C-182 landing info

Bonchie said:
The whole "use flaps 40 or you aren't a real pilot" thing doesn't make much sense to me. Plenty of 182s don't even have flaps 40 and they all manage to land safely without them despite being the exact same airframe. There's a very real danger zone using flaps 40 if you aren't on your game that doesn't really exist at flaps 30.
Click to expand...


Oh please....

The good engineers at Cessna put 40-degrees of flaps on the plane for a reason. Not to create a "danger zone".
 
JoseCuervo said:
Oh please....

The good engineers at Cessna put 40-degrees of flaps on the plane for a reason. Not to create a "danger zone".
Click to expand...

I have to agree. I've done full flap go-arounds in 182Ns and in 182Ts, along with several other models. The N models are not noticeably harder.

I get the impression at least some of these "partial flaps" advocates have never actually tried a full flap go around. Yes, you have to push forward to gain speed. No, it's not different enough from 30 deg or even 20 deg to merit a "very real danger zone."

A much bigger issue is that retracting flaps on a 182T is omigod-can-it-possibly-take-any-longer slow. Not so bad on an N.
 
a go around in a 182 is like an elevator. I love it.

I've always done all my landings in normal conditions with flaps 30 (thats full for the T models) and trimmed normally to reduce any pressures, non of this trim it all nose up or nose down or whatever, i just use the trim for what its for. Never had an issue, hope to never either. Now if its really gusty or windy I may use less flaps. After all the POH for the T model does state: "Normal Landing Approaches can be made with power on or power off with ANY flap setting within the flap airspeed limits" So really no one is wrong for landing with whatever flap setting they please
 
JoseCuervo said:
Do you always fly where you can make the pavement if the engine fails, or just the last 600 yards?
Click to expand...
I try to always fly final at angle that allows for the runway to be made in the event that a failure occurs.

To answer your question; the entire leg.
 
Ryanb said:
I try to always fly final at angle that allows for the runway to be made in the event that a failure occurs.

To answer your question; the entire leg.
Click to expand...
I think he was implying the entire flight.
 
I also really like using 10 or 20 degrees for normal landings, especially when doing power off approaches.
It seems many pilots don't seem to get the relationship between power, flap position, and airspeed.
for example.
power off, full flaps, low airspeed (1.2vso) can be challenging to make good landings.
changing any one of these will make your landings less challenging.

I see way to many posts like...
if you don't use full flaps you will float for ever (no mention of power and/or approach speed)
if you come in faster 1.3 vso you will land very long (again no mention of power and/or flap position)

A good normal landing with 20 degrees of flaps will probably only use a couple hundred feet more runway than a normal full flap landing at most. Since you really should be touching down at about Vso in either condition (Vso at 40 deg=55mph, Vso at 20 deg=57, for the 182J) 2mph isn't going to make much difference is stopping distance. And it is much easier to touch down nose high on the main gear 1st with only 20 degrees of flaps.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Ryanb said:
I try to always fly final at angle that allows for the runway to be made in the event that a failure occurs.

To answer your question; the entire leg.
Click to expand...


Must make cross countries difficult if you are unable to risk leaving gliding distance to the runway.

Maybe flying isn't for you?
 
JoseCuervo said:
Must make cross countries difficult if you are unable to risk leaving gliding distance to the runway.

Maybe flying isn't for you?
Click to expand...
I know you always like to exaggerate and get technical on things Jose. It was intended that "the entire leg" referred to the entire "final" leg.

I have no problems flying out of gliding range at altitude.
 
Last edited:
Almost always land with full flaps in my 182, unless a significant crosswind or practicing no flaps or 20 deg landings. Go arounds are no issue, just have to apply forward pressSSSUUUuure (unh!) until trim is adjusted.
Since I was also taught to use full flaps for landings when training for PPL in a 172, it just seems normal to me.
 
Everything already covered above, but if you want to see why you can land a 182 at what seems to be impressively low numbers on the ASI, make sure to familiarize yourself with the calibrated airspeed chart in your POH.

There's significant ASI error at low speed. It's flying faster than you think it is.
 
If you want to really know how fast you are touching down at, look at the GPS speed when you land in a no wind (or known wind) situation. Should be accurate to within 1 knot.

Flaps change the "center of lift" of the wing and typically make it harder to get the tail down. There is a "momentum" factor to getting the tail down too. Start it down before slowing so much is a "swoop" motion will bring it down whereas just holding level front to back and then trying to get the tail down as it stalls is much harder to get the tail down.

Putting in some slight amount of power will activate the elevator and help get the tail down.

Every landing is a little bit different.
 
Why? Different wind and runway conditions, different airplane loading and weight and different pilot inputs. Probably some different other things I can't think of.
 
denverpilot said:
Everything already covered above, but if you want to see why you can land a 182 at what seems to be impressively low numbers on the ASI, make sure to familiarize yourself with the calibrated airspeed chart in your POH.

There's significant ASI error at low speed. It's flying faster than you think it is.
Click to expand...

Can you expand on this a little as it has always confused me? Or at least point me in the direction of somewhere that explains it well. I have always noticed the calibrated airspeed numbers on the POH, but why are they so much different than the indicated airspeed? I don't remember that being the case with the Cherokees I used to fly.
 
denverpilot said:
Everything already covered above, but if you want to see why you can land a 182 at what seems to be impressively low numbers on the ASI, make sure to familiarize yourself with the calibrated airspeed chart in your POH.

