Flew a 182 RG two days this week | FerrariChat

Flew a 182 RG two days this week

Discussion in 'Aviation Chat' started by Chupacabra, Jul 29, 2015.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Chupacabra

    Chupacabra F1 Rookie
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Sep 30, 2005
    3,213
    Behind a drum kit
    Full Name:
    Mr. Chupacabra
    Honestly, I wasn't expecting to dig it all that much, but I had a ball! Super stable, comfortable, and made far better time than I expected.

    I'm still most likely going to a six-place aircraft out of necessity, but I wouldn't completely discount the possibility of a 182 showing up. Newer, non-RG.

    Anyone have any ownership experience they'd like to share?
     
  2. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    7,911
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    I have no ownership of anything but debt but I think that you are going in the right direction with the welded down gear C-182.
     
  3. Chupacabra

    Chupacabra F1 Rookie
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Sep 30, 2005
    3,213
    Behind a drum kit
    Full Name:
    Mr. Chupacabra
    Yeah Bob, I don't trust that stuff...it's fun to play with and all, but after my Arrow (the gear was the biggest maintenance pain I had, but it was generally a very solid, reliable plane) I don't want to bother with owning anything retractable until it's time to step up to a twin or turboprop. I hear disparaging things about Cessna retracts; I say disparaging because I do not know how warranted the chatter is, but I've heard consistent bad reviews regarding the gear on the 172, 182, and 210s.

    At any rate, I'm flying the 182 again on Friday, and it's great fun to be back in a complex machine! Just glad it isn't mine :)
     
  4. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    7,911
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    I have been on two flights with retractable Cessna's
    and there were problems and I have heard too many accounts of retractable problems on Cessna's..
     
    tazz99 likes this.
  5. joker57676

    joker57676 Two Time F1 World Champ

    Apr 12, 2005
    23,767
    Sin City
    Full Name:
    Deplorie McDeplorableface
    For what it's worth, a number of A&Ps have told me the issue is not really with Cessna's retractable gear, but rather maintenance of the gear. When properly maintained, they're very reliable.



    Mark
     
    tazz99 likes this.
  6. solofast

    solofast Formula 3

    Oct 8, 2007
    1,773
    Indianapolis
    #6 solofast, Jul 31, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2015
    I second that. I had a 182 RG for 10 years and 1800 hours and had no issues at all with the gear. There were little glued on plastic pads on the main gear aluminum castings that could fall off and you could damage the parts if you neglected them, but other than that I had no gear maintenance or any additional expense other than the slightly increased cost at annuals of doing the retraction test.

    The 182 RG is really a very underrated airplane. Both figuratively and in what people think about it. Cessna was very conservative in it's book numbers and if you go by the book it doesn't look all that hot. But in my experience it typically beats the book numbers and for that reason it is really a better performer than it would appear.

    It carries a heck of a load, if you can shut the doors it will fly. Useful load is over 1300 pounds and it carries 88 gallons of usable fuel. It has really long legs, and can outlast most folks bladder by a healthy margin.

    When it was new my RG cruised at 160 knots at 6500 ft and wot (top of the green). That is 5 knots better than book speed.

    I did a number of mods (strut cuffs, aileron and flap seas, increased length cowl flaps, DME cover, antennas in the wing tips and some others), and improved the max cruise speed to 172 kts TAS at 6500 ft max cruise, top of the green on MP and RPM.

    I would generally cruise at 10 to 12,000 ft at 165kts TAS burning 11 gph. Up there it was a lot more quiet, cooler and very economical. My longest trip was non-stop from Venice Fla to Toledo Ohio, in under 7 hours and burned 78 gallons out of the 88 usable, and that included a missed approach and vectors to the ILS at Toledo Express. Including the missed approach and diversion to an alternate, the trip was right at 1100 miles, and that includes an hour of reserve fuel. Something you simply can't do in most four place airplanes.

    Compared to something like a Mooney my tuned RG wasn't quite as efficient, it took 35 more hp to go the same speed and burned about one gph more fuel, but it carried a heck of a lot more payload and had a lot more usable fuel, so it would go a good bit further and do all of that with four people on board and a good bit of baggage, something you could never do in a Mooney.

    The RG has the Lycoming 0540 engine. these engines typically make it to the 2,000 hr overhaul without major maintenance. This is basically a detuned 260 hp engine and it is bulletproof. In 1800 hours I had no significant engine maintenance, just a blown exhaust gasket and a few other small things and when I sold it the compression and leakdown was great. That's impossible to do with the Conti's in the Bonanza or the turbo Mooney.

    The RG doesn't fly like a 172, the controls, particularly in pitch are a bit heavy and you don't do any speed changes without slapping the trim wheel, but it's also a very solid feeling airplane, and that can impart a feeling of confidence. It's a man's airplane (not being sexist, just saying that it has a solid feel and it takes a firm hand to fly it) in that the control forces aren't light, but it's satisfying in the way it flies. The RG, because you are going faster, is a bit heavier on the controls than the straight leg model, but that's the price of going faster.

