Classic Cessna

When offered the chance to fly a 2003 Cessna 182T – the last of the avgas burning 182 models – I jumped at the opportunity. I’d only flown a 182 once before (and that was about 25 years ago) and it had been a ‘D’ model, built in 1961. Although externally they looked very similar, there are actually quite a few differences. For example, although for many years 182s were powered by the Continental O-470, when thetype re-entered production as the 182S it used Lycoming’s O-540. Like many of us, the Skylane has also put on some weight over the years – the original 182’s MAUW was 1,157kg, while the test aircraft’s is 1,411kg. However, note that this is the maximum ramp weight – MTOW is 1,406kg, while the maximum landing weight is 1,338kg.

Moving around the aircraft revealed no unusual design features. Indeed, from the cantilever tapered steel tube main undercarriage to the tip of its swept-back fin, the Skylane’s looks are classic Cessna. Although the fundamental design has remained essentially the same over the last six decades, a considerable number of changes have been implemented, such as different engines, a swept tail, changing to electrically-actuated flaps, reducing flap travel from 40 to 30 degrees and a cut-down rear fuselage.

Many of these changes were introduced at a time whenCessna’s advertising copywriters’ imaginations were given free rein. For instance, along with the imaginatively titled ‘Omni-Vision’ rear window, a ‘Powermatic’ Skylane also featured a ‘Land-O-Matic’ undercarriage and a ‘Nav-O-Matic’ autopilot. All these strange terms must have been symptomatic of something, but what? Anyway, despite the numerous changes over the years, the wing retains the same NACA 2412 aerofoil section used on all previous 182s, and even going as far back as the Model 170. It features a constant-chord centre section and tapered outer panels.

Even during the preflight inspection I noticed several subtle but significant changes. Firstly, I thought that the build quality and overall finish was noticeably superior to some of the Cessnas that I’ve flown – and especiallythose built in the 1960s and ’70s. It really is very well made and beautifully finished. An interesting facet was that when I extended the flaps during the preflight inspection they functioned very smoothly. Unlike most of the other Cessnas I’ve flown, the single-slotted flaps didn’t extend in a series of shuddering jerks, but smoothly and cleanly. However, it seemed to me that they did move slower – this may be a conscious design decision, as it makes it easier to trim out the changes in pitch trim with flap extension.

Entry to the cockpit is via two large, car-type doors, a welcome feature is the courtesy lights built under each wing. A small hatch on the port side provides access to the capacious baggage area, which is accessible in flight. The Skylane was already beginning to make a very positive impression, and having settled into the pilot’s seat this trend continued. Firstly, the door shut the way anexpensive vehicle’s door should shut – smoothly and positively. It is no longer necessary to slam it – a gentle pressure shuts the door perfectly satisfactorily. Upon settling onto the comfortable leather seat I was very impressed by the high level of interior trim. The cabin is extremely plush and has that lovely leather smell reminiscent of a new car. The car-type analogy is compounded with the new Skylane, as it is now fitted with inertia reel seatbelts. A three-point inertia reel harness has replaced the ghastly arrangement fitted to earlier Cessnas. It is a significant improvement, but I will always prefer at least four-point.

The front seats offer a considerable amount of adjustment both fore-and-aft and vertically, so there is no excuse for not being perfectly comfortable. The vertical adjustment is particularly welcome, as the glareshield is mounted quite high. It was also interesting to note that the locking pinholes for longitudinal adjustment are now drilled through the seat rail horizontally rather than vertically. This is a much more positive system and a superior design to that found on earlier models. Indeed, the old system was known to have caused several accidents, when an incorrectly locked seat slipped backwards during takeoff. I would guess that most pilots transition to the 182 from a 152 or 172, and Cessna has done a good job in retaining a considerable amount of cockpit commonality between the three aircraft although, of course, the Skylane is much better equipped. The flight and engine controls are all well laid out and easily accessible. The pilot’s yoke has buttons for autopilot disconnect, pitch trim and PTT, and also features a handy approach plate holder, while the rudder pedals are a good size and feature a nice step for the toe-actuated hydraulic disc brakes. Directly below the pilot’s control yoke is the rotary magneto/starter switch and a split rocker-type master switch. A neat row of easily accessible

The Skylane’s handling is best described as ‘steady’ as opposed to ‘sparkling’.

circuit breakers are located above a logically-grouped row of toggle switches for the electrical services, with a large rocker switch functioning as the avionics master. The centre stack consists of an extremely comprehensive suite of avionics, with plenty of room on the right of the panel for a neat glove/map box. The engine instruments are logically grouped, although being purely analogue they did seem a bit old fashioned. Furthermore, it is not easy to see the tachometer and manifold pressure gauge as they are behind the yoke.

