Nosedragger wrote: [...] To answer your question, the poh is a decent guide if you add some fudge factor. It seems like it beats me more often than I beat it.

Sounds good. Thank you.

I sprayed many years in Pawnee and Callair and have never seen a POH for either. Increasing the load gradually for various conditions is very accurate. It automatically takes all variables into consideration. That is just a money consideration. Surely, pilots work out this more accurate data when carrying people. See how it goes without the wife and kids first and then come back around. Split loads out to a longer field. etc.

@contactflying:

My questions were more of general nature, so that I can get an impression of what I can realistically expect from a 182.
Some of the grass-strips here in Michgan are too short to comfortably take off with our 172 during summertime, even when lightly loaded.
On a paved runway, I need to add almost 50% to the numbers in the manual. Our A&P says that everything is fine with our plane and that this is just what it is with the older Cessnas. Hence my question, how accurate the number in the 182's POH are...

Oliver my sister lives very close to Novi, I go every year ,lets meet next time I go.
We can talk about the 182.

motoadve wrote:Oliver my sister lives very close to Novi, I go every year ,lets meet next time I go.
We can talk about the 182.

This would be great. Let me know when you get here, I always love to talk about adventures and planes.

I just sent you a message through Youtube with my contact details, as I couldn't figure out how to send a PM through backcountry pilot.

Oliver,

A 182 is a fantastic airplane. It isn't the best in any categories but it is very good in most categories. The 182 is a great "do most everything" at a good overall cost airplane. I would like to have another one myself.

Kurt

Kurt,

Everybody seems to praise the versatility of the 182s. They are not the best in any category but do everything so well, that their overall capability is hard to beat. This is at least, what we keep hearing.

We want to be able to safely fly with 3 people + camping gear out of grass strips here in Michigan, combined with the occasional trip to places like the Appalachian Mountains. Every once in a while, easier backcountry airfields like Johnson Creek in Wyoming, Montana or Idaho are also places I would like to be able to fly to. I think that a 182 would be just perfect for this mission.

My wife and I however also heard that they are quite a bit heavier on the controls than a 172, what might be a negative for her. A buddy of ours has a straight tail 182, I hope that the next time we meet, we'll have a chance to go for a ride to see how we like how it handles.
Straight tail or fastback swept tail 182s are actually our favorite models.

I have to admit that our 172 with its O-300 is quite a disappointment. This is our first own plane, when we test flew it and from what I remembered from flying the same model in our prior flying club, I thought that the performance is not great but sufficient. I never really veryfied the actual performance with the numbers in the manuals, though and we also alway operated from longer runways.
I only realized how much its take off and climb performance lacks behind the manual, when we took off for the first time from the relatively short runway at our home base and noticed how much more runway we actually needed and how much slower it climbs, than stated in the manual, despite of that I tried to fly as much by the book as possible.

Before we buy another plane, I will certainly check whether it makes the POH numbers...

Oliver,

The 182 is quite a bit heavier on the controls. It is very manageable if full flaps are used on approach and power/pitch is used to slow enough that the nose is already near a landing attitude. As you have probably discovered, full flaps in small Cessnas is the same trim as cruise so one needn't mess with it so much on landing.

I instructed in a CAP 172 with the 0-300 at Tohatchi, NM. We had an abandoned strip of paved road for a runway. It was 2600' with no obstructions and the elevation was 6500.' We just had to stay light and not try to go up too fast.

You will like the power of the 0-470. Just stay as low over the trees as you can stand. Fully loaded, it won't do a lot better than the 0-300 in the 172 when light. Trying to make acrobatic climbs on takeoff is not safe with any airplane.

Best regards,

contact

Contact,

Thank you for the advice.
I really hope that my wife likes the handling of the 182. She is a big fan of Cessna / high wing / non-retractable gear aircraft. As much as we both like the looks of taildraggers, particularly my wife is concerned about ground loops and cross wind landings with them. Otherwise, a 180 hp 170, a 180, a Stinson 108 or a Maule might also be options.
Speaking of 180s - a buddy recently took us for a ride in his stock 180. Even though we were at max gross, the acceleration and how quickly we were off the ground was absolutely impressive.

