I agree, 850 mains and 800 nose is a good setup. ran it on my 172 and now on the 182

This is the set up that works for me.8.50 on the nose 8.50 10's on the mains. The 182 is a very capable performer it will do most of what a 180 will do. Three people half tanks 800ft. And can burn skiff gas if need be.

Thought I'd share a link to a working 182. I was out in Bethel when Steve refurbished this plane. He does really nice work and it's been going on roughly 15 years or so since then.

https://www.facebook.com/Foxairllc/

Here's his website:

http://www.foxaircraft.com/

I firsthand saw a 182 take on some fairly rough terrain. He went in first, and if he made it.. I was following him in with my nosewheel (smaller fork/nose wheel at the time.. my current setup I built with the larger 4 ply tire does better) anyway... it seemed to take it like a champ.. and he said he had been lots of other off airport spots.. he could definitely fly that thing.. I mean we ended up on a pretty short, random ridge top at 10,000ft as the highlight of that day! I think he had the HD fork (or whatever the tougher one is for a 182) and whatever the larger tire was that fits that - 7.00?

A tougher fork is not going to help. The week link is the firewall. I have a 310 fork with a 600x6. 700's on the mains. It is all I need for what I do. Here is my static display at High Sierra Fly-in. Me not the plane.


Tim

qmdv wrote:A tougher fork is not going to help. The week link is the firewall. I have a 310 fork with a 600x6. 700's on the mains. It is all I need for what I do. Here is my static display at High Sierra Fly-in. Me not the plane.


Tim

Looks like that was directed to me... I didn't claim it would.. just stating the facts about his setup, and what I saw it handle. Does the HD/tougher whatever it is called fork allow a larger tire, because a larger tire can make a real difference.

The Landes fork does make a difference because the bigger tire rolls over surface irregularities easier than the small tire does. If a 6.00-6 works for someone's personal flying that's dandy, but it won't handle what a 8.00 or 8.50x6 will. Especially when things get soft and muddy.

Gravity,
I personally don't think Tim (qmdv) was saying the 'firewall weal link' comment towards you. I think he was mentioning it as a well known fact, especially towards the 182 class of planes. Probably overstepped my bounds there but that is how I took the comment.

Oh, by the way, I really like what you have done/do with the Rans S6!! Not too many pilots use that plane the way you do.

The bigger forks themselves are no more heavy duty than a stock fork. But yes the bigger tires do really help with flotation in sand and mud. My 600x6 is way better than a 500x5 but if you land my plane is really soft stuff it really stresses the firewall.

As my plane is set up I can get into at least 90% of the places 180's can get into. And about 95% of 180 drivers do not go to tougher places than I go. Not saying they cannot but am saying they don't usually do it.

If my mission changes to the more challenging then a change in planes would be in order.

Tim

Oh and I like everybody's plane and everybody's mod.

Thanks for all the great information. I learned a lot, and I don't think this lesson actually cost me anything.

I think for my mission I'm going to look for a C-180.

The hunt is on.

There's a lot of great 182 info in this thread, a very capable plane indeed.

What made you lean towards a 180?

I think some of the stuff I like to do can be a little bumpy. Kinda nervous by nature and I don't want to worry about the nose wheel, the prop, or the firewall. A 180 might allow me to hit my spot and crash in there with fewer worries.

I also like to fly skis, or at least have the option to. I usually land on big rivers and snowy runways, and that seems easier with a 180.

C-182 seems super cool, but maybe not exactly right for me.