Howdy,

I'm shopping for a new (to me) plane, considering buying another 182 or going with a 180. Live in Boise and plan to use the plane to haul the family to backcountry strips in Idaho, and make the odd BOI-SUN or BOI-MYL trip to visit family and friends.

I don't have any special affinity for conventional gear - I like them, and would probably prefer a 180 but in reality, a 182 is just fine for my uses. I've never done any off-airport work (yet) but I'm intrigued by the idea of landing off airport in the Owyhees and chukar hunting right from the plane. As far as I can tell, this is perhaps the only major potential benefit of going with the 180 for me, although not having done any off-airport landings, that use is probably out in the future and accounts for less than 1% of my practical needs.

Here's the question - properly set up, are you guys doing any off-airport work with tricycle gear airplanes? I'm a pretty conservative pilot and don't see myself pushing into *really* rough areas, but would like the ability to land on some of the more benign off-airport areas. If a 182 would do it, I'd probably go that route - way more available planes and a lot less expense to purchase compared to 180s.

Thoughts?

To me off airport means gravel bars, sand washes or in the sage brush. Lower Loon or Cabin Creek is not off airport. What does it meen to you.

Tim

Not to steal motoadve's thunder, but check out his stuff on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEy4on ... aNN5USqChQ

He's doing awesome stuff with a late model 182.

You bet.

With that said what limits me from more unimproved landing site landings is not the gear but the construction of the plane itself.

I have had to repair several holes in the fabric caused by debris thrown up into the fuselage and empanage on landing and more likely takeoff. This gets tiring after a while so now I mostly will use it on grass rather than gravel.

This is not a shortcoming of the gear placement but rather the construction material.

Mountain Doctor wrote:
This is not a shortcoming of the gear placement but rather the construction material.

Dents and paint chips in aluminum are much easier to ignore

I very much agree with Mountain Doctor. Most of my off airstrip experience was Pawnee, Callair, and $10,000 Stearman. The many, many patches were just patina on those airplanes.

qmdv wrote:To me off airport means gravel bars, sand washes or in the sage brush. Lower Loon or Cabin Creek is not off airport. What does it meen to you.

Tim

The same, by off-airport I mean off-"strip", although in my case it's not so much gravel bars and washes, its more dry lakebeds, "leks", and in the sage/grass.

I would expect this plane to get into and out of most every "strip" of sufficient length in Idaho given the right circumstances, save for a few (like Mile High, which just might not be for me). The motoadve vid is nice, but I didn't see him plopping down in the sage.

I guess the question is: recognizing there will be limitations, is a 182, again, properly set up, going to be able to land on a grass/sage ridge in the desert where I can go chukar hunting - haha! (i.e. not on a "strip")

I've landed mine in a fair amount of "off airport" spots (random ridgetops, fields, pastures, etc.)
The front end on a rans is pretty tough, as it's tied into a chromoly cage, not a firewall, but it's still the weak link! There has also been places I've wanted to set it down, but decided that having a tri-gear airplane that's usable is a lot better than not having an airplane that can still be flown. Next bird will be tailwheel... they are more capable of course! but you can do a LOT with a nose wheel if it's setup right. Worst part of the whole thing is landing of course, trying to get stopped in a short rough spot means quite a bit of weight on the nosewheel while on the brakes and it can be rough. Of course taxing through rough crappy terrain can be a scare for prop clearance too. There has been times I've just gotten out and moved it by hand (but it's real light, so I can do that).

I guess the question is: recognizing there will be limitations, is a 182, again, properly set up, going to be able to land on a grass/sage ridge in the desert where I can go chukar hunting - haha! (i.e. not on a "strip")

Realistically, no. I've spend a lot of time in the Owyhee's, and landing a 182 out there after air-scouting is going to bite you hard. I'm sure there are places that will work, but you won't be able to tell the good places from the bad places by flying over them. Talented aviators do a lot more with a 182 than most would think prudent, but it is simply not a off-airport platform.

