Upgrading from C172SP to 182S

[Marc CYBW]

Hi,

My fractional 172SP had an unfortunate "incident" with another pilot and is
grounded for the foreseeable future. I am planning to upgrade to a 182S in
the fractional fleet.

Any comments and/or suggestions to make the transition as smooth as
possible?

Thanks,

Marc CYBW

--

[Peter Duniho]

"Marc CYBW" > wrote in message
news:uF7dg.35084$Qq.24307@clgrps12...
> My fractional 172SP had an unfortunate "incident" with another pilot and
> is grounded for the foreseeable future. I am planning to upgrade to a 182S
> in the fractional fleet.
>
> Any comments and/or suggestions to make the transition as smooth as
> possible?

A few hours of training with an instructor who is a frequent flyer of the
182 should be sufficient. There are few more switches and levers to deal
with, and the plane flies a little more "heavy" (more stable, less
responsive, higher control forces), but otherwise the 182 is just as easy to
fly as the 172, and quite similar in handling.

The biggest issue will be getting used to the higher speeds. Fortunately,
you can fly the 182 almost as slow as the 172, so if you're having trouble
keeping up with the airplane (that is, keeping yourself mentally far enough
ahead with respect to where the airplane is heading), just fly slower. :)

Depending on your previous experience, you may want to read up on constant
speed propellers. I can't recall...are the 172SP and 182S both
fuel-injected? You might need to brush up on the fuel system too. But
still, otherwise the transition is unlikely to be difficult at all.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> A few hours of training with an instructor who is a frequent flyer of the
> 182 should be sufficient. There are few more switches and levers to deal
> with, and the plane flies a little more "heavy" (more stable, less
> responsive, higher control forces), but otherwise the 182 is just as easy
> to fly as the 172, and quite similar in handling.

I found the two birds to handle quite differently. The 172 feels positively
sprightly compared to a 182, which is more truck-like and nose-heavy. The
182 is really a "trim" plane, meaning that you need to keep that electric
trim working throughout all phases of flight -- especially on landing.

Don't try to arm wrestle it into the flare -- just be ready to roll the
trim. It takes quite a heave to flare an improperly trimmed 182, while it's
quite easy to pull this same maneuver in a 172 without trim.

Which is not to say the 182 is at all difficult to fly -- it's not. Be
ready for that nose-heaviness, trim accordingly, and it's a simple plane to
fly. (One note of caution: Given the number of firewalls that have been
replaced in the 182 fleet, it's safe to say that a lot of pilots have been
surprised by the nose-heaviness. Remember: TRIM!)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Which is not to say the 182 is at all difficult to fly -- it's not. Be
> ready for that nose-heaviness, trim accordingly, and it's a simple plane to
> fly. (One note of caution: Given the number of firewalls that have been
> replaced in the 182 fleet, it's safe to say that a lot of pilots have been
> surprised by the nose-heaviness. Remember: TRIM!)


I never really liked the C-182 even though on paper it's pretty much an ideal
airplane. As people say, if you can get the doors closed, it should fly. But I
always found it heavy... even more so than the C-210. At least the C-210 didn't
feel so nose heavy because there's more bird behind you than the C-182 has.

I don't think it flies anything like the C-172 although a Skyhawk pilot should
feel pretty much at home in it. Cessna is Cessna, after all.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Brien K. Meehan]

Besides the nose-heavy feel others have mentioned, the only important
differences are in landing, and there are two things to remember: 1)
Trim really determines airspeed. 2) Airspeed is everything.

Pay close attention to your speed on final. Don't come in too slow or
you may lose elevator control. Coming in too fast isn't too big a
deal. The 182 is a very forgiving airplane, but it's NOT as forgiving
as the 172. If you have the trim set wrong, you're more likely to have
a bad landing.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Sz9dg.989012$xm3.907250@attbi_s21...
> I found the two birds to handle quite differently. The 172 feels
> positively sprightly compared to a 182, which is more truck-like and
> nose-heavy.

I guess you need to work out. :p

I did mention the heavier control forces, but really...aside from that, the
two planes really are quite similar. There's a lot more to handling
qualities than just how much force you have to use.

> The 182 is really a "trim" plane, meaning that you need to keep that
> electric trim working throughout all phases of flight -- especially on
> landing.

Nice you had a 182 with electric trim. None of the ones I've flown had it.

But anyway, it's not like you can ignore the trim on the 172 either. Any
airplane flies SO much better if you include the trim as part of your
control of the aircraft. If you've flown your approach correctly and have
the trim already set properly, even in the 182 the final flare does not
require that much back-pressure.

