Cessna 182 production restarted

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,984
Location
Memphis, TN
If they would bring back the moving tail trim of the 180/185; Cessna would sell 20,000 to Alaska. The rest or the world would want them too. The simplified 182 can’t trim out the nose heavy like the 180/185, lots of people knock the firewalls off, landing on the nose gear, if they don’t run ballast they in the cargo. They are not meant to be efficient with one aboard, but four aboard with bags, almost no other airplanes does as well with useable weight.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
11,521
Location
USA.
Wife and I used to go to the classes the state Small Business Administration would have at different cities in the state for small business owners. The state would hire CPA's to teach us how to use the loop-holes that the state legislature had put in the laws since most were business owners. That sentence was almost a direct quote from the CPA's. The SBA also sponsored free classes in Corp Law at the state university that I attended. Your tax money at work.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
2,111
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
I gota wonder where the moneys going?
Good grief half 1 million for a design that’s pretty much 70 years old I can buy a new a aronca sedan for pretty close to that and it’s a RagN tube design for gods sakes.
I don’t think they have so many new Aronca sedans lately I have to wonder how many new 182s will they sell ?
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
2,970
Location
Canada
Dear Pilot-34,
I also like Goddard's advice about "teaching to the test."
As an instructor, I hate the process because it forces students to memorize large chunks of data that they know will be useless next week, hence is promptly forgotten.
After "teaching to the test" did students really learn anything that was useful in the long-run??????
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
1,419
Location
Glendale, CA
If they would bring back the moving tail trim of the 180/185; Cessna would sell 20,000 to Alaska. The rest or the world would want them too. The simplified 182 can’t trim out the nose heavy like the 180/185, lots of people knock the firewalls off, landing on the nose gear, if they don’t run ballast they in the cargo. They are not meant to be efficient with one aboard, but four aboard with bags, almost no other airplanes does as well with useable weight.
I tried to find a 59 182 to get the cowl flaps on the narrow body straight tail, but could not find one at the time. Since I live in hot California where the DA is often insane, the cowl flaps were important to me. when I stumbled into the C182p I eventually bought so many people told me it flew like a truck in relation to the narrow body C172, 175 or 182 I was looking for. That scared me a bit, but to be honest after owning it now for a bit over a year, I love everything about it. It only feels heavy to me when in a slip. I keep a case of oil in the back to help with CG when I fly alone. the MT prop will remove 15lbs off the nose and if I pull the vacuum system I can get another 15 off albeit at a lesser moment arm. The wide body is working well as a family plane and the P model can take more load then I am ever likely to need and if needed I can get an STC that increases the gross weight allowance for even more. However, that jack screw tail would be a nice addition if they brought that back but its easier to just reintroduce what was made before.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
11,521
Location
USA.
I tried to find a 59 182 to get the cowl flaps on the narrow body straight tail, but could not find one at the time. Since I live in hot California where the DA is often insane, the cowl flaps were important to me. when I stumbled into the C182p I eventually bought so many people told me it flew like a truck in relation to the narrow body C172, 175 or 182 I was looking for. That scared me a bit, but to be honest after owning it now for a bit over a year, I love everything about it. It only feels heavy to me when in a slip. I keep a case of oil in the back to help with CG when I fly alone. the MT prop will remove 15lbs off the nose and if I pull the vacuum system I can get another 15 off albeit at a lesser moment arm. The wide body is working well as a family plane and the P model can take more load then I am ever likely to need and if needed I can get an STC that increases the gross weight allowance for even more. However, that jack screw tail would be a nice addition if they brought that back but its easier to just reintroduce what was made before.
Friend and hanger neighbor had a 1959 with the big engine conversion. Handled nice and was fast, I liked it.
Another friend and 2 hangers away bought a 1960 and installed a new engine and prop, new paint and interior. First class. It had 11 hrs on it and on landing we touched down with a normal landing , rolled out about 150' and the nose gear retracted. Two of us in the fronts seats and my grandson in the rear seat. Landed on our grass strip and it plowed some sod up but never went over on its back. It was an accident ready to happen. On inspection the top two bolts that holds the top nose gear bracket had been broken so long that the break in the bolts were rusty. The rivets just popped out of the firewall. Nose gear scissors punched a hole in the bottom fuselage skin. So a junk engine, prop, cowl , firewall, lower fuselage skin, carb, airbox, engine mount and exhaust.
Be sure to check the top bolts on the top nose gear bracket.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
2,970
Location
Canada
The rarest part for Cessna 182 straight tails is the lower engine cowling because it always arrives at the scene of the accident first. Straight-tail 182s used to be popular with skydiving operators but many have been beaten too hard for too many years. With wing-tip extensions, they can legally carry 4 skydivers and climb better than later models. Numerous engine STCs improve climb even more.
Wide-body 182s are more popular with tandem instructors, but less popular with owners because they climb slower.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
11,521
Location
USA.
My friends large engine conversion in the 1959 was a skydiver airplane along with the Beech 18. Latter he used a Beech Kingair A-90. Loved flying the B-18. He was hauling jumpers one winter in CA and someone made him an offer to buy the B-18 that he couldn't refuse. I heard it went to Canada and put on floats.

On the 1960 182, the owner found an artist with an english wheel and he made the lower cowl look like new. Everything else was new. I used my trailer and hauled it to a shop in OH.
 
Top