182 Gotchas

Frogs97

Frogs97

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
401
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Frogs97
I've tried to search for some of this, but it seems like every single thread in this forum mentions a 182 in some way shape or form.

Based on what I've read from so many on this forum, as much as I'd like a 6 place, it seems like the 182 hits the sweet spot for what I need to be looking for. Does anyone have any advice on things to watch out for on the different models? They got the wider cabin in 1962, right? I think most any model in our price range would have bladders, should I ask for anything special on the pre-buy in regards to inspecting those?

One of my partners in the plane will be landing on a grass field, but it apparently is pretty well maintained. How do wheel pants hold up to that sort of thing? Do we take much of a speed or gph hit if we take them off?

Thanks!
 
Frogs97 said:
They got the wider cabin in 1962, right?
Click to expand...
Correct.

1961 182D:

cessna_182d_skylane.jpg



1962 182E:

cessna_182e_skylane_03.jpg
 
Regarding the wheel pants, it's fine to leave them on if the field is well maintained. We take ours off in the winter though so they don't fill up with snow/sludge/ice.
 
Frogs97 said:
I've tried to search for some of this, but it seems like every single thread in this forum mentions a 182 in some way shape or form.

Based on what I've read from so many on this forum, as much as I'd like a 6 place, it seems like the 182 hits the sweet spot for what I need to be looking for. Does anyone have any advice on things to watch out for on the different models? They got the wider cabin in 1962, right? I think most any model in our price range would have bladders, should I ask for anything special on the pre-buy in regards to inspecting those?

One of my partners in the plane will be landing on a grass field, but it apparently is pretty well maintained. How do wheel pants hold up to that sort of thing? Do we take much of a speed or gph hit if we take them off?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
The 182 is a good fit for most people's missions. Doesn't excel at much, but darn good on many important points.

If you'd like to take a ride in a well maintained 1975 182P, I might be able to accommodate you on Saturday.

Wheel pants and unpaved are okay. We operate ours on various grass without issue. When you visit, you can inspect our wheel pants.

And which field will your partner be operating from?
 
I have a 1979 182Q. I believe that was the 1st year they went away from the bladders and went to wet wings. Also the Q has long range tanks (44 gal per wing)


After the Q i also think that the useful load goes down quite a bit, so be careful with some of the 80s 182s if you are planning on filling up the thing with people.
 
If Oshkosh parking is on your punch list, here is the definition of a Contemporary Vintage aircraft:

C. Contemporary Aircraft
An aircraft constructed by the original manufacturer, or its licensee, on or after January 1, 1956, up to and including December 31, 1970.

The blueonblue182 to the left is a '58 version, the last version without cowl flaps. I'd really like to find an STC to put cowl flaps on her.

Jim
 
  • Like
Reactions: JJ-
Frogs97 said:
One of my partners in the plane will be landing on a grass field, but it apparently is pretty well maintained. How do wheel pants hold up to that sort of thing? Do we take much of a speed or gph hit if we take them off?
Click to expand...

I was based on grass with mine for about four years and was flying a lot at the time. After about three years I redid the pants (mine are Fiberglas) because they were excessively "spider webbed" from the vibrations. No big deal though...not very expensive and mostly cosmetic.

I regularly land on grass both before and after...just not based on grass...in twelve years of owning the plane, I only redid them that one time.
 
If you are looking at a 182 absolutely get the Cessna 182 Buyers Guide. That was key in my choosing my 1973 182P and does a great job comparing all of the models.

Bladders are no big deal...they have about a 10 year life span and I just replaced one.

I lok at it this way...I would MUCH rather have a bladder spring a leak than a wet wing!

They are not fast or sexy but are great comfortable stable traveling machines with a good useful load. The saying goes "If it fits, it ships". Dang near impossible to get out of balance when doing your W&B calculations.

I wanted to be able to take 3-4 adults and the 182 line had the best rear seat space of most of the models that I was looking at.

Only "gotcha" for me is the flying technique. They are VERY nose heavy and take a lot of trim to land successfully. Hard nose landings and porpoising are common accidents in the 182.
 
Shawn said:
Only "gotcha" for me is the flying technique. They are VERY nose heavy and take a lot of trim to land successfully. Hard nose landings and porpoising are common accidents in the 182.
Click to expand...

