Cessna 182 or 182RG tips?

[Paul Tomblin]

Our club is worried that we're not going to be able to get insurance for
our Lance any more. (We had to switch to a named pilot policy this year,
previously anybody in the club could fly it if they met the currency and
checkout requirements.) Plus the Lance is going to need a new engine next
year, and we don't want to put $25K+ into a new engine if we won't be able
to keep the plane for more than a year or two.

So now we're looking at replacements, and one type of plane that people
keep mentioning as a possibility is the C-182 or C-182RG, because it has
similar performance to our Dakota, but better interior room. I've never
flown a high wing before. Is there any tips or hints you could give me to
help the transition?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
....I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply
suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an
interpreter. -- Nick Petreley

[Dan Luke]

"Paul Tomblin" wrote:
> So now we're looking at replacements, and one type of plane that
> people
> keep mentioning as a possibility is the C-182 or C-182RG, because it
> has
> similar performance to our Dakota, but better interior room. I've
> never
> flown a high wing before. Is there any tips or hints you could give
> me to
> help the transition?

182s have a tendency to drop hard on the nose gear on landing if you
don't watch 'em. Be sure to add "up" elevator trim on short final and
carry just a little bit of power into the flare. Other than that, a
Skylane is your grandma's Oldsmobile.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> So now we're looking at replacements, and one type of plane that people
> keep mentioning as a possibility is the C-182 or C-182RG, because it has
> similar performance to our Dakota, but better interior room. I've never
> flown a high wing before. Is there any tips or hints you could give me to
> help the transition?

Cessnas as a general rule glide better than Pipers. I generally chop the
throttle on final when I'm still a couple of hundred feed shy of the
threshold... something I wait a while longer to do when I fly Cherokees.

Take offs are smoother also. In the Cherokees, you generally skip a couple of
times before you actually lift off unless you wait to rotate until you have
flying speed. In the Cessna, you can rotate once you accelerated to stall speed
and roll along on the two mains until the airplane flies itself off when it's
ready.

That being said, the 182/182RG/206/210 series are all markedly nose heavy. Like
the old Cherokee Six, they have the reputation of flying if you can get the
doors closed. Personally, I think the 210 is the best of the bunch... 165 knots
on about 13.5 gph... and it will carry six... if you put the wimmins in the back
seat.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Dave S]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

Personally, I think the 210 is the best of the bunch... 165 knots
> on about 13.5 gph... and it will carry six... if you put the wimmins in the back
> seat.

Insuring 6 seats in a "rental" appears to be the problem. Trading a low
wing 6 seater for a high wing six seater doesnt do much to address that
problem.

Dave

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Dave S > said:
>Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Personally, I think the 210 is the best of the bunch... 165 knots
>> on about 13.5 gph... and it will carry six... if you put the wimmins
>in the back
>> seat.
>
>Insuring 6 seats in a "rental" appears to be the problem. Trading a low
>wing 6 seater for a high wing six seater doesnt do much to address that
>problem.

So far it's 6 seats PLUS complex. We know clubs that haven't had problems
with Arrows, and we know clubs that haven't had problems with Cherokee 6s.
But every club with a Lance or a Bo is having insurance problems.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
- Donald Knuth

[Matt Whiting]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> Our club is worried that we're not going to be able to get insurance for
> our Lance any more. (We had to switch to a named pilot policy this year,
> previously anybody in the club could fly it if they met the currency and
> checkout requirements.) Plus the Lance is going to need a new engine next
> year, and we don't want to put $25K+ into a new engine if we won't be able
> to keep the plane for more than a year or two.
>
> So now we're looking at replacements, and one type of plane that people
> keep mentioning as a possibility is the C-182 or C-182RG, because it has
> similar performance to our Dakota, but better interior room. I've never
> flown a high wing before. Is there any tips or hints you could give me to
> help the transition?
>