That said, while you can land a lot more places with a 180 on big tires, you still probably won't be chucker hunting from the airplane.

Unless you've scouted out (and marked) appropriate areas from the ground, you're taking a fantastic risk landing in grass and sage with ANY airplane. All it takes is one rock or badger hole, invisible from the air, to destroy your transportation. Super-Cub-class airplanes reduce the risk with drastically reduced weight and ground rolls, but 180's are not Super Cub's. And ALL airplanes are going to sustain some amount of damage with that sort of operation...usually more than a day of chukker hunting warrants.

If you want to land off-airport in the Owyhee's, get a Super-Cub-class airplane with monster tires and a LOT of insurance and a well funded repair account. At least that's been my conclusion after years of trying to access the Owyhee's with a big-tire, big engine 170B...a airplane better suited to the task than a 180 if kept light.

Hammer wrote:

I guess the question is: recognizing there will be limitations, is a 182, again, properly set up, going to be able to land on a grass/sage ridge in the desert where I can go chukar hunting - haha! (i.e. not on a "strip")

Realistically, no. I've spend a lot of time in the Owyhee's, and landing a 182 out there after air-scouting is going to bite you hard. I'm sure there are places that will work, but you won't be able to tell the good places from the bad places by flying over them. Talented aviators do a lot more with a 182 than most would think prudent, but it is simply not a off-airport platform.

That said, while you can land a lot more places with a 180 on big tires, you still probably won't be chucker hunting from the airplane.

Unless you've scouted out (and marked) appropriate areas from the ground, you're taking a fantastic risk landing in grass and sage with ANY airplane. All it takes is one rock or badger hole, invisible from the air, to destroy your transportation. Super-Cub-class airplanes reduce the risk with drastically reduced weight and ground rolls, but 180's are not Super Cub's. And ALL airplanes are going to sustain some amount of damage with that sort of operation...usually more than a day of chukker hunting warrants.

If you want to land off-airport in the Owyhee's, get a Super-Cub-class airplane with monster tires and a LOT of insurance and a well funded repair account. At least that's been my conclusion after years of trying to access the Owyhee's with a big-tire, big engine 170B...a airplane better suited to the task than a 180 if kept light.

Thanks for the great answer - I probably couldn't ask for a more direct response with more specific real-world experience!

I think @Hammer's response is pretty great and I appreciate it, and while I think that the conclusion that a 180 isn't appropriate for all off-airport operations is maybe a touch overstated, it does beg the question: if we *do* assume 180s aren't appropriate for off-airport ops, what is the benefit of a 180 over a 182 in practical terms?

I know this will unleash a firestorm - and for the record I like and would prefer a 180 over a 182 don't get me wrong. But for the $20k-50k difference in price for comparable age, quality, and times, what is the practical benefit?

They burn the same fuel, they have the same hp and wing, they have basically the same useful load and speed (I know these somewhat favor the 180), and they cost the same to maintain. If we assume they're limited to the same landing options (strips), other than the fun and satisfaction of flying with the third wheel in the right place (!), is there a real argument for one over the other?

Part of me thinks there must be - I know a handful of people who have sold their 182s and replaced them with 180s. I'd be interested to know what is their "why?".

As I was taxiing a 172 over some not-so-smooth pasture today, the nose strut jimmying up and down, it occurred to me that if I dropped the nosewheel into a hole I couldn't see in the grass, the engine was off to the shop for teardown. Do that with the little wheel on a taildragger and at most you're looking at some rudder repair or something.

Coming from this perspective, that I'm largely a nosewheel pilot with not a lot of tailwheel experience and even less tailwheel expertise, I'd say that the single biggest advantage that a 180 has over a 182 is prop clearance. Second comes panache. Whether that's worth the much greater purchase price, insurance cost, and risk of damage is personal. I see a lot of 180s that never see anything rougher than I can handle in my P172D. But their props are in a much safer position to minimize a prop strike than mine is.

