The 182 is one of the better planes out there for performance. I have had mine for 10 years now with 29 inch tires on the mains, landis nose fork, horton stall kit and a few other extras. Trim it out and it flies like a champ. You can cross the threshold at 39knots, slip your conrners, and get in and out of tight places (just look at the annual winner in the valdez stol competion each year in this class. The 182 is the winner hands down! I get tired of reading and hearing about the heavy nose, ect.
The airplane is a performer if you know how to fly it.

I have a 1963 182F and absolutely love it. I bought it as my student plane to learn in and has served me well since being licensed. The landings were never an issue as my instructor had like over 3000 hours in a 182 and taught me good procedures. With specific regards to bringing it in on final, I find myself using no more than 20 degrees flaps or coming in without depending on winds. With a flap landing, I add a touch of power, nose trim up all the way, and hold it off until she starts to settle then I pull back on the yoke all the way until I hear the stall buzzer and have picture perfect landings all the time. The major difference is the use of power versus not on final. To me, it gets ugly without it and the bird is too heavy to just yank the power and drop like maybe a 172 could get away with. So trim, power and pull!

I am close to buying a 182 and read this thread with interest. A few questions, I haven't flown a high wing plane in more than 30 years, but I recall being uncomfortable with the drastic nose down angle that cessnas exhibit with full flaps. Is the 182 that way also? As for nose heavy landings, my normal technique is to fly finals with some powere and regulate rate of descent with the throttle. I normally add power in the flare only if the plane is not settling at the comfortable rate. Is there any reason to vary these techniques with the 182? It seems hard to believe that a plane built in such numbers has any actual bad habits.
Thanks
Gerry

Yesterday I was praticing landings with my 182 and they were horrible, I have 60 hrs and transitioning from a Piper Warrior.

I read advice about putting weight in the cargo area.

How about putting weight in the tail cone instead?

Hi all,
Speaking from experience as an instructor and pilot with a few thousand hours on Cessnas, and an author of a C182 book, I just have to add some contributions here, well actually a bit of a rant.

C182s are just like any other plane with the odd difference:
They are less forgiving than C172s in terms of you must fly them at the right speeds, and you must apply positive control to keep them where you want them- they are quite twitchy, and too fast they balloon, too slow they drop! Especially with weight in the tail (the foam sometimes gets waterlogged and can cause different behaviour in trim). This makes them a bit of a challenge for a lowish time pilot (eg less than 100hours), however the problems are not really the aircraft, but mostly piloting techniques and can be sorted out with thorough training!
I've seen students cock up landings, and I've cocked up a fair few myself when I was a relatively low time pilot.
A C182, IMHO, is not recommended for someone with low time (below 60hours) but it is possible. If you do try it, get some thorough training, and train till you really feel comfortable.

Landing techniques: All the Cessna high wings I have flown are quite happy with the same technique, only the speeds and weight on the controls change. This requires approach at the right speed, and height for the type of approach, then approaching the round out, smoothly power off, level off, then hold off, and, while level, wait for the tail to drop, which it will do as the speed drops if you keep the plane level - matching the amount of pull to the reduction in speed - (thus avoiding either a balloon or a sink), the tail will progressively get lower, (thus avoiding the dreaded nose wheel contact) until the stall warning sounds. If this has been done at the right height, at this point you will be just off the ground and the main wheels will touch. (Easier said than done, of course!)
With a strong cross wind or flapless, you may want to touch down at a slightly higher speed.
(A colleague once said to me - "The trick to landing the C210 is that you just need to get the a**e down", it helped me tremendously at the time, applies equally to all Cessna high wing, and is 100% effective in reducing the potentially costly nose wheel landing, made me lol at the time, but I never forgot it)
Trimming up slightly is a quite acceptable and somewhat useful practice if you find the elevator heavy for the flare, meaning you are flying the approach pushing forward. Glide approaches are fine but tend to be quite steep and bad for the engine, so power on approaches (approach not flare) are the recommended, and probably fit with the normal circuit approach more.
Short field landings should improve by remembering and trying to apply the following: control of your speed at the minimum recommended (+gust where required) and your profile (right slope, not too shallow) is really important, thereafter, the landing in a light aircraft should be (according to the manual) "tail low", i.e as described above. It is important to ensure you are landing at minimum speed - that is as close to the stall as possible, and the aircraft should drop positively onto the ground - (no smoothies here), since landing at a higher speed will result in longer ground roll.
Crosswind and flapless may be modified to touchdown slightly earlier to aid directional control.
Lastly, keeping power on in the flare: my advice, to everyone I've seen who tries it, and I've heard it especially in C182s, C210s and C310s, is poor technique to cover up poor handling, and a few circuits later I have them convinced it's not needed. Really sorry to be harsh, but it's not recommended by the book, and quite unsafe, if you fly a technique like this often, there's a chance you'll do it when you need not to be (eg short field - see the example with Qantas' B747 accident , regular non use of thrust reverse).
My advice, and sorry this also may not be welcome advice, but to help curb the C182 accident rate, grab an instructor you know and like, who has some experience on the C182, and do some circuits, especially in bumpy crosswinds or on short field conditions and on dirt strips.
Hate to see a good plane get a bad rep, personally it's really my favourite of all I've flown from 150s to 737s, although the C150A comes a close second.
Hope this may be of help.