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

"Andrew Gideon" wrote

Laugh One bad habit I had to lose was the "looking down". I didn't do
that for trim, but I did for the cowl flaps. I've no idea why.

That's easy!

The cowl flap is down on the bottom of the plane, so you were looking down
to see if it were really opening! g
--
Jim in NC

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.

"Marc CYBW" wrote in message news:uF7dg.35084$Qq.24307@clgrps12...
Hi,

My fractional 172SP had an unfortunate "incident" with another pilot and is grounded for the foreseeable future. I am
planning to upgrade to a 182S in the fractional fleet.

Any comments and/or suggestions to make the transition as smooth as possible?

Thanks,

Marc CYBW

--


The XP is a 180 hp, right? And the 182s is 225 I think, so you will need a high performance signoff (power down, prop
down, mix down; mix up, prop up, power up). Be sure you know the avionics well, also. Do some sitting inside and
pretending if you can to familiarize yourself with the layout, remember to do the cowl flaps, use the checklists...

IMHO, the 182 feels more solid, comes down 'easier', get up and out with more authority (the CS prop!)...

Marc CYBW wrote:

I am planning to upgrade to a 182S in the fractional fleet.

Any comments and/or suggestions to make the transition as smooth as
possible?

Thanks,

Marc CYBW

--
Hi Marc,
There are a lot of pilots that went up the Cessna single ladder. I
started out with a PP-ASEL in Cessna 172s, then took 5 hours of dual in
the 182 to get my high performance signoff when I had 75 hours. At
about 150 hours, I stepped up to a T207. From my most recent
experiences, insurance companies want to see about 25 hours in type,
but you can check with your insurance agent to find out the
particulars. I can recommend a few books:

1. Positive Flying by Richard Taylor and William Guinther. A great
book about attitude flying, and breaks it down into a very simple
approach.
2. Flying High Performance Singles and Twins by John Eckalbar.
Another super resource. It is similar material, but much more detailed
and includes a lot of the specific theory and mathematics behind the
performance.
3. Flying the Beech Bonanza by John Eckalbar. This puts the theory of
the previous book into practice for the Bonanza. There is enough good
stuff in this to apply to other aircraft types.
4. I'm going from memory on this one, but there is a good book on
aircraft engines by (I seem to recall), Kaz Thomas.

I'm not associated with any of these authors. I have these books in my
aviation library and can recommend them.

Good luck,
Brian