A video requested by a viewer ... the differences between a Cessna 172 and Cessna 182. This does not cover model year changes and every feature imaginable was not reviewed.
@@bjjasper It is a strange misnomer. Constant speed means that it stays at the RPM you set it at, because it has a variable pitch, but I know what you mean.
I handled some of the finances for a well-run flying club. We kept meticulous records on about 7 aircraft. We purchased a new 182. To our concern, over a few years, the 182 was expensive. As I remember, the 182 expense compared to the 206. Even the 210's expenses were not much higher than the 182. We decided not to add more 182s as the 206 did so much more and the cost per tach hour was about the same. We included maintenance, inspections, and fuel consumption but not depreciation or capital cost in the hourly rate. Of course, the 172s expenses were considerably lower than the 182, very close to the 150. In my view, if you want more load capacity, range and speed, skip the 182 and buy a 206 or even a 210. The 182 was a compromise that did not fit.
Great Video. Got loads of time in a 1977 172 & a 1975 182P. The 1977 172's O320 H2AD lasted 377 Hrs. cam was gone lifters spalled but ran great Go Figure. at 377 took it in for an AD on the Oil Pump Gears and found all the cam & lifter metal. Engine was Replaced and It went 2000+ hrs no problems. Had terrible things happen after a SCHNECK overhaul. Loved the 182 better.
It is strange that some 1977 to 1980 172 engines (the H2AD-160 HP Lycoming) will last forever without an issue and others will round out the cam and grind down the lifters in a few hundred hours. the "T" mod and Ney Nozzles will prevent the cam and lifters not getting lubricated and is a very good conversion unless you go to the later 1981 to 1986 160 HP Lycoming or upgrade to a 180 HP in these model years.
Thank you, super information! The "Back Country 182" is a good companion for your work . He demonstrates the 170 Vs 182 in a variety of performance modes that your video also brings to light with technical comparisons. You are probably a great source of data on the 205 etc. The info on the controls and fuel storage is fantastic! Thanks again!
I love the way he has all the figures and dates at his fingertips! Walking encyclopedia. (Also like the way the Scottish accent prevails after years in the US!)
Owned a 1960 172 and loved it. Simple, dependable and very economical including costs such as annuals. It was nice having 40 degrees of flaps (Johnson bar) too.
You might want to mention this as a readily observable difference between the 172 and the 182: the rudder. The bottom of the rudder on a 182 ends just above the horizontal stabilizer; the rudder bottom edge is in line with the top of the fuselage. The fuselage on a 182, below the rudder, ends in a tail cone. The bottom of the rudder on a 172 extends below the horizontal stabilizer; the rudder bottom edge is in line with the bottom of the fuselage. Additionally, on the lower leading edge of the 172 rudder, there is a cutout to accommodate the tube that connects the left and right halves of the elevator. The fuselage of the 172 ends at the leading edge of the rudder; there is no tail cone.
Thanks. RG's might be a separate video. The 172 "cutlass" is the 172 RG and of course the 182 RG is the retractable 182. Both interestingly with Lycoming engines. Cutlasses were only made in the late seventies and early eighties like the 182 RG, 1978 to 1986. The Cutlass was a good retractable trainer but a little under-powered for it's extra weight. The 182 RG is an exceptional plane, especially the Turbo Normalized version.
A 172 with the 150 or 160 hp Lycoming 4 banger is a remarkably cheap plane to own and fly....but it struggles with all 4 seats filled. Great vid, thanks
4:49 That picture right there is what would sell me on the 182 over the 172. Unless you are flying most of your hours single pilot, the 182 looks like the way to go.
Yes, The 172 XP is right in the middle. Fuel injected IO-360 Continental six cylinder at 195 or 210 HP and 50 gallons. XP means Extra Performance or Extra Power etc. Made from 1977 to 1981. That would be a good video if I had one.
Mark you continue to amaze me , I thought I knew a lot but your an encyclopedia . speaking of which have you or have you thought of writing a book on the history & specs of Cessna aircraft.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 I agree with this suggestion, and I believe a LOT of GA pilots would buy a book like that. I think the various manufacturers would participate with detailed history info if you expanded beyond only Cessnas. Even just such a book in Cessnas would be awesome though. I just recently discovered your channel and have been binge watching your videos. Great stuff. Oh and I subscribed too, of course. I hope people keep the planes coming to your local airfield there.
Very good comparison by Mark explaining the main differences between the Cessna 172 & Cessna 182 aircraft types. Many thanks to Skywagon Univesity, a job well-done Thank you.
Nice video mark! I've thought about and explained the differences many times myself and the only little extra bit I always mention is to look at the trailing edge of the rudder. On a 172, the rudder goes from top to bottom and past the base of the horizontal stabilizer. A 182 rudder stops at the base of the horizontal stabilizer and has a solid tail cone below. You can also tell by the white nav lights, on a 172 its at the top and moves with the rudder, on a 182 its at the bottom, and does not move.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Yeah most of this definitely wouldn't apply to the early 172/182 models. Might be a good idea for another video? Early 172 vs. early 182 😃 Did you happen to see the comment I made on this video of yours? "ua-cam.com/video/ccAZZhbm8kU/v-deo.html" I tried to mention it again on this comment but the text turned red and it wouldn't post for some reason.
You’re covering my flying era ‘63 - ‘73 Moorabbin Victoria . We had C185, 205/6/7 Beech 18/A36/58 Piper 32-260/24-400……(a right pig to start hot after refueling in summer) Loving this stuff…..such memories.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 we had VH-KLJ ……an ex PMG ancient (in the late 60s) C182 which was badly rigged and flew with the ball off-centre and had kitchen door handles which couldn’t keep the doors locked if taking off during all-over grass ops in summer ! Joyriding ops meant telling the front right pax to not worry about the door openings on takeoff !!! Just imagine today….
IFR in a 182 with a carb temp gauge was a blessing for me. Get it though the door and "no sky to high you call we haul you all" ! 172 LYC was ok but no Skylane.
Had a 172 then an old "Square Tail" 182. Often wanted more power in the 172. (Washington State resident, mountains in Idaho etc). The 182 had it. The 182 had manual flaps (pull on a big stick), I liked. But the 182 always felt nose heavy on landing. And the 182 cost more to run and maintain. The 172 XP or similar is probably the perfect balance, never tried one. Loved both planes!
