John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide

Paperwork Involved In Buying an Aircraft ...................................................................................................................... 92 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................... 95 Table of Contents II www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide Prototype of a cantilevered wing Cessna 182M. Lack of performance improvement lead the factory to decide not to put a cantilever wing 182 into production. III John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide www.cessna.org Introduction Each year I give a number of talks, seminars and classes on Cessna aircraft around the country including EAA‘s AirVenture at Oshkosh and the annual AOPA EXPO. At the end of these sessions there are always a few people who visit with me and express a thought along the lines of “Boy, I wish I had talked to you before I bought my airplane”. It is those feelings that have brought about this book. In the 30 years I have been involved in the aircraft industry with the last decade working for the Cessna Pilots Association, I have come across all sorts of information that would be useful to the person looking to buy a CESSNA 182 SKYLANE. After examining all of the ‘Used Plane Guides’ and ‘Tips on Buying’ books and tapes on the market I didn’t find one that did more than scratch the surface of what a buyer should know specifically about purchasing a CESSNA 182 SKYLANE. So following the old adage “If you want something done right, do it yourself”, I have undertaken to write the definitive guide on buying a CESSNA 182 SKYLANE. You the reader will of course be the final judge as to how well I have succeeded. In this book is gathered together all the really important information on buying a CESSNA 182 SKYLANE. The performance numbers, what changes were made in what years, Safety Aspects, Insurance, Pricing, answers to frequently asked questions, modifications, airworthiness directives and much more. The Pre-Purchase Inspection Guidelines will be particularly useful to buyers; if a CESSNA 182 SKYLANE is examined in accordance with those guidelines its true condition can be ascertained. The reader is strongly encouraged to review that portion of this book in detail; there is a wealth of information contain in that listing. This book does not include the retractable landing gear R182 SKYLANE RG or its sister ships the turbo- charged, retractable landing gear TR182 TURBO-SKYLANE RG. While doing the rough draft on the original edition of this book it was found that there was just too much different information to present on those aircraft to maintain the specific focus and cohesiveness that this type of book required. The new Lycoming powered fixed gear 182 SKYLANES introduced in 1997, a year after the first edition of this book was published, are not included in this updated volume for the same reason. The Cessna Pilots Association will produce another book exclusively on these aircraft in the near future. The somewhat rare turbo-charged, fixed landing gear T182 TURBO-SKYLANE produced from 1981 until 1986 is covered by the present guide you hold in your hands. One thing I have discovered over the years is that the CESSNA 182 SKYLANE is such a solid aircraft that it is hard to find a “bad” one. Even if the maintenance has been poor and the use hard, some love and attention, and of course some money, will return the aircraft quickly to the quality airplane it was when it was first produced. As this book is being published in a form that will make it easy to update later editions, I would certainly ap- preciate hearing from readers as to how useful they have found the information in their search for a CESSNA 182 SKYLANE and any changes they would suggest for the future. Let’s All of Us Be Careful Up There John Frank Santa Maria, California April, 2007 IV www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide 1956 Cessna 182. The first production 182. V John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide Acknowledgements As with any project like this, a number of people have had a hand in the finished product. While gathering material and writing the original edition of this book I had to impose considerably on Steve Ells, the other Tech Rep at the Cessna Pilots Association at the time, to carry additional load in regards to our magazine and technical support services. Steve shouldered this burden with understanding and humor for which I am sincerely grateful. Mike Busch who has traveled with me so many miles teaching Cessna Pilots Association classes and whom I have discussed much of the information in this book with. Tom Carr was CPA’s top Technical Representative and a virtual encyclopedia of hands on knowledge on 182s and all things Cessna. Tom has made major contributions to the pre-purchase inspection guidelines. Tom is now retired, but remains involved with CPA. The thousands of members of the Cessna Pilots Association who over the years have asked the questions and provided information that has allowed me to collect all the data contained here in. I am always amazed at how much knowledge some individuals have and are willing to share. This updated edition of the 182 Buyers Guide, while long overdue, came about only because of the ef- forts of Kim Huntington. Kim was the technical librarian at Cessna Pilots Association, a self starter and hard charger. She took the original edition of the book and updated the information on prices and added pictures. She then presented the draft to me with a sort of challenge to ‘put up or shut up’ about getting an updated version of the 182 Skylane Buyers Guide produced. So with that challenge before me I had to stop my procrastinating and get on with the project. VI www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide Canadian Army L19L 1 John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide www.cessna.org The Cessna 182 Skylane History wing aircraft that was as simple an aircraft as could be conceived. The Cessna 140 first flew on June 28, 1945 and this aircraft would form the starting point for every single engine high wing Cessna design to be introduced for the next two decades. It was only with the introduction of the Cessna 177 Cardinal in 1968 that Cessna produced a single engine high wing aircraft that did not have its roots and lineage directly traceable back to the first Cessna 140. As a side note, after the Cessna 140 had been in production for awhile, Cessna introduced a stripped down, less expensive version of the aircraft, the Cessna 120. Brought to market primarily for the use of flight schools, the Cessna 120 didn’t have flaps or side windows, and an electrical system, standard on the Cessna 140, was optional on the Cessna 120. In this case of which came first, the chicken or the egg, the Cessna 140 preceded the Cessna 120. With the Cessna 140 coming off the production line Cessna had taken care of the trainer and basic personal aircraft end of the market but there was still the “Family Car of the Air” to be dealt with. Obviously it would have to carry more than two people and be a suitable cross country aircraft. The Cessna 140 design was used as the basis from which it was stretched, tweaked, and given more guts and this became the Cessna 170, a four place, 145 horsepower aircraft that first flew on November 5, 1945. As dealers, flight schools, commercial operators and indi- viduals began to operate the Cessna 140 and Cessna 170, there appeared to be another market for Cessna to supply an aircraft for and that was the market of a swift, single engine load hauler. The Cessna engineers spread out the blueprints of the Cessna 170 on their drawing boards, beefed up the airframe, changed the fuel system, put on an adjustable stabilizer and added a whole bunch more ponies up front in the form of a 225 HP 470 cubic inch Continental six cylinder engine. With a fifty five percent increase in horsepower at less than a fifteen percent increase in empty weight over the model 170, performance increased dramatically. First flown on May 26, 1952, the Cessna 180 went on to become the workhorse aircraft of its day, loved by its operators for its ability to ‘carry anything, anywhere’. A s World War II was ending Dwane Wallace, Presi- dent of the Cessna Aircraft Company, was looking towards the future and what Cessna’s role would be in aviation. It was generally felt that with all the returning military pilots there would be a boom in general aviation be- cause these pilots would want to stay involved in aviation, if not as a career at least as a hobby. In addition, there would be the G.I. Education Bill that would allow tens of thousands of veterans to undertake flight training paid for by their Veterans Benefits. Cessna Aircraft Company saw a post-war need for two aircraft, one a simple trainer and another that would be the “Family Car of the Air”. Both aircraft would have to be easy to fly and economical to operate. Prior to the war Cessna had been building the Cessna Airmaster, the Cessna 190/195 and the UC-78 Bobcat, a twin engine aircraft that later went on to fame as the first of Sky King’s three “Songbird’s. None of these aircraft fit the role of a simple, inexpensive-to-oper- ate aircraft. Besides, Cessna had gained considerably in sheet metal fabrication capabilities during the war and it would be a step backwards to continue to make wood and fabric aircraft. From this desire of Cessna Aircraft Company to have an aircraft available for the “everyman” pilot was born the Cessna 140. The Cessna 140 was a two place, 85 HP, strut braced, high 1938 Cessna Airmaster Cessna 140A 1956 Cessna 170B 2 www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide As general aviation moved into the mid-1950s, tricycle landing gear became the rage. First popularized on the single engine retractable gear aircraft such as the Bonanza, Navion and Mooney, its advantages in most situations of better visibility, improved ground handling and ease of aircraft entry were more desirable to many pilots than the occasional advantage provided by conventional gear on rough or soft fields. Piper had taken their conventional geared Pacer and put a nose wheel on it, called it the Tri-Pacer and were having a huge success. So for the 1956 model year Cessna decided to introduce tricycle gear versions of the Cessna 170 and 180, to be called the Cessna 172 and Cessna 182 respectively. In the case of the 182, Cessna engineers mounted the nose wheel on a beefed up 180 firewall, used a hydro- pneumatic shock strut with a nose wheel centering cam and had nose wheel steering capability by a direct link- age through spring loaded bungees to the rudder pedals. The nose wheel interfered with the standard 180 ex- haust system so that was redesigned with the heat ex- changer oriented across the front of the cowling below the forward edge of the oil sump with a single exhaust stack protruding from the left side. The nose gear also interfered with the Cessna 180 cowl flaps so on the original 182 a large opening along the firewall with a lip at its leading edge was used to accelerate airflow through the cowling for cooling. On later models of the 182 cowl flaps would return. Cessna engineers also redesigned the fuel vent system from the over the wing ball check valve type used on the 180 to a single vent located behind the left wing strut. The 182 prototype was first flown on September 10, 1955 by Cessna engineering test pilot E. B. “Fritz” Feutz with Del Underwood as the flight test engineer. Tests showed that the additional drag of the nose gear caused