Hey Rob, thanks for all the info on why the early ones are lighter--good stuff.

I don't think anyone questioned that early ones are lighter--just a matter of how much lighter in reality. I did question the accuracy of the W/B of most early planes. Including from the factory. Including my '55 180. Its factory W/B says 1538 lbs. Read the fine print--the equipment list at that weight didn't include a battery or gyros. Hmmm... think it included paint, or interior, or maybe even seats? Who knows... Cessna fudged more on W/B in the early years than they did in later years.

My paper W/B that all the IAs were happy to sign off on, including some reputable ones who should have known better, traced back to that factory paper but didn't do basic things like add the weight of battery and gyros, let alone paint.

Most of these early 180s "gain" weight when they are finally weighed--including mine. They are still light, just not quite as light as most people think. And they are still very nice, light 180s with a lighter control feel. I like my '55! Happy flying...

Some can buy a plane and it suits thee mission just fine and they live happily ever after. They are so lucky
For me, I look for one that will come as close as possable, then shape it into the perfect plane for me. Not cheap,but the grin is priceless.

mtv wrote:Also, for those considering "upgrades" such as more power, higher GW, etc, understand that the 53 180 was identical to the C 170, from the door post aft, but with different tail feathers.

As the 180 "matured", there were a lot of modifications done to the frame, largely aimed at strengthening it to absorb both the punishing environment that these airplanes were designed to work in, and also, of course the added weight of the later models. The natural progression of this came late in production, when the 180 airframe became virtually identical with the 185.

So, if you're going with one of the very early 180's, yes, they CAN BE light. Just don't try to turn them into a 185....

MTV

If the 180 is the same as 170 from the door post aft (datum), then how did Cessna deal with the change in the CG? Granted I've never looked at a 180 W&B, but the 170s were less than 1300# new and if 180s are 200+ pounds more and most of the weight is forward of the door post, they must have done something to account for that change. I can see the larger tailfeathers and adjustable elevator helping with the inflight w&b, but what about on the ground? Are the gear legs that much more forward than in the 170?

The AFT door post. I don't know what Cessna did different. My comment was from a long time Cessna employee who both built and flew those airplanes back in those days. And, find me a Cessna 170 that weighs less than 1300 pounds. Maybe the straight 170, but certainly not any of the B's. Mine is 1336 or thereabouts, and is one of the lightest 170s I've been around. And, that's with modern accessories, a composite prop, etc.

Consider that the early O-470 probably didn't weigh THAT much more than the O-300, though I'm sure there was some weight difference. Then there's the constant speed prop on the 180, way out front. Slightly heavier landing gear.

On the other end, larger tail surfaces, waaaaay out there on the arm. Trim system, with jackscrew, yoke, etc....heavier than a simple trim tab on the 170. It doesn't take much weight way out there on the tail to offset a fair amount up front.

MTV

Is that one of the Lemon's 180's?

Rob - great info, thanks for posting that. Some of it should be obvious in retrospect, but some (like the flaps) most would never know. Sounds like there are some real advantages to first year production from a lightweight standpoint.

Of course, as you said, mission is everything. My mission is not the same as yours or the next guys. However, a lot of guys up here just bought whatever skywagon came along first that they could afford, then modified it to suit their needs as finances allow. Leads to a lot of heavy planes, often doing more than they were intended to. I know a lot of early planes have hauled a smidge more than 2550# at some point and bent or broke 7/8" stingers. Probably most were changed out to heavier ones cause someones brother-in-law knew a guy who had heard of a broken one but....

My 59 was over 1800 on paper when I got it. Now under 1700 and well suited to my mission, but this thread gives me a few ideas to lighten her up a bit.

I'll contact Calkins a call - he has a good reputation.

mtv wrote:......Consider that the early O-470 probably didn't weigh THAT much more than the O-300, though I'm sure there was some weight difference. ....

That's a hoot.....TCDS's say dry weight for the O-300A is 268#, for the O-470A #378. You can just look at the engine and in fact the complete firewall forward set-up and tell that the C180 is much heavier than the 170 in that department.

hotrod150 wrote:

mtv wrote:......Consider that the early O-470 probably didn't weigh THAT much more than the O-300, though I'm sure there was some weight difference. ....

That's a hoot.....TCDS's say dry weight for the O-300A is 268#, for the O-470A #378. You can just look at the engine and in fact the complete firewall forward set-up and tell that the C180 is much heavier than the 170 in that department.

