About the C-182

jesse said:
40 is not too much. 40 is the ideal flap setting in both a 172 and a 150 if they're equipped with it. It's how I teach students to land in both, period. I'll show them landings with other flap settings so that they can see it but I tell them there really is never a good reason to use less than full flaps regardless of the crosswind.
Click to expand...
If 40 is the ideal flap setting...why did Cessna stop offering it over 40 years ago?
 
Fearless Tower said:
If 40 is the ideal flap setting...why did Cessna stop offering it over 40 years ago?
Click to expand...
Because we won't quit eating and they needed to increase the useful load to lift our fat asses into the sky.
 
There is a common misconception that because the newer 182s have a flap selector switch with only four settings - 0, 10, 20, and FULL - that "FULL" must be 30 degrees.

The POH never really says. When I began flying the T182T a couple years ago I looked up the C182 Type Certificate Data Sheet. The T182T, 182T, 182S, and maybe more (don't remember) have 38 degrees as the "FULL" setting. So you're really not that far from 40! You're not at 30, you're at 38.

C182 TCDS:
http://http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulator...75cd1ba8625796d006aad2b/$FILE/3A13 Rev 70.pdf

When I use full flaps and aerodynamic braking after touchdown, I can land nice and short. When I am looking forward to getting home at the end of a long day, I definitely use full flaps to catch that first taxiway and shave a little off my taxi time!
 
I have a 182N (with 40 flaps), and I usually land 20 flaps. This is mostly based on my preference having practiced all configurations. I will do full flaps for certain scenarios too - such as being heavily loaded or soft field landing.

As was said earlier, you should at least have the experience of landing with all flap configurations and with different weight configurations so you can feel the characteristics of the airplane.

I had a flap extension issue last summer, where my flaps would cycle back and forth between 0-20 continuously. I almost shut down power so as to prevent it from being more of an issue, but finally got the flaps retracted and settled. Had to make 4 landings that day (was X-C picking up pax), all flapless. A non-issue, thanks to my CFI who made me practice these configurations.
 
As noted, the later cessnas have 38 degrees for full flaps. What they really stopped offering was an intermediate 30 degree setting.
 
TMetzinger said:
As noted, the later cessnas have 38 degrees for full flaps. What they really stopped offering was an intermediate 30 degree setting.
Click to expand...

Okay, maybe I'm thinking 172......only 172's I have seen with 40 flaps were from the early 60's....figured the 182s would have followed a similar trend.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Okay, maybe I'm thinking 172......only 172's I have seen with 40 flaps were from the early 60's....figured the 182s would have followed a similar trend.
Click to expand...

The 1979 172N I still rent on occasion came from the factory with 40 flaps. When it got the 180 hp STC, flap travel was limited thereafter to 30 degrees.
 
jesse said:
Because we won't quit eating and they needed to increase the useful load to lift our fat asses into the sky.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

I used 40* in a 182N in less than 15KT crosswind. 180 is a different animal, use 20* or 30* for most normal situations.
That's my vote.
Best regards,
Bill
 
BrianR said:
The 1979 172N I still rent on occasion came from the factory with 40 flaps. When it got the 180 hp STC, flap travel was limited thereafter to 30 degrees.
Click to expand...

That is interesting.....I have flown a whole lot of 172N's and never seen one with 40 flaps.
Was it an option then?
 
The key is good airspeed control. Seriously. I used to fly a Cessna 205, which is a Stretch 182 with a IO 470 in the nose.

Just adhere to 80 knots on final and don't tolerate 81. Hold it off in ground effect. DON't let it touch until it's ready.
 
The 182's I've flown have had electric flaps. Not knowing much about the history of the different models, I don't know if that is the norm? Anyway, I have always used 20 degrees for landing, simply because it seems to be the best compromise for most situations. The electric flaps are so slow, that if I need to go around I don't like the snail like speed in changing configuration. But having said that, of course there are occasions where you have to use them (getting into a short field in particular). I just don't use them all the time.

On the topic of nose heavy, I never understood that. I was warned as well that the 182 is "nose heavy" when landing. There is this nifty little feature called "trim" that takes care of that. ;)
 
Thanks Kate. Oh, WELCOME BACK!
skyflyer8 said:
There is a common misconception that because the newer 182s have a flap selector switch with only four settings - 0, 10, 20, and FULL - that "FULL" must be 30 degrees.

The POH never really says. When I began flying the T182T a couple years ago I looked up the C182 Type Certificate Data Sheet. The T182T, 182T, 182S, and maybe more (don't remember) have 38 degrees as the "FULL" setting. So you're really not that far from 40! You're not at 30, you're at 38.

