The 182 is generally acknowledged to be a great all around airplane due to the compromises made during designing the plane. The 182 also has a 'glass chin' in the form of a nose wheel that is attached to the firewall and 'bends and breaks' too easily (this matters to 'rough strip' back country pilots). This is (evidently) improved somewhat by a bigger tire and in order to do that a bigger fork is required.
Is there no STC to replace the original setup and put in a nose wheel attached to a 'new and improved' more complex engine mount so that the nose wheel then transmits its forces to the fuselage by way of the engine mount attach points? Therefore obtaining a much stronger nose wheel?
I understand the 206 is mounted this way. Obviously there is more room for a longer motor mount because there is more wt. balancing behind the CG.
Is there just 'no room' for it? At a glance it looks doable......
Or you need that weight 'back there'?
Or just too complex for the benefits?
Or maybe just some solid reinforcement hooked to/bracing the existing nose wheel placement that would transmit its forces to the fuselage attach points? ((special enhanced motor mount)
Or reinforcing inside? (probably no room there)
I realize the doublers they do at repair help, but it is still weak....

Gotta be a reason. I can't be the first to think of this!
lc

No, there is no engine mount nose gear attach mod for 182s. The only difference between a 182 and 206 in this regard is if you screw up in a 206 you buy or repair an engine mount, if you screw the pooch in a 182, you repair the firewall....orders of magnitude more $$$.

But, redesigning something like this would require MAJOR engineering and certification. That translates to HUGE money. How big is the fleet, and how many pilots realistically would buy such a mod, at say....$50,000 a pop? Remember, you're talking new engine mount, which means a different engine possibly, cowling mods, nose gear, etc, etc.

Great idea, no doubt, but installing a Selkirk aft baggage, and securing 30 pounds of survival/camping gear waaaay back there is some cheaper.

And, by the way, just adding a big fork and tire to the nose doesn't fix anything. In fact, unless you go to larger main tires, it gets even harder to land without touching the nose gear first. One of these airplanes with 8.50 X 6.00 tires on all three is not my idea of a good idea. That nose tire needs to be at least one size smaller than the mains.

MTV

Littlecub wrote:The 182 is generally acknowledged to be a great all around airplane due to the compromises made during designing the plane. The 182 also has a 'glass chin' in the form of a nose wheel that is attached to the firewall and 'bends and breaks' too easily (this matters to 'rough strip' back country pilots). This is (evidently) improved somewhat by a bigger tire and in order to do that a bigger fork is required.
Is there no STC to replace the original setup and put in a nose wheel attached to a 'new and improved' more complex engine mount so that the nose wheel then transmits its forces to the fuselage by way of the engine mount attach points? Therefore obtaining a much stronger nose wheel?
I understand the 206 is mounted this way. Obviously there is more room for a longer motor mount because there is more wt. balancing behind the CG.
Is there just 'no room' for it? At a glance it looks doable......
Or you need that weight 'back there'?
Or just too complex for the benefits?
Or maybe just some solid reinforcement hooked to/bracing the existing nose wheel placement that would transmit its forces to the fuselage attach points? ((special enhanced motor mount)
Or reinforcing inside? (probably no room there)
I realize the doublers they do at repair help, but it is still weak....

Gotta be a reason. I can't be the first to think of this!
lc

Well here we go with over 5000+ hours in Cessna Tricycle gear airplanes -Owner -Pilot -A&P /I.A. I feel confident I know a little about this subject. If you want a 182 get a extended baggage -and fill it up -mine has 70 lbs of survival gear 109-142 inches aft of firewall . It moves the weight off of nose wheel and further aft over mains. 0-470- or 520 engine puts approx. 400 + lbs forward of firewall (Datum ) .3 Bladed meat cleavers (prop) adds another 20 lbs forward of engine.STC or modification of Nose Gear of 182 not possible after 40,000 units .Engine mount /nose gear you mention is like 150/172 stuff-not 182. If you going to have nose heavy issues add weight as far back , get your self some bar bells to do weight curls-pull the controls back and hold them .Land on the mains and hold the nose off with elevator until it quits flying.
P.S. I've NEVER had a nose wheel collapse on anything from 172-P210's . Been there done that .

The existing mods are a mixed improvement, require huge amounts of a good mechanic's time, swinging the engine, and rebuilding the floor.

The trouble is that the tunnel is way too weak- it seems like it was designed for a strength requirement without much thought to a buckling constraint. Looking at a two failures (on pavement) of mid 60's 182's in the shop, it looked to me like the tunnels failed, and the deformation allowed the chain of events to happen (firewall, boot cowl, you know the rest of the story...).

