Members only

Please log in to access. Not a member yet? Join now for great benefits like parts locating and premium content.

Sorry, we currently have no events.
View All Events
JOHN QUIMBY replied to the topic 'Cowl Flap Bushing?' in the forum. 11 hours 1 minute ago

Steve - thanks found it on various online sites thanks to your help. Ended up finding it on Cessna Direct for $29 vs. Spruce for $39. The only strange thing is they put hold on your credit card for $100 until they determine shipping, seems a bit old school. Thanks for the help.


JOHN QUIMBY thanked STEVE ELLS in topic Cowl Flap Bushing? 11 hours 12 minutes ago
STEVE ELLS replied to the topic '78 182RG Gear Fault' in the forum. yesterday

Hi Nick;
As I re read your post, I realized I missed some things you wrote. Such as, the reservoir was full.
When I read "I first heard then saw the ammeter cyclically pegging to the left," I wondered if the there might be a problem with a high electrical load on the charging system, which could cause the cycling ammeter needle. But that seems pretty remote especially since modern avionics don't require much electrical power. One thing that we have seen over the years sometimes is missed is a failed diode in the alternator rectifier bridge. Alternators generate alternating current and the rectifier bridge turns that AC into useable DC. If one of the diodes fails, the system will still charge and still supply power but the out put will be reduced. So under normal conditions, the output is sufficient, but under heavy loads (such as the gear motor operation) system needs may overcome system capability. One simple way to diagnose the failed diode is the presence of a high pitched whine in your headsets that varies in pitch with different power settings.
If your mechanic has a multi meter that shows sine waves, a failed diode will present a distinctive pattern on the buss voltage.
Another alternator system glitch is a high electrical resistance in the "alt" half of the master switch. This causes a twitching in the ammeter needle. That's very easy to check--simple take the switch out of the circuit temporarily to see if the twitch disappears.
Please let me know what you find.


STEVE ELLS replied to the topic '78 182RG Gear Fault' in the forum. 2 days ago

Hi Nick;
You have a nice airplane; as you may know the hydraulic fluid pressure is supplied by an electrical motor that is turned on (at about 1000 psi) and off (at about 1500 psi) by a pressure switch that's part of the power pack assembly. Three things could cause the motor to continue to run: 1) the pump may no longer be unable to build up 1500 psi (unlikely but possible); 2) the reservoir fluid level may be low; 3) the pressure switch may have gotten stuck (there are directions in the service manual on how to remove, clean, adjust and re install); 4) one of the actuating cylinders for one of the gear legs may be leaking from the pressure side to the return side past an o ring on the actuating piston, thereby creating a leak that prevents the system pressure from reaching the shut off pressure of 1500 psi.

I have attached a service bulletin that calls for an inspection of the wiring and the diode on the pump motor. Check that out.

If you need more information, please don't hesitate to add to your post here.

File Attachment:

File Name: SEL29-01ArcingHydPowerPk.pdf
File Size: 88 KB


Nick Gilbert created a new topic ' 78 182RG Gear Fault' in the forum. 2 days ago

Long time lurker, but went ahead and signed up to pick the collective minds here. I'll try to keep this brief:

78 182RG with no current squawks, no prior landing gear issues and up to date annual. Flies often (10-20 hrs/month), I'm the only pilot. Was planning to go up to shoot some approaches. Preflight, taxi and run up were routine and unremarkable, as was the takeoff run. After reaching a safe altitude, gear up/flaps up. About 3-5 seconds after moving the gear handle to the up position, I first heard then saw the ammeter cyclically pegging to the left, indicating high current draw. Radio'd that I had an electrical problem and began to assess. It was only then that I realized the landing gear motor was still running. Before I could pull the breaker myself, it tripped. All went to normal. I did not attempt to reset. At pattern altitude, I moved the gear handle to the down position, and manually extended the gear. I don't recall how many pumps it took--More than 10, but less than the 30 I recall from the last time I did the procedure during training (shame on me). Got a green light. Did a low pass and tower visually confirmed 3 gear down. Landing was unremarkable. In the hanger, I inspected the plane. No overt evidence of damage. No leaking fluid. Hydraulic reservoir was full. No burning smells.

