What I did on my summer vacation

Jim Burns wrote:

Myself and 2 other pilots lease ours from a local DE. I did all my
commercial and CFI training in it when it was available for rent from a
local FBO. I don't have any experience in a 172 or 172RG, but I would
characterize it as being very stable and nose heavy.

I've found the R182 and 182Q aircraft both similarly "nose heavy". Adding a
bit of power in the flair makes for an easy landing. W/o the power, it
take a little more work but is certainly possible (a I've learned from
power-off practice {8^).

[...]
The one we fly has the 80 gallon fuel tanks, so with full fuel it's
useable
payload is just under 800 lbs.

What year? Our '79 has 88 usable.

From where did the story that a 182 can carry what'll fit into it come?

- Andrew

The RG that we lease is a 1978. 80 total gallons, 75 useable. I honestly
don't know why some of the straight leg models have larger tanks. One
could guess it had to do with the extra weight of the gear, but it would
only be a guess, I don't think the CG would be that different.

I don't know where the story about it will fly with what ever fits inside
came from, maybe in ground effect, I still do a W&B when I have 4 people
plus baggage in it. I've heard that story mentioned more about the Cherokee
6.

Jim




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/28/2004

Jim Burns wrote:

The RG that we lease is a 1978. 80 total gallons, 75 useable. I honestly
don't know why some of the straight leg models have larger tanks.

Sorry; I guess I wasn't clear. Our '79 R182 has 88 usable.

I should be over it by now, but I'm still surprised when I see a difference
over a single year. Our 182Q, for example, has an engine and layout I've
never seen before. Everything is "in the wrong place" to me.

- Andrew

Ah, that is strange. They must have found some room inside the wing to make
the bladders a little bigger. 88 useable, is that about 92 total? That
would be 6 gallons more per side, not just "a little" bit bigger! Lucky
you!

I used to fly an Arrow that had 92 gallon tanks. Not many people could
spend that much time without needing to use the bathroom!

Good flights!
Jim


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/2004

Jim Burns wrote:

Ah, that is strange. They must have found some room inside the wing to
make
the bladders a little bigger.

Shrug Dunno. As I said, I'm astonished at what can change in a year.

I used to fly an Arrow that had 92 gallon tanks. Not many people could
spend that much time without needing to use the bathroom!

Which is why leaving fuel behind for more load is usually no great cost.
The real issue (at least for me) is trusting what's in the tanks.

- Andrew