Why the Cessna 182 Skylane is excellent
Introduced in 1956, although some pilots feel the Skylane is the world’s best all-around four-seat single. It’s not hard to understand that sentiment. The 182 offers typical Cessna simplicity, reasonable climb and cruise, good useful load, and parts availability practically through your local maintenance shops. Skylanes use either a normally aspirated or turbocharged, 235hp Lycoming IO-540 engine, the climb is better than 900 feet per minute in both models, and cruise speed runs 165mph over 1000miles range, with 1000pounds useful load. Perhaps best of all, though, Skylanes of all ages and descriptions have earned the almost universal respect of pilots, because they’re forgiving machines, willing to ignore all but the most major indiscretions, and still bring you home safely, just like 172 Skyhawk younger brother. With $500,000, you can get this airplane brand new, or less than $100,000 for a used model. With $500,000, you can get this airplane brand new, or less than $100,000 for a used model.
#Cessna #Cessna182 #Cessna182Skylane
________________________________________________
The Team:
Oscar Obierefu (Creative Executive)
Nneji Valentine (Video Editor)
Voiceover by Tomislav Krevzelj
_________________________________________________
You can Support us on Patreon here: / dwaynesaviation
_________________________________________________
To contact me directly: Dashboardglobal@techie.com
_________________________________________________
Our channel is about Aviation.
We make the best educational aviation videos you've ever seen; my videos are designed to clear misunderstandings about airplanes and explain complicated aviation topics in a simple way.
Thank you for a great video on the Cessna 182 … in formative and valuable
I remember the very first time I saw an RG fly by me at take off and having NO idea it was retractable. The pilot raised the gear and the mains fell back and for that instant I was like 'OMG the gear broke.' Then I was fascinated as I watched them ratchet back into the wells. I went on the get my HiPerf/Complex sign off in one.
My family had a Cessna 182 RG and we flew all over with that plane,in VFR and IFR conditions.We loved it,we have many great memories with that plane.I personally fly the 172 and love that plane.There easy to fly.
Owned a 1959-172 for 5 years then bought a 1959--182. Used it in my ranching business off rough dirt short typical West Texas strips for 28 years and 2500 hours. All my flying was low and slow and some in deep canyons on Devils and Pecos rivers. I had a loud speaker in it so I could talk to my men when they were horse back, rounding up livestock. Lost my medical so had to stop flying 18 years ago. WOW what an airplane.
Hey amigo. I am over in Del Rio. My brother-in-law was a hand in the pumpville area for years. Worked for a guy named Andy. So what do you need a medical for in West Texas? lol
@@robjohnson8522 good to see a fellow Del Rio'an here. I had retired from the ranching business, 1999. So only used the plane to run up to KRBD and back. Did not do that enough to feel like I stayed as proficient as I wanted to be, so it was time to retire from flying . A-fib is what did me in in 2005. Had a close friend get in trouble with the FAA for having a medical expired for a week. Another landed his 210 gear up at KDRT, malfunction gear, medical had expired. Insurance is voided with out a medical. Pumpville is 15 to 20 miles west of the country I had on the east side of the Pecos River. Sorry I do not remember a Andy.
@@leeeldrut So do you live in town? Wanna get some coffee and talk airplanes? :)
@@robjohnson8522 come to benny's cafe on s main st around 10-10:15 am every week day --there is a few of there most of the time
@@leeeldrut OK! I will be the fat guy with a AOPA hat!
Wonderful airplane, excellent and informative video. Sadly, they and the C-172 have become outrageously expensive, due specifically to the Lawyers. Thanks, love this plane.
Yup more than 450 grand.
You need two things to really screw up a good product: lawyers and government! 🤬
@@russlong5114 Their collective greed is Opprobrious. (i think that is a "75 cent" word)
Lawyers keep manufacturers, etc from cutting corners with the safety of their products and are the reason industries no longer weigh the liikely number of deaths resulting from a known design flaw vs the cost of recalling a product or correcting a known defect. It's scary to think how unsafe some aircraft would be without the threat of lawyers holding manufacturers accountable. We would all live in a world of very low minimum safety standards, no lap belts, no airbags in autos, etc. Just my $.05.
@@calvinedwards4382 However, it now has become the same as paying $10,000 for a 50 cent pack of gum...
