Backcountry Pilot • Early 180 vs Early 185

Early 180 vs Early 185

Technical and practical discussion about specific aircraft types such as Cessna 180, Maule M7, et al. Please read and search carefully before posting, as many popular topics have already been discussed.
36 postsPage 2 of 21, 2

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

mtv wrote: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


I wholeheartedly concur about the control harmony of the beaver. Only aircraft I have flown that has equal or better harmony was a Stearman.
Troy Hamon offline
User avatar
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:27 am
Location: King Salmon
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... 04iX0FXjV2
Aircraft: Piper PA-22

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

I'm going to state the obvious first; that which should not have to be mentioned on the internet. But here goes. What comes next is only my opinion.

There becomes a normality to every plane you fly. My 1972 185E just feels normal. Perhaps it felt heavy when I was first getting comfortable with the plane, but now? Heck, it's just my plane. Feels right. Not heavy or 'truck like'. I jump back and forth between the Husky and the 185 and don't even think about it. Both planes feel normal to me. The new wing Husky was once incredibly light in roll, especially coming from a supercub, but I don't notice it really or compare the difference in roll to the 185. Because of my familiarity of each plane, their characteristics have become unnoticeable.

Last week I rented a 172 down south and was swinging the nose back and forth with my feet because the rudder was so much lighter than either the 185 or the Husky AND I was not familiar with the plane's handling because I hadn't flown one for 14 years. But after a few stop and goes, I fell back into the saddle with the plane in which I previously had so much time. It quickly became normal.

In another anecdote to further drive home my point, I flew a Super Cub for about 8 years. Loved that plane. Guess how it felt? Totally normal. Was it heavy in roll? Didn't notice. Then, after flying a new-wing Husky for 5 years, my friend invited me to fly his Super Cub. I told him something was wrong with the plane because the plane was so heavy in roll. The ailerons basically didn't work. My arms hurt trying to fly it. I SWORE something was wrong and told him to get his plane examined. He told me I had been flying the Husky too much. I was incredulous. So I flew a different cub. Guess what? Apparently, if you haven't been flying a cub for a while, the ailerons are incredibly heavy.

So, all that to say, light? heavy? For this class of aircraft, about 90 percent of the control feel is going to become normal to you over time. Yeah, some planes are going to be exceptional in some area, either good or bad. But if you are looking at a Cessna or some other common plane we all fly into the back country, they go up when you pull back, go down when you push forward....you get the picture. Whatever the plane, after 1000 hours, it's gonna feel normal.

Oh, and for the comparison between a 180 and 185 on gas, I fly an injected IO-520D with GAMIs and get 120 kts on 29" AK bush wheels and a baby bushwheel (these actually slow you down) on 11 gph. I don't think flying a 180 saves any gas.
Squash offline
Supporter
Posts: 605
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:46 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

Troy Hamon wrote:
mtv wrote: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


I wholeheartedly concur about the control harmony of the beaver. Only aircraft I have flown that has equal or better harmony was a Stearman.


Troy,

You should fly a T-6, wonderful flying airplane!

Kurt
G44 offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:46 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

185 gets better miles per gallon at the same speed than a 180.

I like and agree with what Squash wrote above.

Kurt
G44 offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:46 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

G44 wrote:
Troy Hamon wrote:
mtv wrote: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


I wholeheartedly concur about the control harmony of the beaver. Only aircraft I have flown that has equal or better harmony was a Stearman.


Troy,

You should fly a T-6, wonderful flying airplane!

Kurt


I have flown one but it didn't seem on the par of the Stearman or beaver as far as how the control pressures and controls feeling perfect...but I agree it flies great.
Troy Hamon offline
User avatar
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:27 am
Location: King Salmon
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... 04iX0FXjV2
Aircraft: Piper PA-22

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

In the past I have owned a 55 180 and a 60 C model 180 on which we put a Sportsmans kit. The old 55 was basic standard but always out performed the 60 model, it was just a great flying machine.
Also have owned a 74 and 81 185, they performed very similar although I put a slightly bigger, 84" 401 on the 81 and it was a tad better than the 74 with a 80" 401.
The best by far was a 63 185 with an IO-550 and Hartzell Buccaneer prop 82". It was quite light and went like a rocket. It was owned by a friend of mine and I hired it for a while.
Got to love all 180s and 185s, a special aircraft.
scott185 offline
User avatar
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:01 am
Location: christchurch

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

Great replies - the two types (early 180 and 185) seem to occupy a similar price neighbourhood. Which is around $50k plus above a 170.

Using 500 lbs payload and standard fuel the early 185 clocks in at 10lbs/HP, while the 180 is around 11-12lbs/HP. The 170 at 15lbs/HP.

Using the excess power available equation the early 180/185 comes in at around 25lbs/excess HP available for climb, vs 50lbs/excess HP for the 170.

The ability to climb easily at 500 fpm plus at DA above 10,000’, sets the 180/185 in a different bracket of versatility which must be reflected also in ski/floats operations.

The 170 seems ideal if mainly below DA 8,000’, VFR, and gentle ski conditions.

The early 185 comes with improved loading over the 180.
L18C-95 offline
User avatar
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:44 am
Location: Oxford
Aircraft: Piper L18C-95

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

L18C-95 wrote:The early 185 comes with improved loading over the 180.


Not sure what you mean by this?

Also, frankly, there are so many different mods for all these aircraft, and weights can be all over the place in individual planes, that apples to apples can be hard to get to.

But, if your plan is to strip one down and optimize performance......

Then you run into things like, is it worth it to remove a Horton STOL kit and replace with a Sportsman? There’s no doubt in my mind that the Sportsman is a better kit, but are you willing to go there? And there are many other mods (flap gap seals-duh!) that are pretty common on these old airplanes.

