Finishing touches, part deux

We’re still not done! Just when you thought that nothing more could possibly be added, still more tweaks and improvements have been made to the Crossover Classic. When will this end? Probably right up to the time we hand the keys over to the lucky winner.

Some of you may recall that the airplane’s full-fuel payload amounted to a mere 353 pounds–as of a weighing that took place in May. You can thank the extra 24 gallons (worth 144 pounds) in the tip tanks for taking such a big bite out of the payload.

To the rescue came Trolltunes, Inc.’s gross-weight increase supplemental type certificate (STC). By adding the Trolltune STC, max gross takeoff weight jumps 150 pounds–from the stock 182P’s 2,950 pounds to the latest and greatest MTOW of 3,100 pounds. Presto! With a little bit of paperwork the airplane is now graced with a 503-pound full-fuel payload. Now two people and bags can make full use of the airplane’s speed and range. For this, I’d suggest climbing to altitude, dialing back the power a tad, and perhaps using the Mountain High oxygen system to take advantage of tailwinds.

The Trolltune STC does come with some limitations. For example, with the Cobham/S-TEC System Fifty-Five X autopilot aft limits of the center of gravity envelope moves forward one inch. But I’ve done sample loading problems and find this isn’t a grave problem unless you’ve loaded the aft baggage compartment to the max.

The other limitation gives the airplane a maximum landing weight. That weight is 2,950 pounds–the max takeoff weight of the stock Cessna 182P. So if you take off weighing 3,100 pounds, you’d have to fly around long enough to burn off that extra 150 pounds in order to land. Land heavier than 2,950 pounds, and the STC requires an inspection of the landing gear. In all, those limitations are small prices to pay for the extra payload. Do you agree? I thought so.

In other news, AmSafe’s seat-belt airbags are being installed on the two front seats. Let there be no doubt: The AmSafe belts give the Crossover Classic a big safety advantage. Which, of course, we hope no one ever realizes. The AmSafe air bag is enclosed in the lap belt portion of the assembly. On-board sensors detect sudden decelerations, and then the bags inflate, preventing the front seat occupants’ heads, necks, and torsos  from striking the instrument panel and control yokes. The belts meet the 16-g deceleration protection standards set down in FAR Parts 25 and 121.

Air Mod, an AmSafe installation facility and interior shop located at Batavia, Ohio’s Clermont County Airport, will be installing the AmSafe gear–as well as H3R Aviation’s halon fire extinguisher.

PS Engineering has added to the excitement by offering its latest version of its very popular PMA8000BT audio panel. The new version has its function buttons clearly labelled, making their use highly intuitive. The function buttons let you and/or your passengers listen to ATC, music, or intercom transmissions in any combination–plus make telephone calls via the unit’s Bluetooth capability. You’ll be hearing more from us about the PMA8000BT in upcoming reports in AOPA Pilot.

Well, that’s it for now. After N182CX gets its third oil change–and its first with Aeroshell 15W50 semi-synthetic ashless dispersant engine oil–it’s off to Air Mod for those AmSafe belts. With some 45 hours under its belt, the new engine’s oil level has stabilized at the 10-quart level. The time to make the switch from mineral oil to ashless dispersant has arrived!

Many thanks to PS Engineering, Trolltune, AmSafe, and H3R Aviation for these late-breaking, excellent improvements.

46 Responses to “Finishing touches, part deux”

  1. Terry Wighs says:

    Sounds like she is getting and developing a personality…:)

  2. Stephen says:

    Well, I have to say that the wording after “Presto!” left me a little uneasy. The thought that a simple wave of a wand (and $750 in this case) could increase an aircrafts useful load. Can they do that to my bank account? Had it not been for my confidence in the AOPA professionals, I would be gravely concerned. Still, being uneducated of the particular STC, I visited the Trolltune Inc. website. As far as I can tell, Trolltune tests 182s (not for sure how or how many) to see if the aircraft can be safely operated at 3110 ramp and 3100 MTOW. There is limited information as to the extent of the testing. The FAA bought off on it so it must have been more than just a passive test evolution. The thing that is concerning to me is that each 182 has different experiences. Hopefully the logbooks acurately reflect, however it can be hard to tell how assertive an owner has been on corrosion control, or adhering to the current load limits and inflight G limitations. Granted Trolltune has place limits on operating above the manufacturers load limit, and I have a feeling that these limits may be more of an inconvenience. For example the decrease in aft CG limit may require passengers to carry bags under their feet or on their laps. Also the difference in the MTOW from the max landing weight. I’d be pretty upset if, for some reason, I had to burn off $150 worth of gas in order to land within limits. I suppose if you did your own maintenance you could just land overweight. However, the risk of damaging something is there ergo the requirement for a special inspection of the landing gear. You’d easily spend more than the cost of gas should anything be damaged. Either way, it’s expensive. Anyway, I’m not trying to be a nay sayer. I’m simply pointing out the risks of exceeding the manufacturers limitations. Stressing again that AOPA has searched very hard for this aircraft and I’m sure has been very selective. I think this STC would be useful for the owner if he/she needed to go over the normal max weight by 50 lbs or so for special situations, but I certainly wouldn’t fly it at or near 3100 lbs on a regular basis. Besides, the range of an aircraft isn’t limited by fuel, it’s limited by the bladder! :-)

