Flew a 182 today

WannFly

Final Approach
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
6,553
Location
KLZU
Display Name

Display name:
Priyo
182 Q, 1977 model, up for sale on TaP. Drove 230 miles to fly it and I am shocked to see how well it handles and how stable it flies than the 172 sp I am training in. It was 13G19 and 035 OVC and bumpy, but the bumps felt lot less, the controls felt lot more effective and heavy and gave me a feeling of much more control than I have when I fly the 172 in similar conditions. The thing pretty much flies itself with minimal inputs. Is that much better machine than the 172? Or am I dreaming this up??

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
The 182 late version is a great aircraft. as is the 180, and the 185. but none hold a candle to the 195 for stability.
 
The 182 is a great flying airplane. Heavier nose and heavier controls, but otherwise it flies the same as a 172. Add 5kts to each 172 speed and you'll basically be right on target in the 182. Fun fun
 
It has a 6 cylinder continental engine, 500 SFRM, any ideas how much trouble I can get into if I end up buying this one as compared to a 4 cylinder 180 hp Lycoming? Loved how it flew and let's just say I will be sad to fly the 172 now

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
The thing pretty much flies itself with minimal inputs. Is that much better machine than the 172? Or am I dreaming this up??

I also trained in a 172SP and now own a 182P and you are not dreaming it up. It is a more stable platform. Proper trim and the thing will fly itself.

The trouble you will get yourself into is taking a lot of friends and bags for cross country trips. The useful load is one of the highlights and you have to try hard to get the thing outta balance. On the late model 182s there is a sayin...if it fits it ships! It really is like flyin a SUV.

Nose heavy landings are the only gotcha...other than that it is just a bigger, faster and more stable 172.
 
Last edited:
182s are the ultimate in boring truck like behavior, as far as Cessna singles go... which is why I like mine so much.

If ours didn't need a bit of aileron rigging work, it'd be trim and forget, but ours rolls real slow to the right, so the act of resting your hand on top of the left yoke arm is perfect for dealing with that.
 
I flew a 182Q for a while, and have no complaints about it at all. No problem to carry 4 adults.

As others have said it is a little heavier in the nose so be careful to not land on the nose wheel first.
 
I flew a 182Q for a while, and have no complaints about it at all. No problem to carry 4 adults.

As others have said it is a little heavier in the nose so be careful to not land on the nose wheel first.
How does it handle stalls with the heavy nose?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
How does it handle stalls with the heavy nose?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

It has been almost 20 years since I have flown a 182, but I have no bad memories of stalls. (that is no students tried to kill me...:lol::lol::lol:) I flew it in fire patrol and did check outs in it and instructed as well. It flew just as good in the right seat or the left.
 
I've never viewed the 182 as that much of a leap from the 172, or even 152, they all are pretty much the same, just a step up in size/weight.
 
How does it handle stalls with the heavy nose?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

It's a pussycat. Of course ours has the STOL kit, but even ones I've flown without it, they'll happily just bobble along in extended falling leaf stalls, and as long as no rigging issues, they usually don't have any tendency to drop a wing or do much of anything, really, other than sink like mad.

With the STOL, one of the demos I do for pilot friends who fly with me if they want to see it, is just slow up in slow cruise and then move the throttle to idle and as airspeed falls just keep coming back into my lap with the yoke until I have it full aft, and then just wrap my arms around it and hold it there. It'll just settle into a slow nose down, regain speed, level off stall, nose down regain speed, oscillation, where all it takes is rudder to level the wings.

(It does require full rudder deflection if a wing drops a little at the slowest airspeed, and it may not start rolling back right then, but the rudder will hold the bank from going any steeper and as soon as the nose falls again, it'll right itself... typical for a falling leaf stall series. But the yoke is "locked" full aft and ailerons neutral by my arms locked around it.)

