A couple months ago, we bought a 1979 Cessna 182Q (N601SF) that's currently sitting in Michigan. It's been having a bit of work and upgrades performed, and that's a good thing on several levels. We've been so busy that I haven't had the time to go pick it up (and by "pick it up" I mean "fly it back to California") or even fly one locally to get the hang of it.


Unlike the Citabria I fly, the Cessna 182 "Skylane" is bigger, faster, and more complicated. It has a 230 horsepower engine, 4 seats, flaps, a constant speed propeller, and a much more populated instrument panel. Oh, and it has the little wheel on the nose, too.

N601SF Panel (left)

The original plan was for me to fly out with an instructor and bring the airplane back, while getting 182 experience and my insurance requirements along the way--much like I did for bringing Citabria N5156X back to California in April of 2006.

However, scheduling problems have conspired against that, so I went with the backup plan: getting checked out locally in a 182 and taking a more experienced pilot to make the journey with me--someone with an instrument rating, just in case we need it (this time of year, odds are that we will).

Since I have over 100 hours of tailwheel time already, the insurance company only requires that I get 4 hours of dual time (instruction) in a 182 before they're willing to insure me. That shocked me at first, but by the time I had a few hours in the airplane I began to understand why: it's pretty easy to fly.

Overall Checkout

In looking at the local options, I found that Shoreline Flying Club, based at KPAO in Palo Alto, was my best option. They had a 1980 Cessna 182 (N5302N) on the line, have no monthly dues, an no initiation fee. Granted, the avionics are different, but the airplane and engine were virtually identical to the 1979 model that we'd purchased.

N5302N at Palo Alto

I scheduled several hours on both Sunday and Monday of last week to fly with William Hightower. When we first met, I explained my background and experience a bit, and then told him that my main concern was learning how to takeoff and land the 182. I reasoned that I could figure most everything else out along the way.

He agreed and we planned to fly on Sunday from Palo Alto airport down to Hollister airport so that I could get some practice on a big runway at a familiar and relatively quite airport. That'd let me focus on the airplane and not dealing with tons of other planes and/or controllers.

I spent most of the fight down there understanding how to trim the airplane and getting a sense of what it feels/sounds like at various power settings and whatnot. Down at the airport, we shot about seven full stop landings in the light crosswind on runway 31 before returning back to Palo Alto under a 1,500 foot cloud layer.

Much to my surprise, I was already fairly comfortable in the airplane after about 2.4 hours behind the controls.

Heading Back to Palo Alto...

On Monday we did basically the same thing, but we headed to South County airport instead. There we experimented more with landings in different flap settings--everything from zero flaps to the full 40 degree flaps (that was fun!). I also performed a simulated engine-out landing and a soft field takeoff. On the way home I got to play with the simple auto pilot a bit as well.

We ended the day with another 1.8 hours of time logged, enough to make me and the insurance company comfortable with my ability to keep from doing anything too stupid in the 182.

On both days, we did some other air work on the way to/from our destination. That included turns, stalls, slow flight, and the usual stuff one would expect in a new aircraft checkout.

Here are thoughts on a few specific aspects of the checkout that I was concerned about.


For some reason, I figured that flying with flaps would be more complicated that I thought. In reality, however, it was not a big deal at all. In the 182 it seems like flying the takeoff with 20 degrees is almost always ideal, and landing with either 20 or 30 degrees works well unless you're in unusual circumstances.

Beyond the few minutes near the ground, I never had to think about the flaps. I did manage to forget to retract them to extend my glide during a simulated engine-out landing, but that's the only time they managed to surprise me. Given a good checklist for takeoff and landing (which I have), I don't really anticipate any problems.

I must say, landing with FULL FLAPS the first time is quite an experience. :-)

Constant Speed Propeller

My biggest concern was the extra workload associated with having a constant speed propeller. For whatever reason, the various material I'd read beforehand made it all sound far more complicated than what it really is.

The bottom line is that I don't have to think much about touching the prop control until we're safely away from the airport and getting into cruise mode. And then, like the flaps, I don't have to worry about it again (during normal operations) until entering the landing pattern when I'd start to reduce power, slow down, and so on.


Knowing that this particular airplane had mostly original equipment, meant that I could test out the simple Cessna 300A "Navomatic" autopilot. That's exactly what N601SF has too.

On one flight, I set the heading bug on the direction gyro to something about 15 degrees off our current heading made sure that the HDS SEL button was pushed, and turned the autopilot on. As if by magic, the airplane turned to that heading and then flew wings level (minus a small rudder trim problem) on course without me having to touch anything.

That's pretty cool. I can definitely see how this is going to be useful on longer flights now. Even without the altitude hold feature that fancier S-TEC autopilots have, it means you can fly mostly hands-free for a good stretch.

N5302N Panel


I no longer think the insurance companies are crazy for requiring so little time to fly a Cessna 182. And if you happen to be in the Bay Area looking for a smaller flying club with no dues and a good selection of airplanes, checkout Shoreline Flying Club.

Posted by jzawodn at November 26, 2007 12:53 PM

Reader Comments
# Charles said:

I know you grow to love the 182.

I own a 182P and just love it. You are right about it being easy to fly. And the size ( stability ) makes it a great IFR platform.

Do yourselves a favor. Spend the money on the gauges so you can monitor the engine, especially the cylinder head temps. It'll save you money two ways. Makes it easier to lean properly to.

And be careful when replacing the cowling, make sure the rubber is not pinched. That'll cause it to run hotter.

Happy Flying

on November 26, 2007 10:05 PM
# Jeffrey Friedl said:

"I must say, landing with FULL FLAPS the first time is quite an experience."

