First dual in the 182

[Bill]

Had my first 1.9hrs dual on my 182 checkout. These thoughts come from someone who has been flying a 172 and Archer III:

• It's big
• The control efforts are heavy
• Man, you can sure feel that extra power, especially on touch and goes.
• With that extra power comes added pressure needed on that right rudder.
• Vy is very nose up compared to the 172
• The prop was very straight forward to understand and use
• 22" and 2300 had us zipping to the practice area at 135kia
• Slow flight, power off stalls, and steep turns were a piece of cake
• In must be my imagination, but it sure seems that nose is pointed waaaay up there on the power on stalls, compared to the 172. Still, by booting plenty of right rudder, the breaks were nice and level.
• Did about 8 touches in a row, using every combination of 0 to full flaps
• He wants 90 downwind, 80 base, and 70 final. Book is 65 final, I'd rather be 80 at the numbers, 70-75ish base, and 65 final. Comments from other 182 pilots?
• My first few landings were the worst I've done in quite some time
• That left turning tendency really catches you when you power up on the touch and go...once that prop catches, you better be ready.
• Pull the power on approach, and it sinks like a rock.
• On the flip side, 50 degree crosswind at 11kts probably isn't the best conditions to learn to land a new plane.
• My last two landings (full flap) were very very nice, so there is hope

Overall: nice, big, stable, comfortable plane that cruises fairly fast, and plenty of stones to get off the runway quickly. Rides well in turb.

 

[n20junkie]

my thoughts were the same when i was getting my HP endorsement in a friends 182

 

[ggroves]

He wants 90 downwind, 80 base, and 70 final. Book is 65 final, I'd rather be 80 at the numbers, 70-75ish base, and 65 final. Comments from other 182 pilots?

Congrats on your checkout. Now you see why I own one...

I'm with your instructor on the speeds. I use 90, 80, 70. That extra 5 knots cushions the sink. Short field..use the book numbers.

I also give it 2 cranks of up trim over the numbers...takes some of the heavy feel out of the elevator.

You are pointed up...lots of extra power compared to a 172 / PA28, however the feeling is also exagerated by the tall cowling. Makes a big difference in the landing sight picture.

I agree with you on the stability. I think it is one of the best single engine IFR platforms available.

Greg
182RG

 

[gismo]

Had my first 1.9hrs dual on my 182 checkout. These thoughts come from someone who has been flying a 172 and Archer III:

• It's big
• The control efforts are heavy
• Man, you can sure feel that extra power, especially on touch and goes.
• With that extra power comes added pressure needed on that right rudder.
• Vy is very nose up compared to the 172
• The prop was very straight forward to understand and use
• 22" and 2300 had us zipping to the practice area at 135kia
• Slow flight, power off stalls, and steep turns were a piece of cake
• In must be my imagination, but it sure seems that nose is pointed waaaay up there on the power on stalls, compared to the 172. Still, by booting plenty of right rudder, the breaks were nice and level.
• Did about 8 touches in a row, using every combination of 0 to full flaps
• He wants 90 downwind, 80 base, and 70 final. Book is 65 final, I'd rather be 80 at the numbers, 70-75ish base, and 65 final. Comments from other 182 pilots?
• My first few landings were the worst I've done in quite some time
• That left turning tendency really catches you when you power up on the touch and go...once that prop catches, you better be ready.
• Pull the power on approach, and it sinks like a rock.
• On the flip side, 50 degree crosswind at 11kts probably isn't the best conditions to learn to land a new plane.
• My last two landings (full flap) were very very nice, so there is hope

Overall: nice, big, stable, comfortable plane that cruises fairly fast, and plenty of stones to get off the runway quickly. Rides well in turb.

Most pilots who've been flying 172's just love the 182. It's such an honest, easy airplane to fly with a nice solid feel compared to it's lighter siblings. The counter torque rudder is noticeable, but IMO it's more the result of higher rudder pressure requirements in general although having a C/S prop does dramically increase the available power from a standstill. IME the dramatic pitch up with power is a bigger issue, especially without electric trim and/or for pilots lacking in upper body strength. For these reasons and for engine longevity, it's best to spread the power increase at takeoff over several seconds.