Power on stalls, the deck angle can get a little eye opening if you're light and closer to sea level than here. 230 HP is a good amount of air blasting over the elevator, but it's also blasting most of the rudder, so both are very effective right up until a bug shudder and the nose falls back to the horizon. Some folks who are worried about a follow on accelerated stall might limit the power in power on stall prep, but I've never found it to be a big pitch problem if you slow up a bit to a normal climbout speed before starting it.

Slow flight (real slow flight, not the ACS garbage) is incredibly easy but the ailerons get sloppy. It's actually one of the best indirect hints that your getting slow in the 182, there's very little resistance in the ailerons when you're really slow. They're still effective but you won't feel like they're "heavy" anymore without some airflow over them. Rudder gets a little sloppy even with all the prop blast, but not as loose as the ailerons get. Plodding along at less than 40 knots indicated is easy considering the low speed calibration errors in the ASI.

One other thought, sit in one and before sitting in the seat, it should have a crank for up/down. Many shorter people complain that the instrument panel is too high. As a 5' 11" driver I find I like the seat nearly all the way up for looking outside VFR. IFR/IMC or simulated, I'll crank it down until my eyeballs don't feel like we're looking down at the instruments. You can crank all the way down, and you'll see the outside world mostly disappear and fell like you're "cocooned" behind the instrument panel.

Some folk don't like the tall panel.
 
I owned a 172L before I had my 182A. My 182A was more stable and easier to fly in every respect. My landings were better, and I could stall that plane all over the place - straight ahead, in a left or right bank, with or without flaps - and it had no bad tendencies. It'd just sort of mush and recover. The 172L would drop a wing if I wasn't careful. Folks refer to the 182 being "nose heavy," but that's not a factor if you fly the plane correctly. I mean, it's not a design flaw or anything - it's just a 182. Fly it by the manual, and you'll have no issues.
 
How does it handle stalls with the heavy nose?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Nothing much different than the 172. It's pretty docile just like the rest of the Cessna fleet as James mentioned. You may start with a bit of aft trim to relieve a little control pressure but it's really not any different.
 
Thanks all, much appreciated

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Very good airplane, stable platform, and I think the Q I flew was around 130 knots. Good instrument plane. Much better than a 172 w/ increased useful load and that 6 cylinder up front. A true 4 passenger airplane. A thorough check-out and you'll be set. Never had a problem with the "heavier" nose nor any of the pilots I trained in it. It's a good first airplane, a good keeper airplane, and a good forever airplane. Good resale value also. At one time it was one of the safest airplanes out there. The RG model is a good one too.
 
How does it handle stalls with the heavy nose?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Power off, virtually identically to a 172.

Full power will have an excessive deck angle, so most people back it down a bit.

I've been able to load a 182Q forward of limits with two adults up front, no bags, and full fuel. Not other 182 models.
 
How does it handle stalls with the heavy nose?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

It doesn't. Haha. I was doing stalls prepairing for my commercial checkride yesterday and like @denverpilot says it is really, really, benign.

Never had a problem with the "heavier" nose nor any of the pilots I trained in it.

Yea, I never really understood the "heavier nose" idea. I land mine at full stall with a very nose high attitude and never have had any issues with the nose feeling heavy.
 
182s are the ultimate in boring truck like behavior, as far as Cessna singles go... which is why I like mine so much.
Me too. The other big plus is cabin comfort. Upfront shoulder to shoulder width eliminates need to stagger seat position to be comfortable. And plenty of room in the back too.

It's often said that 182's are never the top in any single category, but one of the best when you combine all categories.
 
I land mine at full stall with a very nose high attitude and never have had any issues with the nose feeling heavy.

Please educate me here, as this is something I have struggled with across multiple types. In the 182, I'm at 75mph indicated on final and let speed bleed off until I'm over the numbers. I get down into ground effect, ease out the throttle so as not to bang the nose, and then repeat the mantra "hold it off... hold it off..." I set it down on the mains, but not at what I would call a satisfying nose high attitude. I am worried that if I pull back on the yoke too rapidly, the plane will balloon rather than just raise the nose. What am I missing?
 