Why? Because it's slow or something? Us non-pilots in the audience would like to know.

Also, how is a constant-speed propeller different from a variable pitch propeller? I used to see the latter at a small airport I worked at 20 years ago, but had never heard the former term until today....

on November 26, 2007 10:45 PM
# Dave said:

Since I got my private license just over a year ago I've thought a lot about what my "ideal" first plane would be and I keep coming back to the 182: decent load, good performance for getting over the mountains, and a familiar platform (all my hours are in a 172.) I keep seeing a number of late 60s to early 70s models for sale in excellent shape for not too much $$$ - it's tempting.

PS: Citabrias don't have flaps? had no idea.

on November 27, 2007 12:24 AM
# seksel said:

I own a 182P and just love it. You are right about it being easy to fly. And the size ( stability ) makes it a great IFR platform.

Do yourselves a favor. Spend the money on the gauges so you can monitor the engine, especially the cylinder head temps. It'll save you money two ways. Makes it easier to lean properly to.

And be careful when replacing the cowling, make sure the rubber is not pinched. That'll cause it to run hotter.

on November 27, 2007 07:11 AM
# Craig said:

I recently picked up a great book, "Fly The Engine" by Kas Thomas. See the links below.

You might find it useful too, especially if you are flying power more often then gliders these days, as am I.

Good luck on your instrument training, etc.

"Fly The Engine" on Lulu: http://www.lulu.com/content/1291090
Author's weblog: http://flytheengine.blogspot.com/

on November 27, 2007 12:40 PM
# Jeremy Zawodny said:


Good points.

The full flaps landing is interesting because you have to have a very nose-down attitude as you approach the runway (to keep your speed up). It's a bit spooky the first time.

As for the terminology, my browsing of Wikipedia suggests that constant speed is a more appropriate term because the pilot is actually adjusting the pitch but using an RPM gauge to figure out when it's set properly. The prop pitch *does* change, but we don't think about it exactly in those terms.

Hopefully that doesn't confuse things more than they already are...

on November 27, 2007 01:26 PM
# Douglas said:

If you want to get technical, a constant speed propellor is actually a type of variable pitch propellor since the pitch of the blades is not fixed. The Wikipedia article isn't very good -- a better explanation of why constant speed is ideal can be read at http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/propeller.html#prop_types

on November 27, 2007 03:26 PM
# Jeremy Zawodny said:


That's a *much* better reference. Thanks for the link.

on November 27, 2007 03:32 PM
# optional said:

wow! very nice C182 - will this replace the Citabria?

on November 30, 2007 08:39 AM
# Jeremy Zawodny said:

Hugo: Thanks! I'm not sure about the Citabria at this point. I own half of it and would love to keep it around. But some of that obviously depends on my partner too.

on November 30, 2007 08:41 AM
# CFII Dave said:

Landing is the transition from flying to stop. The lower your ground speed, the less wear and tear on the aircraft. Flaps help you go slower. Unless there are other factors such as cross wind or an anticipated go around, my typical landings are always full flaps.

on December 3, 2007 10:39 AM
# sylvia said:

This is great! We have a chance to go flying in Kenya in a 182 and I was wondering what the conversion would be like. Sounds like it'll be no problem compared to the Saratoga. Do they float as obstinately as the 172s?

on December 8, 2007 10:39 AM
# Douglas said:

sylvia: Far from it; the 182 with it's heavier gross weight and greater wing loading means that if you chop the power over the threshold, like you would in the flare when carrying a little power in a 172, you'll find your self dropping onto the runway. I suspect that if you fly the approach and flare similar to the way you would in the Saratoga that you'll be just fine.

on December 14, 2007 07:05 AM
# Bill Bradley said:

I am selling my 2006 172SP G-1000 and getting a T182 2007.
If everything goes well (loan, selling my plane, etc.) I should have it next week. I have 2 hours in a 182 non-turbo. It was fairly easy to fly. I am instrument rated with aprox 400 hours in a 172. Anyone fly Turbo 182's? I would appreciate any input. The 07 T182 has WAAS and the new flight director, so I'm really excited about learning the few additions. I will miss the 8gph fuel burn though...

on December 30, 2007 01:35 PM
# Casey said:


If you don't mind me asking , How much did you pay for the 182 . I'm currently searching for a similar model . I also trained on a citabria (7ECA) and have flown about 2 hrs in a 182 . I purchased the cessna 182 buyers guise from the cessna pilots assoc . It was an interesting read . The avionics look great in yours .

Thanks Casey

on February 20, 2008 08:14 PM
# Owen Smith said:

The other issue when landing with flaps vs. no flaps, especially with the 40 degrees that the 182 has, is that
you need to leave enough power on that it doesn't drop
airspeed to fast during the flare. I had a brake failure
once and landed with 40 degrees of flap in our 182C. I kept
the nose up to increase the drag after touchdown but ended
up having to ADD power to turn onto the taxiway 1500ft from
the threshold.

Love the bar operated flaps too, much better than any
electrical system I've operated.


on May 2, 2008 02:04 PM
# Jim L said:

I am transitioning from the 172 to the 182 soon. My concern is the extra workload from dealing with the prop pitch, manifold pressure, and cowl flaps. You guys make it sound so easy but I can't help but be a bit nervous. I'll let you know how it goes.


on June 12, 2008 09:23 PM
# said:


I was worried too, but it's really not as bad as you might think. After a few hours dual, you really get the hang of it. And the extra performance sure is nice. :-)


on June 14, 2008 09:25 AM
# said:

Jeremy, I enjoyed the post. It seems we were in the same boat, I bought my 182 several months ago from a owner in MI although the purchase was made in WI. It was several months before I was able to fly it back to CA in April.

