Straight Tail 182s

[GusMcRae]

The first single engine plane I ever flew in was a 1961  C182, it was a slant tail.  I didn't even ride in the front seat.  This was an aerial photography plane, I rode in the back, only one seat, other side had a camera hole, took pictures for USDA crop compliance purposes. 
Recently caught up with the pilot, said the plane was destroyed sitting in an a hangar that was hit by a tornado, big open hangar, came right down and flattened it.  He acquired the plane because it was set up for photography, and sold a 1958 straight tail 182.  He  said the straight tail plane was an extraordinary flying plane, he used it as a part of a crew that did siesmograph work.  I would guess that this guy is 6', maybe 6' 1 or 2".  He said that he could walk underneath the wing without ducking, unlike the '61 that he had to duck under the wing.  He claimed that the taller '58 reacted different to the ground affect, thus it would pop right off the ground when taking off.   
I've always heard the older 182s flew better, but thought it was becuase of the narrower fuselage they had, wider models started in about 1962, somewhere in there. 
I thought this was interesting....

[RNC]

PA28 Cherokees have a similar variation between wing designs.

Pre 1979 they had a straight rectangle wing.  Very soft at low speeds, makes for buttery smooth landings with more pronounced ground effect and even if you're pretty ham fisted it will stay docile close to the ground.  It has just enough rudder and elevator authority for you to line it up and grease it in, no more.

Post 1979 they went to a tapered wing, which is a bit trickier to handle on landing, imo.  On the upside it has more elevator and rudder authority at low speeds, but that makes it a lot more 'twitchy' for lack of a better word.  You can jerk it all sorts of ways at or near stall speed, and that 'twitchy' feel plays out in strong crosswinds as well.  In a heavy wind on takeoff you'll get all sorts of back and forth yaw and natural rolling tendency.

Having flown both, there are times I wish I had the older plane!

[gotyacovered]

I always heard the straight tails were faster. Not sure about better flying...

Also, I am prob wrong but a higher wing, I think, would have less lift in ground effect, assuming the same speed... So not sure why it would pop off... Don't know.

[RNC]

Yeah I dunno.  Unless the wing was wider in addition to higher?

[gotyacovered]

Yeah I dunno.  Unless the wing was wider in addition to higher?

gotcha, well i didnt realize the wing was different... i know i have heard the straight tail (172's too) are faster.

the wings you are talking about... the older one pre-79... those are what the call the Hersey bar wings right? that is the wing my cousins 1971 PA-28-180 has on it... and i think your description is very good. the first time i landed his i went to dump more flaps short final and he had me leave it where it was (i think 10*) and that is why. wanted me to have plenty of rudder and we were in Great Bend, KS--kinda windy. every time i have been with him and he has landed no flaps.

[RNC]

Yeah Cherokees have short/squatty flaps, they don't have nearly as much effect as the bigger Cessna flaps do.  And yep, shaped like a Hershey bar, just a plain old rectangle when viewed from above/below.

They go 10/25/40, 10 is not much perceivable difference, 25 gets you 10 less stall speed, and 40 is just drag.  If you prefer to flare the speed out rather than letting the flaps do it there's no reason to use more than 10 I suppose.  I use 40 more out of habit than anything else, but with the different wing I do have more control than the older ones.

In a crosswind the old style wing will just plow through straight to the numbers without the flaps more easily than your Cessna, though.  That's probably his idea.

[GusMcRae]

Flying a 1958 straight tail 182 today on a roughly 180 nm cross country and return.  I went out and checked out the plane yesterday just to see what kind of radios it had, familiarize myself with the cockpit a little bit.  I'll shoot a few landings before I strike out on the XC today. 

It is a sharp looking plane with much better paint than mine.  It does sit up taller than my 1967 182K.  The seats have been re-done with leather and they are nice.  It may fly like a dream, but just looking at how much tighter it is inside, vintage radios, no AP,,,, I found myself appreciating what I already have. 

[john c]

Haven't flown the straight tail 182 but had a '59 straight tale 150 and it flew very well and was faster than my '70 C-150 by about 5 kts.  For some reason, it seemed more stable.  Was told that the straight had less wetted surface which allowed for the higher speed.

[GusMcRae]

Flying a 1958 straight tail 182 today on a roughly 180 nm cross country and return.  I went out and checked out the plane yesterday just to see what kind of radios it had, familiarize myself with the cockpit a little bit.  I'll shoot a few landings before I strike out on the XC today. 

It is a sharp looking plane with much better paint than mine.  It does sit up taller than my 1967 182K.  The seats have been re-done with leather and they are nice.  It may fly like a dream, but just looking at how much tighter it is inside, vintage radios, no AP,,,, I found myself appreciating what I already have.

Not too long after posting this,,, my prop governor arrived via FedEx.  Had just enough time to install, everything checked out good,,, so I wound up not flying the straight tail.  Was kind of looking forward to flying a different plane, but I was looking more forward to getting my plane back in the air. 

I know it's available if I ever need it, so I've got that going for me,,,, which is nice.