about a five mile per hour reduction in top speed compared to the Cessna 180. This penalty was somewhat less in cruise and would be reduced even further with later models as the design of the wheel fair- ings improved. Empty weight was up some sixty pounds. The aircraft proved extremely popular in the market place with 844 Cessna 182 aircraft being delivered the first year. Two problems associated with the tri-cycle landing gear showed up early on. First was the tendency for less experienced pilots to either land on the nosewheel or to allow the aircraft to “wheel barrow” up on the nosewheel after touch down by release control column back-pressure too early. In either case the additional load on the nosewheel was such that it would tend to pull out of the firewall and fold under the aircraft, causing significant damage to the firewall, belly and propeller. To combat this problem periodically over the years of produc- tion of the Cessna 182, Cessna would strengthen the firewall. Cessna engineers also shortened the length of the nosewheel strut assembly several times to facilitate initial touchdown on the main landing gear rather than on the nose wheel. Of course the complete answer is pilot awareness, so that no unnecessary force is applied to the nose landing gear system during the land- ing. Continuous application of back pressure on the controls during the landing flare and touchdown until the control column is fully back against the elevator stop will prevent the aircraft from rocking up on the nose wheel. The other landing problem that showed up was a ten- dency for the aircraft to tip over on a wing tip and the nose on downwind taxi turns, fast turns clearing the runway or prop blast from other aircraft. The answer to this, besides the pilot exercising caution and proper use of flight controls when taxiing in windy conditions, was to widen the wheel track of the main landing gear and lower the aircraft when it is sitting on the landing gear. Taxiing an early 182, espe- cially a 1956 182, gives one the feeling that the aircraft wants to rock down on either wing tip. Later models with the splayed out and lowered landing gear have a much more stable feel when taxiing. After introducing the 182 in 1956 Cessna began making some indicated changes with the 1957 182A. The landing gear was changed to lower the aircraft four inches and increase the landing gear tread (width between main landing gear tires) 5.4 inches. The thickness of the spring steel of the main landing gear legs was increased from 11/16 of an inch to 3/4 of an inch. The nose gear strut height was decreased two inches and a exterior baggage door was added. Cessna engineers managed a slight fuel capacity increase, from 60 to 65 gallons, and also obtained a 100 pound gross weight increase to 2650 lbs. Cessna, always being a marketing driven company, decided in 1958 to come up with a deluxe version of the 182 and to give it a name. So anyone who bought a 1958 182 with an upgraded interior, three color overall exterior paint, full gyro instrument panel and wheel fairings actually received a 182 SKYLANE. This concept of offering the basic 182 and a deluxe version named the 182 SKYLANE would continue until the 1976 model year when all 182s produced were called SKYLANES. Other changes made to all the 182 series in 1958 included relocation of the exhaust stack from the left side of the cowling to the right side of the cowling. This was done to take better advantage of the normal airflow around the cowling to promote cylinder cooling, reduce exhaust stains on the cowling and to take the exhaust flow away from the aircraft 1956 Cessna 182 3 John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide www.cessna.org doors to reduce exhaust infiltration in the cabin. The 182 also received a bungee type rudder trim in 1958. The only significant changes with the 1959 182B was the use of a more streamlined cowling and installation of cowl flaps to promote cooling, but the 1960 182C had some very noticeable changes. First of all the tail was swept back 35 degrees, which increased the length of the aircraft by over two feet. This was done for no other rea- son than the fact that the Cessna marketing people thought the aircraft looked better and would sell better. Aerodynamically the swept tail was a step backwards. It added nothing to the speed of the aircraft, de- creased rudder effectiveness and retarded somewhat the aircraft’s ability to recover from a spin. Some hangar flyers will make a big deal out of this reduced spin recovery characteristic but it is really a minor point. The Cessna 182 was never certified for spins but spin tests of both the straight tail and swept tail aircraft showed positive spin recovery with the swept tail requir- ing a little more time and rotation to recover than the straight tail. Window size was increased on the 1960 182C and two side windows were added just aft of the rear seat area. Flush fuel caps were used for the first time. These would later prove to be very troublesome and a potential hazard and the Cessna Pilots Association has advocated their replacement with “umbrella” style caps for more than a decade. Numerous other cosmetic changes were made to the 1960 182C. The 1961 182D had a few minor changes and one significant one. Once again Cessna lowered the aircraft on the landing gear four inches to increase stability. Skylane sales had been de- creasing in the first two years of the sixties, so Cessna sought to breath new life into the 182 program by having a major re-design for the 1962 182E. The “Omni-vision” rear window was added, the fuse- lage widened four inches and the floor lowered three quarters of an inch. Electric flaps replaced the manual flaps and a new horizontal stabilizer with conventional trim tab replaced the jack screw adjustable stabilizer. Dual fuel feed lines were utilized and the size of the lines were increased to half inch. Eighty four gallons total fuel capacity became an option increasing range significantly over the standard total capacity of sixty five gallons. The engine changed from an O- 470-L to an O-470-R, which was a minor change really. The primary difference between the two engines is that the -R utilizes a fifth and sixth order crankshaft dampener. The landing gear was beefed up and the attach points made stronger and the nose wheel steering was improved. Numer- ous other cosmetic and utility changes were made. With all these alterations Cessna was able to increase gross weight on the aircraft from 2650 pounds to 2800 pounds with only around a ten pound increase in empty weight. While cruise speed would remain around 138 knots, climb and service ceiling were degraded by the increased weight with sea level climb rate dropping 50 feet per minute to 980 fpm and service ceiling dropping 900 feet to 18,900 feet. This started a trend of every time gross weight would go up in the future on the 182 the climb and service ceiling performance would go down. It would be this airframe, designed first for the 1962 182E, that would carry the basic 182 series through the next 24 years of production with the only really significant changes being tubular landing gear in 1972, the high compression O- 470-U engine in 1977 and integral fuel tanks replacing bladder fuel tanks in 1979. After all the work done to the 1962 182E only relatively minor changes would occur for the next few years. The most noticeable of these were the elimination of the hat shelf in the baggage compartment so that rear seats could recline with the 1963 182F, a one piece rear window without a center strip and a longer aft cabin window with the 1964 182G, and the widen- ing of the horizontal stabilizer and elevator span ten inches to eleven feet eight inches on the 1965 182H. This bigger elevator gave a noticeable and much desired improvement in elevator authority at low speeds and forward c. g. A thicker one piece windshield without the center post was also utilized in 1965 on the 182H. 1966 saw the replacement of the generator with a 60 amp alterna- tor. This 1962 Cessna 182 Pre-1962 Manual Flap Handle “Bowtie” Control Wheels 4 www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide was a particularly nice change for night fliers for an alternator generates electrical energy at lower RPM than a generator. This meant that use of landing lights all the way down final would not draw the battery down so far that everything would start to go dim. It is relatively easy to retrofit an alternator in place of a generator on earlier models of the 182. The Cessna Pilots Association has details of this modification. Another change that seemed minor at the time but has since proven significant is the replacement of the plastic control wheels with magnesium ram’s horn style wheels in the 1966 182J. The reason for the significance is that the old style plastic wheels have shown a history of cracking and failing, usually just at the worst time, during the landing flare. There are several service bulletins on this subject which require periodic pull tests of the plastic control wheels. It is possible to replace the plastic wheels on the earlier models with the later style magnesium control wheels. In a continuing effort to reduce the number of nosewheel first landings and the damage that resulted from them, Cessna in 1967 with the 182K shortened the nose strut stroke an addi- tional two inches, from seven inches to five inches. In that year Cessna also went to a split electrical bus that isolated avionics during start up and replaced the rotating beacon with a flashing beacon. The 1968 182L brought the introduction of the approval for ten degrees of flaps below 120 knots. To go along with this a pre-select flap control was utilized. Also in with the 1968 model year the instrument panel layout was redesigned to the standard “T” configuration. The 1969 182M had no signifi- cant changes though Continental Motors did raise the TBO of the O-470 series engines to 1500 hours, retro-active to all models. The 182N introduced in 1970 has a gross weight for takeoff increase of 150 lbs to 2950 lbs though landing weight would remain at 2800 lbs until introduction of the tubular landing gear in 1972. 