No spins in C-182

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,036
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
What's up with that???
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    247.5 KB · Views: 207
It's a 182 man! What were you expecting lol

It's ether a weekend flyer for old folks

Or a entry level jump ship.

Not exactly a Extra 300
 
Since it's known to be a "well behaved" plane, you'd hope it wouldn't show blatant disregard for federal regs by violating its official limits. That adds another layer of safety. :)
 
Dang, I tried, really tried, but just could not warm up to a 182. Flew them with CAP for quite a while (maybe that has something to do with it?) and the handling is truck-like and the vis is awful. They do good for comfort and crosswinds, but otherwise are about the most boring flying machine extant. . .
 
Can anyone suggest a reason for the limitation? Is there an STC to have it removed? (not that I'd want to pursue it, just would like to know).
 
My straight tail Lane was spun on a regular basis.
Those of you who consider a spin to somehow be aerobatics :dunno: concern me more than if the plane is certified or not.
 
If you want to do spins all the time,buy an aircraft that is certified for spins. It's like taking the family station wagon out to a drag race, the
 
Dr. O said:
Those of you who consider a spin to somehow be aerobatics :dunno: concern me more than if the plane is certified or not.
Click to expand...
FAA seems to think it is. FAR 91.303 ("[...] aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.")
 
Pilawt said:
FAA seems to think it is. FAR 91.303 ("[...] aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.")
Click to expand...
Then stalls should fit this definition if that were the case.
 
Sundancer said:
but otherwise are about the most boring flying machine extant. . .
Click to expand...

Yes, and a Ford F-150 is boring too, unless you make it into a Raptor.

You can make a 182 into an King Katmai - to a similar end.

Lots of passengers like boring, and boring is good for IMC flight.

We can't all afford a 182 and an Extra 300.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Yes, and a Ford F-150 is boring too, unless you make it into a Raptor.

You can make a 182 into an King Katmai - to a similar end.

Lots of passengers like boring, and boring is good for IMC flight.

We can't all afford a 182 and an Extra 300.
Click to expand...

My insurance company likes boring too, apparently. My annual premium for my 182P with a 90k hull value is less than $700/yr.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I was countermanding Pilawt's assertion.
Click to expand...

Right. So since a stall is neither abrupt in change in attitude, altitude, or speed, it is not considered aerobatic. You asserted that stalls should fit the definition of aerobatic.
 
Brad Z said:
Right. So since a stall is neither abrupt in change in attitude, altitude, or speed, it is not considered aerobatic. You asserted that stalls should fit the definition of aerobatic.
Click to expand...
They fit the definition of aerobatic the same as spins fit the definition.
 
Brad Z said:
Have you done spins? They easily meet the definition of aerobatic.
Click to expand...
Did a few with Marianne in her Citabria.

fiveoboy01 said:
I'm not sure how you can say that. Surely you've been in an airplane in a spin? Not even close to a stall.
Click to expand...
Every spin I've done, we stalled the aircraft first.

In case I wasn't clear: I don't think spins always meet the definition of aerobatics or utility category. One does need to be in W&B to ensure recovery is possible though.

I'm open to challenge of my understanding.
 
I think a spin easliy meets the definition of aerobatics in the FARs.

Intentional maneuver? Can be.
Abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude? Check.
Abnormal attitude? Yes...
Abnormal acceleration? Possible.
Not necessary for normal flight? Check.

A stall, not so much.
 
James331 said:
It's a 182 man! What were you expecting lol

It's ether a weekend flyer for old folks

Or a entry level jump ship.

Not exactly a Extra 300
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call a 172 an Extra 300 either. I'll spin it all day long though.
 
certification flight testing for intentional spinning is robust and expensive.
 
You can't do intentional spins in a 182 so just do unintentional ones. :thumbsup:
 
ktup-flyer said:
I wouldn't call a 172 an Extra 300 either. I'll spin it all day long though.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you hit the ground first? That's a really long spin.

172s are only approved for spins in utility category. In an N model, that means <2000 lb, restricted aft CG limit, and nothing in the back seats or cargo.
 
kgruber said:
Not a smart or even clever thing to do.:no:
Click to expand...

Why, because he has a high post count? -LoL. I respect all POA'er equally.

Seriously, I'm open to changing my opinion, but bring me more than 'because I say so'.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Why, because he has a high post count? -LoL. I respect all POA'er equally.

Seriously, I'm open to changing my opinion, but bring me more than 'because I say so'.
Click to expand...

I already posted a perfectly plausible rebuttal and it's out of the FARs, not my mouth.
 
Jaybird180 said:
IIRC, an airplane in a spin is at ~1G...give or take a little.
Click to expand...

Right, however recovery is higher, and a botched recovery can get even higher if you don't manage your down line well and get a bunch of speed. Regardless the struts, a 182 is a relatively clean plane that will bust into the yellow arc fairly quickly when nose down.
 
frfly172 said:
If you want to do spins all the time,buy an aircraft that is certified for spins. It's like taking the family station wagon out to a drag race, the
Click to expand...

Not really, not if you do it right. Spins themselves are typically benign as they are very low energy, you are always stalled, and you really aren't dropping that fast. Yes, you go through a disorienting tumble feeling gyration, but in most planes it's not particularly violent. If you look at the spin records, you can see that sustained spinning does not incapacitate people.

As long as you don't screw up the recovery, you will not over stress a normal category plane. In fact, most basic aerobatic maneuvers including a loop can be done within Normal Catagory limitations never even exceeding +3G/0G parameters. We don't require Aerobatic Catagory planes for the aerobatics, we require Aerobatic Catagory planes for when we screw up the aerobatics and the recovery.

One of my early mentors was an OX5, he learned to fly in a Jenny between the wars. Back then you had to do two turns to a heading supervised by the examiner before the check ride began, and spins were taught as a technique to get down through a cloud layer.
 
Last edited:
bullwinkle said:
Most airplanes pitch down more than 30° in a spin...hence, aerobatic.
Click to expand...

I can accept that a spin involves more than a 30* pitch change but the explanation fails to answer the Why is it in the limitations section. My C-172S was approved for spins with nothing more than observing W&B.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I can accept that a spin involves more than a 30* pitch change but the explanation fails to answer the Why is it in the limitations section. My C-172S was approved for spins with nothing more than observing W&B.
Click to expand...

thats because your 172 went through the certification and testing for intentional spinning. the 182 did not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top