Just wonder after reading a post and seeing it often about "Buy the early lite weight model" . I wonder how heavy they really are after years of add on's and modification's that stack up the weight. I also wonder why an early one is better than a later one that Cessna made changes on for better improvements? Most early 180's seem to all make or want these updates so why are they better? In my research the best one to find get or buy is the early H model. The market seems to show that also in my findings. I see three or more first year 53 180's for sale under 49K right now. I see a lot of 54/55 for sale and a few 57 and 58's on up. Being the H model ran for eight years you don't see many for sale why is that? Just how different are they? I like reading information and knowledge just like most of us do. Then I buy it. If I don't like it or find out there is one better sell it and move on. I'm not stuck on this year is the best just because it is the year of the one I have. I happen to be into 180's right now. I also have a Peterbilt but like a certain Freightliner. I have the peterbilt sold and will move on to something better. Works the same for a WR450F vs a KTM etc. I just like real information not a contest of judgment or a pissing match on mine is better. I would like to know why a early one is the one to have and why one would not want a later one if the empty weight is close to the same with all the improvements that Cessna did.
Thanks

Some good reading

http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Aircraft-Ownership/Aircraft-Fact-Sheets/Cessna-180

http://www.skywagons.com/modelchgsweb.html

http://www.skywagons.com/modelchgsweb.html
I have read this one a lot. This is the one that shows all the changes and improvements made starting after the early ones.
AK I know you did a lot to your 180 and it is very impressive. What is the empty weight now and before when you first bought it?
I also see you mentioned on the other post early ones being 300 pounds lighter. What is the average empty weight for a early 180?

300 is a stretch but 250 is close. You can see all the gross weight increases over the years. 57 (I think) the gear legs were moved forward 3 inches. IMO making it harder to roll onto the nose however I have not flown a later model so that purely an opinion. They say it came out of the factory in the 1500lb range but you also hear that Cessna fabricated the number to put them out there as the lightest best scenario, who knows. Im just over 1730 now with 31's on her.

Akt

Honestly there really is not that much of a difference..here is a good read as well from that other forum...

http://www.supercub.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-25831.html

aktahoe1 wrote:Honestly there really is not that much of a difference..here is a good read as well from that other forum...

http://www.supercub.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-25831.html

The data in that link looks really odd to me. big swings in take-off distances with no weight difference, and sudden 100+ lbs drops year over year. Not sure I'd put much stock in that data.

Read through all of it and a lot of those guys are real. Some many changes over the years with gross weights, controls, thicker this and that...is there really a bad one? The one common theme no matter who you talk with is however the way the early ones fly.

I am certainly biased to mine but I also know there are a lot of really nice ones out there.

Akt

I'm with you Kevin. What I was referring to was the table from TAP that shows the 60's models being significantly *lighter* than the 50's models. That just doesn't make sense.

Somebody in that thread mentioned that at some point for marketing reasons they started weighing them without pretty much anything not absolutely needed for flight for the empty numbers, so the table gives the false impression that they got lighter.

All 180's are awesome, although I'm partial to the 50's models (mine's a 1959).

Curious as to what year counts as yearly and when they change to late. I have a 62 model and find it flies very nice. I weigh in at 1727 on 8.50s and haven't done the utility interior. Also have a heavy 3 blade metal prop on the nose. Would be fun to have a bunch of cash on hand to do some mods and see what I can get it down to.
The reason I like the 62 is that they are the first year with 2 fuel outlets and LR tanks. 3rd window would be nice, but I won't ever have anyone sitting back there anyways, and purchase cost seems to go way up for the 3rd window models.

I'll agree that I really don't think there is a bad 180. I've only ever flown my 180, so don't know how it feels compared to others, but for a bigger airplane I'd say it handles very light.
David

I have a cessna w/b for a 180. It does show a empty weight with no equipment. no paint or unusable fuel 1506 then they show the weight delivered with equipment paint and unusable fuel of 1563.
I think any airplane is good . I like to learn to get the most out of the cost it takes to get one and what the resale would be if to be sold. I still read that the 60's smoked better grass than the 50's

They all have quirks year from year, specific airplane to specific airplane. Rig it properly, learn your sights and sounds, keep the trim wheel moving and make it yours. For me, the biggie with the early models is the lower glareshield and narrower cabin. The view out the nose is bigger and better, and it just feels like less airplane to lug around.

