No spins in C-182

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...

Because the 182 didn't go through the process to be utility Catagory and spin certified. It would have cost extra money that the board of directors did not believe would have a positive return for their stockholders. Considering the sales history of the 182 series, it's hard to say they made a bad choice.

It's really as simple as that, this is business, it's about making the most profit, not the best product, and really,most people don't want to go out and do spins in their 182. This does not mean that a spin in 182 will be uncontrollable and kill you, it just means they didn't spend money on a certification that wasn't demanded. 172s are trainers, it was worth it there.
 
Last edited:
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...

The original question can only be answered by Cessna. Because the 182 was never intended for use as a trainer, it's unlikely that Cessna would have pursued certification for spins. Nevertheless, here are the applicable current regulations for airworthiness certification, which you can read on your own:

§23.221(b)
§23.807(b)(7)

Per the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) No. 3A13, the 182 is certified under Section 3 of the Civil Aviation Regulations of 1949 (CAR3). Section 3.124 covers spin requirements for certification.
 
Brad Z said:
The original question can only be answered by Cessna. Because the 182 was never intended for use as a trainer, it's unlikely that Cessna would have pursued certification for spins. Nevertheless, here are the applicable current regulations for airworthiness certification, which you can read on your own:

§23.221(b)
§23.807(b)(7)

Per the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) No. 3A13, the 182 is certified under Section 3 of the Civil Aviation Regulations of 1949 (CAR3). Section 3.124 covers spin requirements for certification.
Click to expand...

Is the restart 182 still CAR or did they have to recertify under PT 23? I have heard it said that Cessna didn't restart the 210 because they had to get it through Pt 23 and it was going to be cost prohibitive.
 
Did I hear negative comments about the 182 :mad: :mad: :mad:

To chime my own two cents in, I have never once felt the urge to intentionally spin my 182. I bought it as a traveller and local enjoying type flying. If I wanted to spin intentionally and often enough to outweigh renting a 172 every once in a waning crescent blue moon on Sunday's I would have looked for aircraft designed to do so.
 
Henning said:
Is the restart 182 still CAR or did they have to recertify under PT 23? I have heard it said that Cessna didn't restart the 210 because they had to get it through Pt 23 and it was going to be cost prohibitive.
Click to expand...

It's CAR3. The TCDS I linked above covers the following models:

182 182K
182A 182L
182B 182M
182C 182N
182D 182P
182E 182Q
182F 182R
182G R182
182H T182
182J TR182
182S
182T
T182
 
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...

Strange! When I was taught spins or did them later myself it always starts with a full stall. Done properly they exert very little stress on the airplane.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Strange! When I was taught spins or did them later myself it always starts with a full stall. Done properly they exert very little stress on the airplane.
Click to expand...

Don't be obtuse. We all know that a spin starts with a stall. It's what happens after the stall that's the difference.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Don't be obtuse. We all know that a spin starts with a stall. It's what happens after the stall that's the difference.
Click to expand...

It's just a rotating stall, you can slow and speed the rotation with the ailerons to add to or subtract the disparity in lift that causes rotation.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Don't be obtuse. We all know that a spin starts with a stall. It's what happens after the stall that's the difference.
Click to expand...
Blah blah blah
What happens, if done correctly, is that you spin a few times, recover and proceed. It's not a difficult maneuver and every pp should be shown how to recover from one and also unusual attitudes. Today, from what I've been told , CFIs are reluctant to teach them even if the plane is legal for them. That's too bad. The Stearman does them beautifully!
 
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...

Concur; a182 is very truck-like. And just a decent, but not exceptional, IFR platform. Passengers are occasionally useful as ballast, otherwise they impact performsnce too much. . .
 
Sundancer said:
Concur; a182 is very truck-like. And just a decent, but not exceptional, IFR platform. Passengers are occasionally useful as ballast, otherwise they impact performsnce too much. . .
Click to expand...

Particularly ones in the backseat. The 182 has a reputation for being nose heavy.
 