Grounded the plane and towed it to my A&P who has extensive experience with landing gear--mooneys to B-52. They jacked it yesterday. Of course, I get the worst call possible: "Yeah man we've cycled the gear at least a dozen times and can't replicate."

In summary:
-Well maintained, current aircraft without known landing gear issues. No instances of the pump running with the gear up in flight indicating loss of pressure.
-On retraction of landing gear, pump continued to run, drawing significant current, until breaker tripped.
-Given that the ammeter clearly displayed excessive current draw prior to the breaker tripping, neither myself nor my A&P suspect a faulty breaker.
-I do not know if the landing gear fully retracted.
-Successful manual extension of the landing gear after approximately 10-15 pumps of the handle.
-No evidence of hydraulic leak immediately after the flight or on inspection by A&P. No burning smells.

The A&P is consulting with his network of grey beards, but in the mean time, my own interest sent me here. The only causes for this that I can come up with are either the power pack pressure switch or pump motor contactor became stuck.

Thoughts on tests or diagnosis?




Bernard Schneider replied to the topic 'Fuel bladder pickups' in the forum. 3 days ago

Thanks much Steve!


STEVE ELLS replied to the topic 'Fuel bladder pickups' in the forum. 3 days ago

As I look at the parts book, it appears as though the one with the longer screen goes in the aft position, and the one with the shorter strainer goes in the fwd position.
Frankly, I'm not sure it makes much difference. But there are two part numbers., and the part numbers indicate what I wrote above.


STEVE ELLS replied to the topic 'T337 Autopilot and G5 Installation' in the forum. 3 days ago

Hi Thomas, Did the 400 B work well before you tied it to the G5? If so, you'll have to contact Garmin or a savvy Garmin avionics tech for help. If the 400 B did not work well, you can get it tuned up and aligned by a shop that specializes in autopilots ( or www.executiveautopilots) are two I know of but i'm sure that are others that have the equipment and knowledge to tune it. Or you can buy a new autopilot. You're correct there are no new three axis A/P for the Skymaster. I did call Genesys (used to be S tec) and talked to Doug Tellef (817 215-7628). He told me he would make you a good deal on a 55X. It's approved for your airplane and has been an industry standard for a long time. Let me know if I can help further


STEVE ELLS created a new topic ' T337 Autopilot and G5 Installation' in the forum. 3 days ago

Hi Steve;
I have a T337H Skymaster with a 400 B auto pilot and a Garmin G5 that wanders around trying to capture a localizer. It will eventually get me to the airport but with S turns all the way to the runway. I am told that there are no three axis auto pilots that are STC’d for a Skymaster and that the FAA does not do field approvals for auto pilots. Any thoughts? Show less


Bernard Schneider created a new topic ' Fuel bladder pickups' in the forum. 4 days ago

I’m replacing the left long range tank on my 1966 182J. The tape I used to mark the forward and rear 90 degree fuel pickups fell off. Can anyone tell me which is which? One has a short screen and the other has a long screen.
Thanks much!


Ken Liller replied to the topic 'Airframe hours' in the forum. 7 days ago

Hi Steve, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents...first I'd have a very extensive prebuy inspection done by someone who knows/works on a lot of 172,....and have him pay particular attention to the nose gear and especially the fire wall and where nose gear attached to the firewall.(Might have been used for flight training and absorbed a lot of hard landings, Secondly obviously age TTAF hours, TT since engine over haul, paint condition, ect. will effect the it worth it to buy and older plane for less or a new one for more money...I think that a very basic truth, I recently bought a 1973 172M, I think I got a great deal same thing, knew the previous owner, always hangared, 3900 TTAF and 190 hrs since Overhaul, great paint, decent interior and new Stratus ABS-B Out/IN dual band transponder, but avionic upgrade is going to bet expensive...2G5's PFD and Hsi about 6 g's plus installation JPI EDM 900 engine monitor 4g-s plus installation which is very labor intensive(read expensive0 and new G650Xi 12g's plus installation.....point is pay a lot for a newer well equipped model, or get a solid older model and build on it...either way-pay me now or pay me later.....good luck and don't be afraid to jump in but look very carefully before you leap...hope this helps !! Keep us posted....


