New STC for inreased gross weight on 182P & Q

[kwmoore]

Here

This would make my BRS-equipped Katmai a 2 couples + bags airplane again. I may give it a shot. Tom Storli the STC owner is a registered member of this forum.

Perhaps you can expand on it here, eh, Tom? One question I have is, what is the basis for the continued 2950 lb landing weight restriction?

[Todd]

Jo and I have already ordered the STC for the gross weight increase and Tom has it set up pretty nice. We had the approval and information emailed to us and once printed off it was put in our aircraft documents. It was quick and easy.

All the Cessna 182's after 1980 had a higher gross weight for take off than landing. I attributed this to the airframe structure only being able to meet FAA regulations for landing at the lower weight. Otherwise I would have thought Cessna would have increased the landing weight as well. Tom might be able to shed a little more light on this.

This will put the useful load of our aircraft in many cases above 1,200 lbs.

[JJbely]

This useful load increase will be really great and I will get it as well. I am wondering if I could also use it for extra fuel and install the Flint wing tanks STC despite having the X Stol wing extensions. Anyone has done that before ?

JJ

[Alex Beylin]

JJ,

I have Flint tips + X-Stol wings on N568JK. Dodge City folks checked the 2 STCs for conflicts and found none. There are several other cases that Flint folks have on file as well. Works great, gives me nearly 100 gal fuel capacity.

If you decide to go that way, let me know - there is a trick in mounting the aux fuel gage that will make your life much easier!

Alex

[kwmoore]

Originally Posted by Alex Beylin

...gives me nearly 100 gal fuel capacity.

Wow, that amounts to at least 7 hr + 1 hr reserve running LOP, which would be an easy nonstop from Palo Alto to either Denver or Albuquerque.

[Alex Beylin]

Yes, I can now make it non-stop from home (KPTK) to see my parents in Florida (KSRQ). The limiting factor is weight + bladder capacity (and I don't mean the type that hold fuel ;-) ).

N568JK is on the heavy side (2100 lb). Add 600 lb of fuel and 200 lb pilot - its a good thing I usually make that treck alone. The new STC will allow either my wife or daughter to come along.

[joejenie]

2100 pounds? Wow! I thought mine was a heavy pig at 1946 ibs.! How did your plane get so heavy? Mine has the IO-550, big tires, etc.? My useful load is 1004 ibs. but now it will be 150 pounds more.

Now I need to find someone to buy it.....

[JJbely]

Originally Posted by Alex Beylin

JJ,

I have Flint tips + X-Stol wings on N568JK. Dodge City folks checked the 2 STCs for conflicts and found none. There are several other cases that Flint folks have on file as well. Works great, gives me nearly 100 gal fuel capacity.

If you decide to go that way, let me know - there is a trick in mounting the aux fuel gage that will make your life much easier!

Alex

Alex,

That's good to know, I will be checking the job with my A&P and let you know when I am ready. Do you feel any difference of handling with the extra tanks filled up ? Do you keep them full all the time or just when you need the extra range ?

These extra 23 gallons on top of my 88 usable will give me the extra range to go and return from places where there is no avgas, it's about 1300 NM no reserve LOP range That's what I call flexibility and value for money.

JJ

[kwmoore]

Originally Posted by Todd

Jo and I have already ordered the STC for the gross weight increase and Tom has it set up pretty nice. We had the approval and information emailed to us and once printed off it was put in our aircraft documents. It was quick and easy.

All the Cessna 182's after 1980 had a higher gross weight for take off than landing. I attributed this to the airframe structure only being able to meet FAA regulations for landing at the lower weight. Otherwise I would have thought Cessna would have increased the landing weight as well. Tom might be able to shed a little more light on this.

This will put the useful load of our aircraft in many cases above 1,200 lbs.

This new STC is compatible with the 260se conversion, which means that the canard structure etc. can legally handle the extra 150 lb at takeoff (big surprise there ). It would thus seem logical that the 260se conversion should now apply to 182R (1981-1986 models), which is already OK for the IO-470 or IO-550 engine retrofits.

Of course, the words "logic" and "FAA" don't necessarily belong in the same sentence, but shouldn't adding the 182R airframes to the 260se/katmai STC now be "just" a paperwork exercise?

