DENNY wrote:In general three things help a plane fly Wing, Prop, and Power. If you want to land short a big extended wing with drooped ailerons and front cuff will let you fly slower, land and stop a lot shorter. It will also lift the same weight off sooner (given proper AOA). The right prop will give you a lot of grunt getting into the air and more HP will let you climb hard.

USEFUL LOAD;
What does it mean to you? My 1951 piper pa18A can carry 2,070 in utility category with a 125hp motor. Take the hopper out and booms off now we can fly standard category at 1500 lbs. If you look some of the V speeds change but all are within a 82/43 borer with a 160 hp lower performance range. In the country of ALASKA the FAA says 121 or part 135 operators can fly certain planes at 115% of max weight. On a -30 degree January day my it is hard to for women not to want to have the baby of a cub driver. Go to Fairbanks on a 100 degree july day and you might need to bring some good booze and a promise for a trip to Vegas, for a woman to say hi.

LEGAL LOAD;
What the paperwork says.

If you are landing on smooth stuff a properly set up 182 will have a better AOA than a 180, performance will follow AOA.

No right or wrong just things to think about.
DENNY

Sorry, Denny, but there are a bunch of mis-statements there. For one, try to argue during a ramp check that 115% gross is legal, in 121 or 135.

And a 182 has better AOA than a 180? I think you’re mixing your metaphors, lad.

MTV

Mike
This was what I was refering to.

§ 91.323 Increased maximum certificated weights for certain airplanes operated in Alaska.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the Administrator will approve, as provided in this section, an increase in the maximum certificated weight of an airplane type certificated under Aeronautics Bulletin No. 7-A of the U.S. Department of Commerce dated January 1, 1931, as amended, or under the normal category of part 4a of the former Civil Air Regulations ( 14 CFR part 4a, 1964 ed.) if that airplane is operated in the State of Alaska by -

(1) A certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter; or

(2) The U.S. Department of Interior in conducting its game and fish law enforcement activities or its management, fire detection, and fire suppression activities concerning public lands.

(b) The maximum certificated weight approved under this section may not exceed -

(1) 12,500 pounds;

(2) 115 percent of the maximum weight listed in the FAA aircraft specifications;

(3) The weight at which the airplane meets the positive maneuvering load factorn, where n=2.1+(24,000/(W+10,000)) and W=design maximum takeoff weight, except that n need not be more than 3.8; or

(4) The weight at which the airplane meets the climb performance requirements under which it was type certificated.

(c) In determining the maximum certificated weight, the Administrator considers the structural soundness of the airplane and the terrain to be traversed.

(d) The maximum certificated weight determined under this section is added to the airplane's operation limitations and is identified as the maximum weight authorized for operations within the State of Alaska.

I should have been more clear this will not help the average joe at a ramp check. Legal load is what your weight and balance paperwork for your plane says you can carry.



If you drop a big tire 182 tail to the skid on takeoff I think that AOA is greater than a 180 on takeoff. Lots of drag but with right prop and big power they do fly. We have a 172 running around hear spanking a lot of STOL guys with that trick.
DENNY

Like others have said, buy for the bones.
Engines aren't cheap, but are about the easiest thing to replace or upgrade.
And it's easy (if not cheap) to add bushwheels etc.

A&J engines....I've only met one or two people who're still running 470A engines.
But my own 53 model had the A in it for 40 years, until a remanned K was installed by the 1993 owner.
I'm very happy with the K, and while I don't know if I'd want an A engine, I would have no qualms at all about a J.
I've known a number of people who've had good luck with them, including some that ran well past TBO.

I dunno what kind of price tags are on the three you describe, 180 prices seem like they're all over the place.
There's a green & white 1955 180 that has been parked on the ramp at Bremerton WA KPWT for the last year or so.
I see that it's now listed on Barnstormers at $59K, right now it's about halfway down page 2 of the 180 listings.
It sounds pretty good in the ad, I looked it over a bit several months ago and it looked pretty good too.
Seems like a pretty decent deal, might be worth looking into.

hotrod180 wrote:Like others have said, buy for the bones.
Engines aren't cheap, but are about the easiest thing to replace or upgrade.
And it's easy (if not cheap) to add bushwheels etc.

