Bought into a 182P

Bonchie

Bonchie

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
1,505
Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
After the past few years of renting or being in non-equity clubs, I finally found a good airplane to buy into. It's set up like a club, but it's an equity ownership in reality. Wet rate is simply fuel + engine reserve and we each pay pretty cheap dues a month for fixed stuff and to add buffer to the account. There's 10 of us, but only 5 have flown in the past 6 months and it's basically always available so it's the best situation I could hope for. Cheapness of a big club, but the dispatch rate of being in a 2-3 person partnership. I won't give exact numbers, but there's a very large amount in the bank as well, so the risks for having to take assessments for unexpected maintenance is extremely low, if not non-existent (unless someone blows the engine up, but even then it's close).

Pretty excited to finally be able to take some longer trips. It's got a 430, dual glideslopes, etc. so it's a decent IFR bird. Nothing fancy, but all you need. Autopilot is old, but will nav trk at least. There's talk of upgrading it once they certify the Tru-Vision stuff.

Got my HP endorsement done yesterday. I know pilots are supposed pretend nothing surprises us, but I was surprised at how much of a hoss the plane is on takeoff. If you've never flown anything over 200hp (as I hadn't), it's a shock the first time you push the throttle in. Climbing at 1200 FPM on a cold day is also pretty cool compared to the Cherokees I used to fly.

When we did some stalls, it felt like you had to stand it on it's tail to do a power on stall, and even then it didn't want to drop a wing. I honestly don't know how it's possibly to accidentally power on stall this plane on takeoff. On a really, really hot day or at high density altitudes I could see it happening I guess.

Anyway, everyone else has their day in the sun thread on here, so this is mine. Looks like my first trip will be down to Baton Rouge next weekend for a concert at LSU someone gave me tickets to.

Pretty paint job but still has the ugly blue interior so many 182s came with back then. But it's in good shape at least.

Here's a picture of it from several years ago. I think this was at Oshkosh before the plane was bought for us, but it still looks the same :)

386412.jpg
 
182Ps are decent airplanes. The only gripe I have about them is that the right window doesn't open, which can be a drag on a hot day. But you can taxi Piper-like with the door open.
 
Congrats. It's a nice step up in capability, stability, and comfort, isn't it?
 
GeorgeC said:
Congrats. It's a nice step up in capability, stability, and comfort, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Plenty of room and great useful load. 135 knots might not be fast, but it sure beats the 105-110 knots the 140s and Warriors I used to fly would average. Feels like a rocket on takeoff by comparison.

Took me one bad landing to get used to making sure I flare enough to not land flat. Just a different sight picture than stuff I've flown before and heavier in the nose.

One thing I haven't figured out (or asked about), is how to visually inspect the tanks. The fuel tanks have a small hole and spring tab like you'd see on a car so you can't actually look in them through the normal big opening on Pipers. Yesterday the tanks were full so I just stuck my finger in and could feel they were full. Guess I need to get a dip stick that's made for a 182.
 
Last edited:
Pretty bird. I like the snazzy paint job.
 
Wow...I need to go see if my plane is still in the hangar...182P with same exact paint!

They are VERY comfortable cross country machines. Not sexy, not the fastest, not the most "fun" to fly...But when you need to move a lot of people and bags for a long trip in a stable plane, you cant go wrong!...and yeah, getting to TPA on a cool day is kinds nice too!

FYI... if you do not have it you can get the Fresh Pick STC which increases your takeoff weight by 150lbs to 3100 lbs. It is just a paperwork push but allows you another 25 gallons of fuel over your current gross.

http://www.182stc.com

Bonchie said:
One thing I haven't figured out (or asked about), is how to visually inspect the tanks...Yesterday the tanks were full so I just stuck my finger in and could feel they were full. Guess I need to get a dip stick that's made for a 182
Click to expand...

