Why I choose the Cessna TR182

My last plane was one of my first planes. An overview of why I am back in the TR182.

[@pastortbell]

Exceptional video!!! Praying about this for my next plane. It will be plane number 7. You helped me a lot with different scenarios. Thank you! Love the shirt!

[@kwittnebel]

Just a great video on the plane. Thanks.

[@ibnewton8951]

I thoroughly enjoyed your chat. Happy flying.

[@HelmichHillen]

I really appreciate your videos, it’s so educational and informative videos. Keep going👍👍 Grtz from the Netherlands.

[@flemsnopes3135]

I'd like to have that engine in my 182A. Very thorough owner analysis of model.

[@TRISTAN440]

So awesome. Keep flying.

[@jdavis8610]

Great information! Thank You.

[@triedproven9908]

Dual redundancy is an excellent idea. Very nice aero vehicle.

[@ricardo5178]

Great video, super instructive, congratulations.

[@texsurfer]

good to see you're back at it Todd. Been a long time since I spent any time on BeechTalk but always enjoyed your content.

[@Richard.Hybels]

As a guy that is just getting interested in flying but understands engines quite well I really appreciate your views.

[@karrpilot7092]

The AOPA did a study. In said study, they said that if one wasn't flying 70 hours a year, one shouldn't own an aircraft. Of any type. I have been a rental pilot for over 20 years, and never got out of currency.

[@kreativeflicks]

*If I told you how many times I've watched your Glasair III Full demo vid, you'd probably suggest that I need professional help! LOVE IT!* Hands down one of my absolute favorite flying videos. I hope that this is the the beginning of you regularly pumping out aviation videos. Really like your aviation style and informative commentary. I personally wish that you still had the Glasair III but happy for you with your choice of the 182. Maybe in the future you could do a little reflection of the 2 Glasairs that you've owned and also share a bit of info on that fighter. Nothing like some good ole 'hanger talk!' I'm presently getting my ducks in a row for a Glasair IIS or III purchase. Blue Skies!

[@baronpilot2bb]

Thank you for the post. I was 24 when I bought the fighter. Was going to buy a Mig 21, but the Russian captain that trained me wouldn’t sell it to me. It burned 150 gallons per hour and I burned straight kerosene in it that cost 58 cents per gallon. Was a lot of fun back in 1994. The Glasair III is a great plane. 210 knots on 11GPH. Don’t fly them in ice. I put a 1/4 inch of ice on mine one day and lost 30 knots of airspeed. Considering putting TKS on this 182. With TKS it is a go anywhere and anytime airplane.

[@kkenneth100]

I know the feeling, that plane was awesome!!!!!

[@easttexan2933]

I was thinking it would have been nice to see the inside of this beautiful plane.

[@hogster5935]

I almost never considered a 182, almost. I like the TR however and I'm getting up on age too. I love the GAIII and flew in one. The Columbia's 300/350/400's are sweet. That said, I need a simple aircraft now. 60 yo so simple and rel.speed and UL are a plus now. I too do not like the SR's for many reasons and yes CAPS a big reason. I flew many airplanes and even crop dusted in Agcats and Air tractors. I flew 182,210's and Skymaster's and of course 172/152 back in the day. I've owned a Diamond DA20 and it was cheap to fly and maintain but slow. Considered and DA40NG as well. Cessna's are good and agree most anyone can work on them. Great vids and fly safe!!!!

[@gilkennedy7638]

I'm looking seriously to buy a 182 as my second airplane, you did convince me even more...thanks for sharing your experience

[@Matt_from_Florida]

Primary? I have a Super Viking but have been thinking of adding a 2nd with A/C to make the wife happy during Summer. I've spent so much time & money getting the Viking how I want it that it makes no sense to let it go.

[@quidestnunc9238]

This guy REALLY, Really, really knows his stuff ! And I am a hard case when it comes to SEL Tractor-Configuration birds !

[@Seadweller1964]

Great intel!

[@kkenneth100]

I was watching another video on youtube and mojo Mike was talking about the glasair. So i started watching your video with the glasair 3.When you rolled up to take off and hit the throttle, maaaaan, stuff started happening quick lol. Thats what Mojo was talking about in his video. That was a cool plane and video. Thanks for posting.