Yes, you can flare it with the trim, but there's really no reason the trim
should be that far off in the first place. And in a 182 without electric
trim (there are lots of them out there), you really ought to be looking out
the front window, rather than leaning down for the flare.

Pete

[Greg Farris]

I made exactly the same transition some years ago - from a 172S to a
182S, and my impression is in some ways opposite to the others listed
here. The 182S was the first constant-speed prop I had flown, and I found
the plane took off like a rocket! The torque and acceleration on takeoff
took some getting used to for me. After this, you will find pretty much
the same panel, and it will not be much more difficult to fly. You'll
have the advantage of getting where you're going faster, and though
per-hour operating costs will be higher, per-mile costs are only slightly
greater. If you are not yet used to the constant-speed prop, this will be
by far the most significant issue for you, including the use of the
appropriate instrumentation (manifold pressure and RPM, instead of just
RPM). Landing? Yes, it's heavier, and you will quickly learn to take
advantage of the electric trim right under your left thumb, unless you
want your landings to take the place of your weekly workout at the gym.
If you don't have the luck I had - to land the plane for the first time
with a 25kt crosswind- it should be no big trick.

I knew the plane was heavier, so I was ready for that. You know it, and
you're ready for it. I knew about the CS prop, and had studied that too.
What surprised me was the torque on takeoff.

GF

[john smith]

I have to strongly disagree with some of the nose-heavy comments
reported here.
Yes, the 182 is nose heavy compared to the 172, but it is not THAT heavy.
Yes, it is a very stable airplane and can be flown from the time the
wheels are off the ground to the the roundout with trim.
When trimmed properly, the control forces at roundout are not excessive.
I use my left thumb and forefinger to pull on the left side of the yoke
and hold pitch attitude for landing. My right hand is on the throttle,
with power off.
You have to fly the propper airspeed. Most pilots fly too fast.
The 182, fully loaded with aft most cg is fine at 70 kts.
With two people and no baggage, I fly final trimmed at 60 kts with 30
deg flaps. Over the threshhold, I am at 55 kts. The airplane stalls at
45 kts, gross weight, with the cg at the aft limit.
I fly taildraggers, so perhaps I have the advantage of training in
keeping the nose high on landing. It does not require super human
strength to move the yoke to keep the nosewheel off the ground when
landing a 182.
I currently fly both an R and S model 182 and have around 250 hours in
the Q, R and S models.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:13:17 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

[...]
> But anyway, it's not like you can ignore the trim on the 172 either. Any
> airplane flies SO much better if you include the trim as part of your
> control of the aircraft.

After transitioning to the 182, I found I'd a finer touch on the trim. A
little out of trim in a 172 is a non-issue. But it gets downright
uncomfortable with the few extra knots of the 182.

> If you've flown your approach correctly and have
> the trim already set properly, even in the 182 the final flare does not
> require that much back-pressure.

I agree. I just did 9 T&Gs yesterday in a 182 getting back my "I'm going
to touch down on that spot there" landings, and I never used the trim
again once I'd trimmed for final approach speed.

[...]
> you really ought to be
> looking out the front window, rather than leaning down for the flare.

<Laugh> One bad habit I had to lose was the "looking down". I didn't do
that for trim, but I did for the cowl flaps. I've no idea why.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 11:42:18 +0200, Greg Farris wrote:

> I made exactly the same transition some years ago - from a 172S to a 182S,
> and my impression is in some ways opposite to the others listed here. The
> 182S was the first constant-speed prop I had flown, and I found the plane
> took off like a rocket!

That's true. At a climb out speed of 70 knots, it feels like it's almost
on its tail. I love that feeling, but the visibility is lousy. Vy is 78
(at least in the older 182s I fly), so that's better anyway (why the POH
has the 70-80 range I don't know).

[...]
> I knew the plane was heavier, so I was ready for that. You know it, and
> you're ready for it. I knew about the CS prop, and had studied that too.

I think I've also found that the 182 will sink faster in the flare. That
calls for a slightly quicker flair. Some people use a little power in the
flare to slow the sink, and that works. But I prefer to avoid that
because I assume it'll cost me runway length.

- Andrew

[Newps]

Andrew Gideon wrote:


> I think I've also found that the 182 will sink faster in the flare. That
> calls for a slightly quicker flair. Some people use a little power in the
> flare to slow the sink, and that works. But I prefer to avoid that
> because I assume it'll cost me runway length.

