Looking at some Cessna 180's and came across one with a camera port. As I understand it, the camera port was a factory option. Since I haven't seen any pics of one I don't know how they work, or more importantly, how they affect the speed or baggage area. I don't need or want one, and if the plane already has one, can you cover it up somehow?? Get it back to stock??

Also, wondering about the Horton STOL kit and how it compares to other kits available for the '54-'59 models. Any speed advantages/disadvantages both high and low?? Seems like more of the earlier models I see advertised have the Horton, but maybe it's coincidence.

I'm looking at the earlier model 180's quite frankly because they're more affordable initially, and from what I read are a bit lighter.

Any general info on what to look for, or avoid, on the cessna 180 is also appreciated!

Aaron

I had a camera hatch in my '56 C180. Kept it closed up inside and out with plates, and never used it for camera anything. What it was good for, was a a place to stash a boatload of MRE's for extra survival gear.

Gump

I remember reading somewhere with the camera port you can't put the plane on floats..

I remember reading somewhere with the camera port you can't put the plane on floats..

There is a 1955 180 on floats at Surfside Seaplane base with one. It is for sale. Brian called it a porta potty. Cables going to the rear have to be rerouted to go around the big hole.

Aaron, if you search on this site you should be able to find a ton of info on STOL kits. The horton is good but the sportsman is better. I know of many people who have removed the horton to install a sportsman but never the other way around. I have a sportsman on my 170 and I absolutely love it, it would be one of the first mods I would do on any Cessna I own.

Good info so far. A camera port doesn't automatically rule out floats, just adds 337 / FA work to the project. It also adds a little bitt of weight to the project.

I have only flown the Horton on a late model plane, that is fairly heavy. I wouldn't buy one over a Sportsman, but I wouldn't walk away from a plane that already had one. I also doubt I'd add any cuff on top of another. I am just not a big fan of having dead unremoveable weight (the old cuff) buried into the plane, nor am I a big fan of swiss cheesing my leading edge. I am sure it works out just groovy for most folks, it's just a personal preference. If I was hell bent on a Sportsman, I'd just exercise patience and find an early virgin wing (non Cessna camber) or one that was converted to Sportsman from this point. This would yeild the lightest Sportsman wing attainable. Worse case example would be a Cessna cuff, (early to late model upgrade) upgraded to a Horton, then covered by a Sportsman. That's 4 leading edges! but the average Joe just doesn't add all those little things up!

On the weight note, I would buy the airframe that fits your needs, and then worry about making *your* airplane light. Early models are not automatically lighter, they can just be made to be that way. They also have a smaller gross/useful. There are plenty of early models that are pigs, and conversely, lately I have run into 185s that are lighter than the average 'early model' 180. Never the less it is possible to have a 1550#, '53-'54, big engined / big wheeled, C-180, and it isn't with the later ships. If you like any creature comforts at all 1650# is a more realistic target, with another 100 to 150 pounds for the later ship. 100-150 pounds is not all that bad when you consider the added benefits if they better fit your mission. For me they don't...

There are those that say they fly their 180's around heavy all the time, so keeping the plane's empty weight light is not a big consideration I don't get that concept. If I flew at gross++ all the time I'd want a lighter empty weight even more so.

Are you two shipping or trading out of the cub? If so you should come get this FAD baggage, for your cub, it will be worth more, and then you'll have an excuse to try out a 180 or two and compare virtues We are balls to the walls right now 'till mid Dec. but it doesn't take much arm twisting to get me to fly.

Take care, Rob

My advice would be to find a plane that's in good condition and not get too focused on mods initially. After seven years of ownership, I continue to be amazed at the capabilities of my fairly stock 1959 model. I don't have any major aerodynamic mods on it, stock O-470K engine and 82" prop, and my limitations so far are most certainly due to the pilot, not the aircraft.

Oregon180 wrote:My advice would be to find a plane that's in good condition and not get too focused on mods initially. After seven years of ownership, I continue to be amazed at the capabilities of my fairly stock 1959 model. I don't have any major aerodynamic mods on it, stock O-470K engine and 82" prop, and my limitations so far are most certainly due to the pilot, not the aircraft.

I am with you Oregon 180. Modifying airplanes is good for tailoring them to your purpose, but there are very few resounding complaints about a stock C180.