1970 also saw the use of a split master switch which gave separate control of the alternator from the battery. Coni- cal camber wing tips were introduced in 1970 which reduced the wing span four inches. There is an interesting story tied to these wing tips. Cessna’s Manager of Flight Test and Aerody- namics, at the time, the late Bill Thompson, tells the story in his book “CESSNA - WINGS FOR THE WORLD”. It seems that Cessna’s flight test department was charged in the late 60s with testing various wing tip designs with particular emphasis on the droop and conical camber designs to see if they would generate any improvement on Cessna aircraft in the speed ranges they normally operated in. Bill relates that there was no mea- surable improvement until the droop extended approximately two feet downward. Such a wing tip wasn’t practical on the Cessna aircraft and with no measurable difference when utiliz- ing wing tips with less droop there was no real aerodynamic reason to shift away from the standard Cessna rounded wing tip. However, Cessna marketing chose to go with a conical camber wing tip with a slight droop for the 1970 model year. Why? Because with the slight droop it was possible to paint the word “CESSNA” on the wing tip so that it could be seen when the aircraft was tied down. Bill showed some disgust not just for this change solely for marketing purposes but also at the extravagant claims made in Cessna advertising and by after market producers for performance improvements from ‘conical camber’ wing tips, improvements that Bill knew were simply not there. In 1971 the 182N had the baggage compartment length- ened a foot and the baggage allowance increased from 120 lbs to 200 lbs. Front seat shoulder harnesses became standard and optional harnesses were available for the rear seats. Today Cessna and after-market manufacturers have kits available to put shoulder harnesses in just about all years and models of Cessna aircraft at all seat positions. The model year 1972 brought some interesting changes to the 182N, some good and some not so good. The Wittman type spring steel landing gear was replaced by tubular steel landing gear. With the installation of the tubular steel gear Cessna also widened out the wheel track again, this time more than 13 inches to a total track of 109 inches. The tubular steel landing gear had the advantages of being lighter and less prone to bouncing the aircraft on hard landings. The tubular gear was designed to be stronger than the spring steel gear which allowed the maximum landing weight to be raised to 2950 pounds, matching the takeoff weight allowed. One disadvantage was that the landing gear was now more prone to harmonic vibra- tion and for the first time mechanics had to be concerned with solving problems of main wheel shimmy. Overall, looking back some 24 years after the tubular steel gear was introduced, it Conical cambered wing tips 1968 Cessna Skylane Rams Horn Control Wheels 1972 New Tubular “Land-O-Matic” Gear 5 John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide www.cessna.org must be said that it has worked out very well, with certainly no more problems than the spring steel gear and perhaps actually fewer problems. The same certainly can’t be said for another “improve- ment” introduced on the 1972 182N. With the intent of provid- ing more light directly in front of the aircraft when landing and taxiing at night, Cessna moved the landing and taxi lights from the leading edge of the wing to the nose cowling. Sales of GE 4509 landing light bulbs shot up dramatically with this change because Cessna had taken a fairly vibration sensitive device, a light bulb, and moved it from one of the lowest vibration areas of an aircraft, the wing out near the tip, and put it in an area that is vibrating constantly, the nose cowl right below the engine. Cessna has come out with service bulletins on how to reduce the vibration in this area and many owners and mechanics have evolved unique ways to deal with the high rate of bulb failure, i.e. orienting the bulb filament vertically, reducing the voltage to the bulb, shock mounting the bulb in RTV, etc., but high bulb burn out rates remains a mild irritant of owning a 182 with cowl mounted landing lights. After years of telling people that the after market STOL kits were of little or no value, Cessna finally changed their tune a bit and installed an increased camber leading edge on the wing of the 182, as well as all other of their single engine models except the 150, in 1972. The new leading edge had a lip that increased the camber to provide a little more lift at lower speeds. Also the leading edge was bonded to the nose ribs to eliminate the raised rivet heads. Noticeable changes for the 1973 model year with the 182P were shock mounting the entire engine cowling at the firewall to try and deal with the landing light burn out problem mentioned above and extending the dorsal fin on the vertical stabilizer almost to the rear window. Cessna was learning more about bonding materials and composites and this technology was beginning to show up in their aircraft. The 1973 182P had doors where the outer and inner skins were bonded to each other rather than using rivets. The bonding provided a smoother surface. The upper cowling also used bonding instead of rivets. A new Clark ‘Y’ airfoil McCauley propeller was the only change to the 1974 182P worth mentioning. A minor engine change occurred to the 1975 182P, with the Continental O-470-S replacing the O-470-R. The main dif- ference between the two engines is that the -S has oil cooling for the back sides of the pistons and the piston rings are of a semi-keystone configuration. Also in 1975 Cessna put a utility shelf, (something that in the old days was called hat shelf back when ladies and gentlemen wore hats that they didn’t want to get crushed when they took them off), in the aft bulkhead which gives an additional one and a third cubic feet of storage space. The shelf weight is limited to 25 lbs and there is not an increase to the total baggage compartment weight of 200 lbs. Cessna also redesigned the wheel and brake fairings, changed the side cowl louvers and faired in the cowl flaps tighter and claimed that this produced a five knot increase in cruise speed. Cessna’s marketing department also came up with a new sales ploy for 1975. To boost the sales of aircraft with factory in- stalled ARC radios, (Cessna owned ARC at the time), Cessna set up a special factory installed avionics package for each model aircraft and aircraft so equipped when delivered from the factory received a “II” designation. In the case of the 182 those aircraft so equipped were called SKYLANE II. There is nothing special about these airplanes except they came with the factory avionics package and in fact today most of these airplanes have had some radios changed so technically they are no longer SKYLANE IIs. Mostly cosmetic changes were made to the 1976 182P SKYLANE. However the basic 182 model was dropped from the line and all the 182 aircraft produced were called SKYLANE. Cessna also shifted all of their aircraft over to using the GAMA format Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) which meant that all performance numbers including the airspeed indicator would read in knots. It also meant that each POH was customized for the equipment on that specific serial number aircraft and that the POH had to be in the aircraft when it was being operated. The new POH contained a great deal more information than the earlier owner’s manuals and even owners of earlier aircraft would probably benefit from reading a 1976 SKYLANE Pilots Operating Handbook in great detail. 1977 brought something of a major engine change to the 182Q SKYLANE. While still a Continental O-470 series engine and still producing 230HP, the O-470-U that replaced the O-470-R in 1977 produced that 230 horsepower at 2400 RPM instead of the 2600 RPM of the -R. How does an engine produce the same amount of horsepower with the same cubic inches but at lower RPM? Simple, increase the compression ratio. The previous 470 series engines used in the 182 had a 7 to 1 compression ratio, the -U uses a taller piston which gener- ates a 8.6 to 1 compression ratio. While Cessna claimed an improvement in sea level climb from 890 feet per minute to 1010 feet per minute, the real reason Cessna made the engine change is that at the lower RPM propeller noise is reduced and thus is easier to meet EPA noise standards. One thing that Cessna didn’t advertise is that while the -U powered aircraft may have a better sea level climb, it runs out of power more quickly at 1975 Cessna Skylane II 6 www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide altitude which is demonstrated by the fact that while both the 1976 182P with the -R engine and the 1977 182Q with the -U engine have 2950 pound gross weight, the 1976 182P with the -R engine has a service ceiling of 17,700 feet while the 1977 182Q with the -U engine, even though it has the same horse- power lifting the same gross weight, has only a 16,500 foot service ceiling. In addition, because the -U engine is a high compression engine it must be run on 100LL or higher fuel and does not presently have a auto fuel STC available for it. All the previous 182s before the 1977 model year use low compression versions of the 470 series engine and they can be operated on 80 octane fuel and all have auto gas STCs available for them. These STCs are available through EAA and Petersen Aviation and both are listed in the Frequently Asked Questions portion of this book. The STCs permit the holder to use auto gas rather than avgas in the lower compression engines. Initially the O-470-U engine had a 1500 hour TBO like the rest of the 470 series but in 1983 Continental felt that im- provements they had made to the engine coupled with the lower frictional wear due to fewer RPM justified increasing the TBO to 2000 hours on the O-470-U engine only. O-470-U engines built prior to the 1983 model year can be upgraded to the 2000 hour TBO at overhaul. In part because of the aft mounted battery, the 182 SKY- LANE would on occasion, especially in cold weather, have a problem in having enough electrical power at the starter to turn the engine over strongly. In 1978 Cessna addressed this on the 182Q by going to a 28 volt electrical system. By upping the voltage of the electrical system the current flow through the cables necessary to produce sufficient torque in the motor to start the engine is reduced. Thus the length of the cable from the battery box to the starter is less of a factor. The same basic principle is used by your power company that uses high voltage transmission to move electricity long distances and then steps the voltage down as it gets close to your home. Of course this meant that you could no longer “jump” a 182 from your automobile nor use an automotive battery charger; and a 24 volt battery for your 28 volt electrical system in the 182 cost three times as much as the 12 volt battery for the 14 volt electrical system used in previous 182s, but that is probably the cost of progress. I can say that at the Cessna Pilots As- sociation we do see fewer electrical system related problems with the 28 volt aircraft than with the 14 volt aircraft. Another addition to the 1978 182Q electrical system was an avionics master switch. This allowed the pilot to set up the radios with the correct volume and squelch just once and then turn all the avionics on or off at once. The 1978 model year also brought Cessna’s introduc- tion of the R182 SKYLANE RG. Cessna took the basic 182 airframe, modified to accept a retractable landing gear system patterned to some degree after the system that was being used in the 177RG CARDINAL RG that Cessna produced from 1971 through 1978. In a real departure from 182 tradition, Cessna installed a Lycoming engine in the R182 as opposed to a Continental 470 series that had been used in all previous variants of the 182. The Ly- coming O-540-J3C5D engine produced 235 horsepower. For the 1979 model year Cessna would come up with a home- brewed turbocharging system for the Lycoming engine and the TR182 was born. This tur- bocharged engine would find its way into a version of the fixed gear 182 in 1981. While most systems are identical between the 182 and the R182 except for landing gear and engine, there is sufficient difference between the aircraft that the Cessna Pilots Association addresses the R/TR 182 as an aircraft separate from the 182 SKYLANE and will cover that aircraft in a separate Buyers Guide. A long overdue change occurred to the 182 SKYLANE with the 1979 182Q. The bladder style fuel tanks were replaced with an integral bay system. The bladder style fuel tanks had proven troublesome over the years. They would wear out over time, were difficult to change when they did wear out and the most serious problem of all was that the bladders could develop wrinkles on the bottom of the tank. The wrinkles could retain water behind them not allowing the contamination to flow to the sump. Thus the water