Howdy! I've been cruising these forums for some time, but just recently joined. I'm a newer private pilot currently working on my instrument rating, but I'm also an avid outdoorsman. The lure of being able to land in the backcountry, camp, hunt and fish is taking over my imagination. It's something I want to start doing and also something I want to be able to do with a future family.

My goal is to get a 180.... At some point. For the time being, I am on more of a budget. My father is an A&P and we are thinking about buying something that flies but is a little bit of a project. We are currently looking at a 1950 Cessna 170A or a 1961 182. I've read plenty of threads about the 170 and people's general preference of the 170 B over the A. I'm just curious about your opinions on the two choices. Both are mid-time engines with very basic panel and paint/interior in need of some love. I'm leaning toward the 182 for its higher useful load and increased HP. However, the 170 being a TW seems like a better fit for the backcountry. Choices choices.... Thanks very much!

Nick

Don't discount the '56-'59 182's. I would prefer one of these over a '61 182 or a 170 for backcountry ops. While a 170 is a great bird it is a little anemic with the stock 145 hp. Slap a 180 hp on it and your looking at price significantly north of a decent straight-tail 182.

False choice. Keep looking for a '56-'59 182 or a 170B. Gump has a really nice tailwheel 172 he might sell you. Great flaps and straight tail etc. Not a project. He's looking for a Mooney. Sorry for speaking for you Gump.....

A 61' isn't a bad choice; still narrow like the earlier 182 but has a slant tail. The 60-61 182 is supposedly the fastest. I personally like the straight tail 182 but for no other reason than looks.

As to the 170 A vs B they both have the exact same full flap stall speed so short landing distance will be the same. It is safe to slip an A model with full flaps but not a B model so steepness of approach with different techniques will be similiar. If you dont have a family now and want a 180 later I would go with the 170 and become comfortable with a taildragger. Buy an A model and purchase lots of mogas with the savings over the B model. Make it light as possible and it will serve you well as a one or two person plane. Then when you got more cash and family (that sounds like an oxymoron) upgrade to the 180.

There does seem to be a $10-15k premium for a B over A. I quite like the no dihedral A and my neighbour has one. It would be my preferred four seater but moving it around in the hangar, needs more elbow grease than my Super Cub.

We operated a 182A with a 260HP injected engine for many years - it was a great aircraft, and always regretted selling it. The high gear gave very good prop clearance, and it was so much lighter and nicer to fly than the modern, wider 182. The fastback 182C also seemed a great model. Those early 182s also seem to have been genuine 140 knot cruisers.

The 170A does seem better value these days unless you can afford the extra maintenance and fuel consumption of the 182A.

I've owned a 170B with a 180HP engine and a 1958 straight tail 182 and loved them both. The two planes that you are considering have different flight profiles so you have to decide what you want. I would not take the 170 with a 145HP stock engine into the back country -- very much.

Gump has a really nice tailwheel 172 he might sell you. Great flaps and straight tail etc.

The O-300 powered C170's, or C172TW, will get you into a whole lotta cool backcountry and off-airport places. Problem is, they won't get you back out.

Solo, or with one other small person and minimal load, you can have fun, but you really have to pay attention to DA and take-off room. Up here in the wilds of Nevada with an average of 5,000 MSL as my playground, I limit myself to dry lakebeds and old dirt roads to work off of.



Gump

Nizina wrote:I would not take the 170 with a 145HP stock engine into the back country -- very much.

I've had mine in and out of nearly all of the Idaho and Utah backcountry strips without a problem. Sure it would be easier with more power, but its still capable with the stock engine.

Here I am leaving Vines, one of the shorter strips in Idaho. Off and climbing with room to spare.

robw56 wrote:

Nizina wrote:I would not take the 170 with a 145HP stock engine into the back country -- very much.

I've had mine in and out of nearly all of the Idaho and Utah backcountry strips without a problem. Sure it would be easier with more power, but its still capable with the stock engine.

Here I am leaving Vines, one of the shorter strips in Idaho. Off and climbing with room to spare.

Looks like Vines is 1,100 feet long with no trees at the ends -- but that's not bad for a stock 170. When lightly loaded it likes to fly.

robw56 wrote:

Nizina wrote:I would not take the 170 with a 145HP stock engine into the back country -- very much.

