into commercial use, it's then subject to FAA Part 135 rules. This means that the Airplane is now going in the shop every 100 hours of flight (Hobbs Hours). for inspection, rather than once a year for an annual. ADs (Air Worthiness Directives) add more shop time, plus tie down or hanger space still gets billed to you, as does fuel as it's rented out "wet", and that goes against your rental proceeds. Then, there's admin fees, higher insurance requirements since it's being used commercially, AND, 200 different kinds of assholes treating your plane like a rented Taurus. trust me, ALL you get from a leaseback is a tax deduction, it will NEVER, EVER pay for itself, in fact, there's months where you'll be writing THEM a check, especially on 100/hr inspection periods.
If money is/was no object I cannot imagine I can't learn in a new 182T. I don't want to start in small used worn out trainer that I then have to resell.
Hmmm. You spend half the time on things that are common to both aircraft, then just painfully slowly read the basic specs for each! What about the real differences between these aircraft (not aircrafts!) from a pilot's or owner's point of view? Handling? differences in landing? Real life running costs ? PS. The plural of aircraft is aircraft
Fuel burn.
Sorry for not adding all details in the comparison. The Cessna 172 has an average fuel burn per hour at 75% power and standard conditions of around 8.5 gallons an hour. While the Cessna 182 with those same parameters has a fuel burn of around 14 gallons per hour.
@@marlintheaviator Thanks.
They are different aircraft, like Toyota Corollas and Camrys. I've flown both 172 and 182's. The 172 is 4 cylinder, fix pitched prop. You have to watch your aft center of gravity and gross weight if you want to carry 4 adults, and then you can carry about 2 hours of fuel, plus reserves. The 182 is 6 cylinder, constant speed prop, which easily carries 4 adults and full fuel. Its 20 mph faster, which shortens a 500-mile trip by at least an hour. The 60-70 added hp gets you out of the higher airports on hot days a lot better than the 172.
The 182 has over 200 hp so it takes a complex airplane endorsement on your license. It has a wider cockpit so shoulders aren't touching. Its 300 lb heavier so it make a good instrument platform. And, yes it is more expensive to fly. Gas mileage is about 10% less, and with 2 more cylinders and a variable pitch prop maintenance costs too. Purchase prices are about $20K - $50 more., but its more like a deposit. You get most of that back when you sell it. In summary, a 172 is great for building hours if you are working towards a commercial license, but if you want to take the wife and kids to Tahoe for the weekend you will need 182. I hope this gives some useful comparisons.
Are those numbers for the turbo or no? Debating a turbo + BRS parachute and CAV system vs a SR20.
100% correct
You missed the best part after all that, when you go from a 172 to a 182 you get the first impression of what a really good solid airplane “feels like”. You Don’t get that when when you go from a 152 to a 172, they both feel like really cheap tin cans. When you first fly a 182 you feel like your flying a 747 compared to the garbage you were flying before. The plane just feels solid as a tank unlike its lower siblings, penetration into turbulence is a hell of a lot better, all that extra build quality makes the plane more quiet. Want even better “Peterson Kenai” best go anywhere plane in the world. There’s faster planes but they won’t get you into all those those short runways where the really cool small towns are.
here is a cool fact i went 200 knots in the 182 (this was a 2018 model and had 1 turbo and inter-cooler and thick glass) and i would say if your a pilot looking to get your HP rating and IFR rating get the 182 . But if you are a entry level pilot get the 172 then graduate your self to a 182T to get some ratings and what not . Not saying you cannot get ratings in a 172 im just saying the 182 can get you your ratings and get you used to higher speeds and essentially more useful load.
Thanks for giving us the information that should have been in the video!!
If the four seats are really needed it's the 182 hands down.
Very true
This video is very misleading. I have owned both and they are very different aircraft. The 182 handles like a heavier aircraft. It takes a lot more effort to hold the nose wheel off during landing. It can handle 4 adults and full fuel. It is a long distance hauler. The 172 is a 2 adult and maybe small children. You need to watch your gross weight especially in the summer. High temperature days take a lot of runway with a full load. It is a great trainer and hour builder, but if you are going long distances with a load, it won't work.
These videos give a very brief overview, but pilots need to do research on the actual full fuel load carrying capacity. The 182 info given is a for a T, which is a Turbo model. It is much more expensive to maintain and its efficiency occurs above 9000 feet.
I put more than 700 hours on my 182 and it did everything I asked it to do.
I think 182 having a constant speed prop and the 172 fixed speed prop are worth mentioning.
Also rear windows are worth mentioning, 182s do not have that strip going down the back, while 172s do. Also 182s have cowl flaps, which are absent on the 172.
The 172 XP says hello
Most of my flying time is been in Cessna 152 , love the little bugger.
Never flew a 182 before attract me the power and the speed.
Flying the 172 I never felt confortable.