I looked all over for a calibrated fuel stick for the 182P with standard tanks and could not find one. Wound up getting a generic one, had the A/P drain a tank empty and calibrated my own by adding 5 gallons at a time and now have a reference sheet for the fuel stick.
 
Last edited:
Congrats! Excellent airplane, just like ours! I do believe someone makes a calibrated stick, I'll have to look at the manufacturer's name on ours -- we have the LR tanks (80 gallon bladders) and it was hard to find ours also for some reason. Everyplace had them for the restart airplanes but not the older ones. I'll let ya know.
 
Congrats! Can't really beat a C182. Very comfortable. As mentioned, carries 4 biggies and bags, great range, and good climb performance. Landings are solid and easy once you're accustomed to them. Good instrument platform too. Stick those tanks, think you said you made one, but they're available commercially too as someone posted above. Enjoy! Happy flying!
 
I'll be back out there next week and I'll take some pics.
 
Shawn said:
Wow...I need to go see if my plane is still in the hangar...182P with same exact paint!

They are VERY comfortable cross country machines. Not sexy, not the fastest, not the most "fun" to fly...But when you need to move a lot of people and bags for a long trip in a stable plane, you cant go wrong!...and yeah, getting to TPA on a cool day is kinds nice too!

FYI... if you do not have it you can get the Fresh Pick STC which increases your takeoff weight by 150lbs to 3100 lbs. It is just a paperwork push but allows you another 25 gallons of fuel over your current gross.

http://www.182stc.com



I looked all over for a calibrated fuel stick for the 182P with standard tanks and could not find one. Wound up getting a generic one, had the A/P drain a tank empty and calibrated my own by adding 5 gallons at a time and now have a reference sheet for the fuel stick.
Click to expand...


I have this STC but we have to remember the landing gross weight is still 2950# for the P and you have to burn off 150# of gas or about 2 hours of flight. :)
 
Bonchie,

Congrats. I love my 182P and I am sure you will love yours!

Kevin
 
Bonchie said:
............Took me one bad landing to get used to making sure I flare enough to not land flat. Just a different sight picture than stuff I've flown before and heavier in the nose......
Click to expand...

Not sure how you were taught, but most of us use 20 degrees of flaps for landing (unless we need it for a very short field). It makes the heavy pitch control much more manageable. And in case of the go-around, there is a little less immediate trimming reguired. In any event, proper setting of the pitch trim is the key.

I suggest a book by Richard Coffey. It has come really good reference material and is an easy read. PM me to find out how to get a copy if you are interested

Kevin
 
N53KL said:
Not sure how you were taught, but most of us use 20 degrees of flaps for landing (unless we need it for a very short field). It makes the heavy pitch control much more manageable. And in case of the go-around, there is a little less immediate trimming reguired. In any event, proper setting of the pitch trim is the key.

I suggest a book by Richard Coffey. It has come really good reference material and is an easy read. PM me to find out how to get a copy if you are interested

Kevin
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "most of us". I land mine full flap.
The trim wheel is there for a reason. There's no need to have high yoke forces at all.

Hitting things faster squares the force involved in the accident on the ground. Landing faster than necessary is a setup for loss of control accidents and bigger injuries.

Durden covers this really well in his book, The Thinking Pilot's Flight Manual. He's been trying to kill that "land with less flap for directional control" old wives tale for decades. And he's got the math in there to prove it.

A blown tire and hitting something in the ditch at 20-40 is a lot safer than hitting it at 40-60. The accident report will read the same, "Pilot failed to maintain directional control", but it'll hurt a lot less.

Meanwhile, the other book you're referencing is The Skylane Pilot's Companion and it's also very good. It's available for free online. It's more of a pilot's story of what a solid honest little traveling machine our 182s are than a training book. Wonderful read. It hasn't been in print for a long time but the copyright owner released it to electronic distribution.
 
I'll just add that I was taught to use flaps 20 as well if you've got plenty of runway.

Most I've flown with in the past in a 182 did the same.

Not saying anyone is right or wrong, but it seems common.
 
