Power settings for 182RG

[Andrew Gideon]

I've been going over the POH, remembering the various procedures and
settings. But something I've taken for granted in the 172s I've been
flying up until now is missing: power settings for the pattern.

You know: 1800 RPM and 10 on the flaps for midfield downwind, 1500 and 85
kts and descending past the numbers, etc.

So...anyone have numbers to share for a 182 retract? I know that they're
just a framework, but I'm at the point where a framework would be helpful.

- Andrew

[john smith]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> I've been going over the POH, remembering the various procedures and
> settings. But something I've taken for granted in the 172s I've been
> flying up until now is missing: power settings for the pattern.
> You know: 1800 RPM and 10 on the flaps for midfield downwind, 1500 and 85
> kts and descending past the numbers, etc.
> So...anyone have numbers to share for a 182 retract? I know that they're
> just a framework, but I'm at the point where a framework would be helpful.

85 KNOTS OVER THE NUMBERS!!!
How far down the runway do you float before the wheels contact?
I would use 65 knots, 70 knots max, over the numbers and throttle fully
closed.
In a straight leg 182(Q/R/S), I try to be at 55 kts over the numbers at
gross (3100 lbs), reducing appropriately for lower weights.

[Craig Prouse]

In article >, john smith >
wrote:

> 85 KNOTS OVER THE NUMBERS!!!
> How far down the runway do you float before the wheels contact?
> I would use 65 knots, 70 knots max, over the numbers and throttle fully
> closed.
> In a straight leg 182(Q/R/S), I try to be at 55 kts over the numbers at
> gross (3100 lbs), reducing appropriately for lower weights.

Andrew never said "over" the numbers. He said "descending past" the
numbers, which if you interpret that as "abeam" the numbers, what he
said makes perfect sense. Choosing a power setting for short final is
not very interesting, after all, and the final approach speed is right
there on the checklist. I think it's the rest of the traffic pattern
that he's asking about.

I like to keep my speed down in the pattern so as to fit in nicely with
all the Warriors and Citabrias. I'd think that a C182 RG would fly
about the same as my C182S once the gear is down; if so, a starting
place might be this:

downwind, 90 kts
gear down, flaps 10, 17-18" MP, 2100 RPM

abeam the numbers
reduce power to 13-14" MP

turning base
flaps 20, 80 kts

turning final
flaps 30, 70 kts, mixture/prop

Andrew, a hint that helped me a lot... Once you get the chance to go
work out your power settings for instrument approaches at 90 and 100
kts, you can just use the same configurations and power settings in the
pattern that you would use when flying an approach. After all, flying
downwind is just like flying level at MDA, and that power reduction
abeam the numbers is just the same as initiating a nonprecision descent.
Close enough anyway. No point in memorizing more different procedures
and sets of numbers than necessary.

[Mark Astley]

Andrew,

I used 80, 70, 60 for abeam, base, final in the 172. I tried this a few
times in the 182RG and it works but I ended up using 65 for final to make it
a little easier to keep the nose up at touchdown. As you've no doubt
realized by now, tugging the nose up in the flare on a 182 is quite a bit
different than doing the same on the 172. I also tend to only use 30 deg
flaps to keep it from coming down like a truck.

mark

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> I've been going over the POH, remembering the various procedures and
> settings. But something I've taken for granted in the 172s I've been
> flying up until now is missing: power settings for the pattern.
>
> You know: 1800 RPM and 10 on the flaps for midfield downwind, 1500 and 85
> kts and descending past the numbers, etc.
>
> So...anyone have numbers to share for a 182 retract? I know that they're
> just a framework, but I'm at the point where a framework would be helpful.
>
> - Andrew
>

[Jim]

Those are just about the numbers I use, and they work well for the RG.

17-18" @ 2100 rpms, 100 entering downwind, drop the gear, and 10 degrees of
flaps. If you do them both at once, no need to re trim and it will slow you
to 90, GUMPS, remember, you can look out the window and see at least one
wheel down

abeam reduce power, 14"-15", as it slows the prop can come in all the way

1500 rpms on base should give you about 80kts, flaps go to 20, GUMPS

30 degrees of flaps and 70 on final, 40 degrees if you need to drop in
steep, GUMPS

55-60 over the numbers works well

If heavy, add just a little power to arrest your sink rate as you level over
the runway, keep pulling the yoke back until it's burried in your stomach,
it's nose is a lot heavier than a 172's and as your speed slows, you really
loose elevator if you don't keep pulling.