One thing that you have to watch for between 172s and 182s is that rear quarter window. On the Omnivision aircraft.. the 68 and prior 172s have a teardrop shaped window, while as you said the 63 and prior 182s have a squared off window. From a distance where you can’t see other clues it can be a bit confusing, still. What’s interesting is that I flew a 1968 172I and a 1969 172K (the 172J being the initial designation for the 177 Cardinal) and I didn’t notice for a whole year the windows were a different shape.
Yes, good point. The 182 "gills on the cowling varied a little through the years, but as you correctly point out, the 172 never had any. I need a couple of "straight tailed early planes for comparison now........;-)
The straight tail planes are very similar. In fact.. nearly all Cessna single engine models converge at the straight tails. Except for detail changes and engines and gear configurations, the 172, 180, 182, and 185 have nearly identical fuselages and wings and the latter three all had the trimmable stabilizer. A 170 was the round tail predecessor to the 172 and the original 210 was a 180 with retractable gear, hydraulic flaps, and a swept tail (still fast back). All of those were still narrow fuselage and no rear window.
The 172 wing and 182 wing of the same year is the same square footage, same leading edge, same ailerons and flaps, same wingtips BUT the differences are in cable routing and aileron weights and some other details.
Both are fantastic aircraft , Both so fun and easy to fly with the 182 basically doing everything the 172 can only better and faster. I really like the way the fuel is delivered in the skyhawks and skyline. You just get in and fly not worrying about fuel burn or balancing out your tanks like in a bonanza or Cherokee. Some like a plane where you gotta be always on top of it .I like a plane like the 172, 182, Supercub where you get in and just enjoy the wonder of flight and the view.
When you compare fuel burn or GPH it’s important to concider speed. While the 182 has a higher GPH it is also faster so the burn over distance is nearly the same. Round numbers as an example here... if a 182 flys for one hour at 150 mph it will burn 12 gallons, the 172 burning 8 GPH flying at 100 mph will burn the same 12 gallons to cover that 150 miles in 1.5 hours.
All True too. Remember that the 182 gets to altitude faster and uses climb power for less time. From A to B they do use a bit more fuel but you make a good point. A Clearer example is a Mooney Bravo at 19 GPH doing 200 is the same fuel burn from A to B as a 172 because it is twice the speed and twice the fuel. The 172 is 8 GPH and the Mooney is 19 GPH. Same fuel burn but flying for half the time.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 agreed. The 182 vs 172 choice also should take into account one’s location. Living in the Mountains of the Southwest my first plane, a 172 was underpowered on high DA days. I moved into a 182 for the safety margin in these conditions. However I believe that in the Midwest area 172 is an awesome plane.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Thanos is a villain in the marvel movies. He gained some powers and snapped his fingers, and half of all living things turned to dust. Much like the visual effect of you blowing away at the end. I was just being silly with my comment 😀
Hi Mark, I'm really enjoying your posts on this channel! I'm a former Air Force pilot and transitioned to the airlines 28 years ago. I've never had my single engine rating in all that time, around 20K + hours! Am getting close to retirement in about three years and looking at finally getting into the general aviation market. Currently researching Huskies, SuperCubs, Maules, and 182's/210's. Any words of wisdom or recommendations are greatly appreciated. I commute out of Seattle and am based in OAK. Cheers!
Jeff. That is a long conversation. A Husky and 210 are two ends of the GA scale and each have merits and negatives. What will you be hoping to do with the plane that you buy?
@@skywagonuniversity5023 I'm looking for an aircraft that will comfortably seat 2-4 people and have a useful load of something close to one thousand pounds. A utility category aircraft may come close to that requirement, the ability to land on semi remote grass strips and have the performance to operate in the mountains and an IFR panel is also a plus. Endurance and speed are secondary, but the ability to go to Idaho and western Montana is about as far as I'll be going. Thanks again Mark!
@@reggierico Hard to beat a 182 for that. Any year, 1956 to 1986. All do 130 Kts, have 0-470's in them, carry 1100 Lbs, burn 12 GPH, can land on non-airports to different degrees. Make them a bit more capable with bigger tires and a STOL kit etc. Tandem two place TW is a bit slow for getting there but fun when you get there.
Great video. Just one correction: The “fin” is not a ventral fin, but is a dorsal fin. “Ventral” would refer to underside or belly. “Dorsal” refers to upper surface or back.
I like the 172 because it’s cheaper and honestly for most flying (people rarely ever take more than one other person) it’s good enough. I used to fly tours in the 172, 150hp naturally aspirated up to 10,000 feet with two passengers on board in the summer time. It took a while to get up there and rarely went out of the white arc but took it all in stride. Using orographic lift and thermals really helped.
We were working on learning how to edit. Special effects push you to try and learn new things. We've also upgraded our mics since this video. Thanks for watching! - Don the Camera Guy
Hello, just one question, the cabin dimensions for the 182 are 5inches wider than the 172s. You mentioned the wing is 5 inches longer than the 172 because of the cabin being 5 inches wider. But, the wingspan is 36 Feet in the 182T and in the 172SP (as an example) the wing is 36 FT 1 Inch? How does this equate to a longer wingspan? Both have a wing area of 174 Square feet.
Our Club 77 172 H2AD engine lasted 377.74 hours Cam Lifters and Oil Pump were JUNK. The next one went 2000+ and when we went to Schneck for an over hual they wondered what we did because it was in such good shape. Wisconsin Winters with a MANDATORY PRE-HEAT below 32 Degrees.
@skywagonuniversity5023 Thanks. I had a look after asking I found your website. The 206 is perfect for me. I can't find any stock jet A1 fuel engine options apart from in the 172. Do they really have no factory 182 or 206 available? Would have to change engine in that case?
Mark I would love to come out and fly with you to ferry the Aircraft or do demo flights for buyers who are very interested for people who just want to For airplane ride. The 182 would be nice with a new $20K custom paint job with stripes the cost is more .
Rear Cylinder in front of PILOT is always HOTTER than others. you forgot to mention the 182 was faster but burned 13.5 gph a 77 172 burned 10 gph said the book.