I prefer Cessnas to Pipers. I got my private in Cessans and my
instrument in Pipers. I owned a 182 for six years and now fly a club
Arrow. I've never flown a Dakota, however, so I can't make a direct
comparison. The main difference I see between the 182 and the Arrow I
fly now is that the 182 has a much better glide ratio and lighter
ailerons and rudder. Pitch forces are similar. I find the 182 easier
to land. I think you will find that the transition will take one
landing maybe two, neglecting the "systems" transition which may take a
while depending on how different the avionics are between the two.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Paul Tomblin" wrote:
>
>>So now we're looking at replacements, and one type of plane that
>>people
>>keep mentioning as a possibility is the C-182 or C-182RG, because it
>>has
>>similar performance to our Dakota, but better interior room. I've
>>never
>>flown a high wing before. Is there any tips or hints you could give
>>me to
>>help the transition?
>
>
> 182s have a tendency to drop hard on the nose gear on landing if you
> don't watch 'em. Be sure to add "up" elevator trim on short final and
> carry just a little bit of power into the flare. Other than that, a
> Skylane is your grandma's Oldsmobile.
>

It's funny as I'd heard this also and found the 182 to not have this
tendency any more than any other airplane I've flown. Then again, as
you know from another thread, I was taught to make full stall landings. :-)

I'm therefore quite used to pulling the nose up on landing until the
stall horn bleeps or until the mains touch. Hopefully, nearly
simultaneously.

If you fly the 182 like a 150, then sure you land on the nose as the 182
probably requires 3-4 times the pull on the yoke to stall before
touchdown. However, I was taught to fly the airplane by using whatever
control input is needed to get the attitude/performance desired, not to
fly by control force. If fly this way, then the 182 is, as you say,
your gramma's Olds.


Matt

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Dave S wrote:
> Insuring 6 seats in a "rental" appears to be the problem. Trading a low
> wing 6 seater for a high wing six seater doesnt do much to address that
> problem.


Well, then... get the 182RG. It ought to be fairly quick and I know it'll carry
a load.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
>> 182s have a tendency to drop hard on the nose gear on landing if you
>> don't watch 'em. Be sure to add "up" elevator trim on short final
>> and carry just a little bit of power into the flare. Other than
>> that, a Skylane is your grandma's Oldsmobile.
>>
>
> It's funny as I'd heard this also and found the 182 to not have this
> tendency any more than any other airplane I've flown. Then again, as
> you know from another thread, I was taught to make full stall
> landings. :-)

Yes, it takes some mishandling to prang a 182's in this way.
Nevertheless, 182s are somewhat notorious for this - one of the first
things one checks on a used Skylane is the condition of the firewall for
hard landing damage.

> I'm therefore quite used to pulling the nose up on landing until the
> stall horn bleeps or until the mains touch. Hopefully, nearly
> simultaneously.

No problem if judged correctly.

> If you fly the 182 like a 150, then sure you land on the nose as the
> 182 probably requires 3-4 times the pull on the yoke to stall before
> touchdown. However, I was taught to fly the airplane by using
> whatever control input is needed to get the attitude/performance
> desired, not to fly by control force. If fly this way, then the 182
> is, as you say, your gramma's Olds.
>
>
> Matt

[Capt. Geoffry Thorpe]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>>> 182s have a tendency to drop hard on the nose gear on landing if you
>>> don't watch 'em. Be sure to add "up" elevator trim on short final and
>>> carry just a little bit of power into the flare. Other than that, a
>>> Skylane is your grandma's Oldsmobile.
>>>
>>
>> It's funny as I'd heard this also and found the 182 to not have this
>> tendency any more than any other airplane I've flown. Then again, as you
>> know from another thread, I was taught to make full stall landings. :-)
>
> Yes, it takes some mishandling to prang a 182's in this way. Nevertheless,
> 182s are somewhat notorious for this - one of the first things one checks
> on a used Skylane is the condition of the firewall for hard landing
> damage.

All the more reason to get a 180 instead of the 182.

[john smith]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> It's funny as I'd heard this also and found the 182 to not have this
> tendency any more than any other airplane I've flown. Then again, as
> you know from another thread, I was taught to make full stall landings.
> :-)
> I'm therefore quite used to pulling the nose up on landing until the
> stall horn bleeps or until the mains touch. Hopefully, nearly
> simultaneously.