I've had mine in and out of nearly all of the Idaho and Utah backcountry strips without a problem. Sure it would be easier with more power, but its still capable with the stock engine.

Here I am leaving Vines, one of the shorter strips in Idaho. Off and climbing with room to spare.

Yup.. I've seen him "everywhere"...!!!!

Rob do you have a 80/43 prop? Probably makes a big difference if you do. If you want a 80 inch prop on a 170 only the C145/O300A engines are stc'd (8 bolt prop) no O300D. I have had 2 170B's, a 180H, a A185F. I am currently flying a 170A while working on another 180H project. If I didn't want to fly on skis out a 2000 foot strip behind my house (middle of the lower peninsula of Michigan) I would have another 170B instead of a 180. The most fun for me is to go shoot landings for a hour on some grass strip, The 170A or B is great fun for that for a lot less operating cost, Just not the same with a nose wheel plane. Well, for me anyway. Right now the 170A is in my opinion a great value, ie priced low, if not careful you will have trouble getting your money out of a 170A when you up grade(??) to a 180. Probably a larger market for the 182. So. just my opinion, if for you the fun is in the flying buy the 170A, if the fun is in the destination buy the 182. When you can afford a 180 you get both. I need to add, I have a friend who has gone to the ID back country for more than 15 years with 170A, he just flies in the morning and plans his trip for the late summer, early fall. Has a great time.

Tim

Improbably a 1960 182C is up for sale in Europe. I think it may be the only one in the region.

Going through this helpful site a block speed of 130 knots TAS on 11.5 gph, with 1000 lbs useful load, seems to be the consensus.

The 65 usg fuel capacity, only 55 usg useable seems to be the only potential drawback. I normally need 600nm range with reserves, and 55 usg doesn't quite hack it. Fuel tank STC s probably not that easy in Europe.

The a/c has damage history, but some time back. It also suffered a prop strike when taxying.

Any particular gotchas on this model?

Also what is the consensus on purchasing older Cessna 100s if the Ageing SID has not been complied with?

Some older Cessna 100s have bladder tanks - can they be replaced with integral tanks?

bat443 wrote:Rob do you have a 80/43 prop?

I have an 80/42 which does help the acceleration on takeoff and climb performance. I lost 12mph in cruise coming from the 76/53.

Go with the 182C! It's the same fuselage as the 185. It isn't just the 3rd window. If you look closer, the aft part of the cabin is cut different than the early cessna 180s and the prior model 182 with the straight tail. It gives a couple more inches of head room in the rear seats. As was stated, the 182C seems to be the fastest and after a flight in a friends, I would have to agree. I can get over the slant tail. The jack screw on the horizontal stab makes the plane, compared to the later model 182s.

Matt

I would agree, this seems to be a sleeper amongst 182s, however the Cessna ageing fleet SID, which if carried out correctly does not seem to be ill conceived, is already mandatory in some European countries, so compliance for me is important.

Thanks for all the input. At this point, I'm leaning toward the 170A, and also keeping my eyes open for a B. I feel like the 170 will be cheaper to operate for the time being. I can buy Mogas and fly the crap out of it, while having a great time. Living in CA, I have quite a few opportunities for some local backcountry stuff. If I want to venture out into the Sierra's or further, I will have to be aware of the weight and DA.

Where are you in CA?

Easy decision for me. 182 all the way! Very capable airplane. I know people like tailwheel airplanes and for the flying "fun" they are fun. That being said a 182 will do just about everything a 180 will do and cost less in purchase price and insurance. Put a big nose wheel fork on it and you can go most places a 180 will go. Unless you need skis in the winter my choice would be a 182 over a 180. I have owned 2 185's, a 180 and many other tailwheel airplanes. I had a 182 briefly and I must say, it was a nice capable airplane. That is my take on the 182 vs the 180. Now for the 182vs the 170, if you plan to go places and haul stuff the 182 all the way, if you want a nice sweet flying airplane with occasional trips not hauling much and are tailwheel competiant then the 170 may be for you.

Buy the 182 now and you won't have to "upgrade" to a 180.

Just my humble opinion….

G44
(long time multiple tailwheel airplane owner)