    So yes the RG is a great airplane. The only issue that I see is that they are getting a bit long in the tooth, but if you find one that hasn't been used as a rental and has been well maintained they are still a very special airplane.
     
  7. cheesey

    cheesey Formula 3

    Jun 23, 2011
    1,921
    agree it is a good plane... the gear problems as stated are exaggerated, stuff happens occasionally ( don't recall having any gear issues of all the planes that we went through )... the extra speed is worth considering the RG... the turbo is even better
    like all Cessna from that period, they needed to be fine tuned for better speed... the plane leaves the factory with standard setup on the jigs... there are adjustment screws in the wings and stabilizer that need to be fine tuned for best trim... it's been a long time, speed gained reached into the 170Kt range for the RG ( just by turning a few screws )... the 210 offers more space if that is the direction you want to go... 210's more space equates into more flexibility and speed... my preference would be a turbo 210
     
  8. solofast

    solofast Formula 3

    Oct 8, 2007
    1,773
    Indianapolis
    #8 solofast, Jul 31, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2015
    double post... don't know why it did that
     
  9. solofast

    solofast Formula 3

    Oct 8, 2007
    1,773
    Indianapolis
    #9 solofast, Jul 31, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2015
    I don't think that buy turning the screws you can get to the kind of speeds I attained. We did check the rigging and there is some to be gained, but there are also bad side effects from rigging the airplane outside of the max spces that Cessna recommends.

    I did some cross country racing with my plane while it was still stock and had some good success and have the trophies on the wall to prove it, but that was mostly because the airplane regularly beat the book numbers especially at lower weights.

    I bought the strut cuff and ailerons and flap gap seal kits, made a cover for the DME antenna and did a lot of other cleanup work such as flush mounting the ILS antenna screw in the windshield and rolling the lips on the rear of the gear wells and extended the cowl flaps since once the airplane was flying faster I couldn't keep the engine warm (and it reduced cooling drag and increased the speed some more). I cleaned up the gaps around the side windows with rtv (reduced the wind noise a lot) and pretty much made it a hobby as to how much speed I could get out of the airplane.

    Each modification I did was worth a very small amount of speed, but it continued to add up. This was much the same process that LoPresti did at Mooney when they made the M20 into the 201. There was a NACA paper that documented this process and how they did it in WWII on a lot of aircraft and drastically reduced the drag of the aircraft. Here is the link to it...

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a801048.pdf

    Most airplanes don't have a lot of form drag. They typically don't have large areas of separation or stagnation, but they have a lot of drag that comes in small increments due to appendages and features that are poorly done for economic reason. That makes the a "target rich environment" for cleanup and can make the airplane a lot faster than it was intended to go.

    When I got done with my cleanup program I could fly at 6500 ft and with at max cruise power the airplane would climb without some nose down pressure on the stick. That is, I had run out of range on the trim wheel and I was able to cruise at the redline speed, and I was at the limits of the trim setup that Cessna recommended. For that reason I tended to just go higher and could get back under the max IAS range and all was happy. At that point I was pretty much done and had accomplished what I wanted to do.
     
  10. Ak Jim

    Ak Jim F1 Veteran
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Dec 23, 2007
    8,451
    North Pole AK
    The aero club at Elmendorf had a 177rg, that was a very nice flying airplane, of course I just rented so I wasn't familiar with maintenance issues.
     
  11. FarmerDave

    FarmerDave F1 World Champ
    Consultant

    Jul 26, 2004
    15,774
    Full Name:
    IgnoranteWest
    Way Neat!
     
  12. solofast

    solofast Formula 3

    Oct 8, 2007
    1,773
    Indianapolis
    Also as a side note, the earlier Cessna's did have a jackscrew that you can use to rig the stabilizer and there was speed that could be gained by rigging it outside of the factory limits, but that also did bad things to the stability and control and as I understand it that messed up the stabilizer authority and made it difficult to recover from stall/spin situations. Good for air racing and experienced pilots, but bad for the typical GA guy who flies 20 hrs a year.

    By the time they built my airplane (1979) they did away with that, and the stabilizer was fixed to the tailcone and wasn't adjustable.

    With the fixed stabilizer and at light loads there wasn't enough elevator authority to stall my airplane at full power. I was on my IFR checkride and the examiner asked me to do a departure stall at full power under the hood.... I just laughed at him and said.. "At this light load (half tanks) and only two on board this airplane won't stall at full power"... And then I demonstrated to him by applying full aft stick, slowing the airplane down to near stall speed and applying full power.. At that point the airplane shuttered a bit, and pulled up about 10 feet of altitude, and then did it again... and again... He was pretty amazed too, but then he said.. "well, ok, stall it at about 90% power"... and that's what I did.
     
  13. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    7,911
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    I should amend my comment re Cessna retracts because some of them were indeed maintenance issues. Some A&P's that I have seen haven't been very serious or careful about their work .
     
  14. solofast

    solofast Formula 3

    Oct 8, 2007
    1,773
    Indianapolis
    There's really no reason to have to belly land a high wing Cessna retract if the hydraulics fail. The nose gear will drop and lock by itself and you can hear it every time it is lowered. Savvy Cessna retract pilots will listen for the distinctive woosh and ca-thunk sound of the nose gear falling into place as the handle is moved out of the up detent and know they have a nose gear.