I land the 182 the same as Matt... full stall, power off, 40 deg flaps.
Airspeed control/pitch attitude is crucial.
Pattern entry airspeed of 70 kts (10 deg flaps)
Downwind to base airspeed 65 kts (20 deg flaps)
Base to final airspeed 60 kts (30 deg flaps)
Threshold crossing airspeed 55 kts (40 deg flaps)
Touchdown airspeed 45-50 kts

[Andrew Gideon]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> Well, then... get the 182RG. It ought to be fairly quick and I know it'll
> carry a load.

A problem for the 182RG over the 182 is the lost cargo space to the gear.

- Andrew

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> It's funny as I'd heard this also and found the 182 to not have this
>> tendency any more than any other airplane I've flown. Then again, as
>> you know from another thread, I was taught to make full stall
>> landings. :-)
>> I'm therefore quite used to pulling the nose up on landing until the
>> stall horn bleeps or until the mains touch. Hopefully, nearly
>> simultaneously.
>
>
> I land the 182 the same as Matt... full stall, power off, 40 deg flaps.
> Airspeed control/pitch attitude is crucial.
> Pattern entry airspeed of 70 kts (10 deg flaps)
> Downwind to base airspeed 65 kts (20 deg flaps)
> Base to final airspeed 60 kts (30 deg flaps)
> Threshold crossing airspeed 55 kts (40 deg flaps)
> Touchdown airspeed 45-50 kts

Yep, that's pretty much what I did. I did fly a little faster than you
normally. I usually flew the pattern through base at 80 knots,
decreased to 70 on final as I dropped the flaps to 40 and then crossed
the threshold at 60-65 or so depending on weight. I never had a bad
landing in a Skylane using this technique. You definitely don't want to
come in at 80K in a Skylane or you will either float halfway down the
runway or you will wheelbarrow trying to force the airplane down. I
suspect this is how most 182 nosewheels get pranged. Fortunately, I was
taught by an old-timer who harped on airspeed control and wasn't afraid
to fly slow on approaches. It seems many younger CFIs get antsy if you
get below 80K in a 150 before you are above the runway.

Matt

[RST Engineering]

If it were me, and I had a club, I'd opt for the "newest" 182 welded-gear
that will get me into the classic parking at Oshkosh. I think that is
somewhere around 1985 or so. I'd probably check the model number against
the EAA/Petersen autogas STC, because it is my prejudiced personal opinion
that 100 octane will not be with us much longer.

If you're serious, I'll be glad to research the type certificate data sheet
for a particular model year to see if your selection is on the mogas list.

Jim (182A, N73CQ)



"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...

> So now we're looking at replacements, and one type of plane that people
> keep mentioning as a possibility is the C-182 or C-182RG, because it has
> similar performance to our Dakota, but better interior room. I've never
> flown a high wing before. Is there any tips or hints you could give me to
> help the transition?

[john smith]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Jim (182A, N73CQ)

I guess I haven't paid enough attention in the past to notice that Ol'
Blue is a Model A. :-))

[Scott Skylane]

Capt. Geoffry Thorpe wrote:
/snip/
>>Yes, it takes some mishandling to prang a 182's in this way. Nevertheless,
>>182s are somewhat notorious for this - one of the first things one checks
>>on a used Skylane is the condition of the firewall for hard landing
>>damage.
>
>
> All the more reason to get a 180 instead of the 182.
>
>
>
Sure, the 180's firewall is probably just fine. Now look at the tail,
the wingtips, the rear spar, the gear box...

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Centurion]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> So now we're looking at replacements, and one type of plane that people
>> keep mentioning as a possibility is the C-182 or C-182RG, because it has
>> similar performance to our Dakota, but better interior room. I've never
>> flown a high wing before. Is there any tips or hints you could give me
>> to help the transition?
>
> Cessnas as a general rule glide better than Pipers. I generally chop the
> throttle on final when I'm still a couple of hundred feed shy of the
> threshold... something I wait a while longer to do when I fly Cherokees.

Eeek. Try that little "throttle-chop" manoeuvre in a heavily loaded C206 or
C210 or even a C208B ;) If your idea of a smooth, controlled landing
involves folding the undercarriage, then go for it.

