About the C-182

BrianR

BrianR

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
413
Location
Upstate NY
Display Name
Display name:
BrianR
So I have a little over an hour in a 182Q in pursuit of the club checkout and HP endorsement. I LOVE the airplane! It's pretty nicely equipped, with leather seats, LED lights, a 430 (which I've never used before) an STEC 60, and it flies nicely and feels very stable.

But I'm a little confused on a couple issues. First, during the ground portion, the club CFI (who has thousands of hours of instruction, and is also a designated examiner, and is quite well-respected locally) cautioned me against making full-flap landings on a normal approach and landing to a paved runway. His explanation was that with that with 40 degrees of flaps, the airflow over the tail would be so reduced that stalling and dropping in from the flare was a real possibility. Now, I've read the tales of the 182 being nose-heavy, and how most of them in service have seen damage to the nose gear and firewall, but I don't recall seeing previous warnings against use of full flaps. I thought the issue was loss of elevator authority and coming down on the nosewheel.

As luck would have it, on my first approach i stayed high to avoid jet wake turbulence, so as we were rapidly approaching the numbers higher than a kite, he said, "Dontcha think full flaps would be a good idea?" I started to argue, "But you just said..." when he virtually insisted I apply full flaps. So I did, and landed without incident. On my second landing, I used 30 degrees. Although I made sure to trim properly, I didn't notice any particular nose-heaviness on either landing.

So do most of you with 182 experience avoid full flaps? Or is this just another one of those tales without a basis in reality?
 
Well, the 182 I normally fly is an S model with only 30* flaps, and I normally land it with full flaps. I would think that 40* would demand precision, so you might not want to start with it while training, but will minimize landing speed, and therefor energy. My wife found the pull on the 182S on landing actually more natural than the 172, which she tended to over-flare.
 
Something got miscommunicated, I think. I land my C-182 P model with 40 flaps with full flap regularly. No elevator problems at all, other than the idiot behind the yoke. The key is approach speed. By the book. Nail it.

Too slow, the DE is certainly correct that it'll dissipate all your energy REAL quick if you're flaring high above the runway, and have the giant boards out... there's a lot of drag out there. You'll need GOBS of power to arrest the sink rate.

Best way to see this is to go do slow flight in the practice area and set up a power on descent to a specific altitude, and then see how much more it takes to stop and hold that altitude.

If you screw up and flare high in the 182, you'll typically "3-point it"... in a big "plop". Not great for the nose gear and firewall, but unless you're dropping from REALLY high heights and didn't even add even a TOUCH of power to try to stop the fall... it's probably not going to break anything.

Best thing to do... go around if you flare way too high. Just shove the throttle up, clean it up, and go fix it. :) By the way, seeing how much forward pressure it'll require when you go from power off to power all the way up with the flaps hanging out, is an eye opening experience the first time, if you're trimmed for a slow speed with full flaps and power off. It'll balloon like mad.

Speaking of that... if you go-around while on the runway... when it balloons... don't push TOO hard... or you're shoving that nose gear into the pavement. Let it fly off in ground effect and then push hard to hold it there while you're getting the trim out, cleaning it up, and getting the climb going.

The REALLY dangerous one for the nosegear in my opinion, is flying too FAST on final with full flaps.

With the flaps down the nose is also down, or nearly level, and people try to "push it onto the ground" with elevator, and wheelbarrow on the nose gear.

That... will break something. Get the power off, flare low, and keep coming back without climbing on the yoke and let the giant drag boards out there slow you up... and they will, real quick.

Another thing to go try in the practice area. Go out and see how fast it comes down on the VSI with no power and full flaps. Now do a quick calculation of where you'd have to turn your base to final turn to do a full flap engine-out... it's steep and you'll be close in. If the aircraft is heavy, you'll be REALLY close in to make that.

It's not in vogue these days in the "stabilized approach" crowd (who mistakes stabilized approach for SHALLOW approach) to make tight patterns at low power settings... so keep your instructors happy if they're in that crowd and drag the poor thing in with power from 3 miles out... haha... that's probably what they're really hinting at here with not using 40 flap... save 'em until you know you have the runway made, they're a lot of drag...
 