Use 55 mph IAS, full flaps and a little power. This results in a slight
nose up attitude. Fly it right into the ground, no flare necessary. On
non paved strips you can lock the brakes. Total runway used is 450 feet.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 12:35:16 -0600, Newps wrote:

> Use 55 mph IAS, full flaps and a little power. This results in a slight
> nose up attitude. Fly it right into the ground, no flare necessary. On
> non paved strips you can lock the brakes. Total runway used is 450 feet.

This sounds like a glassy water landing. I've never have expected it to
yield a shorter landing distance than an unpowered landing using the same
short-field speed (65 kts in my POH, I believe). Interesting.

[Obviously, I need to go try this. Ah, another excuse to play <grin>.]

- Andrew

[Morgans]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote

> <Laugh> One bad habit I had to lose was the "looking down". I didn't do
> that for trim, but I did for the cowl flaps. I've no idea why.

That's easy!

The cowl flap is down on the bottom of the plane, so you were looking down
to see if it were really opening! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

I had VG's on my 182 so that helped a little. I could fly final at 50
mph IAS when I was alone and about 40 gallons. 65 kts on final is too
fast for a 182 unless you're heavy. I fly at about 70 mph IAS in my Bo
and that weighs about 250 pounds more than my 182 did and the wing isn't
as good.



Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 12:35:16 -0600, Newps wrote:
>
>
>>Use 55 mph IAS, full flaps and a little power. This results in a slight
>>nose up attitude. Fly it right into the ground, no flare necessary. On
>>non paved strips you can lock the brakes. Total runway used is 450 feet.
>
>
> This sounds like a glassy water landing. I've never have expected it to
> yield a shorter landing distance than an unpowered landing using the same
> short-field speed (65 kts in my POH, I believe). Interesting.
>
> [Obviously, I need to go try this. Ah, another excuse to play <grin>.]
>
> - Andrew
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Use 55 mph IAS, full flaps and a little power. This results in a slight
> nose up attitude. Fly it right into the ground, no flare necessary. On
> non paved strips you can lock the brakes. Total runway used is 450 feet.

And to think I get ****ed when I pick up a stone chip in my prop cuz of my
cruddy taxiway...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

In article <RLsdg.3179$No1.2442@attbi_s71>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Use 55 mph IAS, full flaps and a little power. This results in a slight
> > nose up attitude. Fly it right into the ground, no flare necessary. On
> > non paved strips you can lock the brakes. Total runway used is 450 feet.

> And to think I get ****ed when I pick up a stone chip in my prop cuz of my
> cruddy taxiway...

That's just because you fly a nose heavy Piper. :-))

[Jay Honeck]

> That's just because you fly a nose heavy Piper. :-))

Atlas IS nose-heavy, compared to our old Warrior. No different than
comparing a 172 and a 182, really...and the performance difference is about
the same, too. It's just got that wing thingy on the proper side of the
fuselage!

:-)

I sure wouldn't dream of coming in behind the power curve, hitting an
unpaved strip and locking up the brakes, though. I've just got too much
money tied up in our plane to treat it like that...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

> > That's just because you fly a nose heavy Piper. :-))

> Atlas IS nose-heavy, compared to our old Warrior. No different than
> comparing a 172 and a 182, really...and the performance difference is about
> the same, too. It's just got that wing thingy on the proper side of the
> fuselage!
> I sure wouldn't dream of coming in behind the power curve, hitting an
> unpaved strip and locking up the brakes, though. I've just got too much
> money tied up in our plane to treat it like that...

You are missing his point. At 55 kts he is still at minimum 10 kts above
aft cg gross weight stall. He is not behind the power curve. It only
takes 100-200 rpm above idle to cushion the contact.
It is easy to land the 182 in a short distance without damaging the
aircraft or with undue wear on the brakes.
Another factor is the Cessna spring steel/tubular main landing gear. A
high sink rate with your Piper may punch the main gear up through the
top of the wing. On the Cessna it will splay outward and propel the
aircraft back into the air. Additionally, the ground clearance with the
Cessna gear is greater than the Piper.

[.Blueskies.]

"Marc CYBW" > wrote in message news:uF7dg.35084$Qq.24307@clgrps12...
> Hi,
>
> My fractional 172SP had an unfortunate "incident" with another pilot and is grounded for the foreseeable future. I am
> planning to upgrade to a 182S in the fractional fleet.
>
> Any comments and/or suggestions to make the transition as smooth as possible?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marc CYBW
>
> --
>

The XP is a 180 hp, right? And the 182s is 225 I think, so you will need a high performance signoff (power down, prop
down, mix down; mix up, prop up, power up). Be sure you know the avionics well, also. Do some sitting inside and
pretending if you can to familiarize yourself with the layout, remember to do the cowl flaps, use the checklists...

