Cessna T182RG Flight

dmccormack

dmccormack

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
10,945
Location
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
Flew a friend's Turbo 182RG up for an annual this afternoon.

Very nice airplane! Avionics are dated, but about 1/2 the panel is recent vintage.

Have to be careful with a turbo and not firewall it. Book max T/O power is 31" MAP, 2500 RPM.

I used 30/2500 and climbed out at 80 -- once the gear came up (a bit of a THUNK at the end of the cycle), speed picked up.

I leveled off at 3500 and let speed build to 130 KIAS (I wasn't going very far so no sense trying out the 20,000 ft service clg or the 180 Knot TAS).

I slowed the airplane up and did some basic maneuvers and slow flight to get the feel for the airplane -- very predictable, familiar Big Cessna feel. No surprises here.

Too soon I was closing in on the destination. I kept the power low, checked the cowl flaps, and started the descent.

This bird wants to fly, so a bit more nose up trim helped maintain the target descent aispeed. Soon I was in the pattern, gear down, and the Big Turbo 182 handled like a loaded 172.

Landing was predicables, though it took a moment to get the feel for where the wheels were in the relation to the ground (I've been flying a 205 lately in which the seat is nearly a full foot higher off the ground).

The gear is solid with no give, so the touchdown felt firmer than in the retractable Bonanzas.

Overall a good first flight in a good, solid flier. I'm hoping to take it on a few trips and put some hours on this airplane which has been sitting a bit.
 
Nice!

After flying the 182RG down to SAT and back a couple of weeks ago, I think a TURBO 182RG would be just about perfect. We were truing out at 145-150KTAS at 10000' on our trip. It would be sweet to get on up to 13-14k and catch some of those 30+kt winds when they blow through. We just didn't have enough juice to get much higher. At 10k we were squeezing ~18-20" MAP.

Very solid handling plane. Can haul a lot of stuff and people don't feel cramped in it. I can see a 182 in my future (but not NEAR future ;)).
 
dmccormack said:
Flew a friend's Turbo 182RG up for an annual this afternoon.
Very nice airplane! Avionics are dated, but about 1/2 the panel is recent vintage.
Have to be careful with a turbo and not firewall it. Book max T/O power is 31" MAP, 2500 RPM.
I slowed the airplane up and did some basic maneuvers and slow flight to get the feel for the airplane -- very predictable, familiar Big Cessna feel. No surprises here.
Landing was predicable, though it took a moment to get the feel for where the wheels were in the relation to the ground (I've been flying a 205 lately in which the seat is nearly a full foot higher off the ground).
Click to expand...

Has this airplane been STC'd or something to raise the redline from the certified 2400 to 2500? It would be handy to upgrade ours if it's available.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgMakeModel.nsf/0/B8A86AA31995F93F862574AA00653E69/$FILE/3A13.pdf
We have an R182, no turbo. Used to have a TR182, but the exhaust system headaches made it an expensive airplane to operate, and since it's used for complex training we don't usually make a lot of long XCs in it where the turbo would be handy, though the students could learn something from it. The dirty stall in these things is 37kt, lower than any 172, making it a pussycat to fly, and Cessna really got it right with this airplane. The old fixed-gear 182s had their mains a little farther back, which would often make the nose slam down hard on touchdown unless you used a little power in the flare to keep the nose up. R/TR182s don't do that.
But that low stall, along with the small main wheels and their massive brakes can cause tire problems. Most don't hold it off enough, or approach too fast, or both, and set it down and try to stop it when it still has way too much lift in the wings. We're forever getting flat-spotted tires.
There are some other things to know about, too: The squat switch is on the nosegear scissors and in the rollout the oleo often doesn't compress until you're down to taxi speed or lower, so anyone fooling with the gear lever (thinking they're retracting flap, maybe) will suck the nosegear up really fast. $$$. The maingear actuator castings are prone to cracking; that's an $8000 hit. Each. If the hydraulic rubber bits aren't renewed periodically as Cessna says, the failure of a main actuator piston O-ring will prevent the system from forcing the leg down against drag loads and the lost pressure will prevent the nosegear from locking down. Gotta look after that stuff. I hear of failures once in a while.
The cabin structure flexes a lot in flight (can see it when jacking the airplane) and the door hinges get strained as the doors try to take some of the loads, so their hinges can crack. Found that, too. They're not cheap, either, and the departure of a door in flight could be exciting. Might knock off a stab. The aft fuselage bulkheads have wiring harness cutouts and brace plates over them, the screws of which loosen off and let the bulkhead flex and crack in the cutout radii. Of course, cracked Cessna bulkheads are nothing rare.
Wonderful airplane, nonetheless. If I had money, though, it'd be a 185. REAL airplanes have the little wheel in the back.