JOSE LOPEZ DEL PUERTO replied to the topic 'Enhancing performance 1978 RG' in the forum. 1 week ago
Wil Dean replied to the topic '1958A 182 Mounts for Ipad Fore flight' in the forum. 1 week ago

If you are upgrading your panel, it may be a good time to install the Guardian ipad panel mount.
See link here


Drew N Bagot replied to the topic 'Enhancing performance 1978 RG' in the forum. 1 week ago

Steve, many thanks. I have 200 hours on my Western Skyways overhaul so no new engine but I will follow up on GAMI. My aircraft is 182 RG but same issue


Alain Bosco replied to the topic 'CESSNA 182 RG' in the forum. 1 week ago

Hello Steve,
It is such a plaeasure to have the chance to have you experience and feed back.
I will probably go for the 182 as the avionic of th e 206 is basic , nos gps and no autopilote.

My need tend to go more to the 182 even if I love the truck feeling of a 206... I even look at a Yak 18... LOL... wonderful machine mut not for me at the time .

The 182 has is equipped with the Sportsman ST which I found great especially for a low experienced pilote (100 hours on 172) like me.

The owner has bought the Alpha systems AoA indicator system but did not installed it...what do you think ? Helpfull ?

Concerning the RG I will not land in very rough fields but quite often on grass and gravel, the RG is made also to land on unprepared field no ?

I thanks you for you help

Wish you nice evening



David Willis replied to the topic '1958A 182 Mounts for Ipad Fore flight' in the forum. 1 week ago

I have been using a RAM mount purchased through Sporty's for my Ipad in my 72 182P. I often fly solo so I mount it on the co-pilot yoke and this has worked pretty well. I prefer the larger Ipads as opposed to the mini (9.7 or 10.5). I am doing a panel upgrade next month and wonder if there are panel mounts I could install which would make the Ipad less objectionable to an actual co-pilot. It is really "in the face" of the co-pilot mounted on the yoke. Since Apple regularly reconfigures the Ipad according to their marketing whim the mount has to be flexible for new iterations. Any thoughts?


STEVE ELLS replied to the topic 'CESSNA 182 RG' in the forum. 1 week ago

Hi Alain;
I have copied and pasted my reply to your recent post here. It should answer some of your questions.
A STOL kit will definitely improve slow speed aileron (roll) response and should lower the stall speed. There's no way for me to tell you how much, but they do lower stall speeds. My opinion is that anything, such as a STOL kit or vortex generators (VGs) that helps a pilot control the airplane at slower speeds is a safety feature. I have installed VGs on my airplane.
Here's what I previously posted. It contains important information on the 182 turbo RG:
With any airplane purchase, the first step is defining your mission. The best way is to brainstorm what you're going to doing with the airplane the majority of the time. No airplane can fulfill every mission but you'll be happiest with the airplane that fits your needs the majority of the time. If you are flying airport to airport with your wife and small children, the TR 182 would probably be best; if you're hauling 4 guys and golf clubs to Scotland or plan to fly to less developed areas and go camping or exploring, then the 206 would be better.

There is a large difference between the TR 182 and the C-206. The 206 is like a pick up truck. Large door for bulky items, has a large useful load and can operate easily in and out of unimproved airstrips (grass, gravel, etc.).
The TR182 is more like a Mercedes sedan. Due to smallish tires that can't be upgraded to larger tires due to the need for the tires to fit into the wheel wells when retracted, is limited to operating off of paved runways or smooth grass and gravel strips.

The Information Manual (identical to a Plots Operating Handbook except that it's not issued with the airplane) for a 1982 TR 182 cites an average empty weight of 1850 pounds and a maximum take off weight of 3100 pounds. This yields a useful load of approximately 1250 pounds. Fuel capacity is 88 gallons so with full fuel less an hour safety margin (and an average leaned fuel consumption of 15 gph) the endurance is 5.2 hours before you get into the reserve. I've flown in the TR 182 and experienced speeds of 155 ktas at 10,000 feet.

