182 verses Skylane ?

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,446
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
I was just looking at a 1966 182 skylane and I notice some slight differences between the 182 and the skylane option in the operators manual
3 mph and 60 pounds.
Any idea what the physical differences in the plane are ?
This airplane has been A hanger queen for the last 10 years and has been in open but covered storage all of its life.
It has about 250 hours on a new engine installed in about 1970.
90714A1A-D310-47EC-B43E-2D64B024D1A6.jpeg
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,828
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Plastic fairings on the wheels. A bunch of interior luxury items. Perhaps the rear seat (35-40 lbs.) depending on how the brochure was written??

There is absolutely no difference between the basic airframes, engines, or systems. Any 182 can be upgraded with better fairings, gap seals, and various "hop-ups" to go faster than they used to go. With enough upgrades and fairings, you might even get it to go as fast as the brochure says.

The 182 is a good, solid 150 MPH airplane in most real-world situations. Yes they can do 160 when cleaned up a lot. But remember Cessna usually did their brochure measurements with every possible option and comfort upgrade NOT installed... the passenger seats, the co-pilot yoke, the radios, an hour's worth of fuel, etc. etc. The airplane weighed a lot less, so the wings didn't have to make as much lift, and lift creates drag.

50 years later, it doesn't matter whether you buy a 182 or a Skylane. You will "tune up" the airplane to suit your preferences.

Buy the one in better mechanical shape.
 

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
5,823
Location
Upper midwest in a house
I was just looking at a 1966 182 skylane and I notice some slight differences between the 182 and the skylane option in the operators manual
3 mph and 60 pounds.
Any idea what the physical differences in the plane are ?
Same as differences between 172 and Skyhawk, 177 and Cardinal, and on and on.

Wheel fairings, extra stripe in the paint, extra foam in the seats, different decals, etc.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,828
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Could there be 40 + pounds of electronics ?
Oh yes there could ! I bought a 1956 172, and removed 15++ pounds of junk radios, and this was a VFR airplane. That one huge old AN directional gyro was probably 10 pounds itself. Venturis, vacuum regulator, VOR, on and on and on. I would not be surprised if you couldn't take 20-30 pounds off even a "modern " (1970's) era Cessna instrument panel and replace it with 2 pounds' worth of Garmin G5 or iLevel or whatever.

I can take my old King NAV-COM radio out and replace it with a small digital COM and save 3 pounds on that alone. I still have a few pounds' worth of electric gyro and turn and bank, that I leave in there just in case I blunder into a cloud, but this too can come out with the G5 if I ever get it.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,828
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
This is a GUESS, but "Standard" equipment on the 182 likely would have been a regular "6-pack" at most, and probably everything else was an option. Skylane probably included a Nav-Com and a VOR head as "included" in the Skylane package. Do you count dual controls as being part of the "dash"?
 

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
5,823
Location
Upper midwest in a house
In 66 was there anything at all in the dash of a 182 and everything they could find in the skylane?
Gyro instruments were not "standard" but I doubt very many, if any at all left the Wallace plant without.

Like the C-120's were supposed to be sold without an electrical system. The number of planes delivered without never reached triple digits.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,870
Location
USA.
Oh yes there could ! I bought a 1956 172, and removed 15++ pounds of junk radios, and this was a VFR airplane. That one huge old AN directional gyro was probably 10 pounds itself. Venturis, vacuum regulator, VOR, on and on and on. I would not be surprised if you couldn't take 20-30 pounds off even a "modern " (1970's) era Cessna instrument panel and replace it with 2 pounds' worth of Garmin G5 or iLevel or whatever.

I can take my old King NAV-COM radio out and replace it with a small digital COM and save 3 pounds on that alone. I still have a few pounds' worth of electric gyro and turn and bank, that I leave in there just in case I blunder into a cloud, but this too can come out with the G5 if I ever get it.
My work 1959 Cessna 172 in the Restricted Category went on a weight reduction. No paint except N numbers. No rear seat, or right front seat. Most of the time, no doors except on trips. Vac pump off the prop hub with a belt on the A model engine and all IFR King panel with autopilot for required IFR trips. Large camera hole in floor. Plexglass doors in the rear side windows that hinged down. Climb prop. Made a big difference. Can't remember the EW, but I believe it was in the 1100's.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,828
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Well I don’t really have a clue and the operating handbook doesn’t offer much of a clue either other than that 60 pound difference
4 layers of never-stripped Imron paint and Bondo, that deluxe ho-house Fine Corinthian Leather tuck n' roll interior, 20 pound density memory foam seats, factory OEM 'soundproofing' option, carpet, a bunch of antennas, a larger size battery and that giant Hoover Dam sized Delco alternator to run all those anvil-weight vacuum tube avionics, that big heavy grinding wheezing rotating beacon on the top of the fin that looks like the robot from Lost in Space, those 5 pound strobe driver boxes, the 5 pounds of steel-jacketed copper cable from a rear-mounted battery to the starter, the vast rat's nest of avionics wiring always found in a 50 year old airplane, 20 of those big clunker "Klixon" brand circuit breakers..... 60 pounds of blubber can easily be found on a Cessna 150, much less a 182.

Compare the weight and balance documents from original to current, and I promise you will find the changes that resulted in that 60 pounds.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,446
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
Oh how I wish I could!
There are no longer logs with this plane only the original owners son‘s testimony. The story is the plane was bought new in 1966 and with 500 hours on it metal shavings were found in the engine
Supposedly Continental replaced that engine with an entirely new one and since then the plane has only gathered about 250 hours.
The plane has set covered in one of those hangers that is just a roof. It was apparently repainted very poorly in 2000 and that shows some lifting paint with corrosion under it.
It was last flown in 2009 but has been started every two or three months since then.
It had a new bladders put in it in 2001, New tires last year etc.

I am especially curious about the story the continental replaced an engine shavings in it for a new one was that common at some point?
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,805
Location
Memphis, TN
You have to look at each individual plane’s weight and balance to really see what they were delivered with. I bet an easy 100 lbs more than book if any options were added. Stripped out skydiver plane would make the factory numbers.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,828
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
If it has new bladders and a new engine that can be verified, it might be well worth having (if a 182 suits your mission). Repainting is X expense, but a proper paint job will last 20 years and add value to the airplane. If he has ever run car gas in it since the new bladders, PASS, I have a friend who trashed a set of bladders because of the ethanol. It's a big expensive PITA job to replace those bladders!
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,828
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
The worst thing you can do to an airplane is not fly it. Same as a car that sits in the driveway for years. There may be a problem that rendered it unairworthy, or it just may be corroding and drying out on its own. They may have run the engine and kept seeing metal residue, not flying but hoping it would go away. That would mean the story of a new engine is a story.

OR, it may be a perfectly good airplane with a perfectly good brand new engine that Uncle Joe just never flew because he was gettin' old-timer's disease.

All this may mean it's a dud, or it equally may mean you need to have a much more thorough look-see at the insides and the working parts to verify it's not a dud.
 

edwisch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2020
Messages
92
Well I don’t really have a clue and the operating handbook doesn’t offer much of a clue either other than that 60 pound difference
Not to be snide (and I probably am, sorry), your questions are best categorized as archeological. So many things will have been upgraded, removed or replaced on a 50+ year old airplane...
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,870
Location
USA.
One way a very large money pit that will cost more than you could buy a good one. The other way a smaller money pit, but you get to fly it.
 
Top