Tks for sharing.
A lot of good information, but some mistakes: angle of attack has nothing to do with wing placement. Also, the 182 is not newer. Both models were first introduced in 1956, and both are still being made today. And please, the plural of aircraft is aircraft; not aircrafts. This is one of the odd quirks of the English language.
Great Content, thanks. One thing to add might be the interior cabin size. It is the main reason folks like me like the 182 over the 172. Flew to Oshkosh one year in a 172. That was a 7 hour flight. My uncle and I are both larger. I'm 6'8" I had to fly the plane with my arm behind his back for most of the flight because the cockpit was much narrower. Don't have that issue with the 182.
Very true!
182 best fixed gear airplane by a mile. Loved my 182.
Personally it's the 206 for me.
Is the 182 larger in cockpit from 172?
Most of my training was on a C-183, loved the extra power.
One point is incorrect. A low-wing isn't inherently better than a high wing in some crashes and the fuselage of a high-wing isn't necessarily going to make contact first. The landing gear are and absorb a surprising amount of energy. And even if at an angle at impact if you're yawing or rolling....the wingtip takes a hit next. I survived a crash that entirely removed the nose gear, flattened the pilot side gear, and crushed the passenger site gear, removed much of the prop, and bent the wing from direct contact. Secondarily, it crumpled the empengage in places that didn't make direct impact from the force, and I walked away without a scratch. The C172 takes a licking...and doesn't tick afterwards, but does save the occupants pretty well.
I've been told that by adding a STOL upgrade to a 172, the 172 exceeds the 182 in various ways. The STOL kit is about $3,000 and takes about 40 hours to install. What is your opinion?
Mark Sill I’ll say this, I flew and old 182 for about 25 hours and it would pull 1500 feet per minute Easy on a cold day with full fuel. The plane was an absolute monster. Now I fly a newer one and on climb out I can expect 1000 feet per minute. Also the newer 182 can cruise at about 155 knots if you get up high. 172 truly will never be able to compare to a 182 in performance and weight
Just get the 182. Those mods are not worth it, plus the performance gains are pure fiction.
Can you fly the 182 70 MPh and low altitude safely for viewing properties
The cutlass RG that I've flown wasn't to bad if it had a 200 hp constant speed Prop beside the 180 but overall it was great for commercial training skills but I got mine in the Piper Arrow 200 . The 172SP model is my favorite for IFR training for students and flight schools love them and my best of the best single engine high performance Aircraft I choose is the 182 Skylane
Piper Arrows are pretty cool
Heading for a 182. I want the extra payload capacity and more range.
Very cool! You’ll definitely enjoy the plane!
Maintenance & fuel burn is important to me. So I think the fuel burn in a 172 is 7 to 8 gal per min. what is the 182?
if you're burning 7-8 gal per "min." I sure hope you got access to a mid-air refueling tanker 🙂
It all depends on what I need it for say I'm flying by myself or with one other I'd take the 172, but if I were to go with the family or need to carry things (with reason) I'd take the 182 hands down.
Exactly
if you have a family or just like the fact you can carry six people get a 210 centurion it is like a 182 but can carry more and has more range and the wheels retract (unless your wanting a 182RG)
You missed the with reason part didn't you. Because if I'm carrying six people I'm going to be between a 206 citation or a 210 Centurian. ( I could go for the 337 skymaster but I don't have my twin engine rating)
To buy used one, 172 or 182?
A lot of used 172 are flight school operated with very high hours and not that cheap either.
Many used 182 are personally owned, has much less hours compared to 172. Its price isn't terribly expensive.
I would go for 182 if I want own for long time.
how much is the price of the brandnew built year 2019 cessna 172,182 and 206?
Cessna 172 - $300,000+.
Cessna 182 - $500,000+
Cessna 206 - $700,000+
You didn’t mention fuel burn rate, number of cylinders, cabin space, or cost of maintenance. All of which would be a factor in one’s purchasing decision.
I do not know where you got your information on safety of the low wing vs the high wing and the low wing aircraft absorbing more impact better on a hard landing or crash, but you better get some input from some real engineers before you spout off on you tube about the safety pros and cons of aircraft.
I would want to know internal dimensions...comfort etc.
This comparision is valid....but in terms of the question its easy to answer in those terms:
Performance? 182
Safty (because of performance) 182
Engine smoothness? 182 (6 cylinders runs much smoother)
Comfort? 182 (because as mentioned above)
There are down-sides on the 182 as well, but the points i pointed at above, weights a lot....for me more then the down-sides.
The 182 is 5 inches wider which equals some level of comfort. The 182 also hauls significantly more weight and can do it at high density altitude (particularly the turbo charged version.)
Personally , that 5 inches is a major selling point in the comfortability level . No scrunching
The plural of aircraft is aircraft.