You failed to recognize the most important difference between the two aircraft and that is the cost per Mille for each or the fuel burn per mile for each.. that is the main thing to consider when you need to make a choice between the two.
Well here I’ll break it down; Constant speed are more expensive, more maintenance, also you’ll need some training to use it! So if the plane comes with retractable gear and a constant speed propeller (assuming variable flaps too) you’ll need to get an endorsement. Advantages way better performance
Think of a constant speed prop like gears on a bike. When starting off, you would have it in a lower gear for power (prop pitch takes less bite). When you are in cruise, you would shift to a higher gear. Instead of spinning your legs like crazy, you get more performance out of your legs. (change prop pitch to get more bite). With a single gear bike you cant adjust your "bite", but you are lighter, less complicated, and cheaper...
Mark, I just read about the 172 in Wikipedia. It says that there is an option to install an engine that uses automobile gasoline instead of Avgas. I've never heard of this and if that's true, would you recommend this type and are they widely available? Are they safe to operate? What's your advise on this? Thank you sir for your great advice.
It's not a different engine, it is the same engine but it has the be the 150 HP Lycoming 0-320 1968 to 1976 and it has to have the Autofuel STC so the carb is changed. There has to be a metal float. You cannot just put car fuel in them. Get the STC first. (Supplemental Type Certificate)
I’ve owned both. First a 172G , now a 182E. The 182 is way more plane. The size inside is incredibly larger. Carries four seats with full tanks. Way way better
Excelente y básica comparación del Cessna 172 Vs Cessna 182. Por eso el 172 es más un avión de instrucción con prestaciones muy similares al Cessna 182. Excelente semana.
Mark, I'm just a low time 172 pilot. At my local airport I do see a 182 with a 3 bladed prop. May I know do 182s originally come with 2 bladed props or were they retrofitted? Under what circumstances do we upgrade the 182 to 3 bladed prop? Can a 172 accept a 3 bladed prop (whether fixed or constant pitch) as well? Thank you and best regards from Malaysia!!
All 182's have a two blade. You can get three blades for them. They are a bit smoother. The thinking is that the prop should have half the number of blades of the number of cylinders. Six cylinders equals three blades and four cylinders (172) two blades. Something to do with harmonics and counterweights. 182's like three blades but I have not seen a fixed pitch three blade for a 172 ever.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Thank you Mark for your valuable insight. You have answered a question I have wondered about since I was a wee little boy assembling plastic kits of planes and warbirds. Now I'm already 50!.
"172s are always fixed pitch." His words, not mine. No, not all 172s were fixed pitch. The Hawk XP (R172K model) had a constant speed prop, six cylinders, 195hp and cowl flaps. The XP used an IO-360KB, and could be stc'd back to the 360's full 210hp. (Mine was.) Gross weight on the XP was 2550, if memory serves.
@@cesarquintana9034 What's not to love, right? Great little airplanes. I really miss mine. I was based at 20' above sea level, and doing touch and goes with that climb rate was awesome. I once had a tower controller ask me what type of aircraft I was flying. When I told him, he said "That explains a lot." Apparently, 172s aren't supposed to get to pattern altitude that quickly. :) We also used it a lot for SAR in the mountains, where the extra horsepower really made a difference.
Considering that Mark does these videos off the top of his head and they are completely unscripted, I think he can be cut a little slack if he misses a point here or there.
The Cardinal was in a world of its own. And the failure of it is why the Cessna 172 got the O-320E in 1968 because they had a lot which were too small for the original 177s.
Yes, true the R models have a higher gross weight than their predecessors. The "Fresh Pick" STC will increase the P and Q models up to that weight too. I covered the big things. There is a lot of detail too. Thanks.
I have quite a few hours in both and also owned a Cherokee 235. Night and day difference in performance, load, speed and fuel burn. The 172 is like a kite with a motor attached and not full 4 place. The 182 is a full 4 place and flies where you point it and 20mph faster. It also burns 13 gph and I’m sure more costly to maintain with 2 extra jugs and constant speed prop. I’d likely pick 182 over 172 but I think a 172 owner would have a hard time opting for a 150. Outside the scope of this clip, but I owned a Cherokee 235 and that plane outperforms the 182 in all respects except for fuel burn as the 235 burns 15 gph v 182 13gph. 235 burns more fuel but they cost way less than both 172 or 182.
This was more about the differences in the airframes, engines, TBO's, fuel capacities, basically specifications although I did intersperse it a little with performance comparisons too. Thanks for watching.
Please do a video on turbine powered 172s. I believe they use diesel or kerosene. Can we just take a stock 172 and change the engine? Or is there more to it?
I actually know where there is one so that is a good idea. They are not turbine though. They are turbocharged diesels and they burn diesel which is jet fuel. I'll look into that. Thanks.
It's an unused access road at the airport that goes to where the "new hangars" are supposed to be built but have not been for 14 years. It makes a nice scenic uncluttered back-drop
That is right, 172's are about a 100 Knot plane, maybe just over. The 182 with it's 70 more HP and two more cylinders and 150 cubic inches more will cruise at 135 Kts with normal sized tires and wheel pants.
@@jonathonhinson2070 That said, I flew side-by-side with a new Wentworth 180hp converted 172 in a 1962 182 from Kansas to Arizona. The 172 was just as fast as the 182. Fuel burns were within 1 gph. Maybe the lighter weight and the smaller width of the 172 allows it to make that kind of speed on fewer horsepower.
My 1978 172N did 131kts two days ago on 216nm flight. Leaned out mixture at 2350rpm, 5500ft. Do your homework on the weather and you can squeeze out more speed. Use winds aloft to your advantage.
I never said that the H2AD was a Continental. It is a 160 HP Lycoming in the 1977 to 1980 172's and had a cam lubrication problem and needed the T mod to resolve this. It also has no accessory case and so to deal with anything in the back of the engine it has to have it's case split rather than remove an accessory case. This was done for cheapness of production and to reduce potential leaks. It's replacement the E2D in the 81 to 85 172's was vastly superior. The H engines either failed early or went all the way to TBO depending on luck. Continentals were only in the 56 to 67 172's and they were 145 HP six cylinders.
