CParker wrote: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!

The trim deal is kinda your call. I doubt you’ll want to hang on for a 3 mile final, but maybe you have guns like the Rock. I’d suggest taking it up to altitude and get in landing configuration and try it out a bit. Simulate a go around at altitude as well to see how it feels. It will be a little different. You’ll get on to it in no time.

You’ll get lots of advice here. My bit is to take that planned mod money and buy some more gas, although the shoulder harness one is a good call. Watch out for the tail bulkhead cracks, that seems to be more and more common as they age and it’s expensive so keep these things in mind when you’re planning your finances. The old 182 is an excellent, capable aircraft as is. Faster than the bigger new ones too.

I have a '63 182F also and am surprised that you are experiencing this issue. Mine has wing extensions and a Sportsman STOL kit which will change things around a bit but I never felt a lack of elevator authority on wheels. Even on floats where I'm noticeably nose heavy I haven't ever felt I didn't have enough elevator.

Obvious question, has your mechanic checked that the elevator is correctly rigged?

If properly rigged, I think a tool kit and a survival kit will make things right. Water is a great idea too.

Let me know if you need wheel pants. I took mine off when I bought the plane and they have been sitting around ever since.

If you're landing power-off, I'd suggest experimenting with a little power on approach and into the round-out. This makes stabilized approaches easier and you'll actually land slower this way. Also, make sure you're actually running out of elevator travel in the flare. A lot of folks think they're pulled all the way back, but actually have a couple of inches left.

Oregon180 wrote:If you're landing power-off, I'd suggest experimenting with a little power on approach and into the round-out. This makes stabilized approaches easier and you'll actually land slower this way. Also, make sure you're actually running out of elevator travel in the flare. A lot of folks think they're pulled all the way back, but actually have a couple of inches left.

This is an excellent point. After being told 'yoke all the way back' at many various times I've often been surprised when the instructor would grab the yoke and pull back another couple inches. On floats I trim full nose up on final and push to keep the nose down and my speed at 70mph. Then, when I bring the nose up for the landing attitude, I am not fighting the trim. The elevator naturally comes back and it doesn't take a lot of effort to pull it all the way back after I've touched down.

Oregon180 wrote: Also, make sure you're actually running out of elevator travel in the flare. A lot of folks think they're pulled all the way back, but actually have a couple of inches left.

^This

My experience with 182s includes a 1958 at the oldest through ones made through Cessna's shutting down the single engine line. The early ones were very definitely more nose heavy and required more of a tug to get the nose up than later ones. I owned in partnership a 70 and a 79 TR182. I flew charters in a series of 182s built in the 70s and 80s. I never tried the reverse trim idea, although theoretically it should work. If I were to try it, though, I sure wouldn't want to do it for very long--I'm not that strong. It takes quite a bit of strength to overcome any downward pitch tendency--which will be exacerbated by purposely trimming nose down. I'd certainly recommend that if you're going to try that method, try it at altitude first, so you can get a feel for what it really takes. You sure don't want to find during a landing that you don't have the strength to get the nose up against the trim.

I have likewise found that many who think that they have the yoke all the way back, don't, especially if they haven't properly trimmed for neutral pitch on final.

We all carry "stuff" in our airplanes, some more than others, which we always leave in there. The more of the heavier "stuff" you can carry at the far aft baggage area, the better your CG shifting will be. I likewise would not want to add unnecessary useless weight, but if that could be done at the far end of the tail cone, it wouldn't take very much to materially shift the CG. Five or six pounds at the end of a long lever is pretty powerful.

More than anything, though, spend more time landing. NOT TOUCH AND GOES!!!! Land out of the proper approach speed for the weight you're carrying, and you'd be surprised how much easier it is. No faster than 1.3 Vso on final, and again, that's for the weight you're carrying at the time. Remember that book figures are based on gross weight, so that if you're several hundred pounds lighter, your approach speed will be a lot less. There are formulas for all that, but instead of trying to compute when you really don't know the weight, just take it up to a couple thousand feet AGL, do a power off stall with your flaps in the landing configuration you'll be using, and multiply what you see on the airspeed indicator at the stall by 1.3--that's not exact, but close enough.

Incidentally, you'll find it easier to keep the nose up when you're running light if you don't use all 40 flaps. Those barn doors really add to the nose down tendencies when fully extended.