    • Guilherme Plassmann says:

      Did you forget that this machine has an IO550D 300HP in place of old 230HP? this MTOW increase is nothing for this new engine, your concern has no reason

      • Michael says:

        Guilherme, your reply does not make sense. Stephen’s concern is not the engine, it is the airframe.

        • Elvie says:

          i agree with Michael, the engine wont be the problem, you could load this 182 with 4 people and there bags and you will still get it to fly, but if you get into turbulence; the concern would be the strain on the frame. it would not be a problem for me because i dont take a lot of long cross country trips where you would fill those tip tanks to capacity. the new owner (probably me :) will just need to know the weight limits and respect them, it can be regulated by how much fuel you carry so i do not see it as a problem.

  3. Stephen says:

    That’s a good point, but I was refering more to the structural integrity of the airframe than the ability of the new engine to pull it through the air. As a matter of fact, the larger engine means there will be more stresses induced. To reiterate, I’m not saying that the addition of the STC is a bad thing, just pointing out the possible liabilities. I would definitely not turn it down!

    • Bush Pilot says:

      From the Trolltune website… “In 1981, Cessna introduced the 182R model, built until production ended in 1986. Just like our STC does for the 182P and 182Q, Cessna amended their Type Certificate to a 3110 ramp, 3100 MGTOW, and 2950 design landing weight. These numbers remain in place to the present day, even for the later 182S, 182T, and T182T models. Yet, all of the fixed gear 182 airplanes built since 1981 have a narrower CG loading envelope, in fact truncated at the aft limit by 2.5 inches less than the 182P and 182Q airplanes. While we accepted these same limitations for our STC when you operate your airplane at weights above 2950 (it has to do with worst-case stick force requirements), we proposed to FAA that there is no reason why the 182P and 182Q airplanes should not retain their original expanded envelope at weights of 2950 and below. FAA agreed. The result is that incorporating our Fresh Pick STC means that your 1972 to 1980 model Skylane, whether it’s the 182P or the 182Q flavor, will have better loading flexibility and a wider CG envelope than any 182R, 182S, 182T or T182T that ever left the Cessna factory.”

      • Joanna Smith says:

        This is an opinion–The MGTOW is 3100 while the landing is 2950; should there be an emergency just after takeoff (which has been known to happen in aviation a few times) then turning around and landing would only cause further damage to the airplane and possibly increase the risk for an accident.

        Therefore in my opinion the extra 150 lbs should be used as a W&B reserve just as there are fuel reserve requirements for day/night flights. It shouldn’t be used for regular flight planning but great to have when an emergency situation calls for it.

        Personally I thought it was great of the AOPA to take the time and effort to add in the additional weight limits! Way to go AOPA; in my opinion.

        • Brendan says:

          Joanna you are correct in planning for the worst with the emergency after takeoff. This is why I referenced the Swissair flight earlier. Remember that planes(including the 182) are required to demonstrate the ability to land at max TAKEOFF WEIGHT without damage. This is a requirement in certification. So if you took off at MTOW and had an emergency(e.g. total electrical failure), depending on the weather you may not be able to fly around at high power and burn off the 100lbs or more. Landing above MLW may be the better option than letting a smaller problem develop into a major emergency…

        • Brendan says:

          “Therefore in my opinion the extra 150 lbs should be used as a W&B reserve just as there are fuel reserve requirements for day/night flights. It shouldn’t be used for regular flight planning but great to have when an emergency situation calls for it.”

          what emergency situation would you use the 150lbs? So you would have an emergency before takeoff and then load up to 3100lbs???

          • Joanna Smith says:

            Well when you say it like that Brendan—gee whiz!! What I meant was assuming there was an emergency in real life such as a death in the family or a child in a car accident or extra luggage that was an absolute necessity or critical on the return flight, the extra 150 lbs would allow for an extra passenger (child, small adult or that extra luggage).