My response would be, what does the POH say? I've really only seen reduced flap landings when it is really gusty out.
 
Bonchie said:
I'll just add that I was taught to use flaps 20 as well if you've got plenty of runway.

Most I've flown with in the past in a 182 did the same.

Not saying anyone is right or wrong, but it seems common.
Click to expand...

It *is* common, but I can't find any science or accident records to back up the practice. Durden also talks about that.

If I feel like my ability to land slow will bother someone or get in the way of faster traffic, I'll just *pretend* I don't have that much runway. Pick a landing spot about 500' before a turn off, fly down to there, and then land full-flap at that location.

I can back that decision up with the fact that it'll end up better for me and the outcome of my flight if there's some mechanical or completely unexpected wind reason for a loss of directional control.

I haven't found anyone yet who can scientifically back the decision to land faster, except in a couple of very unusual circumstances.

I think we all have opportunities to learn. Landing fast when there's more flap available, is one of them that can be studied, avoided, and has excellent science behind it.

Landing faster has very little to offer in terms of safety.

Even the old "add half the gust factor" gets silly when the gusts hit 20 above the steady state straight down the runway. Ten more knots isn't necessary in that scenario either.

Judgment is key. But knowledge of why behind the judgment is something these odd practices often lack when we shine a flashlight at the practice and ask some questions based upon things we know.
 
I'm in the full flap camp, for the 182 as well as all planes unless POH states otherwise. Even a C170, 3 guys who owned it were afeared of full flap landings until I demonstrated it could be done safely.
 
Very nice looking C-182 Bonchie. And, the panel doesn't sound that bad to me. I hope the 430 is a WAAS unit to save you a few bucks on ADS-B and also give you more capability. I have always liked the 182 and think it is a great airplane.
 
I'm a full flap guy too in my 182 (30 degrees)

That difference between landing and takeoff even applies to current T model 182's my takeoff weight is 3100 but landing is 2950

Usually as was mentioned your flight may be too short to benifits from this due to the fuel burn required but it is useful and has its times where it's fantastic to have that
 
JustinD said:
That difference between landing and takeoff even applies to current T model 182's my takeoff weight is 3100 but landing is 2950
Click to expand...

AS I understand it, that is why they developed the STC. The P & Q are placarded at 2950 gross but they made the increase to 3100lbs takeoff weight starting with the R model but there were no structural changes from the P & Q versions...hence the STC just being a paperwork push to make it legal.
 
congrats....you can always fly into KNEW. I am sure you can find somthing to do in New Orleans.
 
denverpilot said:
Meanwhile, the other book you're referencing is The Skylane Pilot's Companion and it's also very good. It's available for free online. It's more of a pilot's story of what a solid honest little traveling machine our 182s are than a training book. Wonderful read. It hasn't been in print for a long time but the copyright owner released it to electronic distribution.
Click to expand...

Thanks, didn't know about that!

I'm also in the 30° camp, though 40° is more fun.
 
denverpilot said:
I wouldn't say "most of us". I land mine full flap.
The trim wheel is there for a reason. There's no need to have high yoke forces at all.

Hitting things faster squares the force involved in the accident on the ground. Landing faster than necessary is a setup for loss of control accidents and bigger injuries.

Durden covers this really well in his book, The Thinking Pilot's Flight Manual. He's been trying to kill that "land with less flap for directional control" old wives tale for decades. And he's got the math in there to prove it.

A blown tire and hitting something in the ditch at 20-40 is a lot safer than hitting it at 40-60. The accident report will read the same, "Pilot failed to maintain directional control", but it'll hurt a lot less.

Meanwhile, the other book you're referencing is The Skylane Pilot's Companion and it's also very good. It's available for free online. It's more of a pilot's story of what a solid honest little traveling machine our 182s are than a training book. Wonderful read. It hasn't been in print for a long time but the copyright owner released it to electronic distribution.
Click to expand...