would not get removed during preflight but turns in flight would allow the water to clear the wrinkles and be pulled into the engine. The problem was made even worse by the flush style fuel caps used on the aircraft for many years. If these flush style caps, which sat in a little well on the top of the wing, did not seal absolutely tight, and they rarely did, then any rain, snow, sleet, etc. that was on the top of the wing could work it’s way down into the fuel tanks. There have been a significant number of accidents caused by this problem, 1977 Cessna Skylane II 182Q “Killer Cap” 7 John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide www.cessna.org the bladder equipped 182 has one of the higher rates of fuel contamination accidents and in 1984 the FAA would issue AD 84-10-01 which called for a detailed inspection of bladders for wrinkles, possible relocation of a quick drain to eliminate one wrinkle that showed up with some frequency and a strong encouragement to remove the flush style fuel caps and replace them with what are referred to as “umbrella” caps which are much better at keeping water out of the fuel system. These umbrella caps are available for retrofit on all bladder equipped 182s either by the installation of Cessna Kit SK182-85 or by installa- tion of fuel caps that can be obtained from Hartwig Fuel Cells, phone 800/665-0236. For more than a decade the Cessna Pilots Association has advocated very strongly replacement of the flush style fuel caps with either of the “umbrella” style caps available. At CPA the old flush style caps are referred to as “killer caps”. Cessna had first introduced an integral fuel system with the 1967 210 CENTURION. An integral fuel system is where bays in the wing are sealed to form a fuel tank. The upper and lower wing skins are also the top and bottom of the fuel tank, there is no separate tank or bladder. While some general aviation aircraft that have tried integral tanks have had difficulties with leaks, most notably Mooneys, the Cessna inte- gral tanks have given few problems, certainly much fewer than the bladders previously used in the 182 or the separate aluminum tanks used in the 150 and 172. Cessna engineering got this type of fuel tank system right on the very first try. With the introduction of integral fuel tanks on the 1979 182 SKYLANE Cessna also went to venting each tank directly rather than venting the right tank from the left tank as had been done up until the 1979 model year. This went a long way to reducing the uneven fuel feeding situation that had plagued the 182 for decades. Also in 1979 a single alternator control unit replaced the individual components of a voltage regulator, high voltage tripout relay and high voltage warning light. 1980 brought only cosmetic changes to the 182Q SKY- LANE, however the 1981 model year saw a 150 pound gross weight increase for the 182R SKYLANE to 3100 pounds. Useful load increased approximately 130 lbs though landing weight remained at 2950 pounds. This gross weight increase is actually a bit of ‘smoke and mirrors’ because what is really happening is that Cessna is trading altitude and climb performance for increased gross weight. For example the 1980 182Q SKYLANE had a service ceiling at it’s 2950 pound gross weight of 16,500 feet whereas the 182R SKYLANE at the higher gross weight of 3100 pounds has a service ceiling of only 14,900 feet. Sea level rate of climb at gross weight was 1010 feet per minute for the 182Q but only 865 feet per minute for the 182R. Of course if you were to operate the 182R at the lower 2950 pound gross weight then the performance should be similar to that of the 182Q. The 1981 model year was also the year that Cessna made the turbocharged engine used on the retractable gear TR182 available on the fixed gear 182 as the T182 TURBO SKYLANE. The Lycoming O-540-L3C5D with the Cessna designed turbo- charging system put out 235 horsepower. The turbocharging system was really some- thing unique. Very few carbureted engines have been turbocharged suc- cessfully. Cessna came up with a design where dur- ing the first 1/2 of throttle travel the engine operated as a normally aspirated engine and it was only dur- ing the last third of throttle travel, with the carburetor butterfly fully opened that the wastegate on the turbo-charging system began to close and bring the turbocharger on line. While unusual this system has proven to work very well, giving reliability and long engine life. The addition of turbocharging to the fixed gear 182 did not give a great speed increase, the fastest cruise speed for the T182 is 158 knots at 20,000 feet versus 142 knots for the 182R SKYLANE at 8,000 feet but the ability to climb swiftly to and operate at higher altitudes did allow the operator of a T182 more options in dealing with weather and winds. In spite of its capabilities the T182 never sold very well. Pricing may have had something to do with it, Depending on model year the T182 cost anywhere from ten to Continental O-470 Lycoming O-540 8 www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide fifteen thousand dollars more than the basic 182 SKYLANE and only about eight thousand less that the turbocharged retractable gear TR182 TURBO SKYLANE RG. Many buyers probably opted to go to one end of the range or the other. Only about 75 T182s were built before it was discontinued in 1985. With their performance capabilities they can represent an excellent buy on the used plane market. From the 1982 182R SKYLANE model year through the 1986 182R SKYLANE model year sales were winding down significantly and mostly minor cosmetic changes were made. Of some note is that in the 1983 model year the O-470-U engine had a TBO increase from 1500 hours to 2000 hours, this TBO increase can be applied to older O-470-U engines by making some minor changes at overhaul. Also in 1983 the twenty degree flap speed was increased from 95 knots to 120 knots, however at the Cessna Pilots Association we do see more frequent damage to flap track brackets and attach points on aircraft that use the higher partial flap extension speed regularly. Production of the 182 aircraft, along with all Cessna piston powered aircraft, was suspended in 1986. For almost ten years the future of single engine piston powered Cessna aircraft was in a kind of limbo with statements coming from Cessna that they would consider restarting production when market and liability conditions were appropriate. Then in 1994, after the passage of the product liability relief bill by Congress, Cessna announced that they would start production of three models beginning in 1996. Of course one of the three models named was the 182 SKYLANE! Now new 182 SKYLANES, along with 172 SKYHAWKS and 206 STATIONAIRS, are available. The new 182 SKYLANES are different, most notably they will have a Lycoming fuel injected 540 series engine instead of the venerable O-470 Continental. Why? Cessna says that their market survey indicated a overwhelming preference for Lycoming engines over Continental engines. Cessna also says that the fact that Cessna is now owned by Textron which also owns Lycoming but does not own Continental which is owned by conglomerate rival Teledyne had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to go entirely with Lycoming engines after using Continental engines in the majority of their product line for forty years. Yeah, right, and they even said it with a straight face. It is a good combination though, the Lycoming engine has done real well in the R/TR-182. There are more safety features and a lot more “glass cockpit” stuff but the basic air- frame is the tried and true 182. There are enough differences in the “new” 182 SKYLANE to not include in this book, but another book will be written to cover these models. So this history of the 182 SKYLANE represents just the first part of a continuing story. Cessna 182 Skylane First Year/Last Year Comparison 1956 Model 182 1986 Model 182R 2008 Model 182T Gross Weight 2550 lbs 3100 lbs 3110 lbs ramp Useful Load 1000 lbs approx. 1300 lbs approx. 1192 lbs approx Cruise Speed 135 knots 142 knots 150 knots Engine O-470-L 230 hp O-470-U 230 hp IO-540-AB1A5 230 hp Rate of Climb 1210 fpm 865 fpm 924 fpm Service Ceiling 19,000 feet 14,900 feet 18,100 feet Fuel Capacity 55 gal 92 gal 92 gal Original List Price $13,750.00 $80,950.00 $367,000.00 2008 Cessna Skylane 1956 Cessna 182 1986 Cessna Skylane 9 John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide www.cessna.org Cessna 182 Skylane General Description Design Gross Weight - Takeoff Propeller 1956 - 1961 Hartzell or McCauley Two Blade Constant Speed 1962 182E Thru 1986 182R 82” McCauley Constant Speed Main Wheels Standard 6:00 x 6, 6 ply rating Pressure prior to 1962 182E 28 psi 1962 182E thru 1971 182N 32 psi 1972 182P thru 1986 182R 42 psi Optional 1962 182E thru 1971 182N 8:00 x 6, 6 ply rating Pressure 25 psi to 35 psi 1956 182 2550 lbs 1957 182A thru 1961 182D 2650 lbs 1962 182E thru 1969 182N 2800 lbs 1970 182N thru 1980 182Q 2950 lbs 1981 182R thru 1986 182R 3100 lbs Design Gross Weight - Landing Gross landing weight was the same as gross takeoff weight for all models except: 1970 182N thru 1971 182N 2800 lbs 1981 182R thru 1986 182R 2950 lbs Total Fuel Capacity 1956 182 60 gallons 1957 182A thru 1961 182D 65 gallons 1962 182E thru 1974 182P s/n 18262250 Standard 65 gallons Useable 60 gallons Optional 84 gallons Useable 79 gallons If modified by Service Letter 75-7 Standard 61 gallons Useable 56 gallons Optional 80 gallons Useable 75 gallons 1974 182P s/n 1826551 thru 1978 182Q Standard 61 gallons Useable 56 gallons Optional 80 gallons Useable 75 gallons 1979 182Q thru 1986 182R 92 gallons Useable 88 gallons Oil Capacity 182 series - 12 qts, 13 qts with external oil filter T182 8 qts, 9 qts with external oil filter Engine Model 1956 182 thru 1961 182D Continental O-470-L 1962 182E thru 1974 182P Continental O-470-R 1975 182P thru 1976 182P Continental O-470-S 1977 182Q thru 1986 182R Continental O-470-U All T182 Lycoming O-540-L3C5D Typical Dimensions 10 www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide Nose Wheel Standard 5:00 x 5 6 ply rating Pressure 1956 182 thru 1961 182D Tube type 29 psi Tubeless 45 psi 1962 182E thru 1966 182J 32 psi 1967 182K thru 1971 182N 50 psi 1972 182P thru 1986 182R 49 psi Optional 1962 182E thru 1971 182N 6:00 x 6 4 ply rating Pressure 1962 182E thru 1966 182J 20 psi to 29 psi 1967 182K thru 1971 182N 30 psi Nose Gear Strut Pressure (Strut Extended) 1962 182E thru 1966 182J 50 psi 1967 182K thru 1986 182R 55 psi to 60 psi Wheel Alignment (measured with aircraft empty) Camber 5 degrees to 7 degrees Toe-In 0” to .06” Aileron Travel Up 20 degrees plus or minus 2 degrees Down 15 degrees plus or minus 2 degrees Wing Flap Travel 1956 182 thru 1961 182D 0 degrees to 39 degrees 1962 182E thru 1981 182R 0 degrees to 40 degrees, +1 -2 1982 182R thru 1986 182R 0 degrees to 38 degrees, +0,-1 Rudder Travel 24 degrees, +0 -1, measured parallel to the water line 27 degrees, 13 minutes when measured perpendicular to the hinge line on swept tails. Elevator Travel 1956 182 THRU 1961 182D Up 25 degrees Down 23 degrees 1962 182 E thru 1980 182Q Up 26 degrees, plus or minus 1 degree Down 17 degrees, plus or minus 1 degree 1981 182R thru 1986 182R Up 28 degrees, plus or minus 1 degree Down 21 degrees, plus or minus 1 degree Stabilizer Travel 1956 182 thru 1959 182B Up 1 degree, 50 minutes Down 8 degrees, 20 minutes 1960 182C thru 1961 182D Up 0 degrees, 45 minutes Down 8 degrees, 45 minutes Elevator Trim Tab Travel 1962 182E thru 1980 182Q Up 25 degrees, plus or minus 2 degree Down 15 degrees, plus or minus 