An annunciator panel built into the glareshield warns of low fuel in either tank, low suction on either of its two vacuum pumps, low voltage and low oil pressure. The glareshield also incorporates a very neat fluorescent tube, which lights up the instrument panel. And for added comfort, the cockpit has lots of air vents and a pair of handy Rosen sun visors.

The six primary flight instruments are nicely grouped directly in front of the pilot. Perhaps the most immediate difference from the D model that I flew was that the directional gyro has been replaced with a very nice horizontal situation indicator (HSI). The HSI and autopilot are both coupled to the GPS, which is the very capable Bendix/King KLN 94. When I first flew with this system I thought the full-colour moving map endowed the pilot with phenomenal situational awareness, but as these days I’m more familiar with the G1000 (which is the system fitted to new Skylanes) it did actually look slightly dated. Moving on to the power controls, Cessna continues to use the plunger arrangement for the throttle, prop and mixture controls, and while I prefer a proper quadrant, this system does have the advantage of freeing up space between the seats. Another advantage is that Vernier-type controls can make for very accurate selection of prop speed and mixture.

The flap selector and its collocated position indicator are just to the right of the mixture control. A column that drops down from the centre of the panel carries the trim wheels for the rudder and elevator, plus the cowl flap lever. Also mounted on the centre column is exactly the same type of microphone that has been fitted to just about every Cessna I’ve ever flown. The fuel selector is located between the front seats and has four positions – left, right, both and off. Its design is an improvement on fuel selectors in earlier Cessna aircraft because it is impossible to turn the fuel off without first pushing down on the selector. Maximum fuel capacity is 348 litres, of which 330 is useable. This struck me as rather a lot of unusable fuel for a wet-wing (no fuel tank bladder) system. I suspect that Cessna has been – wisely – very conservative with this particular number.

There is a useful chart case and dual cup holder aft of the fuel valve.

I was very impressed with the overall condition of the test aircraft (it really is immaculate), which is owned by Cambridge Aero Club, hangared at Cambridge Airport and meticulously maintained by its own specialist light aircraft maintenance facility. Having checked me out, the club’s Luke Hall jumped into the 172 camera ship with photographer Keith Wilson while one of Luke’s senior instructors, Cat Spooner and Keith’s youngest son Ollie joined me in the 182.

Unlike earlier models, the new Skylanes feature a fuel injection system, so starting is simply a matter of priming with the electric fuel pump, before closing both thethrottle and mixture controls and engaging the starter. The engine fired almost instantaneously and with the mixture reset to ‘rich’ it soon settled down to a very smooth 1,000rpm. Taxiing out to Cambridge’s long runway the Skylane rolled along with a very stately air and a purposeful feel. All of Cessna’s trikes have benign ground handling and the combination of powerful, progressive differential brakes and positive nose wheel steering makes taxiing perfectly straightforward. The pre-takeoff checks were entirely standard and although 10 degrees of flap are recommended for short field takeoffs, with a long smooth runway that is directly into wind I chose to take off with flaps up. The Skylane ran straight and true, with very little rudder required to track the centreline. In fairness, it should be noted that we were operating some way below the maximum takeoff weight, but I really must say that the acceleration was quite impressive. After a very short ground roll, a positive rotationat 60 knots saw the Skylane literally leap off the ground and claw its way skyward. The published best rate of climb speed is 80kt and as the needle of the ASI swept towards this, and the VSI showed a climb rate in excess of 1,000ft/min the nose seemed rather high, somewhat reducing our forward visibility – so in deference to Cambridge’s fairly crowded skies, I lowered the nose and tweaked the pitch trim until the ASI indicated 90kt. The Skylane continued its imperious climb at a very impressive rate and we were soon closing on the Cessna 172 camera ship.

Sliding into formation with the 172 soon revealed that the Skylane’s handling is best described as ‘steady’ as opposed to ‘sparkling’. The rudder has a slightly spongy feel, possibly due to the nose wheel steering system, and while the elevator is fine (albeit on the heavy side) the ailerons are rather indifferent, making lateral control little more than adequate. On reflection, it may well have been Cessna’s deliberate intention to limit roll authority. In the 1960s and 1970s, Cessna and Piper vied with each other to produce car-like flying machines which could be easily flown by any pilot of average ability. In this aim they undoubtedly succeeded, for the 182 is certainly a very safe flying machine, although perhaps not the most inspiring.

However, as with just about everything in aviation, it’s context that matters, and as soon as we had completed the shoot I began to evaluate the aircraft in the role for which it had been designed. This soon revealed that – as a means of moving four people and their baggage – it is quite an efficient machine. At 4,000ft I levelled out, closed the cowl flaps, set the power controls to “24 squared” (2,400rpm and 24 inches of manifold pressure)and trimmed forward. The ASI soon settled on an IAS of 136kt, for a TAS of 142kt while burning around 53 litres per hour. Pretty thirsty, but a more representative cruise of say 2,200rpm/18in manifold pressure at 12,000ft uses 39lit/hr for a TAS of 128kt.