I hear the nose heavy comment frequently. But I guess my 1975 C182P was a good one because I never really noticed it. Or, proper trimming technique was drummed into my head hard enough that I don't feel the heavy nose as bad as others.

Frogs, don't let the heavy nose thing put you off. That's something that's manageable with good technique.
 
Very recent 182s are not hard at all to overload.

The CAP 182T Nav IIIs have trouble fitting three large adults, and we generally keep them fueled only to 50 gal to accommodate that. The one I flew yesterday had a squawk that fuel had been left filled due to a canceled mission, and the W&B indicated we were 6 lb under max gross at takeoff with TWO adults, and would have had to fly for two hours to get below max landing weight. It turns out the squawk was out of date (phew) and there was 51 gal in the tanks.
 
AggieMike88 said:
The 182 is a good fit for most people's missions. Doesn't excel at much, but darn good on many important points.

If you'd like to take a ride in a well maintained 1975 182P, I might be able to accommodate you on Saturday.

Wheel pants and unpaved are okay. We operate ours on various grass without issue. When you visit, you can inspect our wheel pants.

And which field will your partner be operating from?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer, Mike (BTW, I'm Brian), and I'd really love to finally meet you DFWers. This Saturday is so up in the air with football and baseball starting that I'd hate to try and make any plans.

We're hoping to base the plane at CPT or 50F. The grass strip in question is up near the OK/KS line where one partner has family. Sounds to me that, in general, the pants aren't going to be a problem for that occasional use.

Has anyone done any objective tests on pants/no pants? For airplane performance, I mean. Not drunk Sheldon kind of tests (https://youtu.be/XiSGsHT1vLo?t=153)

AggieMike88 said:
I hear the nose heavy comment frequently. But I guess my 1975 C182P was a good one because I never really noticed it. Or, proper trimming technique was drummed into my head hard enough that I don't feel the heavy nose as bad as others.

Frogs, don't let the heavy nose thing put you off. That's something that's manageable with good technique.
Click to expand...

I actually took a ride in a 182M a couple of weeks ago. I loved the plane, and I didn't notice the heavy nose much at all. Now, the demo pilot was REALLY working the yoke in the flare, to the point I said "you're airplane" and then let go when he confirmed. Maybe he knew something I didn't know and the bottom would have fallen out, but it sure didn't feel like all that was necessary.
 
timwinters said:
I'm not a big fan of John Frank (boy there's the understatement of the year) but his 182 buyers guide will be the best $40 you'll spend if seriously considering a 182. Here's the CPA webpage with excerpts:

http://www.cessna.org/buyers-guide-182-excerpts


You also might see if this copy is still available and save $15:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80560
Click to expand...

I had been looking at that book and wondered if it truly was worth it. I'll probably give it a go. Thanks.
 
Cleburne is a good airport. I've been in and out of there a few times and always got great service from the FBO manager and her helpers.

I'll PM contact info so if you can go with me on Saturday, we'll get something figured out.
 
neilw2 said:
I have a 1979 182Q. I believe that was the 1st year they went away from the bladders and went to wet wings. Also the Q has long range tanks (44 gal per wing)


After the Q i also think that the useful load goes down quite a bit, so be careful with some of the 80s 182s if you are planning on filling up the thing with people.
Click to expand...

Not 100% sure, but I think they may have switched to the larger tanks and wet wings in the middle of the "Q" run, so not all of them are that way. Not sure which S/N, but I am sure this is searchable.
 
neilw2 said:
I have a 1979 182Q. I believe that was the 1st year they went away from the bladders and went to wet wings. Also the Q has long range tanks (44 gal per wing)
Click to expand...

55WB is a 1975 182P, Bladders, 74 Gal total. And we have the "paperwork" STC that permits a higher gross weight (~125-150 lbs)

Performance and economy on the 182's give it some long legs. I've done Denton to Topeka and we still had at least 1.5 hours remaining.

Your own internal bladder will demand attention before the fuel bladder does.
 
AggieMike88 said:
I hear the nose heavy comment frequently. But I guess my 1975 C182P was a good one because I never really noticed it. Or, proper trimming technique was drummed into my head hard enough that I don't feel the heavy nose as bad as others.

Frogs, don't let the heavy nose thing put you off. That's something that's manageable with good technique.
Click to expand...


Only nose heavy one I've flown had a 550 and a 3 blade on a early wide body 182, wasn't the end of the world.
 
