Mastering the Cessna 182 ?

G-Man

G-Man

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
1,047
Location
Boulder, CO
Display Name
Display name:
AirmanG
I've committed to flying a 1977 Cessna 182Q, 1971 Cessna 182P, and possibly a 1979 Cessna 182RG, and I'd welcome any suggestions on tips and techniques for being a highly competent pilot and making the most of flying and enjoying them. (These are rentals.)

Yes, it's a straightforward airplane. But this forum has lots of wisdom - what can you share now and spare me the delay of original research?

E-books, websites, PDFs - all welcome, and electronic versions preferred.

Also, any good instructions or guidelines behind the theory of constant-speed propellers and how to best balance RPM, Manifold Pressure, speed, fuel consumption, etc. and now how to make the most of the tradeoffs?
 
Totally agree! That is a great resource, GeorgeC - thank you! I have read it a couple of times.
 
I don't know if I've "Mastered" my 182 yet or ever will, but I've always found that the Skylane is so honest a pickup truck that just flying it *smoothly* adds a lot of enjoyment and raises your attention level to something approaching "the zone".

Horsing it around, it'll happily do too. But it takes some concentration and just general paying close attention to give yourself and pax an extremely smooth ride.
 
What Nate said. Just know the numbers of pitch/power/performance and its landing speeds and it will do ya just fine.
 
Maybe a flight or three with a CFI experienced in 182s? Or even other pilots who are familiar and perhaps fly the same planes?
 
Thanks, MSCARD88. I have about 20 hours in C182s, including a long two-day cross country with a CFI for ten hours. I'm pretty comfortable in them, just want to see if I can pick up some of the inevitable little tricks and tidbits you'd normally only get after a few years with a plane.
 
G-Man said:
Thanks, MSCARD88. I have about 20 hours in C182s, including a long two-day cross country with a CFI for ten hours. I'm pretty comfortable in them, just want to see if I can pick up some of the inevitable little tricks and tidbits you'd normally only get after a few years with a plane.
Click to expand...

Been about 25 years since the last 182 I flew, so I don't have anything for ya. But it is a great plane and a very stable plane for instrument training. As others have mentioned, just know the numbers. I'm sure, with 20 hours already, you know about chopping power too soon? A little nose heavy. I don't know if the speeds are different among those 3 182 models you're flying, but if they are I used to use a 3x5 card with the speeds in as a quick reference if needed.
 
Takeoff with prop in and throttle to the max. Climb to cruise altitude. Level out and pull the power back to your desired setting, looking at the manifold pressure gauge. Then pull the prop back to its desired setting. Lean for cruise. If below 65% power you can't over lean. Just lean until you get an rpm drop and richen a bit. I do it all at once. The big pull.

Fuel injected and turbo are going to have other considerations.
 
Trim is your friend. Learn the numbers, certain MP settings for speed for approaches etc.
Look at the table that most instrument pilots build for their flying.
Certain MP for level flight at 90knts, what is needed for ILS, 500fpm on descent.

An article I read maybe 35 yrs ago in Flying Mag, Richard Collins, Fly By the Numbers.
 
Trim for landing. I own an 81 RG and have around 500 hours in it. I fly final and trim it for just a little forward pressure, thus making the level out almost neutral and adding back pressure in the flare. It is harder to grease the landing in the RG than the straight leg.

You'll rarely need 40* flaps.

Lean for taxi on engine start and you won't have to clean the plugs on the runup.

Have fun! 182s are the best.
 
Don't whack the nose, trim is your friend, the RG system is a bit goofy so learn what to check for on preflight.
 
BillTIZ said:
Trim is your friend. Learn the numbers, certain MP settings for speed for approaches etc.
Look at the table that most instrument pilots build for their flying.
Certain MP for level flight at 90knts, what is needed for ILS, 500fpm on descent.
Click to expand...

Here's one I use/teach with:

Appr0ach speed chart.png
 
I know for me at least, transitioning from a 172 to a 182, I had a tendency early to to over flare. It feels flatter in the flare but you still need to hold off the nose. Below 60kts full flap it will sink and sink hard.
 
I've still learning in our 182P (closing in on 60hrs, about 16 of which are solo).

