What I did on my summer vacation

Myself and 2 other pilots lease ours from a local DE. I did all my
commercial and CFI training in it when it was available for rent from a
local FBO. I don't have any experience in a 172 or 172RG, but I would
characterize it as being very stable and nose heavy. It requires slight
nose up trim on final to keep from dropping the nose too hard. The nose
gear is by far the most delicate part of this airplane and I've been warned
several times by people who know that when shopping for a 182 or 182RG, look
for wrinkled firewalls due to hard landings on the nosewheel.

The one we fly has the 80 gallon fuel tanks, so with full fuel it's useable
payload is just under 800 lbs. I normally flight plan for 140kts and
typically see just over 150kts TAS at around 7000 ft.

I typically describe it as one of the worst airplanes to get your
high-performance / complex checkouts in because it doesn't demand enough of
the pilot. Cruise is 140 knots, gear speed is 140 knots, 10 degrees of
flaps can go out at 140 knots, it has a max of 40 degrees of flaps below 95
knots, slow flight is incredible, bottom of the white arc is 37 knots. The
235hp derated O-540 runs easy and strong, burns more fuel than the 470
Continental in the straight legged versions (but typically doesn't require
any top end work at 700 hours) burning between 13 and 15 gph depending on
your power setting. Prop adjustments are minimal, red line is 2400 rpm, I
typically cruise at 21/21.

It is so versatile that you can make some amazing adjustments to your
pattern work, if it is required. Power back to 18 inches and gear comes out
on downwind along with 10 degrees of flaps, no trim adjustment is required,
this gives us about 100 knots on the airspeed. Another power reduction and
add carb heat across from the numbers and you slow to about 80 knots. 20
degrees of flaps on base and hold 80 around to final, then manage power and
additional flaps to slow to 70 across the fence. Keep it trimmed so you
have enough elevator authority to flair, add just a tad of power to arrest
your sink rate as you flair and you can touch down at 60 or less with the
yoke all the way back in your lap.

When loaded to max gross remember to keep the nose and power up, it's a
different airplane when it's heavy, sink rates increase quite a bit.

Cross winds require you to keep the upwind wing low and keep some power in.
The gear is relatively narrow and the tires are relatively small. If you
don't keep it going straight down the runway, be prepared to buy tires
frequently.

One of the stupidest things about the airplane is that the battery is in the
engine compartment. Watch the temperatures when on long cross countries,
use your cowl flaps appropriately or you can actually boil the water right
out of the battery.

Another real bone headed thing is the dual mags in a single housing, not the
safest configuration should you have one mag break.

We've been lucky and both the prop and the engine have escaped every major
AD (so far). Other AD's include the normal Cessna seat rails, fuel bladder
wrinkle inspection/small fuel cap installation, 500 hr mag inspection.

Rear seat passengers sit rather low but the leg room is huge.

All in all, not the fastest plane for the fuel burn, and it might not haul
as big of a load as Jay's Pathfinder or a Dakota, but it's relatively a
trouble free airplane that will get you and three adults plus baggage a long
way down the road at a pretty fair speed.

Jim

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Now, that's my idea of a vacation!

I'm considering moving up to a 182RG. How about describing your
experiences with yours, performance, etc?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.713 / Virus Database: 469 - Release Date: 6/30/2004

Thanks, Jim.

Jim Burns wrote:

Myself and 2 other pilots lease ours from a local DE. I did all my
commercial and CFI training in it when it was available for rent from a
local FBO. I don't have any experience in a 172 or 172RG, but I would
characterize it as being very stable and nose heavy.

I've found the R182 and 182Q aircraft both similarly "nose heavy". Adding a
bit of power in the flair makes for an easy landing. W/o the power, it
take a little more work but is certainly possible (a I've learned from
power-off practice {8^).

[...]
The one we fly has the 80 gallon fuel tanks, so with full fuel it's
useable
payload is just under 800 lbs.

What year? Our '79 has 88 usable.

From where did the story that a 182 can carry what'll fit into it come?

- Andrew

The RG that we lease is a 1978. 80 total gallons, 75 useable. I honestly
don't know why some of the straight leg models have larger tanks. One
could guess it had to do with the extra weight of the gear, but it would
only be a guess, I don't think the CG would be that different.

I don't know where the story about it will fly with what ever fits inside
came from, maybe in ground effect, I still do a W&B when I have 4 people
plus baggage in it. I've heard that story mentioned more about the Cherokee
6.

Jim




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/28/2004

Jim Burns wrote:

The RG that we lease is a 1978. 80 total gallons, 75 useable. I honestly
don't know why some of the straight leg models have larger tanks.

Sorry; I guess I wasn't clear. Our '79 R182 has 88 usable.

I should be over it by now, but I'm still surprised when I see a difference
over a single year. Our 182Q, for example, has an engine and layout I've
never seen before. Everything is "in the wrong place" to me.

- Andrew

Ah, that is strange. They must have found some room inside the wing to make
the bladders a little bigger. 88 useable, is that about 92 total? That
would be 6 gallons more per side, not just "a little" bit bigger! Lucky
you!

I used to fly an Arrow that had 92 gallon tanks. Not many people could
spend that much time without needing to use the bathroom!

Good flights!
Jim


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/2004

Jim Burns wrote:

Ah, that is strange. They must have found some room inside the wing to
make
the bladders a little bigger.

Shrug Dunno. As I said, I'm astonished at what can change in a year.

I used to fly an Arrow that had 92 gallon tanks. Not many people could
spend that much time without needing to use the bathroom!

Which is why leaving fuel behind for more load is usually no great cost.
The real issue (at least for me) is trusting what's in the tanks.

- Andrew