Transition from a 172 to a 182

[inav8r]

The club I belong to has two planes available. I did all of my PP training in our 172. Due to insurance requirements I need 10 hours in the 182 and (obviously) my High Performance endorsement before I can solo it.

Up until now I have about 2 hours in the 182. It's heavier and I don't have much of a problem with the controls (take off and maneuvers) - but what I do have a problem with is the sight picture in the flare.

So far I have a tendency to be way to high in the flare - resulting in dropping it in from a few feet. I know that's no way to impress my instructor! Any suggestions?

I have another lesson this Saturday morning and I plan on using Ben's suggestion and let my instructor do the first landing while I concentrate on the sight picture.

 

[spiderweb]

Question--is it a C182S or T, or is it an older one--the cowling (and engine underneath) is different.

 

[Michael]

keep a little power in instead of pulling it all out above the numbers. adjust as needed when sinking....maybe.

 

[sere]

You might have the instructor have you fly the 182 down the runway a couple of feet off of it. Great way to learn the feel and sight picture.

 

[inav8r]

Question--is it a C182S or T, or is it an older one--the cowling (and engine underneath) is different.

It's a 1973 182P .

 

[inav8r]

keep a little power in instead of pulling it all out above the numbers. adjust as needed when sinking....maybe.

Yea, I agree with this! It's like tossing an anchor out the back of the plane when you pull power!

 

[spiderweb]

Mike, the C182 is one of the easiest planes to fly, IMO, because it is so stable and predictable. I have about 20 hours in them. If you are interested, here is what I do from downwind to landing (similar for all heavier singles). First of all, though, make sure you get a clear mental snapshot of the landing attitude by letting your CFI do the first one:

Downwind: 19-20" and prop 2400. Trim for resultant airspeed. (You probably won't have to trim again much, if you do the rest of what I do.) Prelanding checklist

Abeam numbers: 16" and flaps 10

Base: power as required and flaps 20 to maintain 80 KIAS and 500 fpm

Final: prop full, power to maintain 1800 RPM OR as required, flaps full--all to maintain 70-75 KIAS and aim for the numbers with about a 500 fpm descent rate.

Carry power into the flare. Without this, you will need to trim nose up some more. Transition from descent to level flight, smoothly, so that you are level a few feet above ground. Gradually and smoothly reduce power to idle while simultaneously pulling very slightly back on the nose to raise it to the sight picture you remember from takeoff. I can't emphasize enough that you must take your time waiting for butt sink and move smoothly (don't forget to kickout any crab). Some people like to trim one more time during the flare, but I don't like this, even with electric trim, for two reasons: 1) although it relieves pressure, if you have to go around, you will be pushing the nose down like a madman, and 2) I believe that it is better that I feel the relationship between power reduction and slowing speed with nose-heavieness.

Using power right into the flare and aiming for 70-75 KIAS on final with full flaps works every time--and makes you look real good!

The club I belong to has two planes available. I did all of my PP training in our 172. Due to insurance requirements I need 10 hours in the 182 and (obviously) my High Performance endorsement before I can solo it.

Up until now I have about 2 hours in the 182. It's heavier and I don't have much of a problem with the controls (take off and maneuvers) - but what I do have a problem with is the sight picture in the flare.

So far I have a tendency to be way to high in the flare - resulting in dropping it in from a few feet. I know that's no way to impress my instructor! Any suggestions?

I have another lesson this Saturday morning and I plan on using Ben's suggestion and let my instructor do the first landing while I concentrate on the sight picture.

 

[Ghery]

Once you get it figured out, you're going to love the 182. Big (compared with a 172), stable (compared with a 172), comfortable (compared with anything else I've flown - limited selection). And, once you've got that sight picture nailed you'll find it incredibly easy to land well (most of the time). There are jokes around about Cessna Land-o-matic, and I think they originated with this airplane.