I have a couple of hundred hours in 182's with 40 flaps, and there is no problem at all if you fly it right. The fact that in the crunch your instructor's gut told him to use full flaps tells you his thinking isn't consistent. You stick with full flaps as your normal procedure, and you'll do just fine.
 
As long as you maintain your energy state on approach (don't get too slow), the "extra" flaps are no problem.

Not sure the best way to say this. The difference in the amount of drag versus the angle of attack is NOT linear between 30 and 40 degrees of flaps. So if you know what the airplane "feels" like at 30, you should expect it to feel markedly different with 40 when you're down in the bottom of the envelope. When you raise the nose that little "extra bit" for the flare, the speed and lift drop much more rapidly than they do with the flaps at 30. So you can't get away with flaring too high at flaps 40 the way you might get away with it at flaps 30.
Hope this makes sense.
 
My 180 has four notches on the handle. It's hard to detect much difference between 3 and 4 insofar as landing speeds and distances are concerned. Accordingly, I wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about it.
 
Actually, I'll change my answer and say that you should have him teach you consistently using 40*, due to primacy of learning. It'll also help ensure that you watch your airspeed!
 
denverpilot said:
The REALLY dangerous one for the nosegear in my opinion, is flying too FAST on final with full flaps.

With the flaps down the nose is also down, or nearly level, and people try to "push it onto the ground" with elevator, and wheelbarrow on the nose gear.

That... will break something. Get the power off, flare low, and keep coming back without climbing on the yoke and let the giant drag boards out there slow you up... and they will, real quick.
Click to expand...

Very related to that is the tendency to "crow hop" if you touch down too fast to make the mains contact before the nose. Typically on the third hop you bend and/or break something so if you manage to get a crop hop going, it's best to go around ASAP rather than try to ride it out even though it is possible to solve the issue by pulling back and holding the nose a foot or more higher than the mains. A go around is probably best because most pilots with the skill and presence of mind to recover a crow hop without going around don't get into the situation in the first place.
 
I always land 182s with full flaps and simply have never figured out why people say its nose heavy or hard to land. Feels just like a 172 to me. Perhaps it's because they're coming screaming in too damn fast bouncing all over the place.
 
jesse said:
I always land 182s with full flaps and simply have never figured out why people say its nose heavy or hard to land. Feels just like a 172 to me. Perhaps it's because they're coming screaming in too damn fast bouncing all over the place.
Click to expand...
My mother who was a fraction of an inch over five feet and weighed about 100 lbs always landed her 182 with full flaps and had no trouble keeping the nosewheel off the ground when landing but it was a 1981 model (182R?) and I don't remember if the flaps extended more than 30°.
 
when i fly the prototype i usually use full flaps, but we are at a fairly forward CG and I've found that 30 (or whatever one less than full is) has no real noticeable change in landing distance/speed and makes it easier to not land 3 point.
 
TMetzinger said:
As long as you maintain your energy state on approach (don't get too slow), the "extra" flaps are no problem.

Not sure the best way to say this. The difference in the amount of drag versus the angle of attack is NOT linear between 30 and 40 degrees of flaps. So if you know what the airplane "feels" like at 30, you should expect it to feel markedly different with 40 when you're down in the bottom of the envelope. When you raise the nose that little "extra bit" for the flare, the speed and lift drop much more rapidly than they do with the flaps at 30. So you can't get away with flaring too high at flaps 40 the way you might get away with it at flaps 30.
Hope this makes sense.
Click to expand...

Tim, I think this is, in fact, the point he was trying to make, but you stated it more eloquently than either I or he did.
 
Appreciate all the tips. We're going out tomorrow to do an hour or so of landings in various configurations, so I'll try some variations. But these comments make me less wary of using flaps 40, as long as my speed is managed properly. And in the grand total of two landings so far, I agree it didn't really feel any different than the 172.
 
jesse said:
I always land 182s with full flaps and simply have never figured out why people say its nose heavy or hard to land. Feels just like a 172 to me. Perhaps it's because they're coming screaming in too damn fast bouncing all over the place.
Click to expand...