Point is, it’s really hard to find an all original plane of these types.

MTV
mtv offline
Knowledge Base Author
User avatar
Posts: 10514
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
Location: Bozeman

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

mtv wrote:
L18C-95 wrote:The early 185 comes with improved loading over the 180.


Not sure what you mean by this?

Also, frankly, there are so many different mods for all these aircraft, and weights can be all over the place in individual planes, that apples to apples can be hard to get to.

But, if your plan is to strip one down and optimize performance......

Then you run into things like, is it worth it to remove a Horton STOL kit and replace with a Sportsman? There’s no doubt in my mind that the Sportsman is a better kit, but are you willing to go there? And there are many other mods (flap gap seals-duh!) that are pretty common on these old airplanes.

Point is, it’s really hard to find an all original plane of these types.

MTV


I know everyone raves about the Sportsman, but a Horton STOL equipped 180 running one and a long prop has won Valdez a few times and other competitions up here as well.

My plane has the MASA kit on it and it will stay.
akaviator offline
User avatar
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 8:11 am
Location: Wasilla
Aircraft: Cessna 180

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

akaviator wrote:
mtv wrote:
L18C-95 wrote:The early 185 comes with improved loading over the 180.


Not sure what you mean by this?

Also, frankly, there are so many different mods for all these aircraft, and weights can be all over the place in individual planes, that apples to apples can be hard to get to.

But, if your plan is to strip one down and optimize performance......

Then you run into things like, is it worth it to remove a Horton STOL kit and replace with a Sportsman? There’s no doubt in my mind that the Sportsman is a better kit, but are you willing to go there? And there are many other mods (flap gap seals-duh!) that are pretty common on these old airplanes.

Point is, it’s really hard to find an all original plane of these types.

MTV


I know everyone raves about the Sportsman, but a Horton STOL equipped 180 running one and a long prop has won Valdez a few times and other competitions up here as well.

My plane has the MASA kit on it and it will stay.


Which is my point......and I’d do the same.

MTV
mtv offline
Knowledge Base Author
User avatar
Posts: 10514
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
Location: Bozeman

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

I have owned both, a 58 Horton equipped 180 and now a 73 Sportsman equipped 185.
They are most certainly different airplanes. You can't fly the 185 like a 180, doesn't work.
The 185 is heaver and more of a hand full on a windy crosswind day.
That said I do love the additional weight charring capacity and the 185 will true out at 160 mph on 13gph which is better mpg that the 180.

Tom
a3holerman offline
User avatar
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 7:29 am
Location: Cape Cod
Aircraft: Cessna 185

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

akaviator wrote:…..My plane has the MASA kit on it and it will stay.


Do you know what MASA stands for?
I'm curious if it is / was the same kit as the Mid America STOL kit.
Of the old kits, I like the Owl STOL kit best--
mainly because I just like their owl logo. :roll:
hotrod180 offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 10534
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Cessna Skywagon -- accept no substitute!

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

hotrod180 wrote:
akaviator wrote:…..My plane has the MASA kit on it and it will stay.


Do you know what MASA stands for?
I'm curious if it is / was the same kit as the Mid America STOL kit.
Of the old kits, I like the Owl STOL kit best--
mainly because I just like their owl logo. :roll:



Yes, MASA is Mid-America STOL. I don't believe there's a whiskers difference between Owl, Bush, Horton, or the MASA.

I do know that with two folks and half tanks she get's off the ground with authority. 82" McCauley.
akaviator offline
User avatar
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 8:11 am
Location: Wasilla
Aircraft: Cessna 180

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

akaviator wrote:
I do know that with two folks and half tanks she get's off the ground with authority. 82" McCauley.


Haha I would sure hope so
asa offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 1532
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 1:56 pm
Location: ak

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

Interesting topic. I operate a 59 180 that was stock but I’ve upgraded to Sportsman’s, WingX, and Pponk 0-520; a 63 185 with IO-520; and a 75 185F; plus have a smattering of time in other skywagons. The 59 180 and 63 185 fly very similar, but the 75 185 feels A LOT heavier on the controls. It feels like a different aircraft. I’ve flown a 73 180 that was somewhere in between. Most of it is perception, but the 75 185 is also ~500lbs heavier empty than the 59 180. It will still haul more legally. After flying the late 185 the early planes feel almost toy like in handling. After flying a 206, the late 185 does. After flying any of them for a bit they feel normal. Go figure. Kinda like driving an F150 vs F250 camper special.

For my $ an early 180 or 185 kept light and close to stock is about as good as it gets for a sweet flying heavy hauling personal or light duty bush plane.

For a real honest to God >500hr a year working plane - a late model 185 (or 206) moded for the mission is the way to go. Mine is heavy with lots of extra fuel and avionics for aerial survey, AK-HUNT’s is stripped almost as light as an early model with great performance and load hauling ability.

But in any case, for a personal plane, get the best deal (not cheapest), best flying skywagon that you find within your budget and you will grow to LOVE it!
North River offline
Contributing author + Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:02 pm
Location: The Last Frontier

Re: Early 180 vs Early 185

I have flown 7 different F model 185s. Perhaps more, but my quick mental count came up with 7. Three of those have the same set of 4 mods: WingX, Robertson, Sportsman, and VGs. Those three airplanes all feel very different from each other despite being the same in terms of installed wing mods. The others all sport various levels of zero to some of those mods, and as you might guess, each of those also feels different.

They all feel different, but I would buy any of them in a heartbeat if I had the funds to pull off the purchase.
Troy Hamon offline
User avatar
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:27 am
Location: King Salmon
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... 04iX0FXjV2
Aircraft: Piper PA-22

DISPLAY OPTIONS

Previous
36 postsPage 2 of 21, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Latest Features

Latest Knowledge Base