Flying as a volunteer with the Civil Air Patrol I have hundreds of hours in 172s and 182s. For me, the "new" S and SP models suck as I am a 275 pound 6'5" guy. My favorite was the 182RG with the 230 HP six cylinder Continental engine. Very smooth and responsive when compared to the 235 Lycoming four cylinder vibrators.
Nice documentary! The 182 (and 182RG) series was mentioned as default aircraft in the older Microsoft Flight Simulator games in the 90s such as FS98 and FS2000. If it weren't for me playing FS2000 as a kid, I would've never heard of the Cessna 182 Skylanes.
Me neither
That's where I discovered it as well. Today's date January 29 2022
300 plus hrs in Skylane 182... loved every minute....some flight over 1500 miles.
I have a couple of hundred hours in 182s, but my favorite SE Cessna is the 182's predecessor, the 180. Particularly the mid 50's models.
They are the same airplane, they just rearranged the gear! :) The mid 50's models even had the mounts for both gear arrangements!
@@robjohnson8522 Very true! The 180 was about 5 knots faster with one less landing gear. For that reason and the fact I am sort of partial to a tail wheel, and often operated off grass, I lean toward the 180 and 185.
I absolutely love mine , I have it sense 2011 , and it's never let me down 😎👍
I loved the 177, it handled fine, and was slick.
A friend of mine used to fly his dad's Cessna 182 a lot & sometimes asked me if I wanted to go. One flight he asked if I wanted to fly it. I'll always regret saying no. He explained the flight controls & I thought it over but feared going into a nose dive or spin if I flinched so I just let him fly it. My one chance to fly a plane & I passed. Wish I could do that over.
I loved flying the C182 Q, beautiful aircraft.
I just purchased a 1978 182-Q 1200 TT 200 TT Factory new O 470 How lucky can a man be? My Two Maule Super Rockets were fun but I'm in a new ball game now! N2511D
@@mikesimmons7568 I hope you have a lot of fun flying her, awesome touring aircraft. Congratulations. : -))
Cessna is the Toyota of the sky. Durability, reliability, safety.
I have a lot of time in the 172 , 182 ,177 ,210 all were RG models . 2 things on my mind while flying were the landing gear not working . Never had a problem , lucky me I guess .
The nose gear moves, which is nice. No more pumping breaks like the 172 to turn.
Love those nerdy type videos. 😂 Thanks! Here my points: You omitted the Q-Model. You went directly from P to the R model. You just ran over the most interesting model in my opinion: The D-model which featured the C180/185 fuselage when it comes to windows. Only one year of production. Even the E model is special with that sort 172 type of window.
At learned 2 fly in this plane at 11. My 1st hurdle was the mountain range of the Colorado River. Not that high but a true experience in the pacific wind effect and "saddleback" flying technique. A great plane.
Whats Saddleback flying technique
*Thank you for this wonderful film!* ✌🏾 😎
N3544U was my first 182 ride. It's now in Colorado Springs, CO. It would climb like a monkey!
N7366Q where are you??? I loved that airplane! Carried my family and I safely for many years!! What a great aircraft she was!🏆
The 182 is nose-heavy if there are no rear seat occupants or baggage. It can be trimmed to fly hands off however due to its effective elevator trim tab. The only thing that needs to be watched is the final flare on landing when quick work on the cockpit trim wheel will ensure a perfect touch down. Many 182s have suffered nose leg damage due to poor piloting technique at this final stage of flight.
First aircraft I ever flew on was a 182. Great little plane.
The Cessna 210 and 206 is by far a legend, but the 182 is next in line, if it is Cessna I like it, I like it a lot.
So Nice plane !
Cessna did try to alleviate the 182’s nose-heaviness by increasing the horizontal stabilizers span. I used to own a ‘64 model with the smaller tail and also flew a larger tailed ‘77 model. When flying solo or front seats only, I’d run out of nose-up trim in the 64. That didn’t happen with the 77.
" I’d run out of nose-up trim in the 64' LOL! I have a 64 and I thought that was just because of my fat ass! LOL I keep a toolbox in the bag area to help though.
How about a 5 gallon jug of water in the baggage compartment. Full when solo, and empty with passengers?
That’s why a canard is what it needs!
@@darrendevolin3720 that’s where the Wren 460 STOL conversion comes in.
