Skylane landings

[bigD]

As an aside, did Cessna do anything different with the control forces of the 182 somewhere between the 1978 and 1986 model years? I've flown both, and the '86 was MUCH lighter on the controls. It wasn't 172 light or anything, but there was a huge difference.

I looked up the weight and balance info for both, and the '86's CG was only about a half inch aft of the '78's, with an extra 100 pounds of empty weight. Weird.

 

[Vik]

Speaking of which ... this is a student pilot. Not even a private pilot. He probably needs an easier plane to fly to learn how to land. Put him in a 152 or 172 and let him fly 10ft off the ground down the length of the runway, go around, repeat. It might just require a few flights.

 

[TDTURBO]

The pilot in question is John C, Small world huh?

The 182 owner world is small indeed.......with that said, you can PM me and I will give you the link responsible for filling your students head with conflicting information. It talks about you too.

I agree with Cardinal and all of the above posts, I thinks it's suicide to trim full nose up with full flaps or otherwise and here is why.............

http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/bulletin/mar02/gbyeg.htm


here is a little exerp from the accident report.....

Out of trim control forces
The out of trim control forces associated with full nose-up trim were evaluated in a Cessna 182S aircraft at FL 50. The aircraft was initially configured with almost full fuel, two pilots, 10° flap and full propeller RPM in level flight at 70 KIAS. With full nose-up trim applied, the forward push force on the control wheel was estimated to be between 10 and 15 lbf. However, the push force increased markedly as engine power was increased, reaching an estimated 50 to 60 lbf push at full throttle. An in-trim condition could be rapidly restored by retarding the throttle to give a manifold pressure of 13 inches. Given that the out-of trim force was a function of engine power, and that full power at sea level would be greater than full power at FL 50, the out of trim force on take-off would probably have been greater than 60 lbf.


You can read the whole thing but you have the right idea, no way I would fly in that configuration! Although some 182 pilots land this way, I feel its wrong, dangerous and unnecessary. I am able to grease every landing with slight nose up trim, even in 30 kt crosswinds which are very common in Lansing, Il. There is only an east west runway and people that live near me can attest to winds we commonly get here. I think the guy just needs to practice, it took me awhile before I could consistantly grease it in but it's not impossible, if I can do it anybody can! With that said, just take him up to a safe altitude with full flaps and full nose up trim and firewall it and watch him loose it, that should take care of any lingering questions he has about his new technique.



P.S. I respectfully disagree with DC4boy, there are several reasons why you never NOT firewall the throttle in a go around. 1st off it's hard on the engine in both the Lycoming and Continental, the carb has an auto enrich that only engages at full throttle and it is widely known that new CFI's training in this aircraft feel the need to "back off" once at 500agl to the green arc on the manifold pressure gauge, this is a good way to ensure never seeing TBO! The other reasons are more clear, on a go around you need to get as high, as fast as you can to ensure a safe return in the event of engine failure. Density altitude, 50ft obsticles, on and on it goes.

 

[Av8trxx]

I have over 500 hours in a 1957 trimmable stabilizer C182A jumpship. (I think that is well over 900 landings based on avg jump run time.) I have always trimmed the nose very high for landing, as did most pilots at the DZ. It just worked for me and helped make perfect wheelies.

While the occasions I had to go around were few, I expected the forces that were necessary and it wasn't a problem. I guess it just depends on how one handles the go around....

 

[partialpanel]

Some clarification/update...

This student soloed perhaps a month ago and did an impressive job of his first solo landings. He has since domonstrated cross-wind takeoff and landing proficiency in as much as 25 knot cross-wind components! He's done very well with the procedures that I've taught.

Also, he's a big dude--way too big for a 152, almost too big for a 172, and plenty strong enough to handle the nose heaviness of the 182. It's just that this "guru" has stepped in with his big ideas based on his opinion that it's unusual for a student to need more instruction to solo a 182 than one would need in a 172. Anyone who has flown the 182 knows that it does indeed require more skill/finesse to land with safety and cosistency compared to the common trainer. That extra skill takes extra time to achieve. Besides, my student was only at 20 hours total time when he soloed--I do not think this is excessive, given the added complexity and performance of the aircraft and the variables in individual student learning curve.

For those pilots who favor the full nose-up trim technique, have you ever really stopped to think about it? The elevator has a physical up deflection limit regardless of where the trim is set. The elevator can be put there by pulling the yoke fully aft for the purpose of flaring. By trimming full nose-up (with an elevator trim tab) you actually decrease the nose-up force that the elevator can produce.

Finally, I did a lot of preparation on this topic before presenting my objection to my student's co-owner and then my student. I don't think I really changed the mind of the co-owner, but my student seems to be convinced and I promised him a full (re)demonstration of the potential dangers associated with this technique. Last time I demonstrated the trim stall to him we didn't even use full nose-up trim. This time I will "drive it home" so to speak.

 

[TurboS7]

I used to own three 182's, great airplane. Just teach him to land with 20 degree flaps when the aircraft is empty. A short-field approach would be with flaps 40 with a power approach at 60kts carrying power to touchdown. Your the instructor let your student know you are teaching him how to fly all aircraft. Let him know that once he gets his private he is on his own but until then follow your procedure. Don't go to the FAA they have enough to worry about....they would never hold you responsible anyway, especially if you make a statement that the student didn't follow taught procedure. If you student thinks he is a hot-shot take up out and have him slow fly the aircraft at 0 indicated airspeed. It will do it, just use those rudders....

 

[Huck]

To AV8trxx-

as I recall there is a BIG difference in 182's starting somewhere about 1960. I flew for a DZ that had a '58 and a '62. The '58 was an absolute delight to fly - light controls, easy flare, slightly less drag due to the narrow fuselage. The '62 was a pig boat, requiring tons of pull to land on the mains - especially on the last run when there was less than 10 gal of gas on the plane. Definitely a strength-training exercise!

In an earlier life I worked with a flight test engineer that had started at Cessna. He said the lack of pitch authority was on purpose - in the early sixties the big cause of accidents was stall/spin. They made it very hard to stall their airplanes (ever done power-on stalls solo in a 152?)