This is an airplane that feels a bit different when fully loaded so I suggest you coax a couple of waistline challenged friends to come along with you and the CFI for a lunch flight to feel out the airplane at MGW and rearward CG. I think you'll find that the deck angle at Vy is noticeably lower, but more importantly the tendency to sink out from under you at idle is much greater and the available power will have trouble overcoming the inertia extending that sinking feeling for an uncomfortably long period.

 

[Lance F]

I'll start by saying I have very little 182 time. I do have a bit of Mooney time, and I know in that airplane you do not want to go in hot...even by a few knots. So I am curious as to why one would want to be hot on short final with any airplane? And just because you can get away with it easier in some types than with others is not a good reason IMO.

I don't have a 182 POH, but I gotta believe that even at 65 knots you're 10 kts or more above Vso. Absent huge gusts, why do so many instructors advise (insist) on the higher airspeeds?...and why do we follow their advice?

 

[Bill]

Congrats on your checkout.

Not quite yet! Our ins. co. wants all members to have at min 5hrs dual before solo, so I have another 3.1 min. But, that is all good as we didn't have time to do shorts/softs, slips, etc.I also want to shoot a few approaches under the hood before being turned loose.

Now you see why I own one...

A super nice general purpose plane that will haul four real people.

I'm with your instructor on the speeds. I use 90, 80, 70. That extra 5 knots cushions the sink.

Wilco.

 

[Bill]

IME the dramatic pitch up with power is a bigger issue, especially without electric trim and/or for pilots lacking in upper body strength. For these reasons and for engine longevity, it's best to spread the power increase at takeoff over several seconds.

Yup, that got me, on my first touch, I went full power, and the plane started off the runway (stall warning going off) before I got enough push on the yoke. Even when I knew it was coming, it took a STRONG push until I got the pressure trimmed off.

This is an airplane that feels a bit different when fully loaded so I suggest you coax a couple of waistline challenged friends to come along with you and the CFI for a lunch flight to feel out the airplane at MGW and rearward CG.

Thanks, Lance, I will do that, as this will undoubtedly be my 1st choice for family transport. This will be a GOOD travel plane.

 

[Bill]

I don't have a 182 POH, but I gotta believe that even at 65 knots you're 10 kts or more above Vso. Absent huge gusts, why do so many instructors advise (insist) on the higher airspeeds?...and why do we follow their advice?

Good questions. I know the book #'s are for a gross airplane, so light you'd think you'd want to be over the fence slower. The 172 I fly is 65 book, but I fly 55-60 solo, and 60-65 with one pax.

Dunno. Didn't AOPA pilot (or EAA) have an article on this subject recently?

 

[Ghery]

I love the 182. Funny, though, I've got more time in the club's Arrow.

In any case, trim, trim, trim. Elevator forces can get really heavy otherwise. CFI tried a demonstration to show just how bad it can get. Cranked in full down trim. I could hold level with one hand, but it was some of the best exercise my left arm has gotten in a while. I don't recommend this on a regular basis.

I'm sure you noticed the increased shoulder room compared with the 172. The 182 is a very comfortable cross country cruising machine. Have fun.

 

[gismo]

Good questions. I know the book #'s are for a gross airplane, so light you'd think you'd want to be over the fence slower. The 172 I fly is 65 book, but I fly 55-60 solo, and 60-65 with one pax.

Dunno. Didn't AOPA pilot (or EAA) have an article on this subject recently?

Unlike a Mooney, the 182 dissapates excess energy pretty well over the runway so an extra 5 KIAS won't have the same effect as in a Mooney. That said, it will cause you to float a bit further so it's a good idea to get used to the slower short field speeds over the fence. The slower you go, the later you must begin your flare and the more accurate/consistent you must be in the flare. The "perfect" approach and flare leaves you just above stall an inch above the runway exactly at the end of your flare, but perfection has it's price. If you aim for this "perfection" there will be times when you have too little energy and the result will be a "firmer" touchdown. Therefore most folks carry some excess energy into the flare and modulate the pitchup and landing point to accomodate the variation in energy.

