Upgrading from C172SP to 182S

Jay,

He was probably thinking about a RENTAL 182.

I'd quit flying before I'd allow my airplane in the rental fleet!

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:BgPdg.750203$084.242848@attbi_s22...
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...

Treat it like what? Nothing happens to the plane.

Nothing bad happens to your aircraft when you lock up the brakes on a
gravel runway, with the prop spinning? In a 182?

No stone chips in the prop? No flat-spotted or gouged tires? No stones
tossed into the paint?

Consider the added stress on the airframe. Motor mounts in particular are
going to be under great duress in a landing like you described. The
nosewheel structure will also be heavily stressed. Do that particular
landing "procedure" incorrectly in a 182, and you'll be buying a new
firewall. Many Skylane owners before you have discovered just how fragile
that nosegear-to-firewall connection really is.

I'm glad you have off-road fun with your plane, but you probably shouldn't
suggest a guy that is new to 182s do the same. What you described doing
with your plane is a high-skill, relatively high-risk game, and is
probably more suited for a tail dragger. It surely isn't suited for a
newbie 182 driver, like the O.P.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

He was probably thinking about a RENTAL 182.

I'd quit flying before I'd allow my airplane in the rental fleet!

Me, too -- but I don't think Newps is a renter.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsYPdg.750263$084.581463@attbi_s22...
He was probably thinking about a RENTAL 182.

I'd quit flying before I'd allow my airplane in the rental fleet!

Me, too -- but I don't think Newps is a renter.

He's not, and he wasn't when he flew a 182.

Sure, there's more wear and tear on the airplane. But you don't get an
airplane suitable for rough, short, unpaved operations and then avoid those
situations so that you can save on maintenance costs.

You could buy a used Cherokee Six and a used 182 combined for the price of a
used Beaver, and you don't see the people getting Beavers going around
babying them. They buy the plane for a purpose, and they accept that the
purpose may incur additional wear and tear.

It's great that you can limit your flying to situations that are low-impact
to the airplane, and that you're happy and satisfied with that use. But not
everyone is satisfied sticking to nice, long, smooth runways. Why would you
question their use of their airplane? They're doing what they want to with
it. That's the whole point of having an airplane and flying it!

Pete

It's great that you can limit your flying to situations that are
low-impact to the airplane, and that you're happy and satisfied with that
use. But not everyone is satisfied sticking to nice, long, smooth
runways. Why would you question their use of their airplane? They're
doing what they want to with it. That's the whole point of having an
airplane and flying it!

I'm not questioning Newps personal usage, nor do I really care if he
routinely slides his 182 to a stop on a gravel strip. It sounds like fun,
to me.

However, the topic of this thread was upgrading from a 172 to a 182. The OP
is not an experienced 182 pilot, and, quite frankly, I don't know any other
182 owners who treat their aircraft like a backwoods aircraft. For Newps to
mention his method of operation as if it's a normal, routine way of using a
Skylane is therefore (in my opinion, of course) not helpful to the OP, who
may otherwise leave this thread with the impression that the 182 is
something it's not.

BTW: We routinely operate out of grass strips. In fact, I prefer them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:




Nothing bad happens to your aircraft when you lock up the brakes on a gravel
runway, with the prop spinning? In a 182?

No stone chips in the prop?

How are stones going to defy the laws of physics? The plane is moving
forward. Rocks don't leap off the ground and jump into the prop.


No flat-spotted or gouged tires?

Not as long as you are not on pavement.

No stones
tossed into the paint?

Stones may or may not get tossed into the paint. That's a hazard of
flying off road.



Consider the added stress on the airframe. Motor mounts in particular are
going to be under great duress in a landing like you described. The
nosewheel structure will also be heavily stressed. Do that particular
landing "procedure" incorrectly in a 182, and you'll be buying a new
firewall. Many Skylane owners before you have discovered just how fragile
that nosegear-to-firewall connection really is.

My 182 was on its third firewall. You damage the firewall by landing
nosewheel first. There is no added stress to the airplane, matter of
fact there is probably less. The vertical speed is the same but the
airspeed is less.



I'm glad you have off-road fun with your plane, but you probably shouldn't
suggest a guy that is new to 182s do the same. What you described doing
with your plane is a high-skill,

You can't slow your plane to 10 mph above stall and hold that all the
way to the ground? That's a sad state of affairs.


and is probably
more suited for a tail dragger.


