It isn't really inferior, just different. I couldn't care less about the behavior because it lands just as slow on landing. I do wish for more prop clearance. But otherwise...it's the same as any other Barca lounger 182. The extended baggage with some tools and camping gear is all that is needed to remove the issue anyway.

I have a 63F model and agree it is a little “heavy” feeling on the nose when flown solo or with just the front seats filled. My solution is to fly with people in the rear seats. It’s more fun with friends anyway.

I wouldn’t call the design inferior. As has been said before, design of airplanes is a compromise considering the entire flight envelope. I think the designers probably assumed that a 4 place airplane would be flown with people and stuff in it. Otherwise, why do you buy a 182?

I used to own a 63F model. The Sportsman exacerbates the problem because the wing keeps flying long after the horizontal and elevator have lost authority due to speed and CG. Im a mech so my 50lb tool box was the ballast. Do multiple W&B with sample loading's. When the plane is fully loaded the CG will hopefully be at the Aft limit. No ballast required. When your by yourself flying around you will be exceeding the Fwd CG and require ballast. But your empty so the 50lb ballast in the baggage compartment penalty is not that detrimental to performance. I also do not Trim to full nose up on final and landing. With that elevator / trim tab design you loose valuable elevator area to deflect the air Up pushing the nose Up. While sitting in the cockpit pull the yoke back, look at the elevator trim tab area, trim nose up and see how much you loose. I streamline the trim tab, mark the plastic near the trim indicator with a pencil, have it close to that entering the pattern, and just muscle it around. My 206s go from max gross aft to empty against the fwd CG, Dive flare and touchdown on a 1400ft grass strip on the same flight. It works out I trim very little. Think my Wife trims alot on final.

Thanks,

Are there any weight savings opportunities up front besides a lighter prop and starter? My A&P already ripped a card table full of junk out from behind the instrument panel...

Lightweight alternator as well.

I'm going to be swapping in an aftermarket alternator when I plane goes into annual (tomorrow actually) mostly due to alternator noise. I've tried several remans and the noise won't go away. Spent about $4k on the radio shop going through and rewiring everything as well... frustrating for sure.

Should I request a specific alternator?

Hey guys,

I'm back to punctuate this thread. I added an extended baggage kit from Selkirk, and keep my 40lbs of tools, oil, and tie downs at the back of it all the time. This is definitely the single best modification for a 182 of this vintage. When empty, flaring is more manageable, and when loaded it's a breeze. I've done several landings in the Idaho back country with great success this summer.

I've put another 150 hours on my ticket since I first posted about this, that certainly helped as well.

I'm to the point where landings are good, and will be a continued focus of my practice, but I'm also wishing for more climb performance. It seems that a lot of attention get's paid to super short landings when really it's the takeoff that is the limiting factor on short strips.

I've enjoyed this thread. I also am a fairly new 182F owner/pilot. I do rather enjoy the landings when I am carrying my family and all their plunder on long cross country flights. I am looking into the extended baggage mod as well. I have flown a few other 182s. A "Q", "R" and a couple "K" models. None of them had the I do like my lighter F better than the others. I feels a bit more sporty. I am baffled by the VG's. Everyone says "they help", however there is no quantitative data to support what they actually do. They are certainly a drag on the airfoil, but can anyone speak to the actual speed loss, lift gain, and improved stall numbers?

KFLGADAM wrote:I've enjoyed this thread. I also am a fairly new 182F owner/pilot. I do rather enjoy the landings when I am carrying my family and all their plunder on long cross country flights. I am looking into the extended baggage mod as well. I have flown a few other 182s. A "Q", "R" and a couple "K" models. None of them had the I do like my lighter F better than the others. I feels a bit more sporty. I am baffled by the VG's. Everyone says "they help", however there is no quantitative data to support what they actually do. They are certainly a drag on the airfoil, but can anyone speak to the actual speed loss, lift gain, and improved stall numbers?

I've never noticed any speed loss with VGs on a plane. I wouldn't say they make the stall speed slower either. But they make the stall safer IMO. They keep the ailerons and elevator alive deeper into the stall, allowing more control, which in turn makes it safer.

There is plenty of quantitative data demonstrating that VGs can increase or extend the coefficient of lift curve as angle of attack increases.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1 ... 3-gr12.jpg

What I can't find is a NACA2412 plot with and without VGs, and including flaps.

