Hi Folks,

I’m a Newbie here who’s been lurking on this site for quite a while. I’ve absolutely got Backcountry flying on the brain!! I can’t get rid of it!!! Help me!! However, my 68 Cherokee 180 will have limited use in the backcountry and despite my love for 62L, I’m plotting a replacement. I’m not trying to break into Cub-country, rather explore the many fine dirt/grass strips in So.Utah and Idaho.

I really want a 182 and I have a few questions for the group as it sounds like there are a couple of Skylane fans out there. I think the 182 will have the best mix of payload, speed and ruggedness for the buck.

My budget would be 50 -60K (wish it were more). The 182’s are coming down in price along with the rest of GA but I wondered which of the early models suit the Backcountry the best. My favorites are the ’59 and ’60 models. People say the fastback 182’s really are faster and lighter on the controls but they also have lower gross weights. Payload is a big issue for me. The wing-X anti-gravity wing extensions/gross weight appears expensive and involved.

My questions are: How are the 1962E and 1963F models in the backcountry? I like the bigger cabin for sure (I’m a college football sized guy) and the center stack radios. Bigger back seat and room as well, but does this detract from its usefulness on shorter strips? It seems like the anything newer has to be in ratty shape to be considered but there are some ’64 and ’65 planes in the mix. I’m hoping to find something with a mid-time motor.

I’ve been told that one can add a heavy-duty nose fork and larger tires for less than 2 grand, and a couple grand more for a STOL kit. Does this sound right? Also I hear there is a ‘nosegear beef-up kit’ that re-inforces the firewall and a ‘tail beef-up kit’ to strengthen the tail?? Anyone have info or numbers on that??

Any other general info or secrets would be appreciated.

Hats off to all of you by the way!! This forum is much more informative and seems to have a higher caliber (knowledge wise) group than any of the others I frequent. Thanks in advance for your input.

Good to be along…..

Lance

Try the Cessna Pilots association web site...www.cessna.org...and buy the 182 buyers guide. It spells out the changes in each of the model years and is invaluable in the search for 182 knowledge.

If you search this site for posts by Mike M ...in Salt Lake, he details the needs for upsizing the tires on a 182...I think it is this site....there are several ways to do it legally and I plan to do it this spring also. Search for posts on VGs as some think they are a more affordable way to get STOL performance. Don't look for absolute solutions because it seems that big tires and STOL issues are more a matter of opinion than pure science. If you want to see one tricked out 182, get ahold of Brent Watson..based at Bountiful...and look up the Utah Bachcountry Pilot group for another great bunch of guys. But as you indicated, the guys here are tops for dirt. Watch for posts about the BCP gathering at Johnson Creek in late June...easily doable in your Piper if you don't get a 182 by then....depending on pilot skill.....

Don't get caught in the trap of spending money on tires and performance enhancers as substitutes for pilot skill and judgement. Good luck with your search....I love my 182 and it will take me anywhere I have the balls to go. It's not a Maule or SC for sure but is a great all around plane

Welcome Lance

Why do feel the early 182 would be so much better than your 180 for exploring?

If you love the plane and are one with it why not put a STOL kit on it and repitch the prop

There are many places you could get in and out of lightly loaded with the proper skills

If you find you want to get into more and more tougher places you should look at getting a tail dragger.

I have had a couple of 182's and yes they are great all around aircraft but I will always think they are pig's

Getting some tail wheel time will expand your piloting skills and you then may decide the 182 isn't what you want after all.

Don't be looking for equipment to be your saving grace, knowledge and skill are a way better option.

Lance, First, Welcome to the BCP forum. I fly an older Cessna 182. It is a 1959 model. I have flown into some of the Idaho back country. I think the 182 gets around fairly well in the back country. It isn't as good as a 180 but it will cost you roughly $20,000. less than the 180. I have never had any trouble load wise. I have had 4 plus close to full fuel and hot and 4300' elevation and it flew. I don't know much about later models of the 182. I think as others have said the 180 has a little more prop clearence and the tail wheel will probably take a little more punishment. Thats all I can do to help. Bob