Nosewheel or tailwheel is irrelavant. A tailwheel can be limiting in a
crosswind. With the nosewheel I am not worried about operations on the
ground. The tailwheel guys don't start working until they are on the
ground.

Peter Duniho wrote:



Sure, there's more wear and tear on the airplane. But you don't get an
airplane suitable for rough, short, unpaved operations and then avoid those
situations so that you can save on maintenance costs.

Right. I finally had to put the rubber abrasion boots on the tail
because of the dings from rocks, bushes and branches. We have a whole
group of guys and a couple women who like to play off road. I've helped
friends take branches out of the tails of their Cubs. There's a reason
right there metal is better than fabric. Another friend taxiied his J5
into this huge hole and bent the prop. We pounded the prop back
relatively straight with a wooden wheel chock and about a 5 pound
hammer. It kills me that people are worried about getting a nick in the
prop. If that's you then stay on pavement in your little wimpy Brand P.

Newps wrote:
How are stones going to defy the laws of physics? The plane is moving
forward. Rocks don't leap off the ground and jump into the prop.

I believe there is a low-pressure area in front of the prop which causes an
inflow of air from the area forward of the prop to compensate for the air
that is being directed aft. Combine that with the usual preferential
headwind takeoffs and it seems likely stuff on the ground can be wind blown
and/or sucked off the ground and into a prop.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Newps wrote:

How are stones going to defy the laws of physics? The plane is moving
forward. Rocks don't leap off the ground and jump into the prop.


I believe there is a low-pressure area in front of the prop which causes an
inflow of air from the area forward of the prop to compensate for the air
that is being directed aft. Combine that with the usual preferential
headwind takeoffs and it seems likely stuff on the ground can be wind blown
and/or sucked off the ground and into a prop.

There is a short video that you can see that shows a Cessna running its
engine up while parked in a puddle. The water is maybe an inch deep,
hard to tell. The prop will create a little tornado directly beneath
its lowest point. This is what causes prop damage. Get the plane
moving just slightly and this effect is lost. Any air being sucked in
from the front, and I don't believe there is, is not strong enough to
pick up rocks.

Newps wrote:


Jim Logajan wrote:

Newps wrote:

How are stones going to defy the laws of physics? The plane is moving
forward. Rocks don't leap off the ground and jump into the prop.



I believe there is a low-pressure area in front of the prop which
causes an inflow of air from the area forward of the prop to
compensate for the air that is being directed aft. Combine that with
the usual preferential headwind takeoffs and it seems likely stuff on
the ground can be wind blown and/or sucked off the ground and into a
prop.


There is a short video that you can see that shows a Cessna running its
engine up while parked in a puddle. The water is maybe an inch deep,
hard to tell. The prop will create a little tornado directly beneath
its lowest point. This is what causes prop damage. Get the plane
moving just slightly and this effect is lost. Any air being sucked in
from the front, and I don't believe there is, is not strong enough to
pick up rocks.

I still wouldn't rule out getting a small pebble or stone into the prop
if you are sliding the wheels to a stop in gravel. The propwash might
sling a small stone into the nosewheel where it could bounce forward
into the prop. Similarly, if the nosewheel is pushing through gravel at
any rate of speed, stones could bounce forward off the nosewheel.

Rocks certainly won't leap off the ground into the prop, but they could
bounce off the nose wheel.

Matt

Any air being sucked in
from the front, and I don't believe there is, is not strong enough to
pick up rocks.

This brings up an interesting (to me, anyway) observation I made last
weekend, while parking over 130 aircraft.

Despite the fact that a propellor is putting out enough "wind" to pull
a 3000 pound aircraft across a grass field, I can stand literally
nose-to-nose with the spinner, and NOT get "sucked in" to the prop.

Thank goodness, I might add.

I knew this all along, after being parked a few hundred (thousand?)
times without dicing up the lineman, but I'd never personally observed
it before.

This seems counter-intuitive, though, and a casual observer would think
that the "suction" should equal the "out-flow". (Of course, it *does*
-- the air just isn't all coming in from directly in front of the prop
arc.)

At my airport our taxiway is in sad shape, and it's due to be repaved
this summer. We pick up new prop chips on most flights, despite NEVER
taxiing above 1000 RPM, and being extremely careful about where we
taxi. This seems to show that props DO suck rocks into them,
somehow...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"