[@americanrambler4972]

I enjoyed this video. I have often wondered why the Cessna 150/172/182 series airplanes are as common around the globe as chickens. There are a limited number of great planes which are such an overall good fit, they are almost eternal. The reasoning for your choice of this TR182 is an outstanding explanation why any small general aviation airplane is almost always generically referred to as a “Cessna” no matter what the brand or configuration. When someone says “small plane”, general aviation or private airplane, my mind immediately congers up an image of a Cessna 172/182. Or a Beechcraft Bonanza.

[@muhammadsteinberg]

You and Mark over at Skywagon University have really complicated things for me. I'm presently in the beginning stages of buying an airplane to replace a 172 I sold. Constant unforeseen personal challenges are slowing my RV-10 build. Life without an airplane nibbling at my wallet is not natural...lol Had my sights on a Mooney M20J 201 until Turbo 182's with retracts caught my attention. Already being a longtime member of cessna pilots association the 182 is calling out to me. You and Mark have done an awesome job of providing some specific owner/operator information of great interest to me. Every potential seller of the model should be giving you guys a cut of the cash..

[@flyingjeff1956]

You don't want the complications of Cessna retracts unless you REALLY have a need. But a 182 is quite a machine. So is the Mooney, just tighter.

[@Beffudled]

1st. Cool plane. Glad to see it.

[@RobinGlasco]

TR 182 is my favorite. As far as lean of peak, I never used carb heat to do it. As for checking carb heat on the ground, just don't do it on the dirt or when the wind is blowing dirt in your direction. Simple enoough to remember I think. You didn't mention cowl flaps. The ones I've flown, 70s vintage. all had them and some instructors insisted I open them on take off and close them on downwind. I could see their reasoning but it was a pain in the ass, just one more thing to do and usually not nessecary. I learned to fly in Colorado at high density airports and did a lot of mountian flying. Perfect for both of those. Loved the useful load and yes they are nose heavy but the baggage compartment will hold a lot to even that out. I enjoyed your video.

[@midweekpowderhound]

The other thing about those single drive dual magnetos - is the single drive. I had one where several of the mounting bolts backed out and loosened the case enough inflight so the drive gears would slip. The engine suddenly went in and out of time, and surged from no power to full power with about 3 seconds for a cycle. This in an Aztec. Granted it was a maintenance oversight by the mechanic, and you might tell yourself, "Well that would never happen with MY mechanic..." but you still are relying on a single drive for both magnetos. That raised the blood pressure a fair bit. Throttled back the surging engine, landed a few minutes later without incident.

[@wayneschenk5512]

Amazing this was all thought of many years ago.

[@user-kj4pt5tn2v]

Great aircraft to learn on, for me it was a 182 skylane which was great not fast but easy to fly and no actual bad habits

[@musoseven8218]

Great, thoughtful advice/thoughts, looking forward to seeing the interior. I like older design Cessnas, you know where you are with them, they're very capable. Love the idea of the training device, my mate has a lesser version for the fixed wing microlight he's learning on (the software comes from the actual simulator for the type) - it all helps with familiarisation. One question, a single? Wouldn't your good lady feel safer in a twin? I agree about height though, it buys you time and options.

[@eminye1]

Miss the glasair.

[@quidestnunc9238]

Except for the microphone without a wind muffs, this Video's Audio (and information) was PurrFect ! Well done,

[@dalouryounan1913]

I am very intrigued with the turbo normalized add-on. How do you address the lack of oxygen system in the stock airplane. Is there an STC to incorporate an oxygen system? My other question is about prop ground clearance. Do you know prop clearance for the RG and is it the same as the fixed gear 182?

[@jondudeck474]

Great video Todd. Glad you're back flying. You make a great case for the TR182. Is that TurboNormalizaton a conversion from a TR-182 or an STC to an 182RG?

[@baronpilot2bb]

Hi Jon! The TR182 came out in 1979. Cessna took the NA R182 (182RG) and bolted on a non intercooled turbo with a manual waste gate to make the plane turbo normalized. The great thing about this setup is simplicity. The engine makes 235HP at 2400 max RPM. The result is an engine that is running 25 HP derated from the other parallel valve O540's. So, at 75% power you are really only making 65% power. As such you have no way of ever exceeding TIT limitations and your ICPs are out of the red box area. The simplicity of a carb instead of injection means no upper deck pressure issues or hot start problems, and inexpensive rebuilds. The manual waste gate also provides simple operation elimination the need for an automatic controller. You fly the plane just like a NA plane. These planes are amazingly efficient and carry a lot of weight while having very docile handling characteristics and great short field performance.