You are correct, 1959 was the first year of 182 cowl flaps, but this was a comparison between these two planes. I have other videos about the other model year changes.
The further you get from the sixties the lass and less you see 65 gallons in a 182 or a 206. It is called "standard fuel" but 84 gallons with 78 usable became the norm but was called "long range fuel"
Hi Brian. The road is on an unused portion of the airport and it offers us a location that has fewer distractions (cars driving to hangars, aircraft passing by, etc.) and is more "scenic."
Yes, they are. XP's are a 195 or 210 HP six cylinder fuel injected 172 with 50 gallons. They are in-between the 172 and the 182. They made them between 1977 and 1981 only and in France under license called Riems Rockets.
Noted, thanks but this is a comparison between a 172 and a 182, Not a 182 and a 172 Hawk XP. A Hawk XP is a plane of it's own. If you are quite local and your plane is a nice one you could bring it up here and we can do an XP Video to show what they are.
So apart from the 14 minutes showing all the differences between the airframes, engines, size, speed, etc., and all the other comparisons, plus the thousands and thousands of views that loved it ... no comparisions????? And this is how you spell "Absolutely."
If they had been the same, we wouldn't have done a comparison. Perhaps this will help: Comparison: Noun: A consideration or estimate of the similarities or dissimilarities between two things or people.
The best 172's and 182's had 40 degrees flap. Some 'idiot' 'dinged' one trying to get into a short strip, and for the sake of 'lawyers at 45 paces', they reduced it to 30! Much lesser planes as a result.
"Liability" forced a lot of changes due to people not being able to take responsibility for their actions. In the automotive world, "Crash-ability" put an end to the Jaguar XKE, what a shame that was.
I cannot remember who suggested this 172 vs 182 Differences video, but who ever it was, Thank you, it has become very well viewed.
Shouldn’t the lingo be fixed pitch vs variable pitch propeller?
@@bjjasper It is a strange misnomer. Constant speed means that it stays at the RPM you set it at, because it has a variable pitch, but I know what you mean.
It's a great video!!! I'm a low time C172 qualified private pilot and I've always wanted to know the difference between a 172 and 182.
I handled some of the finances for a well-run flying club. We kept meticulous records on about 7 aircraft. We purchased a new 182. To our concern, over a few years, the 182 was expensive. As I remember, the 182 expense compared to the 206. Even the 210's expenses were not much higher than the 182. We decided not to add more 182s as the 206 did so much more and the cost per tach hour was about the same. We included maintenance, inspections, and fuel consumption but not depreciation or capital cost in the hourly rate. Of course, the 172s expenses were considerably lower than the 182, very close to the 150.
In my view, if you want more load capacity, range and speed, skip the 182 and buy a 206 or even a 210. The 182 was a compromise that did not fit.
Interesting. I have noticed that the prices of 182s has even come down a little in the past few years while every other Cessna model has gone up
great video! i've always thought the 172 is basically the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla and the 182 a Toyota Camry
Yes, for sure, maybe 172 like a Corolla and a 182 Like a Highlander!! ;-)
Great Video. Got loads of time in a 1977 172 & a 1975 182P. The 1977 172's O320 H2AD lasted 377 Hrs. cam was gone lifters spalled but ran great Go Figure. at 377 took it in for an AD on the Oil Pump Gears and found all the cam & lifter metal. Engine was Replaced and It went 2000+ hrs no problems. Had terrible things happen after a SCHNECK overhaul. Loved the 182 better.
It is strange that some 1977 to 1980 172 engines (the H2AD-160 HP Lycoming) will last forever without an issue and others will round out the cam and grind down the lifters in a few hundred hours. the "T" mod and Ney Nozzles will prevent the cam and lifters not getting lubricated and is a very good conversion unless you go to the later 1981 to 1986 160 HP Lycoming or upgrade to a 180 HP in these model years.
Nice work Professor! This taught me more about my 68’ 182 and it’s ventral fin too. Keep the knowledge coming!
Thanks! Will do!
Thank you, super information! The "Back Country 182" is a good companion for your work .
He demonstrates the 170 Vs 182 in a variety of performance modes that your video also brings to light with technical comparisons. You are probably a great source of data on the 205 etc. The info on the controls and fuel storage is fantastic! Thanks again!
Thanks for that!
Excellent video and congratulations to Dave for his beautiful 172!
Good video. Its taken me years to figure out what you just showed in 18min. Thank you, very valuable video.
Thanks. We are only just getting started and it is a steep learning curve.
I love the way he has all the figures and dates at his fingertips! Walking encyclopedia. (Also like the way the Scottish accent prevails after years in the US!)
Scottish? I did live there for 17 years, but it's more English I think.
This is an English accent…
Nice comparison. I remember as a student I flew a 172Q model. 180 hp and approximately 50 gallons of fuel. It was a nice set up.
Owned a 1960 172 and loved it. Simple, dependable and very economical including costs such as annuals. It was nice having 40 degrees of flaps (Johnson bar) too.
Didn't know that about the option of the extended range tank and how to look for it in the 172. Thanks for the great information.
You might want to mention this as a readily observable difference between the 172 and the 182: the rudder. The bottom of the rudder on a 182 ends just above the horizontal stabilizer; the rudder bottom edge is in line with the top of the fuselage. The fuselage on a 182, below the rudder, ends in a tail cone. The bottom of the rudder on a 172 extends below the horizontal stabilizer; the rudder bottom edge is in line with the bottom of the fuselage. Additionally, on the lower leading edge of the 172 rudder, there is a cutout to accommodate the tube that connects the left and right halves of the elevator. The fuselage of the 172 ends at the leading edge of the rudder; there is no tail cone.
Thanks you yes, that is more knowledge for the differences.
Fantastic series. I love all the details regarding fuel, horse power, TBO. I’m curious how the RG models fit into the mix.
Thanks. RG's might be a separate video. The 172 "cutlass" is the 172 RG and of course the 182 RG is the retractable 182. Both interestingly with Lycoming engines. Cutlasses were only made in the late seventies and early eighties like the 182 RG, 1978 to 1986. The Cutlass was a good retractable trainer but a little under-powered for it's extra weight. The 182 RG is an exceptional plane, especially the Turbo Normalized version.