    The mains will "trail", but then all you have to do is slow down, use something in the airplane to hook the mains and pull them up to where they will lock. There are several documented cases where someone used the towbar to pull up the mains and I recall one news clip where a guy wrapped himself in the belts and hung his foot out and hooked the mains and pulled them up to the locked position... I don't think I'd have the balls to do that, but you do what you gotta do....
     
  15. James_Woods

    James_Woods F1 World Champ

    May 17, 2006
    12,755
    Dallas, Tx.
    Full Name:
    James K. Woods
    I concur that this is a very fine plane. I checked out for rental of a 182 Turbo RG, and it is an excellent handler and flier.

    Of course, it is still not a Bonanza.
     
  16. jcurry

    jcurry Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 16, 2012
    21,370
    In the past
    Full Name:
    Jim
    Cessna --> Chevy
    Bonanza --> Mercedes
    Mooney --> BMW
    Piper --> Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep
     
  17. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    7,911
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    A good one, Jim.
     
  18. Chupacabra

    Chupacabra F1 Rookie
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Sep 30, 2005
    3,213
    Behind a drum kit
    Full Name:
    Mr. Chupacabra
    I flew it again on Friday and had a ball again! I was making 160+ over the ground at 4500 and got where I was going very quickly and comfortably. Also had a 200+ pound passenger on my second leg and barely noticed a difference. I have to echo the comments about how stable and solid the airplane feels. The people I flew last week all commented on how substantial and safe it seems. I like happy passengers :)
     
  19. cheesey

    cheesey Formula 3

    Jun 23, 2011
    1,921
    unfortunately the Cessna singles are a bit agricultural in fit and finish, but they all essentially work as good or better than advertised... if you can find a turbo variant 182 RG or 210 to try, it will add to your flying pleasure, the turbo broadens the utility and pleasure of getting there
     
  20. solofast

    solofast Formula 3

    Oct 8, 2007
    1,773
    Indianapolis
    All true, it's no Bonanza for sure. The term "agricultural" most certainly applies to the metal work.

    The earlier 182RG's with the 2 blade prop were also a lot louder than a Bonanza When I came home from a trip I used to circle my house and even my wife knew the distinctive sound of an RG. I work just off the departure end of a runway and I KNOW when the RG based there takes off... Not that it's a bad sound, it's a muscular throaty sound, but that prop is loud and it makes the interior a lot louder than most of the other singles. I used to cruise at 12000 ft and pull the prop back just a bit and that made it livable from a noise standpoint.

    By now most have had the interior redone and more modern soundproofing and using a cloth headliner (instead of the plastic one that is dismal) with sound insulation foam under it makes it a lot more livable.

    If you get a later one with the 3 blade it's much more quiet, not great, but a lot better.

    The turbo came with the 3 blade and is a lot more quiet than my 79 model was. The prop and the muffling effect of the turbo really brought down the noise level. Probably close to Bonanza quiet. If you had a need for the turbo it might make sense, but I was flying entirely on eastern half of the country and it wasn't available when I bought mine anyway.

    A turbo with speed mods would be a honker though... You'd be doing about 200 kts at 20k and be right at the top of the green for cruise...

    The RG is really a good compromise. The extra 35 hp compared to the pack of 200 hp singles really makes a difference, and the big wing with that extra power gives you payload and climb capability that really makes the airplane stand out. It's reasonably fast and if speed is your thing it can be made to go as fast as a Mooney with the kits that are out there. The downside is that it isn't luxurious, and it's loud, but if you can get past that it's a heck of an airplane.
     
  21. Tcar

    Tcar F1 Rookie

    And now the Chevy and the Mercedes are owned by the same company.

    (Hate to see Chyrsler/Dodge/Jeep demeaned like that... they are certainly not Piper bad, especially lately.)
     
  22. davebdave

    davebdave Formula 3
    Owner

    Mar 18, 2007
    2,379
    Northern VA
    Full Name:
    Dave W
    I don't know, I see a lot of commonality between a Cherokee 6 and a Jeep Cherokee.
     
  23. Chupacabra

    Chupacabra F1 Rookie
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Sep 30, 2005
    3,213
    Behind a drum kit
    Full Name:
    Mr. Chupacabra
    True!

    I found a pretty sweet Cherokee 6 for sale nearby. Fresh annual, 430 WAAS, good compression, newer interior, paint is an 8.5/10...may be the one.
     
  24. Skylane200

    Skylane200 Rookie

    Apr 29, 2021
    1
    Tampa
    As a current owner of a Cessna R182, I would like to hear more about the modifications that individuals have done to make it more efficient
     
  25. Hannibal308

    Hannibal308 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 3, 2012
    6,269
    Kahuku / Cottonwood / Prescott
    Full Name:
    Will
    Mine is becoming a 180. It’s a ‘59 model so they were all basically the same bones. 300 horses and steam panel. Perfect for buzzing around Arizona.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
    Boomhauer, donv and Bob Parks like this.

Share This Page