Cary

Cary wrote:I have likewise found that many who think that they have the yoke all the way back, don't, especially if they haven't properly trimmed for neutral pitch on final.

I really appreciate your comment, Cary, I think you nailed it there. I guess what this really all comes down to is my experience training in a 172. I could trim the 172 to absolute neutral yoke pressure on final and so flare seemed effortless. This 182 I feel like I'm wrestling it the whole way down. I think I may have stated my initial concern in a confusing way, I'm not running out of elevator per say, but running out of trim and wrestling it when really I prefer no pressure on the yoke before flare.

Maybe that's just a thing of the past now that I'm out of a trainer though. Looks like weather may permit some solid VFR conditions this weekend, I'll practice with some trim and the new load of sand. If I find the weight is a better fit for my flying, I'll as my IA to balance with ballast in the tail to save on useful load. If the down trim works, then I'll go with that instead! It seems that those two options are a personal preference based on everyone's comments.

CParker wrote:

Cary wrote:I have likewise found that many who think that they have the yoke all the way back, don't, especially if they haven't properly trimmed for neutral pitch on final.

I really appreciate your comment, Cary, I think you nailed it there. I guess what this really all comes down to is my experience training in a 172. I could trim the 172 to absolute neutral yoke pressure on final and so flare seemed effortless. This 182 I feel like I'm wrestling it the whole way down. I think I may have stated my initial concern in a confusing way, I'm not running out of elevator per say, but running out of trim and wrestling it when really I prefer no pressure on the yoke before flare.

Maybe that's just a thing of the past now that I'm out of a trainer though. Looks like weather may permit some solid VFR conditions this weekend, I'll practice with some trim and the new load of sand. If I find the weight is a better fit for my flying, I'll as my IA to balance with ballast in the tail to save on useful load. If the down trim works, then I'll go with that instead! It seems that those two options are a personal preference based on everyone's comments.

Keep in mind that your 182 has a spring attached to your elevator system which makes it harder to pull. This gives it an artificially heavy feel when slow. This might be part what you're fighting if trying to compare the feel to a 172.

CParker wrote:

Cary wrote:I have likewise found that many who think that they have the yoke all the way back, don't, especially if they haven't properly trimmed for neutral pitch on final.

I really appreciate your comment, Cary, I think you nailed it there. I guess what this really all comes down to is my experience training in a 172. I could trim the 172 to absolute neutral yoke pressure on final and so flare seemed effortless. This 182 I feel like I'm wrestling it the whole way down. I think I may have stated my initial concern in a confusing way, I'm not running out of elevator per say, but running out of trim and wrestling it when really I prefer no pressure on the yoke before flare.

Maybe that's just a thing of the past now that I'm out of a trainer though. Looks like weather may permit some solid VFR conditions this weekend, I'll practice with some trim and the new load of sand. If I find the weight is a better fit for my flying, I'll as my IA to balance with ballast in the tail to save on useful load. If the down trim works, then I'll go with that instead! It seems that those two options are a personal preference based on everyone's comments.

I suspect much of your issues are just inexperience. After you've flown a couple dozen supposedly identical airplanes, though, you'll find that each has its own personality, and you have to adjust yourself to them. Any airplane capable of carrying a load, which a 182 certainly can do, will be somewhat nose heavy with only one person aboard. It may not be possible to trim for neutral pitch stability in your airplane. Or possibly your IA needs to adjust the trim to factory specs. Maybe it needs a complete re-rigging. Especially older airplanes tend to be pretty far out of rig. Cables stretch, hard landings bend things, repairs of various kinds over the years vary in quality.

Re-rigging to factory specs is expensive, because it's very labor intensive, but I can tell you that it is really worth the cost, if it's done by a careful and knowledgeable IA. Just as a personal example, when I bought my airplane, it was a pretty decent flyer, but it had a tendency to fall off on the left wing if I let go of the controls, so flying straight and level meant always with a little right aileron or right rudder pressure. I flew it for several years that way, but it seemed to get worse--probably as much due to cable stretch as anything. So one annual, I decided to bite the bullet and have my IA re-rig it. The end result was that it flies really well hands and feet off, and it gained a good solid 5 mph in the process! From my perspective, my "decent flyer" airplane became a true joy to fly--and for those of us who don't do it for a living, isn't that why we fly?