 

[spiderweb]

I really would love to own a 182--or better yet, a 206

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Generally new PICs to the C182s tend to land nose hard, due to the greater weight FWF and up front and the long NTSB list of crinkled C182 firewalls proves it year after year.

Hold enough power to let the nose settle lightly and pay strict attention to CG and DA variables between different flights.

 

[AirBaker]

If you're flaring a bit high, you might have to mentally overcome your urge to flare and wait just a tiny tad longer.

More practice?

The first time I tried to grease a landing by adding power in the 182, my instructor smacked me. Said that was a sure way to get crossed up with the various left hand turning tendancies.

 

[jdwatson]

I agree wholeheartedly !! That's how I land our T206H. Just a tad bit of power to set the nose where it needs to be. Keep that attitude until the mains touch, then I increasingly add elevator to hold the nose up for as long as possible.

I'd give my left nut to own this T206H, sadly the owner wants cash. :-D

 

[Jeff Oslick]

keep a little power in instead of pulling it all out above the numbers. adjust as needed when sinking....maybe.

This is an "ok" technique while you're getting used to the plane, but try to break yourself of needing to do this early-on. I did this, more or less for the first ~10 hours in my (new to me) plane, then said "enough is enough, learn how to land power off!"

I find that with a stable approach with flaps 30 or 40 and at about 63-65 KIAS (you'll be in MPH, so convert) over the fence, I now have the energy management down so I can get predictable, decent, power-off landings. I add ~5 knots for stronger crosswind conditions and use either 20 or 30 flaps. The P and Q models are identical in landing behavior (flown both). If the plane you're flying has any kind of STOL kit or vortex generators, the control at low speed with be significantly enhanced.

Keep your hand on the throttle though, 'cause if you misjudge the flare, you'll want a touch of throttle quick to save your nose gear from a bad fate.

Jeff

 

[jdwatson]

This is an "ok" technique while you're getting used to the plane, but try to break yourself of needing to do this early-on. I did this, more or less for the first ~10 hours in my (new to me) plane, then said "enough is enough, learn how to land power off!"

I'm not saying I couldn't or haven't landed the T206H without power, it's just the best technique I've come up with to make passenger pleasing landings. For me, it's akin to soft-field landing on a runway. The 206 is a heavy plane, you feel like you're supporting the whole plane thru the elevator. A little power and judicious use of the trim (gotta be prepared if you go-around) makes landings nice. The plane is very stout. My first few landings were, let's say firm.

I'm looking forward to having enough total time for the insurance company to fly it non-dual. To extend the line from the movie "The Whole Nine Yards", that's one incredibly sweet plane.

 

[spiderweb]

I prefer to land anything heavier singles with some power into the flare, syncronizing power to idle with slowly and smoothly raising the nose and letting the wheels touch down softly.

Power off in a C182 and especially in a Saratoga is not as easy, but still emminenty doable. The problem there is the rate of descent, the more dramatic change in deck angle, the shorter flare time, etc. Absolutely, this is necessary for short fields, and one probably ought not to be flying any bird they can't land power-off. If, however, you have 3,000' or more stretching out in front of you, and you've got a stabilized approach to the numbers, why not fly final and some of the flare power-on? The transition to the ground is much more gentle.

 

[poadeleted20]

I prefer to land anything heavier singles with some power into the flare, syncronizing power to idle with slowly and smoothly raising the nose and letting the wheels touch down softly.

That's about the technique I use in a Cougar, but you're talking about nearly two tons of airplane there. I'm usually at idle a lot sooner in a 182.

 

[spiderweb]

That's about the technique I use in a Cougar, but you're talking about nearly two tons of airplane there. I'm usually at idle a lot sooner in a 182.

I would never (probably never) disagree with you. Maybe I should have added that I'm only carrying a bit of power on final, so that when I'm reducing it in the flare, I'm talking about a couple of inches or so.