This...I had read about all the stories, and then when I actually went up and flew one I was seriously wondering what all the fuss is about. It'll float just like a 172. Good airplane.
 
Yeah, but when the float starts to bleed off, a 172 sinks with more of a linear rate. If the 182 begins to sink, it drops out real quickly. It's common to add a little power in the flair in a 182, but rarely needed in a 172.
 
Well, there is SOMETHING to the fact that many C-182s have new firewalls. Flaps are greatly over rated. All single engine Cessnas land just fine without flaps. And, in the long run it costs much less to replace tires than flap tracks and bearings, especially when over sped.

Cessnas have a greater tendency to weather vane with flaps. Best to follow the advice of Cessna test pilots and land without flaps in strong crosswinds.
 
In strong crosswinds, yes, use less or no flaps. The headwind component of that crosswind will also be strong, reducing your ground speed, which is the measurement of the energy you have to dissipate with your brakes.

The rest of the time, fly the airplane the way you're supposed and land it at the lowest possible energy state, with full flaps.

While I've approached flap speed limits in a Diamond, and a Mooney, I can't recall EVER doing it in a high-wing Cessna.
 
TMetzinger said:
While I've approached flap speed limits in a Diamond, and a Mooney, I can't recall EVER doing it in a high-wing Cessna.
Click to expand...

my only problem when towing is that we often tow with one notch for better visibility and once the glider releases and i start to descend i occasionally forget to retract that notch. Sorry Mr. Flap but at least it wasn't full. Our 182 has a crazy low Vfe of something like 80 mph which makes life interesting.
 
tonycondon said:
my only problem when towing is that we often tow with one notch for better visibility and once the glider releases and i start to descend i occasionally forget to retract that notch. Sorry Mr. Flap but at least it wasn't full. Our 182 has a crazy low Vfe of something like 80 mph which makes life interesting.
Click to expand...

My 182 has a higher Vfe for 10 than anything more than 10. Yours doesn't? Marked on the flap handle...

I don't have my POH handy.
 
nope our Vfe is all or nothing, typical of early cessnas. Remember we're flying the prototype, the Vfe on it is slower (not sure why) than any other production 182 I've ever flown.
 
tonycondon said:
nope our Vfe is all or nothing, typical of early cessnas. Remember we're flying the prototype, the Vfe on it is slower (not sure why) than any other production 182 I've ever flown.
Click to expand...
Some early Mooney's had the same issue. Vfe was only given for Full flaps. Later on, the exact same wing, flaps, components, etc were given an additional, higher, Vfe for partial flaps.
 
gismo said:
My mother who was a fraction of an inch over five feet and weighed about 100 lbs always landed her 182 with full flaps and had no trouble keeping the nosewheel off the ground when landing but it was a 1981 model (182R?) and I don't remember if the flaps extended more than 30°.
Click to expand...

That would be flaps 40 for that year.

The 182 that got bent here last year was a flat approach, not a too heavy to flare boo boo
 
I have about 350 hours in a 182Q. Full flaps is not a problem. The only weird spot I've encountered is at 30 flaps and 70 KIAS you can sometimes get a bit of pitch oscillation if you stay in that zone for more than a few seconds, so I don't normally drop past 20 flaps until I'm slowing to below 70 KIAS. Airspeed control is the absolute key to consistent landings in a 182. I find 63 KIAS "over the fence" with 30 or 40 flaps gets the job done nicely every time. Note, not 65 KIAS, not 60 either. I'm at 75-80 KTAS until base-to-final turn. I fly relatively tight patterns too.

Jeff
 
tonycondon said:
nope our Vfe is all or nothing, typical of early cessnas. Remember we're flying the prototype, the Vfe on it is slower (not sure why) than any other production 182 I've ever flown.
Click to expand...

Ahh ok...

Mine (looked it up) is 140 knots 0-10, and that overlaps with 10-40 degrees at 95 knots.

The POH shows different more specific wording for the placard that's all wrong. Weird.