Nate,

Thanks for you reply. I guess I neglected to include the book's name ;)

As to the landing flap setting, there are several reasons I use 20 degrees of flaps.

1. If I have to do a go-around, I am already configured. Full power and fly the airplane.
2. In my airplane I have a LOT more up trim at 40 degrees. It is manageable but I need add the task of re-trimming to the above scenario.
3. I rarely use runways that need 40 degrees of flaps.
4. I have had several stuck flap situations in the past. If they stick at 40 I have no options. If the stick at 20, I can relocate to a mx shop of my choice.

Some say my brake and tire wear might be worse, or as you say blowing a tire at 50 is more unsafe than at 30 but I am no expert. All I know is for me, after experiencing both configurations in my legacy, non-STOL airplane, the reasons to use 20 flaps out weigh the reasons to use 40 flaps.

Kevin
 
denverpilot said:
It *is* common, but I can't find any science or accident records to back up the practice. Durden also talks about that.

If I feel like my ability to land slow will bother someone or get in the way of faster traffic, I'll just *pretend* I don't have that much runway. Pick a landing spot about 500' before a turn off, fly down to there, and then land full-flap at that location.

I can back that decision up with the fact that it'll end up better for me and the outcome of my flight if there's some mechanical or completely unexpected wind reason for a loss of directional control.

I haven't found anyone yet who can scientifically back the decision to land faster, except in a couple of very unusual circumstances.

I think we all have opportunities to learn. Landing fast when there's more flap available, is one of them that can be studied, avoided, and has excellent science behind it.

Landing faster has very little to offer in terms of safety.

Even the old "add half the gust factor" gets silly when the gusts hit 20 above the steady state straight down the runway. Ten more knots isn't necessary in that scenario either.

Judgment is key. But knowledge of why behind the judgment is something these odd practices often lack when we shine a flashlight at the practice and ask some questions based upon things we know.
Click to expand...

Great post and I totally agree. It seems like every aviation book I read has different advise about the full flaps or not full flaps thing. I have read and understand both arguments but what makes since to me is having the least amount of energy when I'm close to or on the runway. Easier on the brakes, easier on the frame, and even makes an ugly landing (which I have been known to make a time or 2)- a safe landing for the most part.

I guess with the slow landing you are risking stalling which is the other sides argument. But even at 63 kts (my usual final approach speed) you are a long ways away from stall speed, and I should be able to correct quickly if needed.
 
Beautiful airplane, congrats. That sounds like an absolutely great co-op to get into. You'll love the utility of the 182. I recently traded down from a 185 to a Grumman Tiger and really miss the extra horsepower.
 
N53KL said:
Nate,

Thanks for you reply. I guess I neglected to include the book's name ;)

As to the landing flap setting, there are several reasons I use 20 degrees of flaps.

1. If I have to do a go-around, I am already configured. Full power and fly the airplane.
2. In my airplane I have a LOT more up trim at 40 degrees. It is manageable but I need add the task of re-trimming to the above scenario.
3. I rarely use runways that need 40 degrees of flaps.
4. I have had several stuck flap situations in the past. If they stick at 40 I have no options. If the stick at 20, I can relocate to a mx shop of my choice.

Some say my brake and tire wear might be worse, or as you say blowing a tire at 50 is more unsafe than at 30 but I am no expert. All I know is for me, after experiencing both configurations in my legacy, non-STOL airplane, the reasons to use 20 flaps out weigh the reasons to use 40 flaps.

Kevin
Click to expand...

I'd say most of those are conveniences to be weighed against the added risk of severe injury. I don't think flap 20 is "wrong" per se, but one must think carefully about the decision.

If you can fly and land it slow, you can fly and land it fast, but not as much vice-versa.

What the faster landing speed allows is less time at speeds where you have to use full control inputs in gusts, because it's "over with" sooner, but it gives a false sense of greater control skill.

It's kinda like flying an ILS slow versus fast. Less time for that needle to wander and make you chase it, but if you do it slower it takes more skill and correct corrections.