While I agree that Mike's comment should be taken with a grain of salt, I also know for a fact that trying to extrapolate engine weights from a TCDS is worthless in the context of this discussion... And you can Verify that with any reputable engine builder
At this point the OP's thread has been maligned every which way possible. I had intended to reply to skyjeep with a copy of my original W&B , because in '53 there was no such thing as 'fine print' on the W&B, remember, they were hand written and yes they included batteries, gyros, and whatever else was on your equipment list. I haven't flown much , but most everything I have flown has made book numbers +++ in most everything I have asked them to do, when flown in the 'book' config...
Not being much of a conspiracist, I don't buy into the notion that airplane manufacturers blatantly lie about weights. I am of the opinion that when building 1000's of airplanes a year, they just simply needed to establish a reasonable 'baseline' to a particular model and go from the equipment list for the rest in the name of timely production. Not much rocket science there....

Ymmv....
Take care, Rob

Rob wrote:..........If mine were not a standard A/W cert, I would just pitch the t/w steering and all it's associated cables and jibberish...

I've seen some Cubs on which that had been done, they steered strictly via rudder and/or brakes. It's obvious that they removed the chains going from the rudder horns to the t/w steering arm, but do they also modify the t/w assembly internally ( I assume by removing the leaf spring, p/n 3222 ) to make it full-time free-swivel ?

hotrod150 wrote:

Rob wrote:..........If mine were not a standard A/W cert, I would just pitch the t/w steering and all it's associated cables and jibberish...

I've seen some Cubs on which that had been done, they steered strictly via rudder and/or brakes. It's obvious that they removed the chains going from the rudder horns to the t/w steering arm, but do they also modify the t/w assembly internally ( I assume by removing the leaf spring, p/n 3222 ) to make it full-time free-swivel ?

I have seen it done several ways, and flown it several ways. On mine it will be as you described (except I will remove the rudder and t/w head 'horns' as well), because at cub landing speeds in the sticks there is no real benefit to having detents. The Bbushwheel is slow enough to turn on it's own, the more friction you lose back there the nicer it steers. Plus, at that point all your doing with the internals is adding weight . Because as many smarter people than me have said before ; if you take care of the ounces, the pounds will take care of them selves....

Take care, Rob

Thanks to all for the knowledge and points of view. I am going to get a prepurchase tomorrow so wish me luck...don't want to find out the wings are 'bout to fall off

FiddlerPilot wrote:Thanks to all for the knowledge and points of view. I am going to get a prepurchase tomorrow so wish me luck...don't want to find out the wings are 'bout to fall off

Good luck Fiddler, what part of CO ?

I'm in GJ, the bird is out at Mack. You?

Good luck, let us know what you find out...

I didn't see it mentioned specifically, probably missed it. But early models (53 and 54 I think), didn't originally have baggage doors. I can access my extended baggage through the baggage door. Would be awful inconvenient having to crawl all the way back there every time I needed something.

Food for thought! Good luck with the purchase.

Rob wrote:. I had intended to reply to skyjeep with a copy of my original W&B , because in '53 there was no such thing as 'fine print' on the W&B, remember, they were hand written and yes they included batteries, gyros, and whatever else was on your equipment list. I haven't flown much , but most everything I have flown has made book numbers +++ in most everything I have asked them to do, when flown in the 'book' config...
Not being much of a conspiracist, I don't buy into the notion that airplane manufacturers blatantly lie about weights. I am of the opinion that when building 1000's of airplanes a year, they just simply needed to establish a reasonable 'baseline' to a particular model and go from the equipment list for the rest in the name of timely production. Not much rocket science there....

Ymmv....
Take care, Rob

Hi Rob,

In '53 it may have been hand written but in '55 there was a typed checklist, with boxes checked for installed equipment, or at least that's what my plane has. And then the weight written by hand. On mine, the boxes for battery and gyros were not checked. No boxes for paint or interior though. This is factory original paper. I don't know what they did as general practice, just what they did on mine, and what it weighs now on certified scales as a basic VFR plane.

Happy flying,
Tom

Well, everything checked out except for a crack in the exhaust, and some cracking in the gel coat of the Horton STOLs, so that should give me some bargaining power. No corrosion visible in any of the inspection portals, I am pleasantly surprised at the great condition of this Bird. I think I will pull the trigger tomorrow and make a final offer...

Sounds like a great find Fiddler. When the deal is done, post up some pictures!

Sounds great, good luck on getting the right deal!

FiddlerPilot wrote:Well, everything checked out except for a crack in the exhaust, and some cracking in the gel coat of the Horton STOLs, so that should give me some bargaining power. No corrosion visible in any of the inspection portals, I am pleasantly surprised at the great condition of this Bird. I think I will pull the trigger tomorrow and make a final offer...

A brave man posting on here before the deal is done. Who knows where those lurking shoppers are!

Oh yeah, this thread sucks without pics! -

Congrats. I look forward to seeing it at Caveman.