@@tarmacpounder785that’s true. I’ve got a Peterson King Katmai 182, and they work great! @devodarr
Excellent stuff bro
Thank for sharing this on the Most popular Aircraft on the market
So fab thanks
I flew the 182RG many times. Easy to handle.
New sub, great video!
It was a nice documentary,. I just wonder if the announcer had any idea what he was reading, or is synthetic voice getting so good I can't distinguish from real voices. Any way, good documentary
All model of Cessna are certified and they all proven safe 😊😊😊
My dad had a Skylane RG in the 80's...
I’ve flown the Straight tail and The faster model was the 1963 model and the older ones had the smaller elevator which made landings not good but overall the market prices have gone higher than before and if you are looking for a wholesale price or retail price point well the best way is to find one is by word of mouth . The new one are over a half a million dollars so if you are interested in buying one just ask around and maybe someone may give you a call.
Now that the 172 is going up to 500,000$ very soon I wouldn’t even waste time looking at the insane prices of a new 182, I would go straight to “Peterson performance” and get on their buy list, much more reasonable prices for a plane that’s way better than Cessna would ever push out their door.
Got a 2014 with under 400 TTSN. been flying them for 50 years and they are top knotch
wind back time footage was great
Great video, I really love the 182RG. I actually did my complex and HP ratings in N9106C pictured in your videos thumbnail. I still fly it regularly, it's a great XC bird.
Funny. My first rg flight was in N9108C. Close but no cigar
I can't even begin to imagine the terror of having an engine out in a single engine aircraft in IFR conditions.
You pull the carb heat knob and it melts the carb ice. Been there and did that.
very beautiful flying machine #
Tight on the exit; pad over the wheel was nice, and ability to hold strut at 10K ft, before release. C-13218
Hi SteveO! This was a great view of the Cessna 182. It is easy to see how it has remained popular for so many for so many years. Just what the average aviator would want to serve most all their needs.
So that is SteveO in the cockpit! I saw him and said, that looks like SteveO. Now he's flying a brand new TBM 900? I enjoy his channel, very instructive.
Excellent video on an outstanding aircraft. I have over 1,000 hours i the RG version
Prior to the wet wings, the C182's killed a lot of people because the bladders were wrinkled and would obscure water in the fuel. The pilot would check for water and there would be none but as soon as the airplane lifted off and tilted back, the water would be freed to the engine and quit while on takeoff. I know personally this happened to 3 different people and for the last guy, it scared hime so bad that he quit flying for good.
Well, the real issue there was the original fuel caps that let rainwater into the fuel cells. If you have complied with the AD and replaced the fuel caps the bladder planes are fine safety wise but those $4,000 fuel cells though, UGH!
Nice video!!!!!
Thank you very much
Need this for the 210
I hope someday I get to own one.
Nice looking plane, including the early version but that new tail looks pretty cool. I never really liked high-wing planes though as the wing always blocks visibility in the turn.
Always liked them for charter wk,low time...now like the pipers cos i dont have to climb up to ck fuel. Like O 470 engines as in older 310s reliable....
Lycoming 540s best engine for singles/twins
Muy buen video, pero me cuesta un poco porque no hablo ingles. Muchas gracias desde Argentina
Hey Dwayne, well done! Nice doc! Q: do those (Very) droopy wingtips on some 60's vintage models have a proper name? Can you do 3-5 minutes on those things? They look terrible, never liked em, and I need to know why they ever came to be and why, besides looks, did they go away? Thanks.
Most of my time was 172 followed by 152, 182, Mooney, Piper, Citabria and one Sailplane.
It's interesting that the man who took this shot only took one photo in his entire life, this one. It's one of the most iconic photos ever taken. The camera was set up by the original photographer and the guy who snapped it was asked to push the squeeze bulb to take this shot by the owner of the camera who was busy doing something else. The man who snapped this photo wasn't even sure if he squeezed the bulb when he took the shot. Life is strange sometimes with unique surprises.
Huh?
@@8literbeater Daffidavit's comment refers to the guy who snapped the photo of the Wright Flyer piloted by Orville Wright at Kill Devil Hills, NC way back in 1903.
Yeah Cessna!
Yeaaaahhhhhhhh 😊😊😊
Cessna! Cessna! Cessna! Cessna!!!!!!! 😃😃😃😃
The 182 with the retractable gear was the original 210.
