3000+ hr pilot, almost all of it in "Alaska" Pa-12s.
My family is getting bigger and I'm considering a C-182. I am aware of other 4 place aircraft, but for the moment lets just focus on the C-182. Probably an old one- no katmais in my future, but there's several out there with 260hp engines, which I'm not sure how cool that is or not based on my inexperience.

I know almost nothing about cessnas, but have learned that pilots are concerned about the nose gear/ firewall relationship. I'm hoping somebody can post about real world experiences with a 182 and it's off airport functionality. I'm hoping pilots/mechanics might post about the performance and potential with 26/29 mains and an 8:50 nosewheel. The boys in Alaska work the heck out of a 206, and I understand the nosewheel, engine mount difference compared to the 182, but I'm trying to understand how/if a 182 might get a guy kinda close to 206 type stuff. Whoa, calm down, don't take that literally, I know a 182 isn't a 206. Please educate me on the 182. Most of the stuff I see online is a 182 in awesome scenery landing on a relatively smooth runway- maybe there's my answer.

Not looking to hang with the 35" 18 drivers, but I need to be able to work a 182 a little bit to keep my sanity. There should be gravel bars, beaches, old mining strips that are kinda flat but have big rocks, occasional tundra strips that aren't completely smooth, maybe some ridge tops that are smooth(ish). Comments and reaction?

Thanks in advance for not talking about 180s, 185s, Maules, PA-14s, 206's, 170s, etc. Again, for the moment just talk to me about your experience with working a 182 off airport. Thanks much.

Have had friends up here with 182s have all sorts of big tire fun...buy it and fly it...

Used to be that every five or ten years some aviation magazine would have an article stating that the 182 was the most cost effective over time. Keep yer nose up.

Motoadve posts here. Have you watched his videos? He has videos on YouTube and several impress me with how much the 182 can do even with relatively small tires. Have a look if you haven't already done so.

Here's an example.

Well, if you want cub performance, buy a cub. The 182 can be given 29 inch mains, 8.5-10 nosewheel, beefed up nosefork, and it will carry a huge load. It will still cruise at 130, but also slow flight around 55. If low on weight it can easily pull off 700 ft or less strips. Be realistic, how many people go into short strips? Like I said, if you want cub performance, get a cub. Otherwise a 182 is a great compromise.

I was recently thinking that if the nose gear would hold up to the abuse, that a 182 might be a better gravel bar airplane than the 180. This thought came to me after multiple instances of damage to the horizontal stab on the C180. They are wide and low on the skywagons, making them more vulnerable to rocks that are kicked up by the main landing gear tires. Cessna 180/185 horizontal stabilizers are expensive to repair/replace.

I don't have a lot of 182 time, but the stock 180 (same in many ways) performance pleases me time and again as long as I don't ask for it to take too much abuse. In shopping, I would place lighter airframe weight ahead of a more powerful engine.

Squash- Thanks for the online video tip- I will check them out.

Owned a 182 and loved it. Bought a cub because I wanted a bush beater that could actually take the abuse without leaving me stranded. Then bought a 180 because I missed the 182 cruise speed and hauling ability... The 182 will do short as good as any other 4 pax plane. Rocks and actual tundra (tussocks), the firewall, and tunnel in one will not. They are very expensive to replace / repair when the nose gear fails and folds them over, probably even more so than the helicopter ride it's going to require to remove the bent airplane. If your lz selections are kept in check, it will serve you well, if you attempt to follow buddies in cubs or 206's your region, you will end up either disappointed or broken. There is another former 182 owner on this site who loves them, but currently owns a Bearhawk
This website is a treasure trove of knowledge and entertainment, but your region is unique in that all you have to do to see your answer is look at what your 135 guys are flying...

Arctic Flyer wrote: Most of the stuff I see online is a 182 in awesome scenery landing on a relatively smooth runway- maybe there's my answer.

You are right, the 182 is no 206, and there is a very good reason why, (all of the obvious aside) it's the nose gear...; There was a photo of two nosed up 206's on here a couple weeks ago. I suspect both of those planes could have pretty easily been flown out of there on ferry permits after the fact. A 182 in that shape? probably not going to happen...

Don't mean to be a downer, I actually really like the 182's. Just trying to suggest that there may be a better fit to the mission when someone with a handle like 'Arctic Flyer' and 3000 hrs of tailwheel time in AK is looking for an off field airplane ...

Take care, Rob

The early videos are before larger tires went on. If anyone would have any experience with how the 182 firewall handles the nose gear after off airport use, it would be Motoadve. Here's another video of many that he has on his YouTube channel.

I know his username is "motoadve" as in "moto adventures" but I will forever subconsciously rearrange those letters into "moto dave."

Zzz wrote:I know his username is "motoadve" as in "moto adventures" but I will forever subconsciously rearrange those letters into "moto dave."

Oh crap.. hahah until you just pointed out - I have been reading it as "moto dave" for the last two years.

Arctic Flyer wrote:... There should be gravel bars, beaches, old mining strips that are kinda flat but have big rocks, occasional tundra strips that aren't completely smooth, maybe some ridge tops that are smooth(ish). ...

That's really not 182 terrain, regardless of the tire size. It'll be fine until it isn't, and you won't know where that line is until you cross it. How much weight you're hauling will have a big impact, but it sounds like the whole point is to be able to haul more weight.

It doesn't have to be a catastrophic failure that strands you to ruin your day. A good hit on the nosewheel and now there are all sorts of funny sounds coming from the firewall when you taxi...addressing that in any way is very expensive and time consuming. I've flown 182's that made firewall noises...mechanic swore it was fine, but it sure made me uncomfortable.