1 degree 1981 182R thru 1986 182R Up 24 degrees, plus or minus 2 degrees Down 15 degrees, plus or minus 1 degree Principal Dimensions Wing Span 1956 182 thru 1961 182D 36’0” 1962 182E thru 1969 182M 36’2” 1970 182N thru 1986 182R 36’0” Tail Span 1956 182 thru 1964 182G 10’10” 1965 182H thru 1986 182R 11’8” Length 1956 182 thru 1959 182B 25’4” 1960 182C thru 1961 182D 27’4” 1962 182E thru 1966 182J 27’10” 1967 182H thru 1971 182N 28’1” 1972 182P thru 1986 182R 28’2” All T182 28’4” Height 1956 182 9’6” 1957 182A thru 1960 182C 8’9” 1961 182D 7’8” 1962 182E thru 1971 182N 8’11” 1972 182P thru 1986 182R 9’2” Track Width 1956 182 7’8” 1957 182A thru 1961 182D 8’2” 1962 182E thru 1971 182N 8’ 1972 182P thru 1986 182R 9’1” Battery Location - Aft of Baggage Compartment 11 John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide www.cessna.org Is The Cessna 182 Skylane The Right Plane For You? People often inquire of the Cessna Pilots Association as to what is the best Cessna to buy, or what is the best Cessna model ever built. There really is no answer to this question because each model has it’s advantages and disadvantages. When buying an aircraft one of the most important things to keep in mind is to buy an aircraft that fits your aver- age mission profile the best. For example, if you are buying an aircraft primarily to fly by yourself in the local area to enjoy the pleasure of flying and to maintain proficiency, a CESSNA 172 SKYHAWK will fill this mission as well as a CESSNA 182 SKYLANE at consider- ably less cost. Or if you are a salesperson with a several state area who must make as many sales contacts as possible in a given period of time, the speed of the CESSNA 210 CENTU- RION may make that a better aircraft for your mission than a CESSNA 182 SKY- LANE. On the other hand if your normal mission will be to carry yourself and two or three people with moderate lug- gage on trips of four or five hundred miles the CESSNA 182 SKYLANE fits the mission perfect- ly. The CESSNA 172 SKYHAWK couldn’t handle the load requirements of the mission and the CESSNA 210 CEN- TURION would only get you there a few minutes quicker at considerably higher cost. Again, buy the airplane that fits your mission best. The CESSNA 182 SKYLANE has long had a reputation as a load hauler. In fact it is often said that the SKYLANE will carry anything you can close the doors on. This is an exaggeration of course and pilots need to pay attention to gross weight limitations on the SKYLANE just as with any other aircraft, but the CESSNA 182 SKYLANE has a healthy useful load and handles well with a heavy load. The CESSNA 182 SKY- LANE is one of the few aircraft in which you can fill all the seats with average size individuals and fill the aircraft’s fuel tanks full and still be within gross weight limitations. This load carrying capability seems to be most useful for the owner who uses the aircraft as a family airplane. Being able to load up the aircraft with the spouse, kids, baggage and fuel and fly 600 miles in four and a half hours to five hours makes the CESSNA 182 SKYLANE a very practical family aircraft. Like most Cessna single engine aircraft, determining center of gravity for a given weight is more of an academic exercise than a practical limitation. Unless your entire load is bowling balls in the baggage compartment or King Kong is your co-pilot, you won’t be outside the envelope on either end. However, this wide center of gravity range does lead to one difficulty with the CESSNA 182 SKYLANE and that is it’s heavy pitch forces with a forward center of gravity. When the aircraft is flown loaded only with a couple of people in the front seats the aircraft has rather high stick force in pitch. This high stick force coupled with flying down final with too high an air speed can lead to hav- ing the aircraft hop up on the nose wheel on the runway, which then leads to collapse of the nose gear and the resultant damage. A pilot can avoid this scenario by flying the proper airspeed down final (1.3 Vso) and increasing back pressure through out the flare, landing and rollout until the con- trol wheel is firmly against the stop. It is the premature re- lease of back pres- sure which normally causes the hop up on the nose wheel. Stability is another of the CESSNA 182 SKYLANE’S strong suits. The aircraft is very stable both in pitch and roll with no tendency to go divergent. This makes the CESSNA 182 SKYLANE an excellent instrument flying platform, allowing even the novice or rusty instrument pilot to easily maintain correct altitude and heading while in the clouds so as to not incur the wrath of ATC. Instrument approaches are rock solid, provided the pilot has configured the aircraft correctly and flies the proper airspeed. The CESSNA 182 SKYLANE has good range numbers not because it is a particularly efficient aircraft, it is not, but because it has cavernous fuel tanks, with anywhere from sixty to Ample aisles between seats and a completely flat floor make exchanging seats easy and convenient. 12 www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide 90 gallons capacity, depending on the model year. Most model years have range figures in the 700 nautical mile plus range, which allows the owner to load up the family and baggage and get to where they are going without the hassle of making a stop. Don’t plan on covering that distance in a big hurry though. With real world cruise speeds in the 135 knot range, the CESSNA 182 SKYLANE is no speed demon. The aircraft has a big engine, 230 HP, but that power is used to lift weight, not to go fast. The CESSNA 182 SKYLANE has too much drag associated with the airframe to go very fast no matter how much power the aircraft might have, though speed modifications can improve this situation a bit. Operating costs for the CESSNA 182 SKYLANE are a bit of a mixed bag. With a large motor drinking around 12 to 14 gallons an hour and only generating a cruise speed of 135 knots, direct costs per hour or per mile are significant. However, the airframe design is simple, requiring only modest maintenance and few repairs and the O-470 Continental engine has proven quite reliable, often going right through to TBO without requir- ing any expensive work. Most of the routine maintenance can be accomplished by the owner if he chooses to do so, which can reduce operating costs significantly. Operating on auto fuel with the appropriate STC can reduce costs even further on the pre-1977 CESSNA 182 SKYLANE models. One attribute of the CESSNA 182 SKYLANE that perhaps doesn’t get the recognition it deserves is comfort. This is a big, comfortable airplane, especially after the cabin was widened with the 182E in 1962. There is plenty of elbow room even when fully loaded with four people. You sit upright in the seats as opposed to the semi-reclining or sit on the floor arrangements of some aircraft. Leg room is more than adequate even if you are well over six feet tall. The baggage compartment is acces- sible from the cabin which makes getting a sweater as the sun sets much easier than having to step outside. The high wing configuration provides excellent sight seeing visibility for the passengers and shade from the sun in the air and protection from the rain when loading on the ground. So what it boils down to is that the CESSNA 182 SKY- LANE is a true four passenger aircraft with good load hauling capability and good range, but only moderate speed. It is not inexpensive to operate but is easy to maintain. The aircraft is easy to fly and comfortable to ride in. The CESSNA 182 SKY- LANE is the perfect aircraft for the weekend flyer, or business man who needs to be able to carry several people a fair distance with reliability and reasonable operating expenses. 13 John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide www.cessna.org Considerations on Buying an Older 182 Skylane “1957 182. 3200 TT, 1150 SMOH. Dual MK12s, ADF, Txpdr, Autopilot. $35,000 Call Dwayne 805/555-5555” Now there is a deal, a lot of airplane for the money. Carry four people and baggage, and only 25 grand which is less than newer 172s are going for. Can’t go wrong, right? Well, that depends. If your aircraft purchasing budget has you looking at older 182s as opposed to somewhat newer 172s, you need to sit down and consider some of the cold hard facts about owning an older aircraft. And the facts that I am talking about are on-go- ing dollars. While the cost to enroll in this school may be modest, the yearly tuition can be quite steep. First of all, while you consider this a thirty or forty thousand dollar airplane, to the Cessna Aircraft Co. it is a three hundred and fifty thousand dollar aircraft, because that is what it would sell for new today. And that is the level that Cessna sets it’s parts prices at. Even using salvage yards, which generally sell used parts at fifty percent of new list, buying parts for this bird can generate quite a bit of shock. Operating costs on the older CESSNA 182 SKYLANE are no less than on a later model. You are feeding and caring for an aircraft with a six cylinder, big bore engine with a constant speed prop, just like the newest models of the 182 SKYLANE. In fact given that the fuel bladders of the pre-1979 182 SKYLANES don’t hold up as well at the integral tanks of the 1979 and up model years there is a good possibility that the operating and maintenance costs of the earlier models is actually higher than the later models. What if the aircraft will need some renovation shortly? it is easy to say that you will buy the plane now, do an overhaul on the motor when it is due in a couple of years, upgrade the radios a little later, do some painting, get an interior, etc. However when you look at the numbers, they don’t really add up. Let’s take the 1957 182 SKYLANE that we started this column with. It has a somewhat high time engine, old radios, probably a pneumatic autopilot. You buy the aircraft figuring on turning it into a super fine machine by refurbishing over the next four or five years. Let’s take a look at what you will have invested, even doing this by watching every penny. First, you have to do something about that high time engine. Even if when the engine is torn down there is not much work required and you take advantage of every cost cutting corner possible, you will still have at least $15,000 invested in an economy overhaul, with 20K to 25K being a more realistic figure. And you can’t keep operating forever on those old 360 channel radios. A couple of new nav/coms, transponder, audio panel and and ADF or GPS will be at least 15K installed with a basic autopilot like an STEC 40 another eight thousand if it is installed when the radios go in, more if installed at a separate time. Now that you have that older 182 running well and able to communicate with anyone, you will just have to dress up the package it comes in. Figure at least seven grand each for paint and interior. You now have a good airplane in performance, reliability and appearance. You also have at least ninety thou- sand dollars in it. For that ninety thou- sand dollar investment you end up with an aircraft worth sixty grand, tops, in today’s dollars. Better you should spend that ninety thousand on a newer 182 SKYLANE, 1970s vintage, with lots of engine time left and decent radios. It will cost you more going in, but you won’t lose the money you have lost on this deal because the airplane will always be worth at least what you paid for it, just as the 1957 182 SKYLANE that you have ninety plus into will always be worth the 40 grand you paid for it. Or go find the guy that put sixty into an older 182 and pay him forty for it. The purpose of this discussion is to bring out several points about aircraft purchasing in general and older aircraft specifically. 