C182 TCDS:
http://http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulator...75cd1ba8625796d006aad2b/$FILE/3A13 Rev 70.pdf

When I use full flaps and aerodynamic braking after touchdown, I can land nice and short. When I am looking forward to getting home at the end of a long day, I definitely use full flaps to catch that first taxiway and shave a little off my taxi time!
Click to expand...
 
I learned on a small runway (2410' x 37') so 40* flaps were the norm in the 172. When I transitioned to the 182 I just stuck with that practice, even though I now have a mile long runway to roll on.

There's plenty of power in a 182 to fly a perfect glide slope down the VASI/PAPI with 40* flaps. You want a stabilized approach? You got it. Flying a generously sized pattern your pax will feel like they are in an airliner.

But the main reason I like 40* of flaps is that you can hit the earlier turn-offs. Or roll longer and save wear on the brakes/tires while those flaps soak up forward momentum for you.

For those griping about the go-around, what's the big deal? Shove the power in, trim and then set flaps to 20*. Take the last 20* out as you speed up. That big engine will climb just fine even with full flaps. I did a go around from 40* flaps just the other day and had no trouble whatsoever.

Just as guys like me need to make a point to practice no-flaps landings every so often folks who aren't using full flaps routinely should go try it. Never know when you'll want/need to land at a small runway some day. Or worse yet, you might have to land off airport - that'll be a good time to get as slow as possible!
 
Well I'm sure to get flamed for this, but I believe any 182 pilot should be able to land full flaps in a direct crosswind up to at least 20.

I know the thinking is that using less flaps, reduces the tendency to weathervane, means less lift to float off, etc., and I agree it does. However, I want to be able to put the airplane down in any wind condition in the shortest distance possible. What about short fields? Or an emergency, where you won't have a choice? I watch 182 pilots all the time who come in fast with 10 degrees in even the slightest crosswind, that's fine as long as you have 4,000 feet to float it out.

If you just don't let the nose get high, fly the proper speed (slower than most think) so you don't float, and apply the correct inputs you can land in a crosswind just fine with full flaps and do it short field.

That should be SOP, landing long is a bad habit IMO.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is interesting.....I have flown a whole lot of 172N's and never seen one with 40 flaps.
Was it an option then?
Click to expand...
All fixed-gear 172s came from the factory with 40-degree flaps until the 172P (1981 model year) with its higher gross weight. Many older ones have had flaps limited by STC to 30 degrees to get a higher MGW.
 
Pilawt said:
All fixed-gear 172s came from the factory with 40-degree flaps until the 172P (1981 model year) with its higher gross weight. Many older ones have had flaps limited by STC to 30 degrees to get a higher MGW.
Click to expand...

Okay, that would probably explain why I have never seen an N with 40 flaps.
 
denverpilot said:
My 182 has a higher Vfe for 10 than anything more than 10. Yours doesn't? Marked on the flap handle...

I don't have my POH handy.
Click to expand...

The 182R and T that I fly from time to time have a Vfe for 10 as the same as Vno (140 kias), second notch needs to be a bit slower though
 
450 hrs in the 182 P.
Fly it very regularly.
Full flaps with 10kts or less, like to come steep because, local airport has a nasty gully.
Love to practice short field landings.

More wind 20 degrees, nasty crosswind 10 flaps, but the best tool is the AoA indicator, no float, no sink, no bounce, whatevr flap setting, i dont look at the airspeed much anymore, and short field landingd are 500 to 600ft consistenly
 
motoadve said:
450 hrs in the 182 P.
Fly it very regularly.
Full flaps with 10kts or less, like to come steep because, local airport has a nasty gully.
Love to practice short field landings.

More wind 20 degrees, nasty crosswind 10 flaps, but the best tool is the AoA indicator, no float, no sink, no bounce, whatevr flap setting, i dont look at the airspeed much anymore, and short field landingd are 500 to 600ft consistenly
Click to expand...
An AoA indicator would really be nice to have!
 
I have a 1960 C182-C model, it has the manual flap handle and 40 degrees of flaps, been flying it about a year now. I've also flown my friends 1958 C-182A model as well for quite a few years before obtaining my "C" model. I have 100's of hours accumulated over the years in the newer models as well including the retractables. The difference I have found over the last year between the older models that use the jack screw horizontal stabilizer for trim (pre "E" models) and the newer models which use an elevator trim tab is that the older models seem to run out of elevator trim authority early on in the landing sequence (not unusual to have all the trim in on base leg if only the front seats are occupied). This typically means the down force is not totally neutralized when on final and the degree of flaps used (and thus nose down attitude) accentuate the situation. I dont know the statistics but it would be easy to envision that the early models may have been more prone to experiencing firewall buckling from pilots not accustomed to having to hold constant back pressure down final and then add more in the flare. Weight placement in the cabin dramatically affects the situation.