- Don't forget to lean when taxiing around, it burns a lot of gas there too!
- My wife will pick something around 1700 or 1800 rpm late on downwind (prop full), add 10 flaps on each turn and land nicely with 30deg of flaps
- My instructor is teaching me a more gradual pattern coming in from cruise, first notch of flaps, 20" (prop still out from cruise), carb heat. As I turn base I go to 15"MP, prop in, flaps 20. On final power back to 1700rpm or so and flaps 40 which works really good for me.
- Finding 30deg of flaps is impossible for me! (But my wife finds it every time??)
- We bring a small battery operated hand fan for the passenger (the 182P does not have a passenger window that can open)
- Carb ice will happen if the conditions are right. Keep an eye on the MP and if you see it dropping in cruise...resist the urge to push in the throttle a bit...check for ice first. It will gurgle and chomp ice and then get its mojo back in just a few seconds!
- That add-on carb ice warning gauge...will just make you nervous all the time
- When on final I use quite a bit of elevator trim as the nose gets really, really heavy.
- Soft field takeoffs will pitch the nose way, way up!!!
- We now have the "belt on the floor" option for the pilot seat...in a emergency it would be much easier to get out of than that crappy little finger release.
- It will probably always burn fuel unevenly so there is a reason to use the fuel selector during cruise.
- The rudder trim is awesome during cruise, don't forget to use it.
- If it has bladders, be leary of flying it after sitting out in the rain if it doesn't have the updated fuel caps.
- If you need to get the front tire off the ground I believe you need over 100lbs on the tail. I have 3x60lb sand tubs in the hangar and I know I need at least 2 of them, can't remember if I needed the third.
- I believe the nose wheel can only turn 30degress so try to not overdo it if using a powered tug.
- They are really heavy so if you have to move one on your own you'll know
- On the 182P there is no built step to get up and see/add fuel so we always have a small ladder.
- Some people hand push/pull the plane using hands on the prop right where it meets the spinner.
- You'll go crazy trying to stick these bladder fuel tanks and be "precise".
- Taking off with the window open isn't so bad but there is so much wind flow that your intercom will break squelch and it will be so loud you may not hear ATC unless you turn up the radio.
- If trimmed for power off, best glide and then apply full power you will really, really have to push hard on the yoke until you get it trimmed again.
- Our seems to idle quite nicely (ie smooth) at 800rpm and leaned somewhat. It will idle all the way to throttle pulled out full, but just seems to idle the best around 800rpm
- I believe most people are cold starting with 2 shots of primer. I am having great luck now at 3 shots but don't always get it to start on first try with 2.
- When I rotate for takeoff and just after starting the climb I swear I hear the stall horn but the CFI said that is not it, it is some other wind noise?
- Ours loves a little over 9qts. If I add more it will just breathe off.
- We are seeing about 12.2gph at 22 squared...when leaned aggressively. I flight plan for 13gph.
- The heater and defroster work really good! But I would advise a decent CO monitor as I can see the levels in the cockpit up quite a bit during warmup and runup. So why take chances.
- You may want to bring a pillow for any shorter passengers to sit on when up front.
 
Sinistar said:
I've still learning in our 182P (closing in on 60hrs, about 16 of which are solo).


- When I rotate for takeoff and just after starting the climb I swear I hear the stall horn but the CFI said that is not it, it is some other wind noise?.
Click to expand...

Perhaps closing the window would help that? :D
 
mscard88 said:
Perhaps closing the window would help that? :D
Click to expand...
I deserved that :)

The good news, early in training and when it was really hot outside I almost took off with the window open. Right then and there I told myself if it could happen then, it could happen anytime. So I asked the instructor if we could try a takeoff with the window open. We did on the next lesson. I guess I expected something much more chaotic and/or dire to happen. I figured the window would fly up and smash into the wing to start things off. Nope. It flew perfectly fine and the airflow felt great when it was hot out. But wow was it loud.
 
It handles, uh, ponderously, and the visibility is, uh. . .sucks. Front seat view is like sitting five feet inside a cave mouth. Back seat, like sitting against the back wall of a garage. It is an O.K IFR platform, and a good crosswind landing machine.

