I’m brand new member here, so please have patience if this has already been talked about. I searched but didn’t come up with the answers I needed on this site.

I recently purchased a 1956 C182.
It was converted to conventional landing gear in 1998 via field approval. Whoever did the modification did a real nice job.
The problem that I’m having is upgrading the plane with all the good stuff that a 180 either has on the TCDS or with the STC’s that apply to a 180.
I want to put a 88” prop on it. Specifically the McCauley 2A34C203. BAS tailpull handle, float kit, windshield V brace, P-Ponk beef up, ski install, and baby bushwheel and I’m sure I’m missing some mods.
Has other members ran into this? Anyone have copies of field approvals that I could use as a basis? It’s still a 182 on the data plate and also in the FAA’s eyes and I would like the plane to be legit.
Thanks,
John

John,

I’ve got a ‘58 Skylane that I bought with the intention of eventually converting. At this time I have reconsidered and will most likely just buy a 180 or 185 when the time is right. You will note that many of the STC’s that you are interested in are available for the straight tail nosedraggers (seaplanes west float kit and motor mount, extended baggage, firewall battery, and many others) The long props, ABW’s, etc. will require a field approval. I have found through my IA, and a few others, that our FSDO is fairly friendly toward field approvals; many are not. As a result of all of the info gathered over the last few years of straight tail ownership,I have decided it will remain a nosedragger for that very reason. Happy hunting, and I hope some guys here can provide some sunnier advice. Shoot me a PM and I will point you in the direction of a guy who has converted a few and can advise you on some direction.

-Evan

I’ve got a 182A that is still a nosedragger but has some of the mods that you’re interested in. As Evan mentioned, a lot of STCs are available for the straight tail 182s. I have the Red Lake float kit (installed in 1997), which is unsupported now as far as I can tell, but you can go Seaplanes West for the float kit. I also have the P-Ponk and an 86” Mac 401. The P-Ponk was done on a field approval with the comment “deviated from STC by installing on Cessna 182A model.” I think the 182s are on the STC now. As for your choice of prop, if it’s not on the P-Ponk STC, I think you’d have a big uphill battle to get a field approval. Since you’re in Palmer, go talk to Custom Aircraft, as they are a P-Ponk (okay, North Point these days) dealer and talk to them about what you can do. I think they’re a good outfit and I know I’ll use them when my engine comes up for overhaul. Since you’ll be doing a bunch of mods, you ought to consider the wing extensions. There is an STC for a straight tail 182 and besides the performance gain, you legally get another 300# in gross weight.

Ross

John, I forgot to mention that the verbiage "deviated from STC by installing on Cessna 182A model" appears on a few of my field approved 337s. Some IAs don't even want to try to mess with field appovals these days, but one IA that did a lot of the mods on my plane before I bought it doesn't seem to shy away from asking for a field approval. So, I think it will depend on the IA you're working with, whether or not they even want to try to go down that road.

Ross

Akmech583 wrote:....The problem that I’m having is upgrading the plane with all the good stuff that a 180 either has on the TCDS or with the STC’s that apply to a 180. I want to put a 88” prop on it. Specifically the McCauley 2A34C203. .....

Legally installing a prop is not only dependent on aircraft model, but engine model.
What engine does your 182 have? I'm guessing a 470L.
I'm pretty sure that neither Cessna (on the TCDS) or McCauley lists the C203 as approved for that engine.

My C180 has a 470K (very similar to the L), it had an 82" C203 when I bought it & now has an 88" C201.
Both the C201 & C203 are approved on the C180 with a 470 K & L engine via STC #SA388NW from North Sound Aviation.
You might be able to find a similar STC for a C182 / 470L combination.

The C203 was added to both the 180 and 182 TCDS decades ago (ref. 5A6 and 3A13). Prior to that (late 1980s) there were STCs to for the C203/180/182/470 combination.

http://www.faa.gov

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guid ... nFrameset=

C180_guy wrote:The C203 was added to both the 180 and 182 TCDS decades ago (ref. 5A6 and 3A13). Prior to that (late 1980s) there were STCs to for the C203/180/182/470 combination.

http://www.faa.gov

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guid ... nFrameset=

The way I read the 182 TCDS, that prop is limited to 82" max, while John wants to use an 88" prop. Please let me know if I'm missing something.

Ross

C180_guy wrote: The C203 was added to both the 180 and 182 TCDS decades ago (ref. 5A6 and 3A13). Prior to that (late 1980s) there were STCs to for the C203/180/182/470 combination.............

You're right, thanks for pointing that out.
The C180 TCDS is up to Revision 68 (if not more now),
I'm thinking the STC I have for my airplane was from before that prop was added.
I think the C203 prop was installed back around 1990.

Interesting that the TCDS says "aircraft reworked per cessna service kit SK180-45 " (for the 82 inch prop)
and ".....SK180-46 " (for the 88 incher).
I googled those service kits,
apparently they consisted of a new prop & instructions for installation.

The 182 will need approval for an 88" prop.
Unfortunately, even though the base C203 prop is approved per TCDS,
I'm thinking that the installing A&P or IA verifying that ground clearance requirements are met probably would not be sufficient.
It seems like it'd be a no-brainer for a field approval,
but most FSDO's seem to be pretty reluctant to stick their necks out on a FA for anything these days.

hotrod180 wrote:I'm thinking that the installing A&P or IA verifying that ground clearance requirements are met probably would not be sufficient.
It seems like it'd be a no-brainer for a field approval,
but most FSDO's seem to be pretty reluctant to stick their necks out on a FA for anything these days.

probably going to be a concern for acoustic, too.

C180_guy wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:I'm thinking that the installing A&P or IA verifying that ground clearance requirements are met probably would not be sufficient.
It seems like it'd be a no-brainer for a field approval,
but most FSDO's seem to be pretty reluctant to stick their necks out on a FA for anything these days.

probably going to be a concern for acoustic, too.

I like BIG prop noise

Mapleflt wrote:

C180_guy wrote: probably going to be a concern for acoustic, too.

I like BIG prop noise

hotrod180 wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:

C180_guy wrote: probably going to be a concern for acoustic, too.

I like BIG prop noise

Like the boys in the artilary said, don't care what you play just play it LOUD

Mapleflt wrote:

C180_guy wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:I'm thinking that the installing A&P or IA verifying that ground clearance requirements are met probably would not be sufficient.
It seems like it'd be a no-brainer for a field approval,
but most FSDO's seem to be pretty reluctant to stick their necks out on a FA for anything these days.

probably going to be a concern for acoustic, too.

I like BIG prop noise

Same here (88" Mac 203, also). However, the feds do not.

Not helpful at all, but I saw this on the internet today and thought of this thread [emoji23]

CamTom12 wrote:Not helpful at all, but I saw this on the internet today and thought of this thread [emoji23]

I love photo-chop….