IMHO, the 182 feels more solid, comes down 'easier', get up and out with more authority (the CS prop!)...

[FlyWithTwo]

Marc CYBW wrote:
>
> I am planning to upgrade to a 182S in the fractional fleet.
>
> Any comments and/or suggestions to make the transition as smooth as
> possible?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marc CYBW
>
> --
Hi Marc,
There are a lot of pilots that went up the Cessna single ladder. I
started out with a PP-ASEL in Cessna 172s, then took 5 hours of dual in
the 182 to get my high performance signoff when I had 75 hours. At
about 150 hours, I stepped up to a T207. From my most recent
experiences, insurance companies want to see about 25 hours in type,
but you can check with your insurance agent to find out the
particulars. I can recommend a few books:

1. Positive Flying by Richard Taylor and William Guinther. A great
book about attitude flying, and breaks it down into a very simple
approach.
2. Flying High Performance Singles and Twins by John Eckalbar.
Another super resource. It is similar material, but much more detailed
and includes a lot of the specific theory and mathematics behind the
performance.
3. Flying the Beech Bonanza by John Eckalbar. This puts the theory of
the previous book into practice for the Bonanza. There is enough good
stuff in this to apply to other aircraft types.
4. I'm going from memory on this one, but there is a good book on
aircraft engines by (I seem to recall), Kaz Thomas.

I'm not associated with any of these authors. I have these books in my
aviation library and can recommend them.

Good luck,
Brian

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> I sure wouldn't dream of coming in behind the power curve, hitting an
> unpaved strip and locking up the brakes, though. I've just got too much
> money tied up in our plane to treat it like that...

Treat it like what? Nothing happens to the plane.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

>>>That's just because you fly a nose heavy Piper. :-))
>
>
>>Atlas IS nose-heavy, compared to our old Warrior. No different than
>>comparing a 172 and a 182, really...and the performance difference is about
>>the same, too. It's just got that wing thingy on the proper side of the
>>fuselage!
>>I sure wouldn't dream of coming in behind the power curve, hitting an
>>unpaved strip and locking up the brakes, though. I've just got too much
>>money tied up in our plane to treat it like that...
>
>
> You are missing his point. At 55 kts

Kts? Kts is for airline pilots. That's 55 mph IAS.


he is still at minimum 10 kts above

Stall is around mid 40's mph.


> aft cg gross weight stall.

It's a 182, we're nowhere near aft cg.


A
> high sink rate with your Piper may punch the main gear up through the
> top of the wing. On the Cessna it will splay outward and propel the
> aircraft back into the air.

If you do it right it doesn't bounce at all. If you bounce you're
airspeed was too high. The lower you're airspeed the higher the sink
rate can be.

[Newps]

The 172SP is 180 hp, the 182 is 230 hp.



..Blueskies. wrote:


>>--
>>
>
>
> The XP is a 180 hp, right? And the 182s is 225 I think, so you will need a high performance signoff (power down, prop
> down, mix down; mix up, prop up, power up). Be sure you know the avionics well, also. Do some sitting inside and
> pretending if you can to familiarize yourself with the layout, remember to do the cowl flaps, use the checklists...
>
> IMHO, the 182 feels more solid, comes down 'easier', get up and out with more authority (the CS prop!)...
>
>

[Michael Ware]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>

> Kts? Kts is for airline pilots. That's 55 mph IAS.
>
MPH? How old do you think this plane is?

[Newps]

Michael Ware wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Kts? Kts is for airline pilots. That's 55 mph IAS.
>>
>
> MPH? How old do you think this plane is?

I was giving you real world speeds. In your case look at the inside ring.

[john smith]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Stall is around mid 40's mph.

> > aft cg gross weight stall.

> It's a 182, we're nowhere near aft cg.

Newps... it's a disclaimer. Many pilots do not know the referenced
speeds are for the aft cg, gross weight condition. The do not know how
to calculate speeds at lower weights and other cg's.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 26 May 2006 10:21:03 -0600, Newps wrote:

> Kts? Kts is for airline pilots. That's 55 mph IAS.

Cool. Both my club's 182s (and the two 172s) are airliners.

I just hope I'm not expected to provide in-flight meals and movies.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 26 May 2006 10:23:32 -0600, Newps wrote:

> The 172SP is 180 hp, the 182 is 230 hp.