<PEDANT>
I've never flown any aircraft at the manufacturer's numbers and had good
results from "chopping" the throttle on short final unless I'm either hot
or high (or both) - although the C208B's PT6A is a little more forgiving as
it spools down....until you pull it into flight idle (alpha-range), then
you're screwed. But if I'm hot and/or high, I'm not operating per the
manufacturer's numbers am I?
</PEDANT>

But, in the event of an engine failure (in a single), I'd rather be in a
Cessna over a Piper, and I'd rather be in a Piper over a Socata
TB-series :P

Cheers,

James
--
Of all forms of caution, caution in love is the most fatal.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Centurion wrote:
>> Cessnas as a general rule glide better than Pipers. I generally chop the
>> throttle on final when I'm still a couple of hundred feed shy of the
>> threshold... something I wait a while longer to do when I fly Cherokees.
>
> Eeek. Try that little "throttle-chop" manoeuvre in a heavily loaded C206 or
> C210 or even a C208B ;) If your idea of a smooth, controlled landing
> involves folding the undercarriage, then go for it.


Huh? I've got a couple of hundred hours in C-210s and only crashed one on
once... and that was after an engine failure! With proper airspeed control and
judging your flair accurately, it's possible to make soft landings with idle
power consistently. And trust me, if I was flying the 210, it was heavy!

Many trips to the Bahamas with six souls and scuba gear....


> I've never flown any aircraft at the manufacturer's numbers and had good
> results from "chopping" the throttle on short final unless I'm either hot
> or high (or both)


My first chief pilot insisted on making every landing a short field landing.
That way, when I really had to stuff one in, it was just a normal day at the
office. I always flew a steep power off approach in Cessnas (except the twins).
And screw the manufacturer's numbers... they're really just a guide to one
aspect of handling the aircraft. There's generally more than one way to
accomplish the same.

In the C-210, I'd come in at 80 knots on final and bleed off from there on short
final. I have no idea what the touchdown speed is since my eyes are outside the
cockpit at that point. Steep approach, touchdown on the numbers or immediately
after, and soft landings so there's no bitching from the cheap seats....


> But, in the event of an engine failure (in a single), I'd rather be in a
> Cessna over a Piper, and I'd rather be in a Piper over a Socata
> TB-series :P


Never had an engine failure in a Socata (never even flown one) but I absolutely
agree with your statement of Cessna vs Piper... and I'm speaking from direct
experience. I've crashed twice in my career... the first a C-210 (no injuries):
clean, it came down at 700fpm. The second crash was a straight tailed Lance and
it damn near killed me. Clean, it glided like a brick.... 1100 fpm sink rate.
And as I think about it, the Cessna was heavier with six of us on board as
opposed to only two in the Lance and no baggage.

I had a Lance 135 checkride after I recovered and I still couldn't reach the
preferred emergency touchdown point in the simulated engine out. Definitely a
lead sled....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Matt Whiting]

Centurion wrote:
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>
>
>>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>
>>>So now we're looking at replacements, and one type of plane that people
>>>keep mentioning as a possibility is the C-182 or C-182RG, because it has
>>>similar performance to our Dakota, but better interior room. I've never
>>>flown a high wing before. Is there any tips or hints you could give me
>>>to help the transition?
>>
>>Cessnas as a general rule glide better than Pipers. I generally chop the
>>throttle on final when I'm still a couple of hundred feed shy of the
>>threshold... something I wait a while longer to do when I fly Cherokees.
>
>
> Eeek. Try that little "throttle-chop" manoeuvre in a heavily loaded C206 or
> C210 or even a C208B ;) If your idea of a smooth, controlled landing
> involves folding the undercarriage, then go for it.
>
> <PEDANT>
> I've never flown any aircraft at the manufacturer's numbers and had good
> results from "chopping" the throttle on short final unless I'm either hot
> or high (or both) - although the C208B's PT6A is a little more forgiving as
> it spools down....until you pull it into flight idle (alpha-range), then
> you're screwed. But if I'm hot and/or high, I'm not operating per the
> manufacturer's numbers am I?
> </PEDANT>

I don't use the throttle chop maneuver in most airplanes either, at
least not as defined above. I "chop" the throttle abeam the desired
touchdown point while on base leg. I then glide the Cessna all of the
way in. No throttle left to chop on short final. This works at any
airport large or small. The only exception is if they ask you to fly an
extended downwind or vector you onto final a long ways out. I then will
fly a power on approach until short final and throttle back then. This
works great in the 150 through 182 series, but I haven't flown any
larger Cessnas so I've no experience in the 200 series.