Great video Mark! Glad to see you around! Cheers!
A 172 with the 150 or 160 hp Lycoming 4 banger is a remarkably cheap plane to own and fly....but it struggles with all 4 seats filled. Great vid, thanks
Cheap to fly but no longer cheap to buy.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Ya, when the new ones went over $400K we all looked to the used market, and it went crazy
Great video as usual!!!! Great work!
Thanks again!
4:49 That picture right there is what would sell me on the 182 over the 172. Unless you are flying most of your hours single pilot, the 182 looks like the way to go.
Very well explained. Thanks for uploading!
Love the videos. I am learning a lot.
Awesome! Thank you!
Excellent vdo. Very well illustrated with detail explained.
Thanks, I try to remember everything.....................
What a cracking information video. Well done!
Thanks.
Very nice informative comparison video. Greetings from sunny Jamaica.
Thank you.
Great video Mark, very informative.
Glad it was helpful!
I would love to see videos for a Cessna 170 vs 172, 150 vs 152, and 180 vs 182.
I'd like to do those too but I do not have four of the six planes.
I enjoyed that thanks. I have a 182 Q, the ‘78 model, she’s a nice machine, STC to MTOW at 3100lbs. Such a capable plane, good all-rounder.
Thanks. 78, Q model nice plane.
Great comparison
Fantastic info as usual Mark
Glad you enjoyed it
Cool comparison! Enjoyed the information!!
Glad you liked it!
Nice video. Simple. Clear. Information that matters.
Glad it was helpful!
This is what I have always wanted to know!! About these two Cessna's Very interesting!!!
Thank you.
Great video, I did learn some things. I owned a 172XP for 11 yrs , the XP, kind of in between the two planes in your video.
Yes, The 172 XP is right in the middle. Fuel injected IO-360 Continental six cylinder at 195 or 210 HP and 50 gallons. XP means Extra Performance or Extra Power etc. Made from 1977 to 1981. That would be a good video if I had one.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Definitely should make that video if you ever come across one.
Mark you continue to amaze me , I thought I knew a lot but your an encyclopedia . speaking of which have you or have you thought of writing a book on the history & specs of Cessna aircraft.
Thanks I get lucky on info sometimes. ;-) Not sure how many readers would want a book about model year changes, but thank you.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 I agree with this suggestion, and I believe a LOT of GA pilots would buy a book like that. I think the various manufacturers would participate with detailed history info if you expanded beyond only Cessnas. Even just such a book in Cessnas would be awesome though.
I just recently discovered your channel and have been binge watching your videos. Great stuff. Oh and I subscribed too, of course. I hope people keep the planes coming to your local airfield there.
Very good comparison by Mark explaining the main differences between the Cessna 172 & Cessna 182 aircraft types. Many thanks to Skywagon Univesity, a job well-done Thank you.
Thank you.
Nice video mark! I've thought about and explained the differences many times myself and the only little extra bit I always mention is to look at the trailing edge of the rudder. On a 172, the rudder goes from top to bottom and past the base of the horizontal stabilizer. A 182 rudder stops at the base of the horizontal stabilizer and has a solid tail cone below. You can also tell by the white nav lights, on a 172 its at the top and moves with the rudder, on a 182 its at the bottom, and does not move.
Ah, Yes, very true. They vary though the early years a lot too but stay similar across the models.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Yeah most of this definitely wouldn't apply to the early 172/182 models. Might be a good idea for another video? Early 172 vs. early 182 😃 Did you happen to see the comment I made on this video of yours? "ua-cam.com/video/ccAZZhbm8kU/v-deo.html" I tried to mention it again on this comment but the text turned red and it wouldn't post for some reason.
You’re covering my flying era ‘63 - ‘73 Moorabbin Victoria .
We had C185, 205/6/7 Beech 18/A36/58 Piper 32-260/24-400……(a right pig to start hot after refueling in summer)
Loving this stuff…..such memories.
There is a song in there, somewhere!
@@skywagonuniversity5023 flying at last light can be absolutely poetic.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 we had VH-KLJ ……an ex PMG ancient (in the late 60s) C182 which was badly rigged and flew with the ball off-centre and had kitchen door handles which couldn’t keep the doors locked if taking off during all-over grass ops in summer !
Joyriding ops meant telling the front right pax to not worry about the door openings on takeoff !!!
Just imagine today….
@@skywagonuniversity5023 is it the American legal system that has kept light aircraft frozen in time for so many decades?
IFR in a 182 with a carb temp gauge was a blessing for me. Get it though the door and "no sky to high you call we haul you all" ! 172 LYC was ok but no Skylane.
Great comparison. Nice job!
Glad it was helpful!
im making model planes and cessnas are my favorite and this video is good for getting the details right thanks
Cool, thanks!
I like that 182, love the old school paint schemes.
Me too.
Great Video
Had a 172 then an old "Square Tail" 182. Often wanted more power in the 172. (Washington State resident, mountains in Idaho etc). The 182 had it. The 182 had manual flaps (pull on a big stick), I liked. But the 182 always felt nose heavy on landing. And the 182 cost more to run and maintain. The 172 XP or similar is probably the perfect balance, never tried one. Loved both planes!
Both are great in each of their applications. A 182 is better in the mountains.
Two of my favourite planes flown both.
Both classics of aviation.
One thing that you have to watch for between 172s and 182s is that rear quarter window.
On the Omnivision aircraft.. the 68 and prior 172s have a teardrop shaped window, while as you said the 63 and prior 182s have a squared off window.
From a distance where you can’t see other clues it can be a bit confusing, still.
What’s interesting is that I flew a 1968 172I and a 1969 172K (the 172J being the initial designation for the 177 Cardinal) and I didn’t notice for a whole year the windows were a different shape.
Great video! I always look for the “gills” and cowl flaps on a 182
Yes, good point. The 182 "gills on the cowling varied a little through the years, but as you correctly point out, the 172 never had any. I need a couple of "straight tailed early planes for comparison now........;-)
The straight tail planes are very similar.
