Skyhawk to Skylane transition

[Bugsmasher]

Trim is your friend when done correctly or your enemy when done incorrectly in a 182 (or any other 'larger-than-trainer' a/c).

Yep! Especially in a 182N as this was the last year with a fast wing (no leading edge cuff). Flaring will also be much more pronounced in a 182N when transitioning from a 172. You can get away with just driving a 172 onto the runway without much flare. A 182 will require proper trim and a flare in the landing or it could get exciting and tough on the nose gear and firewall.
Best regards,
Bill

 

[jesse]

The Debonair, Cherokee 180, and 182 I fly all have airspeed indicators with MPH on the outside ring. The C150 is knots. I don't really even read numbers as much as I just put the needle in a certain area.

 

[EdFred]

The Debonair, Cherokee 180, and 182 I fly all have airspeed indicators with MPH on the outside ring. The C150 is knots. I don't really even read numbers as much as I just put the needle in a certain area.

Yep. About 10% into the green works pretty good. What's that speed?

 

[Skylane81E]

So am I the only idle power for final 182 driver? I do end up with some TIGHT patterns that way but also get ~400ft roll outs if I want 'em.

 

[tonycondon]

i bring our 182 towplane in at idle all the time

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So am I the only idle power for final 182 driver? I do end up with some TIGHT patterns that way but also get ~400ft roll outs if I want 'em.

Do you have 40º flaps?

In the drag-o-matic if I do a power-off approach I basically have to wait until I can't see the runway under the cowl (and I'm 6'4") and it feels like I'm coming down at a 45º angle. I like to use some power just to keep the approach angle out of the realm of ridiculous and to keep the flare from being crazy.

If I lose power, I'm gonna retract the flaps, and I'm still high enough to make the runway clean. Also, if it's a short field (unobstructed, of course) I'd rather be bringing it in with some power since the idea is to have the minimum energy possible at the threshold for that short rollout. I can pull power if I see that I might have too much energy, whereas if you end up a little high, you're hosed.

At least in the 40º flap models, slipping is pretty much worthless because there's a ton of drag from the flaps in a straight approach, and slipping simply blanks out one of the flaps and doesn't noticeably increase the approach angle.

But a short rollout really is a function of energy at the threshold, not whether or not you're using power on final. I *can* get 400-foot rollouts, but with the shortest runway at the home 'drome being 5800 feet, I prefer to just let 'er roll and save the wear and tear on the tires and brakes.

 

[CJones]

At least in the 40º flap models, slipping is pretty much worthless because there's a ton of drag from the flaps in a straight approach, and slipping simply blanks out one of the flaps and doesn't noticeably increase the approach angle.

I love how with full flaps, you can be hanging on the front shoulder harness and still not exceeding flap speed. So much drag there that they almost sound like an airliner when they put flaps out. ha

 

[Skylane81E]

I love how with full flaps, you can be hanging on the front shoulder harness and still not exceeding flap speed. So much drag there that they almost sound like an airliner when they put flaps out. ha

Yep, 40* flaps is where it's at!

 

[tonycondon]

my only problem with the 40 degree flaps is that i run out of elevator authority to get the nose up and end up 3 pointing the landing even with full back yoke, probably 75% of the time. i do like the steep descent though. i usually approach with about 65 mph at 40 flap.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

my only problem with the 40 degree flaps is that i run out of elevator authority to get the nose up and end up 3 pointing the landing even with full back yoke, probably 75% of the time.

I was gonna say, HUH??? I don't have that problem, but...

i do like the steep descent though. i usually approach with about 65 mph at 40 flap.

A normal approach with full flaps for me is 80 mph. Short field, maybe 70. Dirty stall is 58, 65's cutting it a bit close IMO unless you're really really light - For 65 to be 1.2Vso, you'd need to be 13% under gross.

Are you speaking of the RG, though? It is a hair longer, with the (heavy) prop further forward so that might be part of it too.

 

[Skylane81E]

Not a problem I have with mine, but I have flap gap seals so maybe I'm getting just a slight reduction in flap effectivnes.

Or maybe it's a model difference.

 

[tonycondon]

I was gonna say, HUH??? I don't have that problem, but...



