But then you can't do the gear test, including the emergency lowering, etc.
I am after some lightweight jacks - 10kg max. The ones I have seen for sale weigh something like 30kg+ and most are much more.
I am after some lightweight jacks - 10kg max.
I doubt very much that >10kgs jacks will carry the weight of your a/c. I have witnessed the gear test on one of 'my' (regularly rented over many years) a/c, and the jacks are a lot heavier than that. It is actually quite illuminating to watch the gear deployment while standing next to it.
You also have to consider practical limitations of taking an RG onto muddy grass in winter.
Didn't have any problems so far.
Jacks for a TB20 should be trivial, a lot of shops weld their own out of a car jack. Just also add a mechanism to lock them in case the hydraulic cylinder fails.
Jacks for a 182 RG are something different, first they have to go up to the wings and then they need to lift the airplane by about 1.5m because the gear needs a lot of room to expand. With such a long rod, the jacks need to be very tall and wide to provide stability. Putting my aircraft on jacks is always a very intense moment for me.
The northern Europe RG into muddy conditions scenario is during retraction. The wheels are spinning on retraction (and therefore fatter), hence a touch of brakes, mud is taken into the wheel well and then the wheel freezes to the mud at altitude. In addition to having crud in the system/micro switches etc
Certainly several CPL/MEP schools operate RG off muddy grass runways, but they are very alive to the operational issue and give the gear extra attention both as part of the SOP, and through on site maintenance.
The one downside of the C182RG is the annual landing gear check. I've seen a maintenance company not only use the tall tripod jacks but also suspend the aircraft from the roof using the eye-bolts located over the cabin in the carry-through spar. Belt and braces I suppose!
I made a check yesterday comparing TB20 cruise performance with gear exetended and retracted. The difference (IAS) was 22 kts. I set 125 KIAS at 8000 ft on autopilot in stable and smooth air, extended gear and speed dropped to 103 KIAS. Retracting gear lead to speed increase to 125 KIAS. Repeated once more with exactly same result.
The one downside of the C182RG is the annual landing gear check.
Takes about 20 minutes but requires jacks for the C82R which are much bigger than for the other low wing planes. My shop has jacks from German Luftwaffe surplus, were used to jack Hercules transporters. They just manage to lift my C82R 
I’ve seen a maintenance company not only use the tall tripod jacks but also suspend the aircraft from the roof using the eye-bolts located over the cabin in the carry-through spar.
The C82R does not have a carry through spar (the reason the cabin is so roomy). It was most likely a floatplane conversion which adds extra stabilizers in the cabin and is suspended for float installation/removal.
I made a check yesterday comparing TB20 cruise performance with gear exetended and retracted.
The TB20 gear was designed to produce a lot of drag where as the TB10 gear is designed to do the opposite. Better compare a TB20 to a TB10 flying at the same altitude with the same fuel flow. Same comparison can be made between the C82R and the C182 which have identical airframes down to the last rivet.
comparing TB20 cruise performance with gear exetended and retracted. The difference (IAS) was 22 kts.
That’s about right. There is also a huge hit on the operating ceiling – at a guess FL120-140 instead of FL200.
The TB20 gear was designed to produce a lot of drag
That cannot be right. Why would they design gear for max drag?
It is simply that retractable gear is not cowled so it drags when hanging out. If you look in the POH for even the slowest (100kt) fixed gear PA28 you find there is a ~7kt loss of speed just by taking off the wheel cowlings. Some schools here operate them like that because they can then take more abuse during landings. So with a 150kt plane (which needs 1.5 ^ 3 more HP) I would expect to lose 23kt (cowled wheels versus bare wheels).
I do recall doing a TB10 v. TB20 MPG comparison but don’t have the details handy now. The difference was very substantial.
Some schools here operate them like that because they can then take more abuse during landings.
.. and more easy to inspect the tires after all that abuse…