I do use the above procedure in the Arrow I know fly. It was "upgraded"
(what a mistake) to a three-blade prop last year when the two-blade
failed inspection. It now has so much drag at idle that you almost
can't fly a power-off approach. I was finally able to fly a couple a
few weeks ago when I was out practicing T&Ls after a too long winter,
but I had to fly a very close in downwind and then turn base almost
immediately after cutting power on the downwind. That was the only way
to make the runway without adding power. The approach angle is
impressive I must admit.

So, in this airplane, I normally carry 18" or so on approach and then
reduce to idle over the threshold. This works fine in this airplane as
long as you keep the nose down and don't commence the flare 30' in the
as some do. I was taught to begin the flare at about 10' when learning
in the 150 and have maintained that technique to this day. Likely not
suitable for larger aircraft, but works great for the airplanes I've
flown, especially into the shorter fields.


> But, in the event of an engine failure (in a single), I'd rather be in a
> Cessna over a Piper, and I'd rather be in a Piper over a Socata
> TB-series :P

That's for sure. The Cessna's I've flown glide better than the Piper's
I've flown and the high wing makes location of a suitable landing site
much easier. The Arrow I now fly would be downright hazardous in an
emergency landing. You have limited glide range and lots of drag.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> My first chief pilot insisted on making every landing a short field landing.
> That way, when I really had to stuff one in, it was just a normal day at the
> office. I always flew a steep power off approach in Cessnas (except the twins).
> And screw the manufacturer's numbers... they're really just a guide to one
> aspect of handling the aircraft. There's generally more than one way to
> accomplish the same.

Your chief pilot sounds like my primary instructor. Pretty much every
landing was virtually a short-field landing. Well, not really as his
technique for a short-field landing scares me to this day, even though I
was once proficient at it in the 150. We came in with power on, the
nose in the air and the stall horn occasionally making a weak bleat.
Then once over the threshold, cut the power to idle, drop the nose just
a second to get near the ground, then haul back into a serious flare.
The idea was to get the elevator full aft with full stall horn prior to
touchdown. Your timing had to be pretty good to avoid a bounce, but
executed correctly this resulted in an impressively short landing.

When I was learning at N38, prior to the airport expansion, they had
something like 1900' of pavement and about 400' of grass on either end
of the runway, one end terminating in tall trees. We practiced this
mostly on runway 27 (now 28) which had a fairly clear approach. We used
the road at the end of 400' overrun as the threshold and if executed
properly, you could be down and stopped before reaching the paved
portion of the runway (this in a C-150). I was never completely
comfortable flying behind the power curve like that, but if you REALLY
had to land short, that seemed to be the way to do it and Dick was
completely comfortably flying that way and teaching that. Then again,
I've never flown with any instructor since who knew the envelope of the
airplane and of his own skill with the precision that Dick did.

Matt

[john smith]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> That's for sure. The Cessna's I've flown glide better than the Piper's
> I've flown and the high wing makes location of a suitable landing site
> much easier. The Arrow I now fly would be downright hazardous in an
> emergency landing. You have limited glide range and lots of drag.

Matt, tip on flying the Arrow for glide... don't put the gear down until
you have to. Use airspeed and flaps only, the airplane glides well.

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> That's for sure. The Cessna's I've flown glide better than the
>> Piper's I've flown and the high wing makes location of a suitable
>> landing site much easier. The Arrow I now fly would be downright
>> hazardous in an emergency landing. You have limited glide range and
>> lots of drag.
>
>
> Matt, tip on flying the Arrow for glide... don't put the gear down until
> you have to. Use airspeed and flaps only, the airplane glides well.

I am talking with the airplane clean. The glide was decent with the
original two-bladed prop. The glide with the new three-blade prop is
horrendous. It is hard to believe the difference without experiencing
it, but it is much worse. And the new prop vibrates much more. We're
planning to have it dynamically balanced and hoping that helps. I'm
definitely not a fan of three-blade props on an Arrow...


Matt