6:50 love how the captions add extra meaning to the commentary when it translates: “at off airport or unscheduled landing your ‘stool’ speed is 35 knots”
I did all of my training at El Dorado airport in Kansas out of the hangar right next to Todd Peterson's. I still fly at that airport often and it's always fun to see the newly modified 182s heading out.
Owned a 1967 Skylane with a Horton STOL kit......flew out of a private grass strip of 1,200 ft and had no problem taking off full fuel, three passengers and baggage.....approached at indicated 40 kts and landed very comfortably once I got the timing down for added power to get the nose up......could and did takeoff (short field/wet field) as soon as the airspeed needle moved, climbed out at indicated 40kts with 20 degree flaps. Loved that plane, had to sell when I lost my medical due to diabetes......
Todd makes some awesome planes! He converted my 182Q to a King Katmai over a number of years. Along the journey added VGs, Sportsman, Glass Panel, 3 Blade MT, ported and polished IO-550 with an electronic ignition and tuned dual exhaust from Power Flow--350HP'ish--yeah baby! She takes off and climbs like a wild stallion and lands on a dime, not to mention cruises at 130 knots at 13'ish gallons/hour. Yep, level flight at 35 knots is achievable, but pushing it--40 knots all day without breaking a sweat. Love both Todd and Jo! Quality people that are as rare as the amazing planes they build...
Brilliant summary and a really unique and interesting mod that I've never seen before! (Excellent commentary, camera work and editing - keep up the good work!)
Great video, I am glad to see an owner of the Katmai doing a video on them and explaining so well. Anyone who say anything bad on them is sadly miss informed. The 182 was always on the top of my favor, but I always found them too much for my skill level, I now am confident that it would be a perfect and safe plane for me and my family. Thank for the great video, hope to see more. Cheers
Douglas - I flew a 152 in training and transitioned to my 260SE in a short time. You’re gonna come over the fence and perform stalls at a slower speed than your old trainer! Do it...
The 1970-80's Cessna interior designer must have moved over to Boeing to do the 757-200 and the 767-200 cockpits. Although not the same "burnt orange" used by Cessna, it was a special variant 70's brown that was so in vogue back then. As a child of the 70's myself, it still looks wonderful and awful at the same time. Great video, keep them coming...
Canard add serious ability in bad conditions for any fixed wing any size, a comment of ground-effect on 747s, add in dealing with the offset in thrust by the big fanjets on trim comes to mind, a suggestion I made as a reaction to the recent 737 problems. Well done video, thx 🍺
Awesome plane! Many, many years ago, I used to work for Todd in Buckeye AZ shortly after he bought the rights to the conversion and while building all of the jigs and tooling as an A&P. Great plane! Used to be called "Wren" and Todd and his wife Jo are both awesome! I can't tell for sure, but does it still have the "Wren's teeth" up on top of the wing to kill the lift in a bank (because it actually makes too much lift)... Again, awesome plane! I moved on in the 80's and went into tech. I make enough now I have considered buying one from time to time, BUT, for what I do, as a business use it is not quite fast enough. I would have to consider a Mooney, one of the EZs, or possibly the risky Lancair...
Hi Charlie, I saw your airplane when my skyranger was sharing that hangar for a couple of months and I remember walking round it going 'what the hell is this, a Cessna with canards?' Great to see more information about such a unique go-anywhere family airplane.
My understanding is the true wren aircraft did all the performance using aerodynamics and the Peterson Wrens do the same thing with horsepower. There was a first generation Wren at our local airport last year. It had a stock O-470 engine, the canards, gap seals and these really weird rudder like devices on top of the wing that operated with the ailerons. I forgot it had Fowler flaps too.
Yup and probably goodbye head and everything too! When your time’s up your time’s up! I am generally more respectful of props than I seem in this video.
Great aero give Mike Patey a call his SCRAPPY CUB would love those canards . I can see that they would take away all of the drag and heavy elevator under full flaps .
He said this one was converted in 2005. I think they stopped adding the extra stuff on the wings at that point. We just brought our home the other day and i believe it was in the mid 80’s so it still has the wrens teeth and the drooping wing long flaps. The newer converted ones just have the canard and quite a bit more horsepower. Still very cool airplanes no matter what.
