Advice on buying a 182

Cessna 182's prior to 1979 used a rubber bladder to line the fuel tank. This
bladder suffered from the problems described (water was easily trapped in
wrinkles in the bottom, requiring what was called a rock and roll preflight
to try and move any water to the sumps). From 1979 onwards, a wet wing fuel
tank was used which didn't suffer from the problem (and useable fuel
increased to 88 gals). The other main issue with water contamination is what
are called "killer caps" - the original Cessna fuel caps were notorious for
letting water into the tank - this problem is so well known in the it is
hard to believe there are still some 182's out there with the original caps.

Join the Cessna Pilots Association and buy their "Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers
Guide", this has everything you need to know about this plane.

I've had my 1980 182Q for 2 years, and I love it. It is forgiving to fly as
long as you keep the nose up on landing, carries plenty of weight (1150 lbs)
and goes a long way (7Hrs @ 75%) at a reasonable speed of 140 TAS. I've done
my IFR rating in the plane and most of my Commercial training.

-Brenor

"Tom Cummings" wrote in message
nk.net...
I owned a 1974 P model from 1979 to 1986. It was a real good airplane. The
main trouble I had was water in the fuel system. Water was found in the
fuel tank on every pre-flight inspection. My present 1974 M model 172 has
never had any water found in the fuel system.
My 182's wings didn't have much dihedral and the fuel tank bladders had
wrinkles in the bottom and would prevent the water from effectively
draining to the drain sumps. An advisory was issued to preflight the fuel
system by jacking each wheel up one side at a time while having the tail
tied down. This was to help move the fuel toward the drains. The
gascalator was not in the lowest position of the fuel system. One time,
after a two hour flight, the engine quit on final and lots of water was
found in the gascalator. An advisory came out also to have the wrinkles in
the tank smoothed out by openning the fuel cap panel area and rub out the
wrinkles. And a change in the fuel cap design came out during those years,
too. Other 182 owners I talked to during those years never had this
problem.
A job change was the reason I sold my 182. I should have figured out a way
to keep it.
Tom
"Robbie S." wrote in message
...
I am thinking of buying a Cessna Skylane 182. Any caveats that I need to
pay attention to ? Any experiences, good or bad ? Any serious maintenance
issues ?

Thanks.

Robbie.

Brenor Brophy wrote:

Cessna 182's prior to 1979 used a rubber bladder to line the fuel tank. This
bladder suffered from the problems described (water was easily trapped in
wrinkles in the bottom, requiring what was called a rock and roll preflight
to try and move any water to the sumps). From 1979 onwards, a wet wing fuel
tank was used which didn't suffer from the problem (and useable fuel
increased to 88 gals).

You are confusing two issues. Water in the tank is a fuel cap problem
and is not related to the type of tank in the plane. Water not draining
is a bladder issue and the AD to which you refer is not applicable if
you have removed the original flush type fuel caps.

"Robbie S." wrote in message
...
I have some more info now.... I have found a 1966 182J..... Any good/bad
things of note on this model.....

Thanks.

...Robbie.

Hey, that was a good year. I've one myself.
In addition to what has been already been covered,
look especially hard for firewall damage -- this was,
I believe, the year before Cessna reduced the
nose gear extension by 2". With the nose gear
sticking out further, it tends to take rather a hammering
from pilots who tend to land "flat". Also, this model
has 40 degree flaps, so improper deployment is
likely to put greater stress on the flap attachment
brackets so check carefully there too.

You might want to verify that all AD's have been complied
with on the O470. During a tear-down after a prop
strike, I found that there'd been a counterweight AD
which had been missed for years. This probably also
applies to other model years too.

Tony Cox wrote:




Hey, that was a good year. I've one myself.
In addition to what has been already been covered,
look especially hard for firewall damage -- this was,
I believe, the year before Cessna reduced the
nose gear extension by 2".

The stroke was shortened by 2" for 1967.


With the nose gear
sticking out further, it tends to take rather a hammering
from pilots who tend to land "flat".

How far the nose strut sticks out is dependant on how high you have it
pumped up. 182's started out as a plane with fairly high ground
clearance and a narrow track. As the years went by the plane was
lowered. It was never nose high like say a cherokee 6.


Also, this model
has 40 degree flaps, so improper deployment is
likely to put greater stress on the flap attachment
brackets so check carefully there too.

All 182's have 40 flaps. The flaps are easy to check for damage.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Tony Cox wrote:

With the nose gear
sticking out further, it tends to take rather a hammering
from pilots who tend to land "flat".

How far the nose strut sticks out is dependant on how high you have it
pumped up. 182's started out as a plane with fairly high ground
clearance and a narrow track. As the years went by the plane was
lowered. It was never nose high like say a cherokee 6.

My nose wheel droops quite noticably in flight, but is
within spec according to my mechanic. I've always assumed
that the 2" reduction in nose strut stroke (1967+ years)
meant that for these later years the droop wouldn't be
as significant. Am I wrong?



Also, this model
has 40 degree flaps, so improper deployment is
likely to put greater stress on the flap attachment
brackets so check carefully there too.

All 182's have 40 flaps. The flaps are easy to check for damage.

Yes, you're right, now I look it up.

By the way, in '68 the 10 degree flap speed was increased to
120 knots, and in '83 this applied to 20 degree flaps too. Do
you happen to know if the flap system was strengthened, or
was this the result of more stringent testing?

Tony Cox wrote:


By the way, in '68 the 10 degree flap speed was increased to
120 knots, and in '83 this applied to 20 degree flaps too. Do
you happen to know if the flap system was strengthened, or
was this the result of more stringent testing?


I don't know what, if anything, they did. I can use any or all of my
flaps at 110 MPH. I make it a practice to never use flaps until I am
below 100 MPH.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Brenor Brophy wrote:

Cessna 182's prior to 1979 used a rubber bladder to line the fuel tank.
This bladder suffered from the problems described (water was easily
trapped in wrinkles in the bottom, requiring what was called a rock and
roll preflight to try and move any water to the sumps). From 1979
onwards, a wet wing fuel tank was used which didn't suffer from the
problem (and useable fuel increased to 88 gals).

You are confusing two issues. Water in the tank is a fuel cap problem and
is not related to the type of tank in the plane. Water not draining is a
bladder issue and the AD to which you refer is not applicable if you have
removed the original flush type fuel caps.


I didn't read were he said that the bladder let the fuel in?