[@robercoles7277]

I appreciated the video, I bought a TR182 1980 2 years ago. Love the plane for all those reasons. One comment I hope you get to show I suffered a very unlikely turbo failure. Immediately after the annual this last December 21, the the tail of a stainless steel hose clamp broke and entered the carb heat bi-pass "fod". The clamp was located directly above the intake, holding the shroud that allows hot air to enter into the bi-pass as carb heat. It destroyed the induction side of the turbo, fans ripped apart, and seized the turbo, discovered just after take-off while climbing out. I mention this as we reported this odd occurrence to Cessna, they may issue an AD. As it is a 40 year aircraft, suggest replacing the small stainless steel $5 hose clamp above the intake shroud, I think it was brittle with 40yrs high heat and vibration. Turbo is now fully re-built back to flying but lost 2 months and had a low manifold pressure landing after take off. I pulled carb heat during the run up at 1700 RPM, no issue. It must have sucked the tiny stainless portion into the box. then with more manifold pressure 30-31 on take off found its way to destroy the turbo, mp went to about 21- 22 which was able to do pattern and come back in of course.

[@baronpilot2bb]

Yes, that is a known issue and is why I never use the carb heat. It is not needed with the turbo increasing the intake air temp. The only time my carb heat is used is at annual time to make sure it still works. Anything that falls into the collector assembly will go through the turbo if carb heat is on.

[@FlyingNDriving]

New plane!? I love the turbo saratoga as a xc hauler

[@quinnjim]

Great video. I went with a regular 182. I wanted to go as fast as possible while still being able to solo my son on his 16th birthday next summer. Hard to beat a 182. The turbo RG model would be a nice upgrade over my fixed gear model. My typical mission is 250 miles or less, so 135 knots works pretty well.

[@baronpilot2bb]

Yep, you picked the right plane for the mission. The 182 line is hard to beat.

[@marvsmoir701]

One thing you have to be very careful about = the gear down light. If the microswitches are not set exactly you can have green and only one wheel locked (that is any one gear) Test - on jacks, three drop gear tests, apply a load to restrict extension by manually grabbing a different gear in each test and verify no green till all three are down and locked... Switches are wired in series vice 3 lights

[@justinc8532]

Any thoughts/worrys on the Cessna Retract System? One could argue this is the only real weak point of a solid platform like the 182 - just curious about things to lookout for and what A&Ps think of them.

[@baronpilot2bb]

I addressed this in the video a little. The system is a very good and reliable system. 2 points: 1. Replace the nose gear flexible hydraulic lines every 10 years. A blowout of a hose will dump all the fluid which will leave you gear up. 2. Use plenty of up trim when landing and concentrate on performing proper landings with mains first and fully holding off the nose. The front gear is fastened to the firewall and you can bend the firewall with hard landings. It really is a great plane.

[@abrutus1]

K @dukepilot would you mind Sharing your thoughts on “upgrading to a Colemill B55” . I fly a 182rg. Based in Dayton Ohio. Flown 500hrs care free for the past couple of years and was looking to move up to a b55 for my 800-1000nm trips. I saw your videos of the baron and wanted to get your take the B55. Was the cost increase significantly more than the 182? Where you not happy with its performance? Us aviators tend to romanticize a lot airplanes and i want to make sure im not missing anything wanting to step up. So far no complaints on the 182rg.

[@baronpilot2bb]

The B55 with the IO-550 President II conversion is the best flying light twin on the market. The reason I don't own one is purely expense and reliability. Old twins require more maintenance and it can be expensive. Cabin heaters can cost $5k to repair. Continental engines are not as robust as Lycoming. Web spar cracks, fuel bladders, etc. Speed is 185 knots on 23 GPH LOP. I hate the starter adapters on continentals. The turbo 182 RG carries the same useful load and is only about 15 knots slower on 8 GPH less fuel. The better engine and simpler systems makes it more affordable as I near retirement. I figure the 182 at roughly $75 per hour for maintenance and consumables (no fuel). A Baron will be $200 per hour. Insurance is also 1/2 in the Cessna and no yearly training required.