Dan
 
I have about 20hrs in TR182s. Not much, but enough to know I like them. I came very close to getting one, but I was swayed by modern ergonomics in the new T182T, plus comparable performance with fixed legs.

TR182s are a good deal, some even have decent avionics for the price. A great plane, as long as you take care of the gear.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I have about 20hrs in TR182s. Not much, but enough to know I like them. I came very close to getting one, but I was swayed by modern ergonomics in the new T182T, plus comparable performance with fixed legs.

TR182s are a good deal, some even have decent avionics for the price. A great plane, as long as you take care of the gear.
Click to expand...
I saw a couple in TAP for about $100K. Tempting.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I have about 20hrs in TR182s. Not much, but enough to know I like them. I came very close to getting one, but I was swayed by modern ergonomics in the new T182T, plus comparable performance with fixed legs.
Click to expand...

And the modern safety features like airbags built in to the seatbelt? :no:

I can't remember if your 182 has airbags or not. I know I've flown in a couple of the newer ones that do, and they scare me!

As much as I don't like the way the 172/182/210 series looks (I'm a low-winger, and always will be) and prefer twins as a rule, a T182RG or a P210 does make quite an attractive package. We have a P210 that flies into IPT pretty frequently, and while it certainly has about zero ramp appeal to me, having a decent-sized plane that's got full deice and pressurization with the economy of one engine does have appeal.

No, I'm not giving up on my dream of a twin. :)
 
dmccormack said:
Twin = double the chances of something breaking.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

We obviously have a philosophical disagreement on twins vs. signles. I'm willing to accept this and continue being friends if you are. :)
 
dmccormack said:
Note the smiley??

;)

If I had The $$ and the mission, a newer Pilatus sure would be sweet.....
Click to expand...

The Pilatapus is a neat, albeit odd-looking, plane. I'd still take a King Air, though if I had the money.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
And the modern safety features like airbags built in to the seatbelt? :no:

I can't remember if your 182 has airbags or not. I know I've flown in a couple of the newer ones that do, and they scare me!
Click to expand...

What scares you about airbags? Seeing all the stuff out there waiting for me to face-plant it in a rapid deceleration I like the idea of air bags, and more manufacturers are putting them on their aircraft.
 
TMetzinger said:
What scares you about airbags? Seeing all the stuff out there waiting for me to face-plant it in a rapid deceleration I like the idea of air bags, and more manufacturers are putting them on their aircraft.
Click to expand...

I've gotten to the point where an airbag mounted in a steering wheel is acceptable to me. Do I like it? No. I do not want them as I have known far too many people who have gotten injured by them. The best case I have seen is someone who is unaffected by airbag deployment, I've never known anyone who's been helped by them. Argue all you want in their favor, but I do not want them. I've argued with the people who design them who insist that their testing in labs have made them safe, but the people I've known who've been hospitalized due to injuries that the police, EMS, and doctors all agree were caused directly by the airbags will argue heartily otherwise.

