Upgrading from C172SP to 182S

Matt Whiting wrote:




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.

When landing the engine is at idle so there's no chance of the prop
picking up anything. I suppose it's theoretically possible to have the
nosewheel pushing thru gravel and have one get launched into the prop.
Haven't seent it happen though. Having said all that I have no interest
in keeping my prop nick free if that means eliminating what is fun about
flying. A prop is simply another part. I had my 182 for a little over
7 years. Never had any problems with the prop.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

I hope this is just a that you don't understand the meaning of the word
"literally" (perhaps you meant "virtually"?), and that you were NOT actually
nose-to-nose with an operating airplane.

If you were "literally nose-to-nose", then I'd say all the other discussions
about instrument ratings, preflight inspections, etc. are moot. You just
have a death wish.

[...]
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.)

Precisely. Note, of course, that depending on how much inflow there is,
there can still be a lot of "suction". Enough people have gotten sucked
into turbine engines to show that (I think you even have one or two on your
web site).

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...

I have to admit, I'm a bit spoiled what with having the engine on top of the
airplane and all.

And yes, it is always theoretically possible for a rock to wind up hitting
the prop, by whatever means. That doesn't change the fact that Newps is
right, the greatest risk is during the run-up (I know some pilots do a
rolling runup when space permits, to try to minimize this issue), and that
it's not normally a big problem for landing (when the throttle is at idle,
the nose is high off the ground, and the airplane is moving forward).

Pete

Newps wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:




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.


When landing the engine is at idle so there's no chance of the prop
picking up anything. I suppose it's theoretically possible to have the
nosewheel pushing thru gravel and have one get launched into the prop.
Haven't seent it happen though. Having said all that I have no interest
in keeping my prop nick free if that means eliminating what is fun about
flying. A prop is simply another part. I had my 182 for a little over
7 years. Never had any problems with the prop.

I had mine for six years and likewise had no problem flying from a
gravel and grass strip, but I certainly didn't intentionally slide the
tires at any time.

I also never had a problem with the firewall, but the previous owner had
bent it and struck the prop when he stalled in in from about 6'
according to witnesses. I can't imagine how anyone could do that with a
Skylane, but apparently it happens in addition to folks just plain
flying it onto the nosewheel while landing. Landing a Skylane is a
piece of cake, yet folks seem to screw it up with some frequency.


Matt

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

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...

I was going to cheerfully bring that up when you broached the gravel
topic. :-))

Matt Whiting wrote:



I also never had a problem with the firewall, but the previous owner had
bent it and struck the prop when he stalled in in from about 6'
according to witnesses. I can't imagine how anyone could do that with a
Skylane, but apparently it happens in addition to folks just plain
flying it onto the nosewheel while landing. Landing a Skylane is a
piece of cake, yet folks seem to screw it up with some frequency.

I think it's one of those things that once a plane gets saddled with a
reputation it can't be shaken. I had approx 1750 landings in my 182. I
three pointed it twice but never landed on the nosewheel first. Cessna
came out with a thicker firewall in the late 60's and mine got that.

Newps wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:



I also never had a problem with the firewall, but the previous owner
had bent it and struck the prop when he stalled in in from about 6'
according to witnesses. I can't imagine how anyone could do that with
a Skylane, but apparently it happens in addition to folks just plain
flying it onto the nosewheel while landing. Landing a Skylane is a
piece of cake, yet folks seem to screw it up with some frequency.


I think it's one of those things that once a plane gets saddled with a
reputation it can't be shaken. I had approx 1750 landings in my 182. I
three pointed it twice but never landed on the nosewheel first. Cessna
came out with a thicker firewall in the late 60's and mine got that.

I never got that high, probably 600 landings in 350 hours. Never landed
on the nosewheel, never stalled in from higher than maybe a foot and
never three-pointed. I always thought that of the 150, 172 and 182, the
182 was the easiest to land. The wind didn't blow it around as much and
it wasn't as "twitchy" as the 150. It didn't have as much control feel,
but it had lots of control authority. I flared with three fingers on
the wheel and in proper trim it landed like a peach.

I always made (well attempted at least) full-stall landings with full
flaps. This kept the nose well in the air at touchdown and the 182 had
plenty of elevator to hold the nose up until you decided to lower it or
until the airspeed had bled off substantially. This is quite unlike the
club Arrow I now fly. If you land the Arrow at or near the stall, the
nosewheel will come down with a thunk very shortly thereafter unless you
have the cg near the aft limit. With just me or me and one front seat
pax, it lacks the authority to hold the nosewheel up after landing. So,
I tend to try to land just prior to the stall and then fairly briskly
lower the nosewheel.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:


I always made (well attempted at least) full-stall landings with full
flaps. This kept the nose well in the air at touchdown and the 182 had
plenty of elevator to hold the nose up until you decided to lower it or
until the airspeed had bled off substantially.

I was the opposite. Most landings I was coming down full flaps at
minimum speed. I wasn't interested in a squeaker. I always picked a
spot, usually the numbers or two feet past the end of the runway edge
and landed there.

On Sat, 27 May 2006 15:22:26 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

the greatest risk is during the run-up

My experience has been that the greatest risk is *someone else's* run-up.
Too many do run-ups w/o having a care where the tail is pointed. And
since a couple of our club aircraft are tied-down relatively near a run-up
area...

Fortunately, we're not right at the end. But I'm sorry for those aircraft
that are given the lack of consideration of others.

- Andrew