One thing you must be careful of in a 182 or Mooney is the tendency to force the plane on the runway when your touchdown becomes delayed from excess energy. In the Mooney, the resulting porpoise can easily bend the prop, in the 182 it's unlikely you will hit the prop, but the chances are good that you will bend the firewall. In either case it's also quite possible to end up with just the nosewheel on the ground which can lead to swapping ends rather abruptly and bending all sorts of stuff including people.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Great airplane that always reminded me analogously of driving a 1 ton truck after time in a 1/4 ton, when switching from a C172 or Cherokees and the like.

Try and avoid the widely common PIC tendency of a firewall crinkling, nose hard landing that is very easy to do and, if for some reason you insist on non-POH numbers on final, an aggressive, shallowly executed forward slip when properly executed to safely above the LDG flare can dissipate the excess energy adequately.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Are you checking out in a carbureted version or injected? The carbureted 182s are THE airplane most prone to carb icing in the GA fleet.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Congrats on your checkout. Now you see why I own one...

Short field..use the book numbers.


Greg
182RG

This is essentially why approaching all "normal" landings as if it were a short and soft field LDG is such good practice.

 

[Bill]

Are you checking out in a carbureted version or injected? The carbureted 182s are THE airplane most prone to carb icing in the GA fleet.

1999 model, 182T, injected, lots of goodies. MFD, multi-hazard warning system, GPS, coupled AP, weather, the works.

 

[ggroves]

Are you checking out in a carbureted version or injected? The carbureted 182s are THE airplane most prone to carb icing in the GA fleet.

The Cont. O-470 engines in the fixed gear 182's are the ice makers, correct?

The Lyc 0-540 engines in the RG's don't seem to be plagued with the same problem.

Greg
182RG

 

[ggroves]

This is essentially why approaching all "normal" landings as if it were a short and soft field LDG is such good practice.

Actually, my POH for the RG states 65 - 75 kts final approach speed with flaps, 70 - 80 kts without. The extra 5 kts or so bleeds off quickly and gives me a bit more time in the round out to flare more accurately and consistently.

Greg
182RG

 

[Ken Ibold]

The Cont. O-470 engines in the fixed gear 182's are the ice makers, correct?

The Lyc 0-540 engines in the RG's don't seem to be plagued with the same problem.

Greg
182RG

Yes. In general, Conts are much better icemakers can Lycs.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

For mine ('77 182Q), over-the-fence speed is 63 KIAS with 40-degree flaps. Even a couple knots more and I feel the extra float. Do the newer 182s still have flaps-40? No point in being slower unless the wind is gusting, then the old rule of thumb of +1/2 gust factor (maybe more if it's really howling, but then I'll only use 20 or 30 degree flaps).

I know you retract folks will have-cow, but I only fly my bird now, so I've adopted the habit of getting the flaps up right after the nose wheel is down to get better braking action, since it makes a huge difference in my bird. That said, if I was going to fly a mix of RGs and FGs, I'd drop that practice.

What others have said about keeping the nose gear off on landing- very important - probably >50% of 182s out there have nosegear/firewall damage history. Keep the nose up in the flare - a bit of inattention will easily result in 3-point landing.

Since you're flying an injected bird, I won't give the 182 lecture on the ice-maker located below the engine (carb). If you ever fly an older 182, hope it has a carb temp gauge. For as cheap as a carb-temp probe is, it should be required equipment.

Have you tried the back seat yet? It's a limo...

Jeff

 

[Bill]

Have you tried the back seat yet? It's a limo...

No, but I'll jump in there next time I'm at the plane. Looks like lots of room.

 

[poadeleted20]

Vy is very nose up compared to the 172

Only when you've got the same load. Load the 182 fully and you won't see that much difference.

