From The Cockpit – Cessna 182

We talked before about Cessna’s Model 172. Being a truly multi-faceted aircraft, the 172 is perhaps mostly employed as a trainer/private hire aircraft, but nevertheless has owner/business transportation usage running somewhere close··behind. The 182 is the opposite, with a much greater margin between these categorisations- it is a serious cross-country aircraft, by design, not a trainer.

Development of the 182 occurred in parallel with that of the 172. The 182 grew out of the Model 180 and first appeared in 1956. The Model 180 has contentiously been the single engined Cessna model of greatest ruggedness and utility. When initially introduced in 1953 however, the useful load was a mere 350lb more than the 170, but the engine rated an extra 80bhp. The weight differential has increased somewhat by 1956 when Cessna introduced the 182 – a 180 with a tricycle landing gear, very little else (the 180’s Continental engine had advanced to 230bhp by this time). The flat six engine is mated to a CSU controlled prop, 2 blades of 82 inches diameter. However, the noise production on takeoff is limited by virtue of the engine’s rated rpm, 2,600 (as opposed to 2,700, typical on Lycoming engines). The engine compartment has the added complication of cowl flaps, mechanically adjustable. Seating is for a total of four, but it is a true four-seater, able to carry 4 on board with 120lb of bag gage a distance of over 700 nautical miles. A year later, in 1957, the 182’s gear legs were shortened and a further year on, the Skylane was introduced.

Basically the Skylane constituted a 182 with upmarket interior trim, instrument fit and paint scheme. The familiar swept tail was introduced in 1960, to be followed by the extra pair of side windows a year later and then the rear window in 1962, together with electrically operated flaps and a wider cabin, attained through the use of redesigned trim. Through the decade the Skylane changed but cosmetically until the main gear legs were further shortened in 1969 and the track increased; the nosegear retained its length for prop clearance considerations – giving the aircraft its squat duck-like stance on the ground, an appearance that extended up through to the 206 and 207.

By the end of January 1974 over 13,700 Model 182 Skylanes had been built. Cessna were concentrating upon refining the aircraft in small ways, such as cabin heating and ventilation, seating styles, different propeller, window seals, etc. The maingear legs had been switched on tapered spring steel tubes. Baggage space capacity was up to 200lb. The 12 volt electrical system was powered by a 60A/14v engine driven generator; electronics on offer included the Cessna 200A Nav-o-Matic autopilot. The differences in 182 and Skylane at this time amounted to an IF panel and associated instrumentation, rear window curtain, sun visors, wheel fairings, paint scheme and towbar.

The Model 182 was thus discontinued in 1976, the Skylane remaining the standard production aircraft. Along the way Cessna confused the name association issue by introducing the ‘Super Skylane’ and ‘Turbo Super Skylane’ tags to six seat aircraft which were in fact variations of the Model 206 as opposed to 182 and it isunderthat banner rather than thepresent that they should be discussed. Concerning ‘real’ Skylanes, Cessna went with the fashion and came up with two turbocharged versions of the aircraft. In fact by the eighties the range covered four versions: Skylane, standard version powered by the Continental O-470-U; Skylane II, standard plus factory avionics and a wider range of standard instruments. The Turbo Skylane is engined with the 235bhp Lycoming O-540-L3C5D turbocharged six cy inder, driving either a two or three blade McCauley prop; finally the Turbo Skylane II is with avionics and equipment as for the Skylane II.

Cessna’s efforts to make good a few deficiencies saw by 1983 the Continental TBO increased from 1,500 to 2,000 hours. The flap extension speed was also increased, an integral oil filter installed, improved ventilation and surprisingly late it could be said, a vacuum system failure warning light. The options list was expanded also to include a faster electric trimmer, an electric six cylinder priming system for the Turbo’s Lycoming engine to thwart reluctant starts, as well as improved air-conditioning on the Turbo Skylane. Gross weight had grown to 3,100lb, but two-thirds of the growth was in the basic weight, adding little overall to useful load. By 1983 a total of over 19,500 182 Skylanes had been built, including almost 170 F182s at Reims in France. However, this was not the full range of Models of this genre produced by Cessna. As early as 1977 the Company had embarked upon the fitment of a retractable landing gear to the Skylane. In the eighties the Skylane RG was offered in the same versions as the fixed gear Skylane, albeit with one major difference – standardisation of engines to the Lycoming 0-540, normally aspirated or turbocharged, but all producing 235bhp. Retracting the gear boosted the cruise speeds of Skylane variants by about 14 knots – for example, at 75% power from 142 knots for the Skylane to 156 knots for the Skylane RG – at a cost of 30lb of useful load (MTOW remaining at 3,100lb). Range went up slightly to 845nm VFR – for a maximum fuel load of 92 US gal (88 usable).