Jim, I just bought a 182 transitioning up from a 172. I over thought the first few flights thinking I needed to think about everything. There are just a few more items in the checklist before you take off and a few more in cruise. There is nothing additional during the dynamics portions of flight. Go through the check list on the ground an soon you'll realize that it is not much more workload.

P.S. My insurance (Falcon) did not require any number hours of training required besides just a check-out. I got lucky, the previous owner was a CFI so that pre-purchase test flight was my check out. Surprisingly, I passed! I flew only about 2 hours in the 182 before I flew it XC back to CA without any issues besides a failed vacuum pump (nothing related to transitioning up to a 182).


on June 14, 2008 11:45 PM
# Dave said:

Thanks for posting this! I was just considering bumping up from a 172 to a Skylane and had all of the same concerns as you. Thanks for putting them at ease.
I have a big trip planned for October and would love to fly a bigger bird. I'll definitely go ahead and find a 182 to check out on.

on September 26, 2008 08:09 AM
# Cabbageroller said:

Hi guys. Thanks for the great feedback on all your Skylane flying experience(s).
I purchased mine in March 2008. It's a marvelous T182T 2006 G-1000 equiped beauty. It doesn't have the new intergrated auto Pilot, but I don't care. The factory installed autopilot does everything I want it to do.
I hadn't flown in over 14 years and was very rusty with the radios. My instructor was great and got me proficient in 3 weekends. That inclued learning the G1000.
I flew to Florida from Toronto in August 2008. 2 adults and 2 kids in the back plus all the gear your mother in law would bring if she was camping for 3 months. I'll always remember taking off from that airstrip in Kentucky. It was 90 outside with zero wind. I didn't need much runway. Eventhough we were at max gross, that plane just lifted like a bat out of hell.
It's a great plane..fast...forgiving...good honest payload cap. Everyone knows a 182. It's a good feeling when you're on the (road..ha ha)knowing that pretty much any mechanic can help you if you need it, not to mention ease of getting parts.
I have a friend who used to own and fly a 182. He now flies a Beech Bonanza. Yes, it's faster. Yes, it's got room for 6. But he told me the other day he realy should own a 182. Those retractables are always a bit of a worry, both in the air before a landing and at the anual $$$
He gets wherever he's going faster, but not by much. He burns more fuel, and arrives only 25 minutes ahead of me on a 500 miles trip. Is it realy worth all that extra money to fly faster??? If you're like me, you enjoy flying. I'm always looking for a reason to fly. If I can cruise at a reasonable 140kt true airspeed, why worry about speed. I WANT to be in the air and I WANT to fly. The 182 can compete with any and all as for as I'm concerned. If I had to do it all over again, would I buy it again???? ABSOLUTELY.

on January 10, 2009 07:18 PM
# Stephen said:

Surfin' a little in the worldwide web (literally speaking: I'm writing this from Germany -- excuse my faulty english), I stumbled across Your blog and all the comments to it. I immediately found myself being beamed back to 2006, when I bought MY 182 (a beautiful 1983 R-model, clean and loaded).

When I bought it, I had lots of hours on my 152, really knowing it and having dropped it into nearly any little backyard type airfield. I changed to the 182 because my focus had altered from saturday afternoon flying to larger journeys all across Europe (and the kids wanted to go along too).

My first flight was with an instructor, naturally. I know him well and he knows me and my flying (I did and do all my check flights with him). He also knows the 182 very well, doing ferry flight on new and used ones for Cessna Roeder in Egelsbach (big dealer here in Germany) all over Europe. We hopped into my baby and he said: Don't worry, It'll fly like Your 152, just a little heavier -- it's like changing from a Suzuki Vitara to a Range Rover -- all Cessnas are the same. I heard him say that and believed it -- first mistake!

Our two or so hour flight with five landings in different configurations worked out fine and I thought my 'megatoy' was in fact just as easy to fly as any other Wichita SE and I therefore wouldn't have to learn many new things -- second mistake!

Next weekend I invited my girlfriend for a hop to a nearby airfield for some good greek food in the local restaurant. Upon landing, we had a little wind right onto the nose (about 20kts), so, flying by the clocks AND my eyes I came in a little fast (on airspeed) but normal (on groundspeed). Since the runway is only about 1500' long, I had decided to drop her right onto the numbers and I did, pulling out the throttle above the fence and about 30' above the tarmac. Under such circumstances, my 152 used to land practically by itself. But, bad bad landing now: I hopped twice, first time in nearly 1000 logged landings!
> First lesson: On final and glideslope and target speed,
NEVER go below manifold12, or You'll get two or three
landings for the price of one! If You want to practise
a no power landing, give it several tries reducing power
every time a little more and come in definitively
higher/ steeper than normal. On flaps20 or 30 she won't
get too fast, believe me!

On the ground, I braked a little (more to steer than to slow down; about as much as I always did with my 152) -- and found myself a taxi speed not even halfway down the runway.
> Second lesson: A 182 acually doesn't really need brakes;
the barn door type flaps and the weight do it all for
You! That's why a 182 will do better on a short strip
than any other comparable AC. And: I find, any landing
will work out just as perfectly on flaps20 than on
flaps30. Just less close to certain limits and with less
power on! I ALWAYS land flaps20 and use flaps30 only for
steep descent at slow speed, when necessary.

On the way home, it practiced some engine out gliding and was more than astonished not be able to keep the sink rate under 500-600 fpm; my 152 would glide nicely at 200-300 fpm.
> Third lesson: A 182 loads like a truck, flies like a
brick -- it's TRUE!

