Are P, Q and Rs really off road capable?

More
6 days 14 hours ago #3721 by STEVE ELLS
Replied by STEVE ELLS on topic Are P, Q and Rs really off road capable?
Hi Bill;
The higher MTOW of the later models does not mean those have a greater useful load than the earlier flat gear models.

As Cessna continued to load the 182 models with more and more amenities the MTOW had to be increased to continue to provide at least as much useful load as the earlier, lighter airplanes.

Check out the EW on a 1966 182J (1621) compared to a '79 182Q (1754)

I owned a 1966 182J for a while. It fit my mission because it had the long range tanks (I believe it held 84 gallons of fuel), and was easy to fly.

I suggest you look for a clean no corrosion flat spring gear airplane if you can find one.
I say corrosion free because unfortunately Cessna did not apply any type of corrosion proofing to any of its singles prior to re starting production in 1996. A few float planes had zinc chromate sprayed on the interiors by special order but it was not common.

In my opinion, a corrosion free airframe 182 will be the "rate-determining" step.

The early 182s were the best performers but were limited by limited fuel (65 gallons) It was upped to an optional 84 gallons in 1962, with the major fuselage redesign.

The 71 has an increased MTOW to 2950 (all from '62 on were 2800). The tubular gear started in '72.

Keep in touch,

Steve

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • William Schwab
  • William Schwab's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Subscriber
  • Subscriber
More
1 week 1 day ago #3720 by William Schwab
Replied by William Schwab on topic Are P, Q and Rs really off road capable?
Thanks Steve,
I have read that article many times, it is sort of an inspiration for me.
That said, most of the back country planes I have seen and have read about have been earlier models with flat spring steel gear. I'm interested in a later model with the round tube main gear.
Of course, I may be over thinking the whole issue due to the fact that the highest Gross Weight model have the round tube main gear. Probably be alright!

Enjoy yourself down under.
Bill.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
1 week 1 day ago #3719 by STEVE ELLS
Replied by STEVE ELLS on topic Are P, Q and Rs really off road capable?
Hi William;
I suggest you read this article:
www.cessnaflyer.org/cessna-singles/cessn...rt-landing-gear.html .

It will provide some answers.

Unfortunately that's all the information I can provide right now to your question. I'm in New Zealand on vacation'

Call or contact Hitchcock Aviation for the answer.

Best,

Steve

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • William Schwab
  • William Schwab's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Subscriber
  • Subscriber
More
1 week 4 days ago #3717 by William Schwab
Are P, Q and Rs really off road capable? was created by William Schwab
Hi all,
I'm in the preliminary stages of looking to upgrade from a Beech Sundowner to a 182. With that said, I do want to do some grass strip, off airport flying. I don't think gravel sand bars or rock strewn wagon trails are in my future tho.
So my question is, are the later P, Q and R models with the tube gear legs really OK for operations on turf? Or do I NEED to go hard core spring steel gear N model and earlier?
I already have the rest of the recipe figured out, just not sure where to start.

Many thanks.
Bill.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.120 seconds