Retracting the landing gear also gave a hefty improvement in rate of climb- from 865ft/min to 1,140ft/min for the Skylane RG (as in the spec although there is no way this could all be attributable to gear retraction).

Flying the Skylane

Although the 182 has effectively a wing size the same as that on the 172 and overall length is also similar, on the ramp the air craft possesses a bigger and more robust appearance – stemming from the greater cabin width and cowled volume ahead of the firewall. Inside there is more elbow and chart room; the panel is expanded over that of Skyhawks of the same era – particularly with additional engine controls and instruments. The electric flaps are preselect – an especially appealing selection and indication system, with an indicator pointer following the gated selector, adjacent to it. Variable selection or preselect flaps, the choice is a pilot’s preference- for one I will stick firmly behind preselect. There is really no use for intermediate flap deflections and where the flaps controls are actuated – in the circuit- is where hands and eyes are needed elsewhere.

The nose high attitude of the Skylane can tend to obscure ground vision whilst taxying. With a power/weight ratio similar to that on the Bonanza and a CSU (developing rated RPM on takeoff compared to the lower full throttle RPM from the Skyhawk’s fixed pitch prop), the Skylane’s takeoff roll is brisk. At liftoff speed, a heavier backstick force is required to get the nose up to the initial climb attitude. This is the way of the Skylane- The control feel is more solid all around, particularly noticeable upon operation of the ailerons.

I first flew the Skylane on endorsement training after learning on the172. Not only did the handling feel quite different, but there was another big adaptation to the aircraft over the 172- namely thinking ahead of the aircraft, which is overall a good deal slicker. After takeoff, on Continental-powered 182 Skylanes, power should be reduced from maximum as soon as possible (as safely permits). Cruise climb at 100 knots with 23 inches MAP (manifold pressure) and 2,450rpm and cruise at 135-140 knots; cruise-descents into the circuit pattern in particular took practice to get to the right position at the right speed. On final approach the Skylane has a more solid and stable feel than the Skyhawk, particularly in turbulence, due to its greater approach speed and wing loading. When it came to landing, my impression was that whereas the 172 stopped flying at the point of landing, one needed to fly the Skylane through the flare and onto the ground. This was the impression but with hindsight and more experience, that didn’t come at that time, it must be appreciated that the 172 can be flown on at a higher speed margin over the stall, just as the 182 can be held off in the flare to a full stall type touchdown. One thing is for sure, though – due to its nose high ground attitude, care must be taken to get the nose higher still through the flare, to ensure a positive touchdown on the mainwheels only.

For a typical empty weight of 1,640Ib, at its MTOW of 2,950Ib early Skylanes and 182s allowed for a useful load of about 1,300Ib. Four on board and 120Ib of baggage left about 500Ibs for Avgas- pretty well enough for full long-range tanks. Take out the seats and leave some fuel in the bowser and the cargo utilitarian nature of the ‘tri-gear 180’ comes to the fore. Low down below CTA 75% power will pull the Skylane along at a good 140 knots about 650 nautical miles; with a clearance, flight at altitude should yield about an extra hundred.

When it comes to field length the 182’s performance is STOL enough for most bush strips: at MTOW and ISA/SL conditions early 18? Skylanes at 2,950lb maximum gross weight will break wound in a bit over 700ft from start. When the MTOW was increased to 3,100lb the field performance deteriorated somewhat, but at 1,515ft, takeoff distance to 50ft height is still very clearly in the utility band.

The 182 Skylane is a most useful utility transport aircraft with a good power to “”. ‘eight ratio that assists hot and high field performance. Operating costs are noticeably above those of the 172, but if the need exists for a rough strip handler or medium payload haulage over longish ranges, then the 182 should definitely be shortlisted on your used aircraft list (for even more payload, Cessna’s Model 206 extends the qualities). A ten year old Skylane can be listed for about $65-75,000 whilst a two decade old 182 should be acquired for around $44-50,000.