The big shortcoming of the older C180's is the 55 gal usable fuel. It's real easy to run out of gas options in the boonies. I had my '54 and '56 up in the Arctic, and there was many a day I would have given my left you know what for that extra 20 gallons of go juice of the newer versions.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:They all have quirks year from year, specific airplane to specific airplane. Rig it properly, learn your sights and sounds, keep the trim wheel moving and make it yours. For me, the biggie with the early models is the lower glareshield and narrower cabin. The view out the nose is bigger and better, and it just feels like less airplane to lug around.

The big shortcoming of the older C180's is the 55 gal usable fuel. It's real easy to run out of gas options in the boonies. I had my '54 and '56 up in the Arctic, and there was many a day I would have given my left you know what for that extra 20 gallons of go juice of the newer versions.

Gump

Ditto. Mine was a 66 H model. Long range tanks are essential in the boonies. The 66 had those and some other features that make them best of breed in my opinion.

But any 180 has the potential to be one of the best planes ever built.

MTV

Your post Almost Ten years ago?

10-04-2005, 12:48 AM

Don't forget that "light" can mean (and does in this case) less structure. From the door posts aft, the early 180's are identical to the late 170's, I'm told. The wings are also the same.

Early 180's are really fuel challenged, as in they don't carry enough fuel to do what most folks want to do in these airplanes.

Early airplanes have a lower gross weight. Seems like a lot of those folks are always looking for ways to increase the gross weight of their airplanes. Wonder why?

I had a 66 H model. Great straight airplane. I took a bunch of crap out of it, which lightened it up a good bit. I've forgotten what the empty weight was, but I distinctly remember that that airplane had almost exactly the same useful load than the brand new 185 I flew a couple years later. And it performed nearly as well at gross. That airplane didn't have any of the gross weight increases, either.

MTV

Here are my thoughts...

Of course I am partial to what I own, which is probably the point of view of most.

That said, before I bought my 180 (1966H model) I spent two years researching, traveling to look, fly, and nit pick everything from the super early to late model 180's and 185s. The conclusion I came to was the best of all worlds was indeed the H model.

Rather than split the 180's into two camps, its better to think of them in three categories. Early, middle, and late. Early is the beginning to 64, and late when they added the 185 V stab. In the end, the late model 180s are basically the same as 185's, just not the bigger engine.

The "sweet spot" IMHO, is the H model. It truly is the the turning point from whence Cessna left the pragmatic and dove into the superfluous. Before the "H," they didnt have their shit completely together. After the "H" they just started piling on crap that isnt necessarily needed.

The "H" model is the best of all worlds as it has the light nimbleness of the "earlier" models, but the important attributes of the "later" models. It has has the 3rd window, a taller shoulder aft of the rear carry thru, fwd gear, proper panel with center stack radio, heavier GW, and has many more STC's available for modification than the earlier models.

I think the most astute observation you made is the market price and availability of "H" models. For sure you can get into an early 180 for short money comparatively speaking... but there is a reason for that.

As far as weight is concerned and looking at early vs/ late, my 66 on 8.5x10s (heavier than my 31" ABW) has an actual measured weight (with unusable fuel/oil) of 1777lbs, and that's with leather, auto pilot, full IFR, and some creature comforts. Yes you may be able to have an earlier model 40-60 lbs lighter, but I'd take the center stack radio and panel over the 50 lbs any day. Plus those 50 lbs are there because the airframe is stronger.... If you find an "H" with long range tanks, those 79 some odd gal of fuel can really come in handy.... And if you can toss some dough at the project and upgrade to the late model V stab, the ability to (legally) carry 3190 lbs is pretty nice indeed.

We all love our Wagons, and for sure they are all pretty damn perfect... but if I had to pick, I would stick with the "H."

mountainwagon wrote:Your post Almost Ten years ago?

10-04-2005, 12:48 AM

Don't forget that "light" can mean (and does in this case) less structure. From the door posts aft, the early 180's are identical to the late 170's, I'm told. The wings are also the same.

Early 180's are really fuel challenged, as in they don't carry enough fuel to do what most folks want to do in these airplanes.

Early airplanes have a lower gross weight. Seems like a lot of those folks are always looking for ways to increase the gross weight of their airplanes. Wonder why?

I had a 66 H model. Great straight airplane. I took a bunch of crap out of it, which lightened it up a good bit. I've forgotten what the empty weight was, but I distinctly remember that that airplane had almost exactly the same useful load than the brand new 185 I flew a couple years later. And it performed nearly as well at gross. That airplane didn't have any of the gross weight increases, either.

MTV

Well, at least I'm consistent....at my age, that's a good thing.....

