The early C-180 enjoy a reputation for enjoyable handling, and reasonably sprightly performance, but with relatively constrained useful load.

The early -470 185 A through B, can be found with Empty Weight close to an early C-180 (read 1700-1800 lbs), might it also enjoy a similar power to weight ratio at light loads and similar handling?

It would also have the flexibility of better useful load when required, and arguably stronger build quality.

These early 185s seem to be in a bit of an orphan category and understanding how their handling compares to an early 180 would be interesting.

+1

I’ve flown a couple of early 185s over the years. But one of the best features of the later planes is the IO-520 engine, for power when you need it.

Arguably the best 185 I’ve ever flown was a 1967 model. This plane was ordered new by the owner, who ordered it with NO optional equipment. Example: The fuel selector was optional back then. This airplane didn’t have one. Or anything else that wasn’t absolutely necessary. And it was the best performing 185 I’ve ever flown.

And, I have fifty or so hours in a 1961 model as well. That plane had been loaded up with avionics, etc. nice plane, but I’d take that 67 any day.

But, it depends on what you consider essential......

MTV

I would imagine that an early IO470 powered C185 would be less expensive to buy than a later IO520 powered one,
be sure to factor that in.
30 more hp and more useful load than a 180 would be the pluses,
somewhat heavier & less nimble plus no mogas would be the downside.
Don't really know if the IO470 has any special problems,
or if scarcity of parts etc might be an an issue.

I am always a little puzzled by the folks trying so hard for that "Perfect flying" airplane.

Almost any light airplane is going to "fly better" , at least as far as handling goes, than a heavier airplane.

But, most folks don't buy a Cessna 185 for its handling qualities. If you want a really light handling airplane, buy a 170.

But, the 185 is a workhorse, not a Mazda Miata. The higher horsepower engine, higher gross weight, and larger fuel tanks than the early 180 almost guarantee that ANY 185 is going to be heavier on the controls than any early 180.

But, again, people in the market for a 185 are typically going there for the power and load carrying capability.

After I parked a very nice 185 on a mountain side, our station needed to decide what to replace it with. The decision was made (I was involved in the decision making, but it wasn't my decision to make) to acquire a 206, instead of another 185. I whined that the 206 is heavy on the controls, and all the other whines I could think of.

In the end, that 206 was a far better workhorse than ANY 185 could have been.....more power (IO-550), much more useful load (3800 lb GW) and that big cargo door. Yes, the 206 was heavier on the controls....trucklike I've heard it referred to. But, after a month flying that 206 someone asked me if I'd still prefer the 185 and my answer was a solid "NO WAY!".

So, do you want a sports car, or a working airplane? To some degree, the two don't mix well.

If you want a plaything, a 180 is hard to beat. If you can find an H model, and are willing to strip it out, lighten it up, etc, you'll have a machine that's pretty close to a 185. Put an O-520 in it, and you'll have a real winner. BUt, it won't fly quite like a 53 180 in stock trim.

In any case, if you load any of these planes up, they won’t handle as light as if they were empty.

If you're looking for a 185, you're looking for a workhorse. Find the lightest one you can, and if it were me, I'd want an IO 520, not an IO 470.

But, that's me.

MTV

mtv wrote:I am always a little puzzled by the folks trying so hard for that "Perfect flying" airplane.

Almost any light airplane is going to "fly better" , at least as far as handling goes, than a heavier airplane.

But, most folks don't buy a Cessna 185 for its handling qualities. If you want a really light handling airplane, buy a 170.

But, the 185 is a workhorse, not a Mazda Miata. The higher horsepower engine, higher gross weight, and larger fuel tanks than the early 180 almost guarantee that ANY 185 is going to be heavier on the controls than any early 180.

But, again, people in the market for a 185 are typically going there for the power and load carrying capability.

After I parked a very nice 185 on a mountain side, our station needed to decide what to replace it with. The decision was made (I was involved in the decision making, but it wasn't my decision to make) to acquire a 206, instead of another 185. I whined that the 206 is heavy on the controls, and all the other whines I could think of.

In the end, that 206 was a far better workhorse than ANY 185 could have been.....more power (IO-550), much more useful load (3800 lb GW) and that big cargo door. Yes, the 206 was heavier on the controls....trucklike I've heard it referred to. But, after a month flying that 206 someone asked me if I'd still prefer the 185 and my answer was a solid "NO WAY!".

So, do you want a sports car, or a working airplane? To some degree, the two don't mix well.

If you want a plaything, a 180 is hard to beat. If you can find an H model, and are willing to strip it out, lighten it up, etc, you'll have a machine that's pretty close to a 185. Put an O-520 in it, and you'll have a real winner. BUt, it won't fly quite like a 53 180 in stock trim.

In any case, if you load any of these planes up, they won’t handle as light as if they were empty.