            Under normal healthy circumstances you simply would you say – next flight you can come or leave the luggage at home.

            I, personally, would only make the call if the plane had been properly maintained and all the inspections performed on schedule as well as making sure everything worked according to the manual before take off. Make more sense now?

  4. Joanna Smith says:

    I have fallen in love with this plane as I know so many have–what is the ceiling? Can it fly over the mountains in Alaska with the new Mountain High Oxygen system that was installed? By the way I’m 4’11″ and have to use a booster seat to fly and I LOVE that you installed foot pedal extensions!!! This plane is awesome! Joanna

  5. Joanna Smith says:

    Also, just to confirm this plane does not have the Flight Into Known Icing Conditions certification, correct?

  6. Brendan says:

    Just remember how often are you going to fill the tanks all the way? If your mission needs this then you need a bigger plane. Max landing weight is just a matter of planning. An hour flight will burn off roughly 100lbs of fuel, so plan accordingly for those rare times that you are taking off above max landing weight. A landing over max landing weight is just a matter of an inspection lets not forget SwissAir…Also this plane is not FIKI certified.

  7. Joanna Smith says:

    Did you mean 10lbs of fuel per hour burn rate or a little over a gallon (8lbs/gallon weight)? I understood the plane to hold only 98 gallons of fuel with the tiptanks at max. I’m only stating this so readers won’t get confused.

    • Brendan says:

      No I meant 100 lbs per hour. If you burn and average of 15 gallons per hour that equates to 90 lbs of fuel/weight. Flight schools top off tanks and I think this teaches mission inflexibility. Now you are limited to what you can carry on your next flight based on a full tank of fuel when you may only need 60 gallons for example. i have never had a problem with corrosion anI agree with another post about proper inspections…

      • Joanna Smith says:

        Please read my apologetic post below; my math was way off–it really was the lack of coffee! Yes, your math was correct–avgas weight 6 lbs/gallon & 15*6=90 lbs.

        Speaking of W&B–I read the full fuel payload was 503 lbs and could carry 98 gallons or 588 lbs. Therefore with the limit being 3100 that means the gross weight is 2009 lbs for the airplane. Flight time is apx. 7 hours with lean-peak performance. I can get anywhere I need to go in the southeast in under 4 hours. This means that you can comfortably decrease your fuel and add in extra passenger payload and use the extra 150 lbs as a reserve.

  8. Cary Alburn says:

    Avgas weighs 6 lbs. per gallon, so burning off 150 lbs. means burning off roughly 25 gallons. At economy cruise, that’s only 2 hours, probably less. Not a big deal, under normal conditions.

    • Joanna Smith says:

      I just read what I wrote, which is why you don’t post first thing in the morning before coffee! Yes, avgas weighs 6lbs per gallon (I’m actually laughing because way back when I got that wrong on my pre-solo written exam and should have known better). That and my math made me look ignorant and possibly stupid. Thank you for your kind response. I appreciate the return reply.

  9. CUNCMBT says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve always been under the impression that tanks should always be topped off after every flight. This prevents the build up of condensation and the problem of water in the fuel…If after every flight you have to top off (or at least when parking over night) this could become quite expensive and time consuming, especially if you’re just looking to do some afternoon patern work..Just a thought. Don’t worry everybody; pretty sure I’m gonna be the one who’s gonna have to deal with this problem anyways.. Just Saying.. (o:

  10. Joanna Smith says:

    I was trained that way as well but as usual real life situations call for something different. It was very common after night flights to come in and the tanks almost empty (reserve) and signature (GA) would be closed for refueling. Then the next day the flight scheduled only required half-fuel capacity to allow for extra weight from the passengers (MGTOW). Only half the time were the tanks ever filled to capacity.

    I asked my more experienced pilots about this and their response was that if the plane is kept maintained and inspections performed on schedule (100-hour & annual) that they never had an issue of condensation or water getting in the tanks. It is however recommended as a precautionary measure and best to top off when possible.

    This has been my experience and please update if anyone feels my statements should be updated or corrected. I’m constantly looking to learn more from those with more experience than myself.

