I have owned a 68 H with long-range tanks and a 54 with an O470-A now with an O470-R. I have also flown (borrowed) a 185F a lot and a C180J some years ago.

The H was much heavier on the ailerons and the elevator than the 54. Not sure what year the down spring was installed but that does make a difference to the elevator feel.

The H could carry more, was faster and had longer range. Centre stack radios are great and the 5th & 6th seat option has been used occasionally. It flew like a truck and was a dog on some of my shorter airstrips. Personally I usually call the H a C185 with one missing cylinder, the J model was even worse, but if I was working one for a living I would go for the 185 then the H or the J with the 520.

The 54 is always short on fuel but manageable with planning, it struggles with the big loads but I don't fill the seats anymore. It is a clean standard wing with no mods. The 54 handles like a dream and is very light on the rudder and elevator. The A engine was great but parts were hard to get so changed to the R engine.

In the end I kept the 54 as it just fly's so well and is light on the controls, it leaps off the ground and just fun to fly her. It is just me and the boss most of the time and we don't have a big load usually so it suits my mission perfectly.

Here's something that was pointed out to me on my "Cessna 180 W&B" thread-- not only did Cessna increase the gross weight on the 180 as the years went on, but they expanded the CG envelope also. The early models have an envelope of 35.0" to 45.8", but the latest models are allowed 33.5" to 47.0". Anyone know why?

hotrod180 wrote:Here's something that was pointed out to me on my "Cessna 180 W&B" thread-- not only did Cessna increase the gross weight on the 180 as the years went on, but they expanded the CG envelope also. The early models have an envelope of 35.0" to 45.8", but the latest models are allowed 33.5" to 47.0". Anyone know why?

When Cessna originally designed the 180 Model, it was intended to be a business airplane. They did not realize the market potential for it as a utility workhorse. I would bet that they got a little heavier and expanded the baggage area out back then decided to flight test an expanded envelope to validate a greater CG range, which would encourage Skywagon sales in this new market.

My H-model can hardly be loaded out of CG range. Look at what it takes to get to the aft limit. Who in their right mind would ever load an airplane like this...

My 53 takes some doing to load out of CG aft, but with it's forward empty CG it's right on the forward edge of the allowable limits with a light pilot & minimum fuel. It woulda been nice if Cessna had retro'd the newer CG limits onto the older airplanes.

Thats nuthin... For me to get outside of aft CG (and regardless of empty or 79 gal of fuel) I have to max 50 lbs in the EB, max the120lbs in the baggage (sta 99,) and something like 525 lbs in the rear pax (sta 70). Just shows how well balanced the Skywagon really is.