From Placards section...

0-20 T.O. (Takeoff range with blue color code and 140 kt callout; also - mechanical detent at 10 degrees.)

10 to 20 - FULL (Indices at these positions with white color code and 95 knot callout; also mechanical detent at 10 and 20 degrees.)

That's the required placard description... And it's clearly jacked up.

Figure 2-1. Airspeed table. In the same Limitations section says 0-10 degrees is 140 knots, 10-40 is 95 knots. That's correct.

That placard write up is totally effed. Ha. Never noticed that before. Cute, Cessna.

By the way... While we're poking through limitations, here's one you can throw at students...

What are the Certified Load Factor limits with flaps extended? (evil grin)

On our aircraft they go from the usual 3.8g+/-1.52g to 2.0g+/no minus listed.

(You tell me what "not listed" means. Is it the same, or is it saying zero? Clear as mud isn't it? ;) )

Betcha some folks have gone slightly over 2.0g in over banked Commercial steep turns with flaps extended, and/or in turbulence, and never realized they were operating the aircraft outside of its load limits.

The stuff a POH can teach... ;)
 
Cute. Me. I said "higher" speed for more flap earlier. (Facepalm...) Damn multitasking.
 
BrianR said:
So I have a little over an hour in a 182Q in pursuit of the club checkout and HP endorsement. I LOVE the airplane! It's pretty nicely equipped, with leather seats, LED lights, a 430 (which I've never used before) an STEC 60, and it flies nicely and feels very stable.

But I'm a little confused on a couple issues. First, during the ground portion, the club CFI (who has thousands of hours of instruction, and is also a designated examiner, and is quite well-respected locally) cautioned me against making full-flap landings on a normal approach and landing to a paved runway. His explanation was that with that with 40 degrees of flaps, the airflow over the tail would be so reduced that stalling and dropping in from the flare was a real possibility. Now, I've read the tales of the 182 being nose-heavy, and how most of them in service have seen damage to the nose gear and firewall, but I don't recall seeing previous warnings against use of full flaps. I thought the issue was loss of elevator authority and coming down on the nosewheel.


As luck would have it, on my first approach i stayed high to avoid jet wake turbulence, so as we were rapidly approaching the numbers higher than a kite, he said, "Dontcha think full flaps would be a good idea?" I started to argue, "But you just said..." when he virtually insisted I apply full flaps. So I did, and landed without incident. On my second landing, I used 30 degrees. Although I made sure to trim properly, I didn't notice any particular nose-heaviness on either landing.

So do most of you with 182 experience avoid full flaps? Or is this just another one of those tales without a basis in reality?
Click to expand...

I am no expert, but in all the planes I've flown now that have 40 degrees of flaps (so far a 172 and a 150) the CFI's of each have said never use 40 degrees ON A NORMAL LANDING. They always ask me to use 30 degrees. 40 is just too much.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
I am no expert, but in all the planes I've flown now that have 40 degrees of flaps (so far a 172 and a 150) the CFI's of each have said never use 40 degrees ON A NORMAL LANDING. They always ask me to use 30 degrees. 40 is just too much.
Click to expand...
40 is not too much. 40 is the ideal flap setting in both a 172 and a 150 if they're equipped with it. It's how I teach students to land in both, period. I'll show them landings with other flap settings so that they can see it but I tell them there really is never a good reason to use less than full flaps regardless of the crosswind.

Instructors that say this do their student a dis-service. I'm not sure if Mr. David White has seen the light of full flaps yet but I sure tried to get him to see it :)
 
jesse said:
40 is not too much. 40 is the ideal flap setting in both a 172 and a 150 if they're equipped with it. It's how I teach students to land in both, period. I'll show them landings with other flap settings so that they can see it but I tell them there really is never a good reason to use less than full flaps regardless of the crosswind.

Instructors that say this do their student a dis-service. I'm not sure if Mr. David White has seen the light of full flaps yet but I sure tried to get him to see it :)
Click to expand...