  11. Deonaldi Vargas says:

    Well Joanna Smith from what I can see you have a pretty decent amount of knowledge. Althought you do make mistakes sometimes when it comes to Pounds to Gallons you are surely alot smarter than me when it comes to planes. I was lost for a moment there to tell you the truth but then I was able to come back to Earth and finally realized what you guys were talking about after staring at the computer for 3 minutes. Well for someone like me a 17 year old I do have a decent amount of knowledge when it comes to aircrafts. I am currently in my senior year of High School and right now Iam dedicating my whole summer to flying and flight school. My dream and passion for my future life is to become a pilot one day, going on a cross country tour like from New York to California to Huwaii or maybe going across the sea to places like Europe. Ever since I was a kid, watching movies like pearl harbour was exiting and times were I went to a muesuem of Aircrafts. Also after i graduate from school I’m going to join the Navy or Airforce one of those two to do something I truly love. Woops got off topic =O. O well the point is you are smart and yes there is alot to learn. Also yes to win a plane like that up there is truly wonderful with all the features it has. If anyone is a proffesional when it comes to planes and is willing to help me learn more about aircrafts feel free to email at vargas.don2@hotmail.com and sorry you guys for taking up your time. Thank you.

  12. Deonaldi Vargas says:

    One more thing I would like to say that even though this plane might be expensive in just maintnance alone remeber to start sving all of your money like right now what ever money I am currently earning from my job take at least a big percentage of thay money and save it for any promblem you face and even if i dont win you know that within 6 years of saving all your money you would finally be able to own a plane, with a loan of course.

  13. FlyingTiger says:

    It is possible to land an aircraft overweight and not damage it. It is also possible to land an aircraft within it’s landing weight and damage it. Pilot technique should be to land with minimum sink rate in ALL landings, unless you are landing on a rain soaked runway or a short runway which would require less of a flare in order to get the aircraft on the runway and allow maximum braking to occur ASAP. The rain soaked runway scenario would be to make sure the tires do not hydroplane on surface water. The added MTOW is a great addition to this airplane. It will give the new owner (hopefully me) the option of full fuel +1 pax and bags and a long endurance. You may only use that option once in a blue moon, but it is there when you want it. Cessna did not design the 182 or any other aircraft to be operated on the edge of any safety margin. In other words, they have a built-in safety margin well above a small MTOW increase. That said, this in no way implies one should operate outside of any manufacturer’s operating envelopes or limitations! They put those limits there in order to provide that buffer, fudge factor, safety margin or whatever you would like to call it. Will it stress the airframe more if you take off at the new higher takeoff weight? Yes. Can you do it and be assured it will be safe? Yes, provided you are in the CG envelope and have the performance for the airport you are operating out of or into. The reason we have annual inspections is to look the aircraft over and make sure there are no fatigue cracks, corrosion, loose rivets, etc. as well as perform preventive maintenance/lubrication to wear items. If these are found, appropriate repair and/or preventive maintenance can be performed to insure the aircraft is and will continue to be safe to operate within the manufacturer’s suggested range and limitations. If you choose to operate outside these envelopes set forth from the manufacturer and approved by the FAA, then you become an unpaid test pilot. On the subject of a MTOW takeoff with a need to make an emergency landing, it is possible to land smoothly without damaging the landing gear. The bigger issue could be the brakes. The overweight landing inspection would certainly include a thorough brake inspection to make sure you haven’t overheated or damaged them when stopping with that extra mass. If anyone out there has more concerns, I will be happy to accept the 182 as I think it will be one heck of a sport utility vehicle!

  14. Tom Storli says:

    PREFACE: As I was composing this note, Flying Tiger posted his message of July 12. I agree with those thoughts entirely. I touched on some of those points in my message below, and apologize for repeating some of FlyingTiger’s – but I’m too lazy right now to edit it, so here goes:

    I’d like to try to clear up some concerns or perhaps misunderstandings concerning our gross weight increase STC, beginning with Stephen’s comments of July 7.

    Stephen: “Well, I have to say that the wording after “Presto!” left me a little uneasy.”

    Stephen, it really shouldn’t (and, sorry no, I can’t do that for your bank account :-) ). Most airplane manufacturers, Cessna included, design their airplanes with a much larger loads and structures design margin than that required by the regulations. Why? Because they want to certify a design that will stand up to future needs and requirements, both anticipated and not anticipated, especially concerning weights. Re-design and new certification is horribly expensive and time consuming. In the case of the 182 series, Cessna did just that. Take the legacy 1981-1986 182R for example: 3110 ramp, 3100 takeoff, 2950 landing. Now compare those airplanes with the 1972-1980 182P/Q airplanes: 2960 ramp (some later models), 2950 takeoff, 2950 landing. Did Cessna “beef up” the 182R for the extra 150 pounds? No, not at all. As a matter of fact, except for some minor changes over the years (including reduced wing structure in the later “wet wing” models), the P/Q/R models are IDENTICAL STRUCTURALLY. Cessna made NO changes to allow the extra weight. They simply confirmed it was within the existing design margin. Cessna had really no true incentive to retrofit the thousands of P/Q models already sold, and until our STC came along those models could not be legally flown at the higher weights.