When we came home, I was way too fast on entry into the pattern; just used to my 152... I exited again, slowed down and re-entered. After reading everything about the 182 I could get my hands onto AGAIN, I tried to 'brake' on the next flights: lower manifold to 15 or so, push the prop control to 'fast' and pull up the nose. It'll make You fall into Your belts!

Before my first crosscountry flight with 'megatoy', I revised all the new systems I hadn't had before (like the CS prop, the cowl flaps, the different fuel switch, the carb temp gauge, and so on) and thought: All peanut-items, nothing big. ON the flight, I realized that the plane was overtaking me: I was so busy not forgetting anything that I descended without carb heat and forgot to switch the Xpdr to standby in the pattern. And I landed with my CS prop in cruise configuration. And I didn't check my fuel switch before landing (it was in the 'Both' position, but I should have CHECKED!).
> Fourth lesson: Read EVERYTHING about Your 182. It's a
truely more complex plane in relation to a 152/ 172.
Nothing really difficult, but many items + details. You
can use them to Your favor or sweat...

I never used checklists before my 182 (had little helpers like 'GUMPF' and such). I have checklists now and I use them. And I feel lots more comfortable ahead of the plane than beside or behind it. I've flown some 200 hours on my 182 since then and I love the it: It's an SUV in the sky. I love to go to little grass strips where my friends won't go to ('Uuuuh, my undercarriage...') and when I travel far, I worry about lots of things, but NOT the weight and NOT the airfield.

A few months ago I came back from a short holiday on the seashore and landed at a nice little airport in middle Germany for refuelling. I had a friend of mine with me (who has much more experience than I have; mainly on Cessna 172). He asked me, if he could do the landing and I agreed. He flew into the field pretty steeply out of pattern height on nearly no power (he is a glider pilot too and doesn't like power on landings). When we were at flaring height (of a 182), I told him to start flaring and he did (only because I insisted) and he got the surprise of his life (he said), when we came out just about a foot above the concrete at stall speed. He would have flared a lot later (he said).
> Fifth lesson: It takes TIME to change the direction of
2800 lbs (from downwards to level flight -- and the
ground effect helps only a little due to the higher wing

The boss of my maintenance shop (also an old friend of mine and a hardcore Cessna-lover) says that most front gear damage results from THAT, NOT the so called nose heaviness.

Engine: I have the good old O470 installed, in the U-version. Did You know, that that is the engine that has the most 'problems' with carb icing (I read)? I remember flying to a mayor airport last year. Fine weather, just some haze due to high humidity. ATC asked me to stay in 3500 (field elev 100fts) close to the field until further notice -- lots of comercial traffic coming in. Finally they asked me to come in fast -- or wait another half hour. I didn't like that thought, so I throttled to MF15, prop fast, carb heat 50% and flaps20 and downward we went in a nice spiral about 2 miles abeam the runway. They'd asked me to enter base not higher than 1500, watch out for an incoming Dash and make a long landing. Everything worked out just fine until overhead the threshold in about 500fts. I throttled up to what was to be MF18 for the long landing and -- nothing happened. The engine just didn't spool up. No sweat: I had height, speed and a more than long enough runway. I changed my configuration and just before touch down the rpm came back. Everything OK, except me little idiot flying megatoy knowing all its advantages but NOT its bugs. I know them now!

Last little story: We have another 182 at our airfield (Runway: 2400 fts). The owner ALWAYS gets out on flaps20 -- he says: the plane wants to fly not to roll and that way it'll do so faster. The funny thing is, that he actually gets off the ground only very little earlier than I do (no flaps). I asked him for his Vr and its by the book. I watched him go out a few times (from inside his 182 and out) and myself too, when I suddenly
realised the reason:
He pulls the yoke as on a normal take off. But the plane wants to leave the runway in a nearly level attitude; pulling on the yoke too hard will more brake the plane (barn door type flaps!) than help it. I only lift the nose a tiny little bit (on T/O with flaps) to avoid shimmy and pull once at about 50 kias and it'll practically hop into the air (when trimmed a little nose down).

What is this all about:
> NOT all Cessnas fly alike; not even, when an instructor
tells You they are!
> ALWAYS bear the sheer mass of a 182 in mind -- THAT is
the main difference to the smaller SE Cessnas!
> AND bear in mind the greater wind resistance; it helps
any short field get a little longer!
> Get into ALL Your ACs systems, otherwise it'll overtake
You sometime -- with known results..
> A 182 isn't even close to being a beginners aircraft
-- be it a Cessna SE or not!

Any 182 pilot disagree?

on March 9, 2009 08:18 AM
# James said:

I am currently an airline pilot (previous military jet fighter pilot) with 18,000+ hours in high-performance turbojet aircraft. I am interested in the possibility of buying a Cessna 182, as I want to use it for travel and recreation.
Realizing I have ZERO EXPERIENCE in a light, single-engine GA aircraft, I intend to find an instructor and essentially have him teach me to fly as if I had zero flying experience (which, for all practical purposes in this type of aircraft, is what I have).
With that being said, would anybody out there have any additional recommendations or words of advice for me? I knew too many people over the years who fell back on their "high-performance experience" with tragic results. I plan to carry friends and family with me and I do not want to jeapardize them or myself. I want to learn how to operate the aircraft properly and safely.
On a different note, several people have told me to try to get a 182 that was built prior to 1977. Something about corrosion resistance. What do you think/recommend?
Thank you.

on March 10, 2009 06:32 PM
# Stephen said:

Hi, James:

If Your thinking about getting some instructional help for Your change to a 182 I can only say: Good decision (see my comment on that from March 9, 2009 08:18 AM).

