R/TR182 Ownership Pro’s & Cons
Pros
- Ease of maintenance – most shops have worked on Cessna 182s
- Textron/Cessna still supports the type even tho parts prices can be pricey.
- No other single engine retractable offers 150kt+ cruise on 13gph with a 1300lb+ useful load
- Ease of cabin entry/exit due to low stance on landing gear
- Robust landing gear system is low maintenance if properly cared for- bad reputation not deserved
- Lycoming O-540-J3C5D is low maintenance and durable if properly operated & maintained
- Easy transition from C172/182 with reasonable insurance cost
- Good short field performance including grass strips, but watch out for gopher holes that can pound the main landing gear due to the smaller size tires(15 x 6.00-6 vs. 6.00-6 for the C182 fixed gear)
- Lycoming 0-540 series less susceptible to carburetor ice than the 0-470 series used in fixed gear C182
- Factory engines include carbureted 235hp normally aspirated and turbocharged(turbo normalized) options, while the aftermarket 260hp & 300hp fuel injected options from Air Plains offer performance increases and remove the dual magneto ignition.
Cons
- Hydraulic landing gear system maintenance (bad reputation not deserved)
- Performing key service bulletins (i.e. SEB95-20) are key to reliability & safety of ops of the landing gear system
- 15x 6.00-6 MLG tire size is smaller than standard 182(6.00-6) so on rough surfaces can be less than ideal
- Control forces in pitch are heavy like all 182s they handle more like a truck than a sports car, but are easily removed with proper use of the elevator trim wheel
- For 1979 thru 1986 models with integral/sealed fuel cells leak repair can be a big expense. One solution is to use lower than published flap speeds to keep from stressing the tanks
- 1979-1986 models use aluminum MLG trunions (?) which are expensive to replace
- MLG swivels fittings occasionally leak are expensive to replace
- Airframe corrosion can be an issue when stored/operated in coastal environments. Factory corrosion proofing was less than ideal.
- Engine exhaust trails will accumulate on the belly and landing gear wells that requires removal & cleaning to prevent corrosion.
- 1978 models have firewall mounted batteries which can cause corrosion. Later model corrosion can occur in the tail mounted battery areas as well.
- The dual magneto used in the Lycoming O-540-J3C5D needs 500 hour inspection/overhaul by a shop with expertise in working on that type of magneto.
Comparing the R/TR182 to other 4 place retractables:
Bonanza
We were looking for a Bonanza V35B when we came across the R182 with Air Plains 300hp conversion. Superior flying qualities, robust landing gear, Beech engineering and ABS support make the Bonanza a can’t miss choice. Climbing up on the wing was becoming harder to convince my wife to do as we’re getting older, and the R182’s ease of entry/exit helped make the choice for the R182. Handling of the R182 is better than our previous C182P which flies nose heavier, although all the C182s are not known for their Ferrari like handling.
Comanche
We are fans of the type particularly the 250/260 versions which are faster than the R182 with potentially longer legs as well for those with 90 gallon fuel systems. Both types use Lycoming 0-540 series for power and both landing gear systems require occasional maintenance, although the Cessna gear system has a worse than deserved reputation. Why do we say that? Because most of the R182s we’ve seen have had only minimal landing gear maintenance over the decades, including one 40 year R182 owner I know who has only ever done routine maintenance to his gear system. Also just learned our 1978 R182’s powerpack has never been removed for overhaul since new, and the NLG actuator was also not overhauled until recently we recently found it leaking(June 2024).
Comparatively the Comanche’s landing gear is also fairly durable and requires bungy replacement every 5 years or so with occasional bushing replacement due to wear from side loads. The larger Comanche 6.00 x 6 tires are better on rough strips than the R182’s smaller 15 x 6.00-6 tires in the event that is a mission critical item. Another difference in the landing gear system is the R182 has just the NLG oleo strut to maintain compared to the Comanche’s 3 struts to be maintained.
Flying qualities of the Comanche are good and it handles a cross wind well in part because it sits low to the ground, even it consistent greasing of arrivals is difficult in part due to the variable cord wing design.
Mooney 201
Regardless of the 201’s claimed 43.5” cabin width(same as R182) we find it to be rather tight inside, but for that you get R182 speed(155kts) on 10gph with just a four cylinder engine – so lower operating and maintenance costs. We also find maintaining a Mooney’s to be a tight place to work which makes sense. The landing gear system is reliable/robust using rubber donuts rather than oleos so lower maintenance there. When it comes time to replace those donuts it is a rather demanding job and uses a special tool to compress the donuts into place. Mooney luvers are devoted group who do a good job supporting the type.
Here’s a video further comparing the types: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_rdfZRFWhQ