A&J engines....I've only met one or two people who're still running 470A engines.
But my own 53 model had the A in it for 40 years, until a remanned K was installed by the 1993 owner.
I'm very happy with the K, and while I don't know if I'd want an A engine, I would have no qualms at all about a J.
I've known a number of people who've had good luck with them, including some that ran well past TBO.

I dunno what kind of price tags are on the three you describe, 180 prices seem like they're all over the place.
There's a green & white 1955 180 that has been parked on the ramp at Bremerton WA KPWT for the last year or so.
I see that it's now listed on Barnstormers at $59K, right now it's about halfway down page 2 of the 180 listings.
It sounds pretty good in the ad, I looked it over a bit several months ago and it looked pretty good too.
Seems like a pretty decent deal, might be worth looking into.

Great info. That's the one with 18000 airframe hours and was submerged in saltwater. Perhaps twice after looking at the logs. Could be a great find, could also have some very serious gremlins. Another thing is the most recent dunking in salt water has no mention in the logbook. Makes one wonder what else was omitted from records.

Interesting, ad sez "no damage history. No corrosion".
Itd be interesting to know how it had been submerged without any damage.
Also, logbooms are for documenting work done.
I wouldnt think submersion required an entry.
But addressing the submersion might.
Ad also says "same owner last 15,000 hours",
and notes "12 hours since overhaul"--
I wondered if either (or both) might be a typo.

About the only way to see if its a gem or a thrd is to go take a close look. Only so much you can tell from reading the ad or talking to the owner.

hotrod180 wrote:Interesting, ad sez "no damage history. No corrosion".
Itd be interesting to know how it had been submerged without any damage.
Also, logbooms are for documenting work done.
I wouldnt think submersion required an entry.
But addressing the submersion might.
Ad also says "same owner last 15,000 hours",
and notes "12 hours since overhaul"--
I wondered if either (or both) might be a typo.

About the only way to see if its a gem or a thrd is to go take a close look. Only so much you can tell from reading the ad or talking to the owner.

Yes I've had multiple conversations with him. Not a typo, he just had the engine overhauled. It sank while tied up to a dock. It had to get steam cleaned and all the instruments were replaced, but again, no log book entry. Could there be no corrosion? Maybe. I guess anything is possible. But spending the majority of its life operation with floats on salt water I'd have my doubts. It had a logbook entry from the sixties stating "hauled out of water...steam cleaned....engine pickled and placed in heated shop...tail section removed.. complete airframe overhaul" To me that sounds like it was sunk a time prior as well. Why would an airframe undergo an overhaul that significant at less than ten years old unless it was damaged...or submerged. It would be nice to have a closer look and I was going to if it were more convenient. For me though it seems to have too many red flags.

Run away from anything that’s been in salt water it’s whole life. There is corrosion. Probably everywhere. There are a lot of decent 180’s out there.

heli_adams wrote:….As you can see there seem to be pros and cons for each of these aircraft. In your opinion, which would be the most worthwhile to have a look at, or should I wait for one to come along that checks the more desirable boxes?

Every airplane has it's pro's and cons.
If youre waiting for the perfect airplane at the perfect price, I suspect you'll be waiting a long time.
I was you, I'd arrange to go take a look at these airplanes you're interested in-- probably the closest one first.
I know a guy who wanted to buy a C140, but wanted it to be just right.
He did eventually buy one, but it was after a number of years of looking.
He ended up with a beautiful airplane, but lost out on several years of flying--
not sure if that was a good trade-off now.

I'm reminded of an expression (slightly modified):
"don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough".

heli_adams wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:..There's a green & white 1955 180 that has been parked on the ramp at Bremerton WA KPWT for the last year or so. I see that it's now listed on Barnstormers at $59K....

Great info. That's the one with 18000 airframe hours and was submerged in saltwater. Perhaps twice after looking at the logs. Could be a great find, could also have some very serious gremlins. Another thing is the most recent dunking in salt water has no mention in the logbook. Makes one wonder what else was omitted from records.

Talked to a 180-savvy friend of mine yesterday, turns out he looked at that one a while back.
"Lots of issues, stay away" was what he told me.