If you're looking for a 185, you're looking for a workhorse. Find the lightest one you can, and if it were me, I'd want an IO 520, not an IO 470.

But, that's me.

MTV

Mr. Vivion here really hit on everything that needs to be said. I am a partial owner of a first model year C185 and a lot of people ask what sub model I have, and when I say it’s just a C185 it confuses them. That’s not exactly relevant to this conversation, but it’s always fun to mention that when someone is asking about an early C185.

What should be said is that I much prefer the lighter controls of an early 185 to a late model 185. My friends A185F flew noticeably different than mine. Part of that I attribute to the metal three blade and to the R-STOL kit. That being said, it is nothing compared to a C170 (but some of us jolly green giants can’t fit in those smaller airplanes, so that is part of the reason why I’m sticking with my 185).

The IO470 is a reliable engine, that’s being said it’s not a perfect engine as that doesn’t exist yet. If it were me, I’d spring for an IO520 or an IO550 powered airplane. You put the power in on the takeoff roll and you can tell there is something special up front. I’m not particularly impressed with the IO470 performance. I believe the MT has helped me out a bit in terms of performance, but I don’t have time behind an IO470 and a metal prop.

I’d also like to mention that if you want a nice modern looking panel, it’ll be worth your time to look at a post 65’ airplane. All of the early 180s (through 58’) had a IMHO bad instrument panel design. 59’ and on got a redesigned panel and this helped a little bit, but it’s not ideal as it has a control tee instead of a “U” style control column. I can’t tell you how much misery I have been through trying to retrofit a late model styled panel into an early airplane. I recently just ended up getting the Avion Research panel & control column. At least that is STC’d for the airplane and I won’t get hassled for it.

The best performer that you could get is one that you can afford to purchase, afford to maintain and afford to be proficient with. I’ve been kinda struggling on the second and third part recently. The long story short is that I didn’t listen to the peanut gallery about some of the stuff I was doing to the airplane.

Hope you get to find something that you love!

mtv wrote:If you're looking for a 185, you're looking for a workhorse. Find the lightest one you can, and if it were me, I'd want an IO 520, not an IO 470.

If you start with a 470 powered C185, you can put in a 520 down the road as your budget allows.

I don’t think the 520 weighs significantly more than the 470, so you still could have the earlier, lighter, 185 with a 520.

Chris

All of the early 180s (through 58’) had a IMHO bad instrument panel design. 59’ and on got a redesigned panel and this helped a little bit, but it’s not ideal

Am a great fan of keep it simple, very simple. A NAV/COM, IFR GPS, TXP with required regulatory compliance for ADSB. This all fits in an old panel. A G5 might allow binning the vacuum pump/gyros saving weight.

The early 185 with the middle bench seat, 62USG tank, and a stripped down panel must match a similar early 180 for empty weight, and the wing/flying surfaces are the same - you get a bigger dorsal fin, and the third row luggage.

Good to hear the stock -470 is supported, and is OK as a power plant.

Thank you for real world replies.

L18C-95 wrote:

All of the early 180s (through 58’) had a IMHO bad instrument panel design. 59’ and on got a redesigned panel and this helped a little bit, but it’s not ideal

Am a great fan of keep it simple, very simple. A NAV/COM, IFR GPS, TXP with required regulatory compliance for ADSB. This all fits in an old panel. A G5 might allow binning the vacuum pump/gyros saving weight.

The early 185 with the middle bench seat, 62USG tank, and a stripped down panel must match a similar early 180 for empty weight, and the wing/flying surfaces are the same - you get a bigger dorsal fin, and the third row luggage.

Good to hear the stock -470 is supported, and is OK as a power plant.

Thank you for real world replies.

The early 185s were also at 3200 gross weight. I'm sure there must be mods to increase that to 3350, as in the later 185s.

MTV

Wing-X on any model 185 increases gross weight to 3525lbs.

mtv wrote:….If you're looking for a 185, you're looking for a workhorse. ….

That's not a given.
I get where the OP is coming from--
he's looking for an early light skywagon that can occasionally do a bit more than a standard 180,
but without the trucklike handling of a heavier 185.
IMHO an early 185 might be just the ticket for him.

I have owned a 1974 and a 1976 185 and flown many others. They sure did not seem "truck like" to me. Wonderful flying airplanes.


No, its not a pits or V35 Bonanza.

Kurt

hotrod180 wrote:

mtv wrote:….If you're looking for a 185, you're looking for a workhorse. ….

That's not a given.
I get where the OP is coming from--
he's looking for an early light skywagon that can occasionally do a bit more than a standard 180,
but without the trucklike handling of a heavier 185.
IMHO an early 185 might be just the ticket for him.