There is NO NEED to try to land this plane fast!!! Read the POH and do some
slow flight with an instructor, you'll see it will fly with everything
hanging out at 37 knots!!!! THIRTY SEVEN!! Don't try to land it at 80
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply
> downwind, 90 kts
> gear down, flaps 10, 17-18" MP, 2100 RPM
>
> abeam the numbers
> reduce power to 13-14" MP
>
> turning base
> flaps 20, 80 kts
>
> turning final
> flaps 30, 70 kts, mixture/prop
>

[Andrew Gideon]

john smith wrote:


> 85 KNOTS OVER THE NUMBERS!!!
> How far down the runway do you float before the wheels contact?

Well, I don't get a discount on the fee if I use less runway, so I figure
that I should be getting the maximum runway for my landing fee dollar.

<Laugh>

Sorry I wasn't clear, but Craig had it right. I was speaking of being in
downwind past the point of abeam the numbers.

> I would use 65 knots, 70 knots max, over the numbers and throttle fully
> closed.

I know the speeds I want. I'm looking for suggestions of the power settings
that'll get me there. One of the "difficulties" I found when flying the
182 the first time was the lack of an idea of what settings will yield what
speed. I don't even think about this in the 172 any more, so it's
interesting to be "starting fresh". I learned the feel of the 172 before I
was a pilot, so to speak, so this is different.

I think one's first transition must be something like one's first foreign
language (as an adult). There's actually a skill to acquiring the new
skill.

> In a straight leg 182(Q/R/S), I try to be at 55 kts over the numbers at
> gross (3100 lbs), reducing appropriately for lower weights.

That seems slow to me. According to the POH, final for a short field is
63kts. There's room between there and the stall, of course, but that'll
make for an even steeper final, and therefore a more abrupt flair.

It's doable, I assume...I've done this in the 172 when I've been too lazy to
slip, but the 182 already seems to be "heavy" in the flair to me.

- Andrew

P.S. Anyone know why rotate speed on the 182RG is 50 while the rotate
speed on a 172 is 55? I'd have assumed the heavier plane would
have the higher speed.

[Jim]

Power to weight ratio.
172 has a smaller wing and a smaller engine
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

[John Harper]

55 seemed awful low to me too (I fly a TR182). It is only
1.1 Vs0 - doable of course if you need to get into 800'
but close to the edge. I aim for 70 on short final and
65 over the threshold, using 15" and full flaps (and the gear!)
on final.

Before I get flamed... yes, I know Vs0 is 39... IAS, not
CAS. CAS is 49. And the wings don't know about IAS,
only CAS.

My settings are 18" for the pattern, with gear and 10 deg
flaps, and 15" on final. I cruise at 25"/2200, which is OK by the
POH and both quieter and cheaper than a "squarer" figure
of 24"/2300. Climb at 25"/2400. Cruise descent at 23"/2500 which
keeps things just below yellow line. 15" for an ILS final.

John

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> john smith wrote:
>
>
> > 85 KNOTS OVER THE NUMBERS!!!
> > How far down the runway do you float before the wheels contact?
>
> Well, I don't get a discount on the fee if I use less runway, so I figure
> that I should be getting the maximum runway for my landing fee dollar.
>
> <Laugh>
>
> Sorry I wasn't clear, but Craig had it right. I was speaking of being in
> downwind past the point of abeam the numbers.
>
> > I would use 65 knots, 70 knots max, over the numbers and throttle fully
> > closed.
>
> I know the speeds I want. I'm looking for suggestions of the power
settings
> that'll get me there. One of the "difficulties" I found when flying the
> 182 the first time was the lack of an idea of what settings will yield
what
> speed. I don't even think about this in the 172 any more, so it's
> interesting to be "starting fresh". I learned the feel of the 172 before
I
> was a pilot, so to speak, so this is different.
>
> I think one's first transition must be something like one's first foreign
> language (as an adult). There's actually a skill to acquiring the new
> skill.
>
> > In a straight leg 182(Q/R/S), I try to be at 55 kts over the numbers at
> > gross (3100 lbs), reducing appropriately for lower weights.
>
> That seems slow to me. According to the POH, final for a short field is
> 63kts. There's room between there and the stall, of course, but that'll
> make for an even steeper final, and therefore a more abrupt flair.
>
> It's doable, I assume...I've done this in the 172 when I've been too lazy
to
> slip, but the 182 already seems to be "heavy" in the flair to me.
>
> - Andrew
>
> P.S. Anyone know why rotate speed on the 182RG is 50 while the rotate
> speed on a 172 is 55? I'd have assumed the heavier plane would
> have the higher speed.
>