A normal approach with full flaps for me is 80 mph. Short field, maybe 70. Dirty stall is 58, 65's cutting it a bit close IMO unless you're really really light - For 65 to be 1.2Vso, you'd need to be 13% under gross.

Are you speaking of the RG, though? It is a hair longer, with the (heavy) prop further forward so that might be part of it too.

no i'm talking about our 182 towplane. remember, it began life as a 180 and was the prototype for the 182 test program. so it is a 182 but only sort of. it has the narrow body and is super light. there is absolutely nothing inside it except two seats. i'm not even sure what it weighs, i'll try to find that out this weekend.

in the RG i usually approach at about 70 knots and that seems to work well.

 

[denverpilot]

At least in the 40º flap models, slipping is pretty much worthless because there's a ton of drag from the flaps in a straight approach, and slipping simply blanks out one of the flaps and doesn't noticeably increase the approach angle.

Awww, you're just not slipping hard enough... (GRIN)... if you give it full rudder... and I mean full, and flaps 40... it'll fall out of the sky like a brick. But you gotta commit to "all or nothing" to make it worthwhile, or as you pointed out, you trade the drag from the side of the airplane for the drag of the flap that gets blanked.

I had someone bet me once I couldn't get down from 1/4 mile final at 1100' AGL (was a little higher than pattern altitude)... they didn't win that bet.

I'm always amazed at how many pilots are not well-trained in slips... a really big one freaks them out. To me, it's just another trick in the bag o' tools...

no i'm talking about our 182 towplane. remember, it began life as a 180 and was the prototype for the 182 test program. so it is a 182 but only sort of. it has the narrow body and is super light. there is absolutely nothing inside it except two seats. i'm not even sure what it weighs, i'll try to find that out this weekend.

If it's that old, it probably also has the longer throw nosegear assembly that sticks down further when fully-extended over the later 182s. Those are a pain to get the nose high enough on not to 3-point them with full flaps. On the flip-side, they have more rudder authority in cross-winds with that big straight tail.

Old straight-tail 172s with the Johnson bar 40 flaps are a hoot too.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Not a problem I have with mine, but I have flap gap seals so maybe I'm getting just a slight reduction in flap effectivnes.

Hmmm. I guess that would effectively make it into a straight flap instead of a Fowler. Not sure how that would really change things.

no i'm talking about our 182 towplane. remember, it began life as a 180 and was the prototype for the 182 test program. so it is a 182 but only sort of. it has the narrow body and is super light. there is absolutely nothing inside it except two seats. i'm not even sure what it weighs, i'll try to find that out this weekend.

Ah. Super light then, anyway, probably stalls ridiculously slow, thus the lack of elevator effectiveness.

in the RG i usually approach at about 70 knots and that seems to work well.

Well, 80 mph = 69 knots so I'd have to agree!

Awww, you're just not slipping hard enough... (GRIN)... if you give it full rudder... and I mean full, and flaps 40... it'll fall out of the sky like a brick. But you gotta commit to "all or nothing" to make it worthwhile, or as you pointed out, you trade the drag from the side of the airplane for the drag of the flap that gets blanked.

No, really... Full rudder does not make an appreciable difference from straight ahead with full barn doors IME. It falls like a brick with full flaps and power off, too!

I had someone bet me once I couldn't get down from 1/4 mile final at 1100' AGL (was a little higher than pattern altitude)... they didn't win that bet.

Well, you had a headwind if you were really that close in and that high, but it wouldn't take a huge one! Or were you using the STOL capability?

I'm always amazed at how many pilots are not well-trained in slips... a really big one freaks them out. To me, it's just another trick in the bag o' tools...

Not to mention a lot of fun.

 

[Skylane81E]

Hmmm. I guess that would effectively make it into a straight flap instead of a Fowler. Not sure how that would really change things.

Had some knowledgeable people tell me that by blocking the "slot" I'd loose some flap. If I did I didn't notice.

Ah. Super light then, anyway, probably stalls ridiculously slow, thus the lack of elevator effectiveness.



Well, 80 mph = 69 knots so I'd have to agree!



No, really... Full rudder does not make an appreciable difference from straight ahead with full barn doors IME. It falls like a brick with full flaps and power off, too!



Well, you had a headwind if you were really that close in and that high, but it wouldn't take a huge one! Or were you using the STOL capability?



