So I bought a C182 - what now?

Brad Z said:
Interesting! I replaced my 2 blade metal prop with a 2 blade MT composite so I'm actually looking weight on the nose with this upgrade. Looks like the Micro VGs are pretty straightforward to inst
Click to expand...
I Have heard great things about the MT 2 blade with the PPONK! That’s probably the setup I would have chosen if I did that upgrade myself. I have the hartzell 3 blade scimitar prop. From what I understand you should see a few knots better cruse speed and I should have a little better climb rate. Either way you are going to love the performance difference! If you’ve never flown a 182 with one of the 265+ hp engine upgrades it’s a really nice performance increase. As for the VGs. I believe I was charged 3 hours labor. I had them installed during the first annual inspection. I do remember they had to do a little research on exactly where they needed to go with the wing cuff vs stock wings.
 
Katamarino said:
R model has 30 degrees maximum flaps.
Click to expand...
I think it's maybe just "the model where they switched" and some Rs have 30 while others have 40. I found a 1981 182R POH online that referenced 40º flaps.

Oddly enough, I see that yours is a 1981 as well, so maybe that's the year they switched.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think it's maybe just "the model where they switched" and some Rs have 30 while others have 40. I found a 1981 182R POH online that referenced 40º flaps.

Oddly enough, I see that yours is a 1981 as well, so maybe that's the year they switched.
Click to expand...
I just realized that using Google to find this answer is silly - Control surface limits are in the TCDS.

Per the TCDS, the 182R has 40 degrees up through S/N 18268055, and then has 38 degrees (Hmmm) and that would have been the changeover between 1981 and 1982. Oddly enough, the TCDS also says the 182S and 182T have 38º, not 30. Am I misremembering that this switched on both the 172 and 182?

@Katamarino I think yours was upgraded with the P-Ponk engine, right? I thought I saw somewhere that flaps became limited to 30 with that STC, though I can't find anything official. Maybe that's why you've got 30?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I just realized that using Google to find this answer is silly - Control surface limits are in the TCDS.

Per the TCDS, the 182R has 40 degrees up through S/N 18268055, and then has 38 degrees (Hmmm) and that would have been the changeover between 1981 and 1982. Oddly enough, the TCDS also says the 182S and 182T have 38º, not 30. Am I misremembering that this switched on both the 172 and 182?

@Katamarino I think yours was upgraded with the P-Ponk engine, right? I thought I saw somewhere that flaps became limited to 30 with that STC, though I can't find anything official. Maybe that's why you've got 30?
Click to expand...

Mine does indeed have the PPonk, but the flaps still travel to their full extent in terms of what the hardware will allow and there's nothing in the logs about flap components being swapped out or the travel otherwise limited.

Interesting stuff, thanks for sharing and educating me further!
 
Dude, there is nothing wrong with that paint. Agree with above commenters that you should throw your money at more meaningful upgrades AFTER you have flown it for 50-100 hours AND have completed your first annual (which may be a considerable expense). Nice bird! Congratulations!
 
Without seeing the whole of the plane, I’m not sure it needs fresh paint unless the OP wants a different color.

Depending on how much paint correction is needed it may be money better spent just having someone do the paint correction, detail wash, and ceramic coating for a couple of AMUs instead.
 
It seems like the 430s are not WAAS. That will be a limitation.
 
Pinecone said:
It seems like the 430s are not WAAS. That will be a limitation.
Click to expand...
Great catch. The new owner should be able to confirm by looking at log book entry, or even confirming by looking at model number and SN.

If true that none are WAAS then IMHO, need to replace one of them. Don’t do IFR training, etc. until that is fixed.

My preference would be GTN650xi, but others can offer other good choices.
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
Great catch. The new owner should be able to confirm by looking at log book entry, or even confirming by looking at model number and SN.

If true that none are WASS, then IMHO, need to replace one of them. Don’t do IFR training, etc. until that is fixed.

My preference would be GTN650xi, but others can offer other good choices.
Click to expand...
They are waas. But why not do instrument without WAAS? My flight school trains instrument in a G1000 skyhawk without waas
 
Great to hear that they’re WAAS. IMO WAAS is important enough in precision and LPV approaches I wouldn’t fly without it.