Please SOME flying video, including outside takeoff and landings... at STOL speeds. Clearly this set canard setup works. If you told me I would have serious doubts. Is this a STC?
Thank you for the rundown. One thing that caught my eye, and it is not right is your ASI. Usually, part of a stol STC is to redo the colored arcs on the ASI faceplate to match the new numbers. Your ASI is stock, and not even designed to go as low as 32. I have no clue how this got approved.
If it's a published stall speed (which it ptobably would be with the STC applied) Vs must be based on a power idle configuration. So it may be able to fly slower than 32kias with power on (but remeber the main wing is unchanged, so maybe not).
With no engine power the propeller will windmill which increased drag do to the flat-plate effect. I can believe that stability and controllability will be slightly better through the flight envelope, but I do not see that there would be a big increase in the power off stalling speed. Power-off stalls in a Cessna are not very dramatic when done from altitude typically just some pitch oscillations with little roll instability, how much difference there would be in an airplane with the canards is mere speculation on my part since I have never flown one.
Mine is a 182P as well. The conversion was done in 2000. I flew it for 6 months in the USA and then shipped it here to NZ.It still amazes me with its capabilities. Todd has retired now and is not doing any more conversions. I will never sell mine..
I'm always curious how people ship planes to NZ. Was it easy? Did it have to be dismantled? Yes I heard Todd is not doing any more conversions, but I think he's still maintaining customers' planes. I've been toying with the idea of flying mine across the pond for a family tour at some point. (Just looking up 3 belt STC's for my growing family!)
With a standard 182 a common way to damage it is to land on the nose wheel, which bends the firewall, and you notice you can't move the rudder pedals as far as you used to. So you go to the mechanic who explains the amount of work needed to fix this and you're shocked at the price. The increased elevator authority this conversion provides, eliminating the nose wheel strike, would go a long way toward paying for the conversion. And it takes less runway! Sweet!
Having owned a 182p for several years, I can state that your comment is based on hearsay and myth. If the 182 is trimmed for the approach airspeed, it is not “nose heavy” . Poor lilting might cure a bad landing and damage the nose gear of the firewall, but it is not nose heavy nor hard to land If you are to fast it will porpoise, but, again, not nose heavy. It is no more susceptible to firewall damage than a 172.
You're not the first to make that point! It's a fair one, although I do generally treat the prop as always live, it was just for this video I did this. Hope you enjoyed it!
There is a Canard Cessna 182 at my local airport, Ardmore airfield here in New Zealand... I dont know if its is this conversation however... But I have had a close look and the aerofoils look identical.
I have experience working on a Peterson 260 STOL. I would have added a low point fuel drain in the induction system to prevent fires on start up due to over priming..
@@CharlieLamdin Yes. If excess fuel accumulates in the lower section of the air induction system, there is nowhere for it to go, and if the engine starts quickly and cleanly, you're okay. If you hear a burp or whump when cranking, that is when the smoke starts coming out of the cowl.
This was back in the 1990s and I have retired since 6 years ago, so I don't know where the plane is now. I just tried to be very careful when starting it and I advised the owner to start cranking before introducing any fuel. That way none would pool in the low spot of the induction system.
I don’t mean to be overly critical, but I cannot recommend being so careless around the propeller. Way too many people have been injured that way. When I was instructing many years ago, and whenever I take passengers with me in my airplane now, the very first thing I tell them is that the propeller is dangerous, that it should be treated much like a loaded gun, always ready to kill. As for the Petersen conversion, I’ve looked at two of them in the avionics shop where my panel was being redone, and I watched one of them take off. I have owned two 182s and have perhaps a thousand hours in 182s, and I have to say that the take off I observed was pretty dramatic by comparison with a stock 182’s capability. I have no opinion whether they’re worth the cost, but they certainly seem to do as advertised, unlike some aircraft mods.
I hear you re the prop. And yes, they do take off dramatically differently! I have a video which shows me bouncing into the air at 30kts on a grass strip soft field take off and flying.