Cary

I'm really curious to hear how the nose down trim works for you. I have the same plane and have similar experience and I would really wrestle with that system. It takes a LOT of force on the yoke to overcome trim and it hard to be smooth when you are pulling back for all you're worth.

A year and a half into the plane ownership experience I've learned that if something feels wrong there is probably something wrong, even if you aren't an experienced aviator. Trust your instincts. Something definitely sounds wrong in this situation.

I strongly suggest having somebody that is familiar with your model take it for a spin. My plane is configured a bit differently than yours but I never experienced anything close to what you are describing while on wheels.

On your Weight and Balance, what is your Empty CG? Was that calculated or actually weighed? For reference, mine was 36.38", actually weighed, while on wheels.

Cary wrote: I suspect much of your issues are just inexperience.

Another excellent point, I don't doubt that my inexperience is at least a significant factor in all this.

albravo wrote:On your Weight and Balance, what is your Empty CG? Was that calculated or actually weighed? For reference, mine was 36.38", actually weighed, while on wheels.

This is a really important point that I still don't feel like I have a good answer for. My empty CG is 34.1" @ 1745lb as weighed. That seems really far forward and more forward than any other 182 I've seen except for those with modifications that move the CG forward. I have a standard 2 blade prop, everything is totally stock, so I'm struggling to understand why it's so far forward on my plane. I was figuring if I had the IA add ballast I'd shoot for 36-37" empty.

With my 60 pounds of tube sand up against the rear bulkhead I should be at about 37" empty, or maybe a little further back since the arm is the average of the whole baggage area. It looks like Sunday will be sunny so I'll be practicing pattern work and the techniques we've discussed. I'm really looking forward to it!

It isn't inexperience. It isn't likely a matter of not using the full elevator travel either.

There are a few model years (as described above) that will run out of elevator at 50-55 mph at idle, every single time, when flying with people only in the front. A couple of biennials have had the CFI I was with insisting my 182E should stall power off way more definitively than I would show him, only to fail at it miserably when trying it themselves. Go figure. A later model 182 behaves differently in that regard- you have plenty of elevator every time. It's just a characteristic of a few model years.

As for the trim down thing, it isn't rocket science, a lot of people do it, it only sounds unusual or sketchy to people who have not tried it, it works well, and yes, it requires quite a bit of force on the wheel, *especially* on a go-around. It is unnecessary with any sort of weight in the back.

Trimming all the way down also allows you to keep the nose off of a rough strip, and running the trim wheel forward during the roll out will have you doing wheelies all the way below 40 mph easily to keep the propeller from turning into a lawnmower...also important on these particular model years with shorter gear legs. That part is useful for a lot of planes, not just Cessnas.

If one is skeptical, try a couple of power off stalls with the trim rolled forward and without. The difference in the minimum speed is pretty large if you are light, and you will find a distinctly more abrupt transition with the trim tab sticking up. It means you aren't really progressing into the stall much at all with the trim tab in a neutral position. It still behaves like a flying Barca Lounger during the slightly deeper stall progression, but it is sharper with more buffeting. Also try to hold it with full power, since that is with you will be dealing with on a go-around. It isn't as bad as has been mentioned here.

CParker wrote:.....This 182 I feel like I'm wrestling it the whole way down. I think I may have stated my initial concern in a confusing way, I'm not running out of elevator per say, but running out of trim and wrestling it when really I prefer no pressure on the yoke before flare.
…..

My 1953 is a different airplane, of course, but maybe not that different--
my empty CG is 34.6" at 1652# and I don't have any trouble flaring it.
I trim for airspeed on approach, when landing I have it trimmed just about all the way nose-up.

I'd suggest that if you're wrestling to get the nose up, roll in some nose up trim.
All of it, if that's what it takes.
Maybe try landing with a notch less flaps.
I'd try flying it a lot of different ways before I'd resorting to non-functional ballast.

Quick update,

I didn't have a whole lot of time today because of a snow storm coming in, but I logged about an hour of touch and goes with the tube sand in the baggage area. Definite change in handling, the stall indicator doesn't squawk upon rotation anymore and I can easily trim to airspeed on final and hold the nose wheel off the runway without fuss.