I understand that the older 182s are pretty much the same plane as 180s. After the great experience with the 180, an early 182 is therefore currently our plane of choice. If the controls are too heavy for us / my wife, a 180 hp 172 / 175 would be the fall back solution.

Nosedragging Maules just don't look right, we might however also also take them into consideration, if we don't like the 182.

Except for the slight difference in ground handling between the nosewheel and conventional gear, an early C182 will fly and feel just like an early C180. They will NOT feel like your O-300 powered C172, and that's a good thing.

The early C182's have that beautiful trimmable tail, so use it. The trim wheel is one of the reasons why an early model C180/182 is such a joy to fly. As you use elevator up or down, roll in the appropriate trim. Then there is no heavy anything, and you have smooth and stable. Ignore it, the trimwheel, and it feels like you're driving a 40's Dodge Powerwagon.

Gump

If you don't shock cool the cylinders on the 0-470 by descending without some power it gives good service. We never went up on pipelines so never had that problem. Cylinders still have to be replaced more than Lycoming. We got 3,000 hours on 0-320 and 0-360 Lycoming. You don't get that when they sit part of the time, but good.

I liked the C-175 because it didn't carve gashes in my bald head with the corrugated trailing edge. It sits very high. The G0-300 was a problematic engine, however.

Oliver,

I believe your wife will love flying a Cessna 182. April and Brian Hawkes aka "The Flying Hawkes" both fly their 1958 model with unequaled passion. While they recently pponked their bird and added a three blade wood and plastic MT propeller, the Hawkes aircraft achieved legendary status carving up the Idaho Backcountry as a stock airplane with a Sportsman Stol kit.

I encourage you to make contact with April, as I am sure she would be very encouraging to your wife. She was recently featured on a HGTV program, Living Big Sky which showed her flying a Cessna 206. Their Cessna 182 is a perfect fit for them for pleasure in addition to their premier real estate business, The Iten Company. April has no trouble handling it and your wife would love it also.

I sincerely feel the 182 would be a perfect fit. I believe your only regret would be not having done it much sooner!

Makes me want to go grab a 182 and fly to Shearer in the Selway.

Richard

I transitioned from a 172 to a 182. The biggest mistake I made at first was not carrying enough power. Once I learned to trim it all the way back on final and give a little power in the flair, it was fine. Weight in the baggage area if you don't have back seat passengers is important too. I usually only use 20 degrees of flap unless it's super short, that helps as well, and go arounds are a non event. (Our local mute Airtractor driver keeps me current on go arounds from short final.)

Gentlemen,

fess up - you get a commission for each sold older 182, right?

Particularly the straight tail 182 threads here on backcountrypilot.org gave me the idea that this might be just the right bird for us. Good shortfield performance, reasonably fast, acceptable performance at higher altitudes, handles like what one would expect from a Cessna, parts are readily available, and every A&P is familiar with them.

Your recommendations reassured me that a 182 is what we need. Thank you.


@richpiney:

I just watched the video you posted of the landing with the 182A on the Simonds airstrip. Holy cow!

Not that I want to do anything even remotely close to this, but it is certainly comforting to know that a plane is capable of much more than actually needed.
My wife is already sold on the 182, I just hope that she will still like it, once she flew with one.


@motoadve:
Sorry for hijacking you thread.

Definitely would love to fly in Idaho some day, cool video .

Truly nicely done dave! you've got the touch mate.

I won't be the first or last to sing the praises of the 182, but I'll ad this nugget. The 182 is just as good a machine as a 180 for the vast majority of missions. For 99% of people, if a strip works for a 180 then it works for a 182. In fact, the 182 is better for most folks because the modern cabin. The later models (like late 70's) are generally screamers too. All those little mods they did over the years to the cowl, etc really cleaned them up. If you are on your game and watch the heat/weight......180/182 will operate out of 1200' no problem. The airplane is not the issue in most cases.

Bill