I too am not very nose high, but always touch down on mains, make sure I'm solid, and then hold the elevator position where it is to let the nose wheel ease itself down and use the elevators for aero braking.
 
Please educate me here, as this is something I have struggled with across multiple types. In the 182, I'm at 75mph indicated on final and let speed bleed off until I'm over the numbers. I get down into ground effect, ease out the throttle so as not to bang the nose, and then repeat the mantra "hold it off... hold it off..." I set it down on the mains, but not at what I would call a satisfying nose high attitude. I am worried that if I pull back on the yoke too rapidly, the plane will balloon rather than just raise the nose. What am I missing?
for what its worth, yesterday the guy who did the landing with me (CFI) flew it in final at 65 kts
 
RE: The C182Q you linked..... If you're planning on purchase, talk to your mechanic about the fuel bladders. The ad says the RH one was installed in 1990. 26 years is a long time and this one might be due for replacement real soon. The LH side may need it too. So once you know the cost of replacing it (or both), then you can use that to negotiate the price downward some. Then plan on doing it during the next major maintenance cycle.

But other than that, that aircraft has nearly everything I'd want in a 182Q.

The upgrades I would plan for would be an PSE Audio Panel (either the 8000 series or the 450 series) and an ADS-B transponder (GTX425 or L3's Lynx)

As always, get a thorough pre-buy inspection done by a mechanic of your hiring.
 
Please educate me here, as this is something I have struggled with across multiple types. In the 182, I'm at 75mph indicated on final and let speed bleed off until I'm over the numbers. I get down into ground effect, ease out the throttle so as not to bang the nose, and then repeat the mantra "hold it off... hold it off..." I set it down on the mains, but not at what I would call a satisfying nose high attitude. I am worried that if I pull back on the yoke too rapidly, the plane will balloon rather than just raise the nose. What am I missing?

My procedure is usually 75 on final slowing to 65 kts over the fence (70 if gusty), then close the throttle. When in ground effect hold it level 5-10 ft above the runway and when I feel it starting to quit flying pull all the way back on the yoke slowly. If you do it this way you are ensuring there is not sufficient lift to balloon when pulling that nose up

I have also started to add JUST A LITTLE but of power as a pull the power back. I mean to the point where the engine sound JUST changes- no more than 50 or 75 rpm. I have found that this makes it for a softer landing- chirping the wheels.

I find it easier to flare way nose up in a 182 than I do a Cherokee or similar.
 
RE: The C182Q you linked..... If you're planning on purchase, talk to your mechanic about the fuel bladders. The ad says the RH one was installed in 1990. 26 years is a long time and this one might be due for replacement real soon. The LH side may need it too. So once you know the cost of replacing it (or both), then you can use that to negotiate the price downward some. Then plan on doing it during the next major maintenance cycle.

But other than that, that aircraft has nearly everything I'd want in a 182Q.

The upgrades I would plan for would be an PSE Audio Panel (either the 8000 series or the 450 series) and an ADS-B transponder (GTX425 or L3's Lynx)

As always, get a thorough pre-buy inspection done by a mechanic of your hiring.

yah I have the logs out to my A&P and if he thinks its ok to take a look at, I am going for a full pre-buy (might as well throw an annual in while at it). this has everything I want actually other than an engine monitor and yah the ADSB thing when the time comes. I am hearing a rumor that my home base is going to a Charlie from a Delta.. so if that happens I wont have much options, no matter what I buy
 
Please educate me here, as this is something I have struggled with across multiple types. In the 182, I'm at 75mph indicated on final and let speed bleed off until I'm over the numbers. I get down into ground effect, ease out the throttle so as not to bang the nose, and then repeat the mantra "hold it off... hold it off..." I set it down on the mains, but not at what I would call a satisfying nose high attitude. I am worried that if I pull back on the yoke too rapidly, the plane will balloon rather than just raise the nose. What am I missing?