172XPs, as far as I know, are 210 HP. But the OP wrote of the 172SP,
which is 180 HP (like older Skyhawks with the Superhawk upgrade).

I suspect that Blueskies wrote "XP" where "SP" was intended.

- Andrew

[.Blueskies.]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 10:23:32 -0600, Newps wrote:
>
>> The 172SP is 180 hp, the 182 is 230 hp.
>
> 172XPs, as far as I know, are 210 HP. But the OP wrote of the 172SP,
> which is 180 HP (like older Skyhawks with the Superhawk upgrade).
>
> I suspect that Blueskies wrote "XP" where "SP" was intended.
>
> - Andrew
>

Yea, what you said. I know the XP was CS prop, etc.

[Jay Honeck]

>> I sure wouldn't dream of coming in behind the power curve, hitting an
>> unpaved strip and locking up the brakes, though. I've just got too much
>> money tied up in our plane to treat it like that...
>
> Treat it like what? Nothing happens to the plane.

Nothing bad happens to your aircraft when you lock up the brakes on a gravel
runway, with the prop spinning? In a 182?

No stone chips in the prop? No flat-spotted or gouged tires? No stones
tossed into the paint?

Consider the added stress on the airframe. Motor mounts in particular are
going to be under great duress in a landing like you described. The
nosewheel structure will also be heavily stressed. Do that particular
landing "procedure" incorrectly in a 182, and you'll be buying a new
firewall. Many Skylane owners before you have discovered just how fragile
that nosegear-to-firewall connection really is.

I'm glad you have off-road fun with your plane, but you probably shouldn't
suggest a guy that is new to 182s do the same. What you described doing
with your plane is a high-skill, relatively high-risk game, and is probably
more suited for a tail dragger. It surely isn't suited for a newbie 182
driver, like the O.P.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[karl gruber]

Jay,

He was probably thinking about a RENTAL 182.

I'd quit flying before I'd allow my airplane in the rental fleet!

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:BgPdg.750203$084.242848@attbi_s22...
>>> I sure wouldn't dream of coming in behind the power curve, hitting an
>>> unpaved strip and locking up the brakes, though. I've just got too much
>>> money tied up in our plane to treat it like that...
>>
>> Treat it like what? Nothing happens to the plane.
>
> Nothing bad happens to your aircraft when you lock up the brakes on a
> gravel runway, with the prop spinning? In a 182?
>
> No stone chips in the prop? No flat-spotted or gouged tires? No stones
> tossed into the paint?
>
> Consider the added stress on the airframe. Motor mounts in particular are
> going to be under great duress in a landing like you described. The
> nosewheel structure will also be heavily stressed. Do that particular
> landing "procedure" incorrectly in a 182, and you'll be buying a new
> firewall. Many Skylane owners before you have discovered just how fragile
> that nosegear-to-firewall connection really is.
>
> I'm glad you have off-road fun with your plane, but you probably shouldn't
> suggest a guy that is new to 182s do the same. What you described doing
> with your plane is a high-skill, relatively high-risk game, and is
> probably more suited for a tail dragger. It surely isn't suited for a
> newbie 182 driver, like the O.P.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> He was probably thinking about a RENTAL 182.
>
> I'd quit flying before I'd allow my airplane in the rental fleet!

Me, too -- but I don't think Newps is a renter.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:pYPdg.750263$084.581463@attbi_s22...
>> He was probably thinking about a RENTAL 182.
>>
>> I'd quit flying before I'd allow my airplane in the rental fleet!
>
> Me, too -- but I don't think Newps is a renter.

He's not, and he wasn't when he flew a 182.

Sure, there's more wear and tear on the airplane. But you don't get an
airplane suitable for rough, short, unpaved operations and then avoid those
situations so that you can save on maintenance costs.

You could buy a used Cherokee Six and a used 182 combined for the price of a
used Beaver, and you don't see the people getting Beavers going around
babying them. They buy the plane for a purpose, and they accept that the
purpose may incur additional wear and tear.

It's great that you can limit your flying to situations that are low-impact
to the airplane, and that you're happy and satisfied with that use. But not
everyone is satisfied sticking to nice, long, smooth runways. Why would you
question their use of their airplane? They're doing what they want to with
it. That's the whole point of having an airplane and flying it!

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> It's great that you can limit your flying to situations that are
> low-impact to the airplane, and that you're happy and satisfied with that
> use. But not everyone is satisfied sticking to nice, long, smooth
> runways. Why would you question their use of their airplane? They're
> doing what they want to with it. That's the whole point of having an
> airplane and flying it!