[JJbely]

Originally Posted by Alex Beylin

JJ,

I have Flint tips + X-Stol wings on N568JK. Dodge City folks checked the 2 STCs for conflicts and found none. There are several other cases that Flint folks have on file as well. Works great, gives me nearly 100 gal fuel capacity.

If you decide to go that way, let me know - there is a trick in mounting the aux fuel gage that will make your life much easier!

Alex

Hi Alex,

Following the weight increase STC, I am close to moving ahead with the Flint internal supplementary tanks. My existing tanks are metal and 88 usable and I wonder whether it will fit the same as on your aircraft.

I asked Flint aero and they said that there are been very few issues of minimal "oil canning" of the wing skin in some turns but nothing dramatic with tip tanks install.

Oil canning was a new word for me coming from the world of composite
Also my intention is to install internal supplementary tanks. Any issue at your end ? Also could you let me know what is the the saving time process for the fuel gauge install.

thanks in advance

JJ

[Russ]

New to me as well and since I could not resist finding out more, I save you a Yahoo search if you are so inclined.

Oil Canning: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=22446&page=9

The above article had a link to neat conversation about conventional solid rivets and blind rivets: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=15349

And one other article from Architectural Metal: http://www.smacna.org/newsletters/in...rticle&id=2199

This is probably thread drift and Kevin may want to move this post - perhaps even to another board...

[JJbely]

Thanks Russ,

It still is a bit abstract to me but I'll get my a/p to show me the difference between the different types of rivets

JJ

[kwmoore]

Originally Posted by Russ

New to me as well and since I could not resist finding out more, I save you a Yahoo search if you are so inclined.

Oil Canning: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=22446&page=9

The above article had a link to neat conversation about conventional solid rivets and blind rivets: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=15349

And one other article from Architectural Metal: http://www.smacna.org/newsletters/in...rticle&id=2199

Indeed they are all "riveting" discussions!

Thanks for the links, I did not myself fully understand what "oil canning" is.

[Tom J. Storli]

Originally Posted by kwmoore

Perhaps you can expand on it here, eh, Tom? One question I have is, what is the basis for the continued 2950 lb landing weight restriction?

Kevin, my apologies for the tardy response at the forum. I think I passed some notes on this to you and Todd via E-mail, but didn't realize I missed a posting here.

Our STC effectively converts a 182P or 182Q model to 182R status, i.e., 3110 lbs ramp weight, 3100 MGTOW, and 2950 landing. The basis for being able to do this is the similarity (not identicality) of the structural and aerodynamic designs amongst these airplanes, AND the application of CAR 3.242 allowing the landing weight to be as low as 95% of the MGTOW. This CAR only came into being after most 182s already had their type certificate... multi-engine airplanes had always had ths flexibility.

Warning: Conjecture on my part. For the 182R landing weight to also be increased, Cessna would likely have faced the need for gear structural proofing via some series of drop tests, perhaps even to some level of destruction. We, and likely Cessna, felt that the added costs and minimal benefit was not worth the price; nor was it required by the regulations. For our STC, going for a 3100 pound landing weight would mean a LOT more analysis, a LOT more time, and a LOT more costs. Why do it? How often would one REALLY need to load up to 3100 MGTOW and only fly around for twenty minutes?

Our STC (via Instructions for Continued Airworthiness) does address inspection requirements in the event of an overweight landing; interestingly, Cessna has never addressed that situation in its documents. Now, when Cessna certified the retractible R182 and TR182, they did increase the landing weight to 3100, equal to the MGTOW... why not? They undoubtedly faced some serious proof tests for the new gear system anyway. And, we all know, FG or RG, these are tough and capable airplanes... made even better, of course, with Todd and Jo's work.

Cheers all,

Tom

[kwmoore]

Thanks very much for your post on this, Tom. I would imagine you'll get a lot of takers for the STC, including me although I'm waiting until December!

Originally Posted by Tom J. Storli

How often would one REALLY need to load up to 3100 MGTOW and only fly around for twenty minutes?

Not often, for sure.

Lugging 85 lb of BRS around I have found myself occasionally having to mind payload, and on a few occasions declined an Angel Flight for this reason. I operate LOP virtually all the time and were I to depart at 3100 lb I'd have to fly more than 2 hr to burn the fuel down to the 2950 landing weight. Not all the Angel Flights are that long.

In any case, this situation comes up only in a small fraction of my flights.