182P and earlier models qualify for the mogas STC. If you can buy ethanol-free gas in your area, that's a savings.
 
Frogs97 said:
... should I ask for anything special on the pre-buy in regards to inspecting those?
Click to expand...

Since you were asking about pre-buys, I read once that a 182's firewall condition should be examined carefully by a shop that sees lots of 182s. That's because of stress from nose-first landings.
 
RotorDude said:
Not 100% sure, but I think they may have switched to the larger tanks and wet wings in the middle of the "Q" run, so not all of them are that way. Not sure which S/N, but I am sure this is searchable.
Click to expand...
The 182Q (higher-compression engine) was introduced for the 1977 model year, but the wet wings didn't appear until the 1979 model, starting with s/n 18266591.
 
Early straight tail 182s are great off-airport airplanes. For XC cruising I'd prefer a later model with the bigger tail. I don't recall when they made that change. Personally I prefer bladders to wet wings. I definitely prefer more modern panel layouts in the later models. I like the Camberlift wing, too.
 
Stewartb said:
Early straight tail 182s are great off-airport airplanes. [...]
Click to expand...

They are also significantly lighter than later models and have a trimmable stabilizer.
I was told that they are therefore the best handling and best performing 182s. No personal experience, though.
 
AggieMike88 said:
I hear the nose heavy comment frequently. But I guess my 1975 C182P was a good one because I never really noticed it.
Click to expand...

Same here, I got my PPL in a 172, flew it for 300 hours then transitioned to my 182P about 180 hours ago. Never really noticed the nose heavy thing....
 
Stewartb said:
Early straight tail 182s are great off-airport airplanes. For XC cruising I'd prefer a later model with the bigger tail. I don't recall when they made that change.
Click to expand...
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).

German guy said:
They are also significantly lighter than later models and have a trimmable stabilizer.
I was told that they are therefore the best handling and best performing 182s. No personal experience, though.
Click to expand...
I've flown both types, with the trimmable stabilizer (up through 1961 182D), and the later, heavier ones with trim tab on the elevator and fixed stabilizer (1962 182E and later), and what you describe is true.
 
Pilawt said:
The 182Q (higher-compression engine) was introduced for the 1977 model year, but the wet wings didn't appear until the 1979 model, starting with s/n 18266591.
Click to expand...

And 24v electrical systems starting in 78 I think? My 77 is 12v. :D
They can be a little nose heavy with two bigger guys up front and nothing in the back. My son and I are both big guys and it's certainly manageable, but I also keep a few pounds in the baggage area, to help offset the forward CG. We are inside the envelope, just towards the front edge of it. :rolleyes: 20 or 30 lbs in the baggage area helps even if you're solo. :D
 
Last edited:
In the Fort Worth area, one of the top mechanics in the area for Cessna 172/182's for doing a pre-buy is John Efinger over at Hicks (www.cessnarigging.com).
 
Stewartb said:
Personally I prefer bladders to wet wings.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.

weight. probably the biggest factor is weight. the 182T models have a landing weight that is 150Lbs less than it's takeoff weight. to me this is the biggest issue with the 182 and the sole reason I didn't get the turbo (T182T) is the turbo adds about 98lbs to the weight. while it has an excellent useful load just remember you need to land 150Lbs lower than max takeoff weight.

Heavy nose wheel comment as many have mentioned. i never had a problem with it, then again it's my bird and I've learned it well. Some people who have flown my plane from different 4 place aircraft (172's, pipers) etc have all commented on the nose heavy issue. And I've seen the result in their landings. So just something to keep an eye for when first landing it but a few times around the pattern you'll have no issue. Some airplanes because of the heavy nose have had history of damaged firewalls so just keep an eye out for that.

If you want 182 all the versions are phenomenal, great and reliable airplanes!
 
AggieMike88 said:
55WB is a 1975 182P, Bladders, 74 Gal total. And we have the "paperwork" STC that permits a higher gross weight (~125-150 lbs)

Performance and economy on the 182's give it some long legs. I've done Denton to Topeka and we still had at least 1.5 hours remaining.

Your own internal bladder will demand attention before the fuel bladder does.
Click to expand...