My experience is limited to a Cessna T41B and a Cessna 205. In both cases the VGs were installed on the wing, horizontal stabilizer ahead of the elevator, and vertical stabilizer ahead of the rudder. In both cases, the VGs allowed an angle of attack to be reached without stalling that was greater than without them. This can have the effect of lowering stall speed. In the case of my 205, it was perhaps 5 knots GPS speed. The deck angle was ridiculous, and useless in the context of trying to fly slowly close to the ground. The reduction in stall speed is not the reason I installed VGs. The larger benefit to me was the increased aileron and elevator authority at low speeds. Prior to installation, the airplane would have a tendency to wallow and feel mushy when approaching at 90 mph or in slow flight. After VGs, it is really solid feeling. I regularly approach at 80 now, and slow flight is comfortable. I can fly closer to the limit with more feedback and more precision, as the VGs improved the authority and feel of the controls.

I bought a bone stock 182E in October 2019 and had the exact same experience you did, not enough trim for the neutral control feel I was used to in the 172. I was using flaps 10 on downwind, 20 base, and 30-40 final, with appropriate trim adjustments, and running out. Then I was shown a stabilized approach 40 flaps at 80 mph abeam the numbers, trim once for comfort, then ride it in with power to adjust sink and flare. Seemed to help, but my flares were terrible for a while until I read Jim Dulin’s (contactflying) “apparent brisk walk” idea. Problem solved. Now I never run out of trim. I think I am muscling the last bit when on short final, but because I’m slowing down (and usually have a little power in) it doesn’t feel like a struggle. No ballast, no VG’s, 15 lbs of oil and tools in the baggage compartment. CG at 33.6 empty weight 1691.

Heavier airplanes generally have faster stall airspeeds, both Vso and the in ground effect stall airspeed. Cessna 40 degree of flaps do try to hike the tail and thus cause the elevator to be heavier at the same as before the flaps were set airspeed. Getting properly slowed down is what relieves some of that extra heaviness. They did a good job of designing those small and large airplanes with those flaps. They expect us to actually take advantage of full flaps to go slower, much slower. Good job Starrboard, both with the apparent brisk walk rate of closure and the full flaps advantage of the Cessnas. I was too lazy to even use the trim control since I never climbed out on the pipeline. Just haul back on the yoke, it will fly slow coming down with full flaps. Power will keep it from sinking too fast.

In my 182k, with sportsman and VG's, the deck angle before stall with power on is ridiculous, esp with the PPonk.

While you can take off and climb sustained at 38 mph, any goof ups and you will do a tailslide into the runway!

That said, with proper technique, that is a 4-500 foot ground roll plane, followed by 800+fpm at 60 mph if you want to fly it that way, which was never required by terrain in my flying.

Also had a 34" ish cg empty, but about 100lbs in baggage and all 50 in the extended, and she is a sweet landing machine.

The mt prop is good at first blush, but run the numbers and you just can't save enough weight up front to make it worth it for a CG change. Adding lead in the tail cone is much more effective!!!

Why not get into low ground effect before the 38 mph airspeed and then accelerate in low ground effect to as much faster than 38 mph as can be gained in low ground effect before having to zoom over any obstruction? Loss of altitude at 38, the tail slide, is because we are out of ground effect or at too high a nose attitude in too high ground effect. If we get the nose down before she jumps up to ten feet, we will continue to accelerate much faster. At full power the 182 tries to jump out of low ground effect much too quickly. This is especially true with the trim set for takeoff rather than cruise.

At the slow airspeed of a power pitch touchdown with full flaps or lift off as soon as she will fly in low ground effect, the prop blast helps keep the elevator effective. If we have taken the throttle out of the let us down slowly and softly touchdown function, as in round out at considerable airspeed, the nose can be quite heavy and the elevator, while more effective, can require more muscle to pull.

As Starboard points out, the slowness with power of the apparent rate of closure short final approach takes the required heavy pull out of the equation by keeping power on the elevator as long as possible, actually all the way down if we decelerate properly. The deceleration caused by our preventing the numbers to appear to speed up at the bottom, where most pilots just round out, requires power to control the sink at this slow airspeed. Unless we have considerable headwind help, power is required to control the continued deceleration caused descent to touchdown. But if we are going too fast, we have to round our at faster than the airplane will land in low ground effect. Now we have to close the throttle to get down and when we close the throttle we lose that helpful prop blast. When we close the throttle, we have given up the very best sink control to touchdown slowly and softly where we wish. Given a lot of runway we can still use power to control sink to touchdown slowly and softly, as in the soft field landing. All the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach is is a soft field landing on the numbers using either a shallow or steep descent (not glide as power is still on) angle.