In must be my imagination, but it sure seems that nose is pointed waaaay up there on the power on stalls, compared to the 172. Still, by booting plenty of right rudder, the breaks were nice and level.

Ditto the comment above. With just two people aboard, you're at a much lower percentage of MGW in the 182 than in the 172. Load 'em both to MGW, and the difference will largely disappear.

He wants 90 downwind, 80 base, and 70 final. Book is 65 final, I'd rather be 80 at the numbers, 70-75ish base, and 65 final. Comments from other 182 pilots?

His numbers are probably pretty good fully loaded, but with only two aboard and no bags, yours are probably better.

That left turning tendency really catches you when you power up on the touch and go...once that prop catches, you better be ready.

Amen. Anticipate!

 

[Ed Guthrie]

This is an airplane that feels a bit different when fully loaded so I suggest you coax a couple of waistline challenged friends to come along with you and the CFI for a lunch flight to feel out the airplane at MGW and rearward CG. I think you'll find that the deck angle at Vy is noticeably lower, but more importantly the tendency to sink out from under you at idle is much greater and the available power will have trouble overcoming the inertia extending that sinking feeling for an uncomfortably long period.

I read this and my first thought was, "What? I don't remember that!" Then I realized why--I never landed a C182 that wasn't bare bones empty, and I never took off or flew one to altitude that wasn't at max. gross wt.

Ah, the life of a skydive pilot.

 

[spiderweb]

This is an airplane that feels a bit different when fully loaded. . . .

Graduating up from the C172, here is where you start to realize that "one airspeed fits all" just doesn't work. I like 70 on final, but if we're heavy, 75 is better. There is a BIG difference between one person in the plane, and four.

 

[SF3aviatrix]

....I'm with your instructor on the speeds. I use 90, 80, 70. That extra 5 knots cushions the sink. Short field..use the book numbers.

I also give it 2 cranks of up trim over the numbers...takes some of the heavy feel out of the elevator.

Great comments. I second that last one heartily. It really makes a differance in the flare! I flew a 182A for about 600 hours and loved every minute of it. It's a really great a/c. After a bit of practice, and applying the bits of advice here, you will find she's a very easy bird to fly. Of course, you won't want to go back to a Skyhawk.......

 

[spiderweb]

My favorite fixed gear is the C182.

 

[spiderweb]

[*]He wants 90 downwind, 80 base, and 70 final. Book is 65 final, I'd rather be 80 at the numbers, 70-75ish base, and 65 final. Comments from other 182 pilots?

These are good numbers, in general, but be ready to adapt to various loading combinations, especially for your final. For light loads, I am 70 on final, 61 for short field, per POH. For a full ship--and the C182 can fly full--I like 75 on final, and a bit o' power right into the flare. The C182 is one of the easiest planes to land, IME. Don't touch down fast, and keep the nosewheel off.

For ILSs, I fly 100 KIAS, no flaps until the runway is made. From there, I transition straight to 20 degrees, and 70-75 KIAS. All ILS runways are long enough to accomodate a C182 in this configuration. If ATC needs it, I can fly ILSs at 135 KIAS until 1000 above DH, but I won't do this in IMC.

 

[AirBaker]

The only 182 I flew had a STOL kit on it.

With that said, I think many pilots land a bit fast. I'd practice both, as mentioned earlier. Keep your speed up in those gusty wind days, but be comfortable with the slow plane for your short(er) fields.

 

[Bill]

Of course, you won't want to go back to a Skyhawk.......

Maybe, but if its the only thing available that flys, it'll do!

 

[Bill]

Keep your speed up in those gusty wind days, but be comfortable with the slow plane for your short(er) fields.

The instructor I flew with had me do slow flight, but not REALLY slow flight, ie., flying around with the stalll warning blairing. I'm goign to take him back to the practice area and do some of that before going back to the pattern. I want to pound short field takeoff/landings on this lesson.

