plane specs

[Martin Di Lorenzo]

I am currently looking to buy my first plane, but every time I search for specs (primarily speed) it seemes that those numbers are overrated. For instance, a C-150 is expected to cruise at 100+ Kts, but I could never get more that 80, and I fly 5 different 150's in my school. Then, what is the REAL cruise speed of a C-182 at 2500 feet? Are the rest of the specs overrated too?

[BOHIXON]

I have owned three airplanes and have found that speed is one of those overrated specs that is never what it should be. The first airplane I owned was a turbocharged 182 RG and I think it was my favorite airplane. I routinely got about 180 knots at 8500 feet. I flew it all over the intermountian west (idaho, wyoming, utah, montana,and washington) mostly all VFR or IFR in vmc.
The only other 182 I flew was one of the new models for about 20 hours. I recall about 145-165 at about 8500ft, but I could be wrong. If you are not sure what to look for you should consult a broker or someone you know has the knowledge on GA aircraft. I have bought all of my planes through one broker, and I would HIGHLY reccommend his services. drop me a note if you want his info.

n6294x@aol.com

[skid]

Book figures are for a perfect airplane and are optimum numbers. Small details add up to making a difference in cruise speed. Each antenae added slows it down, bugs or chips on the leading edge,if the tach is 40 rpm off you won't be developing the power that is indicated. Most of the airplanes I have been around come very close to achieving book numbers, but few people study the book to know EXACTLY their power settings. 80% power at 7500 feet will definately get higher TAS than just setting the throttle at 2350 at 3500 feet and assuming your at 75%. I know a lot of people that say that their airplane burns more or less fuel than the book says. That should be a tipoff that if properly leaned, they are not exactly at the power setting they say they are. I don't think a C150 book shows anything much over 100 statute let alone knots. Forget anything in print except the POH for the model your flying. Anyone promoting something will use the highest number possible for advertising. I have sent tachs in to be recalibrated only to get back a tach that is still off 100 rpm or more. I would guess most people use a lower power seeting than they think. Also make sure you are not mixing up knots and statute; C150's were marked in statute, so is the book. If airspeed has been changed to one marked in knots it would appear to read low. A 182 will come close to book. If you don't want to read chart, plan on 120 knots.

[Martin Di Lorenzo]

Thanks both of you. By the way, skid, I got the C-150 speed from this site's aircraft performance database.

[djschaut]

Bohixon,

So you've had a T-182RG. I almost bought a nice one out of Ft. Morgan, Colorado years ago. I'd like to know how they perform with an additional passenger or two compared to a T-210 or P-210 for over-Rockies travel. The T-210s are very fast and clean with the cantilever wing, and compare favorably in price to the T-182RGs. The P-210s lose some power to pressurization.


------------------
DJSchaut

[skid]

Took a trip 3 weeks ago in T182 with the owner who previously owned a T210. At 2250 at 22.5 inches we were indicating about 135knts @ 5000 msl(about 60% according to owner). He said his operating costs over the long haul counting accrued costs such as engine reserve was less than half of the T210. I found it to be a nice airplane but not in the same league with a T210 as far as load and speed. But for 2 people and the cabin full of bags it will go twice as many hours for the same maintaince dollars as the T210 burning a lot less fuel if you don't mind getting there 20 minutes slower on a 3 1/2 hour trip.

[BOHIXON]

I agree about the T210. A T182RG is not quite one. However, when I look back now, I probably would have preferred to have the T210. It seems like it's always nice to have that extral power. I only took one trip with full payload in the 182 (4 pax, bags, fuel) and it was a relatively short 85 miles, but the plane performed quite well. I don't have any T210 experience, but could it be a possibility that you could get more overall and have less performance. What I mean is, you can only fit so much in a given airplane. Would the amount of weight you could put in be more detrimental overall to performance than the amount of weight you could put in a T182RG?
The other problem I found in the end was that I wanted something with 2 engines (not that that is any better!) and in the end pressurization and de-ice capabilities, especially over the mountians.

[SNelson600]

I have a 1974 C-182P with a newly rebuilt engine. Before the rebuild, with 1703 hrs. on the engine, I averaged 130 MPH on a 2 hr trip. After the rebuild, it has been closer to 140 MPH. I love the airplane! Good luck with you venture.