A lot of desktop musings. When allowed to carry out some non essential travel may look at either a 205 (project) or 182 (good condition). The 205 is a sound airframe just needs resurrecting on the engine/propeller front.

I certainly don’t need the payload of the 205, but I would consider the main advantage of the 205 being the nose wheel not being attached to the firewall. It is also an authentic 4 seat plus baggage cruiser, but as stated not a factor for my mission.

In favour of the 182 is the tailplane trim system, Johnson bar flap system, carburettor and being around 200 lbs lighter than the 205 empty weight wise. Against is a relative modest payload.

Define mission comes up regularly: VFR with ability to land in smooth grass strips, no gravel/river banks/steep gradients (500 m), light IFR which in Europe means availability to climb to FL090 at a reasonable ROC, VFR range with reserves of 500nm. In Europe light IFR requires a VOR/LOC and an IFR GPS, plus Mode S.

Both aircraft seem to meet this easily.

I prefer the 182 and think it may be slightly more sprightly handling wise, although neither types are ballerinas! It also maybe slightly cheaper to maintain.

I'm assuming you are comparing the early model (pre 1962) 182 based some of the pluses you listed for it, before widening the body and adding all the weight. They are like two different planes (early vs. late model), fly very different. You stated just landing on smooth grass strips, no gravel/riverbed landings - in which case I don't think you should have any concerns about the 182 nosegear - with proper landing technique on smooth grass strips it would not be a concern at all - or even semi rough, its really not as weak as some think, is it as strong as being attached to the engine mount - no... but from what you have described that is not something to be remotely concerned about.

If tricycle gear is your thing, its really hard to beat the price to capability of a solid early model 1956-1961 Cessna 182. Its one of the best deals to be had actually.

And (my opinion – worth what you're paying for it) the 182 would probably be easier to sell when the time comes...

I have a 205, which I bought after looking at 182s. Currently, 205's are selling at a premium, with high demand. It is a value compared to a 206, and is big enough to fly four real people (800 lbs), full tanks (up to 82 gallons) and real luggage (200 lbs) vs a 182. I usually remove the rearmost seats, and can hold more in the back than our SUV can take to the airport. The baggage in a 182 just isn't very big without extended baggage. The 205 also has 25 more horsepower (260 vs 235) and is injected, which allows lean of peak operation with ease. The 205 does fly like an even bigger dump truck than a 182. It is hugely a trim airplane. It is very stable as a result, but even a 172 feels lively in comparison.

Having said that, it would be much easier to find a decent 182. Unless you really need the capacity of the 205, I'd likely shy away from what could be a derelict that needs a motor and prop.

https://backcountrypilot.org/knowledge- ... cessna-205

Check out the knowledge base article about the 205.

In an ideal world a 180A through early H from a desert state with no accident history is the ideal. However these are getting very rare, and commanding high prices, compared to early 182 A through B or C. Also I expect insurance capacity for GA and tail wheel in particular is likely to suffer in the medium term. A sturdy well proven nose wheel type is just going to be easier to insure, even if your tailwheel experience meets requirements.

The straight tail 182 in good condition does appear to tick most boxes, but not that many this side in Europe.

I owned a 63 205 for five years and now a 56 182....both are great airplanes...205 gives you wide cabin, fuel injection, a rear door...sort of...six seats in pinch...and longer fuel than my 55 gallons....it’s heavy and protecting the nose is key...not a lot of prop clearance...but stable like a rock....panel is wide so more options for creativity and placement .....the 182 is light and more like a great pair of jeans...you wear it. No surprises...it’s a simple airplane....solid engine, manual flaps and built on a solid airframe....the 180. Only negative is I wish it was a tad wider but like the high stance and more prop clearance. Both will require you to explain to others what they are...the 205 is a fixed gear 210...and an early 182 a 180 with an aft gear box....pm if you want to talk more