In fact.. nearly all Cessna single engine models converge at the straight tails. Except for detail changes and engines and gear configurations, the 172, 180, 182, and 185 have nearly identical fuselages and wings and the latter three all had the trimmable stabilizer. A 170 was the round tail predecessor to the 172 and the original 210 was a 180 with retractable gear, hydraulic flaps, and a swept tail (still fast back).
All of those were still narrow fuselage and no rear window.
How can a 172 not have cowl flaps? Where does the engine compartment heat go on a 172?
Mark, Is the wing structurally the EXACT SAME sans the extra 5 inch length??? Great videos, please keep them up!!!
That is one Beautiful and clean 172, Wow, it's a beauty for sure!!!!!
The 172 wing and 182 wing of the same year is the same square footage, same leading edge, same ailerons and flaps, same wingtips BUT the differences are in cable routing and aileron weights and some other details.
.....and I believe the 182 has beefier struts......
Nice! I used to own a 172M, flew the 182RGs in school.
Thanks.
Both are fantastic aircraft , Both so fun and easy to fly with the 182 basically doing everything the 172 can only better and faster. I really like the way the fuel is delivered in the skyhawks and skyline. You just get in and fly not worrying about fuel burn or balancing out your tanks like in a bonanza or Cherokee. Some like a plane where you gotta be always on top of it .I like a plane like the 172, 182, Supercub where you get in and just enjoy the wonder of flight and the view.
Both great planes.
Not having to worry about a fuel pump quitting is a plus for the high wings.
Great video, Can you explain about Cessna's 188 Agwagon, Agtruck and Aghusky? We have some that kind of planes in Brazil.
When you compare fuel burn or GPH it’s important to concider speed. While the 182 has a higher GPH it is also faster so the burn over distance is nearly the same. Round numbers as an example here... if a 182 flys for one hour at 150 mph it will burn 12 gallons, the 172 burning 8 GPH flying at 100 mph will burn the same 12 gallons to cover that 150 miles in 1.5 hours.
All True too. Remember that the 182 gets to altitude faster and uses climb power for less time. From A to B they do use a bit more fuel but you make a good point. A Clearer example is a Mooney Bravo at 19 GPH doing 200 is the same fuel burn from A to B as a 172 because it is twice the speed and twice the fuel. The 172 is 8 GPH and the Mooney is 19 GPH. Same fuel burn but flying for half the time.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 agreed. The 182 vs 172 choice also should take into account one’s location. Living in the Mountains of the Southwest my first plane, a 172 was underpowered on high DA days. I moved into a 182 for the safety margin in these conditions. However I believe that in the Midwest area 172 is an awesome plane.
@@chrislewis5150 Absolutely. 172 is the most popular plane ever made. 182 is better for hot. high, heavy.
Very helpful! Thanks!
Thank you.
Lovely video!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I just subbed. Good content.
Thank you very much.
Holy crap, he was filming during Thanos's snap at the end.
What is Thanos's snap.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Thanos is a villain in the marvel movies. He gained some powers and snapped his fingers, and half of all living things turned to dust. Much like the visual effect of you blowing away at the end. I was just being silly with my comment 😀
Hi Mark, I'm really enjoying your posts on this channel! I'm a former Air Force pilot and transitioned to the airlines 28 years ago. I've never had my single engine rating in all that time, around 20K + hours! Am getting close to retirement in about three years and looking at finally getting into the general aviation market. Currently researching Huskies, SuperCubs, Maules, and 182's/210's. Any words of wisdom or recommendations are greatly appreciated. I commute out of Seattle and am based in OAK. Cheers!
Jeff. That is a long conversation. A Husky and 210 are two ends of the GA scale and each have merits and negatives. What will you be hoping to do with the plane that you buy?
@@skywagonuniversity5023 I'm looking for an aircraft that will comfortably seat 2-4 people and have a useful load of something close to one thousand pounds. A utility category aircraft may come close to that requirement, the ability to land on semi remote grass strips and have the performance to operate in the mountains and an IFR panel is also a plus. Endurance and speed are secondary, but the ability to go to Idaho and western Montana is about as far as I'll be going. Thanks again Mark!
@@reggierico Hard to beat a 182 for that. Any year, 1956 to 1986. All do 130 Kts, have 0-470's in them, carry 1100 Lbs, burn 12 GPH, can land on non-airports to different degrees. Make them a bit more capable with bigger tires and a STOL kit etc. Tandem two place TW is a bit slow for getting there but fun when you get there.
Great video. Just one correction: The “fin” is not a ventral fin, but is a dorsal fin. “Ventral” would refer to underside or belly. “Dorsal” refers to upper surface or back.
True. Thanks.
I go for the 182 because it can fly higher and has a longer range, also I love that Omnivision window.
Yes, the 182 is the big brother and does everything a bit better except as a primary trainer.
I like the 172 because it’s cheaper and honestly for most flying (people rarely ever take more than one other person) it’s good enough.
I used to fly tours in the 172, 150hp naturally aspirated up to 10,000 feet with two passengers on board in the summer time. It took a while to get up there and rarely went out of the white arc but took it all in stride. Using orographic lift and thermals really helped.
Everything comes with a price !
@@Bartonovich52 I think an older model 182 would be cheaper than newer ones, but yes 172s are cheaper.
I was not expecting that outro
We were working on learning how to edit. Special effects push you to try and learn new things. We've also upgraded our mics since this video. Thanks for watching! - Don the Camera Guy
Great info......😎👍
Thanks, Kevin!
Hello, just one question, the cabin dimensions for the 182 are 5inches wider than the 172s.
You mentioned the wing is 5 inches longer than the 172 because of the cabin being 5 inches wider.
But, the wingspan is 36 Feet in the 182T and in the 172SP (as an example) the wing is 36 FT 1 Inch? How does this equate to a longer wingspan?
Both have a wing area of 174 Square feet.
Our Club 77 172 H2AD engine lasted 377.74 hours Cam Lifters and Oil Pump were JUNK. The next one went 2000+ and when we went to Schneck for an over hual they wondered what we did because it was in such good shape. Wisconsin Winters with a MANDATORY PRE-HEAT below 32 Degrees.
There are definitely good H2AD's and bad ones.
