Highest Useful Load? C-172 180hp OR C-182

[bbursey]

My dad and I are looking around to buy an aircraft and have been running alot of numbers trying to determine the best one to suit our needs. Bottom line we want a true four place, traveling aircraft. Looking at all the specs and focusing on the useful load it seems the decesion is between: C-182, C-172 with 180hp, PA-28-180, Archer, and Dakota. It becomes confusing when trying to determine which aircraft has a higher useful load. Everyone always says 182's but according to the specs you can get around 830lbs useful load out of a C-172 with the 180hp. Many of the C-182's 230hp aren't even pushing that and are usually $20,000 more. I know the planes max certified gross weights can alter from one to another but any ideas or help on the model or make that will best perform.

Cost, fuel burn is an issue but if were going to buy a plane I want to do it right. I'm low time but fully rated and will soon have my CFI. I need a time builder and later will use the aircraft for leisure and travel. The plane will be used on a grass strip so I've heard to avoid RG's... Considering my low time and very little hp time I'm not sure if going with a hp aircraft is a smart move insurance wise? Any ideas, feedback, or input would be greatly apreciated.

[BravoRomeo]

Well, mine is a 210HP 172 and the useful load according to the manual and the last inspection is 1053lbs, BUT, after refuelling it up I have some less than 600. Look at every detail on that useful load that you have been checking. It sounds strange that a 172 can fly more weight than a 182, even if it´s a 180HP, don´t you think? After all, and as you said, it´s 180HP against 230HP on a couple of quite similar airframes. The point about the 230 HP 182´s can be their TBO. The 230 had the Conti 470, and its overhaul should be performed every 1.500 hours instead of the 2.000 of the 235HP models or the 180HP 172. You are "losing" 500 hours comparing it with any of both and, besides, it´s more expensive to do it on the 6 cylinders Continental 470 than on the 4 cylinders Lycoming 360.

Don´t worry too much about the different fuel consumptions. It´s almost the last and the minimal cost, specialy when talking about that, about differences. Mine again, it can burn 10 Gallons per hour flying normal cruise, but will burn 7 flying slow... and slow for it is flying 105 kts, that will beat any regular 172M´s cruise. Bigger engines on similar airframes doesn´t necessarily mean higher fuel flows.

Again, check one more time that data, and take in consideration that after refuelling the 180HP 172 you´ll probably have some 500 Lbs that will hardly ever be transformable in 4 people and an "I´m feeling safe" sensation.

Look, not only to their maximum useful load, but too, to their useful fuel (not the consumption right now), then look at how many people it allows to fit into the plane. Then, if they are not 4, start looking at its fuel consumption, and how many fuel you can leave in the truck on the ramp instead of in the tanks to allow the 4 inside. Then look at the range you have. If it´s still a good one, you´ve found it, but if you need to leave half the tanks into the fuel truck, start checking another one. Losing an hour up there in exchange for another passenger can be alright if you have a 7 hours autonomy, but if you have 4.5, and you should start with 3... mmm... Climbing out will burn a good ammount of it (remember that you are flying with the MTOW), then flying with a higher angle of attack due to the weight will make you burn some extra fuel, then you need some reserves, not only the legal but your own, so you´ll be able to perform just 2 hour trips with a heavy aircraft, with an engine developing his best most of the flight time. It can be alright for one day, but repeating the same operation over and over again, will not bring any good health to that poor engine, who has been flying at high rpm´s and with a high angle of attack, that makes the intake for his cooling and refreshing good friend, the air, one that is presenting a smaller surface to the flight line. I mean, the engine will be running at some higher temperatures.

I always say the same, but here I go again. Sorry for my English and sorry for the poor explanations, but it´s Saturday night and I´m on the run!!

[bbursey]

Thanks for your reply...

I've noticed looking at the published specifications the empty weight I used in my calculations probable doesn't include the unusable fuel and oil which adds an extra 50lbs on most 182's then given the additional equipment... Your empty weight before fuel significantly increase by 100-200lbs. This is a lot of weight when every pound counts. I know the all of the different model's gross weights I just need to determine each specific plane's Basic empty weight from the owner.

To add to the confusion the sellers sometimes list Useful Load without useable fuel added in, others add the weight in. I believe that is where I got the misunderstanding on C-172 180HP out performing some of the 182 models...

I like your explanation on the aircraft flying at a higher AOA and its effects on fuel burn and engine extended wear, something to consider. Also the trade off between draining fuel and adding a passenger is a revelant consideration. Also glad to know Lycoming engines have a 2000 TBO, so C-182 235's are a better option... I would imagine the standard tanks would fit our needs and bladder demands better thus safing around 150lbs that could be used for payload. I know at times the LR tanks might be nice but the thought of spending 6.5 to 7.5 hours depending on the GPH burn and reserve needs sounds rather unpleasant to me...

In general I beleive the decision has been placed with a C-182 235HP and the 1970 to 1974 models seem to have the best to offer in regards.

Thanks again for all you help on the matter!

[dcnitz]

I just bought me first airplane and was going through all the same questions. If the high wing low wing thing is not important to you, take a look at the cherokee lineup. The 235's have a great useful load. The early ones are around 1450. I just purchased a 73 charger which is the first year they streched the cabin so it is a true 4 place plane and has a 1356 load and 84 gallons of fuel

[dboud]

I own a 1983 172 with an O-360 conversion. Its useful load with full fuel (43 gallons) is 788 lbs. In and out of a 2900' grass strip in southern MS easily. 117 knots cruise

[Albury]

I am in the same situation with the Usefull load thing. With my two friends in the plane, I need that 900+ Usefull. Do you know of any 172s with your kind of usefull (with full fuel) on the market. M

[rowekmr]

I attended a flight school that had older 160hp and 180hp 172's and the new R models and also a few 182RG's and looking at the list some of the 172's did have a useful load over 1000# higher equilivant to some of the 182RG's but some of the 182RG's had even higher figures (1200+)

[navyretread]

Useful load is the difference between MTOGW and Basic Empty Weight. You get to decide how you use the weight, fuel or load, hence the "Useful".

Full Fuel Payload is how much weight over and above full fuel load you can carry. Then, you can worry about whether your payload at full fuel meets CG limits and, in the case of some machines, whether it will still meet CG when you burn down to reserves. I think one of the reasons 182s have a reputation as good haulers is they don't seem to have much of a CG problem-if you can fit it into the cabin, the bird can carry it.

If you think you can get actual adults in the back seats of a 172, you aren't talking about anybody in my family.

nrt