Lance, welcome to the group, you have a nice airplane but be very careful with your load you don't have the cubic inches. I was 12 minutes behind a Piper 180 late in Sept a few years back going into JC. He attempted a go around and didn't make it and it really was not that warm. A 182 is a good all around airplane, not great but good. Best wishes and hope to see you at JC in Sept.
Bruce

You are on the right track if a comprimise plane is what you are after. I owned a '57 A model 182 for a long time and loved it. As other have posted I would get profficient at flying the plane first. Then consider what STOL mods I would buy. The strait tails are all lighter and have much lighter elevator feel. Later models are wider and have better payload. The things I found my self needing were:
Long range tanks
VG kit
Auto gas STC
If you are taking a nose wheel aircraft into places that you need bigger tires consider a Maule.
Keep the plane light, and on reasonably smooth strips and you will have a ball. Most of the Idaho strips are pretty easy in a 182, and getting home at 130knots is nice. If you want to land in random fields or rocky/muddy places, look at a Maule,Cub, Husky etc.
Good luck!

I know a guy that has a 1958 182, that he has more or less turned over to his son. I heard that the son wants to sell it, in favor of something like an Cessna 185. Let me know if you are interested, and I will ask him about it. Bob

I think it would be a real violation of BCP tradition to not, at some point, completely change the subject and suggest other airplanes which we feel would be more appropriate to your mission, or at least which we feel would be more entertaining to talk about.

I've always thought that the older 182's were about the most bang for the buck for someone who really wanted to use an airplane the way country folks use a pick-up. With that said, it sounds like you're planning on buying a fairly worn out plane which isn't that good for landing on rough terrain to begin with, then spending another 25% to beef it up so it will work better for a mission it was never designed for...if you really need STOL kits, big tires, reinforced firewalls and a beefed up tail you probably picked the wrong airplane to begin with. If you're flying off of reasonably maintained strips and have good control of the airplane, all those modifications are just extra weight, drag, and expense...expense that probably should have been spent on the engine.

I understand the difficulty of finding a plane with decent useful load which you can actually afford to buy, but a lot of that useful load isn't going to be usable for backcountry flying, even in a mighty 182. But you still get to pay for that useful load every second you fly, whether you use it or not.

I've noticed a reoccurring theme among 182 owners, and that is they get REAL tired of paying the per-hour operating costs. I think what you have now is at the upper edge of affordable for someone who is paid by the hour. That step up to 230hp is a real financial kick in the teeth. Maybe it's worth it to you, but I think you have to really need that extra hp...not just once or twice a year, but most of the time...or paying for it becomes a very unpleasant chore. In addition to the substantial extra gas burn and the propeller maintenance, you're now burning tach time on an engine which costs twice as much as your Lycoming, and which won't last as long.

If cost is a factor (which seems likely from your stated budget), you might want to consider a Cessna 172 with a 180hp Lycoming and a constant speed prop. It should get in and out of strips quite a bit better than your Piper, and aside from the propeller maintenance, your operating costs will be the same as you have now.

Or buy a Maule

My 2c worth:
A local jump operation just put 18" wing ext. on a older 182 and it really made a deference in climb and useful load. That said I agree that you may be looking to mod a 182 to do a job it wasn't made to do. That usually ends up costing more that its worth.
My personal chose is the Piper Pacer (PA22-20), late model, 150 or 160 hp, tips, long range tanks, VG, Cleveland wheels and brakes, Scott 3200 Tail wheel, recent cover and low time engine, plus good radios and you are in for under $40,000 for a plane that is rebuilt to almost new. It will carry a good load and suprise you in performance. Good luck sorting this age old question out, Tom

Oh shit Lance I forgot

Just buy a Scout

Run Mogas in your strait tail skylane, and it will get out shorter, climb stronger, carry more and go faster, on roughly the same fuel cost as a 180hp/172. The L model and later O-470 is a great motor and will last you a long time.

(skylane)130knots on 12 gal/hr = 10.83mpg @ 2.80/gal (local)=.26/mile
(skyhawk)120knots on 9 gal/hr = 13.3 mpg @ 4.56/gal (local)=.34/mile

food for thought

Even though there are not many Cherokees in the mountains, don't underestimate the utility of your Cherokee 180 for incredible mountain flying as long as you follow the rules, density altiudes, etc. I have flown a Cherokee 180 multiple times into Johnson Creek, Big Creek, Sulphur Creek, Moose Creek, Schaefer Meadows, Cavanaugh Bay, Indian Creek and Chamberlain. These aren't the toughest mountain strips by any strecth, but still respectable and rewarding. Just get mountain flying dual - and as my instructor said - if you fly a Cherokee in the mountains, you just have to be a better pilot.