[Michael 182]

I have the same plane, and I fly the same numbers, maybe a little closer to
square in cruise. Just out of curiousity, what are you getting for fuel
burn? I seem to be getting around 14.5 - 15 gph at 10,000 ft during cruise,
75 degrees rich of peak.

Michael


"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1078159138.642961@sj-nntpcache-3...

> My settings are 18" for the pattern, with gear and 10 deg
> flaps, and 15" on final. I cruise at 25"/2200, which is OK by the
> POH and both quieter and cheaper than a "squarer" figure
> of 24"/2300. Climb at 25"/2400. Cruise descent at 23"/2500 which
> keeps things just below yellow line. 15" for an ILS final.
>
> John

[john smith]

John Harper wrote:
> 55 seemed awful low to me too (I fly a TR182). It is only
> 1.1 Vs0 - doable of course if you need to get into 800'
> but close to the edge. I aim for 70 on short final and
> 65 over the threshold, using 15" and full flaps (and the gear!)
> on final.

65 base to final slowing to 55 OVER the numbers.

> Before I get flamed... yes, I know Vs0 is 39... IAS, not
> CAS. CAS is 49. And the wings don't know about IAS,
> only CAS.

39 IAS WITH power. 41 CAS/49 IAS power off.

[John Harper]

I get around 13.8-14 gph in cruise. I lean using the
TIT, I generally run at 25"/2200/1400 on the TIT.
Any higher gives me rough running. No doubt (as
people have told me) there is a tiny induction leak
somewhere, but my mechanic hasn't found anything.

By the way for people who are interested in the
finer points of flying 182s (or any other Cessna) this
kind of discussion goes on all the time in the Cessna
Pilots Association groups - www.cessna.org . If you
fly a Cessna you should probably think about joining.

John

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:XMJ0c.15846$PR3.412249@attbi_s03...
> I have the same plane, and I fly the same numbers, maybe a little closer
to
> square in cruise. Just out of curiousity, what are you getting for fuel
> burn? I seem to be getting around 14.5 - 15 gph at 10,000 ft during
cruise,
> 75 degrees rich of peak.
>
> Michael
>
>
> "John Harper" > wrote in message
> news:1078159138.642961@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
> > My settings are 18" for the pattern, with gear and 10 deg
> > flaps, and 15" on final. I cruise at 25"/2200, which is OK by the
> > POH and both quieter and cheaper than a "squarer" figure
> > of 24"/2300. Climb at 25"/2400. Cruise descent at 23"/2500 which
> > keeps things just below yellow line. 15" for an ILS final.
> >
> > John
>
>
>

[John Harper]

You mean 41 IAS / 49 CAS...? In which case,
as I said, 55 is just slightly over 1.1 Vs0. It's
certainly your right to fly approaches however
you want, but unless runway length is really
an issue I'd prefer to be a bit faster. 65 on short
final gets me comfortably off the runway in 1200'
with no wind.