"Trucklike handling" of a later model 185? Seriously? I flew a 1985 model that was a few serial numbers from the end of production for ~ 3500 hours, and there was never a time I considered that airplane to have "trucklike handling". And, at the same time, my personal airplane was a 170B.....and I've also owned a 66 model 180.

Nevertheless, ANY 185 will feel a bit heavier than an early 180.

That said, the mid year 180s were one of the few light airplanes that came out of the factory with 1000 pounds of useful load. Some 185s did as well.

So, as always with these discussions, what is the MISSION? If it's load carrying, that's one thing. If it's takeoff and climb performance with a load, it's another.

Fuel burn and capacity factor in there as well.

BUT, frankly, a mid year H model 180, kept light, with an O-520 will kick ass on many 185s, AND be lighter. And, therefore lighter in "Feel".

I call the 185 a "workhorse" simply because that's what Cessna built them for and what most folks have bought and used them for over the years. As a result, most of them have been worked hard. If you can find one, it may not be pretty.

And, to a slightly lesser degree, the 180s often fall into the same category.

But, I'd look around, and if I could find a good H model 180, I'd jump on that quick. Keep it light, you have the center radio stack, put a O 520 in it, and you'll have a tool.

MTV

At work I fly a '65 180H with the air plains IO-520 (i love injection), large vertical, and 3190 gross. It's pretty stripped out. Seems pretty equivalent to a '65 185, except maybe a bit lighter? It's great. Maybe I've forgotten how light handling my '57 180 was, but this is definitely in the same ball park.

mtv wrote:…. But, most folks don't buy a Cessna 185 for its handling qualities. If you want a really light handling airplane, buy a 170.
But, the 185 is a workhorse, not a Mazda Miata. The higher horsepower engine, higher gross weight, and larger fuel tanks than the early 180 almost guarantee that ANY 185 is going to be heavier on the controls than any early 180. ….

Guess I should have said "the heavier handling of a 185" instead of "trucklike". My bad.
Now I'm kinda waiting for someone to pipe up with "so what's wrong with a truck?"

I recently purchased my ‘54 180, deciding to go with an early model after much discussion with those in the know and research, and wanting a plane for my personal mission.

I’m absolutely enamored with it.

I’ve put maybe 20 hours on it so far. So light on the controls, 3-point or wheel landings are a breeze. 130mph on 29” Bushwheels burning 11.5 GPH.

I looked at a really nice 185 prior to my purchase that I’m sure would have been a great plane in it’s own right, but decided the light 180 would be more accommodating in the tight places and less thirsty overall.

For some reason I’m really enjoying this thread. It must the the widely varying opinions about a select few aircraft. Guess I just enjoy learning the nitty gritty about new stuff and trying to understand differing opinions.

I’d very much like to expand my experience in various models so I really looked forward to doing my flight review in a friend’s 53’ C180 that is equipt with wing x and sportsman. I felt like I was driving a truck but since all my experience is in a Luscombe or a Bearhawk it makes since that the biggest airplane I’ve ever flown felt so heavy to me. So interesting to me some of you guys say the controls are light on and early C180 but I figure you must be used to flying heavy iron. Also could be the yoke was throwing me off as that was new to me too.

I recently got to fly my friend's 74 C185 a couple of weeks ago. He was nice enough to let me do several take offs and landings. I am not sure what the empty weight difference is between our birds. I know my airplane is heavy for an early model 180 and his is likely very light for a C185. My guess is his is 150 lbs heavier. I was surprised how nice it was to fly and It didn't have the truck like feeling I remembered the last time I flew one. I still prefer the feel of my 180 but I can see one would get used to the C185 after some time. An early model 185 with an IO520 or 550 might be the perfect combination of light on the controls without the range and load penalties on the early model 180s.


Josh

I’ve got about a dozen hours in my friend’s A185F on Aerocets. I don’t know that I’d call it truck-like, but it’s definitely a solid airplane. It carries more mass through the air than my Racer and is a little heavier on the controls. It’s a lot more fun to fly in the afternoon bumpies, I think because of that extra mass.

I’ve got to fly a B-25J once. I’d call that handling “truck-like.”

Handling qualities of various airplanes are individual and often very different to different pilots, based on their individual experience.

Fly a Pitts Special when you’re used to driving around in a loaded 206, for perspective. Or any of the RVs. Almost “twitchy”, but fun? You bet.

Would I want to fly a Pitts on a long cross country in summer heat? Oh, yeah, but you’d be flying it every inch of that trip.

So, all the descriptors each of us uses really need to be viewed as framed by our individual experience.

I once told a check airman that I really liked the control harmony of the Beaver. He told me I was full of it......but he was a wanna be “big airplane” guy. Who never got there. Me, the Beaver was just about perfect, but I didn’t (and still don’t) know any better.

If an airplane’s handling pleases you, buy one of those.

MTV