I've got about 450 hours in a 182...all on real runways...and while I loved the power, I hated the ground handling. As a tailwheel pilot I just couldn't get used to the propeller being down that low, the tail bobbing up and down, any of it. I guess you get used to it, but even on pavement it gave me fits and starts. Can't imagine putting one down on a ridge unless the engine quit.

They're a great airplane, and the old ones can look really classy, but they're simply not designed for off-airport landings. Too bad...maybe if they were built like the 206 then 180's wouldn't be as ridiculously overpriced as they are. Some genius out there needs to make a new nosewheel mount and get it STC'd...

corefile wrote:

Zzz wrote:I know his username is "motoadve" as in "moto adventures" but I will forever subconsciously rearrange those letters into "moto dave."

Oh crap.. hahah until you just pointed out - I have been reading it as "moto dave" for the last two years.

Funny how the mind does that. I've had him as Moto Dave in my head too.

There is a sign I pass all the time "Dog Prairie Meats" Even though I know what it says my mind always asks why anybody would eat gophers (prairie dogs).

Back to the topic at hand, I've been researching exactly this question for almost a year now. Consensus is a 182 with bigger tires and a beefed front fork is a fine back country machine. Not quite the same performance as a 180 off airport but no slouch either.

Hoping it isn't too much of a hijack, why do people say the 180 is no 206 for back country ops? I've always assumed the difference was just size and usable weight but the comments lead me to believe the 206 is somehow a superior back country machine.

albravo wrote:Hoping it isn't too much of a hijack, why do people say the 180 is no 206 for back country ops?

Because it takes half as much effort to load and unload a 206 through the big door, and that's the hardest part about being a charter pilot.

What can a 182 do?
You can travel long distances comfortable,(flew mine from Costa Rica to Seattle) fly IFR in a safe stable platform, as for backcountry.
I have landed it regularly on rough strips ,beaches ,mud , grass, gravel bars and dirt roads.
I have been stuck in mud, cleared brush in the jungle with my hands for an hr and pushed the plane backwards to have a safe take off (you can land a lot shorter than than take off) flew it thru a thunderstorm once (never again ) carry my Mt bikes to go riding, it is a great airplane.

I do recommend bigger tires for sure (It really did make a difference, even I only have 8s on the mains and a 6 on the nose) and a Sportsman STOL kit so you land slow ,can be landed real slow 45mph.

Look at this video before my larger tires.


And after


This jungle strip is also operated by a 206, certainly its biffier but you also have to land it faster because it is heavier,
He takes a lot more of the strip at higher speed and beats up his plane more (just something to consider).

You hear stories of bent firewalls in 182s when landed nose first on a paved runway, that doesnt happens with 206s, so yes bigger tires and choose your landing sites carefully , land it slow and smoothly, fly it as light as possible makes a big difference in a 182.
Check my channel, lots of videos.
https://www.youtube.com/user/motoadve/videos

Mine is a 73 P model feel free to ask any questions I fly mine as much as possible

It's really hard to determine what the term "rough field" means in someone else's mind. With that in mind, I'd GENERALLY agree with Rob....the 182 is not going to be a great true off airport machine.

BUT, it will do a lot. For years I knew of a guy who kept his 182 on floats in summer and skis in winter, and flew out of Fairbanks regularly. Ski flying is NOT friendly to nose gears.

IF, however, you're really considering going there, I'd be looking at early, straight tail airplanes, for several reasons.....not the least of which is they have taller gear, and therefore more prop clearance. They're also cheaper, leaving you more money for retrofits like a Sportsman cuff and maybe a bigger engine.

As Rob says, when you start talking about "tundra strips", lots of red flashing lights appear in my mind, whether it's a 182 or a 206.....certainly there are strips out there that those airplanes could work, but.....a lot that they shouldn't.

Finally, if you do go that way, install an extended baggage, and keep survival gear--a fair amount, firmly secured waaaaay back aft, to keep weight off the nose gear. Fix a piece of heavy hose clamped around the bottom of the nose gear strut to protect against bottoming the nose gear. Pilot technique will take care of the rest.

If you're really in need of the extra space/load, the 182 could be a great, very capable airplane....but you may have to reel in your expectations of where you'll go with it......some of those places, two or three trips in the 12 may be a much better deal. I know....sometimes, ferrying just doesn't work due to time/distances.

Good luck.

MTV

.....never mind.....

hotrod180 wrote:If you've got a lot of PA12 time, you're obviously a tailwheel guy--
if the nosewheel on a C182 is a concern, why not buy a 180?
There seems to be lots of C180's for sale these days, some (generally early models) are priced very attractively. I prefer the early ones anyway.

You obviously didn't read the OP's initial post carefully....

MTV

Maybe shoot PAMR MX a pm. Sounds like he was in your shoes a few years ago and now flies the AK bush in a big tire 182.

https://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/ ... ponk-15395

First- thank you for all of the responses. The inter web can be a great place to learn and share experiences. I appreciate everyone's time. I know I asked a weird question, "is a 182 tough enough for the type of flying I like to do?" Well, who the heck knows? I obviously have some experience flying a certain type of aircraft, but almost no time in Cessnas so I'm doing my best to get people to talk about their experiences in a 182 in less than favorable runway conditions.

Over the years my mission has changed a bit to include my kids, and we don't all fit in the 12 anymore, as roomy as that awesome aircraft is! There isn't always the time and weather for multiple ferry trips. And I'll admit there's times I'd like to see something over 100 mph enroute.

I'll continue to read and learn, and we'll see what happens. I hope people continue to respond.

For whatever it's worth, i seem to be hearing a lot of the same things out there. "the 182 is a great aircraft and can do a lot, right up to a point". My inexperience is knowing where that point is so I can avoid weird stuff from happening. Always something to learn.

Also- thanks for keeping this 182 based and not meandering off into other makes and models.