Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
Oh....
Bought into a 182P
- Thread starter Bonchie
- Start date
denverpilot
Tied Down
LOL. Jose's version of the thread is pretty impressive. He should go into fiction writing or politics.
ntinkle
Pre-Flight
Well that was kind of a drive-by....
If you look back, you and Jose agree on the crux of this thread - the flaps. I'm in the 30 deg. camp - but not 40, if you got em, as a matter of standard practice. Especially as it relates to the OP.
I think you are being myopic in your squared speed equations in hitting something hard. In reality, how often does that happen on an airport? I'm not saying never, but it's very rare.
Now an OFF airport landing, and I think you're spot on. And that needs to be practiced. And maybe on every landing if you fly at night and over LIFR, due to the riskier profile and wanting to stay prepared.
Really, I don't think it matters that much, either way. I just don't think it's justified telling everyone else they're short sighted because they don't do things the same. In THIS situation.
There was a link to an FAA report on flaps, and someone quoted part of it (http://www.idahowingcap.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/c-182safetyhighlights.pdf), but they didn't quote a lot of the relative part. A couple of quotes:
Landing is the most accident-prone phase of flight for Cessna 182s and comparison aircraft, with 39 percent and 29 percent, respectively. For the 182, landing hard was the leading transgression. The Skylane had considerably more accidents landing hard than did the comparison group... This may be due to the heavy feel of the elevator control, especially for pilots transitioning to the Skylane from lighter airplanes. Substantial trim is required during landing, but don’t trim so much that you will not be able to handle a go-around. Trimming for 75 knots will require you to hold back pressure during landing, but won’t require so much forward pressure on the controls during a go-around.
If the majority of accidents are caused by a hard landing (dropping the nose on the flare), is that more likely to happen at 20 deg flaps, or 30/40?
Like I said, I think 30 is a good place for me to be, but I won't judge anyone for using 20, or even 40. I think 40 is riskier due to the sink and flare precision you need, unless you're dragging it in with power, which brings up other risks. But it also prepares you more for when you might need it in an off airport landing when a dropped nose is less important than forward speed.
The above is based on these comments. Just my thoughts on a Tuesday morning.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Just for clarity, that's not an FAA report. That's the AOPA type report from Nall data and it hasn't been updated in a long long time.
I think there's an assumption in your post...
They *speculate* that it might be because of "heavy" elevator feel, but don't correlate it to the data.
Then the author gives an example of trimming for the completely wrong speed for a 182 with full flaps, continuing the OWT that a go-around can't be accomplished safely by someone who trimmed for the proper speed. (?!?!)
Did you notice that? Because it jumped off the page at me. 75 with full flaps in a 182 at full flap will result in a bunch of float. (Re: Full flap stall speed and the calibrated airspeed chart.)
In fact, the author's technique will *contribute* to that "heavy nose" feel in the flare the author is claiming the problem is! (?!?!?)
Why the author would write that, in the SAME sentence with saying landing creates the most 182 accidents, and then right afterward in the next paragraph, says this mess of uncorrelated stuff...
"Note: Improper speed control and a forward CG (full fuel and two occupants) results in bent firewalls being very common during 182 landings, especially for pilots transitioning from lighter airplanes. Hard landing forces are transmitted through the gear and engine sup- port structure to the firewall. ASF recommends a full load checkout as part of your Skylane familiarization. Pre-purchase inspections should include a close look at the firewall.Remember to compensate for winds during landing. A tailwind of only four knots will increase landing distance by 20 percent. Include landing distance calculations as part of your preflight and add 50 per- cent to the book numbers."
The author is ALL OVER THE PLACE with their speculation there.
Deconstructing their sentences there yields:
"Airspeed control is critical...". Right. Just like any airplane.
"Improper airspeed control bends firewalls...". Ummm. No. Improper technique landing nose first or arresting the descent too high and then falling bends nosewheels.
"For pilots transitioning..." Okay where did they get that? Did they look at time in type per accident? Starting to get weird. Where's their data?
"Have the thing inspected." What the hell does that have to do and why is it in a paragraph about how to control the aircraft? Belongs in a different paragraph.
"Don't land downwind." Well that came from nowhere... were a bunch of the accidents downwind landings? Or have they just wandered off into "good tips for landing airplanes" by the end of the paragraph full of speculation?
That's a horrible paragraph. My English teacher would slap the author silly. Just a bunch of random thoughts slapped together with no correlation shown. They start with an undefined term, "hard landing" and then speculate heavily about what the causes of those are.
Which, ironically or just an indication of the common mistake when landing a 182... is what I've been saying about it since the thread wandered off into the ditch. Slow down.