[@1973superdad]

great video. Im just starting my journey learning about flying. when you fly to FT myers or any other airports, when you land, do you leave your plane at the airport and pay a rent? how does it work when you travel? I subscribed to you, thanks for this video.

[@craigsimmons3490]

How are you flying over 14,000'? Supplemental O2 or pressurized cabin?

[@antoniocomputersbarreto7429]

Are you at KANQ?. I live just a few minutes from it. I fly out of that airport several times. I fly out of C62. My last BFR was out of KANQ. My friend keep two of his planes there. Fly safe and God bless

[@buildingmyzenith750sd6]

Flew a 182 for the first time last week (own a Beech P35V). Wow - the 182 flew and handled like a "truck". Felt slow, took a lot of man-handling to get it to turn vs. the beech. That being said - I'm in the same boat you are Dukepilot - I'm 65 and getting in and out of plane, etc. is not easy anymore. The Cessna seemed easier to manage - but the difference in controls... huge.

[@brianhennessey9563]

Can you explain the turbo-normalized set-up that you have? Is there an STC out there that allows you to turbo-normalize the O-540? If so, I can't find it and I am very interested in getting it done if it is possible. Great video. Thank you

[@baronpilot2bb]

Cessna did the turbo normalize for this plane under their original type certification. It is not available for STC for the regular 182 that I know of.

[@MooneyM20J]

What you've done is awesome! I've been trying to teach my wife the basic of flying but it's so hard to do that on a Mooney. Wondering how much was the Red Bird Sim? Do they have a leasing option? Can you legally log your own IFR currency? Do they provide any training upon installation? Thanks alot!

[@baronpilot2bb]

Hi Shawn. You are looking at $11k for the 3 screen TD2 simulator with the good rudder pedals and the table. I do not know of any leasing options. Yes, you can log all of your IFR currency and that was a big reason I bought the sim. I can dial in the weather I want to experience and have my wife fail instruments using the keyboard. Before I fly to an airport I have never been to I will fly it in the simulator at or near minimum IFR conditions. I figure the plane is $200 per hour to run (all in costs and maintenance reserves) and I fly the simulator about 1 hour per week practicing instrument approaches, so it really pays for itself in the first year. There is no training, but Redbird makes good videos describing setup and it is pretty straightforward operation. I really like the stability of the system. It automatically updates and I have no issues with control problems, etc. This plane goes in for a new dual screen Dynon next week. Maybe someday Redbird and PrePar 3D will make a Dynon setup.

[@MooneyM20J]

@@baronpilot2bb thank you so much for your feedback. This includes the computer and the software? Sorry I’m not great at these things, that’s is why I ask🤦🏻‍♀️ I looked at Red Bird System and I saw 32k for the system. But if it’s around 11-15k is reasonable and we’ll wort it. Yes, I wish they had setup system with Garmin G3X and GFC500 autopilot. Either is G1000 setup or old steam gauges with GNS530. You’ve mentioned you’re planing to upgrade and leave your GNS530. I did a Avidyne IFD540, which is a direct replacement and is a fantastic navigator working beautifully with Garmin G3X and GFC500! Just sharing my opinion! 🙏

[@baronpilot2bb]

@@MooneyM20J Yep, the sim literally is plug and play with everything included. You hook everything up and do a 30 minute procedure to calibrate the controls and you are done. Very simple and no technology skills needed. I was able to upgrade from my GNS530 to a 530W that was just factory overhauled for $2500. 90% of my flying is from NE Indiana to SW FL. It is always direct to and non-stop, so upgrading to the IFD 540 just wasn't necessary for what I do and I have about 15 years experience with the 540, so it is very familiar. If the 530W goes bad I will likely slide in a 540 at that point. The fact that Garmin didn't make a slide in replacement for the 530 really bother's me. With Garmin today you about have to buy everything Garmin to make it all work and it always requires new wiring and usually recutting the panel. This is one of the reason I am going with Dynon. For $37k you get 2 10" touchscreens, full engine monitor package, ADSB-in, backup D10, and integrated autopilot. Nav data and instrument plates are $99 per year. The same package G3X or 500 package with GFC500 is $20,000 more. Having owned 3 different planes with the G3X system and autopilot I will say that it is a great system, but I'm having a hard time with the $20k more.