 

[dogman]

I learned to fly from a fellow Joe Rankin at 78y who has been an DE since 1963 he is unbelievable teaching stick and rudder skills. I went to him after getting my PPilot. Most local CFI's will not try to land at his runway, 14 feet wide. The A\FD says 24ft but it is only 14ft

He is adimit about landing Power off!! Says if you cant make consistent good landings Power off You need to learn to land. His reasoning is that You are always prepared for that Lost the engine emergency landing. He says "If you can't land P.off consistently You will be one of those people who lost the engine and make it to a perfectly suitable field and shear the nose gear off!"

I also have a a client who works for American and Capt on 777,767 makes every landing Power off. Now those are heavy aircraft. He built his time in Crop dust and learned to fly from an old WW2 Veteran. Every thing he flies Power off landings. ,

So I bought the Cherokee six had to have a check out. Scared the crap out of the CFI when landed power off every one all 24, Light and Gross weight. Strong winds and Cross winds. HE IS NOW GOING UP TO Joe CFII DE LEARNING HOW TO LAND Power off.

I think it is Just a Matter of getting with some one who is really good at it and learning. I make every landing power off and most are nice soft touch downs, Not all of them But most.

Any way I just agree with Joe and land the way I learned after my PP check ride with him.

Not saying any one else is wrong I am not qualified say that. But wanted to share what I had learned.

Dog

 

[poadeleted20]

I learned to fly from a fellow Joe Rankin at 78y who has been an DE since 1963 he is ... adimit

Adamant?

...about landing Power off!!

That's to be expected from someone with roots back that far, in the days when engine reliability was an order of magnitude worse than it is now, but the FAA discovered in an accident statistics study about 30 years ago that the partial power stabilized VFR approach reduces accident rates over the power-off approach (as in throttle to idle abeam the touchdown point). While I agree that it would be nice if everyone could "make consistent good landings Power off," the sad fact is that most pilots either don't ever achieve or don't maintain sufficient proficiency to do that every time, and further, the power-off approach is not consistent with maintaining a stable pattern with a mix of aircraft types. The FAA can show a significant reduction in landing accidents since they started recommended the partial-power stabilized approach as "standard" back in the 70's.

I also have a a client who works for American and Capt on 777,767 makes every landing Power off. Now those are heavy aircraft.

He may have the throttles at idle when he touches down, but it is simply not possible to make a true power-off approach in those planes. Given their sink rate with no power and gear/flaps extended, the high key position for a "flameout" approach in something like that must be almost in Class A airspace.

So I bought the Cherokee six had to have a check out. Scared the crap out of the CFI when landed power off every one all 24, Light and Gross weight. Strong winds and Cross winds. HE IS NOW GOING UP TO Joe CFII DE LEARNING HOW TO LAND Power off.

If you're flying a power-off approach in a fully loaded Six, you must be flying a very tight pattern -- so tight that you are at risk of cutting off those in front of you unless you carry some power around the pattern. There's just no way you can stay behind the properly flown pattern of something like a 400-series Cessna if you pull power to idle abeam the numbers.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I think power off approaches should be practiced by everyone who flies singles, and those folks should be able to meet PTS standards with them. But the relatively tight approach required to get you around and down from the abeam position, especially in a heavy single like the Six which comes down like a brick power-off, means that practice has to be done at a quiet airport where you're the only one in the pattern, lest you cause chaos in a pattern full of airplanes.

 

[dogman]

Adamant?

Thank you for the Spell correction. Not a strung poynt ov Myne


That's to be expected from someone with roots back that far, in the days when engine reliability was an order of magnitude worse than it is now, but the FAA discovered in an accident statistics study about 30 years ago that the partial power stabilized VFR approach reduces accident rates over the power-off approach (as in throttle to idle abeam the touchdown point). While I agree that it would be nice if everyone could "make consistent good landings Power off," the sad fact is that most pilots either don't ever achieve or don't maintain sufficient proficiency to do that every time, and further, the power-off approach is not consistent with maintaining a stable pattern with a mix of aircraft types. The FAA can show a significant reduction in landing accidents since they started recommended the partial-power stabilized approach as "standard" back in the 70's.