I'm not questioning Newps personal usage, nor do I really care if he
routinely slides his 182 to a stop on a gravel strip. It sounds like fun,
to me.

However, the topic of this thread was upgrading from a 172 to a 182. The OP
is not an experienced 182 pilot, and, quite frankly, I don't know any other
182 owners who treat their aircraft like a backwoods aircraft. For Newps to
mention his method of operation as if it's a normal, routine way of using a
Skylane is therefore (in my opinion, of course) not helpful to the OP, who
may otherwise leave this thread with the impression that the 182 is
something it's not.

BTW: We routinely operate out of grass strips. In fact, I prefer them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
>
> Nothing bad happens to your aircraft when you lock up the brakes on a gravel
> runway, with the prop spinning? In a 182?
>
> No stone chips in the prop?

How are stones going to defy the laws of physics? The plane is moving
forward. Rocks don't leap off the ground and jump into the prop.


No flat-spotted or gouged tires?

Not as long as you are not on pavement.

No stones
> tossed into the paint?

Stones may or may not get tossed into the paint. That's a hazard of
flying off road.


>
> Consider the added stress on the airframe. Motor mounts in particular are
> going to be under great duress in a landing like you described. The
> nosewheel structure will also be heavily stressed. Do that particular
> landing "procedure" incorrectly in a 182, and you'll be buying a new
> firewall. Many Skylane owners before you have discovered just how fragile
> that nosegear-to-firewall connection really is.

My 182 was on its third firewall. You damage the firewall by landing
nosewheel first. There is no added stress to the airplane, matter of
fact there is probably less. The vertical speed is the same but the
airspeed is less.


>
> I'm glad you have off-road fun with your plane, but you probably shouldn't
> suggest a guy that is new to 182s do the same. What you described doing
> with your plane is a high-skill,

You can't slow your plane to 10 mph above stall and hold that all the
way to the ground? That's a sad state of affairs.


and is probably
> more suited for a tail dragger.


Nosewheel or tailwheel is irrelavant. A tailwheel can be limiting in a
crosswind. With the nosewheel I am not worried about operations on the
ground. The tailwheel guys don't start working until they are on the
ground.

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:


>
> Sure, there's more wear and tear on the airplane. But you don't get an
> airplane suitable for rough, short, unpaved operations and then avoid those
> situations so that you can save on maintenance costs.

Right. I finally had to put the rubber abrasion boots on the tail
because of the dings from rocks, bushes and branches. We have a whole
group of guys and a couple women who like to play off road. I've helped
friends take branches out of the tails of their Cubs. There's a reason
right there metal is better than fabric. Another friend taxiied his J5
into this huge hole and bent the prop. We pounded the prop back
relatively straight with a wooden wheel chock and about a 5 pound
hammer. It kills me that people are worried about getting a nick in the
prop. If that's you then stay on pavement in your little wimpy Brand P.

[Jim Logajan]

Newps > wrote:
> How are stones going to defy the laws of physics? The plane is moving
> forward. Rocks don't leap off the ground and jump into the prop.

I believe there is a low-pressure area in front of the prop which causes an
inflow of air from the area forward of the prop to compensate for the air
that is being directed aft. Combine that with the usual preferential
headwind takeoffs and it seems likely stuff on the ground can be wind blown
and/or sucked off the ground and into a prop.

[Newps]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>
>>How are stones going to defy the laws of physics? The plane is moving
>>forward. Rocks don't leap off the ground and jump into the prop.
>
>
> I believe there is a low-pressure area in front of the prop which causes an
> inflow of air from the area forward of the prop to compensate for the air
> that is being directed aft. Combine that with the usual preferential
> headwind takeoffs and it seems likely stuff on the ground can be wind blown
> and/or sucked off the ground and into a prop.

There is a short video that you can see that shows a Cessna running its
engine up while parked in a puddle. The water is maybe an inch deep,
hard to tell. The prop will create a little tornado directly beneath
its lowest point. This is what causes prop damage. Get the plane
moving just slightly and this effect is lost. Any air being sucked in
from the front, and I don't believe there is, is not strong enough to
pick up rocks.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> Newps > wrote:
>>
>>> How are stones going to defy the laws of physics? The plane is moving
>>> forward. Rocks don't leap off the ground and jump into the prop.
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe there is a low-pressure area in front of the prop which
>> causes an inflow of air from the area forward of the prop to
>> compensate for the air that is being directed aft. Combine that with
>> the usual preferential headwind takeoffs and it seems likely stuff on
>> the ground can be wind blown and/or sucked off the ground and into a
>> prop.
>
>
> There is a short video that you can see that shows a Cessna running its
> engine up while parked in a puddle. The water is maybe an inch deep,
> hard to tell. The prop will create a little tornado directly beneath
> its lowest point. This is what causes prop damage. Get the plane
> moving just slightly and this effect is lost. Any air being sucked in
> from the front, and I don't believe there is, is not strong enough to
> pick up rocks.