 

[AirBaker]

The 182/206s with STOL kits are pretty impressive with their slow flight. I miss not flying the 182 from time to time.

 

[Ghery]

Have you tried the back seat yet? It's a limo...

Amen to that. First time I rode in a 182 was in the back seat. You can get lost back there. Haven't had that much room in the back seat of anything since my 1954 Buick Special.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

The instructor I flew with had me do slow flight, but not REALLY slow flight, ie., flying around with the stalll warning blairing. I'm goign to take him back to the practice area and do some of that before going back to the pattern. I want to pound short field takeoff/landings on this lesson.

Slow flight AND the even more critical MCA practice that you have planned is the best repetoire. Managing MCA is one of the most important flying skills because after all, just below MCA is where a huge chunk of all aircraft accidents take place.

 

[jdwatson]

What's the difference between slow flight and MCA ? I thought they were the same ?

 

[spiderweb]

MCA is minimum controllable airspeed. Slow flight is a region of airspeeds.

 

[Bill]

MCA is minimum controllable airspeed. Slow flight is a region of airspeeds.

The first time, we did slow flight at 60kts, not slow enough for me, and nowhere near MCA. Last night, we went about with 30 flaps and 35-40kia, and I could feel it buffeting and bucking the whole time. THAT is MCA!

 

[jdwatson]

MCA is minimum controllable airspeed. Slow flight is a region of airspeeds.

I always did my "slow flight" at MCA. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[CowboyPilot]

I'll start by saying I have very little 182 time. I do have a bit of Mooney time, and I know in that airplane you do not want to go in hot...even by a few knots. So I am curious as to why one would want to be hot on short final with any airplane? And just because you can get away with it easier in some types than with others is not a good reason IMO.

I don't have a 182 POH, but I gotta believe that even at 65 knots you're 10 kts or more above Vso. Absent huge gusts, why do so many instructors advise (insist) on the higher airspeeds?...and why do we follow their advice?

Well, we're even--I have a lot of time in a 182 (owned one for many years) and very little time in Mooneys.

I transitioned to the 182 from a Piper Saratoga, so there was a significant learning curve for me regarding the nuances of each airplane. The one thing everyone severely warned me about was that the front strut of the 182 was a lot more fragile than on some other planes, including other Cessnas.

I was advised to keep my across the fence speed in the 70 range as well for at least the first 20 or so hours and first 50 or so landings--and to fly the plane early with as many different weight and CG configurations as possible. Basic premise here was to prove to me that the plane was as stable as they come in virtually all configs. Just me and half-tanks or four adults and full tanks, not as much difference as you'd think there would be.

However, I saw an aero club's 182 nose strut take an awful beating during some transition time because the pilot tried dragging the bird in same as he used to on the 152 he trained in. A 182 isn't particularly hard to porpoise, and it doesn't take but a couple of good licks on that front nose strut and your firewall will crinkle and then you've got a major-league high dollar repair on your hands.

My old 182 still had the spring leaf main gear, so a 40-degree flap short-field landing wasn't a problem as long as you kept the nose good and high. Your landing attitude in a 182 is considerable different than from a 172/152--so carrying a little extra speed early on isn't all that bad and the more exaggerated nose-up attitude will bleed it off pretty quick. And, it don't float in ground effect anywhere like what you Mooney does.

Now with my Cardinal, I carry a little extra speed in my landings 'cause I still don't trust that spindly Cessna retractable gear and I can grease 'em a little bit better with only 30 degrees of flaps and an extra 3-5 knots of airspeed.

I think the POH numbers for Cessnas seem to be "after a long, in-depth transition of 50 or more hours, these numbers stated will be best suited to your flying needs."

But I've also found that Cessna OVERstates their numbers when it comes to cruise speeds. . .

-JD

 

[Bill]

One thing you must be careful of in a 182 or Mooney is the tendency to force the plane on the runway when your touchdown becomes delayed from excess energy.

I've never forced a plane down to the runway, I always wait until they are done flying, and as you say, hope to be a few inces above the surface at that time.