Not a bad, high level overview disregarding model variances and the T for turbo. FYI - plural for aircraft is aircraft. Not aircrafts.
If you actually are an aviator you should know these are not "aircrafts". They are "airplanes". Aircraft is a general term that describes anything that flies in the air, including airplanes, rotorcraft, powered parachutes, etc. Also, the word aircraft is never used in plural form; there is no such word as "aircrafts".
Id go for the 182 Skylane, longer range, higher altitudes, and it’s fast.
But the best plane to train in is a 172, due to it being less than 200 hp.
Super
👍
Performance wise the 182 is definitely a better plane. If most of your flying is done with no passengers or just two people you’re wasting your money. Thank goodness I went the 172 route. I hardly ever have a passenger. I’m a lil bit slower than I like but the cost to operate is cheaper in all aspects.
I have flown the 172 for hundreds of hours and it is great but it really is a 2 place plus baggage plane. Once my kids were over the age where I could carry each in an arm, the 182 became a minimum requirement for my family. As they grow, the 182 will still be enough while the 172 would require me to leave so much fuel behind for weight savings that it would become useless. This is all without factoring in shot runways, density altitude and overall space.
The 172 is a great plane but comparing it to the 182 isn’t exactly an apples to apples comparison.
I want to learn to fly and I prefer the 182.
Learn to fly a 152 or 172 and then transition. 182 Aircraft time is expensive, and it's a handful to learn on being a complex AC
Awe, I try not to say it, but what’s the difference between watching this video and looking at specs on a brochure?
No mention of constant speed variable pitch prop vs fixed pitch propeller.
I am a novice. Would prefer more horse power for safety. Incase you error & need to get over obstacles at far end of runway.
Never ever exceed your limits when flying, the are old pilots and bold pilots but no old and bold pilots.
I am learning much from the comments. I must scratch from my mind that a 172 is a 4 seater.
The plural of "aircraft" is "aircraft". There is no such word as "aircrafts".
Sorry What's the best price of a used 172
They range from as low as 35K up to the new price. I wouldn't expect to spend less than 40K for a good one, then I'd spend another chunk to get it configured the way I want it. There is nothing more expensive than a "cheap plane".
Check out trade a plane dot com. But when pricing them out, expect maintenance issues, annuals, insurance, airport / hanger fee's. All the fun stuff. If you can do it though, go for it.
I would fly the 182
I renewed my license with a Cessna 182
Just sounds like your reading a book.
In conclusion 182 cost more than 172😅
Lol
By Far
and the 182 is seldom used by flight schools. So there is that.
The cost of the purchase of a 172S 2020 model is different than the ones with the GFC700 and specs but unfortunately you can get one and leasing it basically back to a flight school and it will pay off in the long haul and you can schedule your own plane and still make money 💰
Very true.
LOL, oh but it won't. When you lease back the airplane into commercial use, it's then subject to FAA Part 135 rules. This means that the Airplane is now going in the shop every 100 hours of flight (Hobbs Hours). for inspection, rather than once a year for an annual. ADs (Air Worthiness Directives) add more shop time, plus tie down or hanger space still gets billed to you, as does fuel as it's rented out "wet", and that goes against your rental proceeds. Then, there's admin fees, higher insurance requirements since it's being used commercially, AND, 200 different kinds of assholes treating your plane like a rented Taurus. trust me, ALL you get from a leaseback is a tax deduction, it will NEVER, EVER pay for itself, in fact, there's months where you'll be writing THEM a check, especially on 100/hr inspection periods.
If money is/was no object I cannot imagine I can't learn in a new 182T. I don't want to start in small used worn out trainer that I then have to resell.
Hmmm. You spend half the time on things that are common to both aircraft, then just painfully slowly read the basic specs for each! What about the real differences between these aircraft (not aircrafts!) from a pilot's or owner's point of view? Handling? differences in landing? Real life running costs ?
PS. The plural of aircraft is aircraft
I think he understands now after being reminded several times. Seems like pilots are English professors as well.
hello it looks like RG models. saludos
It may be because of all the hours I have in the 172, but the one and only time I flew the 182, I did not care for it and felt clumsy in it.
I would like the 182 at the price if the 172 lmao
Lol wouldn’t we all
🇩🇿🇩🇿👍👍👍✌
'Main Gar attached to airframe' my my. Another utibie looking for $.
I'll join the others in less admirable comments to this one.
What rubbish. They are the same design. Gosh, who'd a thought it, looking at the pictures? Finally, range and HP are different.
Not really. The cabin size in the 182 is better.
i can tell the difference between the two the 182 is slightly boxier
Range, Cabin dimensions, Performance, Gross Weight, Maintenance Exp, Insurance Exp, Annual Expense, Fuel Burn, HP, to name a few.
Err.... one shouldn't make a comment when one doesn't know the subject matter.