182 Gotchas

JustinD said:
I've a got a 2012 182T so this post is in regard to T models

mines got the G1000 and all the goodies. I love it and would highly recommend one. with the 182T's they made non glass cockpit variants and then switched to glass cockpits. With the G1000 you get less useful load due to the added weight but It's worth its weight in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I flew a T182T (Turbo 182T) G1000 model for a lot of hours, and LOVED it as a renter. As an owner, I'd worry about things like "when and how will I get to upgrade to ADS-B". On those fully-integrated systems, the airframe manufacturer decides when you get upgrades, regardless of whether or not the avionics manufacturer has it available.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I flew a T182T (Turbo 182T) G1000 model for a lot of hours, and LOVED it as a renter. As an owner, I'd worry about things like "when and how will I get to upgrade to ADS-B". On those fully-integrated systems, the airframe manufacturer decides when you get upgrades, regardless of whether or not the avionics manufacturer has it available.
Click to expand...

So THAT's what that plastic coffee can with the slit cut in the lid was for. Donations for your avionics upgrade project.
 
Don't ship to Froggy... fly it down to Spinks, or meet him at the Beacon for a Chuck Norris!
 
AggieMike88 said:
Good to know he is willing to accommodate the buyer like that.
Click to expand...

First class tickets and accommodations go a long way. ;-) He flew back with me and my instructor though, so I got the insurance requirement signed off and had immediate A&P/IA help should it be needed!
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Where'd you see a coffee can with a slit in the lid? :no:
Click to expand...

Just yanking your tiedown rope. Birdy is a good and well kept example of her model. Anything improvements are gonna make her that much more awesome!
 
Pilawt said:
If by "bigger tail" you mean swept fin and rudder, that was 1960 (182C). Horizontal stabilizer and elevator were enlarged (big help for needed pitch authority) in 1965 (182H). And the dorsal fin was stretched in 1973 (182P).
Click to expand...

Big help for needed pitch authority?

Granted I have very few (but some) hours in later 182s but...I can say with confidence...that my straight tail has more pitch authority than any swept tail I've flown.

I've flown with just me and my FiL in the front seats. He's pushing 300#...that puts us at 500# in the front. Run that W&B!

Soo freakin' far out of the front of the envelope it's not even funny. But, land with 30 deg of flaps with full authority in the flare? No problem! No issues with pitch authority whatsoever in in my straight tail.

Also, remember that all swept tails are at a distinct disadvantage in a stall. 20 degrees nose up and all of a sudden that rudder is a tiller. This is one thing that Mooney did right....

Straight tail 182s have other drawbacks for sure. But pitch authority isn't one of them. Also, they're far less like flying a Mack truck than later 182s. Most 182s are good machines though.
 
Last edited:
neilw2 said:
Why would you prefer a bladder to a wet wing?


Not arguing with you, but I just cant figure out why a bladder would be better
Click to expand...

Just one mans opinion.

I have bladders in my 185 and like them, my thoughts are I have fewer pieces to worry about leaking. Flew 206s with bladders and 208s with wet wings, I remember quite a few little leaks on the van over the years, not one on the 206.

To each their own. Kinda like the high wing low wing debate
 
TangoWhiskey said:
AGREED. I never notice the 182 being "nose-heavy" in my TR182.

It's heavier on the controls than a 172, but if you're on speed and trimmed for that speed, there's no issues.
Click to expand...


When I was shopping, there were many that had the "doubler" on the firewall as a repair for somebody twanging the nose first....
 
timwinters said:
Big help for needed pitch authority?

Granted I have very few (but some) hours in later 182s but...I can say with confidence...that my straight tail has more pitch authority than any swept tail I've flown.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right about the straight-tails and the swept-tails with trimmable stabilizer (up through '61 182D). They're the nicest-handling of the breed.

But you overlook the '62 through '64 (182E-G), with fixed stabilizer, 150 lb higher gross weight, and wider cabin. Their fixed stabilizer was the same size as the trimmable version on the older, lighter models, and it wasn't enough. The 10" increase in tailplane span on the '65 182H really did help.