But, the airbags on the 182 are not built into the yoke, they are built into the seatbelt. So, this means the force exerted to deploy the airbags is planted right onto your waist (not something that I like). That means if you put on the seat belt wrong, it will try to deploy into you. That's even worse, and I could easily see my mom putting the seat belt on wrong, which therefore tells me that's a probable indication. I also haven't seen them clearly marked as "this side up" or, more importantly "this side down" so that if you put the belt on wrong, you'll know. Even if they had that marking, I still wouldn't like them for reasons stated above.

Then, do you really believe that Cessna has done the kind of crash testing that Ford has done to determine the overall effectiveness of their airbags? No way. They sell fewer 182s in a year than I would bet that Ford crash tests for a new model. Nevermind the fact that the major auto manufacturers have learned a lot from the many, many vehicles they've crashed for crash testing. The aviation industry simply does not have the volume of airplanes to crash to learn that much about. It's economies of scale.

So, I don't like the way they're implemented, and I simply do not believe they could possibly do enough testing to put them on par with the automotive airbags, which I still don't like.
 
Wow, now we just need to find an LSA with airbag seatbelts, and we'll have a thread!! ;-)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I've gotten to the point where an airbag mounted in a steering wheel is acceptable to me. Do I like it? No. I do not want them as I have known far too many people who have gotten injured by them. The best case I have seen is someone who is unaffected by airbag deployment, I've never known anyone who's been helped by them. Argue all you want in their favor, but I do not want them. I've argued with the people who design them who insist that their testing in labs have made them safe, but the people I've known who've been hospitalized due to injuries that the police, EMS, and doctors all agree were caused directly by the airbags will argue heartily otherwise.

But, the airbags on the 182 are not built into the yoke, they are built into the seatbelt. So, this means the force exerted to deploy the airbags is planted right onto your waist (not something that I like). That means if you put on the seat belt wrong, it will try to deploy into you. That's even worse, and I could easily see my mom putting the seat belt on wrong, which therefore tells me that's a probable indication. I also haven't seen them clearly marked as "this side up" or, more importantly "this side down" so that if you put the belt on wrong, you'll know. Even if they had that marking, I still wouldn't like them for reasons stated above.

Then, do you really believe that Cessna has done the kind of crash testing that Ford has done to determine the overall effectiveness of their airbags? No way. They sell fewer 182s in a year than I would bet that Ford crash tests for a new model. Nevermind the fact that the major auto manufacturers have learned a lot from the many, many vehicles they've crashed for crash testing. The aviation industry simply does not have the volume of airplanes to crash to learn that much about. It's economies of scale.

So, I don't like the way they're implemented, and I simply do not believe they could possibly do enough testing to put them on par with the automotive airbags, which I still don't like.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I'm aware of people who've had airbag injuries, but in my experience they are far outnumbered by the number of injuries that airbags have reduced. In many ways this is like comparing driving to flying - most of us FEEL that the drive is less safe than the flight, but the statistics don't back it up.

As for the seatbelt ones, in a cessna you'd have to work really hard to put them on backwards, and the ones I've flown are clearly marked so that you put the airbag facing outward.

But the Amsafe bags aren't required equipment as far as I know, so you can certainly order your airplane without them.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
And the modern safety features like airbags built in to the seatbelt? :no:

I can't remember if your 182 has airbags or not. I know I've flown in a couple of the newer ones that do, and they scare me!
Click to expand...

I have 'em, and I hate 'em. They're standard from '05 on. I think they're a dopey "well, we don't have a parachute but we do have AIRBAGS!" Cessna marketing department ploy. Impossible to fit a kid booster seat safely with them. Plus, what kind of accident are they REALLY going to protect me from? They were the only negative for the plane, IMHO.
 
gprellwitz said:
I saw a couple in TAP for about $100K. Tempting.
Click to expand...

