Jeanie
Pattern Altitude
Would that year qualify as a straight tail182? And why exactly are those good?
1972 Cessna 182?
- Thread starter Jeanie
- Start date
No. Straight tails stopped in either 62 or 63.
It's a 182 - rugged, reliable - what's not to like?
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Last "straight-tail" was the 1959 C-182B.
Swept tails appeared in 1960 on the 172, 175, 182, 210 and 310.
1972 would be a fairly modern 182 (photo below).
Straight-tail 182s were lighter with the same power (read: excellent short-field and climb performance); more pleasant pitch handling because they used adjustable stabilizers for pitch trim (as on the C-180 from which they were derived) instead of the fixed stabilizer and movable trim tab introduced on the 1962 C-182E. On the downside, pre-1962 182s had a narrower cabin and fewer windows -- again, just like a 180. Whether the tail is straight or swept, by itself, makes almost no difference, other than that a swept tail adds unnecessary weight and drag, for no improvement in performance. It's cosmetic only.
Last edited:
Jeanie
Pattern Altitude
Oh, absolutely, they are great and very good out here for ranch work. Just wondering about the straight tail references that I've heard.
weirdjim
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,171
- Location
- Grass Valley, CA (KGOO)
- Display Name
Display name:
weirdjim
The swept tail ones look faster
...and go slower.
<<<<<- '58 straight tail at IOW enroute OSH ten years ago.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,685
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Straight tails are a little faster but also lighter,also a little more cramped than the swept tail.The standard give and take of the Cessna line.Like the swept tail better.
I think the 182 that I checked myself out in was a J model. It was a nice airplane - I really like 182s. I also flew a 182S about 20 hours which was also a really nice airplane.
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
Straight tails are also a lot more responsive...far less truck-like handling. And they don't have near the nose-heavy (trim, trim, trim on approach) issues like the later ones do.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
Sparky's tailwheel book includes some interesting stall/spin recovery differences between the two versions.
Last "straight-tail" was the 1959 C-182B.
Swept tails appeared in 1960 on the 172, 175, 182, 210 and 310.
1972 would be a fairly modern 182 (photo below).
Straight-tail 182s were lighter with the same power (read: excellent short-field and climb performance); more pleasant pitch handling because they used adjustable stabilizers for pitch trim (as on the C-180 from which they were derived) instead of the fixed stabilizer and movable trim tab introduced on the 1962 C-182E. On the downside, pre-1962 182s had a narrower cabin and fewer windows -- again, just like a 180. Whether the tail is straight or swept, by itself, makes almost no difference, other than that a swept tail adds unnecessary weight and drag, for no improvement in performance. It's cosmetic only.
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
I fly a 62 182E for work and it has the modern swept tail.
Last edited:
N747JB
Final Approach
I'm talking about when they're parked
And that's 98-99% of the time for most airplanes!
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,685
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
A friend of mine has a '56 182 with a P.Ponk O-470-50 STC giving him about 270 hp. It's one heck of a plane but be aware the old straight tails sit really high and won't fit in a standard Port-a-Port hangar.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
I have that same package on a '60 180, including 96 gal tanks and extended baggage. It's a nice combination.
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
That's a "P" model. Some feel that the "P" and "Q" models are the most desirable 182's, they got the tubular landing gear replacing the steel main gear track. Some "P" models got the O470S model engine, and the "Q" got the O470U.
The fresh pick STC applies to these models and they get a 150lb weight increase with a paper STC to match the take off limit of the "R" series. Landing weight remains the same 2950lbs.
You'll typically find higher prices than a comparably equipped "N" model (1970 - 1971). Keith Petersen prefers the P & Q models for his Katmai conversion, but he does them on N models as well.
I personally don't understand the appeal of the P&Q models, but I'm certain someone will explain it to us. I've focused on an N model since I think the overall value is better, but maybe someone will prove me wrong.
weirdjim
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,171
- Location
- Grass Valley, CA (KGOO)
- Display Name
Display name:
weirdjim
The hell they won't. Or you might explain it to my '58 sitting in my Port-A-Port right now. Yes, you have to be careful of the rotating beacon housing, but they fit just fine, thank you.
Jim
N747JB
Final Approach
The Q's have a 24 volt system, except the 77 models like mine and a 2000 TBO engine. The P model was the first one with a "cuffed" leading edge, not sure if that means anything, but I remember my dad waiting on the P model when he ordered his.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Some like the integral fuel tanks of the Q, some like the bladders of the P
The U engined planes are quieter, but are not eligible for auto gas STCs
The U engined planes are quieter, but are not eligible for auto gas STCs
N747JB
Final Approach
I need to add the first Q's, like mine, are pretty much P's with the U engine, 12V, with bladders.
This was confined to the 77 models, I believe. The gear was shortened in '57 and again in '61. Your friends '56 has the tallest gear ever installed on a 182 and that may be why it doesn't fit in a particular hangar.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,685
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Yea, should have said "don't fit very well" and I'm talking about the small Port-A-Port, not the Exec. Still you're right, it will fit but I'd call it a real squeeze. My friend had to move because he really couldn't manage getting it in and out on his own and had to pump the nose strut up all the way to get the beacon in.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,685
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Yup, thought about all that, even a nose wheel ramp but bigger hangar was just an easier solution.
denverpilot
Tied Down
I'm not particularly happy with the bladders or Cessna's tanks.
But the STC to put real tanks in there is expensive and requires taking the wings off.