I still wouldn't rule out getting a small pebble or stone into the prop
if you are sliding the wheels to a stop in gravel. The propwash might
sling a small stone into the nosewheel where it could bounce forward
into the prop. Similarly, if the nosewheel is pushing through gravel at
any rate of speed, stones could bounce forward off the nosewheel.

Rocks certainly won't leap off the ground into the prop, but they could
bounce off the nose wheel.

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> Any air being sucked in
> from the front, and I don't believe there is, is not strong enough to
> pick up rocks.

This brings up an interesting (to me, anyway) observation I made last
weekend, while parking over 130 aircraft.

Despite the fact that a propellor is putting out enough "wind" to pull
a 3000 pound aircraft across a grass field, I can stand literally
nose-to-nose with the spinner, and NOT get "sucked in" to the prop.

Thank goodness, I might add.

I knew this all along, after being parked a few hundred (thousand?)
times without dicing up the lineman, but I'd never personally observed
it before.

This seems counter-intuitive, though, and a casual observer would think
that the "suction" should equal the "out-flow". (Of course, it *does*
-- the air just isn't all coming in from directly in front of the prop
arc.)

At my airport our taxiway is in sad shape, and it's due to be repaved
this summer. We pick up new prop chips on most flights, despite NEVER
taxiing above 1000 RPM, and being extremely careful about where we
taxi. This seems to show that props DO suck rocks into them,
somehow...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
>
> I still wouldn't rule out getting a small pebble or stone into the prop
> if you are sliding the wheels to a stop in gravel. The propwash might
> sling a small stone into the nosewheel where it could bounce forward
> into the prop. Similarly, if the nosewheel is pushing through gravel at
> any rate of speed, stones could bounce forward off the nosewheel.

When landing the engine is at idle so there's no chance of the prop
picking up anything. I suppose it's theoretically possible to have the
nosewheel pushing thru gravel and have one get launched into the prop.
Haven't seent it happen though. Having said all that I have no interest
in keeping my prop nick free if that means eliminating what is fun about
flying. A prop is simply another part. I had my 182 for a little over
7 years. Never had any problems with the prop.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Despite the fact that a propellor is putting out enough "wind" to pull
> a 3000 pound aircraft across a grass field, I can stand literally
> nose-to-nose with the spinner, and NOT get "sucked in" to the prop.

I hope this is just a that you don't understand the meaning of the word
"literally" (perhaps you meant "virtually"?), and that you were NOT actually
nose-to-nose with an operating airplane.

If you were "literally nose-to-nose", then I'd say all the other discussions
about instrument ratings, preflight inspections, etc. are moot. You just
have a death wish.

> [...]
> This seems counter-intuitive, though, and a casual observer would think
> that the "suction" should equal the "out-flow". (Of course, it *does*
> -- the air just isn't all coming in from directly in front of the prop
> arc.)

Precisely. Note, of course, that depending on how much inflow there is,
there can still be a lot of "suction". Enough people have gotten sucked
into turbine engines to show that (I think you even have one or two on your
web site).

> At my airport our taxiway is in sad shape, and it's due to be repaved
> this summer. We pick up new prop chips on most flights, despite NEVER
> taxiing above 1000 RPM, and being extremely careful about where we
> taxi. This seems to show that props DO suck rocks into them,
> somehow...

I have to admit, I'm a bit spoiled what with having the engine on top of the
airplane and all. :)

And yes, it is always theoretically possible for a rock to wind up hitting
the prop, by whatever means. That doesn't change the fact that Newps is
right, the greatest risk is during the run-up (I know some pilots do a
rolling runup when space permits, to try to minimize this issue), and that
it's not normally a big problem for landing (when the throttle is at idle,
the nose is high off the ground, and the airplane is moving forward).

