If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Advice and experts with 400 series Cessnas (414 and 421), purchase and training | [email protected] | Owning | 36 | January 9th 05 02:32 AM |
Advice on a Trip from San Diego to Las Vegas? | Shane | Owning | 10 | August 16th 04 04:04 PM |
boot camp advice | jameson | Military Aviation | 17 | July 22nd 04 05:12 AM |
Advice on buying a 152? | rajek | Owning | 27 | June 21st 04 08:09 PM |
Advice request -- buying an airplane | Casey Wilson | Owning | 4 | April 19th 04 03:22 PM |