182s are nose-heavy? That’s news to me. I owned a 2006 model and never founded it "nose-heavy." I guess it could have been if it was loaded improperly, but, oddly enough, I never did that.
Where I live here in Alaska, they are great airplanes… 26 inch Bush wheels lots of modifications on the airplane my 1958 182 a, can get me almost any place of 180 can get… Most of my flying is beaches sandbars gravel bars even off-road system gravel roads, back country airports… Oh yeah and the occasional paved airport . Yes they’re slow but I can stuff pretty much a whole moose into the back and one of my hunting buddies and get into an out of rough strips… So it doesn’t have the glamour of the glass panel airplanes which frankly here in Alaska are useless, and I will take manual flaps with a Johnson bar over the electric flaps any day! And as to the rear “Omni vision“ window… Give me a straight tail any day, I have an extended baggage installed so I can store lightweight gear way back there , and yes with the Landis nose gear that is actually required for the bush wheels STC, it is even more nose heavy but has one comment there stated I just keep my small toolbox all the way in the back, taking the battery out of the back and having a firewall battery didn’t help that either…. And one thing about the old 0470L engines… I got the auto gas STC so I can even run it off of regular unleaded gas from the pump, throwing in an occasional few gallons of avgas get a little lead in there… Most incredible useful pick up truck equivalent for use up here in Alaska… So you can take your fancy cirruses,which wouldn’t last a month up here, up here Cessna reigns supreme
? Did he say the swept tail sacrificed spin recovery, Y - N?
Probably my favorite all around aircraft is the 182, especially the t182t wich is making a comeback, too bad because of the gears complexity the 182 rg will never be produced again..
Do the 172 next!
I will...
there's is not a drop zone that doesn't have one, i have thousands of take offs in a 182 but have only landed once it was a good landing (i guess) this aircraft is truly a work horse, just ask Truman sparks.
When I first flew in the 152 my instructor was amazed at my ability to set trim JUST as he was about to tell me to. He stated: " Steve, JUST when I'm about to tell you to adjust trim you do. You're a natural". However, I ran out of money and did not get my PPL. Sniff.
You solve that problem by buying an old plane and making monthly payments instead of HUGE rentals checks everytime you land.
@@robjohnson8522 Well, the old saying is true: If it floats, flies, or fornicates, it's cheaper to rent.
@@Steve_Farwalker Well sir, after 30 years of aircraft ownership I strongly disagree with that old joke. I mean it is a joke after all not a valid financial plan. ;)
The turbo 182RG was the best!! But the Cardinal RG & P-210 are faster.
Nice video, but very amateurish rendition, many C172 are shown with voiceover talking as it was C182 (at the beginning even shown a LSA of some kind).
Awesome plane's how much in English money.
awesome aircraft, absolutely ridiculous prices.
Hey, you didn't answer your question, Why does the C182 cost so much ???
Before the pandemic hit, plane prices were over 40% cheaper than it is now.... Maybe the pandemic
I believe Gerrie Mock flew around the world in a 182…
4:29 is my footage from a video I made about my new engine. Again at 9:38. Aren't you supposed to ask permission to use my content?? 5:10 is a Cessna 172 taking off...not a 182.
Hiii Quinnjim... I'm sorry I didn't reach out directly... We didn't find an email in the video description, so I instead listed the source on the top right corner... If you're not okay with it, and you want me to take it down, you can comment it here, or maybe we can resolve outside the comment section 😊😊... What do you think? obierefu.oscar@gmail.com or WhatsApp: +2348034073500 Please respond okay? I'll highly appreciate it... Thank you very much... God bless you
@@Dwaynesaviation I didn't see that initially. We're cool. No problem.
Hi.. Actually, not that I don't know about airplanes... But I couldn't combine making research with video editing... My scripts are so long and time draining.. I have a video editor that is not really much into aviation... And on this case, I didn't review the video back to back... Which is a huge mistake on my end....
Thank you very much... I highly appreciate... We'll make the credits bigger hence forth...
It damn well better be excellent at $484,000.00 per, and an 18 month wait!
