cessna 182a stabilizer play

[Dan Thomas]

post 26 the quote of
https://www.mcfarlaneaviation.com/products/product/1111/

I didn't quote that part number. Someone else did. Now, let's see what McFarlane and the FAA have to say about the applicablility of that kit to the OP's 182A:

 

[Tom-D]

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/may/18/faa-plans-to-issue-cessna-tail-cone-ad

AOPA is not the FAA, there must a requirement to be a safety to the navigation before they will issue. and this isn't even a comment period.
The number of aircraft involved isn't enough to be a safety to navigation.

Did you guys notice ? that Proposed AD doesn't apply to the stabs that we were discussing.

 

[Tom-D]

I didn't quote that part number. Someone else did. Now, let's see what McFarlane and the FAA have to say about the applicablility of that kit to the OP's 182A:

View attachment 89026

still running your mouth for no reason.

 

[Stewartb]

Cessna has a specification for play at the jackscrews. IIRC, it's .019" max with no more than .010" difference between the left and right sides. But, of course, if the jackscrews aren't synchonized the play can be masked. Rigging that system is lots of fun.

Edit: found the reference.



View attachment 89025

Thanks for the reference. I've never seen it. Less than 1/50th of an inch is less than most eyes can see.

 

[Tom-D]

Thanks for the reference. I've never seen it. Less than 1/50th of an inch is less than most eyes can see.

Cessna simply trying to avoid litigation again.

 

[Doc Holliday]

still running your mouth for no reason.

Replies like that is why you have zero credibility.

 

[Tom-D]

Replies like that is why you have zero credibility.

You have none anyway. so who cares.

 

[Stewartb]

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/may/18/faa-plans-to-issue-cessna-tail-cone-ad

Like my mechanic says, the FAA is addressing a problem good Skywagon mechanics have been aware of and dealt with for 20 years.

 

[luvflyin]

And like a Cub, too!


All 180s and 185 have the jackscrew-driven adjustable stabilizer. The 182 had it through the 182D (1961 model). Beginning with the 1962 182E, it was a fixed stabilizer with conventional trim tab. That was also the first year of the widened fuselage with "Omni-Vision" rear cabin windows.

What are the pros and cons of adjustable stabilizers. Seems that fixed stabilizer with elevator trim tabs would be easier to produce and maintain. Why did they want to do it in the first place?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Why did they want to do it in the first place?

Drag.

 

[Stewartb]

Better slow speed performance. Bigger CG envelope.

 

[luvflyin]

Better slow speed performance. Bigger CG envelope.

Ah.

 

[Pilawt]

Better slow speed performance. Bigger CG envelope.

The pre-1962 182s with the movable stabilizer had delightful handling in pitch. The later ones with trim tabs are trucks.