    Our STC effort took over three years and consisted of structural substantiations, new performance analyses, and both in-house and FAA flight testing at the higher weight, including noise substantiation to Part 36 before final FAA (and later European EASA) approval. Tons of reports were written and approved, manuals created, etc. We used a single 1975 C182P model for all the ground and flight testing. Contrary to your impression, we do not “sample test” 182s. Your concern that different 182s may have different maintenance histories is valid, but has little to do with our approval. If the airplane is airworthy, it is perfectly safe at 3100 pounds – if it’s not airworthy, it’s not safe PERIOD – whether at 2950 or any lesser weight. You might also want to note that ALL 182s, per their Type Certificate, are eligible to be flown at 130% of their max gross weight under a Special Flight (“Ferry”) Permit – albeit with certain operating limitations.

    Regarding new limitations and landing weights, you and several others have expressed your thoughts. Here are mine, and they expand a bit on the posting quoting our website (thanks Bush Pilot):

    Yes, at weights above 2950 to 3100, the aft limit goes to 46.0 in, or 2.5 in forward of the original. Does this mean the airplane will be unstable or difficult to control if loaded between 46.0 to 48.5 at max gross? No, it does not. What it DOES do, in the case of a full-flap, full power go around at 3100 pounds, is to take the forward stick (yoke) “push” requirement beyond the certification allowances, and would not be legal. But, you’re not supposed to land or go around at 3100 you say? True, but we never asked FAA to go there because someone COULD get into that situation. Trim, trim, trim ! :-)

    Many STCs come with a reduced envelope CG limitation and, frankly, it is too often ignored. Got an S-TEC autopilot in your 182P/Q? Trim 2.5 in off the ENTIRE aft end, right in line with our limit at 46.0. Got Flint tanks? Cut off another inch, to 45.0. This is not unusual, and I’m certainly not throwing rocks here. In fact, for the AOPA Crossover Classic, the aft limit is due to the Flint tanks whenever fuel is in them (which is probably all the time since there’s a gallon of unusable).

    Landing overweight? I have absolutely NO concerns about that. Which do you think is better, a hard landing at 2950 or a smooth landing at 3100? I’ll take the latter any day. We STRONGLY SUGGEST to our customers that, in an emergency, LAND, don’t bother even thinking about burning off fuel. Experience shows that the worst that can normally happen in an overweight landing is a mis-alignment of the main gear, easily corrected. During flight testing, I made over 20 landings (concrete runway) in our 182P between 3050 and 3100 pounds with NO gear or other damage. (Note we were “Experimental” and thus legal for those ops :-) ). Brendan’s mention of the Swissair tragedy is a lesson for us all – just get it on the ground. Yes, our Instructions for Continued Airworthiness call for inspection after an overweight landing, but that’s just common sense. 182R airplanes have been landed overweight on many occasions over the years with little if any problems (don’t ask me how I know :-) ). Ironically, Cessna does not have any specific procedures nor do they address overweight landings at all for those airplanes.

    Regarding fuel and flight planning: I go with the oft expressed opinion that the only time you can have too much fuel is when you’re on fire. Assuming you load within limits, max fuel is the way to go for all but the shortest flights. You just never know what weather or suddenly closed destination awaits, and the extra endurance (not necessarily range) may be very welcome – personal bladder range not withstanding. :-) This does not apply to our skydiver hauling customers, who really love the extra 150 pounds of “jettisonable payload.”

    Anyway, forgive the length of my diatribe. Good luck to you all at winning N182CX! The downside of my contribution to AOPA is that I now have no chance of winning it. :-( Cheers, Tom

    • Stephen says:

      Thanks Mr. Storli for all that great information! I have been a Cost Guard Aviation Maintenance Technitian for almost 18 years. That being said, I enjoy knowing the whys and hows behind the STCs and such. I know that AOPA and Trolltune (and the FAA for that matter) wouldn’t allow for unsafe practices. I’m afraid that I may have come off as skeptical, however, it was just the wording “presto!” I know it was supposed to add an atmosphere of excitement. It kinda freaked me out a little. I have seen the H-60 go from HH-60J to MH-60T and from the new kid to middle aged (for the CG anyway) and how those frequent inpections start actually turning up more and more discrepancies. I know how age adversely affects the airframe and know how hard the Coast Guards Aging Aircraft Division works to counter the effects of age. Now I’m on the newest airframe, the HC-144 Ocean Sentry, and already the plane is presenting its own maintenance challenges. Granted, the military uses its aircraft so much more than your typical GA aircraft. So, that is a little bit of why I may have been cautious. Deep down I knew that Trolltunes didn’t really wave a magic wand, but I appreciate you humoring me and going a little more into the details specific to the STC! I tell you what, I’ll let you fly it when I get it ok? ;-)

  15. Joanna Smith says:

    Tim, thank you for your time, effort and very well thought out post! I really enjoyed reading it and found it very informative.