Also, while It may be slow, it burns a lot of fuel, too. The carburetor versions end their careers as motel ice makers - it's like it was designed to create carb ice. . .

So, yes, trim the pressure off, or get Popeye arms; read the POH on leaning for takeoff, in many models. Some models are throw-backs to 1930 - cowl flaps, mixture, throttle, prop, carb heat - five, count em, five do-hickeies for managing the power plant. Good news is nothing is gonna happen terribly fast in a 182, so you have plenty of time to think about which widget to muck with.

Usually really big fuel tanks, so range is great - but if you keep 'em full, you may not have any more weight capacity than a 172. Some people keep them fueled at less than full tanks. Not a flaw; actually additional flexibility, if you can plan ahead.

Comfortable, if slow, x-ctry airplane - not so much fun for crashing and dashing; what makes it a decent traveler and IFR airplane makes it a less than nimble fun flyer.

Some people bang the nose gear down, and wrinkle the firewall; so some recommend carrying a little power in the flare, but my personal experience is that really isn't necessary - just don't let it start sinking like a brick, and it flies pretty much like a 172, in heavy syrup.

The later models have 1,232 fuel drains. Per side. 3 are necessary, the other 1,229 are for the lawyers. The G-1000 models are particular pigs, at least the fatso CAP ones I flew. The seats were nice, though, much nicer than most.
 
Sundancer said:
It handles, uh, ponderously, and the visibility is, uh. . .sucks. Front seat view is like sitting five feet inside a cave mouth. Back seat, like sitting against the back wall of a garage. It is an O.K IFR platform, and a good crosswind landing machine.

Also, while It may be slow, it burns a lot of fuel, too. The carburetor versions end their careers as motel ice makers - it's like it was designed to create carb ice. . .

So, yes, trim the pressure off, or get Popeye arms; read the POH on leaning for takeoff, in many models. Some models are throw-backs to 1930 - cowl flaps, mixture, throttle, prop, carb heat - five, count em, five do-hickeies for managing the power plant. Good news is nothing is gonna happen terribly fast in a 182, so you have plenty of time to think about which widget to muck with.

Usually really big fuel tanks, so range is great - but if you keep 'em full, you may not have any more weight capacity than a 172. Some people keep them fueled at less than full tanks. Not a flaw; actually additional flexibility, if you can plan ahead.

Comfortable, if slow, x-ctry airplane - not so much fun for crashing and dashing; what makes it a decent traveler and IFR airplane makes it a less than nimble fun flyer.

Some people bang the nose gear down, and wrinkle the firewall; so some recommend carrying a little power in the flare, but my personal experience is that really isn't necessary - just don't let it start sinking like a brick, and it flies pretty much like a 172, in heavy syrup.

The later models have 1,232 fuel drains. Per side. 3 are necessary, the other 1,229 are for the lawyers. The G-1000 models are particular pigs, at least the fatso CAP ones I flew. The seats were nice, though, much nicer than most.
Click to expand...
You must be a Cirrus driver. I'll take my 140ktas on 12gph and 760lb useful with full fuel (92 gallons) :thumbsup:
 
Sundancer said:
It handles, uh, ponderously, and the visibility is, uh. . .sucks. Front seat view is like sitting five feet inside a cave mouth. Back seat, like sitting against the back wall of a garage. It is an O.K IFR platform, and a good crosswind landing machine.

Also, while It may be slow, it burns a lot of fuel, too. The carburetor versions end their careers as motel ice makers - it's like it was designed to create carb ice. . .

So, yes, trim the pressure off, or get Popeye arms; read the POH on leaning for takeoff, in many models. Some models are throw-backs to 1930 - cowl flaps, mixture, throttle, prop, carb heat - five, count em, five do-hickeies for managing the power plant. Good news is nothing is gonna happen terribly fast in a 182, so you have plenty of time to think about which widget to muck with.

Usually really big fuel tanks, so range is great - but if you keep 'em full, you may not have any more weight capacity than a 172. Some people keep them fueled at less than full tanks. Not a flaw; actually additional flexibility, if you can plan ahead.