Jose didn't like my "garbage" comment, and misinterpreted it, but the report backs it up. Landing accidents outnumber all other accidents in the 182.
Landings are where 182 pilots bend things the most.
More interestingly, note also in the graph that second to "hard landings" (the undefined term that probably says "pilot failed to maintain directional control at touchdown" in the actual NTSB reports) the second most common cause is...
You guessed it... "landed long"!
Guess how you get both "hard landings" and "landing long" as the top two accident types consistently in a fleet?
You're landing too damn fast.
You know how the firewall really gets bent?
Pilot induced oscillation from not moving the elevator control full up and holding it there with the nosewheel off the ground, at touchdown. People slam them down with poor elevator technique. I've seen that a BUNCH of times. I've never seen the approach speed CAUSE it. I've seen the approach speed be the reason they need to hold it off a really long time. Pilots relax back pressure at touchdown and swing that heavy O-470 on an arc from the maingear to the nowegear. Whump.
You can even get the elevator to *assist* pushing the engine weight down with truly horrible technique. If... you have enough airspeed at touchdown.
Anyway... be careful with reports like this and think critically about them. There's some other hilarious sections in this thing, and yeah, I've definitely read it before.
Example:
The author lamenting a 500'/min climb out at 7000' DA is just precious. Know how many trainers up here climb at 100-300' in the summer? Getting 500 out of a 182 is easy and feels like heaven to most high DA airport pilots.
Only time I've ever seen the 182 not get a reasonable climb rate was at 70F in Leadville, and even then, both calculated and real performance cleared the trees at the north end. Calculating it is extrapolation though -- you're off the temp/altitude chart. ;-)
I'd like to see AOPA update that thing and take out the speculation and stick to the facts in the accident reports. They're pretty good about doing that most of the time, even in the article, but that last page is a mess. You can't correlate the graph to the words written. They don't match.
ntinkle
Pre-Flight
Correction accepted (AOPA), but doesn't change last post's stance - I think a hard landing is (much) more likely at 40 deg flaps, rather than 30 (and 20), at the vast majority of airports.
Honestly - it's just not that important on the long RW's the average guy uses. But being able to competently use 40 in event of off-airport is the best argument for using 40.
As for anemic climb perception, it's all relative. Having just sold my SR22TN yesterday, and about to start flying an NA 182 again, anemic climb rate is exactly what I will think. But that's different than acceptable.
Honestly - it's just not that important on the long RW's the average guy uses. But being able to competently use 40 in event of off-airport is the best argument for using 40.
As for anemic climb perception, it's all relative. Having just sold my SR22TN yesterday, and about to start flying an NA 182 again, anemic climb rate is exactly what I will think. But that's different than acceptable.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
wow....that's gonna be a tough adjustment. 
ntinkle
Pre-Flight
Especially when I make a summer trip to the cabin in Ruidoso.... (KSRR)
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Most of the 182s I have access to have only 30 deg flaps.... but three of them have 40 deg.
You bet I use it. Those airplanes land real nice that way. At the correct speed and not trying to force it.
And I've trained in two of those, including go-arounds. It's not that hard. As Nate says, trimming sure helps. If you're well trimmed on final at the correct speed (75 MPH in those planes), a go around is no harder than in a 172N that also has 40 deg flaps.
You bet I use it. Those airplanes land real nice that way. At the correct speed and not trying to force it.
And I've trained in two of those, including go-arounds. It's not that hard. As Nate says, trimming sure helps. If you're well trimmed on final at the correct speed (75 MPH in those planes), a go around is no harder than in a 172N that also has 40 deg flaps.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Okay, why? What would cause that? Take the thought one step further...
denverpilot
Tied Down
Okay, why? What would cause that? Take the thought one step further...
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
oh...hush, this was just getting good.
ntinkle
Pre-Flight
Steep glidepath - little room for error on round-out and flare. Airspeed is gone very quickly. Bang.
I'm not arguing that your speed is slower, and that has benefits - especially in off-airport. I'm simply arguing that an average pilot is more likely to wrinkle something at that setting, and that the benefit is more than offset by the risk.
40 degrees is a tool. Need to know how to use it. Use it every time? Sure, if you want and you have adventurous passengers that don't mind the sight picture.
Again - don't care if someone wants to use it as standard practice; just think the average (especially newish) 182 pilot is more likely to damage the plane at 40 over 30 (or 20).
(FWIW, I landed the V35B with full flaps (30 deg) EVERY landing, including x-wind. But it didn't have the big fowler flaps. It's also the easiest plane to land, by far, that I've ever flown.)
ntinkle
Pre-Flight
Another FWIW - I only have 30, and would like to have 40 for the off airport preparation. Besides, it's fun. Flying is boring. Landing is fun.