[@MooneyM20J]

@@baronpilot2bb I see your point. And totally agree. Gns530 build like tank! Yes, Garmin monopolized the entire market. You have to buy only Garmin products to talk and work with each other! I will definitely contact Red Bird on Monday. Thank you so much!

[@robertmorgan3947]

Is the gear on this c182 the same as c172RG but just beefier ?

[@twopheew9995]

Do you have a carb temperature indicator on your airplane? Because if it is a carburated engine, that should be a concern, I think... Thanks for the great vid!

[@baronpilot2bb]

Hello, that is a good question. Yes, I do have a carb temp gauge, but it is truly not needed. In the TR182 the turbo compresses the intake air (no intercooler) which heats it well above freezing even after the effects of venturi. Believe it or not, the best use for carb heat in this plane is to use it to help the engine run lean of peak if desired. A little carb heat seems to even out the air distribution to each cylinder.

[@twopheew9995]

@@baronpilot2bb Thank you, sir.

[@twopheew9995]

How much fuel do you burn to obtain the 150KIAS on this airplane, sir?

[@baronpilot2bb]

@@twopheew9995 it depends on altitude. 75 percent power yields roughly 14.5 GPH. At sea level that is about 140ish knots. You gain about 2 knots for every 1k ft you climb, so at 10k you will still burn14.5 and yield 160 knots. At 15k you are 170 knots and 20k 180 knots. Of course you can pull back the power to 50 percent at 10 GPH at 20k and get 150 knots, but at sea level the same 10 GPH will give you 120 knots.

[@twopheew9995]

@@baronpilot2bb Thank you, sir.

[@GonzoT38]

Great video and fair assessment of the downsides to the airplane (D3000 mag, battery location, small main tires). I will say, don't forget to price in those cracked main gear leg pivots. That's what keeps me from investing in the R182 as a replacement to the Arrow. I researched the price for one of those little steel or aluminum angles, and I cannot justify that kind of expense for a recreational airplane. I know there's an outift now that reworks them for less than new, but pricing from Cessna is basically go away pricing. (10K+). Not exactly the kind of ancillary expense I want into a cheap to keep traveler airplane. I'm also with ya on the engine choices. I absolutely refuse to own or fly my loved ones behind a continental engine. So that limits my choices. I can't afford the post restart 182S and Ts with the Lyco, so I'm down to looking for the unicorn T182 (fixed gear, same engine and turbo setup as the TR-182). Impossible to find since they made like 3 of them (proverbially) but I'm still looking. I just came back from a trip and landed for fuel in SW Kansas in high (5K) density altitude. I had to go around due to a +20 kts crosswind gust picking my wing up immediately on touchdown with a high nose position, and the performance during that go-around really underwhelmed me with my family and bags on board. A relative nothingburger as I fly fast jets professionally in the USAF so I've seen much worse in life, but with the family on board you're right, it's all about taking it easy and having some performance margin. The climbout on takeoff was also pretty underwhelming, so it doesn't inspire confidence in any kind of high plains or west of the continental divide flying in later life. So for me it's really time to consider something with better power loading for high DA operations. The bigger cabin of the 182 and the 2-door and high wing setup really is the ticket for leisurely cross country and short field high DA missions. I just have to mull over the gear thing, as the fixed gear 182s are all riddled with continental engines and that is a show stopper for me. Cheers!

[@baronpilot2bb]

I have never heard of the rear actuators cracking. Neglected and abused maybe?

[@Joe-uo9wv]

I have a lots of hours in a 182R but as I got older now I fly a c177rg much, much easier to get in and out. Don't need a big ladder to fill up, and burning 9 GPH. My choice is the 177rg.

[@baronpilot2bb]

177 is a good plane. Love the big doors. Just doesn’t have the power I need.

[@justinc8532]

How about the mid 90s Commander 114b? I love the doors, cabin, useful load, maint etc. the Cessna retract system with internal brake lines and the wonky hydraulics is about all that bugs me off a 182.