MTV

bigrenna wrote:Here are my thoughts...

Of course I am partial to what I own, which is probably the point of view of most.

That said, before I bought my 180 (1966H model) I spent two years researching, traveling to look, fly, and nit pick everything from the super early to late model 180's and 185s. The conclusion I came to was the best of all worlds was indeed the H model.

Rather than split the 180's into two camps, its better to think of them in three categories. Early, middle, and late. Early is the beginning to 64, and late when they added the 185 V stab. In the end, the late model 180s are basically the same as 185's, just not the bigger engine.

The "sweet spot" IMHO, is the H model. It truly is the the turning point from whence Cessna left the pragmatic and dove into the superfluous. Before the "H," they didnt have their shit completely together. After the "H" they just started piling on crap that isnt necessarily needed.

The "H" model is the best of all worlds as it has the light nimbleness of the "earlier" models, but the important attributes of the "later" models. It has has the 3rd window, a taller shoulder aft of the rear carry thru, fwd gear, proper panel with center stack radio, heavier GW, and has many more STC's available for modification than the earlier models.

I think the most astute observation you made is the market price and availability of "H" models. For sure you can get into an early 180 for short money comparatively speaking... but there is a reason for that.

As far as weight is concerned and looking at early vs/ late, my 66 on 8.5x10s (heavier than my 31" ABW) has an actual measured weight (with unusable fuel/oil) of 1777lbs, and that's with leather, auto pilot, full IFR, and some creature comforts. Yes you may be able to have an earlier model 40-60 lbs lighter, but I'd take the center stack radio and panel over the 50 lbs any day. Plus those 50 lbs are there because the airframe is stronger.... If you find an "H" with long range tanks, those 79 some odd gal of fuel can really come in handy.... And if you can toss some dough at the project and upgrade to the late model V stab, the ability to (legally) carry 3190 lbs is pretty nice indeed.

We all love our Wagons, and for sure they are all pretty damn perfect... but if I had to pick, I would stick with the "H."

Wow two years.Thank you for posting your findings. Some are also my thoughts from reading up on the 180 year differences to make a decision on one. I like the three categories you mention.

I'm just happy to have one. I flipped 6 airplanes in about 8 years and the profits bought me my current 180 that will hopefully be with me for a while. It has been a hobby to buy ugly but mechanically sound airplanes, then spruce them up and sell em' when I found the next good deal. The goal was always to have a 180. the path to my 180 was- 1961 Cessna 150 - 1957 Cessna 182 - 1968 Cessna 172 - Taylorcraft 15a - 1966 Cessna U206 - 1956 Cessna 182. I have owned a couple of other 182s and ultralights but that was back in my skydiving business days.

Light, heavy, stock, stol, ugly, or beautiful, They are a 180 and a great airplane. I am grateful to finally own one.

Get one new enough to have a cowling with 1/4 turns on the cowl. The rest of it is trivial in my opinion. I HATE those old cowls with 5 million screws in them.

I can and do W&B on everything .If Cessna upped the Gross weight they also added to empty weight -not exactly 1-to 1 but close .56 182 had a gross of 2550 and 57 182 had a 2650 gross . I just did a 57 182 last weekend and it's about 80 lbs heavier than my 56 similarly equipped.Speaking of extra fuel (in wings) I do know of several early model 180's with long range main fuel tanks .Steve Knopp did a 54 C-180 that now has 1972 C-180 wings -on field approval .

I like the H model for most of the reasons identified here.

The most recent weight and balance says 1635 lb. I hope it's right' but expect it is off by at least 100lb in the unfavorable direction. The feel and performance are great. It only feels heavy when I need to push it around. I'm in the process of installing Sportsman, then I'll weigh it, and let you know what I find.

The forward visibility in the earlier models is very nice, but the big center stack I-Panel is great too. This is probably where your mission should heavily influence the decision.

Looking at airframe design details, I think the later models are a little more nicely refined (to my engineering eye)

The airframe on my 67 model feels very strong and durable. I also like the roomier feel of the cabin and the split second seat option of mine over the earlier models.

I would personally stay away from the 24V aircraft, simply because 12V chargers and jump starting options are much more likely in the worlds of remoteness where I prefer to adventure.

I would not trade my 67 for a newer or older model for any reason. I think it's the sweet spot, and am always impressed with its capability, performance and feel.

The cost of new parts from Cessna is a very real issue with these planes. I was pricing out the rubber gasket that goes around the gear leg at the fuselage and it is over $300.00