1. Look at total dollars to be invested, not just purchase price. 2. Older aircraft that need refurbishment are seldom a bar- gain. 3. Buy the airplane equipped as you want it, rather than add it later. Let someone else pay the equipment depreciation. This is not to say that an early 182 SKYLANE can’t be a good value, it certainly can be. If purchased decently equipped with time left on the engine you have an aircraft that will perform right up there with any four place fixed gear single at a fraction of the investment you would have in later models. If you are the type person who is willing to do a lot of the refurbishment work and parts scrounging yourself, even an older 182 SKYLANE in need of work and refurbishment can be a good airplane for you. You just have to look at the dollars you will be spending now and in the future realistically. 1957 Cessna 182 14 www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide Safety Aspects of the Cessna 182 Skylane Over the last few years the staff of the Cessna Pilots Association have seen a number of incidents and ac- cidents with CESSNA 182 SKYLANE series of aircraft that have been caused by a lack of knowledge of the aircraft’s systems. The CPA was so concerned about these problems that I wrote a letter to every CESSNA 182 SKYLANE owner in the country outlining what these problem areas were and how to deal with them. A prospective buyer would do well to acquaint themselves with these system related problem areas. It should be emphasized that while there are some areas where pilots have had problems with the 182 SKYLANE due to the lack of specific systems knowledge, overall the 182 SKYLANE has a good safety record for a medium performance single engine aircraft. Even a low time private pilot can operate a 182 SKYLANE safely provided they have received a good checkout from an instructor that knows the 182 SKYLANE SPECIFICALLY, the pilot understands the aircraft’s systems, and the pilot does not try to exceed his/her limitations, i.e. attempting to continue VFR into very marginal VFR or IFR conditions. In 1993 the AOPA Air Safety Foundation did a safety review of the CESSNA 182 SKYLANE. This review was basically a statistical analysis of six years of CESSNA 182 SKYLANE accidents and compared the 182 SKYLANE’S record to seven other somewhat comparable aircraft. The study didn’t bring to light any major surprises but there were some interesting points. The cause of about 80 percent of the serious accidents in the 182 SKYLANE were pilot related and only about 10 percent were related to the machine itself. This is fairly typical for any general aviation aircraft, with continued VFR into instrument weather being far and away the leading cause of serious accidents. One surprise that showed up was that the second leading cause of serious accidents in the 182 SKYLANE was related to ‘low level maneuvering’. That’s a polite way to say that the pilots were doing ‘buzz jobs’ and blew it. No matter how safe the aircraft is, if the pilot won’t exercise good judgement an accident is sure to occur. Another bit of a surprise is that density altitude was in- volved in a number of accidents. The reason that this is a bit of a surprise is that the 182 has a reputation for being a load hauler, able to carry just about anything you can close the doors on. While this is true to a large extent, the combination of high weight and thin air are a combination that requires great concern and planning. During the period I was writing the first version of this book I made a camping trip with one of my young sons to Mammoth Lakes, California, located on the eastern slopes of the Sierras. The field elevation is 7100 feet and one day I watched a 182 takeoff about one o’clock in the afternoon with a good load and an outside air temperature of around eighty degrees. The pilot did make it into the air but the outcome ap- peared in doubt for awhile. The aircraft used over 4,000 feet of runway and flew in ground effect for some time after that before a positive rate of climb could be generated. In my mind it would have been better for that pilot to wait a few hours until the air cooled and the density altitude decreased. Any time you are faced with a density altitude situation in a non-turbocharged aircraft get out the books, figure the performance and if the numbers say you can’t get off and climb without at least a ten percent safety margin figure out other options. The 182 SKYLANE did have a landing accident rate higher than the average for aircraft in it’s class. This is most probably related to the fairly high pitch control forces of the 182 SKYLANE and the tendencies of some pilots to land somewhat fast and release back pressure on the controls too soon. If a pilot does this in a 172 the aircraft normally balloons back in the air and the pilot gets the opportunity to make a second flare. Do this in the 182 however and the aircraft will hop up on the nosewheel and the nosewheel, not being capable of withstanding that sort of load, will fold under the aircraft. The lesson to be learned from this is that on landing one should keep applying back pressure until the control column hits the stops and the aircraft is brought to a stop. About 25 percent of the landing accidents were overshoots and these are often related to carrying to much speed down final. In normal conditions a good target speed down final is 1.3 Vso or 1.3 times the speed shown at the bottom of the white arc on the airspeed indicator. If the aircraft stalls at 50 knots with full flaps then fly final at 65 knots with full flaps. Anymore than that will just mean a lot of float and carry, which isn’t a big deal on 6,000 feet of concrete but can lead to great excitement on a 2,500 foot strip. Crosswind landings also accounted for a share of the landing accidents, training and practice are the keys to avoiding being involved in that type of accident. Carburetor ice was involved in a significant number of 182 accidents, most times in VFR conditions. This isn’t a surprise as the carburetor ice tendencies of the 182 are well known, pilots need to be aware of it and not in the least bit hesitant to use carburetor heat. 15 John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide www.cessna.org Introduction The Cessna 182 Skylane is a favorite for cross-country travelers as well as for transitioning pilots. Its excellent safety record attests to its reliability and structural integrity. First built in 1956, and still manufactured today, approximately 13,000 Skylanes currently are on the FAA Aircraft Registry. This Safety Highlight analyzes fixed-gear Skylane accidents that occurred between 1983 and 1999. Included are 1,314 Cessna 182 accidents and 3,022 accidents of a comparison group, comprised of the following aircraft: Cessna 177 Cardinal, Cessna 205, Cessna 206, Cessna 207, Gulfstream American AA-5, and Piper PA-28. Almost three-quarters, or 72 percent, of Cessna 182 ac- cidents were minor, resulting in little or no injury, while two- thirds, or 66 percent, of the comparison aircraft accidents were minor. (See Figure 1). Accidents resulting in serious injuries, as defined by NTSB Part 830, make up the smaller portion of the accident number. The Skylane had fewer serious accidents than the comparison group. This may be due to the Skylane being used for cross-country trips, while the majority of ac- cidents in the comparison group involved PA-28s, which are used primarily as trainers. Trainers participate in more takeoffs and landings, which is when most accidents occur. According to FAA estimates, Cessna 182 aircraft flew ap- proximately 22.4 million hours during the years 1983-1999. Only 1,314 accidents occurred during that time, which averages out to 5.9 accidents per 100,000 hours. The comparison group had a similar accident rate with 6.0 accidents per 100,000 hours. Pilot-Related Accidents As expected, the majority (80 percent) of Cessna 182 accidents were due not to aircraft problems, but to pilot error. Mechanical/maintenance problems caused only 10 percent of the Skylane accidents, and the remaining 10 percent were at- A few years ago, the AOPA Air Safety Foundation conducted a safety review of the Cessna 182. A portion of that review is printed below with the permission of the AOPA Air Safety Foundation.) tributed to other causes and unknown factors. (See Figure 2). Regardless of the type of aircraft, the number of acci- dents is inversely proportional to the number of hours a pilot has accumulated. (See Figure 3). The majority of accidents for the Skylane and comparison aircraft involved pilots with less than 400 hours total time, and less than 100 hours time in type. Pilots generally gain skill and better judgment with experience. Weather caused the highest number of pilot-related serious accidents. (See Weather section on page 4). Twenty-one percent of Cessna 182 and comparison aircraft serious accidents were due to poor pilot decision making and judgment regarding the weather. Pilots frequently choose the Skylane as one of their first cross-country airplanes and thus learn, some of them the hard way, about flying through weather systems. Preflight A thorough preflight consists of four components: pilot, weather, airplane, and flight. The flight should be conducted only after each component of the preflight has been checked and found to be satisfactory. Allow yourself plenty of time to thoroughly check each, without feeling pressured or rushed. Here are some specific items to include in your preflight: Pilot: The first step in planning for a flight is to be sure you are ready, physically and emotionally. Here are some things to keep in mind: • Remember IMSAFE: Illness Medication Stress Alcohol Fatigue Emotion 16 www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide • Know your personal limitations. Every pilot is different, and your own minimums may even change from day to day. The FAA has published a personal minimums checklist, which is available online at www.faa.gov/ avr/news/checklst.pdf. • Currency and proficiency. Are you safe and legal for this flight? Weather: Once you have prepared yourself for the flight, it’s important to check the weather along your planned route. According to FAR 91.103, a weather briefing is required for all IFR flights and any flight not in the vicinity of an airport. Obtaining a weather briefing is a good idea for all flights. The following are some weather resources to use during the planning: • Flight Service Stations (FSS) may be contacted for weather information, notams, and pireps. • Online services such as AOPA (www.aopa.org/members/ wx/), DUATS (www.duats.com), National Weather Ser- vice (NWS) (www.nws.noaa.gov/), and Aviation Digital Data Service (ADDS) (http://adds.awc-kc.noaa.gov/). • AWOS, ASOS, or ATIS will provide you with the current local weather at your departure airport. Note: For more weather information, see the Weather section on page 4. Airplane: The airplane preflight consists of a thorough check of the aircraft itself and associated paperwork: • Review the airplane’s airworthiness status, including an inspection as described in the Pilot’s Operating Hand- book (POH). • Paperwork associated with the airplane (ARROW): Airworthiness certificate Registration certificate Radio station license (for international flights only) Operating limitations (Pilot’s Operating Handbook) Weight and Balance records • Weight and center of gravity (CG) limits. Note: For weight and balance information specific to the