If You're an ATPL-man You'll probably flare to high in the beginning anyway and that's not a good idea at all with a 182 if You're close to stall speed at the beginning of the flare.

What concerns the best year to buy: I'd say an R-model (1981+later) if it is to be a so-called 'LEGACY' model, or, if You want to spend more money, a so-called 'RESTART' model (1995+later).

I'd keep away from pre 79-models (bladder-tanks!). 82+later have a primer applied before paint. 83+later have engine TBO of 2000h (1500h before 83).

RESTART models (with gauge type instruments!) are quite cheap now, because everybody seems to want a 182 with that 737 feeling (Garmin1000) and a lot of people trade, I hear. Since You've probably had more than enough glass cockpit that might be an option for You!?

Best advice on all that from the CESSNA PILOTS ASSOCIATION (www.Cessna.org).

If You want a complete model history of the 182 (with all the changes per model year), give me Your mail adress if You want to; I'll send You one (+ pics of my megatoy, if You want to).

Have fun and keep me/ us 182ers informed.

on March 11, 2009 08:01 AM
# Connie Conradie said:

Goodday Jeremy,

My home town is MAFIKENG, Northwest-Province, South Africa. I'm a Afrikaans-speaking oak and not that good with the english writing. At the time I'm writing this response, I were on a 14 day holiday visiting my children: Jannie & Sophie Conradie and my first grand child: Anna, here in SHEERNESS, Kent, UK.

With plenty of time now on my side, I explore the net and came across your C182 pages that you have started. I like it! I am the holder of a PPL and in 1984 I upgraded from a Piper C140 by becoming the proud owner of ZS-KOT a C182Q 1980 with 232 hours on the clock. This I must say: The C182Q is in my eyes and with the experiences so far in ZS-KOT, is the most forgiven-able plane re mistakes I have made in the air with this C182Q. Although I am current on several other singles, presently I have ± 2130 flying hours on KOT.

Total frame hours is ± 2480. When 1500 hrs was due for the major service, I did make use of the option to import a fabric overalled 2000 TBO engine from
the factory. I have already done ±900 hrs without any problems so far.

The only major problem that I have and it is still existing, is with my AUTOPILOT. The similar one as yours. Due that it cost so much to fixed it, I decided to fly without it.

With my C182Q I could managed to save a human life or 3 from out short field take-offs. I praise the Lord for that !

There are to much the joyful-experiences that I have with my C182Q to write about - not enough space!!!

So Jeremy, what is your experience so far with your C182q?


Connie Conradie

on July 2, 2009 02:00 AM
# Neil said:

You mention 20 flaps being ideal for all takeoffs. I just want to add that high altitude takeoffs could be an exception.

I'm a low-time guy, but had some mountain training in a 182 (Rockies west of Denver), and just want share what the instructor told me.

The added drag cuts into your speed more than the added lift is worth. In other words, at altitude you need a much higher ground speed to lift off - when you're at altitude your engine is already performing less efficiently than normal - add the drag of flaps to that and you may not takeoff and or achieve the rate of climb you need (or expect).

Thanks for your story and enjoy your beautiful 182!

on July 15, 2009 09:53 PM
# Danielle Bruckert said:

I am an instructor on the C182, and we publish a C182 book, doing some much needed market research, and found this page.
I just first wanted to say - "It is so cool to finally see someone thinking about needing more hours and not less for a type conversion!" in my experience in NZ and South Africa, it was so frustrating to hear the "It's just an (type), do I really need to do so many hours" type of attitude, for all sorts of planes from a C182 or to a Citation. Second it is so nice to see an ATPL taking a C182 seriously. I have had alot of airline pilots in light aircraft over the years and joined their ranks in recent years on the B737, and I promise you, just because you can fly a B737 or an Airbus does not mean you can fly a C182!
Here's my professional opinion:
The C182 is a wonderful plane, but not forgiving, nor is any aeroplane if flown without good quality training, but with the right amount of good quality training it is a really great plane, and one of my favourite Cessnas.
Brief danger points would be The 40 degrees of flap, the potentially nasty wing drop on a stall (had a student put me in a spin once), the size and speed if you upgraded from a C152/C172 or anything similar, and the 20 degrees on takeoff could catch someone out at high altitudes if not considered properly. The CSU, cowl flaps and bigger engine are easily mastered with some time, but with more things there are, of course, more things to forget!!! The C182 is not as easy to land as a C172, but once you get it right, it is so delightful it is worth the effort.
I fully agree on the 'RESTART Models' technology does normally advance after all, alternatively the Reims are very nice, or if you are not concerned about speed or performance, pre 1962 had manual flap, a nice touch for me, but I also agree - bladder tanks are a draw back. Well better get back to productive writing, again nice post, and great to see attitudes improving - if you can't afford to do it properly, stay on the ground!

on September 22, 2009 05:17 AM
# Larry said:

Hi guys Im glad to find this forum.
Im a student pilot with 21 hrs, learning in a Warrior II.
All my instructors say I have a natural talent .(they problably say this to all students to keep them motivated) Since my 5th hr Im making all the take offs , aproaches and landings.Im really enojing this.

I live in Costa Rica and our airport is at 3,300ft with temps in the 80s, the terrain is mountains.

I always wanted to learn to fly in my own plane , I want private, instrmuents an commercial licenses.

There is a Cessna 182P for sale for 100K year model 1974
Engine is 18hrs old and was put in 2008
Propeller is 18hrs old also put in 2008
Has new paint
Robertson STOL Kit
3500hrs total time
No corrosion
He wanted 100K now I have it down to 80K
Is this price ok?(will like $65K in USA without the taxes 21% needed to pay in CR)

Im tempted to buy it,
And more important will this plane be good to learn to fly?
will it be safe for me to try to learn in this plane or is too much plane for a beginner?