Even Cessna's Manager of Aerodynamics and Flight Test said the larger tailplane was one of the "most significant" changes in the 182 during the 1960s, "for much-needed elevator power in landings at forward C.G." (Cessna - Wings for The World: The Single-Engine Development Story by William Thompson, p. 87)
 
Last edited:
Fine instrument and x-wind airplane. . .stable as a table, which is why it handles like a pig. For traveling, for IFR, good airplane. For fun flying, crashing-and-dashing, not so much, and the vis is atrocious.

Big fuel tanks in later models, with magnificent range. You just have to plan ahead, as with tanks full, you may have less remaining useful load than a 172. Not a flaw at all, to my mind; it gives you great flexibility.

Bit of a fuel hog, too, until you get higher and lean it good. Did I mention it handles like a pig? Ponderous comes to mind, as does glacially slow response.
 
Pilawt said:
But you overlook the '62 through '64 (182E-G), with fixed stabilizer, 150 lb higher gross weight, and wider cabin. Their fixed stabilizer was the same size as the trimmable version on the older, lighter models, and it wasn't enough. The 10" increase in tailplane span on the '65 182H really did help.
Click to expand...

Ahhh...I agree with that. That's not how I read your original post. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Sundancer said:
Fine instrument and x-wind airplane. . .stable as a table, which is why it handles like a pig. For traveling, for IFR, good airplane. For fun flying, crashing-and-dashing, not so much, and the vis is atrocious.

Big fuel tanks in later models, with magnificent range. You just have to plan ahead, as with tanks full, you may have less remaining useful load than a 172. Not a flaw at all, to my mind; it gives you great flexibility.

Bit of a fuel hog, too, until you get higher and lean it good. Did I mention it handles like a pig? Ponderous comes to mind, as does glacially slow response.
Click to expand...

Never flown a straight tail have you? :)
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I flew a T182T (Turbo 182T) G1000 model for a lot of hours, and LOVED it as a renter. As an owner, I'd worry about things like "when and how will I get to upgrade to ADS-B". On those fully-integrated systems, the airframe manufacturer decides when you get upgrades, regardless of whether or not the avionics manufacturer has it available.
Click to expand...

my bird is fully nextgen compliant! Took some additional options when I first purchased it, but I wanted to make sure I didn't have to deal with this down the road. The G1000 is pretty much just comprised of a bunch of LRU's, most everything is its own individual component that can be swapped out if need be.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Just yanking your tiedown rope. Birdy is a good and well kept example of her model. Anything improvements are gonna make her that much more awesome!
Click to expand...


I might need a coffee can soon.

Love the aviation spin on "yanking your chain"! Well played.
 
JoseCuervo said:
When I was shopping, there were many that had the "doubler" on the firewall as a repair for somebody twanging the nose first....
Click to expand...


No doubt about that! But I don't think that's the plane's fault! Somebody wasn't flying it right!
 
One other point I'll add: for jumping up to a big bore six, look for a bird that has an engine analyzer with EGT and CHT probes for all cylinders. That will allow you to run lean of peak when you want to save gas and cylinder wear.
 
Last edited:
hook_dupin said:
One other point I'll add: for jumping up to a big bore six, look for a bird that has an engine analyzer with EGT and CHT probes for all cylinders. That will allow you to run lean of peak when you want to save gas and cylinder wear.
Click to expand...

It will also help you see problems before they are problems.
 
There are so many mods for Cessna 18x series, they're just fun aircraft to own.

Wing-X can give you 300lbs. more gross. Texas Skyways can put you a 550 mill in if you want. If it's an older wing, Sportsman STOL will take care of that. So many mods. Door stewards are top on my list. Get a lightweight starter and a MT prop and say goodbye to any nose heavy issues.

In Texas, I'd stick with a carburetor and get a Mogas STC (not that it will do you any good because we can't get it) but it's a good re-sale thing for other parts of the country. I see people grinding their starters into dust on these hot days running fuel injection and I have to chuckle a little bit.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Don't operate the flaps at the POH-stated upper limit, and you won't have problems. ;-)

The flap brackets are attached to the rear spar, which forms the rear of the wet wing tank.