And I really liked the Johnson bar.
And I really liked the Johnson bar.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
I've done a last minute to around in a C208B with full flaps and landing (manual only) trim, non event, tell me more how it can't be done in a lil 182
Agreed, the PIO is just a result of pizz poor pilot training and having bad fundamentals, nothing else.
I only have a little time in a 182, large engine conversion, wasn't a huge fan of the plane, but it's far from hard to fly at any flap setting. Basically it's just a 172 with cowl flaps and a CS prop.
Agreed, the PIO is just a result of pizz poor pilot training and having bad fundamentals, nothing else.
I only have a little time in a 182, large engine conversion, wasn't a huge fan of the plane, but it's far from hard to fly at any flap setting. Basically it's just a 172 with cowl flaps and a CS prop.
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
40-degrees is now dangerous due to the glide path and angle of descent?
"Benefit is more than offset by the risk"?
ntinkle
Pre-Flight
Y'all make civil discourse much harder than it has to be. Where did I say it was dangerous?
There are benefits to each. There are risks to each. My opinion is there is more risk to the plane than reward with 40 deg flaps as matter of routine for the average pilot landing on long RWs.
Everything is a trade-off.
There are benefits to each. There are risks to each. My opinion is there is more risk to the plane than reward with 40 deg flaps as matter of routine for the average pilot landing on long RWs.
Everything is a trade-off.
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
Wasn't expecting my thread to turn into this, but it's cool I guess.
The fact is, both sides have a point. Yes, if you are highly proficient and never mess up your round out, you will be ok. BUT it's a fact that insurance companies were getting antsy at the very high number of bent firewalls they were paying for with people landing at flaps 40 and put out safety briefings advising of the dangers. It's also a fact that Cessna themselves got rid of the Flaps 40 setting on the 182s eventually because it was causing problems.
So the idea that it's gotta be flaps 40 or you are an awful, no good terrible pilot is a bit silly. This article gives a good explanation of the pitfalls of flaps 40 in a 182 and how it can sneak up on you...http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-technique/new-pilots/why-skylane-endures
Now, I understand everyone on this board are perfect pilots who would never mess up a flare or round out too soon, but in the real world it does happen. And there's a reason Cessna eventually punted the Flaps 40 setting all together, limiting travel to flaps 30.
So, if you have a 182 with 40 degrees, then use them to your hearts desire, but the incessant back and forth (along with plenty of personal insults) over this is pointless. Every PIC will make their own choice and their own risk assessment.
The fact is, both sides have a point. Yes, if you are highly proficient and never mess up your round out, you will be ok. BUT it's a fact that insurance companies were getting antsy at the very high number of bent firewalls they were paying for with people landing at flaps 40 and put out safety briefings advising of the dangers. It's also a fact that Cessna themselves got rid of the Flaps 40 setting on the 182s eventually because it was causing problems.
So the idea that it's gotta be flaps 40 or you are an awful, no good terrible pilot is a bit silly. This article gives a good explanation of the pitfalls of flaps 40 in a 182 and how it can sneak up on you...http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-technique/new-pilots/why-skylane-endures
Now, I understand everyone on this board are perfect pilots who would never mess up a flare or round out too soon, but in the real world it does happen. And there's a reason Cessna eventually punted the Flaps 40 setting all together, limiting travel to flaps 30.
So, if you have a 182 with 40 degrees, then use them to your hearts desire, but the incessant back and forth (along with plenty of personal insults) over this is pointless. Every PIC will make their own choice and their own risk assessment.
Last edited:
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
While it's true that there is a tradeoff, I think you're dramatically overestimating the risks. Over half my time is in 182s these days, and they are not hard to land nor go around in at full flap. They will PIO if you suck and try to land them before they are ready, but so will just about any small airplane. I do almost all my landings at full flap with idle power. I'll do no-flap landings once in a while in case I ever have an electrical failure in flight, but the airplane is quite a lot harder to land that way, and the sight picture sucks donkeys.
Bonchie, Cessna got rid of flaps 40 on ALL their 100-series airplanes, not just 182s. 152s and 172s beyond the N model do not have flaps 40 either, yet they don't have the bent firewall problems. The reason? Nothing to do with safety. The max gross weight is limited by climb performance at go-around, and 30 deg flap limitations improves that. So 172Ps have a 2400 lb max gross weight instead of 2300 lb, and 182s go up from 2950 lb to 3100.
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
So you CAN safely and properly operate a 182 without using flaps 40? Isn't that the overarching point?
