My dilemma: After nearly a year discussing with experts and flying different aircraft we've narrowed our choices down to 1) early/light 182 (wife wants side x side and she's a pretty good stick herself); Sportmans and big tires for some travel and rough dirt/grass strips PLUS an older Husky for single pilot serious fun-most of my fun flying is by myself. Spending winters in PHX desert landing in soft sandy/rocky creek bottoms will be tough on NLG. VERSUS 2) early/light 180 to do it all with slight compromises.

What is the issue with the early 180 MLG and how were/are they being damaged? Seems to me (I looked seriously at 180/170B-want a little more travel speed) basically same AC with bigger engine is a great thing. We'll be removing backseat and minor mods for lighter weight and probably never be at gross. We've both owned/flown tandem TWs full time since 1981.

I realize there are many great alternative aircraft to my choices; but, for many reasons compiled during our search this is definitely where we're headed.

Thanks
Jack

flyingjack wrote:….What is the issue with the early 180 MLG and how were/are they being damaged? ….

I don't know of any specific reports of early C180 MLG being damaged.
Cessna did sweep the MLG forward approx. 3" in 1955.
This information might be useful to you, it's very comprehensive:

http://skywagons.com/content/cessna-sky ... ar-changes

Thanks Hotrod, I also read through Bigrenna's (Greg) info at Bushwagonseast. Great info.
Jack

Not sure what damaged landing gear means. Doesn't Tailwheel Tom offer a service where he NDTs them? On my '57 I installed the later thicker gear legs and the pponk landing gear attachment beef-up.

Early 182s are also awesome planes. With the back seat out you have yourself a flying pick-up truck. And, later on you can convert to tail dragger if you so desire. Or, just fly the heck out of it.

On the topic of 180 vs... I recently flew a ‘78 182RG o-540. Coming from a 170B, it felt VERY heavy on the controls. It was manageable, just heavy and I expected that. I noticed it the most doing pattern work, not so much doing high work. Does a 1960-ish 180 have a similar feel? That heavy on the controls?

I have a 1958 180. It feels like a sports car compared to a 1960s or later 182.

Paddles wrote:On the topic of 180 vs... I recently flew a ‘78 182RG o-540. Coming from a 170B, it felt VERY heavy on the controls. It was manageable, just heavy and I expected that. I noticed it the most doing pattern work, not so much doing high work. Does a 1960-ish 180 have a similar feel? That heavy on the controls?

I do not remember the model year but Cessna changed from a T style yoke control system to a rod / torque tube style... Made it easier to install bigger panels and radios but made the control system stiffer and not as light...

Brian.

Brian-StevesAircraft wrote:

Paddles wrote:On the topic of 180 vs... I recently flew a ‘78 182RG o-540. Coming from a 170B, it felt VERY heavy on the controls. It was manageable, just heavy and I expected that. I noticed it the most doing pattern work, not so much doing high work. Does a 1960-ish 180 have a similar feel? That heavy on the controls?

I do not remember the model year but Cessna changed from a T style yoke control system to a rod / torque tube style... Made it easier to install bigger panels and radios but made the control system stiffer and not as light...

Brian.

Hey Brian, I think they changed the yoke on the 182 the same year they went to the wide body. That year 1962 they also also got rid of the trimmable stabilizer. Maybe the change in tail feathers did more to make it stiffer than the yole change did. Maybe.