Not to mention a lot of fun.

Fun slips? Got my private in a DA20-C1

 

[roadwarrior]

I'll sometimes land with a tiny bit of power just to make sure that I can keep the nose off. I've heard horror stories about people bending the firewall on nose heavy landings in the 182.

 

[denverpilot]

Well, you had a headwind if you were really that close in and that high, but it wouldn't take a huge one! Or were you using the STOL capability?

Kinda both. 10 knot headwind, and I slowed waaaaaay up with the nose in the air.

Had to watch the airspeed indicator like a hawk, but 50 knots, flaps 40, no power will set up a ridiculously high sink rate.

The part that freaked me out about it at first -- with the STOL kit is our IAS at Flaps 40 is 40 MPH (!) for 53 MPH. The CAS "error" is huge with the nose up.

At first I couldn't figure out why I was floating every landing. ;-)

At 2800 lbs Flaps 40 our stall speed is 50 MPH CAS... Or 43.5 knots.

"Slow slow slow!" Is what my brain is usually screaming. Ha!

The other freaky thing is you start hearing it in the stall fences on top of the wing. They start to "sing". Proof they're still there and doing their job.

It's way fun. We're gonna have to figure out how to meet up and let ya see it.

Flaps 30 "Robertson Method" takeoffs are even freakier.

 

[denverpilot]

Kent, sent you an e-mail with the Robertson POH supplement for the Skylane. You'll like the numbers, I think.

 

[sballmer]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned. And it surprised me:

The C182' O-470-U engine is a lot more prone to carb ice than anything I have flown before (C172, P28A). Not surprising once you notice that the carburetor is not directly attached the engine block.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

That's exactly why I titled #1 "Ground ops" as opposed to "before takeoff" or somesuch. But yes, I should have maybe said

11 GOTO 1

Only if you intended to taxi back and take off again.

Otherwise, I'd suggest

11 GOSUB 1

 

[flyingcheesehead]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned. And it surprised me:

The C182' O-470-U engine is a lot more prone to carb ice than anything I have flown before (C172, P28A). Not surprising once you notice that the carburetor is not directly attached the engine block.

Oddly enough, in over 400 hours in the 182N, I've never picked up carb ice and I pretty much never use carb heat. Yet, I hear this "prone to carb ice" thing all the time.

 

[Arbiter419]

Oddly enough, in over 400 hours in the 182N, I've never picked up carb ice and I pretty much never use carb heat. Yet, I hear this "prone to carb ice" thing all the time.

The one thing that bothers me around here is that it seems like no one but me uses carb heat in the Warriors...are they just that resistant to carb ice? Or are they lucking out every time?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The one thing that bothers me around here is that it seems like no one but me uses carb heat in the Warriors...are they just that resistant to carb ice? Or are they lucking out every time?

There's a reason their checklists say "Carb Heat..........As Needed" instead of "On". Yes, they're much more resistant to carb ice.

That said, the only time I've gotten a noticeable amount of carb ice in *cruise* was in a Dakota (PA28-236). I was in actual though, so high moisture content in the air.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

That said, the only time I've gotten a noticeable amount of carb ice in *cruise* was in a Dakota (PA28-236). I was in actual though, so high moisture content in the air.

Interesting; have seen it several times in my friend's PA28-235, too. He actually has an after market "carb ice" red warning light on the panel.

 

[Arbiter419]

There's a reason their checklists say "Carb Heat..........As Needed" instead of "On". Yes, they're much more resistant to carb ice.

That said, the only time I've gotten a noticeable amount of carb ice in *cruise* was in a Dakota (PA28-236). I was in actual though, so high moisture content in the air.

Hrm...better be safe than sorry, I'll continue to use it. Engine runs REAL rich with it though, I have to clear it very frequently...put a lump in my throat when I went to nudge a little throttle forward and got a cough on final at Allegheny county at night.

 

[tonycondon]

i checked the 182 today, the paperwork says it weighs 1758 empty. i think it has 60 gallons of fuel. taking a look at some example problems in the W&B our particular one is right at the forward limit with one pilot and full fuel, which probably also contributes to my flat landings. I've found that by using 3 notches of flap instead of full barn door I still get a satisfactory steep approach and have enough elevator authority to land with the nose in the air. approaches today were 60-70 mph on final and 60-65 over the trees.