What's the point of being so freaking argumentative about it when plenty of 182s don't even have 40 degrees of flaps as an option and their pilots manage to land safely with the little bit of extra speed.
I also never said that they got rid of flaps 40 specifically because of bent firewalls. I'd read it was about people stalling the planes on go arounds with full flaps and that obviously was an issue with all the Cessnas that had them. The point was that Cessna did get rid of flaps 40 and obviously 182s are safe to operate without using that setting if the PIC desires.
What's the point of being so freaking argumentative about it when plenty of 182s don't even have 40 degrees of flaps as an option and their pilots manage to land safely with the little bit of extra speed.
I also never said that they got rid of flaps 40 specifically because of bent firewalls. I'd read it was about people stalling the planes on go arounds with full flaps and that obviously was an issue with all the Cessnas that had them. The point was that Cessna did get rid of flaps 40 and obviously 182s are safe to operate without using that setting if the PIC desires.
Last edited:
N747JB
Final Approach
What's the difference??
denverpilot
Tied Down
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
Last edited:
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
It is dangerous to attempt a go around with throttle pulled back. Far safer if all approaches and landings are done with full power.
denverpilot
Tied Down
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
I waited until after Festivus was over.
And my gift to the forum is to be able to incite responses from you with less than 20 words, a Miracle for those of all Faiths.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
40 degrees of flaps is fine if you know how to do it well.
If you're having to "force it" when landing with less than full flaps, you are doing something wrong. I suggest you go practice landing without full flaps you might need to do that one day.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Umm, reread that. AND and OR mean different things.
I'm quite capable of no flap landings. It's forcing a landing that bends firewalls, among a few other things.
denverpilot
Tied Down
It's a discussion forum, not Twitter. And not intended for those with short attention spans, but those who can read whole paragraphs.
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
denverpilot
Tied Down
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'. That's Jose. Quite dull.
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
Apparently you aren't here for the discussion.....
#SuccessAgain
After your long treatise, with no end on "garbage" approaches, we know what Trollin' looks like, or, more accurately, obfuscation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ntinkle
Pre-Flight
Hey! Y'all are giving Christmas Spirit a bad name.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Um, no, it is clear to me you're probably unable to perform no flaps landings without bending metal from what you said.
I really don't understand all the fuss. If you absolutely need to land with the least amount of runway then by all means use full flaps. If you don't, live a little. Try different things. Land 10 knots faster. You won't die. And one day you might have to do it because of airframe ice or some other issue so why not mix things up a bit when conditions are good and try something else besides full flaps.
'fraid I'm with Jose. I tried reading DenverPilot's posts but they are too long, too many thoughts all disconnected. Ain't got time for that. I don't come here often, I'm not a regular and this reminds me why not.
Wow. Arguing about this stuff. Simply amazing.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
denverpilot
Tied Down
Standard personal attack from ol' Jose when he's bored.
I harbor no I'll will toward him, he's droll and boring, but those are just descriptive adjectives used in those long things called "sentences" that he doesn't like.
Scroll wheel work? Feel free. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Which "stuff" are you referring to? I see no argument, just Jose being his normal self. It stopped being surprising or interesting years ago. He makes up stuff in his head, attacks someone repeatedly over it, the attention apparently makes him happy.
He can attack me all he likes, I'm not bothered by his repetitive noise and breaking of the site rules about personal attacks, so perhaps it'll make the place nicer for someone not expecting it of him. Broken record. Over and over.
If all he's got is a complaint that someone types long messages on a discussion board, you know he's prey hard up for personal entertainment via tearing down someone.
I don't care what he thinks about me or what I write, and never will. I do like the "no end on garbage approaches"... might take a look back and see that it wasn't about solely approaches, and wasn't "no end", it was a single post.
He keeps it alive for something to do on Christmas, I guess.
Perhaps if I type a couple more sentences, he won't read this and learn the magic of the scroll wheel.
More...
You think?
More...
Yep.. let's make this really long. It's fun. Especially now that he's announced that it annoys him. He's got all the tech there to skip it and not reply. Let's see if he can do it?
You think he can?
Anyone want to bet? LOL.
Still here Jose?
Going to troll me again from behind that pseudonym?
Exciting stuff. Really exciting. Deep conversation and interesting topic.
You know what? I bet we could change this thread into a way to find a professional writer Jose could hire to write posts he likes. Anyone have a good reference? Set up a nice site where only Jose-approved posts and styles are posted, just for his personal amusement? Shouldn't cost too much.
Yawn. Typed while I ate a Christmas candy, and then pet the dog with my other hand...