I will be flying a lot with my instructor since I need a lot to learn towards all my licenses.

About the STOL kit , do they really help?
We did a 45mph Indicated slow flight.
To me the 182 felt elevator heavy when landing and not floating too much.
Is the 182 a brick or will glide and float on an engine out emergency?

on October 4, 2009 06:58 AM
# Eric said:

Hi All,
I have really enjoyed the read so far and thought I would share my experience with my 1971 182N.
I transitioned from the 172 trainer into my 182 at a total time of 64 hours! (age 37)
At the time, I had been told by my flight examiner that I was the top one or two students out of 1200 flight exams he had done. I was honoured, as he had a career full of military and civilian experience. I studied very hard and was never in a rush to complete my training which I think was the key to success.

I have found that I am always asked how this plane compares to a 172 and maybe I can explain it to someone who hasn't flown one before but is considering it. Please understand that I am still a low time pilot and have many years of learning ahead of me - which is probably a good time to explain what I noticed, while it is still fresh. Hopefully it will help other low timers transition safely.

The first time I sat in it I noticed the panel (IFR package) and how much more of it there was - less forward visibility than the 172 as it is higher.
The seats were much nicer - high back with head rests.
Much more room between the seats.
I was also astounded at how quiet it was (in the cockpit) when running, compared to the 172 that I had flown.

After quite a bit of hangar flying and processing the checklists I was ready for my first dual flight with a CFI (also my ownership partner).

To me, taking out all the systems, the aircraft itself flew with no surprises over the 172. The extra horsepower was not overly noticeable likely because of the mass increase.

The changes in workload were overwhelming to me at first - no question. Going from adjust the power as required, to watching manifold pressure, prop rpm, cruise power settings, carb temperature, cowl flaps, etc. My first upper air work was basically getting used to the systems, familiarity with where to look in my scans and generally getting more efficient. The sweat factor was something I hadn't experienced in a while.

The next major difference was getting back into the circuit, which was the first time I really noticed the speed difference! Coming into the zone at 30% faster than I was used to was again, overwhelming. Particularily in a relatively unfamiliar environment to start with. I could not 'slow' that girl down (things were happening faster than I could process) - FOR SURE. The transition from cruise to landing configuration...

I relied heavily on my CFI for the first few hours and actually ended up spending 25 hours together enjoying our new plane. That may sound like a lot, but I did not feel completely comfortable until about the 12 to 15 hour mark.

I now have over one hundred and ten hours on it and am absolutley in love with her!

It has the five seat configuration which enables my entire family to enjoy it. The payload difference is incredible, the range is fantastic, the speed, the stability, the confidence I have in what it can do on short strips, on and on. No wonder it has such a great reputation!!

To this day, I would not fly this aircraft without a checklist - period.
I have found that 0 flaps for normal take offs and 20 flaps for nearly all landings works best. The difference in speed at actual touchdown is negligable compared to 40 and you're in a better position for an overshoot in that event. It does land beautifully at 40 flaps as well when required. When flying at near gross, 10 flaps on takeoff is perfect and let it come off pretty much on its own as has been mentioned.

The only time I have heard that a 182 is just like a 172, is from someone who either has no 182 experience; or has enough hours under their belt that they have taken the differences for granted.
I fly this aircraft with the utmost respect today as I did the first time and hope to enjoy it for many years.
You can NEVER have too much training or read too much to educate yourself.
If you feel like you are too comfortable, grab a CFI and challenge yourself!

I am well on my way to thinking that this aircraft is a piece of cake to fly and forgetting the details of getting there! You will get there too - just do it one step at a time. Invest in the training until you are perfectly comfortable.

Once my wife gets a better job, I'll try and figure out that twin turbine!!

on October 13, 2009 10:39 PM
# Steve said:

Hello fellow pilots,

I have been looking lately on the web site for a plane to purchase. I even purchased a membership with "Airplane Secrets" to help me fine the perfict plane to buy, maybe you've heard of them, there out of Alberta Canada. Well lets just say I'm no longer a member. I think the best way to buy a plane is to talk to someone who has purchased one or two before. Just reading your web page about pilots who have flown or have owned there own plane has given me a lot of incite on what to expected when owning a 182. I started flying in 1985 when a friend took me flying for the first time in a Beech T-34 and I was hooked. Thou, I started flying in 1985 I am a low time pilot with a 172 rating and that's where it ended. When I started my electrical contracting business that pretty much ended my flying. I have never given up on flying or owning my own plane and now that this time has come, I am looking for a plane. But I have to get real about what type of aircraft to buy specially a low timer like me. Someday I would like to get my twin rating but for now I'm just focusing on getting back into flying. I am thinking of a 182, but my sites are on a 421c someday. Like I said, I have to be real. I'm up for the challenge of owning a 182, I just hope a CFI is willing to teach me with only 135 hours total, 20 hours in a 172. So, any pilots with any wisdom on what to look for when buying a 182, I'm all ears. Thanks and may the winds be at your tail.

on October 16, 2009 07:52 PM
# Bobby said:

I recently purchased a 182p about three months ago. I too trained in a 172, however, before receiving my pilot's license I figured out that the 172 did not have enough power or haul rate to get done what i needed to do. I was able to purchase the plane prior to getting my license and was able to get the extra training needed for the 182 without too many extra hours of instructor time.

