Airborne_Again wrote:
Not sure I agree. There is a C182 on our field and it’s payload is only 10 kg above that of our PA28-181!
Have you checked for hidden ballast ?
From around the 182L through the 182R useful load should be over 1100 lbs? These models had at least 2950 lbs max gross weight. The earlier types had max gross of 2550 lbs to 2800 lbs, and the later types had ballooned into 2000 lbs plus empty weight, albeit with higher gross weight on the same HP.
Not all 182 are good load carriers, but the majority probably are.
RobertL18C wrote:
Not all 182 are good load carriers, but the majority probably are.
The one I looked at was a 182M with 2800 lbs MTOM and a useful load of about 1000 lbs. Our PA28-181 has a useful load of about 980 lbs.
https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/aircraft-fact-sheets/cessna-182
@Airborne_Again from 1970 (182K on?) the MAUW is 2950 lbs, so your 182M may have an incorrect Mass and Balance schedule? Typically a 182M should have over 1100 lbs useful load.
Would also add that the later model Warrior, also available via STC for earlier -161 Warriors, with 2440 lbs MAUW typically has around 950 lbs useful load.
Our 182Q has the MTOW increase STC which brings it to 3100 lbs max gross. Empty weight is 1854 lbs. Full usable fuel is 504 lbs. which means:
- max useful load: 1246 lbs
- max payload @ full fuel: 742 lbs
Unusable fuel and oil come in at 45 lbs
RobertL18C wrote:
@Airborne_Again from 1970 (182K on?) the MAUW is 2950 lbs, so your 182M may have an incorrect Mass and Balance schedule? Typically a 182M should have over 1100 lbs useful load.
The 2800 lbs (actually 1270 kg) figure is not only on the W&B sheet but also in the Swedish CAA register. The empty weight is 1795 lbs (815 kg).
According to the list of C182 variants on Wikipedia, the 182N variant was the first one with 2950 lb (1338 kg) MTOM.
Given the weight of my family + baggage, I’m aiming for a full-fuel useful load of about 300 kg, ideally. The more, the better. I’ll never fly legs longer than about 2,5 hrs, so range is actually less important than carrying capacity.
@Airborne_Again thank you, I should have spent more time on checking which variant got the bomb in MGW.
@Medewok the Archer II with fuel at the tabs (meets your range objective) meets your mission! Typically 950 lbs UL and 660 lbs payload would even allow full fuel. Keep it simple, fixed gear, fixed propeller and appreciating. However I do think we are at peak prices soon.
Archer IIs on planecheck are all advertised at higher prices than this 6-260.
Lower running costs though.
Jujupilote wrote:
Archer IIs on planecheck are all advertised at higher prices than this 6-260.
Lower running costs though.
One advantage of the PA-32 would be faster speed. 140 kts vs 110 kt makes a difference if you’re trying to fly a family somewhere, as wife and children will likely not have much airborne endurance (thus it’s important to keep the legs short to limit exhaustion and discomfort)