I don't think 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of roll define aerobatic, as far as the FAA is concerned. I think (but am too lazy to check) that the parachute requirement is somtimes equated to aerobatics, but is not.

Rules and published limitations aside, a fixed gear, single engine light plane of about that weight, that can't be safely spun, is kinda lame. I think, as was pointed out, it just wasn't certified for spins.
 
Brad Z said:
Particularly ones in the backseat. The 182 has a reputation for being nose heavy.
Click to expand...

I always load a 182 from back to front, it helps. What makes the 182 a whole new airplane is the Canard, and with the 260hp STOL kit making the Katmai makes it probably the most awesome plane I have flown.
 
Henning said:
I always load a 182 from back to front, it helps. What makes the 182 a whole new airplane is the Canard, and with the 260hp STOL kit making the Katmai makes it probably the most awesome plane I have flown.
Click to expand...

I'd love to convert my 182 to a Katmai. I'd probably do the city slicker version and keep the standard sized tires and wheel pants. Big $$$ though.
 
Brad Z said:
I'd love to convert my 182 to a Katmai. I'd probably do the city slicker version and keep the standard sized tires and wheel pants. Big $$$ though.
Click to expand...

Worth every dime, and I agree that unless your going off the beaten path, keep the little wheels and pants, it's nice to have a 145kt 182 with perfectly balanced pitch handling and the ability to land really, really, short. At FXE there are two entrances to 09 pretty close together, and I had it stopped on landing befor passing the second entrance; I can stick it onto a football field if necessary, and would likely survive landing in someone's yard. Plus the low speed handling is dead positive and the nose heavy tendencies are gone with the canard.
 
Henning said:
Worth every dime, and I agree that unless your going off the beaten path, keep the little wheels and pants, it's nice to have a 145kt 182 with perfectly balanced pitch handling and the ability to land really, really, short. At FXE there are two entrances to 09 pretty close together, and I had it stopped on landing befor passing the second entrance; I can stick it onto a football field if necessary, and would likely survive landing in someone's yard. Plus the low speed handling is dead positive and the nose heavy tendencies are gone with the canard.
Click to expand...

Funny I recall a member on one of the boards here that had a Katmai with a BRS. I'd argue that a Katmai negates the need for a BRS in many cases (obviously not pilot incompacitation, extreme icing, or structural failure), but is a better alternative to a BRS for a loss of power below a thousand feet on climbout. I'll have to put it on my wish list.
 
Brad Z said:
Funny I recall a member on one of the boards here that had a Katmai with a BRS. I'd argue that a Katmai negates the need for a BRS in many cases (obviously not pilot incompacitation, extreme icing, or structural failure), but is a better alternative to a BRS for a loss of power below a thousand feet on climbout. I'll have to put it on my wish list.
Click to expand...

Considering doing the chute and the canard cost about the same money, I would take the canard hands down.
 
I recall an article that I read stating that engine access wasn't difficult, removal of the canard is easy apparently. Or maybe it was the lower cowl. I'm tired:)
 
If you are looking for something solid to get you reliably from point A to B in all sorts of weather, they are an awesome bird with good useful load, and contrary to what I seen stated here, does offer very good visibility.
 
Back to the original question which was properly answered in that it's a certification issue. You can safely spin your 182, just not legally. The 150 and 172 being widely used as trainers, it made sense to certify them.

So the question is when did that begin? Did the original 182 have that limitation? What about the 206 and 210?
 
Sundancer said:
I don't think 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of roll define aerobatic, as far as the FAA is concerned.
Click to expand...

The FAA, in the TCDS for the 182, requires a placard in the airplane that says this:

"No acrobatic maneuvers, including spins, approved. Altitude loss in a stall recovery 160 ft. Known icing conditions to be avoided. This airplane is certified for the following flight operations as of date of original airworthiness certificate: DAY-
NIGHT-VFR-IFR."(as applicable)."

