Anyone have experience with a 180/185 with a third row (6 seats)? Is the rear bench big enough for kids? I assume the rear bench takes up the baggage area so extended baggage would be necessary. Would the CG range even allow for the use of the extended baggage with all the seats full (2 adults and 4 kids)?

How many kids are you having Jon?!

From what I've seen, the 3rd seat is perfect for kids up to 8ish. Any more than that and a 206 is probably a better fit. Someone with experiance will hopefully chime in.

Not a 180/185, but I used to regularly carry a third passenger in my Cessna 150 in the back. Used the tie-down rings to anchor an old seatbelt. Kept the weight to less than 120 lbs (slim women or kids) and tried to keep the fuel at 1/2 tank or less. I didnt care how old they were and they didn't care about comfort as long as they got to where they were going.

I had a 185 "child seat" in the back of my 180 years ago when my kids were young. Matt has it right; works pretty good for smaller kids but they will have outgrown it by age 10 or so. CG wasn't a problem as I recall but you are trading kid space for gear space so it will be difficult to go camping with a child seat in the back.

Third row seat is fine for small children. It works well for one adult, lot's of room to look out both sides and move back and fourth. The baggage is behind the third seat, 50 lb max. In the 36 years I've owned the 185 I can count on one hand the number of times I've used it. And you have the added cost of insuring for six seats.
Ron

+1 on Bee Man's comments. With 2 adults and 4 kids, you could have some basic camping gear and choose your spot appropriately. Most skywagon pilots would have a different view on what constitutes camping gear, compared to someone used to flying two out to camp in a Luscombe. I have been in and out of Sulfur with four adults and two kids and half tanks. I always have sleeping bags and other emergency gear along and it mostly stows nicely in the extended baggage. After flying the hills in your Luscombe, you wouldn't have any false expectations of performance. Despite my aircrafts capabilities, though, I definitely do more calculating on how much fuel and gear to bring along when loading it to that extent. Kids are 6 and 8 and if they can't be in the pilot seat, they'd rather hang out in the back of the bus. There is more leg room in the back than in the second row with the Cessna jump seats, so as long as CG and weight is not an issue, child size up to adult is fine on shorter flights. I have used it often when friends or extended family want to go for a flight, but none of my fam of 4 wants to be left behind.

And don't forget about 4th row passengers!

Matt 7GCBC wrote:After flying the hills in your Luscombe, you wouldn't have any false expectations of performance.

You saying my Luscombe isn't a stellar backcountry performer I bet even a fully loaded 180 would put a smile on my face.

Thanks for the info and the pics; my wife will really appreciate the pics. Looks like there is enough room; I'll have to run some numbers and see how the CG works out.

I had fun flying a J-3 with two aboard across the Rockies this summer. I know you don't have any misconception about the Luscombe. People who don't fly their Maules/Wagons/206s heavy may forget what it's like to fly with less power to weight, but after making your 80 or is it 90hp? work on that fast wing without flaps I don't suspect you will forget.

Thanks for the info and the pics; my wife will really appreciate the pics. Looks like there is enough room; I'll have to run some numbers and see how the CG works out.

The numbers I'd have to run....... would be with my loan officer!!

Hey, I got toys I can live with quite nicely, tho..
lc

Matt 7GCBC wrote:

Isn't it protocol to make stowaways walk the plank? Cute pic.
personally I'd keep it to 4 seats plus baggage, and make the little kids ride in the pod underneath. You can always get a field approval for a couple portholes in it if they're claustraphobic.

Whee
From hauling fishermen and fish, and just Garbage cans of fish, you don't have to worry about the CG with the kids and the gear in the back!
You can get 8 Roughneck cans of fish, or ice in one, all you have to do is make sure it's forward as far as possible, I'm sure those kids way less thana can of Ice!!
GT

My 185 had the 3rd row seat . Someone I think already said before , real nice for one big person . Used to take the middle row out when flying loads and the tandem master would sit on the bench in the back. Worked real good. Two kids would fit fine but then they would be sitting next to each other. Witch means fighting and complaining when speaking of my two kids.Get a 207, then they can be two rows apart.

Matt 7GCBC wrote:And don't forget about 4th row passengers!

That's about the cutest photo I've ever seen.

low rider wrote:... Two kids would fit fine but then they would be sitting next to each other. Witch means fighting and complaining when speaking of my two kids.Get a 207, then they can be two rows apart.

I had the third row in my first 185. It remained in the hanger. I once had an adult human sit there on the 3rd row seat in a Honduran Military 185. He had to crawl in through the baggage door and sit sideways on a short hop. Anybody over 10 years old cannot have legs if you want to sit two abreast. I suppose you could convince two adults to sit there, folded up like a pocketknife, if Zombies where chasing you down the runway. I suspect the third row is more at home on the shelf in the hanger, where most end up, dusty and forgotten. I bet more than half have been separated from the aircraft on sale when the original owner forgot it even existed. I was more of a marketing brag for Cessna than useful. Kind of like seating for 10 in my Piper Chieftain. Yeah, you could get 10 people in it, but then you could only carry about 30 minutes of fuel.

Whee:

Had a 180 many years now with the third seat. I also have 4 kids. My theory was that with the third seat, we would have a family hauler. The addition of the BAS seats helped some as you can move the seats forward and create a little more room aft. Also, as mentioned, extended baggage compartment is essential.

I have made a number of trips over the years with everyone aboard, but I would reiterate what has been said earlier. Man it is tight!! Almost all of those trips were 300 nm or less. I made a couple of trips to Oshkosh (about 900 nm) and had 3 of the 4 kids minus the wife. It was still tight!!!

By the time your kids are teenagers (my oldest is now in college and youngest is 11), they will have outgrown the space and you won't get the whole family in.

I love my 180!! It is a great all around plane that is hard to beat. Gets in and out of short strips, is fast enough i can do my business trips in (no speed merchant but will still do 135 to 140 knots), and will haul a lot of stuff and still jump into the air.

HOWEVER, if I were doing it again I think that I would have looked closer at 206 / 207. They will get into most everything a 180 will (probably not as good off-airport bird, but otherwise is very close to a 180), they are a lot more comfortable for family hauling and will haul more volume (not necessarily weight).

I would sure miss the 180, but if you are just starting out and have a big family, would look closely at a 206. I can tell you there are a few more trips I would have made that I passed on the 180 because I couldn't figure out how to get it all in or I didn't want to endure those tight quarters for the time it would have taken to make the trip.

You won't go wrong with a 180, but if it is financially feasible, you might consider the 206. Once they are older and out of the house (believe me it goes quicker than you can imagine), you can trade it in for the 180.

Either way, good luck with your decision and congratulations on making your kids part of the aviation scene. Not enough young kids getting involved with aviation now days and it is cool that you are involving them and considering them in your hobbies.

Regards, Larry

I appreciate all the opinions and experiences. Don't really plan on doing long range traveling; just camping and maybe a trip to Seattle a couple times a year.

I've been watching the market on 180s, mostly the 180H, and have determined that they are years out of my budget. I wouldn't have a problem keeping the Luscombe for a few more years while I save $$$ but some recent news has somewhat heightened the need for a bigger plane.

While I have been looking I have read several instances where someone installed the third row seat in a 182 but they have all been 1970ish 182s. Anyone have any idea if the seat would fit in the back of a straight tail? I have tried to figure out the differences between 18x series fuselages but I can't keep it straight.

A 206 would be nice but I'd like to buy something that I can run on mogas. Besides, for some strange reason I have an affinity for the 207. Maybe it is because that is what I took most of my PPL checkride in. If I was going to buy a 206 I'd probably try to find a 207.