A C-206 has a maximum take off weight (MTOW) of 3600 pounds and an average empty weight of 2020 pounds. Useful load is 1580. Maximum fuel is 88 gallons. 206s cruises slower (Information manual cites 147 knots ate 75 percent) than the TR 182.

Here's the biggest difference. The 206 is a very sought after airplane around the world. It can be fitted with floats and is known as a heavy hauler; a belly mounted cargo pod can be fitted. It can even be put on skiis. Every commercial operator wants a good 206. Therefore I think that alone would make the 206 more desirable due to its resale value.

Both the Lycoming (in the TR 182) and the Continental engine (in the 2016) are proven engines. Lycomings aren't quite as smooth as Continentals but are reputed to be "tougher"

The retractable landing gear system on the R and TR 182 airplanes are examples of the last (and simplest) iterations of the Cessna retractable gear systems. The systems are very simple and dependable. If there's a weak point it's that what are called the pivots and the housings the pivots are mounted in, do crack from time to time. If a crack is discovered, there is no approved repair--the parts must be replaced. And the parts while still available, are expensive.
I have attached the Cessna service bulletin that applies to the pivot inspections.

The turbo charger system on the TR 182 is singular to the TR 182. It's actually a turbo normalizer since the system is designed to maintain sea level (plus 2 inches to simulate normal losses) manifold pressure. Hence, the redline is 31 inches. The system operates like this. The turbocharger wastegate is fully open ( and only a small amount of exhaust gasses are directed to the "hot" side of the turbocharger) until the throttle butterfly in the carburetor is fully open. After the butterfly is fully opened, pushing the throttle knob farther forward starts to close the turbocharger wastegate, which causes more exhaust gas to push against the turbo charger wheel "hot side." This causes the turbo to "push" filtered filtered pressurized into the carburetor.

The key to making this system work is in a mixing set of plates that are mounted on and next to the carburetor. Push the throttle in until full throttle then the plates start to pull the wastegate closed using a small steel cable. And, it's a manually controlled wastegate so the pilot must be aware that he controls the wastegate--and must be aware of the need to make adjustments when changing altitude and/or when atmospheric changes occur. It's unlike any other Cessna turbo charging system and the turbocharger unit itself is small compared to the displacement of the engine. But the system is robust enough to provide 75 percent power up to 18,000 feet MSL if the air temperatures are near standard.

This ability to cruise between 15000 and 20000 feet MSL has lots of advantages. First off, it's too high for other piston powered propeller airplanes and too low for turbine powered airplanes so, at least here in the States, air traffic control is often willing to give direct routings, which saves time and money. Secondly, the high altitude capabilities expand the operating envelope since the engine power does not drop off when operating out of high altitude airports.

The TR 182 is on the approved models list (AML) for the Sportsman STOL leading edge modification. Contact for more details and for videos of the installation process.

My choice, since I live in California which is part of the mountainous west of the United States and because I like utility aircraft operations, would be the C-206. However, I own and fly a retractable landing gear Piper PA 24 Comanche, even though it is more similar to the TR182 than to the 206. It would be a lot of fun to own a STOL airplane but I haven't made that move yet.

There are page after page of FAA approved modifications to the 206; it is found in every corner of the world and has been adapted to fulfill many missions.

So your choice; a pick up truck or a Mercedes sedan. Sedan is a little faster and sleeker looking but slightly more complex; while the pick up truck is slower but can be adapted to do many more tasks than the sedan.

Since I 've never flown in European airspace I don't know if how often the high altitude capabilities of the TR 182 would be a decided advantage over the normally aspirated 206. That's for you to figure out.


Alain Bosco created a new topic ' CESSNA 182 RG' in the forum. 2 weeks ago

Hello Everybody,

I visited a Cessna turbo RG 1980 .
I really like the plane, it has engine, turbo landing basically all the firewall overaull , nice avionics.
I would like your comment on the RG
There is a stole kit (see pic) is that efficient ?
And more generally could you give you advise on this model , I am a relative "new" pilot with about 100 jours of which 50 hours on a Cessna 172.
I will of course take about 10 - 15 hours of instruction to get confident with the 182.
I will mostly fly on a grass field, Is the RG ok for that ?
Thanks Alain