Upgrading from C172SP to 182S

Andrew Gideon wrote:


I think I've also found that the 182 will sink faster in the flare. That
calls for a slightly quicker flair. Some people use a little power in the
flare to slow the sink, and that works. But I prefer to avoid that
because I assume it'll cost me runway length.

Use 55 mph IAS, full flaps and a little power. This results in a slight
nose up attitude. Fly it right into the ground, no flare necessary. On
non paved strips you can lock the brakes. Total runway used is 450 feet.

On Thu, 25 May 2006 12:35:16 -0600, Newps wrote:

Use 55 mph IAS, full flaps and a little power. This results in a slight
nose up attitude. Fly it right into the ground, no flare necessary. On
non paved strips you can lock the brakes. Total runway used is 450 feet.

This sounds like a glassy water landing. I've never have expected it to
yield a shorter landing distance than an unpowered landing using the same
short-field speed (65 kts in my POH, I believe). Interesting.

[Obviously, I need to go try this. Ah, another excuse to play grin.]

- Andrew

I had VG's on my 182 so that helped a little. I could fly final at 50
mph IAS when I was alone and about 40 gallons. 65 kts on final is too
fast for a 182 unless you're heavy. I fly at about 70 mph IAS in my Bo
and that weighs about 250 pounds more than my 182 did and the wing isn't
as good.



Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2006 12:35:16 -0600, Newps wrote:


Use 55 mph IAS, full flaps and a little power. This results in a slight
nose up attitude. Fly it right into the ground, no flare necessary. On
non paved strips you can lock the brakes. Total runway used is 450 feet.


This sounds like a glassy water landing. I've never have expected it to
yield a shorter landing distance than an unpowered landing using the same
short-field speed (65 kts in my POH, I believe). Interesting.

[Obviously, I need to go try this. Ah, another excuse to play grin.]

- Andrew

Use 55 mph IAS, full flaps and a little power. This results in a slight
nose up attitude. Fly it right into the ground, no flare necessary. On
non paved strips you can lock the brakes. Total runway used is 450 feet.

And to think I get ****ed when I pick up a stone chip in my prop cuz of my
cruddy taxiway...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article RLsdg.3179$No1.2442@attbi_s71,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Use 55 mph IAS, full flaps and a little power. This results in a slight
nose up attitude. Fly it right into the ground, no flare necessary. On
non paved strips you can lock the brakes. Total runway used is 450 feet.

And to think I get ****ed when I pick up a stone chip in my prop cuz of my
cruddy taxiway...

That's just because you fly a nose heavy Piper. :-))

That's just because you fly a nose heavy Piper. :-))

Atlas IS nose-heavy, compared to our old Warrior. No different than
comparing a 172 and a 182, really...and the performance difference is about
the same, too. It's just got that wing thingy on the proper side of the
fuselage!

:-)

I sure wouldn't dream of coming in behind the power curve, hitting an
unpaved strip and locking up the brakes, though. I've just got too much
money tied up in our plane to treat it like that...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

That's just because you fly a nose heavy Piper. :-))

Atlas IS nose-heavy, compared to our old Warrior. No different than
comparing a 172 and a 182, really...and the performance difference is about
the same, too. It's just got that wing thingy on the proper side of the
fuselage!
I sure wouldn't dream of coming in behind the power curve, hitting an
unpaved strip and locking up the brakes, though. I've just got too much
money tied up in our plane to treat it like that...

You are missing his point. At 55 kts he is still at minimum 10 kts above
aft cg gross weight stall. He is not behind the power curve. It only
takes 100-200 rpm above idle to cushion the contact.
It is easy to land the 182 in a short distance without damaging the
aircraft or with undue wear on the brakes.
Another factor is the Cessna spring steel/tubular main landing gear. A
high sink rate with your Piper may punch the main gear up through the
top of the wing. On the Cessna it will splay outward and propel the
aircraft back into the air. Additionally, the ground clearance with the
Cessna gear is greater than the Piper.

john smith wrote:

That's just because you fly a nose heavy Piper. :-))


Atlas IS nose-heavy, compared to our old Warrior. No different than
comparing a 172 and a 182, really...and the performance difference is about
the same, too. It's just got that wing thingy on the proper side of the
fuselage!
I sure wouldn't dream of coming in behind the power curve, hitting an
unpaved strip and locking up the brakes, though. I've just got too much
money tied up in our plane to treat it like that...


You are missing his point. At 55 kts

Kts? Kts is for airline pilots. That's 55 mph IAS.


he is still at minimum 10 kts above

Stall is around mid 40's mph.


aft cg gross weight stall.

It's a 182, we're nowhere near aft cg.


A
high sink rate with your Piper may punch the main gear up through the
top of the wing. On the Cessna it will splay outward and propel the
aircraft back into the air.

If you do it right it doesn't bounce at all. If you bounce you're
airspeed was too high. The lower you're airspeed the higher the sink
rate can be.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Kts? Kts is for airline pilots. That's 55 mph IAS.

MPH? How old do you think this plane is?

In article ,
Newps wrote:

Stall is around mid 40's mph.

aft cg gross weight stall.

It's a 182, we're nowhere near aft cg.

Newps... it's a disclaimer. Many pilots do not know the referenced
speeds are for the aft cg, gross weight condition. The do not know how
to calculate speeds at lower weights and other cg's.