After flying the 182 for the first time, i was completely assured that i had made the right decision. The 182 was a little more expensive than the 172's i had looked at, but it was well worth the extra dust. I had the same flight school that i trained in perform a pre-buy inspection, that helped ease any issues that I was afraid of not knowing what to look for in problems or defects.
The only things that surfaced after I purchased the plane were the altimeter check and the battery life. The altimeter was within 3 months of being do when i purchased the plane and was found to buy faulty when inspected. The battery gave out within three weeks, there were other a few other things related to the battery, but $1000.00 dollars later we were fixed and ready to go.
I assume no one will ever find all the problems, just have a mechanic that you know and trust perform that prebuy, it's money well spent.
Good luck

on October 25, 2009 09:11 AM
# Drew said:

I am curious if any of the pilots here have flown a 206. I find this very informational and a lot of comparisons of the 182 to the 172 but how different would the 206 be?

Thank you in advance.

on November 2, 2009 09:14 PM
# Gary said:

In 1977, my uncle gave me his 1960 C-182. After installing a new instrument panel, with new avionics to make the 182 a serious IFR traveler, he realized the errors of his ways and asked for the 182 back and gave me his other airplane, a 1958 C-310. Though 50 MPH slower and with only about half the range of the 310, the 182 was such a wonderful airplane to fly that it's easy to see why, in the end, he preferred the 182.

I no longer fly, but if you'll allow me to dig back into my memories, I'd like to offer a few comments.

To answer the last question about a Cessna 206: It's like a 182, only better. A 206 carries a greater load, faster, with more stability, and with slightly better handling than a 182 thanks to its frise-type ailerons. I haven't flown a 210, but the other high-wing Cessnas with aerodynamically balanced ailerons that I have flown -- the Skymaster, Cardinal, and 206 -- are much more pleasant in roll than the 150/152, 172, and 182.

It's the stability of the 182 (and 206) that makes them so wonderful as IFR platforms. My uncle's 182 didn't have an autopilot, and yet I flew it from Tulsa to Daytona Beach, frequently at night, and in IFR conditions, and found the workload to be very easy and manageable. I could fly for hours and not touch the control wheel -- relying only on pitch trim and an occasional nudge on a rudder pedal. The 310 had to be hand flown all the time and, without an autopilot, the workload was high: whenever I looked down to check a map or an approach plate, it seems the 310 wanted to look too.

The 182 is a fine airplane to learn to fly in, but, like the other postings here state, it's different from a 150 or a 172. Because I started flying my uncle's 182 when I was 10 or 11, I grew used to the 182 and thought it was "normal." When I was 16 and started taking flying lessons from a real flight instructor in a Cessna 150, I learned some "oddities" about the 150.

Some Examples: You do not reduce power in a 150 after takeoff. Is that odd or what? You do not normally takeoff with 10 degrees of flaps in a 150 -- especially at the typical 8000+ foot density altitude of El Paso in the summer (which is where and when I took lessons). A Cessna 150 does have pitch trim, and picky flight instructors really do expect you to use it, though after dealing with the heavy pitch loads of a 182 (an airplane that you REALLY have to trim), you'll wonder why Cessna bothered to put a trim tab on the 150. There's no prop control or manifold pressure gauge on the 150, so after you've figured out power settings in the 182, the 150 is just plain weird, with cruise RPM settings that seem WAY too high. In the 182, you can push the nose down and pick up an extra 30 MPH of speed and never worry about exceeding the engine's red line. In a 150, not only does the throttle control engine RPM, but airspeed does too! (And people say a Constant Speed Propeller is complicated???) You have to hold right rudder on climb out in a 150; in a 182 you use the rudder trim. If the left wing seems heavy in a 182, you can position the fuel selector to pull fuel out of ONLY the left wing. The fuel selector in the 150 only has two positions: on and off. If you're by yourself, to solve a heavy wing problem in the 150, I guess you can move to the other seat. The 182 gives you an extra control, cowl flaps, to control engine temperature. Cowl flaps make controlling engine temperature easier, not more difficult. And finally, the 150 is an airplane with much less stability . . . which in hindsight makes it a pretty good trainer for a 310.

The nicest-flying airplane I've ever flown is a Cessna 421. But if I had to describe the 421 in terms of another airplane, I'd have to say, "It flies like a 182."

on November 9, 2009 06:31 PM
# said:

This is my first visit to this site. I also own a 1979 182. Infact, I have owned it for 24 years. It was supposed to be a 'step-up' plane but I never took another step. I have flown my plane in a variety of locales out west including the mountains of Idaho and all over the west side of Mexico. I never use flaps on take-off except maybe 10% (no more) on departures that require a steep climb-out for clearance. The fowler flaps are way too effective to provide much lift even with 230 horses out front. I have heard that mountain pilots regularly use 20 degrees of flaps on takeoff so there seems to be some flexibility of thought on the subject. In light wind conditions I throw all 40 degrees of flaps in on final and fly with pitch and power but primarily power once I am trimmed up. Yes, 182's pitch down with full flaps but that makes it easier to see where you are going.

When flying in turbulence I would like a little more aileron and rudder authority. When Cessna swept the tail back it lengthend the fueslage creating a little better yaw stability but reduced the effectiveness of the rudder. Turbulence can be a little jarring. I attribute this to the metal spar and struts. There just isn't much give. However, there is plenty of headroom so you won't bang your head and those big struts are real confidence builders.

The 182's stability is legendary and true. Most do not have autopilots with altitude hold because you don't really need it. I remember flying Pipers that always dropped a wing everytime I looked down. You can fly a 182 for an hour without touching the yoke. This may not be true for all Skylanes but my plane flies better and faster (2 knots) without the nose fairing (so I leave it off).