Cary

skiermanmike wrote:I think @Hammer's response is pretty great and I appreciate it, and while I think that the conclusion that a 180 isn't appropriate for all off-airport operations is maybe a touch overstated, it does beg the question: if we *do* assume 180s aren't appropriate for off-airport ops, what is the benefit of a 180 over a 182 in practical terms?

Skis. Easier to put on floats (a lot more of them have float kits).

Don't have much experience with 182's but a bit with 206's and have landed 180's off airport a time or two. I guess its a matter of your risk tolerance. Here in Alaska there is a lot of landing truly off-airport of Cessnas, both tailwheel and tri. I don't know your country, no idea if i can be done there, but here it can be done frequently and safely with experience. Of course, metal does get bent occasionally, just like taking your truck off-road.

For me get the biggest, softest tires you can gives you a margin of error if you misjudge the surface. Personally I feel more comfortable landing a tailwheel than a nosewheel off airport both for visibility and in case you misjudge the surface. But I know guys who use 182s and 206 pretty hard off airport and get away with it just fine.

I asked a similar question awhile back, and received a bunch of great information.

https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/c-18 ... t-do-19791

I ended up searching for a year for the right C-180 and I couldn't be happier. However, I echo some of the other comments and know guys that work 182s on some rough strips.

Good luck.

If you want to operate off airport a lot get a tailwheel . Even then consistent off airport ops will bend , crack and break things on a tailwheel . Just the price of doing business . If you have the $$ to fix all the little stuff that is going to get beat up bouncing around in the bushes then it won't really be an issue .

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/aviatio ... h-landing/

Would a tailwheel aircraft have flipped under the same circumstances.... Maybe, no way to tell. They certainly flipped and wrecked plenty of 180s, 185s and beavers when they were more common than 206s. Still do for that matter..... But I still FEEL more comfortable with a tailwheel off-airport.

I think the manual flaps and the whole tail trim result and influence in a 3 second near incident tells everything.
I would buy an older 182 for that reason. I liked Nick Cane's 59 182 at Caveman the first year we did the fly in.
Example.We visited a friend rancher AK guide south a Cody Wyo. It was the first Absaroka challenge 5k mountain run and we were concerned no one would show up. No airport in the area, so I landed on the ranch driveway. When departing a gust hit us from the side on this narrow trail. Float experience to break it off the water might have helped at that moment. I grabbed 30/40 degrees of flap to keep the wheels off the sage and saved the takeoff. I have been in places I didn't belong with a 180 HP Skyhawk too, and I know the 180 manual flaps saved it. Also slush on a frozen lake and sometimes a plowed road on ice with holes can make you react fast to save the moment.
My read of the conditions were about the same as a gravel strip 65 NW of ANC fishing with my 180 on 800's.
Its not all bush flying but the risks of a farm field or scenic glacier lake strip are similar and cause the same impulsive reactions.
Our not so fond memories are full of surprises in places not worth doing again or where we didn't belong ?
If we think its close to fire wall and nose wheel damage how close are we to regular tires tail wheel plane damage ?
Don't get me wrong, I love the 180 but its risky in some places. Even the ultimate big tire high CG short rig goes on the're back easier.
Isn't it about choices ? We can choose the risk. OK Fred I'll follow you..
For us I'm happy we got away with it. Good luck out there

skiermanmike wrote: I think @Hammer's response is pretty great and I appreciate it, and while I think that the conclusion that a 180 isn't appropriate for all off-airport operations is maybe a touch overstated, it does beg the question: if we *do* assume 180s aren't appropriate for off-airport ops, what is the benefit of a 180 over a 182 in practical terms?....

I think you're thinking too black-and-white, when in reality there's a lot of gray area.
There's off-airport ops, and then again there's also WAY off-airport ops.
IMHO a 180 is suitable for some places that a 182 is not,
and a Supercub is suitable for some places that a 180 is not.
(and a helicopter is suitable for some places that a SC is not)