F.E. Potts says that only tires and an oil door are necessary for northern bush operations, which test a plane beyond most of what we do here in the lower 48.

http://www.fepco.com/BF.chapter9.html

I'm sure that others might debate this position.

Thanks for the good info everybody!

Rob, I wish I could keep the cub too but just not in the cards for me...maybe I better start spraying with airplanes I have a guy from the South looking at my cub, and if he buys it I'll probably ferry it down for him, maybe make a slight detour to get a ride in a 180.

I've got my eye on a couple 180's from 55-58, ironically each of them has my favorite paint scheme and color combo, what can I say, I'm superficial like that. One is in AZ and the other in GA. Both at the upper end of my price range, with the one in AZ a bit better equipped for bush ops....seaplane prop, float kit etc. Trying not to buy the cheapest one out there, I've tried that and ended up costing me way more in the long run...such a crap shoot these aero planes.

Scolopax, thanks for the quote from F.EPotts...I kind of agree. Although I get caught up in the modifying game too, I think this one I'll try to keep mostly stock. I think a stock 180 would take me to 100% of the places I NEED (really want) to go...

On a more technical note...

Can a J engine be converted to an R, and be installed on a '58 180A??

I assumed that was your Super Cub on Barnstormers. It's beautiful! You can't beat the versatility of the 180 though. Be patient and the right one will come along.

CW

My advice is this: Although its true that a bone stock early 180 will/can do amazing things, it is limited to mods. You may be adamant now with respect to not needing mods, but it sure is better to be able to do something and choose not to, than to want to do something and not be able. I learned this the hard way with my 170.

After a two year search, I decided that an "H" model was the bird for me. It has the lightness of the early birds with the styling of the later.... and what it is missing, you can readily add on if you are so inclined. Lots of STC's.

Another note: Refrain from buying the cheapest airplanes you can find. You will end up spending more in the long run guaranteed.

But the bottom line is that whatever you find, you will love the 180. It really is an amazing machine.

Some of the best advice I got when gettin into my current ride/first plane was "pay now or pay later, it's usually a whole lot more later." Sound wisdom...think long and hard about what you really want and find one that as closely fits your goals as possible. My experience has been that later models do not fly as light on the controls as the early models. Not sure what year/s they changed them up, but it is very noticeable if your used to the ones that do fly really light and crisp.

I've got the Horton and have flown a few similar year models/weights with stock cuff, Sportsman, Robertson, and Sportsman with WingX n VG's. This winter was plannin on replacing the Horton with the Sportsman, had no idea that the Sportsman would have to go over the Horton, thus adding extra weight? Is that the only way Rob?

Without gettin all crazy modded out, a stock wing/motor 180 with a seaplane prop, Pponk gear beef up, flat extended baggage (firewall battery), and bushwheels is one helluva airplane

Maybe 55Wagon will chime in, he had a 56' with Sportsman, now has a 55' with the WingX Sportsman n VG's, and has flown my 59' with the Horton. The WingX is really impressive for STOL and climb, but there are a few drawbacks IMO too. Be careful though, you might wind up a non-recovering 180 junky

Oh yeah, besides the Pponk gear beef-up, a V-brace is a good idea if your gonna do lots of off airport.

I hope to see you at our fly in this weekend. I know of one that you can ride in...

Rob- when we changed out my Horton for the Sportsman we took the old Horton cuff off. It's hanging in my hanger now.
Akt

FWIW I've never heard of anyone putting a STOL cuff on over another STOL cuff-- but I have heard of peope removing say a Horton to install a Sportsman.

Skalywag wrote:This winter was plannin on replacing the Horton with the Sportsman, had no idea that the Sportsman would have to go over the Horton, thus adding extra weight? Is that the only way Rob?

No, that was an extreme exaggeration on my part. I am reasonably sure there isn't anyone running around with 4 leading edges My point was not to buy an early plane (what the OP is looking for) modded to a Cessna camber lift (a bonded cuff) if you know you'll be going the Sportsman route. Because then you will be adding a cuff on a cuff. Buying a Horton and switching to a Sportsman gives you the 'swiss cheesed leading edge' route.
And at the end of the day, plenty of people go that way and love it. Personally, If I didn't already have the plane, and i was still in shopping mode, I'd rather try and get it right the first time (patience and a virgin wing).

Take care, Rob

What years were the 180's considered "lightweight"?