BTW, even today and even in the beginning of next week, Corona-wise, this or a similar trip will still be possible for people from Germany, without any problems. Including the Slovenia bit.
Only Campania and Liguria will be risk areas from coming Saturday onwards. A rather ridiculous choice, clearly aimed at not harming German tourists which are currently in vacation in Italy and at giving them a couple of days time to leave before the area they stayed in becomes a risk area as well. For example, Toscana has a higher rate of infections than Campania…. the value in South Tyrol is even higher, but of course, they cant’t (yet) declare this as a risk area…
boscomantico wrote:
I would always call the station that is responsible for the FIRST piece of CAS that‘s in your way.For sure that should be the way to do it, no doubt about that.
My idea of calling Verona directly was just to bypass FIS in this particular example and get a ‘quicker’ coordination, without silly questions and/or answers from FIS. It’s sad that the radar frequencies of the Milano TMA are not published on the VFR-charts, nor in EFB-apps like SkyDemon, ANP or ForeFlight. Otherwise one could just call Milano Radar directly. It seems to me that FIS has a kind of “filter” functionality here, before they let you contact the ‘holy’ Radar-frequency.@boscomantico
We would like to know how much you liked the C182T ! Because we got used to your (great) reports each time you tried a new type 
PS: that’s a terrific trip
Glad you asked. Well, I think I mentioned it already, sort of. First of all, I judge aurcraft mostly by their performance and cost aspects (plus the cabin comfort). I am really in two minds about the 182 in general:
On the one hand, it is very very good at hauling loads and comfortably (i.e. with margins) getting in and out of small strips, even with obstacles around. And, as you know, there are thousands of airfields in Europe which fall into that category, and I really like using these. So, to summarize, it is great „fun“ during those takeoff and landing moments.
Climb performance is also good and solid, although not exciting.
It is that moment that you level off in cruise that the fun stops, and reality sets in. 135-140 knots isn‘t all that much for an touring SEP and and fuel usage of 12 GPH does cost quite some money whilst doing so.
It’s simply good at one thing but not good at the other. What I describe here is of course not a „fault“ of the design. You either design it be good at the one thing, or the other. Or you make a compromise.
Still, as I wrote, the new generation 182s are a little faster than the older ones and use a little less fuel, too. For me, being based in Germany, it would be awesome if it were approved for mogas, but that‘s unfortunately not the case.
It‘s handling qualities are of course not much to write home about. It’s a truck, Plus, I don‘t really like the old style cabin.
Still, all in all, for an IFR family cruiser which is capable of going comfortably into most small European GA strips, it is quite a good choice. Personally, if going that route, I might get a pre-2004 one though, because I don‘t really like the G1000.
Is the flight time and fuel burn difference significant on a 300nm leg vs other SEP ?
Well, if doing enough touring (which what these planes are for), it does make some difference. On the very other end of the efficiency scale, an M20J will do 155 knots at 10 GPH.
As a compromise between cruise efficiency and short field capability, an Debonair or early Bonanza will do 155 knots at the same 12GPH as the 182T. And the 182RG will do the same, and also do it on mogas.
But in general, I would agree that a few litres here or there don‘t make too much of a difference, in the general scheme of things. Maintenance cost is a much bigger factor. It‘s just that once you are in cruise with a fixed gear 182, it‘s not very satisfying seeing these numbers, from a purely „emotional“ point of view. Plus, of course, sonetimes, doing only 140 knots instead of 155 on the same fuel flow will cut into your mission capability, especially in countries where Avgas is scarce. And especially once you encounter that nasty 40 knot headwind.
Another thing about 182 is that it’s one of the very few certified a/c (together with C172) that can have BRS installed: https://brsaerospace.com/cessna/
And you can install TKS as well…
So it has it’s uses, but it’s not the fastest and most economical cruiser – it was designed for different things.
On the one hand, it is very very good at hauling loads and comfortably (i.e. with margins) getting in and out of small strips, even with obstacles around. And, as you know, there are thousands of airfields in Europe which fall into that category, and I really like using these.
Great elevator pitch (see below) for the type. While most of my 182 time is in the Lycoming version, which comes in at a lardy 2,000 lbs empty weight, the P-Ponk 182A or B with around 1,700 lbs empty weight makes for an excellent four seat Super Cub. 140KTAS is warp speed in the Super Cub world.
arj1 wrote:
Another thing about 182 is that it’s one of the very few certified a/c (together with C172) that can have BRS installed:
I flew with a friend in his C182 king katmai with STOL converiosn, I don’t recall it’s exact stall speeds but I recall it goes down with ASI at 35kts and VSI at 7kts, on BRS you would be 0kts on ASI and VSI at 15kts, at +13kts headwinds things break-even: you are better off flying into wind and stalling rather than drifting with BRS no? (assuming one can control his speed and direction)
While C182 King Katmai has same stalling speed as SkyRangers or Turbulents, the behaviour bellow 60kts is completely different due to high wing load and you can safely fly it to the ground slowly without losing your arm in gusty conditions, in microlights while stall speed is very low, it only takes 3 seconds to bleed 30kts on the ASI if you are not in the right power/attitude…
The end goal is still to hit ground at slowest ground speed along the most strong axis of the aircraft structure? if it’s windy BRS may not be the right choice in a C182, same as microlights, the only user case for it is loss of control and of course wife acceptance
In the Mooney, I need +40kts headwinds for that kind of maths to work, so I would gladly retro-fit a BRS if they have one but not sure why I would need one in a slow Cub with 39KCAS stall?
Ibra, you can land it if both plane yourself are OK, if you had structural damage to an a/c or unconsious then BRS is your way out.
The point I was trying to make is that it is a quite capable aircraft!
