A1Skinner wrote:

Scolopax wrote:

Crzyivan13 wrote:I think the extended baggage (flat floor) and firewall battery is a no brainer. Especially after seeing the cavern that is the extended baggage in these airplanes.

I realize the propensity of forward cg and i fully intend to run the numbers before buying anything. But even if there is a forward cg issue it can be compensated for.

I ALWAYS have some sort of tool kit/tie downs and light survival gear. To me, the weight penalty is worth it. Its not like every takeoff and landing is a STOL competition anyway, Right? [emoji6][emoji1303]

For me, it came down to: Would I rather carry an extra 20 pounds of battery and cable, or 20 pounds of survival gear, tools, water, etc... It's still nearly impossible to load out the forward end of the envelope with the Atlee battery kit. It can be pretty tough to get it real slow when loaded lightly at forward CG. With nothing in the baggage compartment, it's about impossible to pitch for less than 65 mph IAS, so if you want to win an STOL competition, it will probably happen at a little heavier weight.

Interesting comment. What year is your 180? My 62 is very east to load out the front. With my wife and I and fuel fuel we are out the front. But I have a heavy 3 bladed Hartzell that weighs 84lbs... still highly recommend the FW battery and airglas EB though. Some tools and survival equipment and all is well.

I'm flying a 1967 model. I had it on the scales and measured the arms a couple of months ago and it weighed in at 1726 with full oil, jump seats removed and bigger heavy tires. I haven't run the calcs yet, but I think that it will be under 1700 with normal size tires. A heavy prop on the nose will definitely make a lot of difference. I'm running a 2-blade 88 inch MAC. Not sure how much it weighs, but I'm pretty sure that it's significantly less than 84 lbs.

You have to remember that although they're fundamentally the same airframe, an early 182 and a 180 are not the same airplane overall. The weight of the nosegear assembly and the absence of the tailwheel assembly has a lot to do with the forward CG tendencies of the 182 vs. the 180. So Crzyivan's plan to weigh the airplane makes good sense.

In addition to changes in equipment over the years and rounding and calculation errors affecting W&B figures, Cessna didn't weigh every airplane coming off the line, so that the exact W&B can be determined only by actually weighing it. If then moving the battery will work, that's fine. If it's already hovering around the forward CG envelope in its stock location, then maybe moving it should be reconsidered.

Cary

This was my landing yesterday after my commute from PA. I figured the weight to be around 2350 lbs. 300 ft landing rollout.

This is some fun shit, learning a new airplane.

Did you have a Sportsman STOL and VGs in your other airplane?
I think it works very nice.

motoadve wrote:Did you have a Sportsman STOL and VGs in your other airplane?
I think it works very nice.

This is my first Cessna. It has Sportsman and VG's. It will far outperform me at the moment, but I am sure having fun experimenting with the wing and different techniques.

My last airplane was a Zlin Savage Cub

Home sweet home.

I weighed a 53 180 and it gained 250lbs from the old w&b. The cg wasn't even close to correct on the old one.

Good looking 182! Love the vintage paint scheme

Tom wrote:I weighed a 53 180 and it gained 250lbs from the old w&b. The cg wasn't even close to correct on the old one.

Good looking 182! Love the vintage paint scheme

Thanks Tom. I am guessing the empty weight to be about 1725 (this is 50 lbs higher than the "paper weight"). And it hasn't been on the scales since leaving the factory. It's possible that its closer to 1750 or maybe more. It will be fun to put it on the scales to get a true baseline.

Scolopax wrote:.... I'm running a 2-blade 88 inch MAC. Not sure how much it weighs, but I'm pretty sure that it's significantly less than 84 lbs.

I replaced the 82" C203 on my C180 last year with an 88" C201. The new prop weighs 52 pounds, not including the spinner assembly.
FWIW my 53 model comes in at 1695# with oil & 30# of unusable fuel, CG is at 34.64".
Zero fuel is 1665 & 34.49".
So my empty CG is actually forward of the loaded CG limits.
I have an extended baggage & carry a tool kit, sleeping bag, tent, and some other junk as SOP.
It must be enough weight because (although I generally wheel land) I don't have any trouble three-pointing it with just me aboard when I want to.

Crzyivan13 wrote:.... I am guessing the empty weight to be about 1725 (this is 50 lbs higher than the "paper weight"). And it hasn't been on the scales since leaving the factory. It's possible that its closer to 1750 or maybe more. It will be fun to put it on the scales to get a true baseline.

If you have a good set of scales handy, I'd suggest weighing it, if for no other reason than to know. As has been pointed out, both weight & CG can change drastically over time.

hotrod180 wrote:

Crzyivan13 wrote:.... I am guessing the empty weight to be about 1725 (this is 50 lbs higher than the "paper weight"). And it hasn't been on the scales since leaving the factory. It's possible that its closer to 1750 or maybe more. It will be fun to put it on the scales to get a true baseline.

If you have a good set of scales handy, I'd suggest weighing it, if for no other reason than to know. As has been pointed out, both weight & CG can change drastically over time.