I also know of a local school here that bought old Skyhawks with non WAAS G1000s on the cheap because updating to G1000 WAAS is too expensive and I’m not sure it’s even allowed. They sell students on training with glass. They don’t mention all the issues with non WAAS.

Yes, you can legally train and get your IFR with non WAAS. But I wouldn’t suggest it.
 
Nikhiln25 said:
They are waas. But why not do instrument without WAAS? My flight school trains instrument in a G1000 skyhawk without waas
Click to expand...
I bought my plane in 2012. In 2017 I added a WAAS GPS.

I don't think I've flown anything but an LPV approach in it since, except for IPCs. Vertically guided approaches to darn near every runway around. It's a wonderful world we're living in now.

Prior to the WAAS GPS, I occasionally had to ditch my plane at a nearby airport when the weather was low. LPV gets down to 200 feet, but the Localizer only got down to 500.

Y'know, I think I've done one ILS - Missed off the RNAV into KNEW and had to divert to KMSY. Those primary bravo airports don't know anything but ILS.
 
BTW - just near every airport has at least one LPV, but ILS approaches are getting hard to find.
 
WDD said:
...My preference would be GTN650xi, but others can offer other good choices.
Click to expand...

Interesting fact... The screen size of the GTN-650Xi is the same size as 530W. Look at the pixel resolution and data available on screen between the 2 devices. I'm now the happy owner of a GTN-650Xi replacing a near mint condition GNU-430W.

It was not an easy decision as the 430W was running great and coupled with a FlightStrean 210, had seamless integration with ForeFlight for building flight plans. So glad to have made the upgrade to a 650.
 
Last edited:
NordicDave said:
Interesting fact... The screen size of the GTN-650Xi is the same size as 530W. Look at the pixel resolution and data available on screen between the 2 devices. I'm now the happy owner of a GTN-650Xi replacing a near mint condition GNU-430W.
Click to expand...
Huh? Total resolution might be the same, but the 530 was physically bigger.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Huh? Total resolution might be the same, but the 530 was physically bigger.
Click to expand...
The actual device is much smaller, 2.65" tall vs. 4.6". But by area, the screen sizes are very close. The GNS 530W screen is 4"x3", which comes out to 5" diagonal. The GTN 650Xi screen is 4.9" diagonal. Resolution is nowhere close. The GNS 530W is 320x324 = 74,880 pixels. The GTN 650Xi is 834x370 = 308,580 pixels. None of this is surprising. The Xi is a touch-screen that was released about 20 years after the original GNS 530.

The different aspect ratio means that the 650 feels smaller than a 530 for moving map and flight plan entry purposes. I am happy to fly with either, but would prefer any GTN to any GNS.
 
iamtheari said:
The actual device is much smaller, 2.65" tall vs. 4.6". But by area, the screen sizes are very close. The GNS 530W screen is 4"x3", which comes out to 5" diagonal. The GTN 650Xi screen is 4.9" diagonal. Resolution is nowhere close. The GNS 530W is 320x324 = 74,880 pixels. The GTN 650Xi is 834x370 = 308,580 pixels. None of this is surprising. The Xi is a touch-screen that was released about 20 years after the original GNS 530.

The different aspect ratio means that the 650 feels smaller than a 530 for moving map and flight plan entry purposes. I am happy to fly with either, but would prefer any GTN to any GNS.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the stats. I concur that I'd rather have a GTN than a GNS. As for the area, the differing aspect ratios probably make the 650 look smaller. I'm surprised the diagonal is that close, but the 530 did have buttons and knobs on the sides.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Thanks for the stats. I concur that I'd rather have a GTN than a GNS. As for the area, the differing aspect ratios probably make the 650 look smaller. I'm surprised the diagonal is that close, but the 530 did have buttons and knobs on the sides.
Click to expand...
I should retract my "none of this is surprising" comment because I was also surprised by the diagonal measurements being that close. I've never been in a plane with both a 530 and a 650 so I haven't seen them together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top