On my TR182, partial flaps (up to 10 degrees) can be used at 140 knots. Nobody operates their TR182's that way. Get under 100 kts before the first 10; and below 95 for sure before you use any more. The flaps put a great deal of stress on that rear spar, and that's where most wet wing leaks start.

I guess the advice I'm trying to give you is treat limits as LIMITS, not challenges. Try to operate within the limits, not at the edges of them. Your airplane and maintenance budget will thank you.
Click to expand...

Never had any leaks in a 182 wet wing despite routinely dropping the first 10 degrees of flaps at all speeds up to the yellow arc, as permitted by the POH, over thousands of hours of flying. The POH limit in this case is the yellow arc, not the white arc, and if the Cessna design engineers felt there were any issue operating there, they'd have noted so in the POH. I tend to trust POH info more than what I read online anyway, but in this case I have the data to prove it.
 
txflyer said:
There are so many mods for Cessna 18x series, they're just fun aircraft to own.

Wing-X can give you 300lbs. more gross. Texas Skyways can put you a 550 mill in if you want. If it's an older wing, Sportsman STOL will take care of that. So many mods. Door stewards are top on my list. Get a lightweight starter and a MT prop and say goodbye to any nose heavy issues.

In Texas, I'd stick with a carburetor and get a Mogas STC (not that it will do you any good because we can't get it) but it's a good re-sale thing for other parts of the country. I see people grinding their starters into dust on these hot days running fuel injection and I have to chuckle a little bit.
Click to expand...

Obligatory Henning addition to this...Katmai conversion with a canard
 
timwinters said:
Never flown a straight tail have you? :)
Click to expand...

True enough, only the later models. Very comfortable, like a LaZBoy. Can't see squat, except the ground. Like flying in a tube. Airplanes usually bloat with age, so maybe the earlier models handle better? Better vis? The G100s0 in CAP were awful; overweight, had to be grounded if the AP broke, not much useful load. . .
 
RotorDude said:
Never had any leaks in a 182 wet wing despite routinely dropping the first 10 degrees of flaps at all speeds up to the yellow arc, as permitted by the POH, over thousands of hours of flying. The POH limit in this case is the yellow arc, not the white arc, and if the Cessna design engineers felt there were any issue operating there, they'd have noted so in the POH. I tend to trust POH info more than what I read online anyway, but in this case I have the data to prove it.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone deploy flaps up to the yellow arc? Is that supposed to impress somebody?
 
Stewartb said:
Why would anyone deploy flaps up to the yellow arc? Is that supposed to impress somebody?
Click to expand...

Actually it's just below the yellow arc, but very close.
And the reason you'd typically do it is to quickly slow down without shock cooling the engine. In most cases this is a transitory effect: as soon as you drop 10 degree flaps and pull carb heat, you immediately start slowing down away from the yellow towards the white. It is essentially the same as a speed brake on aircraft that enjoy that feature.
In my own case, I monitor the max cooling rate of the cylinders, and try to stay below that limit (50C/min) while slowing down, gradually closing the throttle and descending. Especially useful when decelerating with fast traffic behind, after keeping the speed up to short final.
 
I highly suspect the later 182s with a wet wing had bladders as an option.

The 1981 Cessna A185F had wet wings and bladders as an option. And my 1981 Cessna 185 had identical wings to the 182. In fact, the bracket for an electric flap motor was even in there.:yes:
 
Last edited:
RotorDude said:
Actually it's just below the yellow arc, but very close.

And the reason you'd typically do it is to quickly slow down without shock cooling the engine.
Click to expand...


I'd rather put the gear down, which has the same 140 knot limit as the first ten of flaps.
 
All my 182 time is in newer (S and T) models. I once took an S model from Hartford, CT to Chicago non-stop and had 1.5 hrs fuel left. Talk about long legs! And it handles a 30Kt+ crosswind handily. Leslie always tended to over-flare the 172, but loved the 182. Never really had to worry much about W&B, except the aforementioned 150lb difference between max take-off and landing weights. If Troy doesn't have his copy of the 182 book anymore, we might have a copy around here we could afford to part with.
 