    I have a new question speaking about all the various limits, has the plane received it’s new AROW and does it come with a MEL? Since there have been so many improvements I’m positive the limits have been changed since the original. But has the paperwork been updated as well to compensate for it?

    Airworthiness Certificate, Registration Certificate, Owner’s Flight Manual, Weight & Balance, Minimum Equipment List (if applicable).

    Thank you, all the talk above just made me a bit curious.

    • Tom Storli says:

      Joanna, thank you – I’ve enjoyed reading your earlier posts as well.

      Yes, as far as I know, all the proper paperwork has been completed along the way. Tom Horne knows his stuff and pays attention to the right details. Here some specifics:

      MEL – Just as most light pistons, these airplanes do not have a specific Minimum Equipment List like the larger craft unless required by special Ops Specs. In lieu of an MEL, the FARs do have specific “required equipment and instruments” regs for both VFR and IFR flight. For example, you can’t legally take off with a broken or missing airspeed indicator. Part 91.205 lists other items required AND required to be operable. An MEL, on the other hand, is more like a “get out of jail free” card for larger operators/airplanes allowing dispatch with one or more inoperable items. It actually gets a bit complex (see Part 91.213).

      Airworthiness Certificate: The existing cert is valid as long as the airplane is always returned to service in accordance with Part 43 after each major mod/alteration.

      Registration Certificate: As you know, AOPA changed the “N” number to N182CX. I don’t know for sure whether the final hard copy is in the airplane yet, but the pink copy of the application is OK for ops until then (at least in the US only).

      Owner’s Flight Manual: There’s a ton of confusion and misinformation out there concerning this. Let me try to narrow it down a bit: 182s have either a Cessna Owners Manual (OM, 1956-1975), Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH, 1976-1978), or Pilot’s Operating Handbook and Airplane Flight Manual (POH/AFM, 1979-on). Unless referenced by some installed STC, none of these are FAA Approved and required equipment EXCEPT the POH/AFM – it is serialized and must be carried in the airplane at all times. (Cessna also sells “Information Manuals”, copies of the AFM but not legal to replace it). Of course, required or not, there’s no good reason to leave the manual at home. N182CX came from the factory in 1974 with an OM – skimpy stuff compared to the later POHs & AFMs. It’s a “placard” airplane.

      Enter AOPA with multiple, neat as can be, STC’d upgrades. Each comes with it’s own “Supplemental Airplane Flight Manual” (SAFM), otherwise known as an “Airplane Flight Manual Supplement” (AFMS) for the later airplanes. Get’s a bit sticky now, eh? Especially given that each of these supplements IS REQUIRED onboard and may indeed reference the OM, making IT required. And, lest you think we’re not having enough fun yet, these supplements tend to disagree in some areas of performance and limitations.

      Since we don’t want the winner to be scratching his or her head trying to interpret all of these issues, we’ve put together a, albeit
      unofficial but certainly useful, “Pilot’s Guide” that explains it all in one place.

      Weight and Balance: W&B and Equipment list for N182CX is required and provided as a separate document from the OM, fully updated and will likely be accompanied by a convenient interactive W&B spreadsheet specific to this airplane.

      There are quite a few other considerations, as Tom Horne has and will likely tell us more about. Sure will be interesting to see who wins this wonderful machine, eh?

      Cheers,

      Tom S.

  16. Mickey says:

    So amazing…

    Do you have to be in attendance at the summit to be eligible?

    Will the winner be notified prior to the summit?

    Crosses fingers*

    • Joanna Smith says:

      I actually was interested in the above as well–do you have to attend to be eligible? My first thought is no since everyone who is a member of the aopa by 7/31 is entered and I know not everyone will be in attendance. Still it would be nice to confirm. According to the magazine the date of the drawing will be on September 23rd during the summit. As for notification I’m curious about that one myself. Will the winner be notified the same day by phone/email?