To answer the original question, I'm quite use to no flaps at all as all the acro aircraft I've owned never had flaps so at times flaps seem like a luxury. I typically use 30 degrees for landing, 40 for short field or when conditions dictated. As somebody previously mentioned, speed control is critical, the too fast conseqences have been mentioned, and if too slow especially on the older models you will run right out of elevator authority when you need it the most, in the flare and on landing to minimize weight on the nose wheel. I dont know if this is true, but when I stated looking at C182's I was told by a very reputable local broker that he has found that roughly 4 out of 5 have firewall issues or had them at some point in their history.
 
Last edited:
The nosewheel structure of the 182 is not as robust as that on the Cessna trainers.
What is merely an embarrassment in a C150/152/162/172 ... may put a wrinkle in the
firewall of a C182.

Ergo; I try to avoid using configs that increase my risk of bending metal.
 
Morne said:
For those griping about the go-around, what's the big deal? Shove the power in, trim and then set flaps to 20*. Take the last 20* out as you speed up. That big engine will climb just fine even with full flaps. I did a go around from 40* flaps just the other day and had no trouble whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Yep...did a number of go-arounds last week, and had no problem getting positive rate of climb with flaps 40...as opposed to the 150, which, in my experience, absolutely will not climb with 40.
 
BrianR said:
So I have a little over an hour in a 182Q in pursuit of the club checkout and HP endorsement. I LOVE the airplane! It's pretty nicely equipped, with leather seats, LED lights, a 430 (which I've never used before) an STEC 60, and it flies nicely and feels very stable.

But I'm a little confused on a couple issues. First, during the ground portion, the club CFI (who has thousands of hours of instruction, and is also a designated examiner, and is quite well-respected locally) cautioned me against making full-flap landings on a normal approach and landing to a paved runway. His explanation was that with that with 40 degrees of flaps, the airflow over the tail would be so reduced that stalling and dropping in from the flare was a real possibility. Now, I've read the tales of the 182 being nose-heavy, and how most of them in service have seen damage to the nose gear and firewall, but I don't recall seeing previous warnings against use of full flaps. I thought the issue was loss of elevator authority and coming down on the nosewheel.

As luck would have it, on my first approach i stayed high to avoid jet wake turbulence, so as we were rapidly approaching the numbers higher than a kite, he said, "Dontcha think full flaps would be a good idea?" I started to argue, "But you just said..." when he virtually insisted I apply full flaps. So I did, and landed without incident. On my second landing, I used 30 degrees. Although I made sure to trim properly, I didn't notice any particular nose-heaviness on either landing.

So do most of you with 182 experience avoid full flaps? Or is this just another one of those tales without a basis in reality?
Click to expand...

I'm going to answer without reading all of the replies, so forgive me if I am repeating.

Flaps are a tool. If you have 40 degrees, and you don't have a lot of room to land, use them! OTOH, you should be able to land a C182 without flaps and without fuss on a 3000' runway. OK. So where is the middle ground?

The answer lies in the context of a given situation. What your instructor said, in both cases, is true! The C182 is nose-heavy, but that shouldn't be an excuse. Lots of airplanes are nose-heavy. Learn to land the aircraft under many regimes and you'll have more tools at the ready.

Personally, I loved the 40 degrees. Don't have them now on the "new" Cessnas. But you could lower the flaps to 40, push the nose down, and land on a dime.
 
bbchien said:
The key is good airspeed control. Seriously. I used to fly a Cessna 205, which is a Stretch 182 with a IO 470 in the nose.

Just adhere to 80 knots on final and don't tolerate 81. Hold it off in ground effect. DON't let it touch until it's ready.
Click to expand...

Man. Should have read this first! Dr. Bruce is right on the money--practice airspeed control, and the gods will favor you!
 
Alexb2000 said:
Well I'm sure to get flamed for this, but I believe any 182 pilot should be able to land full flaps in a direct crosswind up to at least 20.

I know the thinking is that using less flaps, reduces the tendency to weathervane, means less lift to float off, etc., and I agree it does. However, I want to be able to put the airplane down in any wind condition in the shortest distance possible. What about short fields? Or an emergency, where you won't have a choice? I watch 182 pilots all the time who come in fast with 10 degrees in even the slightest crosswind, that's fine as long as you have 4,000 feet to float it out.

If you just don't let the nose get high, fly the proper speed (slower than most think) so you don't float, and apply the correct inputs you can land in a crosswind just fine with full flaps and do it short field.

That should be SOP, landing long is a bad habit IMO.
Click to expand...

Agree. C182s are also much less forgiving of flat landings. When I transitioned, I was so fearful of that, that I kept flaring to high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top