C-182,including a loading example, see the Weight and Balance section on pages 3-4. • Fuel requirements. ASF recommends landing with at least one hour of reserves on board. This means a Skylane with 88 gallons of usable fuel, in no-wind conditions, and a fuel burn of 13.0 gph can fly for approximately 63⁄4 hours total, or 53⁄4 hours with 1 hour reserves. Of course, any wind or nonstandard conditions will alter your calcula- tions for distance. Note: For more information regarding fuel planning, see the Fuel section on page 6. • Takeoff and landing distances. Note: Information regard- ing takeoff and landing in a Skylane can be found on pages 8 and 9. Flight: There are many factors associated with any flight that must be checked before departing, especially if an unfamiliar route or airportwill be encountered. Such informa- tion includes the following: • Airport/runway conditions at the departure and arrival airports. • Notams and Temporary Flight Restrictions, if any. • Runway lengths and LAHSO distances at the departure and arrival airports. • Obstructions en route and near the airports. • Special use airspace along your route of flight, i.e., restricted areas, prohibited areas, MOAs, and MTRs. Weight and Balance The weight and balance of any aircraft affects it in all phases of flight, from takeoff to landing. An overloaded airplane may not be able to reach rotation speed from a short runway, and/or may not be able to clear obstacles at the end of the run- way. An out-of-balance airplane may become uncontrollable in flight, require an excess amount of trim, or may not even be controllable during takeoff. The weight and balance section of the C-182’s POH includes a loading example for your convenience. Become familiar with it, and also consult the CG chart before each flight involving more baggage than usual or more than two occupants, to verify that you have loaded the aircraft within the CG “envelope,” or limitation range. Below is an example of a weight and balance problem for a typical cross-country 17 John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide www.cessna.org flight. Notice that the fuel had to be reduced to allow for the four people and baggage (the fuel tanks can actually carry 528 lb of usable fuel). The takeoff weight is 3,100 lb, but the land- ing weight for this model, a 1985 C-182R, is 2,950 lb. Know the numbers for the aircraft you fly. The Skylane is known for its large capacity and ability to carry heavy loads, but the 1956 through 1961 models only had maximum gross weights of 2,550 lb or 2,650 lb. That was increased to 2,950 lb beginning in 1970 and again to 3,100 lb in 1981. Don’t become overconfident with the newer, heavier models. If you carry passengers and baggage for a cross-country flight with full fuel tanks, you may be very near the airplane’s capacity limit. You may even need to limit the amount you carry. Local flights with an instructor, a couple of flight bags, and full fuel tanks will not be a problem with this aircraft. The maximum useful load for a 1985 Skylane is 1,377 lb. Remem- ber that this is a POH number, and will vary depending on the equipment installed in the aircraft. Most Skylanes will have a useful load of approximately 1100 lb. The maximum baggage weight for the C-182R is 200 lb (120 lb forward of baggage door latch and 80 lb aft of it). During takeoff, the 435-hour private pilot lifted the Cess- na 182 off the 3,200-foot runway at approximately mid- field. The aircraft touched down, then became airborne again before it crashed. Four occupants, 40 gallons of fuel in the 60-gallon tanks, and 380 pounds of cargo had been loaded prior to initiating the flight. The aircraft was es- timated to have been at least 210 pounds over its maxi- mum allowable gross weight, and the center of gravity (CG) was estimated to be 1.1 inches beyond the aft limit. Density Altitude The 160-hour private pilot did not check the density altitude or lean the mixture prior to taking off. The Cessna 182, with four people aboard, departed from an intersection near the middle of the 5,289-foot runway. The pilot aborted the takeoff upon realizing that inadequate engine power was being produced to lift off. The airplane overran the end of the runway and collided with rough terrain. The calculated density altitude was approximately 7,100 feet. Because the C-182 is a big, beefy aircraft, compared to some of it’s lighter siblings, some pilots mistakenly believe that it can be loaded with impunity. The accident history suggests otherwise, particularly at high density altitude. Two percent of the Skylane accidents were attributed to high density altitude. That does not include the close calls, where pilots were lucky and avoided triggering the NTSB’s computer. Any normally aspirated aircraft with a large engine will be a strong sea-level performer. Take the same aircraft to a mountain airport sur- rounded by higher terrain and that strong performance magically dissipates into thin air. For example, a short-field takeoff in a C-182 at sea level, standard temperature (15 degrees C), and zero wind requires 1,518 feet to clear a 50-foot obstacle. If the field’s elevation is 3,750 feet with a temperature of 95 degrees, a common occur- rence on a summer day, the density altitude equates to 7,000 feet. The 182’s takeoff distance will more than double to 3,185 feet. The maximum rate of climb at sea level is 865 fpm and decreases to 505 fpm at 7,000 feet. Add in terrain or obstacles and the possibility of downdrafts to negate the already anemic climb, and it becomes obvious why states with high real estate have much higher accident rates than the flatlands. Remember that POH performance numbers are based on new aircraft under standard weather conditions with a test pilot. Most of us will not achieve the published numbers on a normal basis. ASF recommends adding 50 percent to all pub- lished takeoff and landing numbers, to allow a safety margin. Therefore, the takeoff distance from the same 7,000-foot density altitude airport becomes 4,778 feet. The landing distance over a 50-foot obstacle will increase from 1,350 feet at sea level to 1,640 feet at 7,000 feet (2,460 feet with the 50 percent safety margin). One aeronautical myth that some pilots have attempted to disprove is that if it flew in, it will fly out. There are many airports where it is possible to land but it may be impossible to depart, either under ambient conditions, or at all. The C-182 is a good short-field airplane but it can’t do the impossible. Weather Weather was the leading cause of pilot-related serious accidents for the Cessna 182 as well as for the comparison aircraft group, causing 21 percent of the serious accidents for both. (See Figure 4). Poor judgment and decision-making in regards to weather caused the majority of these accidents. Weather is a crucial part of initial and recurrent training. Most new pilots will get only cursory exposure to it. Preflight should include obtaining the local weather and, for all flights not in the vicinity of an airport, a full weather briefing. However, don’t assume that the forecasted weather 18 www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide will be what is encountered en route. Weather changes rapidly, and forecasts don’t always hold true. Be prepared for diversions around weather by carrying extra fuel. Use Flight Watch and Flight Service en route for a more precise picture of what you will encounter. Pireps are also a great source of weather infor- mation; use them, and supply them when able. ASF’s Weather Tactics and Weather Strategies Safety Advisors may be viewed online at www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa_index.html. If your aircraft is so equipped, the autopilot may be used to get out of deteriorating weather. Use it to safely turn around and depart the hazardous conditions. That will help ease your workload, but remember that the autopilot cannot be used in severe turbulence, because it may overstress the aircraft, or in icing conditions, because it may mask the signs of ice ac- cumulation on the aircraft. Instrument Meteorological Conditions(IMC) Between the years 1983 and 1999, there were 6.3 Cessna 182 IMC accidents per 100,000 IMC hours, 1.9 of which involved instrument rated pilots on IFR flight plans. (See Figure 5). That means 4.4 IMC accidents per 100,000 IMC hours involved pilots who were not appropriately rated, or were instrument-rated but not on an IFR flight plan. The comparison group had 7.7 IMC accidents per 100,000 IMC hours, of which 1.8 were on IFR flight plans. Note: Although the accidents occurred in instrument condi- tions, weather may not have been the cause of each accident. The 100-hour noninstrument-rated private pilot was on the third leg of a trip between Tampa, FL and Sussex, NJ. (The previous two stops were made because of adverse weather conditions.) Before this flight, the pilot was advised by FSS that VFR flight was not recommended. A VFR flight plan was filed but not activated. Witnesses reported the aircraft was flying northeast below a low overcast and some said it was flying in the clouds. One witness said the clouds were at treetop level. The aircraft reversed course and soon af- terwards it descended to the ground. One witness said that before the aircraft descended it pitched up and then spun during descent. The aircraft collided with the ground in a remote wooded area. Autopilot The autopilot is an invaluable piece of equipment that will reduce workload on long flights and under single-pilot IFR conditions. The FAA believes so much in autopilots that they are required for single pilot IFR air taxi flights. At the very least, the autopilot will maintain a wings-level attitude while the pilot troubleshoots a problem or navigates out of hazard- ous weather. It should be a part of your aircraft familiarization training. Review its operation regularly. Some autopilot tips: • Know how to disengage the autopilot quickly by at least three methods. • Know where the autopilot derives attitude informa- tion–some depend on the attitude indicator, which is usually vacuum powered, others on the turn coordina- tor. When the vacuum pump fails, the autopilot may be inoperative when needed the most. • Use the autopilot when programming GPS equipment or consulting charts. • Many pilots hand fly departures and arrivals to main- tain proficiency and let the autopilot handle the long, boring en route portion of the flight. • Practice using the autopilot in good weather and practice coupled approaches so on that dark, cloudy IMC night when you’re tired, the autopilot will help bring you down safely. • Be able to hand fly the aircraft at any point, if needed, and don’t be reluctant to advise ATC to stand by if you’re busy after an autopilot failure. FuelThe C-182 had 71 fuel exhaustion accidents compared to 188 for the comparison group. Exhaustion occurs when all tanks are depleted. Fuel starvation occurs when fuel is available but, for any number of reasons, doesn’t reach the engine. There were 27 Cessna 182 starvation accidents and 75 in comparable aircraft. Only six of those Skylane accidents were due to im- proper fuel tank selection or failure to switch tanks, compared to 35 of the comparison group. That may be because Skylanes have a BOTH option on the fuel selector. Keep track of fuel burn along your flight by using a fuel log. This will help establish the fuel usage of that aircraft. For a flight at 8,000 feet and 65% power in a 1985 C-182, the zero- wind range (88 gallons/one hour reserve) is 764 nm. (Note: The POH states a fuel burn of 11.1 gph. ASF recommends adding a safety margin. For