  17. I have come up with a new STC (Start The Calculations) that is for free. To land legally you can reduce the landing weight in other ways, without burning off fuel. Do you have full oil? Do you use a quart size container to sump your tanks? Did you eat your carry on lunch, and drink that bottle of water? Opps, this mite only count if your a passenger on a airliner. Was the tank top-off in hot weather? Can your luggage, fit though the passengers window, to lighten the load after discharge to a safe green pasture? Did you leave all the Charts at home because of your electronic devices? And last but not lest, has the weights changed of you and your passenger. Because you skipped meals trying to save-up to pay for this event.

    • Brendan says:

      I have ferried planes with installed ferry tanks, including 182s, with NO STC for an increase in MTOW. All the FAA does is give you a Ferry permit. On each landing there is NO inspection performed and you are landing over weight multiple times. I have never thrown out anything to reduce landing weight. Now just think about this; now you have an approved maintenance procedure for inspecting the airplane after a landing above MLW. Why would you throw anything out?

      • Joanna Smith says:

        Maybe it was just me but I read Don’s post as a tribute to sarcasm. Was he actually serious when he made those suggestions? Let’s hope not!

  18. Second thoughts, free STC (Start The Calculations). Luggage discharge to reduce landing weight mite not be a good idea. You know, those FAR’s, mite hit stabilizer, mite not be retrievable beyond airport boundaries. I was thinking about my younger days of aeronautical experiences, 46 years ago.

  19. Daryl Davis says:

    Here is a fun question, I read the rules.
    I am not Canadian, but it regards Canadians.
    If a Canadian wins the Aircraft (and they will not cause I will) They have to take a math test.
    Why?

  20. Tom Storli says:

    Daryl, something to do with taxes (GST?), Quebec, or re-registration in Canada? Hmmm, give us another clue. :-)

    Tom

  21. Michael Byler says:

    Doing some training at Salisbury yesterday, I got to get a good look at the plane… It’s a beautiful plane and I’m pretty sure she wants to stay at Rowan Co:) -Michael

  22. Bob Siguaw says:

    I’m pleased that after thirty one years away from aviation I chose this year to return and join AOPA and have a shot at ownership of the Crossover Classic. I had a dream last night that this beautiful plane was snug in my hanger.

  23. Bob Siguaw says:

    I’m pleased that after thirty one years away from aviation I chose this year to return and join AOPA and have a shot at ownership of the Crossover Classic. I had a dream last night that this beautiful plane was snug in my hanger.

  24. Eddie says:

    I am in love with this airplane! I can’t wait to win it! (thinking positively, aka the secret)
    What a superior list of detail, care, and fun you all have wrapped into an airplane that had so much potential only you all could have truly realized so quickly! Great job AOPA.

  25. Tom Storli says:

    This is in reply to Stephen’s posting of 16 July:

    Stephen, when you wrote “I tell you what, I’ll let you fly it when I get it ok?”, a great big smile graced my face, along with a wish that you do, indeed, win the airplane ! Because, you see, I am going to hold you to that promise. :-)

    I really do understand your concerns. Aging aircraft and long term fatigue are issues not to be ignored. The Hawaiian “737 convertible” comes to mind, and that certainly got the industry’s attention. Thankfully, simple airplanes like the 182 series have suffered few, if any at all, serious failures attributed to age / fatigue – given proper inspection and maintenance. And, unless you tell me different, I suppose that Coast Guard helos (H-60 / HH-60J / MH-60T), and certainly the newer HC-144 fixed-wing, have never suffered serious related issues either. (Since this perhaps takes us off topic a little bit, you and other participants in this thread are welcome to discuss related themes with me via E-mail at: tom at trolltune dot com).

    Getting back to 182 airplanes, there’s never been a question that our 182s are indeed beefy and capable of carrying very large loads. If we consider the “design margin” built into the airframes for a moment (only Cessna knows exactly what that margin actually is, but it’s probably better than 150% of these numbers): At a max gross permitted weight of 3100 pounds, the 182′s certification in the NORMAL category suggests that it can handle, flaps up, a 3.8G loading. This means 3100 X 3.8 = 11,780 pounds ! Now, under the Type Certificate I mentioned earlier, the airplane is allowed 130% of 3100, or 4030 pounds, but with a positive “G” limitation of 2.5G loading, i.e., 10,075 pounds.

    Certainly, there are more issues to consider here, but I think this may bring a certain perspective. Can we go beyond 3100? Several of Cessna’s good customers for new 182T / T182T airplanes have begged for this, but I personally doubt it will happen (I could be wrong). I believe it has to do with a certification requirement regarding asymetrical wing loading. (Float equipped 182s are a special case).