Well, my '64 cost me $56,000 ($365 per month) and while it is not as pretty as a new one it flies just as a good! :)
@@robjohnson8522 $485K is for a brand spanking new bird, all of which include an expansive Garmin glass cockpit and an individual aircraft liability insurance policy and are headed straight for instruction use. Long ago and far away I trained in Cessnas and have worlds of respect for them.
@@StrayCatOR that is ridiculous! :(
@@robjohnson8522 Yeah, the guy Juan Brown was interviewing, the Alaska Cessna dealer, explained that the ruinously expensive glass cockpit and the funny insurance deal exclusively aimed the brand new planes directly at the training institutions, who could easily afford the new ones (given the 'tuition' income involved), and would keep them a few years, then sell them off as well maintained down-payments on their next crop of new birds. The ruinously expensive Garmin kit, a prominent AOA indicator and such were intended to provide an easier transition for the up and coming commercial pilot. 'Tis a strange new world my friend.
@@robjohnson8522 kzhead.info/sun/jdCDZMhqp3t3m2w/bejne.html
The plane on the video cover is a Cessna 210 not a 182.
No it's not... It's the retractable gear version of the 182..
What is funny/interesting (at least to me me) is the first 210's were just 182's with a bigger engine and retracts. Then the lines diverged after the success of the 182/210 hybrid. They sold like hotcakes
do you have permission to use HDAVIATION's videos?
Hi... Please... You can contact me directly at obierefu.oscar@gmail.com if you have concerns ❤️❤️❤️❤️
I think it needs a bigger tail.
0:55 not a cessna 5:09 is a skyhawk, 15:18 is a 337 skymaster (do a vid on that one) 16:28 not a cessna and I'm still trying to find a high wing with slats and winglets. 17:00 is at least a 210. nice video, Sorry i turned it into a dumb game. 😀
0:55 is a 152. 16:28 could be modified for STOL but probably not a cessna. 17:00 Is a 206 here is the link to the video of it , kzhead.info/sun/dqd7XcmRi3SaeKM/bejne.html
@@Bendigo1 3 blade 152??
@@gxlbiscuit Yup. They actually make great bush planes. Upgrade the engine and prop and they almost become vtol planes.
@@Bendigo1 0:49 with a rotax? see radiator and rear cowl exits. still not a cessna :-)
@@gxlbiscuit Well then what is it??? :)
its a rakeish not rackish tail.
Gear down? 2 greens? uh-oh...
I think this will be my first one.
Why do general aviation engines seem to be stuck in the 40’s. Vacuum pumps and magnetos, air cooling what gives.
Less weight and less to go wrong.
The VW of the sky...
It's no way like a VW. a VW is not reliable. A 182 is reliable, comfortable, much cooler inside than many aircraft, useful load.
@@kimberlywentworth9160 The damn engine is a VW design. An Opposed 180 degree, Air Cooled. It's been around since the first VW Engine... And the only reason it's reliable. You got two of everything.. Not too mention maintenance schedules. That make sure it stays that way. Go ask any A&P Mechanic.... No go take a course in Combustion engine designs. As I loathe people that step outside their expertise. But they know everything about everything. Just ask them..They will tell you they do..
Yes, I agree that 182 is a great plane. No one can argue that, but they are outrageously over priced. Even with a used vintage 182 the price is prohibitive. Unfortunately, Cessna is going to market themselves, out, because of the price. Why pay that kind of a price, when you can get more of a plane, such as a Beech A36.?
Anyone who complains that 182s are nose heavy are soft 😆
lol! When I moved from 172 to 182 I was like "oooomf" on that first rotation, but I got used to it pretty quick. Then when I moved to 210's the 182 had me all primed and ready! :)
@@robjohnson8522 yeah a bit of a difference, but 10 degrees of flaps on take off will have it lift right off the ground by itself. Im sure the 210 is similar
@@jeffpyles2672 Well that is interesting because the POH of my 182 normal take off is no flaps (short field is 20 degrees) so that is what I have always done. However, my old 210 normal TO is 10 degrees. (can't remember short field setting- I sold in 2011) Either way though they both felt fine on their own it was ONLY that the 172 was so light on the controls it makes the bigger models feel heavy. ;)
@@robjohnson8522 Normal take off for my 182P says 0-20 degrees flaps, most people take off with 10. I forgot to put 10 in a few times and its a huge difference on rotate. It feels just like a 172 with 10. I never flew the older 182s with the smaller horizontal stabilizer though. I saw your comment below.. Ignore the cirrus pilots haha
@@jeffpyles2672 Very interesting. I have a '64 G model. I am going to try 10 degrees next time just for grins and giggles! " Ignore the cirrus pilots haha" LOL! {applause}
Bought a new one in 1976 = $38,500. New one today = $450,000. Civil Aviation has become uncivilized................