My N182V rolled off the assembly line 31 aircraft after AggieMike's. The "P" model is really the sweet spot in 182s. The only thing I don't like about my '75 model is the passenger side window doesn't open...a feature that became standard in '76. I file for 5:30 fuel, with leaning I'm probably closer to 6 but I don't push it. While my personal bladder can't take six hours of flying, when flying out to an airport without fuel (or really expensive fuel), tankering comes in handy. But remember, you get 600 nm faster at 135 knots non stop, than 155kts with a pit stop for fuel.



Frogs97 said:
Thanks for the offer, Mike (BTW, I'm Brian), and I'd really love to finally meet you DFWers. This Saturday is so up in the air with football and baseball starting that I'd hate to try and make any plans.

We're hoping to base the plane at CPT or 50F. The grass strip in question is up near the OK/KS line where one partner has family. Sounds to me that, in general, the pants aren't going to be a problem for that occasional use.

Has anyone done any objective tests on pants/no pants? For airplane performance, I mean. Not drunk Sheldon kind of tests (https://youtu.be/XiSGsHT1vLo?t=153)
Click to expand...

I also fly off of grass strips and have never taken my (wheel) pants off. You won't see too many 182s with their pants off 'cause they look weird. If the strip is in decent shape you have nothing to worry about.

AggieMike88 said:
I actually took a ride in a 182M a couple of weeks ago. I loved the plane, and I didn't notice the heavy nose much at all. Now, the demo pilot was REALLY working the yoke in the flare, to the point I said "you're airplane" and then let go when he confirmed. Maybe he knew something I didn't know and the bottom would have fallen out, but it sure didn't feel like all that was necessary.
Click to expand...

No need to be working the yoke in the flare, or any other time. Compared to the 150-172s, the 182 is a heavy plane and doesn't need a ton of control manipulation. As I tell folks when I check them out: "less is more".
 
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...

Some argue a bladder is better in an accident. I don't know that there's data to prove that though. From a maintenance perspective, when a bladder starts to leak you just replace the bladder and that's it for another 10-25 years. Wet wings can leak as well, and tracking down and repairing leaks in them is a little more labor intensive. They probably work out to be the same in the long run cost wise, but again, I've never seen the data.

I haven't had any problems with my bladders so I can't really comment.
 
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...

My opinion only so reader beware ;)

If the wing is compromised I believe a bladder would more likely hold the fuel as it is not a rigid structure Also, I have heard horror stories from friends trying to find and fix wet wing leaks.

Kevin
 
Bladders are more forgiving after an impact that bends a wing. Bending a wing isn't a life altering event. Having 30 gallons of gas dropped on and around you may be. All else being equal I'll take bladders.

My 180 has parked outdoors in Alaska for 40 years and the bladders have been changed once. One about 10 years ago and the other a year later. Durability isn't a problem.
 
Brad Z said:
The only thing I don't like about my '75 model is the passenger side window doesn't open...a feature that became standard in '76.
Click to expand...

That's one of my few complaints about the airframe.


Other areas about our "P" model are:

Skylights
Huge honkin rudder. It takes quite a bit of crosswind to run out of rudder authority.
 
RotorDude said:
Not 100% sure, but I think they may have switched to the larger tanks and wet wings in the middle of the "Q" run, so not all of them are that way. Not sure which S/N, but I am sure this is searchable.
Click to expand...

Information I have says the wet wing began in 1979 with S/N 18266591.

(Accuracy not guaranteed.)
 
timwinters said:
I'm not a big fan of John Frank (boy there's the understatement of the year) but his 182 buyers guide will be the best $40 you'll spend if seriously considering a 182. Here's the CPA webpage with excerpts:

http://www.cessna.org/buyers-guide-182-excerpts


You also might see if this copy is still available and save $15:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80560
Click to expand...

If that copy isn't still available, mine is. I have both the 210 Centurion and 182 Skylane Buyer's Guides from CPA. Just send me a PM! I'll honor the same $25 shipped price to the U.S.
 
Last edited:
AggieMike88 said:
I hear the nose heavy comment frequently. But I guess my 1975 C182P was a good one because I never really noticed it. Or, proper trimming technique was drummed into my head hard enough that I don't feel the heavy nose as bad as others.

Frogs, don't let the heavy nose thing put you off. That's something that's manageable with good technique.
Click to expand...

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.
 
N53KL said:
My opinion only so reader beware ;)

If the wing is compromised I believe a bladder would more likely hold the fuel as it is not a rigid structure Also, I have heard horror stories from friends trying to find and fix wet wing leaks.

Kevin
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top