Why the Cessna R/TR182?
A candid, owner-written breakdown of what makes the retractable-gear 182 family stand out — including honest pros, cons, and real-world comparisons with other four-place retractables.
Pros
- Ease of maintenance — most shops have worked on Cessna 182s.
- Textron/Cessna still supports the type, even though parts prices can be pricey.
- No other single-engine retractable offers 150 kt+ cruise on 13 GPH with a 1,300 lb+ useful load.
- Ease of cabin entry/exit due to low stance on landing gear.
- Robust landing gear system is low maintenance if properly cared for — bad reputation not deserved.
- Lycoming O-540-J3C5D is low maintenance and durable if properly operated and maintained.
- Easy transition from C172/C182 with reasonable insurance cost.
- Good short-field performance including grass strips — watch out for gopher holes that can stress the main gear due to the smaller 15×6.00-6 tires vs. the fixed-gear 182's 6.00-6.
- Lycoming O-540 series is less susceptible to carburetor ice than the O-470 series used in the fixed-gear C182.
- Factory engines include carbureted 235 HP (normally aspirated) and turbocharged/turbo-normalized options. Aftermarket 260 HP and 300 HP fuel-injected options from Air Plains remove the dual-magneto ignition and offer meaningful performance increases.
Cons
- Hydraulic landing gear system maintenance — bad reputation not deserved, but it does require attention.
- Performing key service bulletins (e.g. SEB95-20) is critical to landing-gear reliability and safety.
- 15×6.00-6 MLG tire size is smaller than the standard 182's 6.00-6 — less ideal on very rough surfaces.
- Control forces in pitch are heavy, like all 182s. They handle more like a truck than a sports car, but pitch loads are easily managed with proper use of the elevator trim wheel.
- 1979–1986 models with integral/sealed fuel cells can face expensive leak repairs. One mitigation: stay below published flap speeds to reduce tank stress.
- 1979–1986 models use aluminum MLG saddles that are expensive to replace.
- MLG swivel fittings occasionally leak and can be costly to replace.
- Airframe corrosion can be an issue when stored or operated in coastal environments — factory corrosion-proofing was less than ideal.
- Engine exhaust trails accumulate on the belly and in gear wells; regular cleaning is needed to prevent corrosion.
- 1978 models have firewall-mounted batteries prone to corrosion. Later models can corrode in the tail-battery area — solved by switching to a sealed Concorde battery.
- The dual magneto on the Lycoming O-540-J3C5D requires a 500-hour inspection/overhaul by a shop with expertise in that magneto type.
Comparing the R/TR182 to Other 4-Place Retractables
Real-world owner impressions — not just spec sheets.
vs. Beechcraft Bonanza
We were looking for a Bonanza V35B when we came across the R182 with the Air Plains 300 HP conversion. Superior flying qualities, a robust landing gear, Beech engineering, and ABS support make the Bonanza a can't-miss choice.
Climbing up on the wing was becoming harder to convince my wife to do as we're getting older, and the R182's ease of entry and exit helped make the decision. Handling of the R182 is better than our previous C182P, which flies nose-heavy — though all C182s are not known for Ferrari-like handling.
vs. Piper Comanche
We are fans of the type, particularly the 250/260 versions, which are faster than the R182 with potentially longer legs for those with 90-gallon fuel systems. Both types use the Lycoming O-540 series for power, and both landing-gear systems require occasional maintenance — although the Cessna gear has a worse-than-deserved reputation. Most R182s we've seen have had only minimal gear maintenance over the decades.
The Comanche's gear is also fairly durable and requires bungee replacement every five years or so, with occasional bushing replacement due to wear from side loads. The larger 6.00×6 tires are better on rough strips than the R182's smaller 15×6.00-6 tires. Another difference: the R182 has just the nose-gear oleo strut to maintain, compared to the Comanche's three struts.
Flying qualities of the Comanche are good and it handles a crosswind well, in part because it sits low to the ground — though consistently greasing arrivals is tricky, partly due to the variable-chord wing design.
vs. Mooney 201
Regardless of the 201's claimed 43.5" cabin width (same as the R182), we find it rather tight inside. For that trade-off you do get R182 cruise speeds (~155 kt) on just 10 GPH with a four-cylinder engine — meaning lower operating and maintenance costs.
Maintaining a Mooney is a tight-quarters job, which makes sense given the airframe design. The landing gear system is reliable and robust, using rubber donuts rather than oleos for lower maintenance; when those donuts need replacing it's a demanding job requiring a special compression tool. Mooney owners are a devoted group who do a great job supporting the type.
See It for Yourself
Cessna's Single Engine Masterpiece
Already Own One — or Thinking About It?
Join our community of R182 and TR182 owners. Ask questions, share maintenance tips, and connect with pilots who know this aircraft inside and out.