Short term, the shift in CG solved my problem, but tomorrow or maybe next weekend I'll practice some simulated final descents at altitude with full forward trim, and see if I can get comfortable enough with it to attempt it in the pattern. I'll report back again at that time.

Thanks again!

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

OK, so now you're talking about 62 and newer 182's. Or do you mean to say that trimming the horizontal stab full nose down accomplishes the same thing?

Bonanza Man wrote:

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

OK, so now you're talking about 62 and newer 182's. Or do you mean to say that trimming the horizontal stab full nose down accomplishes the same thing?

I think the OP said his is a ‘63 but I could be wrong. The empty pre-‘68 C206 has the same perceived issue.

I’ve not flown a 182 with the jackscrew horizontal so I’d have to defer that one to someone who has. Do those have elevator authority issues also?

gbflyer wrote:
I’ve not flown a 182 with the jackscrew horizontal so I’d have to defer that one to someone who has. Do those have elevator authority issues also?

Running out of elevator has always been associated with the small tail 182 and 206's. I used to have a 67 182 and never had the issue so going nose down trim on final never made sense. When I bought my 58 182 2.5 years ago I was interested in seeing this lack of elevator. Pffft, there is none, I typically fly final at 60-65 MPH. I fly final power off except for the usual bumps of power as necessary. My empty weight is 1821 and the CG is 35.34

lesuther wrote:It isn't inexperience. It isn't likely a matter of not using the full elevator travel either.

There are a few model years (as described above) that will run out of elevator at 50-55 mph at idle, every single time, when flying with people only in the front. A couple of biennials have had the CFI I was with insisting my 182E should stall power off way more definitively than I would show him, only to fail at it miserably when trying it themselves. Go figure. A later model 182 behaves differently in that regard- you have plenty of elevator every time. It's just a characteristic of a few model years.

As for the trim down thing, it isn't rocket science, a lot of people do it, it only sounds unusual or sketchy to people who have not tried it, it works well, and yes, it requires quite a bit of force on the wheel, *especially* on a go-around. It is unnecessary with any sort of weight in the back.

Trimming all the way down also allows you to keep the nose off of a rough strip, and running the trim wheel forward during the roll out will have you doing wheelies all the way below 40 mph easily to keep the propeller from turning into a lawnmower...also important on these particular model years with shorter gear legs. That part is useful for a lot of planes, not just Cessnas.

If one is skeptical, try a couple of power off stalls with the trim rolled forward and without. The difference in the minimum speed is pretty large if you are light, and you will find a distinctly more abrupt transition with the trim tab sticking up. It means you aren't really progressing into the stall much at all with the trim tab in a neutral position. It still behaves like a flying Barca Lounger during the slightly deeper stall progression, but it is sharper with more buffeting. Also try to hold it with full power, since that is with you will be dealing with on a go-around. It isn't as bad as has been mentioned here.

This is all exactly right. The small elevator first was implemented in 1962 (C182E). This was the first year of the wide body, lower gear and small elevator. I flew a 182E for 15 years and went through the same learning process. For forward cg, nose down trim works. So does extended baggage with water in the far back. They are great planes, but they are different from pre-'62s and from the larger elevators that came along some time after 1965. Another peculiarity of these models is that full flaps can blank out one side of the elevator/vertical stab in a power-off slip, resulting in (even more) loss of nose up elevator authority. Something to keep in mind when landing in a strong crosswind with full flaps. I just landed with 20 degrees instead.

I never come in full flaps unless I'm high on final, or doing a short/soft field landing.

Hey guys,

Wanted to give another quick update. I will be keeping the bag of tube sand up against the rear of the baggage area, and I've settled on a technique that seems to be working for me. The plane is more stable and the flare is better when I trim for neutral elevator pressure on the downwind and use muscle for the rest. Usually this is only two throws from takeoff setting. I find holding back pressure on base and final is manageable and the plane wallows less for whatever reason. With full up trim the plane would always feel mushy, not sure why that is.

I have to say, this has me thinking about whether or not I'll hang on to this plane long term. When I bought it I had no idea I was buying a 182 with an inferior design. I will reconsider if VG's would close the gap in elevator performance quite a bit, but I suspect they wont.