this example, 13.0 gph was used.) With a 20-knot headwind, the range is reduced to 649 nm, a 115 nm difference. It is better to think of fuel in terms of time rather than distance. Flush-type fuel caps leak water as the seals deteriorate. These caps, common on 182s manufactured prior to 1979, should be replaced by the umbrella-type caps. Also on the older 19 John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide www.cessna.org models are the bladder-type fuel tanks, which can trap and hide water if there are “wrinkles” in the cell. Integral tanks will not pose such a problem. ASF fuel recommendations: • Land with at least one hour of fuel reserves on board. • Learn to lean properly and do it on every flight–most en- gines, contrary to what is taught in many flight schools, may be leaned at any altitude, provided they are below the approved power setting. • Add two gallons per hour to book consumption numbers until you have accumulated some experience with that particular aircraft to verify the fuel burn with your leaning techniques. Estimate the fuel consumption for each flight and check that against the actual amount of fuel added. (You really only know how much fuel is on board when the tanks are full unless you stick the tanks, have very accurate fuel logs, or use a fuel management device such as a totalizer.) • Avoid planned fuel stops within 100 miles or one hour of your destination. There is great temptation to press on to the destination. • For most operations, leaving the fuel selector on BOTH will eliminate the possibility of running one tank dry. However, if a significant load imbalance exists, switch tanks on an hourly basis and set a timer to remind you. Prior to departing on the 600-mile flight, the 350-hour private pilot obtained a weather briefing but did not file a flight plan. The flight lasted for 5 hours and 28 minutes before the engine sputtered and quit four miles short of its destination airport. Endurance calculations based on 11.0 gph and a 600 nm distance, correcting for nonstandard temperature and pressure, revealed a usable fuel burn time of 5 hours and 25 minutes. Note: Add a safety margin of approximately 2.0 gph to POH fuel burn numbers until you gain some experience with that particular airplane. The accident report above states that endurance calculations were based on 11.0 gph, which was likely the POH number. Icing Before takeoff, the 1,800-hour ATP received a complete weather briefing. The briefer warned the pilot of an ex- tremely hazardous weather system in the area and advised him several times not to go. The briefing included numer- ous pilot reports that confirmed the forecast of icing and turbulence. The pilot filed an IFR flight plan and departed in an aircraft not certified for icing conditions. While the aircraft was descending to intercept the ILS, radar contact was lost. The aircraft crashed into a mountain. Cessna 182s are not approved for flight into icing condi- tions. Some hangar tales tell about the fat wing and how much of a load it will carry. Understand that the aircraft is operating outside of the approved envelope and you have become a test pilot. Structural Ice: Structural ice disrupts the flow of air over the wing, tail, and prop, which increases drag, decreases lift, and may cause a significant increase in stall speed. Conditions conducive to severe in-flight icing are high moisture content in clouds, relatively warm temperatures, and freezing rain. The first indication of ice will normally be a buildup on small protrusions, corners, or the base of the windshield. Airspeed will begin to drop shortly after the flight encounters icing condi- tions. Turn on the pitot heat if it’s not already on and immediately work to get out of the clouds. A 10-knot speed reduction is a mandate to change altitude or divert immediately. Carburetor and Induction Ice: Induction ice blocks the air intake and can cause the engine to stop. Skylanes built after 1997 have fuel-injected engines and thus do not suffer from carb ice, but a blocked intake may cause a problem. The alternate air source should resolve it. Older Skylanes are susceptible to carb icing, as are the aircraft of the comparison group. The use of heat applied at the first indication of carb icing is essential. Carb ice is not restricted to cold, cloudy days but can occur in clear air, high humidity, and temperatures as warm as 70 degrees F or higher. The temperature drops as much as 70 degrees F within the carburetor’s throat. Follow the checklist, use carb heat whenever operating at reduced power, and be suspicious of carb ice when flying in clouds and rain. Many owners have installed a carburetor temperature gauge or ice detector device to warn them of the onset of carburetor icing conditions. The Air Safety Foundation’s Safety Advisor, Aircraft Ic- ing, www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa11.html, discusses both structural and carburetor/induction icing and how to fly safely when icing conditions are forecast. Night The noninstrument-rated private pilot departed on a night cross-country in VMC along the East Coast. The airplane was observed on radar to climb to 2,500 feet and level off. Shortly after leveling off, the airplane descended at 500 fpm. It dropped off radar at 1,000 feet, but witnesses observed 20 www.cessna.org John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide the airplane flying 150 feet above the water. During a left turn on this dark, moonless night, the airplane descended and struck the water. The NTSB cited spatial disorientation and the pilot’s lack of instrument experience as factors in this accident. Most night accidents for both the Skylane and com- parison group occurred in VMC. That is probably because the majority of Skylane hours are flown in VMC (20.5 million out of 22.4 million). Only 1.7 Cessna 182 accidents per 100,000 night hours occurred in IMC, compared to the total number of 7.9 per 100,000 hours. Of the 1.7 night IMC accidents, only 0.2 were IFR in IMC (See Figure 6). That means that 1.5 out of 1.7 night IMC accidents per 100,000 night hours involved either a noninstrument-rated pilot or a rated pilot who was not on an IFR flight plan. Most general aviation flying is during daylight hours and, not surprisingly, night flying skills may become rusty. ASF recommends regular night instruction to review aircraft and airport lighting, vision, fatigue, weather, spatial disorienta- tion, obstruction clearance, takeoffs/landings, and emergencies. An instrument rating is highly recommended for night cross- country flying. Your personal minimums should be more conservative at night. The FARs raise the basic night VFR weather minimums in Class G airspace to 3 statute miles, compared to only 1 mile during the day. Below 1,200 feet AGL, the distance from clouds increases from day VFR requirements of clear of clouds, to 500 feet below, 1,000 feet above, and 2,000 feet horizontal. East of the Mississippi, the transition areas around airports at 700 feet AGL effectively preclude night VFR flight when ceilings are below 1,500 feet, except in the airport traffic pattern (1000 feet AGL and 500 feet below the clouds). ASF recommends at least 5 nm visibility for night cross-country flights and a 2,000-foot ceiling in flat terrain. Mountainous terrain minimums should be at least a 5,000-foot ceiling and 10 miles. Ceiling and visibility frequently deteriorate at night as the temperature and dewpoint spread closes. The weather between reporting points may be much worse than what is observed. Note: Basic VFR weather minimums are listed in FAR 91.155. FAR 61.57 requires three night takeoffs and landings to a full stop, within the preceding 90 days, to be legal to act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers at night. Here are some specific things to be aware of at night: • Avoid bright lights at least 30 minutes before flying at night. If bright light is needed while flying, close one eye to preserve night vision in that eye. • Don’t descend to pattern altitude before you are in the pattern – descend over the airport. There may be ob- structions in the area that cannot easily be seen at night. Instrument-rated pilots should use instrument approach procedures. Try to go to airports that have VASI or ILS and avoid unfamiliar short fields. • Spatial disorientation. The horizon is less visible at night, and lights may create an artificial horizon. When a clear horizon is unavailable, trust your instruments. Your body may feel as if you’re turning when you are actually in straight and level flight. Many pilots have gotten themselves in dangerous situations by ignoring the instruments. • Weather and clouds are much harder to see at night. Get a full weather briefing, and update it while en route. Get and give pireps. • Check the aircraft electrical system thoroughly. Does the aircraft have an annunciator to show when the alternator has failed? Typically, there will be only about one half hour from electrical system failure to battery depletion and darkness. • Have more than one flashlight easily accessible in the cockpit. Mechanical Of the 134 Cessna 182 and 308 comparable aircraft me- chanical/maintenance accidents, approximately 50 percent of each were due to powerplant/propeller issues. (See Figure 7). The fuel system and the landing gear/brakes caused 15 percent of the mechanical Skylane accidents each. However, with only 21 John Frank’s Cessna 182 Skylane Buyers Guide www.cessna.org 10 percent of all studied accidents attributable to mechanical issues, the aircraft are extremely reliable. The newer Cessna 182s contain some major mechanical changes. The new Skylane model C-182S, manufactured begin- ning in 1997, is powered by a fuel-injected, 230 hp Textron-Ly- coming IO-540 engine, instead of the 230 hp Continental O-470s used in the past. The new engines are therefore not susceptible to carburetor ice. Induction icing is a possibility, but rare. Another large change with the new aircraft is the number of fuel drains. There are now five under each wing, and two in the belly, whereas the older models had one sump under each wing and a fuel strainer drain under the belly. There are several modifications available for the Skylane, which currently has 577 STCs in the FAA registry. Possible modifications include increased gross weights for earlier models (pre-1972), speed mods, increased horsepower, replacement of flush-type fuel caps, installing solid fuel tanks to replace the bladder-type (pre-1979), and adding a backup vacuum system. More information can be found online at www.aopa.org/pilot/ features/skylane0012.html. Takeoff Most takeoff accidents were due to improper takeoff procedures, such as failure to establish a positive climb rate, failure to attain takeoff/ liftoff speed, improper trim setting, failure to maintain directional control, and premature rotation/ liftoff. (See Figure 8). This includes 6.7 percent of the pilot- related Cessna 182 accidents and 9.7 percent of those for the comparison aircraft group. Other factors included inadequate runway, wind, gusts, high elevation, overweight, VFR in IMC, and fuel problems such as contaminated fuel, wrong fuel tank selected, and fuel exhaustion. Factors affecting the safety of takeoff must be checked as part of your preflight procedure; for example, runway lengths, wind direction and speed, local weather, obstacles at each end of the runway(s), and condition of aircraft and pilot. ASF recommends adding 50 percent to POH numbers, as a safety margin. For example, at 3,100 lb, sea level, and 20 degrees C, the distance to clear a 50-foot obstacle is 1,570 feet. W