Look my friend, I didn't give any advice, I repeated some data which was intended to be taken within it's context, which was also given. You are only insisting that it's advice because if you concede that it wasn't, you are left holding the bag...so you keep trying to insist it was advice. Bringing up the 12 quart max. capacity was no more advising someone to fill a 182 to that level than bringing up the 2-3/4 qt. minimum was advice to fly an airplane with that quantity. Both numbers were mentioned to give additional information to a discussion which ensued from a question which had already been answered, not to advise someone on a course of action. It would appear that everyone involved understands that, except you. Actually, I suspect that you understand that also, but you keep advancing your "advice" conspiracy theory, because without it, you have nothing about which to criticize me, other than my demeanor, which I concede is short towards people who argue without reading and understanding what's written. Let it go. I didn't advise anyone to do anything.
As an aside, if you had been following this same discussion started by this same poster on another board, you would know that despite his brief initial question, this poster was seeking more information than just the POH oil service level. Specifically, he was also looking for information on how low you can run the oil without damaging the engine, which was why I was reading the engine TCDSs in the first place; they have more detailed information than the 182 TCDS.
Now, instead of insisting ad nausem that I was giving advice, when clearly I wasn't, why don't you attempt to respond in some intelligent manner to the information I posted? I'll help you out here:
Hey, JCJ, why do you suppose that there is a difference between Lycoming's max. oil capacity and the 182 POH service level? It's possible that it's because the 182 engines have a different sump installed, but I don't think so because I think that if that were true Lycoming would have given the 182 engines a different model designator and listed then with a different oil capacity in the TCDS. I think it's because while 12 quarts is the maximum capacity, Cessna recommends 9 quarts as it gives a 6 -1/4 quart margin over the minimum, which is more than adequate given the endurance and oil consumption of a 182, and anything over 9 quarts would be more likely to blown out the crankcase breather. What do you think?
Or if abstract technical discussions aren’t your bag, how about discussing the practical implications of the information:
Hey JCJ, if you were ferrying a 182RG from Australia to the US and on your legs through the South Pacific, you had noticed that the oil consumption was on the high side of normal, would you service the oil level to 9 quarts or some other quantity for the Hawaii-US leg of your trip? Why or why not?
Or, you can keep pretending I was giving advice. The choice is yours.