[@baronpilot2bb]

The Commander 114b is a great flying airplane and I have owned one. It just doesn't fit my mission. The useful load of a nicely equipped example is about 200 lbs less than this 182. It is also slightly slower and the turbo version is a boosted turbo instead of turbo normalized which is not as efficient. It also does not have the short field performance the 182 does. The biggest problem with the commanders is trying to find parts for them. While they are not hard to work on, the parts are made out of unobtanium. As far as the gear on the 182, there is only one real problem and that is the nose gear hydraulic lines. If you blow one there is a good chance the gear will not come down. If you replace those hoses every 10 years it is not an issue; otherwise, the gear is a simple as it gets and works great. No main gear doors or complicated systems.

[@justinc8532]

@@baronpilot2bb I was seriously looking at a Cardinal for a bit due to the 2 doors and then I found the 114b. Cabin is a foot wider than they skyline(114b has same cabin width as a Malibu), 2 doors, similar useful load etc. There is a super active users group that Helps with the parts. I was looking at a bonanza, but I don’t like the CG issue, I don’t like the magnesium ruddervators, Continental engines, or price of beech pets from Raytheon. Im ATL based so my mission was comfort, something newer than the 70s, and the commander just screamed at me. Everything East of Green Bay to Houston is my 4 hour mark. Great video, Blue Skies!

[@baronpilot2bb]

@@justinc8532 The Cardinal just doesn't have enough power in my opinion. I agree the commander is a great plane. The cabin width is very nice and the trailing link landing gear makes for smooth landings. Just not right for me at this time in my life.

[@justinc8532]

@@baronpilot2bb Thanks for the thoughts man, enjoy the 182!

[@paulo7200]

Interior tour?

[@Jasonrcsd]

holy aircrafts batman! you've owned more planes than I have cars and I'm 48. lol.

[@robertyunaska5937]

I had a cardinal rg then a t 210, loved them both. I seldom flew abv 12000" b/c of oxygen hassles. Have you a palatable solution to the oxygen problem? ? I am now 75 and would love a pressurized plane, but my wife, like yours, has become timid. Training her to land is unlikely, but with the simulator I'll give it a try. Her solution is a ballistic parachute. The 172 can accommodate this. I don't think any other plane will work for me. (ideas?) I am very fit and hope to fly another 5 years. Thoughts on the chute?

[@baronpilot2bb]

Please see my video about the oxygen generator I have. I use it to fill the built in oxygen in the plane. With 2 people at 17k ft I get about 14 hours of oxygen use which is more than enough to go to FL and back. When I’m done flying I simply hook up the oxygen generator and let it fill the tank. Works great. As far as a chute, I just can’t warm up to the idea. I do not want to go any slower than what I have now and I don’t like a Cirrus. The chute is also a $1500 per year expense when you consider the cost to repack. The 182 was a good compromise as my wife can land it. She couldn’t land my 58p or Duke. Just too much plane.

[@robertyunaska5937]

@@baronpilot2bb Sorry, above with reference to the BRS, the 182 can accommodate the parachute, I wrote 172. Comments? Thanks for the good info on oxygen generation. Another question: My 210 had an intercooler. I really like the idea. Are they available for the Skylane? Of course, fuel injection would be great, too. Other available mods I might like? You've got me sold on the 182.

[@baronpilot2bb]

@@robertyunaska5937 unfortunately, the chute is not available on the RG. You don’t need an inter cooler on the 182. It is a 260HP engine derated to 235 HP and doesn’t require the cooled intake air. The carb is one of the reasons I like this TR182. Starts with 2 rotations of the prop hot or cold and has nearly zero maintenance. Carb ice is not a factor in this plane.

[@johnlewis3405]

Thanks for the video. I also have a 1979 TR182. I like it for all the same reasons. One problem i cant overcome though is carbon monoxide. The alarm goes off soon after i take off. I have had the exhaust rebuilt, firewall sealed, door seals replaced and still have the problem….. it appears i have the same exhaust tube coming out the cowling. I am considering lengthening it by a few inches. any thoughts about this?

[@baronpilot2bb]

Have you tried a different detector?

