Cessna 182 or 182RG tips?

In a previous article, Dave S said:
Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Personally, I think the 210 is the best of the bunch... 165 knots
on about 13.5 gph... and it will carry six... if you put the wimmins
in the back
seat.

Insuring 6 seats in a "rental" appears to be the problem. Trading a low
wing 6 seater for a high wing six seater doesnt do much to address that
problem.

So far it's 6 seats PLUS complex. We know clubs that haven't had problems
with Arrows, and we know clubs that haven't had problems with Cherokee 6s.
But every club with a Lance or a Bo is having insurance problems.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
- Donald Knuth

Dave S wrote:
Insuring 6 seats in a "rental" appears to be the problem. Trading a low
wing 6 seater for a high wing six seater doesnt do much to address that
problem.


Well, then... get the 182RG. It ought to be fairly quick and I know it'll carry
a load.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

Well, then... get the 182RG. It ought to be fairly quick and I know it'll
carry a load.

A problem for the 182RG over the 182 is the lost cargo space to the gear.

- Andrew

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

Paul Tomblin wrote:
So now we're looking at replacements, and one type of plane that people
keep mentioning as a possibility is the C-182 or C-182RG, because it has
similar performance to our Dakota, but better interior room. I've never
flown a high wing before. Is there any tips or hints you could give me
to help the transition?

Cessnas as a general rule glide better than Pipers. I generally chop the
throttle on final when I'm still a couple of hundred feed shy of the
threshold... something I wait a while longer to do when I fly Cherokees.

Eeek. Try that little "throttle-chop" manoeuvre in a heavily loaded C206 or
C210 or even a C208B If your idea of a smooth, controlled landing
involves folding the undercarriage, then go for it.

PEDANT
I've never flown any aircraft at the manufacturer's numbers and had good
results from "chopping" the throttle on short final unless I'm either hot
or high (or both) - although the C208B's PT6A is a little more forgiving as
it spools down....until you pull it into flight idle (alpha-range), then
you're screwed. But if I'm hot and/or high, I'm not operating per the
manufacturer's numbers am I?
/PEDANT

But, in the event of an engine failure (in a single), I'd rather be in a
Cessna over a Piper, and I'd rather be in a Piper over a Socata
TB-series :P

Cheers,

James
--
Of all forms of caution, caution in love is the most fatal.

Centurion wrote:
Cessnas as a general rule glide better than Pipers. I generally chop the
throttle on final when I'm still a couple of hundred feed shy of the
threshold... something I wait a while longer to do when I fly Cherokees.

Eeek. Try that little "throttle-chop" manoeuvre in a heavily loaded C206 or
C210 or even a C208B If your idea of a smooth, controlled landing
involves folding the undercarriage, then go for it.


Huh? I've got a couple of hundred hours in C-210s and only crashed one on
once... and that was after an engine failure! With proper airspeed control and
judging your flair accurately, it's possible to make soft landings with idle
power consistently. And trust me, if I was flying the 210, it was heavy!

Many trips to the Bahamas with six souls and scuba gear....


I've never flown any aircraft at the manufacturer's numbers and had good
results from "chopping" the throttle on short final unless I'm either hot
or high (or both)


My first chief pilot insisted on making every landing a short field landing.
That way, when I really had to stuff one in, it was just a normal day at the
office. I always flew a steep power off approach in Cessnas (except the twins).
And screw the manufacturer's numbers... they're really just a guide to one
aspect of handling the aircraft. There's generally more than one way to
accomplish the same.

In the C-210, I'd come in at 80 knots on final and bleed off from there on short
final. I have no idea what the touchdown speed is since my eyes are outside the
cockpit at that point. Steep approach, touchdown on the numbers or immediately
after, and soft landings so there's no bitching from the cheap seats....


But, in the event of an engine failure (in a single), I'd rather be in a
Cessna over a Piper, and I'd rather be in a Piper over a Socata
TB-series :P


Never had an engine failure in a Socata (never even flown one) but I absolutely
agree with your statement of Cessna vs Piper... and I'm speaking from direct
experience. I've crashed twice in my career... the first a C-210 (no injuries):
clean, it came down at 700fpm. The second crash was a straight tailed Lance and
it damn near killed me. Clean, it glided like a brick.... 1100 fpm sink rate.
And as I think about it, the Cessna was heavier with six of us on board as
opposed to only two in the Lance and no baggage.

I had a Lance 135 checkride after I recovered and I still couldn't reach the
preferred emergency touchdown point in the simulated engine out. Definitely a
lead sled....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

My first chief pilot insisted on making every landing a short field landing.
That way, when I really had to stuff one in, it was just a normal day at the
office. I always flew a steep power off approach in Cessnas (except the twins).
And screw the manufacturer's numbers... they're really just a guide to one
aspect of handling the aircraft. There's generally more than one way to
accomplish the same.

Your chief pilot sounds like my primary instructor. Pretty much every
landing was virtually a short-field landing. Well, not really as his
technique for a short-field landing scares me to this day, even though I
was once proficient at it in the 150. We came in with power on, the
nose in the air and the stall horn occasionally making a weak bleat.
Then once over the threshold, cut the power to idle, drop the nose just
a second to get near the ground, then haul back into a serious flare.
The idea was to get the elevator full aft with full stall horn prior to
touchdown. Your timing had to be pretty good to avoid a bounce, but
executed correctly this resulted in an impressively short landing.