If you are going to own one airplane and you don't have all the money in the world to spend, I would probably pick a Skylane. On weekends I fly with my friends to various airport restaurants 5 to 45 minutes away. The skylane works well for this purpose. I also fly 2.5 hours each way once a month or so to go camping. The skylane also works very well for this mission. I don't give load or weight and balance a second thought and with 92 gallon tanks I don't have to put fuel in until I get back.

So, for those of you who are considering a Skylane, just buy the best one you can afford. I don't think you can go wrong. I haven't.

on November 23, 2009 03:46 PM
# John said:

Hi & thanks for hosting such a helpful site. I'm 57 years old and have had a 35 year hiatus since getting my license all those years ago. My kids are grown & I was looking for a "project" so I decided to get current. I re-trained on a 172, and after about 15 hours my instructor signed me off. Knowing that I had a long, long way to go before I was comfortable with my prficiency, I started working on my instrument ticket. I felt that the extended training would make me, at the very least, a better VFR pilot even if I never do finish the IFR rating.

Well,having said all of that, I'm hooked on flying again. I'm very likely to buy a plane of my own now, and continue training it it. It pretty much looks like it will be a 182, so I bugged the school to schedule me for an orientation type ride today. Holy cow, was it different!

A question....will 20 or 30 or full 40 flaps make landings on a 182 more "floaty" like a 172?

I ended up with a substitue instructor who did not know me. We did not spend any time on specific 182 ground school, ergo I was missing quite a bit of background. The most dissapointing part of my performance were my two landings. There was a gusting 25mph crosswind, so we came in with 10 degrees of flaps. All seemed well as we floated over the end of the runway at about 200 feet, airspeed about 80. I pulled the throttle to glide down (no flare yet) and the instructor immediately took the controls saying that I was too high to pull the power on a 182. What would be standard procedure on a 172 would be a really hard landing on a 182.

The sheer power and speed of the 182 really impressed me. The heaviness of the yoke was a surprise as well.....I used the trim not for fine tuning, but because it would be too hard not to.

I'm looking forward to learning how to operate the 182, and to feel the confidence that I've worked up to in the 172. After all, learning to fly the plane is supposed to be the easy part.

on November 30, 2009 08:05 PM
# Ian Jones said:

Hi Fella's
Ian from Australia
Started my licence just over 12 months ago and achieved PPL 1 month ago. ( a lot harder than i expected ) Did not like flying the old hacks in the flying school and so bought a T182 with 175 hours. Found the plane much more difficult to land than a 172 and have only recently worked out a method that suits me after 120 hours flying the plane. I found that the plane drops to suddenly if you go to idle over the piano keys and now I dribble off power in the flare and get nice smooth landings.
I am really enjoying the plane now and last week flew daily up to 700 mile trips.
Went for my first aerobatics lesson today in a 152 and got up to loops My instructor said I could practice wing over's in the 182 but I am a bit nervous about this.
I really enjoyed flying the 152 though although very slow.
Good luck to all my fellow 182 pilots
I have to say that I love my plane.

on January 17, 2010 12:28 AM
# PAE John said:

Hi, I am a low time (100 hours) VFR pilot. All of my time has been in a 172. I am up for my first biannual review this year and thought I could get my high performance endorsement at the same time. An instructor at my FBO told me that 3 or 4 hours of instruction in a 182 would be plenty. Based on the comments here, I am feeling skeptical. As it is now, I probably won't be able to fly more than 20 or 30 hours a year. I would prefer to do it in a 182 and start working towards an IFR. Anybody want to state an opinion on the matter?


on April 19, 2010 03:29 PM
# Jon said:

Hi to all,

I am a recent owner of a 182R, its my first plane after passing my PPL in an R model 172. I now have 30 or so hours in the 182 and just been signed off to fly complex and high performance solo, now just need to persuade my insurance company : )

Its been challenging and fun to transition to a 182, as has been said before for the first few flights there was more to do and I was behind the plane, too much to do and less time to do it! But after only a few flights the GUMPS checks are second nature (I never want to be one of the ones that has done the runway slide thing) and the extra work of prop, gear etc is not an issue.

What is proving to be more challenging is the final touch down-up-down-up-DOWN, I am landing nearly all the time with full flaps (my CFI insists its the right way) and find that I have needed to reduce the flare altitiude significantly from the 172 and even so I am caught more often than I'd like with a huge loss of lift before I am ready for it (too high), I have tried not pulling all the power over the numbers (as I was trained to do in the 172) and this seems to help, but wow its not fun to bounce!

I love my plane, dont we all : )I hope to improve a lot with my landings and get them consistent, reading the comments above it seems like I should try 20 on the flaps, I will give that a go. As far as take off is concerned I always take off with 0 flaps and she just wants to fly, I have not got near max GW so I guess thats why.

Having a RG model is a mixed bag, I love the feeling when I pull up the gear, the plane feels like its being let loose and just surges forward and up, but I do worry about those spider like legs and little wheels.

Last thing, I just flew IFR from Florida to Maryland and man IFR is the way to go, so much more comfortable having the eyes of the ATC on you and helping you along, hats off to the guys and girls of ATC they did a great job for me, I am busy on my instrument rating now, so much to learn, what a great pleasure this flying thing is.

The 182 sure is fun : )

on May 12, 2010 01:38 PM
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone. My current, past, or previous employers are not responsible for what I write here, the comments left by others, or the photos I may share. If you have questions, please contact me. Also, I am not a journalist or reporter. Don't "pitch" me.


Privacy: I do not share or publish the email addresses or IP addresses of anyone posting a comment here without consent. However, I do reserve the right to remove comments that are spammy, off-topic, or otherwise unsuitable based on my comment policy. In a few cases, I may leave spammy comments but remove any URLs they contain.