Comments on: Sorry, no STOL kit

By: thorne

thorne — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 14:36:04 +0000

Dan–

Sure. We couldnt install every mod we wanted to, however.

Tom

By: Dan Dewsnup

Dan Dewsnup — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:41:41 +0000

Have you considered Microaerodynamic’s VG kit for the Cessna 182? Easier to install (company advertises “one day installation”), less weight, and potentially better crosswind and slow speed control on final without the potential disadvantages you’ve pointed out. I also own a C182 (Q model) with the IO-550 conversion, and am considering this. It would be very interesting to know your opinions also. Thanks!

By: Bill K.

Bill K. — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:52:52 +0000

You could put Vortex generators on the 182. I can attest they give lots a bang for the buck
Without all the work of installing a STOL

By: Cark McQuillen

Cark McQuillen — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 14:11:56 +0000

You made absolutely the right call. The peterson kit is neat but this airplane simpley does not need it.
The best feature of the package is the speed. You do not need any extra parts hanging out to add any drag.
Like you noted this is STOL all on ot’s own. I have owned a Air Plains 182M 300HP for 1500 trouble free HRs.
You have to be a real meathead to get in trouble with this airplane. Any trouble, throttle wide open the issue instantly
goes away. I have all the speed fairings ,wingtips,nose gear fairing etc, its fast. Cessna should have built this airplane.
I talked to them a couple of times and they told me they could not understand why anyone would want more power in a 182. Especially since they brought it back with the 540 they could have easily built a 160Kt airplane and saved some of those customers from jumping ship to Cirrus. Good call , great airplane.

By: ginny wilken

ginny wilken — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 02:24:23 +0000

I hope you would consider adding instead the MicroDynamics vortex generators. The expense is a tiny fraction of the STOL kit, yet the results are very similar, without the added weight and drag. They are a lovely and appropriate addition to the Skylane, adding extra lift and lower speed to the landings, and a heap of rudder authority, making it feel like a straight-tail.

The Skylane is the model owned by Charles White, president of MicroDynamics, for years, and he said the difference when adding the VGs was nothing short of amazing, as his newer slant-tail plane was virtually transformed back to the older one he had so loved.

Need I add that they make it a lot easier to hold the nos up on landing?

Up here in the NW, they are de riguer for any serious plane, and would certainly be a fitting final adornment for your project plane.

Thanks!

By: CJ D'Antonio

CJ D'Antonio — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:31:15 +0000

I think you didn’t heed your own good advice; “Don’t get carried away” which is percisely what you did with the IO-550 gas hog conversion.

With reference to your January 2011 issue AOPAPILOT, First Flights article pg 85, your fuel burn, ICT to ABQ was a “Whopping” 19.4 gph turning in 162 KTAS. By the book, my ’78 182Q (@ 6000 ft, 23 degrees C and 70% power burns 12.0 gph and 140 KTAS. With a simple JPI 450 totalizer, I reduce the fuel burn to 11.3 gph. At Cutter Aviation where you fueled at $6.10 per gallon, your cost per hour between the two cessna’s is a “Whopping” $49.41 an hour more. I wonder what Skylane owner sees the utility in those numbers for 22 kTS; slight tailwind component notwithstanding.

I sure hope I win the corssover sweepstakes, I’ll scrap that gas hog for an IO-470

By: H G Kissinger

H G Kissinger — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:22:37 +0000

What about adding the flap/aileron gap seals to the 182?

By: H G Kissinger

H G Kissinger — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:20:10 +0000

What about a flap/aileron gap seals?

By: James C. Bingham

James C. Bingham — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:17:15 +0000

If I am not the winner, I will be more than happy to pay the taxes, etc. and take it off the hands of the winner if they are unhappy about it not having the STOL kit.

By: Bill Davidson

Bill Davidson — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:21:55 +0000

I’ve been an instrument rated private pilot for 30 years. 1800 Hrs total time in a mix of aircraft.

In the original 182 airframe, the Horton STOL kit made a TREMENDOUS improvement in low speed handling. I owned one for about 200 of those 1800 hrs, and I can assure you it was a dramatic diference.

If youloook at the leading edge of the “newer” 182 compared to the Horton, I agree there is much less change. It would appear Cessna and Horton had the same idea about the wing.

My time in newer 182s is very limited. As you have access to both, I would ask you to look at the handling characteristics in the flair – regardless of field length. I felt the Horton kit made a dramatic difference in the B model 182 I owned.