He may have the throttles at idle when he touches down, but it is simply not possible to make a true power-off approach in those planes. Given their sink rate with no power and gear/flaps extended, the high key position for a "flameout" approach in something like that must be almost in Class A airspace.

If you're flying a power-off approach in a fully loaded Six, you must be flying a very tight pattern -- so tight that you are at risk of cutting off those in front of you unless you carry some power around the pattern. There's just no way you can stay behind the properly flown pattern of something like a 400-series Cessna if you pull power to idle abeam the numbers.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I think power off approaches should be practiced by everyone who flies singles, and those folks should be able to meet PTS standards with them. But the relatively tight approach required to get you around and down from the abeam position, especially in a heavy single like the Six which comes down like a brick power-off, means that practice has to be done at a quiet airport where you're the only one in the pattern, lest you cause chaos in a pattern full of airplanes.

I am not talking about pulling power at the numbers and try to make the runway. I am saying that you set up your pattern so when you turn final and or on final and when you have the your aiming point made its power off and land.That is what the client in 777 is doing also!
I still at times I practice partial power landing as that is how I first learned to land. They are much easier than power off landings. So I would say they would be safer until you loose the engine and are not proficient at power off landings. End up on your nose in the dreaded golf course,hay field.

Hope this clarifies what I am talking about and interested in what any of you think.

Read the thread called My Plane 22055 and read the accident report.

Dog man

 

[Ed Guthrie]

The first time I tried to grease a landing by adding power in the 182, my instructor smacked me. Said that was a sure way to get crossed up with the various left hand turning tendancies.

Shame on the CFI. Bad advice that will inevitably result in a few more wrinkled C182 firewalls.

 

[AirBaker]

Shame on the CFI. Bad advice that will inevitably result in a few more wrinkled C182 firewalls.

Thats not saying I haven't done it since, but only when needed to salvage an ugly landing.

The philosophical question of "If we had lost our engine right then, would we have been able to make it a smooth landing?".

Slightly off topic, but semi related: When doing the B2Osh training at Stockton this year, I rode right seat to take a few pictures on the last flight of the day. The engine quit on short final. Lead still made a respectable landing!

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Thats not saying I haven't done it since, but only when needed to salvage an ugly landing.

My point exactly. You rejected the notion and fly safely as a result. Imagine the ugly landing situation if you'd taken the CFI's dictum to heart had refused to use the throttle because, as the CFI tried to convince you, all those nasty left turning tendencies would only make things worse?

 

[poadeleted20]

I am not talking about pulling power at the numbers and try to make the runway. I am saying that you set up your pattern so when you turn final and or on final and when you have the your aiming point made its power off and land.That is what the client in 777 is doing also!

OK, it's clear that we do not share a common definition of "power-off approach" and that's what's keeping us from agreeing. Other than helicopters, carrier-based aircraft, and soft-field landings, I think everyone does what you describe.

However, in the FAA's parlance, a "power-off approach" is one where you pull the power to idle opposite the point of landing and use airspeed, gear, flaps, slips, s-turns, or whatever else is available to control your touchdown point, and you may even make configuration changes in close to do that.

The "partial-power stabilized approach" is one in which you use power to manage your glide path with your airplane established in the final landing configuration at some predetermined point on final (higher for the big rigs, lower for light planes), and then pull the power to idle when the landing is assured.