Tom wrote:Run away from anything that’s been in salt water it’s whole life. There is corrosion. Probably everywhere. There are a lot of decent 180’s out there.

There’s a 185 air taxi machine in Juneau with over 25,000 hours on it. Spent its entire life on floats in the salt water. Flys nearly every day.

I owned a 172 that had been submerged in salt water. It had no more powder in the wings than my Idaho born and raised 206. Hanger neighbor has a 185 salvaged from the ocean. Been flying for 30 years, no problems. We put one in the salt water. Brought it home and power washed for 2 days. Fogged with ACF50. Its fixed and flying around down in CA somewhere.

hotrod180 wrote:

heli_adams wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:..There's a green & white 1955 180 that has been parked on the ramp at Bremerton WA KPWT for the last year or so. I see that it's now listed on Barnstormers at $59K....

Great info. That's the one with 18000 airframe hours and was submerged in saltwater. Perhaps twice after looking at the logs. Could be a great find, could also have some very serious gremlins. Another thing is the most recent dunking in salt water has no mention in the logbook. Makes one wonder what else was omitted from records.

Talked to a 180-savvy friend of mine yesterday, turns out he looked at that one a while back.
"Lots of issues, stay away" was what he told me.

Thanks for the heads up! Glad I didn't waste my time heading over there. Cheers.

gbflyer wrote:

Tom wrote:Run away from anything that’s been in salt water it’s whole life. There is corrosion. Probably everywhere. There are a lot of decent 180’s out there.

There’s a 185 air taxi machine in Juneau with over 25,000 hours on it. Spent its entire life on floats in the salt water. Flys nearly every day.

I owned a 172 that had been submerged in salt water. It had no more powder in the wings than my Idaho born and raised 206. Hanger neighbor has a 185 salvaged from the ocean. Been flying for 30 years, no problems. We put one in the salt water. Brought it home and power washed for 2 days. Fogged with ACF50. Its fixed and flying around down in CA somewhere.

You know and that's why high time machines don't necessarily scare me. As well as repaired ones. I think that if you have the time and patience it doesn't hurt to have a look. You never know what your going to find. I've rejuvenated some pretty clapped out airframes and turned them into cherries. The dots have to connect. For that one in particular, the damage history, the missing logs, the high time, the environment, and the previous comment above, makes it a no go for me. But I would not hesitate to go look at something with lots of history as long as it looks, feels, and smells right.

gbflyer wrote:

Tom wrote:Run away from anything that’s been in salt water it’s whole life. There is corrosion. Probably everywhere. There are a lot of decent 180’s out there.

There’s a 185 air taxi machine in Juneau with over 25,000 hours on it. Spent its entire life on floats in the salt water. Flys nearly every day.

I owned a 172 that had been submerged in salt water. It had no more powder in the wings than my Idaho born and raised 206. Hanger neighbor has a 185 salvaged from the ocean. Been flying for 30 years, no problems. We put one in the salt water. Brought it home and power washed for 2 days. Fogged with ACF50. Its fixed and flying around down in CA somewhere.

You know and that's why high time machines don't necessarily scare me. As well as repaired ones. I think that if you have the time and patience it doesn't hurt to have a look. You never know what your going to find. I've rejuvenated some pretty clapped out airframes and turned them into cherries. The dots have to connect. For that one in particular, the damage history, the missing logs, the high time, the environment, and the previous comment above, makes it a no go for me. But I would not hesitate to go look at something with lots of history as long as it looks, feels, and smells right.

So Heli, have you actually gone and looked at any of the three that interest you?
FWIW about 20 years ago, after 2 years of flying a C150 I decided I wanted a C170.
I looked at about 10 of them over a 3 month period, all but two were located relatively close by in western WA.
I ended up buying the first one I looked at, a somewhat raggedy ragwing, because it was the best value.
It was supposed to tide me over until I found a good buy on a 170B.
Well, I owned that airplane for 11 years and flew it 1700 hours.
Never did find the "right" B model, in fact after a while I quit looking.