There's significant ASI error at low speed. It's flying faster than you think it is.
Click to expand...
Yep. Down around 55 there is about a 6 mph error if I recall right.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Oh please....

The good engineers at Cessna put 40-degrees of flaps on the plane for a reason. Not to create a "danger zone".
Click to expand...

And the good engineers took them off for a reason.

Plenty of 182s only have 30 degrees of flaps. Hopefully they can continue to safely land or maybe they should see about a retrofit to 40 degrees of flaps so they won't be doing it wrong.

If all you expert pilots want to pretend there aren't specific gotchas with flaps 40 on a 182, go ahead. I never said it wasn't doable, you shouldn't use them, or more training doesn't help.
 
Last edited:
neilw2 said:
Can you expand on this a little as it has always confused me? Or at least point me in the direction of somewhere that explains it well. I have always noticed the calibrated airspeed numbers on the POH, but why are they so much different than the indicated airspeed? I don't remember that being the case with the Cherokees I used to fly.
Click to expand...
To be non-technical about it, think in terms of the reason for the discrepancy - the position of the pitot tube. I think it's just that the pitch attitude at the lower speed ranges of the 182 in level flight are simply a larger variation center than in the Cherokee. Something in the design.
 
midlifeflyer said:
To be non-technical about it, think in terms of the reason for the discrepancy - the position of the pitot tube. I think it's just that the pitch attitude at the lower speed ranges of the 182 in level flight are simply a larger variation center than in the Cherokee. Something in the design.
Click to expand...


Very cool..I couldn't figure out why there would be THAT much of an error. Thanks!
 
And here is a 182C. Remeber, these are mph instead of kts.

4e2f2dede0c9ae01c975eb1681d5ab50.jpg
 
I heard the number 1 key in landing is don't mess up and don't get violated.

I could be wrong though
 
Bonchie said:
And the good engineers took them off for a reason.

Plenty of 182s only have 30 degrees of flaps. Hopefully they can continue to safely land or maybe they should see about a retrofit to 40 degrees of flaps so they won't be doing it wrong.

If all you expert pilots want to pretend there aren't specific gotchas with flaps 40 on a 182, go ahead. I never said it wasn't doable, you shouldn't use them, or more training doesn't help.
Click to expand...

The 40 deg flaps were indeed taken off for a good reason, but you're way off base for what the reason is. It has nothing to do with landing. It has nothing to do with control in a go around. It's about climb rate in a go-around at full flap at a higher maximum gross landing weight. If you leave the max gross landing weight alone, there is no benefit to limiting 30 deg flaps. It's only so they could use 2950 lb instead of 2800 lb for max landing weight.
 
MAKG1 said:
The 40 deg flaps were indeed taken off for a good reason, but you're way off base for what the reason is. It has nothing to do with landing. It has nothing to do with control in a go around. It's about climb rate in a go-around at full flap at a higher maximum gross landing weight. If you leave the max gross landing weight alone, there is no benefit to limiting 30 deg flaps. It's only so they could use 2950 lb instead of 2800 lb for max landing weight.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not off base because I didn't say the reason. We've already had this discussion in the other thread.

The point continues to remain that the engineers deemed it perfectly safe and acceptable to have a 182 land with 30 degrees of flaps. Why they specifically removed them isn't relevant to that fact.
 
Bonchie said:
No, I'm not off base because I didn't say the reason. We've already this discussion in the other thread.

The point continues to remain that the engineers deemed it perfectly safe and acceptable to have a 182 land with 30 degrees of flaps.
Click to expand...
No one said otherwise. However, it's silly not to use all the tools at your disposal.

And if you really didn't mean to imply that 40 deg flaps were undesirable from an engineering standpoint, you need to edit your post.
 
Maybe they discontinued 40 degrees of flaps because Cessna pilots can't count that high.
 
neilw2 said:
Can you expand on this a little as it has always confused me? Or at least point me in the direction of somewhere that explains it well. I have always noticed the calibrated airspeed numbers on the POH, but why are they so much different than the indicated airspeed? I don't remember that being the case with the Cherokees I used to fly.
Click to expand...

Yep, but someone else already covered it. :)

Angle of attack of the pitot tube to the relative wind.
 
I'm a little confused as to how to use this site but if anyone can help me I'm trying to find a set of floats with struts etc. for a Cherokee 180. If you can send me in the right direction please call me 907 252-8943.
 
Geez! After reading all this, I don't think I'll ever be able to land again. I won't know whether to use flaps or not. If I do, do I use 20, 40 if I use too much it may rip itself in half because the engineers at Cessna don't know to count that high,,,,,,,,,,UGGHHH!!!!! I'm so confused! I have an idea, let's all fly up to Wichita, take a plant tour to see all the cool new stuff and then we can ask them straight up.

I'm going flying........
 
Joshuajayg said:
Maybe they discontinued 40 degrees of flaps because Cessna pilots can't count that high.
Click to expand...

Hey hey, don't be grouping skywagon, 190/70/40/20 pilots into that group ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top