By that standard, your "power-off landing" and my "stabilized approach" are the same, and in consonance with FAA recommendations, but what I call a "power-off approach" is a different beast entirely, and what the FAA stopped recommending as the "standard" means of flying the pattern around 30 years ago. Unfortunately, some older instructors and examiners do not agree with the FAA's position on this, and still teach students to make every landing a "power off approach," which is much more difficult and creates great problems fitting in with other planes in the pattern. However, the FAA is quite certain that the "stabilized approach" eliminates so many landing accidents that occur with perfectly good engines that the slim chance of having an off-airport landing due to engine failure in the landing pattern isn't worth the extra assurance of staying in gliding distance of the runway by flying a "power off approach" every time and eating a lot of undershoots and overruns.

 

[dogman]

OK, it's clear that we do not share a common definition of "power-off approach" and that's what's keeping us from agreeing. Other than helicopters, carrier-based aircraft, and soft-field landings, I think everyone does what you describe.

However, in the FAA's parlance, a "power-off approach" is one where you pull the power to idle opposite the point of landing and use airspeed, gear, flaps, slips, s-turns, or whatever else is available to control your touchdown point, and you may even make configuration changes in close to do that.

The "partial-power stabilized approach" is one in which you use power to manage your glide path with your airplane established in the final landing configuration at some predetermined point on final (higher for the big rigs, lower for light planes), and then pull the power to idle when the landing is assured.

By that standard, your "power-off landing" and my "stabilized approach" are the same, and in consonance with FAA recommendations, but what I call a "power-off approach" is a different beast entirely, and what the FAA stopped recommending as the "standard" means of flying the pattern around 30 years ago. Unfortunately, some older instructors and examiners do not agree with the FAA's position on this, and still teach students to make every landing a "power off approach," which is much more difficult and creates great problems fitting in with other planes in the pattern. However, the FAA is quite certain that the "stabilized approach" eliminates so many landing accidents that occur with perfectly good engines that the slim chance of having an off-airport landing due to engine failure in the landing pattern isn't worth the extra assurance of staying in gliding distance of the runway by flying a "power off approach" every time and eating a lot of undershoots and overruns.

Ron I am not qualified to to argue any point in these forms I am not even capable of trying to explain the things I have been taught.

Thanks you for the explanation and knowledge it is appreciated.

 

[inav8r]

I went up with my instructor today to continue to work on my insurance requirement hours and high performance endorsement.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I had no trouble this time landing the 182. I did four really nice landings today - much better than last time.

This time before flying my instructor and I went over the aircraft in a lot greater detail than last time - as well as a thorough talking to about the constant speed prop and the differences with flying a plane equipped with one. I think my difficulties the first time I flew the plane were compounded by me not realizing air speed indicator was in MPH and not knots.

The plane was a real treat to fly, and I can't wait to get back up into the air in a couple of weeks!

 

[TangoWhiskey]

I learned to fly from a fellow Joe Rankin at 78y who has been an DE since 1963 he is unbelievable teaching stick and rudder skills. I went to him after getting my PPilot. Most local CFI's will not try to land at his runway, 14 feet wide. The A\FD says 24ft but it is only 14ft.

He is adimit about landing Power off!! Says if you cant make consistent good landings Power off You need to learn to land. His reasoning is that You are always prepared for that Lost the engine emergency landing. He says "If you can't land P.off consistently You will be one of those people who lost the engine and make it to a perfectly suitable field and shear the nose gear off!"

Dog

Joe's a great guy--is he still instructing?

Here's some pictures I took at the approach end of runway 17 in March 2004, which prove's Dog's statement about how narrow this runway is:

This runway is more like 10-14' wide. Here's some pictures standing on the threshold of runway 17:

http://s275.photobucket.com/albums/jj318/i_am_cleared2land/Rankin 78Y/?albumview=slideshow

 

[john smith]

Ben, I don't know who taught you to fly a 182, but you are too fast and use too much power!
For an aircraft at gross weight...
75 kts downwind
70 kts base
65 kts final
MP and flaps as required based on conditions, but maintain airspeed
DO NOT commit the last 10 degrees of flaps (flaps 40) until the threshhold is assured!
The 182 is an airplane that is flown with trim. It will fly where you set it.
If you want to fly an ILS, try starting with 16 inches MP, 2100 RPM and 10-deg flaps will give you 90 kts down the glideslope.
For an airplane at minimum weight you can reduce the above pattern speeds to 65/60/55 kts, respectively.
Too much airspeed and you will float hundreds of feet down the runway. The only thing you can the do to reduce the float is take out 10-degs of flaps to allow the a/c to settle as you increase back pressure to maintain pitch attitude.