When I was learning at N38, prior to the airport expansion, they had
something like 1900' of pavement and about 400' of grass on either end
of the runway, one end terminating in tall trees. We practiced this
mostly on runway 27 (now 28) which had a fairly clear approach. We used
the road at the end of 400' overrun as the threshold and if executed
properly, you could be down and stopped before reaching the paved
portion of the runway (this in a C-150). I was never completely
comfortable flying behind the power curve like that, but if you REALLY
had to land short, that seemed to be the way to do it and Dick was
completely comfortably flying that way and teaching that. Then again,
I've never flown with any instructor since who knew the envelope of the
airplane and of his own skill with the precision that Dick did.

Matt

Centurion wrote:
Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:


Paul Tomblin wrote:

So now we're looking at replacements, and one type of plane that people
keep mentioning as a possibility is the C-182 or C-182RG, because it has
similar performance to our Dakota, but better interior room. I've never
flown a high wing before. Is there any tips or hints you could give me
to help the transition?

Cessnas as a general rule glide better than Pipers. I generally chop the
throttle on final when I'm still a couple of hundred feed shy of the
threshold... something I wait a while longer to do when I fly Cherokees.


Eeek. Try that little "throttle-chop" manoeuvre in a heavily loaded C206 or
C210 or even a C208B If your idea of a smooth, controlled landing
involves folding the undercarriage, then go for it.

PEDANT
I've never flown any aircraft at the manufacturer's numbers and had good
results from "chopping" the throttle on short final unless I'm either hot
or high (or both) - although the C208B's PT6A is a little more forgiving as
it spools down....until you pull it into flight idle (alpha-range), then
you're screwed. But if I'm hot and/or high, I'm not operating per the
manufacturer's numbers am I?
/PEDANT

I don't use the throttle chop maneuver in most airplanes either, at
least not as defined above. I "chop" the throttle abeam the desired
touchdown point while on base leg. I then glide the Cessna all of the
way in. No throttle left to chop on short final. This works at any
airport large or small. The only exception is if they ask you to fly an
extended downwind or vector you onto final a long ways out. I then will
fly a power on approach until short final and throttle back then. This
works great in the 150 through 182 series, but I haven't flown any
larger Cessnas so I've no experience in the 200 series.

I do use the above procedure in the Arrow I know fly. It was "upgraded"
(what a mistake) to a three-blade prop last year when the two-blade
failed inspection. It now has so much drag at idle that you almost
can't fly a power-off approach. I was finally able to fly a couple a
few weeks ago when I was out practicing T&Ls after a too long winter,
but I had to fly a very close in downwind and then turn base almost
immediately after cutting power on the downwind. That was the only way
to make the runway without adding power. The approach angle is
impressive I must admit.

So, in this airplane, I normally carry 18" or so on approach and then
reduce to idle over the threshold. This works fine in this airplane as
long as you keep the nose down and don't commence the flare 30' in the
as some do. I was taught to begin the flare at about 10' when learning
in the 150 and have maintained that technique to this day. Likely not
suitable for larger aircraft, but works great for the airplanes I've
flown, especially into the shorter fields.


But, in the event of an engine failure (in a single), I'd rather be in a
Cessna over a Piper, and I'd rather be in a Piper over a Socata
TB-series :P

That's for sure. The Cessna's I've flown glide better than the Piper's
I've flown and the high wing makes location of a suitable landing site
much easier. The Arrow I now fly would be downright hazardous in an
emergency landing. You have limited glide range and lots of drag.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
That's for sure. The Cessna's I've flown glide better than the Piper's
I've flown and the high wing makes location of a suitable landing site
much easier. The Arrow I now fly would be downright hazardous in an
emergency landing. You have limited glide range and lots of drag.

Matt, tip on flying the Arrow for glide... don't put the gear down until
you have to. Use airspeed and flaps only, the airplane glides well.

john smith wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

That's for sure. The Cessna's I've flown glide better than the
Piper's I've flown and the high wing makes location of a suitable
landing site much easier. The Arrow I now fly would be downright
hazardous in an emergency landing. You have limited glide range and
lots of drag.


Matt, tip on flying the Arrow for glide... don't put the gear down until
you have to. Use airspeed and flaps only, the airplane glides well.

I am talking with the airplane clean. The glide was decent with the
original two-bladed prop. The glide with the new three-blade prop is
horrendous. It is hard to believe the difference without experiencing
it, but it is much worse. And the new prop vibrates much more. We're
planning to have it dynamically balanced and hoping that helps. I'm
definitely not a fan of three-blade props on an Arrow...


Matt

Paul Tomblin wrote:

Our club is worried that we're not going to be able to get insurance for
our Lance any more. (We had to switch to a named pilot policy this year,
previously anybody in the club could fly it if they met the currency and
checkout requirements.) Plus the Lance is going to need a new engine next
year, and we don't want to put $25K+ into a new engine if we won't be able
to keep the plane for more than a year or two.

So now we're looking at replacements, and one type of plane that people
keep mentioning as a possibility is the C-182 or C-182RG, because it has
similar performance to our Dakota, but better interior room. I've never
flown a high wing before. Is there any tips or hints you could give me to
help the transition?


I prefer Cessnas to Pipers. I got my private in Cessans and my
instrument in Pipers. I owned a 182 for six years and now fly a club
Arrow. I've never flown a Dakota, however, so I can't make a direct
comparison. The main difference I see between the 182 and the Arrow I
fly now is that the 182 has a much better glide ratio and lighter
ailerons and rudder. Pitch forces are similar. I find the 182 easier
to land. I think you will find that the transition will take one
landing maybe two, neglecting the "systems" transition which may take a
while depending on how different the avionics are between the two.


Matt