It's a muscle memory issue. Although your brain tells you that it's safe to stand there because the engine isn't running, your body remembers you standing there (or walking through the propellers arc when the engine isn't running). Then, one day, when you're stressed or distracted..... The same goes for pax - never allow them to walk through the arc and never allow them to approach the plane from the front, or exit the plane towards the front, when the engine is running. (And never allow them to rotate the prop!) Beautiful 182!
I have the original invoice for it, which came with the plane, so yes I'm 100% sure! And having flown two different stock 182s prior to this plane (which I loved), I now get why people wanted this conversion. It opens up so many other opportunities and increases safety, both of which are amazing for family trips.
Yes it is. I’ve got a new video coming out soon with some slow flight and a camera close up of the ASI so you can let me know what you think when you see it. I’ve not heard of any issue with the asi on these planes before but who knows. You’re probably right. What’s a guy to do!
It's much less of a threat because of the canards. I have struggled to practice power on stalls in this plane as it still flies straight and level at 30 kts. The risk is still there, but reduced by the canards and the lower stall speed
So 250,000$ for the concersion, 200,000$ for the plane itself... Isn't there a plane out there for a half million dollars that has a canard already installed brand new? Seems like you could get a highly advanced and safe plane for that price, whereas whst you have after a half million dollars is just a rwally cool Cessna 182. Am I wrong? Or is there literally nothing out there in that price range that can do all the same stuff?
Literally nothing I guess, or Todd wouldb;t have had orders for almost 1,000 of these to be made! How many other 4 seat, 1,000 mile, 140kt, 1,000lb useful load can take off and land in 200ft, getting you into places other planes can only dream of?
I was witness to a young pilot try a STOL takeoff in a WREN 182 from Compton airport 1980... it was a rather warm late summer morning and ( I guess ) he thought that plane could jump into the air at minimum airspeed........IT DID...... He Flew this plane over our hanger in a stalled configuration and into the ground on the other side of the Hwy.... I pulled the passenger out of the wreck....... guess the point is FLY SAFE and remember this plane WILL STALL and ......maybe keep kinda flyin' .
Canards should be standard or at least an option on small planes depending on the type of aircraft design and flight characteristics. It makes for a safe, stable platform for small passenger/ pleasure planes. Brilliant engineering.
@@CharlieLamdin LoL thanks Charlie, I missed that amongst the background noise here. Still in Canada you'd only be allowed to retain a foreign registration for a few months, not ad infinitum. But hey if works with UK CAA then good on you.
There are hundreds of N reg aircraft residing in the UK. I get why Canada might make it's own rules, but I wonder if that precludes anyone in Canada from buying one of these? I doubt there's a canadian stc for them, but maybe?
@@CharlieLamdin The STC is approved and I've seen several with Canadian registrations. Transport Canada and FAA have full reciprocal approval for STCs on Type Certificated aircraft.
It never came up for sale! I got a personal intro to the previous owner before he had decided to sell it, made him an offer and he took it. Right place, right time, I got very lucky!
It is Canard... not CAN-NARRD. Ha ha. Dang Brits and Australian learn English.... C182 is a great plane... may be the best overall GA plane you can own for value, maintenance, utility, ease of operations....
Haha! They’re taped on with duct tape. 😉 there’s a whole frame inside the engine bay and the elevator control uses pushrods to adjust the flight control surface.
That's a wise decision if you're using school, shared or rented aircraft that you don't know well. When it's your own plane which no one else flies, and the prop has been hand turned to circulate some oil because it hasn't been flown for a few weeks, and you know you did a full lean mixture cut off the last time you shut down, the keys aren't in it and the master has been off for weeks, you've pretty much eliminated any chance of it coming to life. A bit like a kicking horse, if it's not yours, don't go near the rear end. When you know it and trust it, it's less risky. But, I always treat it as a live prop on days I've been flying it. I save the 'hugging" for special days like this one 😎 good luck with your PPL check ride!
You need to learn to speak without mumbling or the volume of your voice drifting up and down. Very hard to hear, especially when you are mumbling to the prop and not addressing the viewers clearly.