Heck yea mate
You really know your stuff its just obvious from watching 5 minutes your a wealth of knowledge! Do You help people source good used 172 / 182?
I don't really "source" them but I do have a lot go through my hands on skywagons.com
@skywagonuniversity5023 Thanks. I had a look after asking I found your website. The 206 is perfect for me. I can't find any stock jet A1 fuel engine options apart from in the 172. Do they really have no factory 182 or 206 available? Would have to change engine in that case?
Mark I would love to come out and fly with you to ferry the Aircraft or do demo flights for buyers who are very interested for people who just want to For airplane ride. The 182 would be nice with a new $20K custom paint job with stripes the cost is more .
Rear Cylinder in front of PILOT is always HOTTER than others. you forgot to mention the 182 was faster but burned 13.5 gph a 77 172 burned 10 gph said the book.
You failed to recognize the most important difference between the two aircraft and that is the cost per Mille for each or the fuel burn per mile for each.. that is the main thing to consider when you need to make a choice between the two.
This video is more about the mechanical and physical differences between the two aircraft and not so much the performance differences, But thank you.
What are the advantages (or disadvantages) of the constant speed prop on the 182 over the fixed pitch prop on the 172?
I guess I don't get an answer on that one. Haha.
Well here I’ll break it down;
Constant speed are more expensive, more maintenance, also you’ll need some training to use it! So if the plane comes with retractable gear and a constant speed propeller (assuming variable flaps too) you’ll need to get an endorsement.
Advantages way better performance
Think of a constant speed prop like gears on a bike. When starting off, you would have it in a lower gear for power (prop pitch takes less bite). When you are in cruise, you would shift to a higher gear. Instead of spinning your legs like crazy, you get more performance out of your legs. (change prop pitch to get more bite). With a single gear bike you cant adjust your "bite", but you are lighter, less complicated, and cheaper...
Whodathunkit? Thanks for the video, I had always wondered. :)
Thanks. Good to point out the similarities and differences.
This guy is an Exemplar, of what a CEO 'should' be like!
Thank you.
how about a comparison for the RG models (182, 177, 172)?
I'd have to have them all here to do that.
Mark, I just read about the 172 in Wikipedia. It says that there is an option to install an engine that uses automobile gasoline instead of Avgas. I've never heard of this and if that's true, would you recommend this type and are they widely available? Are they safe to operate?
What's your advise on this? Thank you sir for your great advice.
It's not a different engine, it is the same engine but it has the be the 150 HP Lycoming 0-320 1968 to 1976 and it has to have the Autofuel STC so the carb is changed. There has to be a metal float. You cannot just put car fuel in them. Get the STC first. (Supplemental Type Certificate)
I’ve owned both. First a 172G , now a 182E. The 182 is way more plane. The size inside is incredibly larger. Carries four seats with full tanks. Way way better
Yes, the 182 is the big brother in every way.
Excelente y básica comparación del Cessna 172 Vs Cessna 182. Por eso el 172 es más un avión de instrucción con prestaciones muy similares al Cessna 182. Excelente semana.
Mark, I'm just a low time 172 pilot. At my local airport I do see a 182 with a 3 bladed prop. May I know do 182s originally come with 2 bladed props or were they retrofitted? Under what circumstances do we upgrade the 182 to 3 bladed prop? Can a 172 accept a 3 bladed prop (whether fixed or constant pitch) as well? Thank you and best regards from Malaysia!!
All 182's have a two blade. You can get three blades for them. They are a bit smoother. The thinking is that the prop should have half the number of blades of the number of cylinders. Six cylinders equals three blades and four cylinders (172) two blades. Something to do with harmonics and counterweights. 182's like three blades but I have not seen a fixed pitch three blade for a 172 ever.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 Thank you Mark for your valuable insight. You have answered a question I have wondered about since I was a wee little boy assembling plastic kits of planes and warbirds. Now I'm already 50!.
"172s are always fixed pitch." His words, not mine. No, not all 172s were fixed pitch. The Hawk XP (R172K model) had a constant speed prop, six cylinders, 195hp and cowl flaps. The XP used an IO-360KB, and could be stc'd back to the 360's full 210hp. (Mine was.) Gross weight on the XP was 2550, if memory serves.
2550 Lbs Max take off weight is correct. I have one and LOVE IT.
@@cesarquintana9034 What's not to love, right? Great little airplanes. I really miss mine. I was based at 20' above sea level, and doing touch and goes with that climb rate was awesome. I once had a tower controller ask me what type of aircraft I was flying. When I told him, he said "That explains a lot." Apparently, 172s aren't supposed to get to pattern altitude that quickly. :)
We also used it a lot for SAR in the mountains, where the extra horsepower really made a difference.
Considering that Mark does these videos off the top of his head and they are completely unscripted, I think he can be cut a little slack if he misses a point here or there.
@@donaldbishop923 Fair enough. I'm not trying to diss him -- just correcting bad information.
Please do one of these for the 177
OK, I'll do one on a cardinal. I'll have to borrow one. ;-)
The Cardinal was in a world of its own.
And the failure of it is why the Cessna 172 got the O-320E in 1968 because they had a lot which were too small for the original 177s.
thats in california, i cant be sure where but i wanna say its like Alta Sierra or maybe Calaveras County
Very observant. Right between your two guesses, Placerville. KPVF.
The 182Q and newer also have 3100lb gross. Useful load on my R is 1305lbs
Yes, true the R models have a higher gross weight than their predecessors. The "Fresh Pick" STC will increase the P and Q models up to that weight too. I covered the big things. There is a lot of detail too. Thanks.
Both planes are great. how about an update 2021 or thereabouts.
I'll do a video on a later model if I had one here. They all come and go, That is why I am so lucky to be able to do this.
I have quite a few hours in both and also owned a Cherokee 235. Night and day difference in performance, load, speed and fuel burn. The 172 is like a kite with a motor attached and not full 4 place. The 182 is a full 4 place and flies where you point it and 20mph faster. It also burns 13 gph and I’m sure more costly to maintain with 2 extra jugs and constant speed prop. I’d likely pick 182 over 172 but I think a 172 owner would have a hard time opting for a 150. Outside the scope of this clip, but I owned a Cherokee 235 and that plane outperforms the 182 in all respects except for fuel burn as the 235 burns 15 gph v 182 13gph. 235 burns more fuel but they cost way less than both 172 or 182.