 

[AuntPeggy]

This is an "ok" technique while you're getting used to the plane, but try to break yourself of needing to do this early-on. I did this, more or less for the first ~10 hours in my (new to me) plane, then said "enough is enough, learn how to land power off!"

I find that with a stable approach with flaps 30 or 40 and at about 63-65 KIAS (you'll be in MPH, so convert) over the fence, I now have the energy management down so I can get predictable, decent, power-off landings. I add ~5 knots for stronger crosswind conditions and use either 20 or 30 flaps. The P and Q models are identical in landing behavior (flown both). If the plane you're flying has any kind of STOL kit or vortex generators, the control at low speed with be significantly enhanced.

Keep your hand on the throttle though, 'cause if you misjudge the flare, you'll want a touch of throttle quick to save your nose gear from a bad fate.

Jeff

Hubby is going for his Commercial and as a result is training in a C-182. He also complains about learning the sight picture. He also says that in a crosswind, it takes both hands on the yoke and a third on the throttle to land properly. Any comments on this problem? (2 hands on the yoke?)

 

[john smith]

Wrong airspeed/incorrectly trimmed.

 

[john smith]

If you're flying a power-off approach in a fully loaded Six, you must be flying a very tight pattern -- so tight that you are at risk of cutting off those in front of you unless you carry some power around the pattern. There's just no way you can stay behind the properly flown pattern of something like a 400-series Cessna if you pull power to idle abeam the numbers.

There, you have it!
You may have to learn to fly a tight pattern if you were not taught to do so in your primary training. If you fly a wide pattern, of course you will need power.
The 182 glides very well, the Cherokee Six and Arrow sink quite well with power off. Trim for the proper airspeed(s) in the pattern, don't overcontrol, keep the pattern tight and you will land power off every time with sufficient energy to flare smoothly.

 

[poadeleted20]

Hubby is going for his Commercial and as a result is training in a C-182. He also complains about learning the sight picture. He also says that in a crosswind, it takes both hands on the yoke and a third on the throttle to land properly. Any comments on this problem? (2 hands on the yoke?)

I agree with john smith -- most likely not trimming properly, possibly flying final too fast, if he needs two hands for pitch control in the flare. If he needs two hands for roll control, there's something else wrong, but I couldn't say what without flying with him.

 

[TMetzinger]

Ditto to the above. Probably not trimmed for the final, or not trimmed again for short final speeds.

Any time any change is made to the airplane (power, flaps, etc) retrim as needed.

If the 182 has electric trim, running a little nose-up trim as the flare begins can help. With just two folks forward the CG _can_ be near the front limit, and the nose can be heavy.

 

[john smith]

[edit- I cannot get the columns to line up correctly]
C182R
Wt Vso 1.5 Vso 1.4 Vso 1.3 Vso
3100 1.0000 1.0000 40.00 60.00 56.00 52.00
3000 0.9677 0.9837 39.35 59.02 55.09 51.15
2900 0.9355 0.9672 38.69 58.03 54.16 50.29
2800 0.9032 0.9504 38.02 57.02 53.22 49.42
2700 0.8710 0.9333 37.33 56.00 52.26 48.53
2600 0.8387 0.9158 36.63 54.95 51.29 47.62
2500 0.8065 0.8980 35.92 53.88 50.29 46.70
2400 0.7742 0.8799 35.20 52.79 49.27 45.75
2300 0.7419 0.8614 34.45 51.68 48.24 44.79
2200 0.7097 0.8424 33.70 50.55 47.18 43.81
2100 0.6774 0.8231 32.92 49.38 46.09 42.80
2000 0.6452 0.8032 32.13 48.19 44.98 41.77
1900 0.6129 0.7829 31.32 46.97 43.84 40.71

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Hubby is going for his Commercial and as a result is training in a C-182. He also complains about learning the sight picture. He also says that in a crosswind, it takes both hands on the yoke and a third on the throttle to land properly. Any comments on this problem? (2 hands on the yoke?)