 

[jesse]

A normal approach with full flaps for me is 80 mph. Short field, maybe 70. Dirty stall is 58, 65's cutting it a bit close IMO unless you're really really light - For 65 to be 1.2Vso, you'd need to be 13% under gross.

Are you speaking of the RG, though? It is a hair longer, with the (heavy) prop further forward so that might be part of it too.

I flew the 182 flying jumpers all day. Another 6 hours of 182 time. I remembered to actually look at the airspeed indicator this time to see what speed I was landing at. It is a 1960 182C. I was 60-65 mph on final. Can do a pretty amazingly steep/short pattern at those speeds with full flaps and slipping. I didn't measure it but I could notice a different between idle full flaps and idle full flaps w/ slip.

That said I'm landing solo with just me, with hardly any fuel, and the entire interior is ripped out. There is only one seat. So it's damn light.

 

[tonycondon]

I flew the 182 flying jumpers all day. Another 6 hours of 182 time. I remembered to actually look at the airspeed indicator this time to see what speed I was landing at. It is a 1960 182C. I was 60-65 mph on final. Can do a pretty amazingly steep/short pattern at those speeds with full flaps and slipping. I didn't measure it but I could notice a different between idle full flaps and idle full flaps w/ slip.

That said I'm landing solo with just me, with hardly any fuel, and the entire interior is ripped out. There is only one seat. So it's damn light.

we have two seats but other than that, not much

 

[flyingcheesehead]

i checked the 182 today, the paperwork says it weighs 1758 empty.

Whaaaa???? That's really screwy, N271G is newer and has all its seats and gadgets in the panel, etc. and it's only 1740!

How much does a towhook and release mechanism weigh, anyway? I'm amazed that yours weighs that much.

 

[tonycondon]

the towhook and release are not heavy. i have no idea where the weight is coming from. could have a beefier tail section (it started life as a 180), could be due to the fact that it has had major repairs done to the wings at least once. could have been a lousy weighing.

 

[Skylane81E]

Whaaaa???? That's really screwy, N271G is newer and has all its seats and gadgets in the panel, etc. and it's only 1740!

How much does a towhook and release mechanism weigh, anyway? I'm amazed that yours weighs that much.

I was thinking the same, mine is much newer, has the fat fuselage, full interior and lotsa avionics and is only 100lbs more

 

[sballmer]

Oddly enough, in over 400 hours in the 182N, I've never picked up carb ice and I pretty much never use carb heat. Yet, I hear this "prone to carb ice" thing all the time.

I had it happen to me twice on one flight. We were out shooting some approaches, when I decided to cycle the carb heat to just to be sure. To my surprise I got a rough running engine, followed by an increase in MP. Bingo! We flew the rest with carb heat on and landed out. But the 3 minutes of carb-heat-off on takeoff on the return flight were enough to repeat the whole thing...

Now in fairness, my transition to the 182 coincided with my move to a much more icing-prone area of the US. So don't take me as only data point. But as you say, I have heard this before it happened to me.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

the towhook and release are not heavy. i have no idea where the weight is coming from. could have a beefier tail section (it started life as a 180), could be due to the fact that it has had major repairs done to the wings at least once. could have been a lousy weighing.

Yeah, that's odd. N271G also had the entire tail section replaced at one point after a jet got blown through it in a storm, very similar to how Bill and Brent's club 182 had that happen a few years ago.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I had it happen to me twice on one flight. We were out shooting some approaches, when I decided to cycle the carb heat to just to be sure. To my surprise I got a rough running engine, followed by an increase in MP. Bingo! We flew the rest with carb heat on and landed out. But the 3 minutes of carb-heat-off on takeoff on the return flight were enough to repeat the whole thing...

Now in fairness, my transition to the 182 coincided with my move to a much more icing-prone area of the US. So don't take me as only data point. But as you say, I have heard this before it happened to me.

Yeah, there might just be something peculiar to our particular 182 that helps it out. We are in the Great Lakes region though, so there's certainly plenty of days with conditions are conducive to carb ice.

One of these days I'll have to dump the data from the JPI - Ours has the carb temp option on it. It's often VERY close to freezing in cruise.