The Cherokee 235 was outside the scope of this comparison, but you have laid it out nicely.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 very much enjoy your channel and subject matter. It’s very apparent that you do your homework. Thanks for posting these.
I have seen that road on adds for planes on trade a plane.
Yes, that is our photo area. A disused road to the "New hangars" that have never been built.
what would have been even more informative would have been the difference in climb rate, altitude, speeds, and range of the two.
This was more about the differences in the airframes, engines, TBO's, fuel capacities, basically specifications although I did intersperse it a little with performance comparisons too. Thanks for watching.
Especially the speeds
What does TBO mean.. engine over haul ?
TBO is Time Before Overhaul. It’s the reccomended time that the manufacturer says that you should run the engine. They can go way over TBO.
Please do a video on turbine powered 172s. I believe they use diesel or kerosene. Can we just take a stock 172 and change the engine? Or is there more to it?
I actually know where there is one so that is a good idea. They are not turbine though. They are turbocharged diesels and they burn diesel which is jet fuel. I'll look into that. Thanks.
Is that at an airport or on a road?
It's an unused access road at the airport that goes to where the "new hangars" are supposed to be built but have not been for 14 years. It makes a nice scenic uncluttered back-drop
Yes but how are they different to fly and to live with?
The 182 is 30% more of everything. Speed, fuel, useful load, cabin size, range etc etc etc. The 182 is very familiar to a 172 pilot.
182 FTW
My one question is how much faster is the 182? I think of most 172s as 100 knot planes. Is the 182 a 120 knot plane?
That is right, 172's are about a 100 Knot plane, maybe just over. The 182 with it's 70 more HP and two more cylinders and 150 cubic inches more will cruise at 135 Kts with normal sized tires and wheel pants.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 - 135kts - that's a substantial increase. Thanks.
@@jonathonhinson2070 That said, I flew side-by-side with a new Wentworth 180hp converted 172 in a 1962 182 from Kansas to Arizona. The 172 was just as fast as the 182. Fuel burns were within 1 gph. Maybe the lighter weight and the smaller width of the 172 allows it to make that kind of speed on fewer horsepower.
@@206dvr - I have a 1964 172E. There are days I'd like to go a little faster, but then I think "Why?"
My 1978 172N did 131kts two days ago on 216nm flight. Leaned out mixture at 2350rpm, 5500ft.
Do your homework on the weather and you can squeeze out more speed. Use winds aloft to your advantage.
I prefer the 182 as i am old and fat and beat up. The 5 inches is huge when your wide. Plus more fuel and better aft cg / balance
182's are great at everything.
The H2AD was a Lycoming engine, not a Continental. It also was very problematic.
I never said that the H2AD was a Continental. It is a 160 HP Lycoming in the 1977 to 1980 172's and had a cam lubrication problem and needed the T mod to resolve this. It also has no accessory case and so to deal with anything in the back of the engine it has to have it's case split rather than remove an accessory case. This was done for cheapness of production and to reduce potential leaks. It's replacement the E2D in the 81 to 85 172's was vastly superior. The H engines either failed early or went all the way to TBO depending on luck. Continentals were only in the 56 to 67 172's and they were 145 HP six cylinders.
Not all 182s had cowel flaps, B model was the first about 1959 as i remember
You are correct, 1959 was the first year of 182 cowl flaps, but this was a comparison between these two planes. I have other videos about the other model year changes.
you didn't mention the speed/distance/time difference :(
Sorry. There is a lot to it.
65 gallons is rare? i thought that was pretty standard, we have a 182G with 65 gallon tanks...
The further you get from the sixties the lass and less you see 65 gallons in a 182 or a 206. It is called "standard fuel" but 84 gallons with 78 usable became the norm but was called "long range fuel"
@@skywagonuniversity5023 ah gotcha thanks for explaining and great vid btw!
Why are they on some random road? Why not on a ramp?
Hi Brian. The road is on an unused portion of the airport and it offers us a location that has fewer distractions (cars driving to hangars, aircraft passing by, etc.) and is more "scenic."
172XP a 4 ci O 360 LY. 210 HP. Derated to 195 HP. to extend the TBO. And with a constant speed prop. A happy medium?...
Yes, they are. XP's are a 195 or 210 HP six cylinder fuel injected 172 with 50 gallons. They are in-between the 172 and the 182. They made them between 1977 and 1981 only and in France under license called Riems Rockets.
Now do a Cessna and a Mooney
:p
I did the Cardinal vs a Mooney.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 ooooh
Bom dia Donizete Bragança Paulista sp. Brasil
Good morning to you too!
Viva Ayrton Senna da Silva :)
My R172K has cowl flaps, 195hp and a constant speed prop. So that is not a clear indication for the difference. :- )
Noted, thanks but this is a comparison between a 172 and a 182, Not a 182 and a 172 Hawk XP. A Hawk XP is a plane of it's own. If you are quite local and your plane is a nice one you could bring it up here and we can do an XP Video to show what they are.
@@skywagonuniversity5023 It's in a Hangar at Nortel Airfield, EDSO. Maybe a little too far for a short visit ;- )
@@knietiefimdispo2458 OK, No worries.
Ok Ok, just a like idle chatter, Absotulty no comparing a C172 to a 182.
So apart from the 14 minutes showing all the differences between the airframes, engines, size, speed, etc., and all the other comparisons, plus the thousands and thousands of views that loved it ... no comparisions????? And this is how you spell "Absolutely."
Yup p. Having flown both Airpanes, they are Totaly different Birds.
If they had been the same, we wouldn't have done a comparison. Perhaps this will help:
Comparison:
Noun: A consideration or estimate of the similarities or dissimilarities between two things or people.
The best 172's and 182's had 40 degrees flap. Some 'idiot' 'dinged' one trying to get into a short strip, and for the sake of 'lawyers at 45 paces', they reduced it to 30! Much lesser planes as a result.
"Liability" forced a lot of changes due to people not being able to take responsibility for their actions. In the automotive world, "Crash-ability" put an end to the Jaguar XKE, what a shame that was.