If you do it the "hard way" the dividends are higher in the long term.

You mentioned the STOL on my airplane so I'll point out something for folks who think STOL fixes things...

The STOL actually makes this worse/harder, not easier. It'll land at <40 indicated due to calibration error at the higher angle of attack.

Controls get really weak and sloppy at that speed, and you need bigger and faster control inputs to arrest any undesired lateral or yawing motion and gobs of power if the sink rate starts downward.

Flown right, which is a freaking workout in gusts, it does mean I can get it down and stopped completely in about 300' if I'm in top practice. Maybe I'll need that ability someday, maybe I won't, but it's not easier. It's work.

I'd at least make every say, fourth or fifth landing, a simulated short field, just to keep the memory sharp on just how sloppy the controls feel, if I were in the habit of the airliner style landings with long roll outs.

If nothing else it will keep you from being surprised at how far a 182 will float past the intended landing point with full flap if the approach is flown at typical approach speeds, for the day you need to put it on a spot.

I've flown the older 182s without STOL and the G1000 chubby ones as well as the heavy nosed 182RG -- they're all slightly different when slow, but I see folks chewing up thousands of feet of runway (even accounting for our high DA here) they don't need to, pretty regularly in them while watching landings from the terminal buildings around here. It's semi-epidemic almost.

I suspect it's because the pilots simply don't feel comfortable flying them slower. But they fly slow really well. It's one of the "safety" features about a 182 that I like quite a bit. For a moderately fast XC airplane -- but no speed demon -- it'll land in an incredibly small place if the engine quits.
 
Shawn said:
AS I understand it, that is why they developed the STC. The P & Q are placarded at 2950 gross but they made the increase to 3100lbs takeoff weight starting with the R model but there were no structural changes from the P & Q versions...hence the STC just being a paperwork push to make it legal.
Click to expand...

That's correct.

The STC mandates a max landing weight of the original 2950, so if you have to do a return to land or early landing before burning down fuel to 2950, it's a mandatory landing gear inspection.

It's great for max gross flying for making slightly longer legs, but we realized after analyzing our typical missions in our 182, we are so rarely at max gross that if we amortized the STC over the number of max gross flights needed over 5+ years, it was a lot more expensive than simply landing a few more times for fuel.

150 extra pounds just isn't needed all that often with a full fuel useful load (with 80 gallon LR tanks that don't need to be full) of 654 lbs on our P model. It's 25 more gallons of fuel, which is roughly two more hours in the air.

That means if you launched using all that load carrying capability for fuel, you have to fly for two hours to land at 2950 and not force a landing gear inspection.

So it's worth looking at typical loads to see if the gross weight increase really buys you anything in typical missions.

If you did a lot of hard IFR or really long XCs with big loads, it might feel better to have that extra fuel on board, for example.
 
denverpilot said:
If you did a lot of hard IFR or really long XCs with big loads, it might feel better to have that extra fuel on board, for example.
Click to expand...

Thread creep.

Yeah, I am about to add it onto my P. I regularly fly 250nm weekend trips with three to four bodies and bags and depending on the size of people I am often right at minimum fuel reserves where I like to have a bit more buffer on fuel. So to your point, all depends on mission and practicality.
 
Shawn said:
Thread creep.

Yeah, I am about to add it onto my P. I regularly fly 250nm weekend trips with three to four bodies and bags and depending on the size of people I am often right at minimum fuel reserves where I like to have a bit more buffer on fuel. So to your point, all depends on mission and practicality.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we found that most of our flights were two humans and bags (all older pilots with no kids or kids well out of the house) so the utility just wasn't there for the STC.

But it's good info for a new late-model 182 owner to ponder after they've flown their new toy a bit. :)

We might also consider adding it if we do a thirstier engine someday when ours needs an overhaul. That'd make it more useful too.

The one benefit of living up here: Our average fuel burn is 11.5, not the usual 13 that folks see who live lower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top