To me, flying Skylanes and StationAirs after SkyHawks and Cherokee 180s simply feels analogous to going from a driving a midsize car to a pickup truck. They just have a heavier feel that becomes welcomed after one quickly gets used to it. ...And/or upper body workouts?

 

[dogman]

Joe's a great guy--is he still instructing?

Here's some pictures I took at the approach end of runway 17 in March 2004, which prove's Dog's statement about how narrow this runway is:

This runway is more like 10-14' wide. Here's some pictures standing on the threshold of runway 17:

http://s275.photobucket.com/albums/jj318/i_am_cleared2land/Rankin 78Y/?albumview=slideshow

How did you like coming in over the wires? Did you get to visit with Joe, and see ALL the old flying pictures in the office.

That airport was a Military training airport in the 40's. WWII

Tony C. Mentioned the old guy at that airport a while back. You should of talked with the old guy Tony!
Joe is the most knowledgeable aviation person I have ever met. SO much can be learned from him. He is a wealth of aviation info knowledge Flying and Mechanical.

Yes he is instructing and he is a DE.

 

[SkyHog]

[edit- I cannot get the columns to line up correctly]
C182R
Wt Vso 1.5 Vso 1.4 Vso 1.3 Vso
3100 1.0000 1.0000 40.00 60.00 56.00 52.00
3000 0.9677 0.9837 39.35 59.02 55.09 51.15
2900 0.9355 0.9672 38.69 58.03 54.16 50.29
2800 0.9032 0.9504 38.02 57.02 53.22 49.42
2700 0.8710 0.9333 37.33 56.00 52.26 48.53
2600 0.8387 0.9158 36.63 54.95 51.29 47.62
2500 0.8065 0.8980 35.92 53.88 50.29 46.70
2400 0.7742 0.8799 35.20 52.79 49.27 45.75
2300 0.7419 0.8614 34.45 51.68 48.24 44.79
2200 0.7097 0.8424 33.70 50.55 47.18 43.81
2100 0.6774 0.8231 32.92 49.38 46.09 42.80
2000 0.6452 0.8032 32.13 48.19 44.98 41.77
1900 0.6129 0.7829 31.32 46.97 43.84 40.71

Future reference, if you want to get the columns to line up - use the code tag as in [code ] [/ code]

 

[john smith]

Wt      w1/w       sqrt      Vso    1.5 Vso    1.4 Vso    1.3 Vso
3100    1.0000    1.0000    40.00    60.00    56.00    52.00
3000    0.9677    0.9837    39.35    59.02    55.09    51.15
2900    0.9355    0.9672    38.69    58.03    54.16    50.29
2800    0.9032    0.9504    38.02    57.02    53.22    49.42
2700    0.8710    0.9333    37.33    56.00    52.26    48.53
2600    0.8387    0.9158    36.63    54.95    51.29    47.62
2500    0.8065    0.8980    35.92    53.88    50.29    46.70
2400    0.7742    0.8799    35.20    52.79    49.27    45.75
2300    0.7419    0.8614    34.45    51.68    48.24    44.79
2200    0.7097    0.8424    33.70    50.55    47.18    43.81
2100    0.6774    0.8231    32.92    49.38    46.09    42.80
2000    0.6452    0.8032    32.13    48.19    44.98    41.77
1900    0.6129    0.7829    31.32    46.97    43.84    40.71