    Cheers,

    Tom

  26. Mike Finkle says:

    Good Day Everyone,

    As a nearly 30-year overall and former airline pilot with lots of varied flight experience, education, and certifications (Degrees in Aeronautics, Biology, and Automotive Technology, ATP AMEL with a couple of type ratings, Commercial ASEL, BGI, AGI, IGI, CFII MEI, and around 12,000 flight hours), I thought I’d add a little more to the posted information.

    Hopefully, Tom eloquently (and yet light-heartedly) alleviated any concerns or fears expressed regarding the 150-pound max takeoff weight increase allowed via the Trolltune STC. This equates to only about a 5% increase from the aircraft’s original approval and, as has been thoroughly discussed, equals Cessna’s own increase in subsequent model production aircraft which was approved by the FAA without any structural changes, whatsoever, to the earlier models’ original design. As Tom also pointed out, “banging it on” in a hard landing at the lower weight creates FAR more stress upon the airframe and landing gear that even a “rough” landing while at the higher “over gross” landing weight that would occur in a return to airport at close to max takeoff weight in the event of some shortly-after-takeoff emergency. Another thought to consider is that while it may seem a little unusual to the average “newly-minted” light-aircraft GA pilot to have a max landing weight that is less than the max takeoff weight, I assure you it is the NORM, NOT the exception, in even slightly heavier GA aircraft and virtually ALL military and/or airline aircraft. So if nothing else, learning to factor in your fuel burn to destination and the resultant CG and landing weight considerations is GREAT practice for moving up to even slightly “bigger iron” (like even a 1976 Cessna 310R with a max takeoff of 5,500 pounds and a max landing of 5,400 pounds).

    The certification weight limitations of any aircraft are actually related to expected or anticipated stress loads while in operation… not the weight itself. During development testing, static loads of the wings and other structures (engine mounts, etc.) are added and tested that FAR exceed final approval limitations. The sole purpose of this “intentional overloading” is to absolutely ensure the safety of the aircraft and its occupants in its normal ground and flight operations envelopes by building in very large “fudge factors”. For example, I’ll bet that, while simply parked in the chocks, you could carefully and gingerly “statically” load an additional two or three times its max gross takeoff weight onto and into this 182 without doing any damage to it at all, but I sure wouldn’t want to try to take off or land with it in that load configuration (*_^) !

    Aircraft are routinely greatly overloaded in making one-time ferry flights to distant overwater destinations (such as flying from Van Nuys airport in southern California to deliver a GA aircraft… like a 182… to Hawaii), and this is completely approved by the FAA. Further still, in fact, if you check (the rather obscure) FAR 91.323, you will find that under certain circumstances some aircraft may even be approved by the FAA to receive a maximum certificated weight increase to “115 percent of the maximum weight listed in the FAA aircraft specifications” for regular everyday operations simply through the Administrator’s approval, more or less.

    Again, has been stated in other posts, I would NEVER suggest that any pilot should “self-approve” operations which exceed ANY approved operating parameters UNLESS necessary to meet a true emergency situation (and in such a situation his or her “emergency authority” completely allows that choice). However, as Tom and others have, I hope, so clearly pointed out, this aircraft is EXTREMELY safe at its newly-certificated increased max takeoff weight. If you ever had to return to the airport to land in excess of its max landing weight, just make it a nice one!… and then get it inspected as required by the STC… even though there’s probably not a snowball’s chance in H— that there will be any problem found, whatsoever.

    I always enjoy the respectful exchange of opinions and information in these posts, and I’m very glad to see that we still have a “new crop” of pilots making their way up into that great world of aviation we share despite our current economic woes. For those of you still near your aviation beginnings, welcome to what I believe the absolutely greatest club to which you’ll EVER belong… we’re glad to have y’all with us!

    … but I’m sorry to inform you that N182CX is coming out to POC in sunny southern California if I have MY way (*_^)!!!

  27. Nellie says:

    I think the plane should come to Canada this year !!

  28. D Richardson says:

    Living in the Washington, DC area and knowing the proximity of the AOPA Headquarters in Frederick, MD (Redskin Country)…..I can’t help but notice the Crossover 182 wearing the burgundy and gold of the Washington Redskins. Go Skins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  29. Dave says:

    To prevent condensation, we’re supposed to top off the tanks after every flight. If I’m going to do this, how do I achieve all this flexibility? How in the world do I take 200 pounds of gas out of the airplane so I can carry 4 adults on a short trip? Is there an STC for valves to defuel this airplane in any helpful way?

Leave a Reply

*