Check 'em out. A LOT of bang for the buck. A 182 is very versatile. Add turbo and RG and you've got the complete package. Complex, HP, and versatile. Cessna finally got the gear (mostly) right by 1979. For all around fun, I'd pick one over a Mooney J model, but that's based on my flying, plus I like 2 doors.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I have 'em, and I hate 'em. They're standard from '05 on. I think they're a dopey "well, we don't have a parachute but we do have AIRBAGS!" Cessna marketing department ploy. Impossible to fit a kid booster seat safely with them. Plus, what kind of accident are they REALLY going to protect me from? They were the only negative for the plane, IMHO.
Click to expand...
You have them in the back? I wouldn't put a kid small enough to need a booster in the front anyway.
 
Last two Cessna wrecks I saw (both at MGW, both from same FBO), the wings were bent back from the roots.

The flaps were extended on both, which helped prevent the Guillotine effect by about 10 inches.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
Hmm. I'm aware of people who've had airbag injuries, but in my experience they are far outnumbered by the number of injuries that airbags have reduced. In many ways this is like comparing driving to flying - most of us FEEL that the drive is less safe than the flight, but the statistics don't back it up.
Click to expand...

Right, but how are those statistics generated? It probably is "If this person was in a crash, the airbags deployed, and the person survived, that person is assumed to have been saved by the airbags." Such statistics are worthless.

TMetzinger said:
As for the seatbelt ones, in a cessna you'd have to work really hard to put them on backwards, and the ones I've flown are clearly marked so that you put the airbag facing outward.
Click to expand...

The ones I've flown I certainly would never put them on backwards, either, but you and I are smarter than a number of people. My mom would never get it right. She'd just complain about the seat belt being uncomfortable.

TMetzinger said:
But the Amsafe bags aren't required equipment as far as I know, so you can certainly order your airplane without them.
Click to expand...

I'll just stick to buying and flying planes old enough that they don't have them! :yes:
 
flyersfan31 said:
Check 'em out. A LOT of bang for the buck. A 182 is very versatile. Add turbo and RG and you've got the complete package. Complex, HP, and versatile. Cessna finally got the gear (mostly) right by 1979. For all around fun, I'd pick one over a Mooney J model, but that's based on my flying, plus I like 2 doors.
Click to expand...
Believe me, you don't need to sell me on the 182's!
 
Ferried the T182RG back last night after annual...

Wow. I leveled off at 4000 (short trip) and set MAP at 24", RPM at 2300 and 140 KIAS showed up in no time. Smooth, steady -- very comfortable cruise.

Fuel burn was indicating 20 GPH, but this is not an airplane to fly at 4k feet XC. I'm guessing (based on quick review of POH numbers) that this airplane would burn 13-14 GPH at 150 Knots TAS at 10,000.

Not quite as efficient as an A36 (150 TAS @ 11-12 GPH), but still a very capable and nice flying airplane.

Straight-in approach to towered field gave me time to slow the airplane down to a very manageable 70 KIAS on final. Elevator is heavy (compared to the Skipper I had just climbed out of), but familiar to other big Cessna singles (and not as heavy as A36 elevator with down springs).
 
dmccormack said:
Wow. I leveled off at 4000 (short trip) and set MAP at 24", RPM at 2300 and 140 KIAS showed up in no time. Smooth, steady -- very comfortable cruise.

Fuel burn was indicating 20 GPH, but this is not an airplane to fly at 4k feet XC. I'm guessing (based on quick review of POH numbers) that this airplane would burn 13-14 GPH at 150 Knots TAS at 10,000.
Click to expand...
That fuel burn sounds awfully high to me. The book value for our T182T at those settings is 13.2GPH on a standard day. That's with the TIO-540-AK1A 235BHP. That's 71% power. Of course, the book TAS there is 134KTS, but ours isn't a retract, so I might expect even more than the 6KT difference you saw.
 
gprellwitz said:
That fuel burn sounds awfully high to me. The book value for our T182T at those settings is 13.2GPH on a standard day. That's with the TIO-540-AK1A 235BHP. That's 71% power. Of course, the book TAS there is 134KTS, but ours isn't a retract, so I might expect even more than the 6KT difference you saw.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought, though I don't know how much confidence to place in the analog OEM gauge.
 
dmccormack said:
That's what I thought, though I don't know how much confidence to place in the analog OEM gauge.
Click to expand...
I've generally found them to be fairly accurate, at least on the planes from the last 10 years. Don't know about the OEM gauges from the late 70's or 80's, though.
 
gprellwitz said:
I've generally found them to be fairly accurate, at least on the planes from the last 10 years. Don't know about the OEM gauges from the late 70's or 80's, though.
Click to expand...