Pull the throttle out at a higher altitude and glide it in, with the flaps hanging all the way out. 75 MPH is about right, but you CAN go a bit slower, especially if you're well under max gross. Remember, the stall speed goes down as sqrt(M).

I'll generally pull the throttle as soon as the runway is "made," often over the fence. I don't try to play the "pull it in the flare" game, as that's when people screw up and bang the nosewheel. I may delay the throttle pull if I'm aiming a bit short, as it's poor form to touch down in a displaced threshold (though a 182 at idle is often capable of that while still maintaining healthy obstacle clearance). But never in ground effect. Either well above, or with the mains already on the ground.

A proper 182 power-off landing with the stall warning bleeping will have the nose in the air, and will be a very pleasant, soft landing like that.
 

The ad says it's a 1977, but per the serial number it is an early example from the 1978 model year. That means this one has the 28v electrical system, if that makes a difference to you.

FAA registration only indicates calendar year of manufacture. As with cars, the Cessna model year changeover was usually in the fall of the preceding year. Same deal with my '78 C-172N, which was built in October 1977, and thus shows "Mfr Year 1977" in the FAA database.
 
Last edited:
The ad says it's a 1977, but per the serial number it is an early example from the 1978 model year (FAA registration only indicates calendar year of manufacture; as with cars, the Cessna model year changeover was usually in the fall of the preceding year). That means this one has the 28v electrical system, if that makes a difference to you.
yeah when I looked at the logs it said Nov 77 manufactured and it says 78 model on the Log. the 28v electrical system actually doesn't mean much to me ... complete newbiew :d
 
I was going to ask what the rest of the tail number was, a lot of them start our N735 or N759, ours in N735UD!
And I learned to fly 182s in N735U (shortened from N735UU -- thanks; that's a mouthful).

Lots of really similar tail numbers floating around.
 
And I learned to fly 182s in N735U (shortened from N735UU -- thanks; that's a mouthful).

Lots of really similar tail numbers floating around.
Yeah, I bet the one you flew is a few serial numbers later than mine!
 
Looks good, except as mentioned, those fuel bladders, especially the one from 1990.

Certainly should not be a deal breaker though, but rather just something to be aware of that MIGHT be needed down the road in the near future. I recently replaced one on my 182P and it was only around $1200 installed.
 
It has a 6 cylinder continental engine, 500 SFRM, any ideas how much trouble I can get into if I end up buying this one as compared to a 4 cylinder 180 hp Lycoming? Loved how it flew and let's just say I will be sad to fly the 172 now

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
If you're financially and mentally prepared to do an overhaul the minute the ink is dry on the paperwork, you're in good shape. For any airplane.

500 hours is a relatively "safe" time in the life of an engine, but you don't know how it was treated, and, well, crap happens.
 
I flew a 182Q for a while, and have no complaints about it at all. No problem to carry 4 adults.

As others have said it is a little heavier in the nose so be careful to not land on the nose wheel first.
Carry some power until mains down.
 
Certainly should not be a deal breaker though, but rather just something to be aware of that MIGHT be needed down the road in the near future. I recently replaced one on my 182P and it was only around $1200 installed.
that would have been my next question.. thanks for chiming in @Shawn
 
If you're financially and mentally prepared to do an overhaul the minute the ink is dry on the paperwork, you're in good shape. For any airplane.

500 hours is a relatively "safe" time in the life of an engine, but you don't know how it was treated, and, well, crap happens.

Sigh!! guess nothing prepares you something like this until it actually hits the fan
 
Pull the throttle out at a higher altitude and glide it in, with the flaps hanging all the way out.
...
A proper 182 power-off landing with the stall warning bleeping will have the nose in the air, and will be a very pleasant, soft landing like that.

I can manage decent power off-landings, but it feels like I have less margin- like I use up too much of my elevator budget in the roundout and then don't have enough left to get the nose up. This is solo with full LR tanks, so almost worst case forward CG.

Carry some power until mains down.
I'll have to try that.
 
I am surprised that we are talking about landings and no one brought up AOA :rockon:
 
Back
Top