1976 GMC Pick up MSRP $3862. With the same rate of increase a new one should be $45,000. ..... It looks like Cessna has controlled their increases better than the truck industry.... Unfortunately the market sets the prices for airplanes and pickup trucks. Manufacturers will charge what people will pay.
Thank the lawyers. When people started realizing that they could sue people left and right for any manner of reason, that was the start of the spiral.
but the Wright brothers werw catapulted, who really made the first flight was Santos Dumont. Why don't Americans accept this? wounded pride??
They are ok but not near as nice 206. The 206 is King
Merely inserting modern stock footage in black and white an interesting documentary does NOT make.
This is where I become racist, because, all Cessna's look alike.
{applause}
Too nose-heavy for my liking
Clickbait
Do you have to pay a lot of money for a voice that is so thoroughly mannered, saccharine, clumsy, ungracious, sing-songish and annoying or do you find them for free? Tip: let someone with a less smarmy approach do your voiceovers.
sounds constipated
Hanger talk.....never ever own a 172/182 RG
Laughed at "O-470 relatively inexpensive to overhaul" Skylanes have a $50k dinosaur engine which is an inefficient gas hog and not even that powerful. It was cool compared to the O-320 in 1970, not so much compared to the 180hp IO-360. At least the IO-540 isn't prone to carb icing. After flying a DA-40 a few times I'm fully convinced that any Cessna is just an overpriced dinosaur which flies like a truck and has high op. costs. The ones in use will continue to fly, and they hold value on the used aircraft market, but why anyone would purchase a NEW one in this century is beyond me. They're the same as 50 years ago, just the price tag went up. And as gas prices continue to grow the op. costs of a C-182 will far outweigh any advantages it had over the old 160hp C-172P.
ATP rated pilot with over 1,000 hours behind a 182 and have flown the DA-40 more than a few times. The part yer missing is the 470(or 540) is far superior to the 360 for one simple reason. Pull the 470 back to 360 speed and you get very nearly the fuel burn of the 360, but you will never be able to push the 360 to anywhere near what you can get out of the 470. If you are out west you can also easily STC the 470 or 540 to even more HP and do a lot more with it. The 360 is pretty much stuck where it is and always will be. Everything in aviation is a compromise. While the DA-40 is great for efficiency, the tradeoff is less room, less stable platform, harder to get in and out of, greenhouse hot in the summer, lousy high altitude performance, and it takes more runway all of which translates to me taking the "dinosaur" over the DA-40 every day and twice on Sunday. If I were operating a flight school, then the DA-40 makes good sense, but for pretty much everything else it makes less sense. If I want an aircraft that will do a good job for all sorts of practical missions like flying across country in comfort, flying an approach in low IFR, getting in and out of high altitude airports and short fields, then the 182 is the clear choice. If you are a flatland pilot that doesn't do anything more than hamburger runs in CAVU, get a DA-40. Go to a high altitude airport, count the number of 182s vs DA-40s on the ramp. In about 1500 hours flying behind carbed aircraft I've never once experienced carb ice. Reading an induction temp gauge and managing carb heat isn't that hard. Hot starting a fuel injected engine can be. Again, tradeoffs.
" and not even that powerful." That is why it will run forever. It is no problem at all to get 2,500 hours out of an O-470. It would be nice to get rid of the carb though. Funny to see someone calling themselves "Suzuki Rider" bad mouthing an engine that will run 2500 hours. Ain't no Suzuki that can do that. {shrug} lol "which flies like a truck" You say "like a truck" like that is a bad thing or something. Are you aware that trucks outsell cars in America? However, you are right, a Cessna 182 IS a truck which is a big part of what makes it so great! It's big, roomy and comfortable, tough, long lasting, hauls a load and pavement is purely optional. A DA-40 is none of those things. Now I would never be crude enough to run my mouth against the DA-40, it seems like a fine plane but it does not meet my needs at all. In fact, I don't get how anyone with a ticket would even compare them.
