Hey guys,

Relatively new 1963 182F owner looking for some help. Plane is bone stock. I understand that the early 182's have a smaller elevator, and my empty CG is 34.1" @ 1745.... which based on my research is further forward than most. I'm all out of trim on final and really would like more elevator authority during flare.

What sort of options do I have for making my plane more balanced? Extreme changes like lighter hardware on the front end are not in the budget right now....

My IA offered to add some weight in the empennage to bring the CG back, adding weight isn't my first choice, but at least it'd be less weight by going that far back. What's a good empty CG to target? I'm seeing a lot of 36-37" planes around, but they're often heavier than mine.

Is it possible to modify the elevator, such as with VG's to increase low speed authority? Can one install VG's on just the elevator without doing the entire plane?

Thanks!

Carrying anything in the baggage? My ‘56 182 is a little nose heavy, the previous owner carried a bag of quikcrete back there for counterweight. I opted for a milk crate with oil, tools, etc. that helps balance out nicely.

If you install VGs you have to do the whole plane. Can't just do the tail. You could put in an extended baggage and carry some extra tools, but the least amount of weight would be to add a ballast in the tail.

I'm unaware of any VG kits that allow tail-only, though I think it would be a popular option. That question comes up a lot.

Your only options without mechanical changes are to add more weight as far aft as possible, or move the weight you do have as far aft as possible. I'm assuming your battery is still in the tail, which basically just leaves loose gear, baggage, oil bottles, etc. A relatively economical option might be an extended baggage kit which will let you put weight really far back there. Selkirk and Airglas both make them, but only Selkirk works with the aft battery tray unless you cut a hole in the Airglas floor (that's between you and your IA).

When referring to early 182 I think that would be 1956 through 1961. In 1962 they got rid of the trimable horizontal stabilizer and they widened the body 4 inches. Pretty sure the 1962 through 1964 were the most nose heavy of all the 182's. That said i have seen amazing things done with 182's in that vintage.

If I had one of those planes from those three years, I would not add weight weight in the back but instead put in extended baggage and keep 50 pounds of camping and survival stuff there all the time. And when going camping with the back seat out I would keep CG as aft as is safe.

CenterHillAg wrote:Carrying anything in the baggage? My ‘56 182 is a little nose heavy, the previous owner carried a bag of quikcrete back there for counterweight. I opted for a milk crate with oil, tools, etc. that helps balance out nicely.

I have a firewall mounted battery in my 56 182. So I have a pretty forward CG. Keep extended baggage packed all the time.

Thanks guys,

What about these planes makes them the most nose heavy?

I had about 25 pounds of oil, tools, and step ladder back there. Yesterday I grabbed a 60lb bag of tube sand and slid it in right up against the bulkhead (it seemed to be the most compact option besides a piece of steel). I'll see how that works but it's definitely not something I want to make a permanent.

If I have the IA trim my empty CG, what should I shoot for?

Try a 20 lb. chunk of lead securely attached to the plate next to the battery box. It works very well.

Roll the trim all the way forward on final when you’re empty. You’ll have to pull but that’s ok. Carry a little power. You’ll have plenty of elevator. No need to weight it down aft. Might make a low time flight instructor nervous but it’s an every day thing when you work them.

The extended baggage option on my 58 C180 allows for 50 lbs in the most aft section. I keep survival gear, tools, a shovel, rations, water, and a sleeping bag. It made a big difference and I never run out of trim now. You could also consider a lighter prop such as an MT composite or a smaller two blade.


Josh

As mentioned, trim up to all the way nose down.

Extended baggage helps a lot too, but a few hundred extra rpms at the flare with the trim all the way nose down works fine.

CParker wrote:Thanks guys,

What about these planes makes them the most nose heavy?

That part of the elevator in front of the hing (forgot what they call it) is smaller than the 65's and later. They also have a smaller trim tab. Nothing wrong with your plane. After you figure out the best slow landing technique you will be in love with it . I would never add lead to the plane. Why would anybody opt for less useful load

I've got about 100 hours on a PPL so I don't doubt my technique isn't perfect. I try to practice pattern as regularly as weather allows. That being said, I've actually never heard of trimming down on landing before, I'll have to research that technique and give it a try. Can you guys explain the basics?

The notes about a little extra power are also great 182 knowledge. You can pull to idle and put just a couple hundred RPM back in, or find that point and just reduce to that every time. This adds just a bit of propwash over the tail and helps the elevator work without adding much speed. Play around with this, you won't hurt anything and it really does make a difference.

CParker wrote:I've got about 100 hours on a PPL so I don't doubt my technique isn't perfect. I try to practice pattern as regularly as weather allows. That being said, I've actually never heard of trimming down on landing before, I'll have to research that technique and give it a try. Can you guys explain the basics?

It gives your elevator the surface of the trim tab to work with that is otherwise neutral or working against you.

At least carry some water back there in a jug, something that can save your life to a greater degree than concrete mix. We used to haul a 6 gallon container in the 205 for the same reason and didn't need the space.

I carry the same 6 gallons of water, a box of tools, and a few quarts of oil, and added VGs. VGs made a significant difference in both flair authority and slow speed handling. Worth it.

The 182H models and later have horizontal stabs that are significantly wider (around 10" wider). The change makes a big difference in the models that went to the conventional tail with a trim tab (E and later). The CG changed a bit as well for the E model and later with the wider cabin and the use of thinner fuselage skins aft of the cabin to offset the weight penalty from the wider cabin.

I used to ran out of elevator in my 1973 model when coming slow, did not liked it.

I started with Microaero VGs first, great improvement.(yes they do work very well at slow speeds, you can even hear them whistle if you are outside looking at a slow landing).

Weight on the baggage compartment

MT prop

Extended baggage compartment.

Thanks a bunch you guys,

Where in the pattern are you applying the full down trim?

This thread is my first post on this site and I have to say, I really appreciate all your quick and informative responses! Being a relatively new pilot, the first pilot in my family, and with only a couple of friends who fly fixed wing, my resources were quite limited until I joined this site.

I had to visualize the trim issue, but now that I've spent some time thinking about it, it makes perfect sense that running the trim tab the other direction would really help with elevator authority. I'm hoping the weather permits some pattern work this weekend, I'll practice the trim down method.

Funds are tight with the plane being purchased last fall and all the little suprises the pre-buy didn't catch, but extended baggage is definitely on my short list. My first upgrade is going to be BAS harnesses for up front, I'll be ordering them this week! I read through a lot of the info on this site regarding the debate between standard and utility style.

Once I'm starting to feel really proficient I'm hoping to upgrade tires, add a sportsman, and an MT prop!

Thanks again!