Comfortable, if slow, x-ctry airplane - not so much fun for crashing and dashing; what makes it a decent traveler and IFR airplane makes it a less than nimble fun flyer.

Some people bang the nose gear down, and wrinkle the firewall; so some recommend carrying a little power in the flare, but my personal experience is that really isn't necessary - just don't let it start sinking like a brick, and it flies pretty much like a 172, in heavy syrup.

The later models have 1,232 fuel drains. Per side. 3 are necessary, the other 1,229 are for the lawyers. The G-1000 models are particular pigs, at least the fatso CAP ones I flew. The seats were nice, though, much nicer than most.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've had any of the issues you've spoken about in my 500+ hours of 182 time. I don't consider 12-14GPH "a lot of fuel". Mine has never had even a hint of carb ice (I suppose the Continental versions are different though). Anything non-turbo gets leaned for take-off in a high density altitude situation. Most piston twins and complex piston airplanes have the "five doo-hickeies", though I suppose not the "pilot proof" ones like the Cirrus. If I fill my 182 (88 gallons usable) I still have room for 3 FAA sized adults, a child and a bag or two. Or 3 adults and lots of luggage.

I think you've flown a different 182 than the rest of us.
 
Sinistar said:
- We bring a small battery operated hand fan for the passenger (the 182P does not have a passenger window that can open)
Click to expand...

Some do, some don't. If yours doesn't it's a door change to get it. Or...

You can look up "camera port" window replacements. Then all you do is have your A&P replace the window which is a very easy job.

We added a camera port window to ours a number of years ago. Note: Don't get the largest one. It gets weird trying to get it open. Also it can be placed almost anywhere in the window so look at how it folds toward the inside and make sure it comes open forward of the passenger if you don't want them to have to put their seat all the way back to utilize it. Centered works but they have to slide rearward to open and then slide back up to line a long lens camera up for shooting out of it. If it's JUST for ventilation, keep it further forward.
 
Z06_Mir said:
I don't think I've had any of the issues you've spoken about in my 500+ hours of 182 time. I don't consider 12-14GPH "a lot of fuel". Mine has never had even a hint of carb ice (I suppose the Continental versions are different though). Anything non-turbo gets leaned for take-off in a high density altitude situation. Most piston twins and complex piston airplanes have the "five doo-hickeies", though I suppose not the "pilot proof" ones like the Cirrus. If I fill my 182 (88 gallons usable) I still have room for 3 FAA sized adults, a child and a bag or two. Or 3 adults and lots of luggage.

I think you've flown a different 182 than the rest of us.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not a Cirrus driver; the 182 I was stuck with most often required leaning for full power on takeoff, at much less than "high density altitudes" - basically at sea level on most days, at least according to the POH. If I recall from 2013, the last time I had to muck with it, you leaned to a certain fuel flow, though I could be wrong on that specific.

My critique was somewhat tongue in cheek - though the visibility in a 182 really is atrocious, and the airplane does handle like a truck. If you gave me one, I'd say thanks, sell it, and buy something else. 12-14 gals an hour is/is a lot of fuel for the cruise speed, and if you know a lot of FAA sized adults, you are unique.

It's just an airplane I never much enjoyed flying, which is personal prefernce; they must be popular enough, since there are quite a few around - it's sorta the Crown Victoria of airplanes. . .
 
mscard88 said:
Have to start with the basics and get that down James. Knowing the numbers in that chart is important for instrument flying. As a CFI yourself you should know that.
Click to expand...

The airspeeds yeah, the pitch is just a little much for my taste.
 
Of course. But then it's not for you. Unless you want to leave the pitch column blank.
 
GeorgeC said:
http://www.theskylanepilotscompanion.com
Click to expand...

Thanks for that! I'm studying up for my written next Thursday, but took a break and now am engrossed in this. Page 66, and beautifully, interestingly written. Exactly the kind of aviation book I love.

Also it's got enough technical info that when I take a break, and read it, I'm still learning.
 
LongRoadBob said:
Thanks for that! I'm studying up for my written next Thursday, but took a break and now am engrossed in this. Page 66, and beautifully, interestingly written. Exactly the kind of aviation book I love.