@@bubbaoriley7864 is correct. It may be an old platform but there's a reason it's compared to the Chevy Tahoe: the 182 is big, comfortable, easy to fly and so versatile. Good luck getting 4 adults in a DA40! I can do that easily and fly a 3hr trip with reserves in a 182. Short field, rough strip it goes everwhere.
182 with big tires will make you smile...they have gotten overpriced in the last few months
@@soaringbumnm8374 "they have gotten overpriced in the last few months" I know, I am thinking I really should sell mine while the market is so strong!
Way too much repititon of the video footage.
C172 is better.
really uboob?1:17 fricking ads? no one buys this crap.
You folks REALLY need to get a Voice Over guy who knows the industry and does not Mis-Read aviation words. AND using incorrect b-roll, 1 sec shots, and reversed shots is so bush-league - if you are going to do aviation videos, get producers that know the industry!!
Really, why is the Cessna 182 Excellent with over 2680 accidents from 1957 till date 2022, comon, they cant be all the pilots fault, its an excellent plane to play Russian roulette! Get out of here
Seriously? Are you really that bad at math or are you just a troll? 1) 2,680 accidents over 65 YEARS? Yeah, that is just like Russian roulette. {cough} 2) Over how many hours flown? 3) Over how many aircraft built. Jeez man. Hey, look on the bright side, you took the dumbest post award away from Speedo Mars! Congrats!
And 2679 of those 2680 accidents were pilot error.
Cessna 172 and 182 are antique designs...and junk really. Modern aircraft are made from fiberglass or carbon fiber...and are most often equipped with a BRS parachute. They do not havev clunky struts on a high wing, made of draggy metal and rivets...and are slow like the Cessnas.
Interesting viewpoint. Junk huh? As an engineer I always just think in trade off's. I sacrifice this to get that, give up some of that to get more of this. There are ALWAYS pros and cons to every design decision. When I see someone post like this, I can tell right off you don't really know much about airplanes or piloting because you clearly don't understand the tradeoffs involved. What sacrifices were made to get those modern things you adore? You don't know, do ya? ;) Now, there is nothing wrong with those trade offs, the point is you clearly don't understand them or even recognize their existence, yet you call my plane junk. BTW, how many planes have you owned?
@@robjohnson8522 I am also an engineer. When I got into aviation (retired from career in Silicon Valley) I was shocked how crude the avionics and other flight controls were in the trainer planes (172s). I immediately bought a Flight Design CTLSi light sport to train in, it had a full Dynon glass panel setup with ADS/B and a BRS chute (the Rotax 912iS was a fuel injected turbo with FADEC control). A high wing, but made from carbon fiber and no struts. Cheap, capable, but still too slow (same cruise as the 172) and all of that for $150k new. I sold the plane after I got my private and bought a carbon fiber/BRS equipped Cirrus SR22T. That is a real aircraft with a full G1000 panel and a cruise speed of 200kts. I flew that for six years and just sold it for what I paid for it (the used market is hot right now...the lead time to get a new Cirrus is 2 years). My next plane is a Velocity XL5...all fiberglass build and a 260kt cruise. It will cost less than a new 172 (and far less than a Cirrus) yet be a far more capable and useful aircraft. No comparison.
@@speedomars3869 Oh dude, you are comparing homebuilts to certified and experimental avionics to certified avionics stuff and think you are making a valid point? What kind if engineer compares apples to oranges and thinks he is on to something? BTW, I built a Velocity XL. Glad I did it, it was a great life experience. I learned several very hard lessons in design trade offs with that plane though. I imagine you will too. Still, I would never be asshole enough to call someone else's plane junk.
@@robjohnson8522 No. The Flight Design and the Cirrus are certified. The Velocity is being built by the factory under the 51% rule.
@@speedomars3869 Well said. It is like someone who does not know what they are talking about. But I I'm interested in flying a lighter more fuel cheap plane. Ha. I even called Cessnas dinosaurs. But with a pro pilot.... they fly unbelievably. As a student pilot..... lots to learn.
I have a 182 with a brs parachute and it is no longer nose heavy and I can fly at night with my girlfriend and put it on auto pilot at 5280’
I have a cirrus sr22t and I don’t talk much to the monkey pox high wingers
C172 is better.