[@stefanstolle17]

I have the same TR182 1979 and also a lot of carbon monoxide, did. the same and can’t stop it. I messered it and it is true. Have always to lean good to get less…

[@jonilu3473]

THIS is a perfect video- thank you so much from an Austrian TR182 owner. Mine is a 1980. I can really underwrite all your statements about the many many advantages of this Cessna model. My only problem is that my fuelburn seem rather high. I hardly can make it under 16 Gal/hour total (start cruise 1,5 hours desent roll). Can you please give me your experience on your fuel consumption? Thanks and I am looking very much forwatd to your next video! Johannes

[@baronpilot2bb]

If you are not running more than roughly 73 percent power, pull the mixture back until it runs rough and then slowly enrichen to run smooth. Running 25/2100 I am burning 12GPH. 150 knots at 8 k and 160 knots at 15k. Remember, this engine is only 235 HP with it being 260 HP in other airframes, so 73 percent power is less than 65 percent. You can run it as lean as you want. Also, make sure your baffles are in good shape and there is not a big hole in the baffling where the starter is located.

[@jonilu3473]

Thank you so much for your instant response- I will try it out and let you know the outcome!

[@BIGJOESXR]

@@baronpilot2bb I also run 25/21. I have a McCauley 3 blade though. What do you usually true at? My burn runs around 13gph and I true between 145-160.

[@baronpilot2bb]

@@BIGJOESXR Outside temp will dictate fuel burn, but anywhere from 12.0 to 13 GPH at 25/2100. TAS at that setting is 150 @10k and 160 @19k. Kicking up to 25/2300 yields 155 and 167 with a burn from 13 to 14.

[@publicname515]

Which is more reliable the Cessna or the Cirrus SR22?

[@jdmeyeres7863]

I have a 1979 TR182. Love the plane but i have to run over 100 ROP. Burning close to 18 GPH. At 23.5 MP. In order to keep couple CHTs below 400. and i have cowl flaps fully open in cruise. I have check for cowling leaks using flashlight technique multiple time and had A&Ps check for cowling leaks. Its seems air tight. How high can i go on CHTs and expect longivity on the lycoming motor? Heat my limiting factor.

[@baronpilot2bb]

You can run 420 in cruise with no problems. Run the engine at 25” and 2300 RPM and lean to peak or when it runs smoothly when lean. You should be around 13.5 GPH depending on temps (look at your POH). You will need 1/2 cowl flaps at high altitudes when you are above standard ambient temperatures. My limits for a continental engine are 380 and 420 in a lycoming.

[@stefanstolle17]

The cht is nice at 400 but my tit is 1620 with 25# 2300 and 13,5 gal. What do you think about the turbo temp.?

[@pnzrldr]

Nice. I am under contract to buy a B55 Colemill. Can't wait.

[@baronpilot2bb]

B55 Colemill is the best flying and safest light twin out there. Are you getting the io550s or 520s?

[@pnzrldr]

@@baronpilot2bb 550's. Would love to chat about your experience. I'm on Beechtalk and ABS under same name. I see your old B55 sold awhile back, but sense that it wasn't your ad for it.

[@baronpilot2bb]

@@pnzrldr Make sure that the engines are set to flow at least 30GPH on takeoff at sea level. Climb at full power and full RPM to your cruise altitude using 1300F as your climb mixture setting. Pull the RPMs back to 2400 RPM for cruise WOT throttle and roughly 20-40 degrees LOP at 10k ft should yield about 190 knots on 22 GPH with cylinder head temps in the 275 to 350 degree range. Make sure heater iris opens all the way up and check your heater fuel pump for proper flow along with the spark plug for it. Most of these heaters get very little maintenance. If it has boots also check your vacuum shuttle valve to make sure it is working. It is buried at in the back corner of the cabin and rarely gets changed even though they should be every 10 years. When they fail you don’t get proper air flow to the boots.

[@kentuckyhelicycle2614]

Hey Dukepilot! Do you still have your helicycle? I am in the process of building one! I am over at Kentucky Helicycle on you tube!

[@SuperV8driver]

What do you do for a livin? You ve had 35544 planes ? :)

[@hwackman]

At 12:00 you called it an O235 Lycoming. You mean an O540 with 235 horse?

[@baronpilot2bb]

Yep, I made a few errors in the video. O540 with 235HP is what I should have said. I probably had the lycoming O235 on my mind. It is the engine in the 152 and is bulletproof as well. Have seen many of them go 3500+ hours

[@marksill8020]

I agree with you on the 182 in every aspect, but one. I've always read and been told that Cessna is not known for their retractable gear. They really have bad ratings in the 182 retract.