Huh. "No acrobatic maneuver, including spins..." Sounds to me like they consider spins acrobatic. They also specify stall recovery alititude loss, which implies that stalls are NOT acrobatic.
 
Brad Z said:
It's CAR3. The TCDS I linked above covers the following models:

182 182K
182A 182L
182B 182M
182C 182N
182D 182P
182E 182Q
182F 182R
182G R182
182H T182
182J TR182
182S
182T
T182
Click to expand...

Got to read to the end of the TCDS. There's this there:

 "Data Pertinent to Models 182S and 182T

Certification Basis: Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations effective February 1, 1965, as amended by 23-1 through 23-6, except as follows:
FAR 23.423; 23.611; 23.619; 23.623; 23.689; 23.775; 23.871; 23.1323...Blah blah blah"
 
No 182 has ever been approved in the utility category nor approved for spins.

You don't need to STALL an aircraft to land it. In fact, you are doing it WRONG if you do. You'd be hard pressed to stall a 182 (and most any aircraft) with the mains on the ground.
 
kgruber said:
That is why they have the "9G" seats, required by Pt.23.
Click to expand...

26G.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...16e3dd19&mc=true&node=se14.1.23_1562&rgn=div8

Exerpt:

2) For the second test, the change in velocity may not be less than 42 feet per second. The seat/restraint system must be oriented in its nominal position with respect to the airplane and with the vertical plane of the airplane yawed 10 degrees, with no pitch, relative to the impact vector in a direction that results in the greatest load on the shoulder harness. For seat/restraint systems to be installed in the first row of the airplane, peak deceleration must occur in not more than 0.05 seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 26g. For all other seat/restraint systems, peak deceleration must occur in not more than 0.06 seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 21g.

That's why those new seats are built like bridges. Boy, are they heavy.
 
Dan Thomas said:
26G.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...16e3dd19&mc=true&node=se14.1.23_1562&rgn=div8

Exerpt:

2) For the second test, the change in velocity may not be less than 42 feet per second. The seat/restraint system must be oriented in its nominal position with respect to the airplane and with the vertical plane of the airplane yawed 10 degrees, with no pitch, relative to the impact vector in a direction that results in the greatest load on the shoulder harness. For seat/restraint systems to be installed in the first row of the airplane, peak deceleration must occur in not more than 0.05 seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 26g. For all other seat/restraint systems, peak deceleration must occur in not more than 0.06 seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 21g.

That's why those new seats are built like bridges. Boy, are they heavy.
Click to expand...



Thanks! I figured it was wrong, but too lazy to look it up. 26G......Wow!



I don't know why anyone would WANT to spin a 182. Why not just spin a DC-9 instead.
 
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...

Most of us cannot afford even one, much less both pairs of wings.

And I like my flights nice and eventless. :yes:
 
Dan Thomas said:
Got to read to the end of the TCDS. There's this there:

 "Data Pertinent to Models 182S and 182T

Certification Basis: Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations effective February 1, 1965, as amended by 23-1 through 23-6, except as follows:
FAR 23.423; 23.611; 23.619; 23.623; 23.689; 23.775; 23.871; 23.1323...Blah blah blah"
Click to expand...

Ok, that makes sense, just put an addendum on the TCDS. That brings up an interesting question then, can you swap the O-470 for the O-540 and vice versa with just a log book entry since both are listed on the TCDS?:dunno:
 
swebster said:
If you are looking for something solid to get you reliably from point A to B in all sorts of weather, they are an awesome bird with good useful load, and contrary to what I seen stated here, does offer very good visibility.
Click to expand...

Roger on the load, especially if using it for fuel. . .massive range, if you leave butts out, and top the tanks. And a comfortable airplane. But disagree on vis - unless you mean the view of the ground out the left window?
 
Sundancer said:
Roger on the load, especially if using it for fuel. . .massive range, if you leave butts out, and top the tanks. And a comfortable airplane. But disagree on vis - unless you mean the view of the ground out the left window?
Click to expand...

:confused: My view out of a 182 is fine.:dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top