That's the plan man

I looked at the old W&B sheet where the battery change was documented.
They did a couple other things at the same time, so I had to do some math, but in between the removing the old battery, battery box, & cables, installing the new battery, firewall mounted battery box & cables, and relocating the solenoid-- the weight went down 14# and the moment went down 3680.
In my case, this moved the CG forward 1.9".
Just a FWIW.

Evan keep posting. This is my new fav AM read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Crzyivan13 wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:

Crzyivan13 wrote:.... I am guessing the empty weight to be about 1725 (this is 50 lbs higher than the "paper weight"). And it hasn't been on the scales since leaving the factory. It's possible that its closer to 1750 or maybe more. It will be fun to put it on the scales to get a true baseline.

If you have a good set of scales handy, I'd suggest weighing it, if for no other reason than to know. As has been pointed out, both weight & CG can change drastically over time.

That's the plan man

You'll have to fly up to nh in the fall, I'll have some scales.

Tom wrote:

Crzyivan13 wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:[quote="Crzyivan13"].... I am guessing the empty weight to be about 1725 (this is 50 lbs higher than the "paper weight"). And it hasn't been on the scales since leaving the factory. It's possible that its closer to 1750 or maybe more. It will be fun to put it on the scales to get a true baseline.

If you have a good set of scales handy, I'd suggest weighing it, if for no other reason than to know. As has been pointed out, both weight & CG can change drastically over time.

That's the plan man

You'll have to fly up to nh in the fall, I'll have some scales.[/quote]

I will come up scales or no!

Crzyivan13 wrote:Home sweet home.

Congratulations, Evan! That's going to be a wonderful family plane for a long time... I really appreciate your decision-making process on your selection and purchase, too. Someone else in the thread used the correct word to describe it - wisdom! Nicely done!

CapnMike wrote:Congratulations, Evan! That's going to be a wonderful family plane for a long time... I really appreciate your decision-making process on your selection and purchase, too. Someone else in the thread used the correct word to describe it - wisdom! Nicely done!

Thanks Mike.

I was going to fly back to Pennsylvania last night but the weather was not cooperating between home and work home. I could have flown back this morning but I figured it would be socked in over the mountains. So I drove back last night. Which is ok, because I need to bring my trailer home and haul a load of stuff back. Plus it will ensure I have the plane in Ohio for Memorial Day weekend.

Maybe my first upgrade should be IFR panel related? TBD......

Crzyivan13 wrote:

CapnMike wrote:Congratulations, Evan! That's going to be a wonderful family plane for a long time... I really appreciate your decision-making process on your selection and purchase, too. Someone else in the thread used the correct word to describe it - wisdom! Nicely done!

Thanks Mike.

I was going to fly back to Pennsylvania last night but the weather was not cooperating between home and work home. I could have flown back this morning but I figured it would be socked in over the mountains. So I drove back last night. Which is ok, because I need to bring my trailer home and haul a load of stuff back. Plus it will ensure I have the plane in Ohio for Memorial Day weekend.

Maybe my first upgrade should be IFR panel related? TBD......

When I bought my current airplane 12 1/2 years ago, making it IFR capable (and getting me IFR current) was an early priority. I barely had that done when the engine threw a rod. Sort of the story of my life with this airplane--just about the time I make some desired improvement, fate steps in and requires that I spend even more on something necessary. For instance, I spent 10 AMUs doing some panel upgrading for ADS-B Out in January and a Quattro electric IA in lieu of a standard vacuum IA, and now I'm spending another 4 AMUs on a new exhaust system.

But I've never been sorry that I spent the time and money to make the airplane IFR capable, nor the time and money to get and keep me IFR proficient. While neither your airplane nor mine are great all weather airplanes, the ability to go IFR has made a huge difference in my ability to travel when I want to. Yeah, I've had a few delayed starts, missed approaches, necessary diversions, and unplanned layovers in the last 43 years, but I would have had a lot more had neither I nor the airplane I was flying at the time been capable of what I call "light IFR". I'm more conservative about weather now than I was 30 or 40 years ago, but I still get to go when I want to, most of the time.

There are those who will argue that for much of the kind of flying we do as recreational pilots doesn't require IFR capability, and they'd be right. It's those times when it does that it's a great thing to have. In today's world, that generally means at least an IFR approach capable GPS, like my 430W or better, along with a backup navcom. Most of the rest would be fluff in yours or mine--although I have a friend with an older 182 that converted it to glass a couple of years ago, so some folks really like the fluff. He's not on BCP, but he's as experienced at Idaho backcountry flying as most here are.

Cary

Heres the latest video of playing in the 182A.

https://youtu.be/QmGyevZ3bCM

Video Description on Youtube:

This is practice. STOL takeoffs and landings in a 1957 Cessna 182A. It is equipped with a Sportsman STOL leading edge cuff and Vortex Generators.

There is only one way to get good, and that is to practice. Not all of the takeoffs and landings are good in this video, believe me. But there are a few that were great! My worst landing was witnessed by multiple pilots. The flip side is, the last one was too (unbeknownst to me), and it was the best.

If you want to measure them online the Identifiers of the airports in order ar P91 - The Flying M Aerodrome, 69N - Slatington, 22N - Jake Arner Memorial, and the last was P91 again, Runway 8.

Music:
Brazil By Declan McKenna