So the improvements that happened in 55 and 56 were significant improvements. The landing gear rake and the trail wheel steering are big ones. I owned a 170 about 17 years before buying my 56 180 and the 170 and early 180 tail wheel steering was essentially nonexistent. That was one of the major differences I noticed when I moved to the 180. I rarely have to use brakes to turn in the 180. I've taxied the early 180s and they taxi just like the 170, all brakes to turn. I also wouldn't worry about the engine but the 53, 54, and to a lesser extent the 55 were all really early in the run and had massive improvements coming.

Wayne

hotrod180 wrote:So Heli, have you actually gone and looked at any of the three that interest you?
FWIW about 20 years ago, after 2 years of flying a C150 I decided I wanted a C170.
I looked at about 10 of them over a 3 month period, all but two were located relatively close by in western WA.
I ended up buying the first one I looked at, a somewhat raggedy ragwing, because it was the best value.
It was supposed to tide me over until I found a good buy on a 170B.
Well, I owned that airplane for 11 years and flew it 1700 hours.
Never did find the "right" B model, in fact after a while I quit looking.

Have not had time to look at any of them, the one I'v decided against, the others I'm still waiting on more information on. To be clear, I'm not looking for the perfect 180 that has all the bells and whistles and that is super nice. Like you, I'm looking for the best value. It is most likely that I will get one that is mostly stock and needs work but is structuraly and mechanically sound that will give me years of flying.

c180pilot wrote:So the improvements that happened in 55 and 56 were significant improvements. The landing gear rake and the trail wheel steering are big ones. I owned a 170 about 17 years before buying my 56 180 and the 170 and early 180 tail wheel steering was essentially nonexistent. That was one of the major differences I noticed when I moved to the 180. I rarely have to use brakes to turn in the 180. I've taxied the early 180s and they taxi just like the 170, all brakes to turn. I also wouldn't worry about the engine but the 53, 54, and to a lesser extent the 55 were all really early in the run and had massive improvements coming.

Wayne

Great info. Thanks! I was just turned on to a 55 for sale.

Be advised that a good solid C180 for a reasonable price might not last too long--
usually good deals get sold quick.
By the time you get the info you need and mull it over, someone else just might come along and jump on it.
Just saying...

c180pilot wrote: So the improvements that happened in 55 and 56 were significant improvements. The landing gear rake and the trail wheel steering are big ones. I owned a 170 about 17 years before buying my 56 180 and the 170 and early 180 tail wheel steering was essentially nonexistent. That was one of the major differences I noticed when I moved to the 180. I rarely have to use brakes to turn in the 180. I've taxied the early 180s and they taxi just like the 170, all brakes to turn. I also wouldn't worry about the engine but the 53, 54, and to a lesser extent the 55 were all really early in the run and had massive improvements coming.

I own a 53 model, and in the past owned a 170 for 11 years or so.
Needing brakes to steer isn't too big a deal and don't bother me at all.
The rudder comes alive at a pretty low forward speed, so you're really only using the brakes to steer at very low groundspeeds.
And $50 worth of pads for the doublepucks every year or two is a pretty insignificant item.

I admit that the 1955-and-up model's "wheels forward" gear legs are more of a factor.
My 53 model has them...but then again the A engine and C36 prop that came on my airplane from the factory were replaced with a K engine and C203 prop that weigh 26 pounds more. An early C180's light A engine, esp if it had a lighter weight modern threadless prop,, probably comes in 35-40 pounds lighter than my set-up, and might handle just dandy on the early wheels aft gear. In fact, it might handle better on the ground.

Main wheels forward is less twitchy, and is more prone to ground loops but less prone to nose-overs.
Main wheels aft is quicker handling, and is less prone to ground loops but more prone to nose-overs.
So like a lot of other things in aviation, and life, MLG wheel position is a compromise.
I think once someone gets used to just how much brakes they can get away with using,
the wheels-fwd or wheels-aft thing isn't a big deal-- it's just something you deal with.

Yeah, don't get me wrong here. We're taking levels of greatness here. If it comes down to a 53 180 and anything with a nose wheel, I'll take the 53. I flew my 170 for 17 years and know it's not that big of a deal. That said, all other things equal, I'll take a 56 with great tail wheel steering over a 53 with not so good tw steering.

Wayne