As most folks know there isn’t a ton of up elevator authority in the early 182 wide body planes especially with a forward CG.

I’m assuming that the cheapest and quickest way to deal with it is to put 5 -10 gal of water jugs in the luggage compartment.

For a more permanent solution can I count on the installation of VG’s to help give me more up elevator in the flare?

Thx.

The CG tends to be far forward in the early 180s. A lot of guys carry weight in the back and/or add the extended baggage, which gets the weight even further aft.

I fly a 1973 Cessna 182 P, adding VGs definitely helped with elevator authority at slower speeds, at the same time better roll and authority too.
Adding weight on the cargo area also helped, and finally removing the Hartzell propeller and replacing it with an MT prop helped a lot more (16 pounds lighter at the most forward part of the plane).
My 182 now has lots of elevator authority at very slow speeds, and does not feel nose heavy at all.

First thing I would do is figure how much the weight of the normal gear you carry. Tool bag, tie down ropes, anchors, oil, compressor, personal survival gear (sleeping bags/tent/axe/shovel/stove/food/water). Stick all of that in the back and then see how it flys. If you are going to fly in the backcountry be prepared. Then if you need more weight water is an easy choice. DENNY

Thx folks. I know that motoadve’s 182 is fully pimped out but good to know that VGs on their own did help with the nose heavy issues.

I have a 205, which has the equivalent problem (narrow elevator, nose heavy when light). Weight in the back definitely helps. When I added VGs to an otherwise stock airframe, the difference was immediately noticeable and positive. The controls all feel stiffer and more responsive, especially at low speed. The pull to flare is not lighter, but I don't run out of elevator in a flare anymore. The most significant change I made was to land with 20-30 degrees of flaps rather than 40 when I don't need to land as short as possible. Most of the time it doesn't make any difference. Using less flaps reduces the nose-down pitching moment, allowing the force of the elevator to raise the nose more.

I have a '63 F model 182 with the narrower elevator, I've been dealing with the same issue. I added extended baggage and put all my crap all the way at the back of it. I still run out of elevator but it's much better. My next step will be VGs. MT prop will happen at engine overhaul. Some have suggested running opposite trim on final, but that's not something I have been able to comfortable with. I don't know of anything else that can be done.

Nice thing about early narrow bodies is they have a full trimmable horizontal stabilizer. Totally different animal compared to later models. Trimmed properly, I have never run out of elevator. Stall the wing well before running out. Even with well forward CG. I would work on your approach and trimming technique before spending money.

I have the same model, and had issues with the heavy nose at first. After trying contactflying’s apparent brisk walk approach, I no longer run out of elevator. I usually land with 40 degrees of flaps.

Starrboard wrote: After trying contactflying’s apparent brisk walk approach, I no longer run out of elevator. I usually land with 40 degrees of flaps.

I must have missed it - what is contactflying's brisk walk approach?

Ross

As far as I can tell, it's a soft field landing. He may have more details though, I have a hard time following his explanations.