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> I still wouldn't rule out getting a small pebble or stone into the
>> prop if you are sliding the wheels to a stop in gravel. The propwash
>> might sling a small stone into the nosewheel where it could bounce
>> forward into the prop. Similarly, if the nosewheel is pushing through
>> gravel at any rate of speed, stones could bounce forward off the
>> nosewheel.
>
>
> When landing the engine is at idle so there's no chance of the prop
> picking up anything. I suppose it's theoretically possible to have the
> nosewheel pushing thru gravel and have one get launched into the prop.
> Haven't seent it happen though. Having said all that I have no interest
> in keeping my prop nick free if that means eliminating what is fun about
> flying. A prop is simply another part. I had my 182 for a little over
> 7 years. Never had any problems with the prop.

I had mine for six years and likewise had no problem flying from a
gravel and grass strip, but I certainly didn't intentionally slide the
tires at any time.

I also never had a problem with the firewall, but the previous owner had
bent it and struck the prop when he stalled in in from about 6'
according to witnesses. I can't imagine how anyone could do that with a
Skylane, but apparently it happens in addition to folks just plain
flying it onto the nosewheel while landing. Landing a Skylane is a
piece of cake, yet folks seem to screw it up with some frequency.


Matt

[john smith]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> At my airport our taxiway is in sad shape, and it's due to be repaved
> this summer. We pick up new prop chips on most flights, despite NEVER
> taxiing above 1000 RPM, and being extremely careful about where we
> taxi. This seems to show that props DO suck rocks into them,
> somehow...

I was going to cheerfully bring that up when you broached the gravel
topic. :-))

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
> I also never had a problem with the firewall, but the previous owner had
> bent it and struck the prop when he stalled in in from about 6'
> according to witnesses. I can't imagine how anyone could do that with a
> Skylane, but apparently it happens in addition to folks just plain
> flying it onto the nosewheel while landing. Landing a Skylane is a
> piece of cake, yet folks seem to screw it up with some frequency.

I think it's one of those things that once a plane gets saddled with a
reputation it can't be shaken. I had approx 1750 landings in my 182. I
three pointed it twice but never landed on the nosewheel first. Cessna
came out with a thicker firewall in the late 60's and mine got that.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I also never had a problem with the firewall, but the previous owner
>> had bent it and struck the prop when he stalled in in from about 6'
>> according to witnesses. I can't imagine how anyone could do that with
>> a Skylane, but apparently it happens in addition to folks just plain
>> flying it onto the nosewheel while landing. Landing a Skylane is a
>> piece of cake, yet folks seem to screw it up with some frequency.
>
>
> I think it's one of those things that once a plane gets saddled with a
> reputation it can't be shaken. I had approx 1750 landings in my 182. I
> three pointed it twice but never landed on the nosewheel first. Cessna
> came out with a thicker firewall in the late 60's and mine got that.

I never got that high, probably 600 landings in 350 hours. Never landed
on the nosewheel, never stalled in from higher than maybe a foot and
never three-pointed. I always thought that of the 150, 172 and 182, the
182 was the easiest to land. The wind didn't blow it around as much and
it wasn't as "twitchy" as the 150. It didn't have as much control feel,
but it had lots of control authority. I flared with three fingers on
the wheel and in proper trim it landed like a peach.

I always made (well attempted at least) full-stall landings with full
flaps. This kept the nose well in the air at touchdown and the 182 had
plenty of elevator to hold the nose up until you decided to lower it or
until the airspeed had bled off substantially. This is quite unlike the
club Arrow I now fly. If you land the Arrow at or near the stall, the
nosewheel will come down with a thunk very shortly thereafter unless you
have the cg near the aft limit. With just me or me and one front seat
pax, it lacks the authority to hold the nosewheel up after landing. So,
I tend to try to land just prior to the stall and then fairly briskly
lower the nosewheel.


Matt

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> I always made (well attempted at least) full-stall landings with full
> flaps. This kept the nose well in the air at touchdown and the 182 had
> plenty of elevator to hold the nose up until you decided to lower it or
> until the airspeed had bled off substantially.

I was the opposite. Most landings I was coming down full flaps at
minimum speed. I wasn't interested in a squeaker. I always picked a
spot, usually the numbers or two feet past the end of the runway edge
and landed there.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sat, 27 May 2006 15:22:26 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

> the greatest risk is during the run-up

My experience has been that the greatest risk is *someone else's* run-up.
Too many do run-ups w/o having a care where the tail is pointed. And
since a couple of our club aircraft are tied-down relatively near a run-up
area...

Fortunately, we're not right at the end. But I'm sorry for those aircraft
that are given the lack of consideration of others.

- Andrew