Help me to understand this. I'm positively influenced by the availability of a BRS option for Skylanes post 1964 but I can't get excited about 128 knots at 14 GPH. How is it that so many here write glowing tributes when a comparably priced Bonanza delivers better utility for substantially less cost/mile (and looks so much better)?

I really don't get it.

A-MEN to the 20 degrees of flaps...

I've got a "new to me" 182 that I've been getting checked out in.

I had been struggling to get quite the nose high I wanted on landing... This morning I went up, limited the flaps to 20 degrees and the damn thing nearly landed itself!!!

Always good advice around here!

Different machines for different purposes. The Bo blows the doors off the Skylane as a cross country machine. No doubt. I don't like the C182 for long cross country trips-too friggin slow.

However, there's something about the Skylane that's comfortable, easy, no worries and very enjoyable that you don't get in a Bo or other cross-country rocket. The high wing offer great views down below and it's simply a great joy to fly. When I give rides to friends or family or kids, it's always in the Skylane.

No matter what airplane is my serious x-country machine, I always plan to keep the C182. It's a pure fun-flyer and always a joy to get back into when I've been away from her for awhile.

So it seems like the takeaways are:

1) It's nose heavy, so use lots of trim (sounds like my Bonanza)

2) It's nose heavy, so limit flaps to 20 degrees (sounds like my Sundowner)

3) It's nose heavy, and on a go-around the up trim creates a strong pitch up (again like the Bonanza), and can lead to a trim stall.

Other than those quirks it's a brilliant machine (as long as the fuel caps don't leak) that can carry the whole of a small nation in comfort.

and any A&P anywhere knows how to fix it...

RAS

Cessna has a solution to this also. The 182RG. Same comfort as the straight leg 182 with 15 knots more speed. Speed is addictive...



Absolutely..

The joy I get from my Skylane is mixed so thoroughly with times I enjoyed in it with Dad that I can't rationally answer that question. If Dad had bought a flying lawnchair instead, I'd have happily sought it out, bought it, and enjoyed the memories all over again.

It is comfortable, easy to own and operate, and painless to insure. A lightweight '64 G with 270 hp and Horton STOL is a blast in and out of grass fields. Speed and range are why I have the Baron. I have neither in the Skylane - and that's OK.

I still don't get the issue with full flaps. I use them every time. Oh well.

FWIW, I get a lot more positive comments at airports with the Skylane than the Baron. Both are gorgeous. I don't know why.

The majority of my time is in mid-80s 182s. There is lots to like, and I think there are few planes with better utility for the money. No bad habits, and the only thing I don't like about it is the nose heaviness. Try doing a 2G turn; lots of trim necessary unless you've been doing a lot of curls.

I don't understand the suggestion to land with only 20 degrees of flaps as routine. Manage your energy and don't fly your pattern too big and there's no problem flaring.

I practice short or soft field technique on every take off and landing unless there's good reason not to. Proper procedure calls for full flaps for both.

I just traded in my 182 for an A36, which I do love!

But the appeal of the Skylane endures. I could never understand how it is considered nose-heavy. I would have to work very hard to do a nose first landing. With proper and normal trim, landings are a breeze. I think pilots are flying them like 172s, and get into trouble....but they are not 172s..look similar but big differences. You need to fly them like the high performance airplanes they are. They are roomy, comfortable, load haulers, no CG issues, no quirks nor weird problems, good dispatch reliability, great visibility, stable, strong, can go to short strips or huge airports, can put on floats, everybody can work on them, cheap to insure, cheap to maintain, big support group, forgiving of mistakes, and easy to sell. Jack of all trades type of airplane. Excellent to experience the pure joy of flight. Or just go cross country.

It is not a Bonanza, but it does have its place, and huge numbers of pilots love it.

I have a 172 RG. I love to climb in the old bird to get reacquainted with "flying". I fly the TBM cross country a lot. It's take off, hit autopilot, land. I live the TBM for cross country flying. But I like climbing in the RG on an early Sunday morning in the fall with the leaves changing. I like the simplicity..... wanna go up..... throttle in...... Wanna come down.....throttle out.

The T182RGs are very capable cross country machines. When I started looking at a serious XC machine, I looked those over first. TAS in the 165-175 range.

The downside I found was that there was a desirability curve the 182RG market has established. 1979 and prior and 1980 and after. At certain serial numbers there were some goodies added (better door mechanism, fuel tanks, etc), and as a consequence, the later airplanes are VERY hard to find (lower production rates as well).

Same goes for 1981 and after 182s (R models).

Some have AC, but like the stock Beech system, it's heavy. Seen some with radar pods. Typical T182RG has a useful of around 1100#s, and has a factory O2 system.

The turbo is a slightly odd factory bolt on TN system. First half of the throttle travel opens the throttle, and the second half closes the turbo wasegate.

The big gotcha on any single Cessna RG is the gear system. A pre-purchase that gives the gear a very complete inspection is a must. It's a good system, but if issues get out of control, the price of parts is VERY scary. The other is a good look see of the firewall. As people point out, it's kinda nose heavy, so it gets smushed with some regularity.

When the prices collapsed in 08, buyers with ready $$$ rushed in, bought the cherries and very few seem to come to market these days. I usually don't see more than a handful of post 1980 182/182RGs on Controller or TAP.

That seems to go for all makes/models, but I'm personally familiar with the 182 dynamic.

Best,
Rich

I have NEVER landed a c182 with anything other than FULL FLAPS!

Can I respectfully suggest that instead of limiting flaps to 20o you just learn to fly (and land) the aircraft properly!

Gary,

While your instructor gave you good advice there are a couple of places where this will get one into trouble, IMO. If you trim an A36 to "hands off" on landing you'll find yourself at the trim stop. If you have to go around with the trim at the stops you'll have your hands full. Its a bad habit to get into and a hard one to break. I know from experience.

Best to use reasonable trim and use your hands to land the airplane. You'll find that you'll be about 7 or 8 on the trim, just above the green, which is a perfect configuration if you need to go around.

Getting into a debate about landing a Skylane with full or half flaps is cutting the meat so thin as to be silly. The flaps on a Skylane are simply powerful. With full flaps you have one glide angle, almost straight down, and full flaps will quickly get you behind the power curve if something interrupts your approach. If you are approaching with full flaps you will be carrying a fair amount of power and if you lose that power, you won't make the runway. There is also the difference in the stress of 20 vs. 40 degrees of flaps on flaps and fittings.

Now, what you get with the extra 20 degrees is drag, not lift, and that correlates to a very steep angle of approach if you are in a situation that dictates same. What you DO NOT GET is much change in stall speed. My POH shows at gross, 59 mph with 20 degrees and 57 mph at 40 degrees.

As for my not knowing how to fly my Skylane with full flaps, bring your airplane, $2,500 cash (I don't take checks) and we'll have a little fly off to see who can better fly the airplane.

Jgreen

Appreciate the experienced input Rick. Which is why it always seems a good idea to get checked out in a new plane with someone that actually knows how to fly the plane.

New guy at my airport with a new -to him Bo. (BT member too). We chatted - he's a CFI, and I mentioned that I'm a new pilot. Love Bo's - but my Cherokee is a better choice for me right now. After discussion take offs and landings - he says I'd be fine in a Bo. Hmmmm. For the current, I'm fine in the Cherokee. Need to start working on IFR training.