Flaps near the yellow arc to slow down in a 182? C'mon!

Maybe you can't feel it because they're electric, but that's a tremendous load on something I can assure you because I can feel mine through the manual bar.
 
txflyer said:
Flaps near the yellow arc to slow down in a 182? C'mon!

Maybe you can't feel it because they're electric, but that's a tremendous load on something I can assure you because I can feel mine through the manual bar.
Click to expand...

If this were an issue, the Cessna engineers would have restricted the 10 degree flap extension speed to a lower number. As I said above, I trust them more than anonymous internet experts, plus in thousands of hours of flying and following their rules I have not seen any problem.
 
All I needed to see was the way the structure flexed the one time I tried flaps @ 140, and that was enough to convince me. My mechanic in the back seat was watching, and pointed it out to me. He left a permanent crease in the back seat cushion.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
All I needed to see was the way the structure flexed the one time I tried flaps @ 140, and that was enough to convince me. My mechanic in the back seat was watching, and pointed it out to me. He left a permanent crease in the back seat cushion.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe your mechanic can join Cessna as a design engineer, and explain to the dumbos over there that their 10 degree flaps envelope is way too wide and will damage their airplanes.
But until then, I will continue to assume that said dumbos know their stuff, and have no huge incentive to cause their designs to fall out of the sky with warped or snapped spars, or their wet tanks to leak out through the seams.
And so far, as I noted above, my own experience over those thousands of hours (with no warpage or leakage of any kind) seems to vindicate them.
 
neilw2 said:
Why would you prefer a bladder to a wet wing?


Not arguing with you, but I just cant figure out why a bladder would be better
Click to expand...

You would not. I owned a Q and one it was one more thing you do not have to worry about. My Q also had a BRS parachute (added later). Something you may not know is an option.

I firmly believe that this era 182 is one of the best planes ever built. You can take off easily at max gross on most strips and land on grass or pavement. With vortex generators you can decrease stall speed and make the plane even safer. I believe that my plane saved my life several times during my learning phase.

The nose heavy comments are true compared to the 172 but they are easily overcome with familiarity.

I miss my 182Q.

P
 
Last edited:
topsail said:
You would not. I owned a Q and one it was one more thing you do not have to worry about. My Q also had a BRS parachute (added later). Something you may not know is an option.

I firmly believe that this era 182 is one of the best planes ever built. You can take off easily at max gross on most strips and land on grass or pavement. With vortex generators you can decrease stall speed and make the plane even safer. I believe that my plane saved my life several times during my learning phase.

The nose heavy comments are true compared to the 172 but they are easily overcome with familiarity.

I miss my 182Q.

P
Click to expand...


Awesome review.

In my limited experience I certainly love my plane! It's a great cross country machine due to its large comfy cabin and long range tanks and respectable- although not blazing speed, stable ifr platform, can fill it up with 4 people comfortably, and allows me to get in and out of almost any strip within reason.

Great very versatile plane that can adapt fairly well to almost any mission.

Based on the long range tanks, useful load, power system improvements etc I believe the Q is one of the best variants. But I guess that is why I own one!
 
Great plane. And don't forget, the 182 has an STC for a parachute just like Cirrus. You give up a little useful load, some of the cargo area, and some $. Google "BRS Parachute".
 
Mike:

You mentioned your 1975 P model has 74 gallons of fuel.

Just posting this to see if you guys have something funky going on there.

1975 POH:
- 65 standard (60 usable)
- 84 Long Range (79 usable*)

1976 changed to:
- 61 gal standard (56 usable)
- 80 gal long range (75 usable)

* I don't believe that one.

It's pretty common to mix them up around that timeframe and also to purchase the wrong pre-calibrated fuel sticks for them.

Just concerned to see a number that doesn't match either POH. Wanted to check and see if you just typed that from memory and made a mistake or if the club has propagated one.