This T182RG is a 1978 model.

It had an Insight gauge on the far side of the panel, but as short a trip as it was I got tired of reaching and trying to work the tiny buttons.
 
20? Full rich or only slightly leaned maybe. Even at 4k you should see around 14-15 at 100ROP.
 
flyersfan31 said:
20? Full rich or only slightly leaned maybe. Even at 4k you should see around 14-15 at 100ROP.
Click to expand...

I leaned it but the insight wasn't helping and EGT barely changed after initial lean. I was low (4k) and short (40 nm) and had just enough time to get everything set up for cruise before I was calling Morgantown tower for landing clearance...

If I fly it again I'll be in the right seat with the owner and get more familiar with the insight.
 
After flying the 182RG with Tony this weekend, I definitely can see where a T182RG would be a sweet package. That said, controls were a bit truck-like for my taste. Even though the Archer still handles like a truck when compared to other planes, it's a lot more nimble and fun than the 182.

Unfortunately, people seem to think these airplanes are worth their weight in gold. I really can't figure why they go for so much.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
After flying the 182RG with Tony this weekend, I definitely can see where a T182RG would be a sweet package. That said, controls were a bit truck-like for my taste. Even though the Archer still handles like a truck when compared to other planes, it's a lot more nimble and fun than the 182.

Unfortunately, people seem to think these airplanes are worth their weight in gold. I really can't figure why they go for so much.
Click to expand...

Archer? Nimble?

Hunh?
 
dmccormack said:
Archer? Nimble?

Hunh?
Click to expand...

I was comparing it to the 182RG I flew this weekend, which was definitely anything but.

You want nimble, fly a Lancair... :)
 
jmaynard said:
Utility counts for more than fun flying for a lot of folks. The 182's reputation of being able to haul anyone and anything nearly anywhere makes it really attractive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I still haven't been able to figure out why people buy Toyota Camrys, either. Obviously, I look for different things in what I purchase. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I was comparing it to the 182RG I flew this weekend, which was definitely anything but.

You want nimble, fly a Lancair... :)
Click to expand...

The '47 V is almost too nimble for its intended mission -- Fast, efficient XC. -- the light controls makes you work , constantly.

The Archer was the first Cherokee series I flew after 150/152 -- it felt solid as a truck, and made point A to B flying much less labor intensive.

The 182/20X series was designed for long hauls -- not patch barnstorming. A bit of heaviness in the controls helps make the ride less fatiguing.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
After flying the 182RG with Tony this weekend, I definitely can see where a T182RG would be a sweet package. That said, controls were a bit truck-like for my taste. Even though the Archer still handles like a truck when compared to other planes, it's a lot more nimble and fun than the 182.

Unfortunately, people seem to think these airplanes are worth their weight in gold. I really can't figure why they go for so much.
Click to expand...
I don't know anyone who's claimed that the 182's are sports cars. SUV is the term I hear applied to them. No argument there.

dmccormack said:
I leaned it but the insight wasn't helping and EGT barely changed after initial lean. I was low (4k) and short (40 nm) and had just enough time to get everything set up for cruise before I was calling Morgantown tower for landing clearance...

If I fly it again I'll be in the right seat with the owner and get more familiar with the insight.
Click to expand...
In other words, you really hadn't leaned it at all! :) Plus, on a turbo they recommend you lean to T.I.T., not EGT, though you certainly need to monitor EGT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top