[@baronpilot2bb]

The 182 retract is fine as long as you maintain the system and know how to fly. The 182 fixed gear and RG will both not tolerate nose first landings. Most 182 drivers try to land too fast and with too little trim. They either float down the runway and force the plane down nose first or they don’t trim enough and let the nose slam. As for the RG: it is a dirt simple system with the weak link being the hoses that run to the nose gear. If you lose those lines the gear will not come down. The simple answer is to replace those hoses every 10 years and the system will be fine.

[@cfigrandpa8089]

Great Video. I love the 182, like most people. Would love to own one.You have made an excellent choice. I do have one thought. I know you have a lot of experience, but you tend to keep touching and leaning on that propeller a lot. I don't think that's a good idea. I know both mechanics and pilots who made that mistake and suffered serious injuries when broken ground wires, etc resulted in the engine turning over. Please be careful. Wish you all the best with this airplane.

[@richmiller4626]

If your wife would take magnesium daily, it would do wonders for the both of you. Great video!

[@williamkennedy2069]

It made mention that this is a 260 horsepower engine, but it was limited to 235, with that said is there an actual limiter there a physical restriction, can that be readjusted tweaked restrictors removed so that you can get the full $260 out of it?

[@baronpilot2bb]

Yes, it could be done easily. You would simply adjust the Prop governor to allow max RPM of 2600 instead of 2400 and adjust max fuel flow up to 28GPH for take off; however, it would not be legal.

[@williamkennedy2069]

@@baronpilot2bb is anybody actually checking?

[@baronpilot2bb]

@@williamkennedy2069 yes, at every annual your mechanic will full it full power and when it hits 2600 RPM he will know. It maybe would add 10 knots max and burn another 3 GPH. Climb would be a little better. Not worth it. Has plenty of power.

[@williamkennedy2069]

@@baronpilot2bb I hear you, but I hear all these folks that are getting the io 550 converted into it and saying that the 300 horsepower, 315 horsepower io550 is the perfect amount of power for that plan, so it makes people like me think the more power the better

[@baronpilot2bb]

@@williamkennedy2069 that is fine if you want exceptional takeoff performance. However, I can make 235 HP at 17k and the 300 HP converted plane will make 140HP at that altitude. The engine that is in the TR182 is perfect if you want a nice balance of high altitude cruise and short field performance. If you want to go nothing buy fast up high, buy a turbo Mooney. If you want ultimate short field performance, buy a 550 182. I wanted a nice balance. I fly mine to FL a lot and cruise down here at 18k when a good tailwind is present. I fly to the keys with 4 people and bags and operate out of a 1800 Ft strip. Also, I wouldn’t own another continental powered plane. The lycoming has much better reliability.

[@cryptoknights881]

how can one reach to you sir

[@Captndarty]

Is there a company that makes an automatic waist gate for this?

[@baronpilot2bb]

No, it would have to be certified or an STC made. With only a few hundred of these planes built it would be cost prohibitive.

[@acemacgruber6593]

What would the cost/benefit analysis be for getting a new wife?😮

[@baronpilot2bb]

About $2million lost and no airplane at all.

[@dentalphotographysensei]

Why not a Cessna 210?

[@baronpilot2bb]

210 is a good plane. The big difference is in the engine. The 210 needs 310 HP for its performance. It gets that from an io520 continental. Even if you run this engine LOP correctly you will still top the engine at 1k hours and will replace at least 2 starter adapters and 2 to 3 gear given alternators between overhauls. The io540 Lycoming at 235 HP will run forever and the belt driven alternator along with normal Bendix Starter will go tbo. The TN carb engine is also dirt simple. Also, the 182 has much better short field performance. I have owned a t210 and p210. Good planes, but the engine makes all the difference. As I get older I want simple systems. This 182 is a nice compromise of performance and utility.

[@dentalphotographysensei]

@@baronpilot2bb Thank you. I guess you got the "right stuff".

[@kasm10]

those gear actuators are not cheap $9k ask me how I know

[@baronpilot2bb]

Nothing is cheap. It $600 just to fill the tanks. This plane would be $900k new, so expect maintenance as if it was a $900k plane.