Also interestingly, the change seems to have happened mid-model year. Our 1975 has 80 gallon long range tanks. (That or the mechanics have screwed up and hung the wrong bladders in the wings twice now... Haha.)

You also mentioned that you have the STC to raise max gross. Technically the STC raises max gross but also adds a limitation that it's a MGTOW weight and you had to burn down fuel to land. Unless you guys have a different STC than the commonly added one on the market.

----

Okay anyway for the OP...

Not too many gotchas on a 182 that a mechanic well versed in the type won't spot during a proper pre-purchase inspection.

Nose heavy/Trim: Really more a matter of negative transfer from 172. The 172 will let you get away with being sloppy and flying with arm power constantly instead of properly trimming for every flight attitude and speed. The 182 won't. If you don't trim it properly you'll find the controls feel "heavy". Fly it right, you won't have that problem.

----

Someone mentioned they don't like that the pax window doesn't open. We fixed that problem cheaply with a large camera port window. Downside, it opens inward and we probably should have gone a size smaller on the camera port. Seat all the way back to fully open it over there. We have photographers in our co-ownership. They like it. Way cheaper than a window opening retrofit.

----

Hate to say this one but it's true. Once you find the mechanically sound ones you want to look at, buy the one with the avionics you want and that's ADS-B compliant, or make the offer low accordingly. We're now only five years out from a $10,000 mandatory panel upgrade or more, if you get fancy, if the airplane is /A and not /G. If /G and you're going to fly IFR, watch out for that too. /G with WAAS that can feed the ADS-B stuff is where you want the panel before you buy it, or $10 minimum lying around to retrofit it correctly.

-----

Agreed the straight tails fly great. Manual flaps are nice too, but not a ton of well maintained ones that old now.

----

Agree on John Frank's stuff. Join CPA. It's not really a Pilot's Association as much as it is a mechanical reference and consultancy, if you ask me. But as long as I've held a membership, CPA has saved me at least the membership cost on something every year.

-----

AD on the seat tracks. Find out how far along yours are and plan on replacement with the McFarlane STCd ones. Also see if the free but often not installed new style Cessna "seat belt" style seat stopper is installed. (Free from Cessna on the pilot's seat, not really necessary on the pax side unless you fly from over there quite a bit).

----

Cowl mounted taxi/landing lights. If they're still the originals you'll be replacing them often. A vibrating cowl is an awful place to mount them. Change to LED.

----

The higher compression engine (O-470U) can't have the mogas STC. It has a higher TBO if you care about TBO.

----

Air intake box/carb box. Careful attention needed here. These are now a very high dollar item if replacement is needed due to wear.

----

The multi cylinder CHT/EGT comment didn't mention that it's only useful for LOP ops on the newer fuel injected engines, for the most part. A handful of people have been lucky enough to get the carb'd 182 to fly LOP but it's a crap shoot. The induction system is awful for evenness to cylinders and if you manage to get one jug LOP you'll probably have a couple still ROP. Some say applying a touch of carb heat to help atomized the fuel, helps. Makes no difference in ours. Our O-470S just doesn't like LOP ops.

----

Bladders. There were some bad years for the bladder manufacturers. Warranties went from 10 years to 5 and have since gone back up, or close. A good mechanic may have better tips but go by age. Consider them a required replacement item eventually. We've done one. Price isn't outrageous on them and the labor is somewhat high but having seen how to hang the L/R ones, paying the mechanic to find an ape with long skinny arms to do that part, is money well spent.

When you finally do one, also replace the fuel drains with the Eagle STD's flush ones.

----

Grass/Pants - my co-owners say a plane without pants looks like a rental. We leave them on. We've operated from mown grass and gravel. One pant got damaged one time. A little fiberglass layup kit and some paint and it's no big deal to fix them.

Checking tire pressure with them on is a pain, but don't neglect it. Low pressure will deform the tire and hit the pant.
 
Oh... If you're buying a high time engine and planning to rebuild it soonish...

Check and see if the engine can be upgraded with the P.Ponk STC. Basically same lower engine half and larger cylinders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top