John


"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> John Harper wrote:
> > 55 seemed awful low to me too (I fly a TR182). It is only
> > 1.1 Vs0 - doable of course if you need to get into 800'
> > but close to the edge. I aim for 70 on short final and
> > 65 over the threshold, using 15" and full flaps (and the gear!)
> > on final.
>
> 65 base to final slowing to 55 OVER the numbers.
>
> > Before I get flamed... yes, I know Vs0 is 39... IAS, not
> > CAS. CAS is 49. And the wings don't know about IAS,
> > only CAS.
>
> 39 IAS WITH power. 41 CAS/49 IAS power off.
>

[Scott Skylane]

Jim wrote:
> Power to weight ratio.
> 172 has a smaller wing and a smaller engine

Jim,

Not quite. The 172 and 182 share the same wing area, a factor that has
nothing to do with power-to-weight.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Andrew Gideon]

John Harper wrote:

> By the way for people who are interested in the
> finer points of flying 182s (or any other Cessna) this
> kind of discussion goes on all the time in the Cessna
> Pilots Association groups - www.cessna.org . If you
> fly a Cessna you should probably think about joining.

For $45, considering that I'm in a club with four Cessnas? I'll give it a
try.

Are the forums as interesting as here, though? AOPA has such, but they've
never managed to hold my interest like these USENET groups. I don't know
why (perhaps I'm simply more comfortable with USENET readers than web-based
"groupware" {8^).

- Andrew

[John Harper]

Try it and see. There are very active groups, as active as here.
I don't follow the 172 group, but I follow the 182 and this
kind of topic comes up all the time.

A good $45 worth - you get a monthly magazine too.

John

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> John Harper wrote:
>
> > By the way for people who are interested in the
> > finer points of flying 182s (or any other Cessna) this
> > kind of discussion goes on all the time in the Cessna
> > Pilots Association groups - www.cessna.org . If you
> > fly a Cessna you should probably think about joining.
>
> For $45, considering that I'm in a club with four Cessnas? I'll give it a
> try.
>
> Are the forums as interesting as here, though? AOPA has such, but they've
> never managed to hold my interest like these USENET groups. I don't know
> why (perhaps I'm simply more comfortable with USENET readers than
web-based
> "groupware" {8^).
>
> - Andrew
>

[john smith]

John Harper wrote:
> You mean 41 IAS / 49 CAS...? In which case,
> as I said, 55 is just slightly over 1.1 Vs0. It's
> certainly your right to fly approaches however
> you want, but unless runway length is really
> an issue I'd prefer to be a bit faster. 65 on short
> final gets me comfortably off the runway in 1200'
> with no wind.

You are correct, I have it backwards.
I am in the process of comparing my C182Q/R/S and TR182 manuals
limitations pages.

[Michael]

Andrew Gideon > wrote
> I think one's first transition must be something like one's first foreign
> language (as an adult). There's actually a skill to acquiring the new
> skill.

Yes there is. In fact, checking yourself out in a new aircraft is a
skill unto itself, and one that seems to be disappearing from powered
flying as single seat power planes become rare specialty items. It's
actually gotten to the point where lots of power-only pilots have come
to believe that flying a new make and model without having someone
check you out is irresponsible or even reckless.

One of the reasons I recommend a glider rating - in glider flying,
single seaters are common. In fact, it's pretty common to solo a
student pilot in a single seat glider, and most privately owned (as
opposed to rental/club gliders) are single seat, so moving into a
single seater and thus eventually needing to check yourself out in a
new aircraft (without a CFI there to save your bacon if you screw it
up) is considered to be a normal progression even for a low time
pilot. Because of this the training is geared towards that
transition.

Michael

[john smith]

Michael wrote:
> Yes there is. In fact, checking yourself out in a new aircraft is a
> skill unto itself, and one that seems to be disappearing from powered
> flying as single seat power planes become rare specialty items.

First Rule of checking ones-self out in a new aircraft... never touch
the dull switches and levers; touch only the shiny, worn switches and
levers.

[Michael]

john smith > wrote
> First Rule of checking ones-self out in a new aircraft... never touch
> the dull switches and levers; touch only the shiny, worn switches and
> levers.

Second rule - figure out what all the dull levers are and why they're
dull. You may discover that the owner has done something very odd -
like wire the carb heat off so pilots won't use it. BTDT.

Michael

[John Galban]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
>
> Second rule - figure out what all the dull levers are and why they're
> dull. You may discover that the owner has done something very odd -
> like wire the carb heat off so pilots won't use it. BTDT.
>

Come on Michael, there's gotta be a good story behind that one!

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)