182RG

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roger, Roger
  • Start date Start date
They're great airplanes.

Like all 182s, they're pretty nose heavy. One trick, if it's just two of you, is to throw some ballast in the baggage compartment to get the CG aft a bit, makes a big difference.

It really is two airplanes to land: Kind of a pain with just two people up front, sweet as honey with some weight in the back.

Also, unless you're doing serious short-field work, no need to drop in all 40 degrees of flap. 30 is fine, 20 is fine, 10 is fine and zero is fine and less flap means a little easier time in the flare.

As has been mentioned, rolling in some nose-up trim in the flare helps.

I'm 6'3" and I can't see squat out the front on the ground no matter what I do with the seat. They do sit kinda butt low.

If I had to buy a piston single I'd be hard-pressed to not buy a 182RG.
 
TheresaPilot said:
The old instructor is my hunny bunny! :D

I got to do my CFI ride in 3648C thanks to that.
Click to expand...
I THOUGHT so, but I wasn't sure. Didn't want to call your bidness out to the open. I think I've sent one guy up to OKC in Chuck. I was pretty nervous the whole time. They don't seem to like that airplane.
 
woutlaw said:
They're great airplanes.

Like all 182s, they're pretty nose heavy. One trick, if it's just two of you, is to throw some ballast in the baggage compartment to get the CG aft a bit, makes a big difference.

It really is two airplanes to land: Kind of a pain with just two people up front, sweet as honey with some weight in the back.
Click to expand...
That sounds about right from the one flight I have in a stiff-leg 182. I'm pretty sure we were out of CG forward with 40 gallons of gas and 2 people. Even with the yoke back to the stop, I was hard pressed to have the mains touch first.

Even the 172 lands a lot sweeter at max gross and with people in the back seats.
 
Got my commercial and CFI in one. Great airplane.

It goes a long way and hauls a lot of stuff. IIRC, it could take 4 grown men with bags on a 600NM flight, no problem.

The thing had stout endurance, something in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 hours even at a 24" 2400 rpm power setting at 7 or 8 thousand.

I think it's probably my favorite cessna single, although I never flew the caravan, cardinal, or stationair/wagon.
 
The turbo version of these birds really rock. Turbo-normalized so they don't stress the engine TOO much, and the Lyc O-540 still only puts out 235hp, even though the same engine puts out 350hp in a Chieftain, so they actually make TBO in the 182.

170-175 kts at 18k. Poor man's 210. If I ever have the circumstance to own an airplane, a T182RG would be it.

Normal 182RGs usually are looking at 1200-1300 useful, and I think the turbo birds are looking closer to 1100 due to the built in O2. AC knocks another 85 off that.

Hey Poser, I hope that pic wasn't the day of your checkride....

Richman
 
Richman said:
The turbo version of these birds really rock. Turbo-normalized so they don't stress the engine TOO much, and the Lyc O-540 still only puts out 235hp, even though the same engine puts out 350hp in a Chieftain, so they actually make TBO in the 182.

170-175 kts at 18k. Poor man's 210. If I ever have the circumstance to own an airplane, a T182RG would be it.

Normal 182RGs usually are looking at 1200-1300 useful, and I think the turbo birds are looking closer to 1100 due to the built in O2. AC knocks another 85 off that.

Hey Poser, I hope that pic wasn't the day of your checkride....

Richman
Click to expand...


You should be an aircraft salesman. That description made me wanna find a turbo to fly. Decent usefull load, for a cheap, fast airplane (relatively speaking). The 182 we have at work does really nice. Just no turbo. I can only imagine how well it would do at altitude. I have taken ours up to 11,500 before to get over the bumps to KHII, but I woulden't take it up any higher. The 430 said something like 145 at 2300 and WOT. IIRC it was burning aroun 12-13gph? Not to bad. I'm a smoker (I know, save the ribbing), and had my mom and kid in the back, with no 02, it doesn't sound like a good idea to go any higher.

Now with a turbo, and some gas..... I can see the poormans 210 thing.
 
I instructed in a 182T (turbo RG)... was going to do a flight one day with a IFR student because the other 172s were either gone or in maintenance. Then last minute the 172 got fixed so we took that. A different instructor took the 182 that morning with a VLS (very large student) who wouldn't fit in a 152 and the turbo seized up and he ended up having an off-airport landing / controlled crash.
 
I have a few hours in one that I am working on my CFI with and basically echo the statements above. Very stable, kinda heavy, awkward to land, and touchy on the brakes.
 
MSHunter, where did you keep the oil in the 182RG? The owner is complaining that he has to put a lot of oil in it, but I'm suspicious that he keeps it topped to 8 quarts and it just blows the top quart overboard.
 
All good points. I've also heard that most crashes in 182's are on landing when the pilot loses directional control. It is VERY light when the mains first touch and takes a few seconds for the weight to settle down on them.

Also, it does feel heavy. I had a hell of a time doing short field landings in a 182RG. I always pulled the power too late, and would ya know the thing glided much longer then anticipated.
 
Roger said:
MSHunter, where did you keep the oil in the 182RG? The owner is complaining that he has to put a lot of oil in it, but I'm suspicious that he keeps it topped to 8 quarts and it just blows the top quart overboard.
Click to expand...


:confused:

On the belly maybe? J/K. Ours seems to settle at 7qts if I remember correct. Maybe a little less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top