Also it's got enough technical info that when I take a break, and read it, I'm still learning.
Click to expand...

Agreed, was an awesome reference when I got my skylane.
 
neilw2 said:
Agreed, was an awesome reference when I got my skylane.
Click to expand...

I already finished it, for the first time. Definitely will be rereading it.

It's probably even better if you own one, but as a student this is the kind of book (I'd say, honestly, the epitomy of it) I'm on constant lookout for. It's definitely not a niche book about just flying that model, but same reason as I read here, it gives incredibly good insight about techniques, and even more so, the way a pilot needs to think. All kinds of things like weather, in the real world, and just letting the reader be in the mind of a good pilot as he plans, preflight check, all the way through.

I was having a problem understanding why maneuvering speed goes down with less weight, and he explained it in one small paragraph that made perfect sense, and is now not something I have to memorize, but something I now know.

Lots of interesting points about managing the rpms, why, etc. like on takeoff how the different metals are not uniformly heated yet, and how you want to treat the engine gently to get it all smoothly warmed so as to extend the life of the engine.

Mainly though, what this is and I keep looking for in a book, it puts you in the mind of an experienced pilot that wants to do the absolute best, and let's you read the thought process. What he pays attention to, and when.

Being a student pilot has made me a better driver. I pay more attention now to pegging the middle of the lane, in turns as well, keeping my speed steady whether flat, uphill, or downhill, coasting to a gentle stop, and defensive driving. I had gotten complacent as a driver, on "auto pilot" in a way, and notice I've changed and pay way more attention just driving a car than before. Even to "what would I do now if that oncoming car veered into my lane" etc. driving has become FUN again for me. The author make this point about flying,how one can tend to get their head out of the game, and how that can affect your safety...but also why it is so FUN to fly. Control and trying to do it perfect. It's like a challenge.

Even a very nifty formula in the back for converting published weight related Vspeeds to a weight other than gross weight. I couldn't put the book down, and he writes really well.

I felt bad about reading it for free, after I read it wanted to buy a copy on Amazon but it is unavailable there. To thank him in a way, bought a book he wrote about living in a cabin in northern Minnesota. Just read that other pilots tried to send him checks for reading it online but he returns them.

I REALLY appreciate the link! That was a real find!
 
Last edited:
I have a 1970N with extended range tanks. Usually keep it about 30 gal a side, unless my flight callas for more. That leaves an extra 100lb to play with. Watch the throttle advance on take off. That nose really likes to pull left if you just jam it in. Other than those few things it came very naturally to flying it.
 
after about 500 hours in my 182 there is still stuff to learn! Just fly and enjoy it and keep trying to learn more and master it. Some people go into flying a 182 with the attitude of its just a bigger 172, don't do that! totally different airplane!
 
JustinD said:
after about 500 hours in my 182 there is still stuff to learn! Just fly and enjoy it and keep trying to learn more and master it. Some people go into flying a 182 with the attitude of its just a bigger 172, don't do that! totally different airplane!
Click to expand...

Agree with that. Wing behaves quite differently at low speed. The 182 is a much better airplane when slow than the 172.
 
DavidWhite said:
https://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184350-1.html
Click to expand...

I always thought that article was funny, because he mixes the O-470 in with the IO-XXX engines and the start info and leaning info is all IO-XXX based. As are his power reduction techniques, etc.

And the article goes directly against what Deakin said in other articles from the exact same publisher about the O-470.

Busch flies twins. He hand-waves with "other Cessna singles" and pretends what works in the big bore IO engines works fine for the O-470. Even funnier, what other Cessna single has an O-470 other than the older 182?

He gets the operating practices for the O-470 182 completely wrong by lumping it into that article. There's better articles on operating the O-470. Just sayin'.
 
denverpilot said:
Even funnier, what other Cessna single has an O-470 other than the older 182?
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head I can think of at least three other Cessna single engine airframes that were factory equipped with o-470s. The 182 is just the most common.
 
mondtster said:
Off the top of my head I can think of at least three other Cessna single engine airframes that were factory equipped with o-470s. The 182 is just the most common.
Click to expand...
What were the other three (180's or older 206's?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top