I modeled the structure (tunnel, associated floor structure, firewall, strut mount, boot cowl rivet attach points) and did some FEA to look at the problem as well. It suggests the same thing- the tunnel buckles well before stresses in the firewall and associated parts reach a worrisome level of stress, and once the tunnel stiffness goes away, the firewall structure gets out-of-plane and immediately buckles or tears. It also seems to show the firewall doubler that is available is only slightly effective for rearward hits- the real problem is the tunnel. The doubler is only effective for side loads (rotating the strut fitting). The problem seems a lot easier to address more simply than the mods currently available.

The loads that buckle the tunnel are far less than the loads required to damage the firewall. It's really not a strength issue- the tunnel is strong enough, but its stiffness and moment of inertia are simply not enough to prevent buckling or take a lot of abuse.

How much would a mod be worth to folks, and what kind of landing abuse would it have to protect against (rate of descent, nose first, side load, etc)? I'm not sure there is a market for it really, as only a few firewall mods are completed every year (the damaged planes are often simply salvaged due to prop strikes, and it is simply too expensive as a preventative measure). A mod that could be priced right (much lower labor costs) might be more interesting. $2k plus 8 hours' labor? That seems like it would buy a lot of 100ll...

Aft loading to keep weight off the nosewheel sounds great for ground handling, but what does it do to the CG as far as handling in flight? Probably not practical due to costs, but a better mod to keep the nosewheel loading down might be to move the main wheels forward a touch. That way the airplane CG doesn't get screwed up.

Really, guys, I do land on the mains....
What I was thinking of was the 'surprise in the grass' type of thing early in the rollout.

Thanks for your replies and analysis. I do appreciate the wealth of knowledge here and the kind willingness to share it.
lc

hotrod150 wrote: but what does it do to the CG as far as handling in flight?

If I load to gross all the way towards the back of the envelope of my '62 (really hard to do, frankly), my auto pilot wanders a bit more, and the stall is more pronounced, although still mild compared to the average Beech or Bellanca.

hotrod150 wrote:Aft loading to keep weight off the nosewheel sounds great for ground handling, but what does it do to the CG as far as handling in flight? Probably not practical due to costs, but a better mod to keep the nosewheel loading down might be to move the main wheels forward a touch. That way the airplane CG doesn't get screwed up.

Um, the CG is calculated FOR flight. Moving the main wheels forward is going to move the CG forward. Do a weight and balance on a 182 the way most folks fly them. You can shove a lot of stuff back there in an extended baggage before you're going to get that airplane out of CG with two people and fuel, or even with three and fuel.

And, operating near, but within the aft limit provides the slowest stall speed and the fastest cruise speed. What's not to like?

MTV

So, lets say somebody has a 182e. What size wheels, tires, brakes should they use if they want some good off field options?

https://www.airframesalaska.com/Bushwhe ... i-gear.htm

A number of options here. Seems like going all the way to 29"s on the rear would help cushion things and make it easier to keep the nose off.

King Katmai with the front canards sounds like a cool idea.

Comments?

D.

ddivinia wrote:So, lets say somebody has a 182e. What size wheels, tires, brakes should they use if they want some good off field options?

https://www.airframesalaska.com/Bushwhe ... i-gear.htm

A number of options here. Seems like going all the way to 29"s on the rear would help cushion things and make it easier to keep the nose off.

King Katmai with the front canards sounds like a cool idea.

Comments?

D.

I have a 182E with Airglas nose fork , 800x6 up front , and 850x6 mains with Cleveland double pucks, works good.

Would love to put 29s or some 10” wheel combo on the mains to raise the tail. Maybe someday.

ddivinia wrote:So, lets say somebody has a 182e. What size wheels, tires, brakes should they use if they want some good off field options?

https://www.airframesalaska.com/Bushwhe ... i-gear.htm

A number of options here. Seems like going all the way to 29"s on the rear would help cushion things and make it easier to keep the nose off.

King Katmai with the front canards sounds like a cool idea.

Comments?

D.

I'm not a big Canards fan. Makes maintenance a PIA. Heavier feel on the elevator. I think a sportsman cuff and big tires will net you very similar performance. FWIW.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Halestorm wrote:I have a 182E with Airglas nose fork , 800x6 up front , and 850x6 mains with Cleveland double pucks, works good.

Would love to put 29s or some 10” wheel combo on the mains to raise the tail. Maybe someday.

Halestorm, love love love that E-model. Tell me about that exhaust pipe?

Thanks for the info.

Any reason not to do 29s?

I have a go faster airplane (310). Looking at this as a backup airplane and to play off field.

Thanks,
D.