Both of them have 20-30 years of experience each and both were for checkouts in the planes. Perhaps it is a flight school rule. They are two different flight schools, two different instructors, two different planes. I want to get better in the 150 (she did NOT check me out she wants to see more landings) so on my own I will fly it and land it. She is one of those "bark at you" instructors and I finally put my foot down last weekend I'd had enough! I deal because it is only for a checkout. Next plane checkout I do will be with one of their other 3 CFI's - never again....
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Both of them have 20-30 years of experience each and both were for checkouts in the planes. Perhaps it is a flight school rule. They are two different flight schools, two different instructors, two different planes. I want to get better in the 150 (she did NOT check me out she wants to see more landings) so on my own I will fly it and land it. She is one of those "bark at you" instructors and I finally put my foot down last weekend I'd had enough! I deal because it is only for a checkout. Next plane checkout I do will be with one of their other 3 CFI's - never again....
Click to expand...
There seems to be a school of thought that you save full flaps for when you really need them, and otherwise use partial flaps for all landings. My CFII belongs to that school for sure, and apparently Tom who sold me the Cardinal does as well. My first landing at 57D I came in, full flaps, and slammed the mains on the pavement when I flared (went around immediately, of course). When I asked Tom what I did wrong, he said "Try using 20 degrees instead of full flaps, that's what I usually do." So I did it his way, and still had trouble judging the distance to the runway. It turned out that wasn't the problem at all (the part of the windshield I normally look through to flare was so badly warped that from certain angles you saw double), but that was his thought anyway.

One reason I can think of that's been given for preferring partial flaps is that cleaning up the plane will be quicker if you have to go around. But I use full flaps all the time and have never found any difficulty cleaning up on the climbout. That's the whole point of practice and training. (And actually, I should probably do more of them.)
 
I'd argue that you slammed it on due to poor airspeed control, I did the same iny frost landing in my then new to me 182.
 
TMetzinger said:
Some early Mooney's had the same issue. Vfe was only given for Full flaps. Later on, the exact same wing, flaps, components, etc were given an additional, higher, Vfe for partial flaps.
Click to expand...
This actually confuses the heck out of me. I'm not an ATP, I'm not used to juggling a stack of airframe and engine limits that fills 20 pages. In the end I just ended slipping the Mooney all the time. I'm sure Alliance's CFI mentally sighed when signed my check-out.

BTW, I never noticed any particular nose-heavedness in 182. Arrow, in comparison, is nose-heavy: it loses elevator authority quicker than I'd like (despite it being widened from Cherokee 140 with extra panels).
 
jesse said:
Instructors that say this do their student a dis-service. I'm not sure if Mr. David White has seen the light of full flaps yet but I sure tried to get him to see it :)
Click to expand...

I've been a full flap enthusiast since 6Y9
 
Hmm. Let me put this bluntly.

Any CFI who can't or won't teach you to land a C-182 properly with full flaps, partial flaps, and no flaps... the full gamut... isn't worthy of the title.

Doesn't matter if it has 30 or 40. Learn how to fly it.

This "we're not going to recommend to you to learn to fly the aircraft to its maximum capabilities" crap has to stop.

If they don't want 40 used, they can get an STC and limit the travel and remove capability from the aircraft.

Sheesh.

There. I feel better. And I've had my rant for the night. ;)
 
Thank you, besides less flaps means more speed means more energy to loose after (during?) contact with the ground.

Trim it proper, keep it in the CG range (add ballast to the cargo compartment if you need it) and fly the proper airspeeds and all will be golden.

Perhaps the old narrow tail birds need to be flow differently but P,Q,R examples I've flown all handle excellently with flaps 40.
 
Skylane81E said:
I'd argue that you slammed it on due to poor airspeed control, I did the same iny frost landing in my then new to me 182.
Click to expand...
That first landing -- yes. I was too slow for that particular airplane, 60 kts and you drop like a stone. (I'm not sure why actually, that was the "sweet spot" airspeed for short final in the first 177RG I flew. :dunno:) But the rest of my landings that day sucked too, because I couldn't see what I was doing. The main point though is, it had nothing to do with using full flaps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top