Of more relevance is that the Skylane can operate from fairly short strips. Although the Cirrus and Cessna TTX are considerable faster than the 182, they both needa reasonable length of tarmac, and it’s no good blatting along at 200kt if you have to land miles from your destination. This isn’t such a big deal in the USA, which has a lot of hard-surfaced runways, but in the rest of the world the runway nearest your eventual destination may well be unpaved. Bearing in mind that this machine can takeoff and land from relatively short strips, and transport four adults and a considerable amount ofbaggage at this speed, I began to appreciate why the Skylane is such a popular aircraft. It’s a bit like a flying Range Rover – sufficiently plush to take a client to a business meeting in, but also able to go ‘off piste’ when necessary.

And an examination of the handling soon revealed another reason for its success – it flies very much like its smaller brothers. Despite being an extremely capable aircraft, it is very easy to fly. Indeed, anyone who has flown 152s and 172s would soon feel at home in the 182, with the only obvious differences (apart from the larger cabin and higher cruise speed) being the cowl flaps and constant speed prop.

The overall feel of the Skylane is that it provides a very smooth, steady ride, with the emphasis more on stability than control. It is positively stable around all three axes and the longitudinal stability seemed particularly strong, but this might have been because of our forward C of G. I always prefer to hand-fly the aircraft I am flight testing as much as possible, but as this is a real ‘going places’ machine, you’ll not be surprised to learn that the autopilot is a very capable two-axis system which can be slaved to the GPS.

Slowing down to explore the stall revealed it to be a complete nonevent.

Flaps up, the stall warner started bleating at around 55kt and was accompanied by some mild buffet, although the wing showed a distinct reluctance to stall until, at around 50kt, the nose nodded and then dropped slightly. With full flap and a bit of power it never really reached a true aerodynamic stall, it merely mushed with a high sink rate at around 40kt. Stall recovery, like the rest of the Skylane’s handling, is very easy.

Back in the circuit I became more aware of the blind spot inherent in most high-wing designs, but the very easy handling continued to shine through. The first stage of flap can be lowered at a usefully high 140kt, and judicious use of the cowl flaps helps to keep cylinder head temperatures in the green.

Seventy knots seemed about right for our weight and with those fantastic Fowler flaps (in my opinion still the best ever fitted to a GA aircraft) adding plentyof lift and drag controlling the approach was easy. Somewhat bafflingly (and despite the ‘Land- O-Matic’ undercarriage) I never made a really smooth touchdown in the Cessna 182T. Having been flying several vintage taildraggers recently, I think that I was just trying too hard, and that instead of trying for as slow a touchdown speed as possible I should’ve just flared and then ‘presented the undercarriage to the ground’! After a few more circuits, I perused the performance charts in Luke’s office. The useful load is 517kg, giving the pilot plenty of flexibility when planning. Even with full fuel there is still 267kg to be divided between passengers and cargo, while putting an 80kg adult male on each of the four seats still leaves enough fuel for a range in excess of 500 miles at a reasonable speed. And remember, when you get to wherever you’re going, you don’t need a long tarmac runway.

In closing, I now fully understand why, when Cessna decided to get back into producing piston-powered aircraft, the 182 was one of the three models it chose. Although I’d approached the test with a slightly jaundiced air (it is quite astonishing that a near 60-year old design is still in production) I must admit that the Skylane did eventually win me over. Basically, it does what it does well. Indeed, the airframe remains essentially sound, its biggest weakness is the rather thirsty engine – solved by the new Turbo Skylane JT-A.

Powered by a 227hp (169kW) SMA SR305-230 diesel engine, fuelled by Jet A-1, the JT-A was launched at the 2012 EAA AirVenture at Oshkosh and has replaced both the 182T and turbocharged T182T Turbo Skylane in the Cessna singleengine line-up. It promises new life for this old favourite.

Cessna 182T
Technical
specifications

Powerplant
Textron-Lycoming IO-540
AB1-A5 air-cooled flat-six,
producing 230hp (172kW)
at 2,400rpm driving a
McCauley metal three-blade
constant-speed prop
Performance
VNE 175kt
Cruise 140kt
Stall 41kt
Rate of climb 925ft/min
Takeoff to 15m 450m
Land over 15m 415m
Weights
Empty 894kg
Max AUW 1,411kg
Useful load 517kg
Fuel capacity 348 litres
Dimensions
Wing span 10.90m
Length 8.83m
Height 2.80m
Wing area 16.2m2