Run Mogas in your strait tail skylane, and it will get out shorter, climb stronger, carry more and go faster, on roughly the same fuel cost as a 180hp/172. The L model and later O-470 is a great motor and will last you a long time.

(skylane)130knots on 12 gal/hr = 10.83mpg @ 2.80/gal (local)=.26/mile
(skyhawk)120knots on 9 gal/hr = 13.3 mpg @ 4.56/gal (local)=.34/mile

Sorry TwinPOS, but that's pretty spurious logic. For one thing, many people won't run mogas through their aircraft engine, and while the debate rages on, every single aircraft engine manufacturer clearly and unequivocally states that to do so is simply stupid. But if that's your choice, what's to keep you from running it in the Lycoming?

Your math also fails to take into account the difference in rebuild cost between the two engines, and the fact that the Lycoming will statistically run longer than the O-470. It's a significant difference in the operational cost of the plane.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but I don't buy that it's cheaper to fly a 182 than a 172.

every single aircraft engine manufacturer clearly and unequivocally states that to do so is simply stupid

That's funny, we got'a sticker in the 182 that says different!

That's funny, we got'a sticker in the 182 that says different!

WOW! If it's on a sticker in your plane it must be true! I got the same sticker on my 140, but Lycoming's official position is as such:

Lycoming does not permit the use of any fuel other than those specified in our latest edition of Service Instruction No. 1070. Although Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) now make the use of automotive fuel, which meets minimum specified standards,
legal for use in some aircraft, reciprocating engine manufacturers
and most major oil companies do not approve. While it is true that octane levels appear adequate, these organizations are of the opinion that the varying quality control standards applicable to automobile gasoline produce undue risk when it is used in aircraft. Several specific reasons are given for the
non-approval of automobile fuel:
1. Its use reduces safety. Although an operator may find that the engine runs well on a specific grade of auto fuel, there is no assurance that fuel from the same tank will be of the same quality when purchased the next time. Risk is increased.
2. Its use can void warranty, or result in cancellation of the
owner’s insurance.
3. The storage characteristics of automotive fuel are less desirable
in comparison with the good storage characteristics of aviation
gasoline. After several months, stored automotive fuel may suffer loss of octane rating, and tends to deteriorate into hard starting, along with forming gum deposits that cause sticking
exhaust and intake valves, and fuel metering problems, resulting in rough running engines. The turnover of automotive fuel is so fast that long-lasting storage characteristics are not required.
4. The additives in automotive fuels are chemically different from those designed for aviation, and contain auxiliary scavengers
which are very corrosive, and under continued use can lead to exhaust valve failures. They also cause rust and
corrosion in the internal parts of the engine. The allowable additives for aviation gasoline are rigidly tested and controlled. There is no uniform control of additives in automotive gasoline.
Many different additives are used, depending on the fuel manufacturer.
For example, one fuel company adds a detergent to clean carburetors. This additive creates a significant increase in the affinity of the gasoline for water which can cause fuel filter icing problems in flight if outside temperatures are cold enough.
5. Automotive fuels have higher vapor pressures than aviation fuel. This can lead to vapor lock during flight because the fuel companies advise that automotive fuels can have double the
vapor lock pressures of aviation gasoline, depending on the seasons
of the year and the location because of climatic conditions. In addition, automotive fuel also increases the possibility of
vapor lock on the ground with a warm engine on a hot day.
6. Although the fuel octane numbers shown on the pump of automotive
and aircraft gasolines may be similar, the actual octane ratings are not comparable due to the different methods used to rate the two types of fuels. Furthermore, aviation gasolines have a lean and rich rating, i.e., 100/130, whereas motor gas is not tested for a rich rating.
7. Automotive fuel used in an aircraft engine may lead to destructive
detonation or preignition and potential engine failure at high power conditions.
8. Please review the Mo-Gas fuel requirements in your state or destination.
SUMMARY:
Auto fuel is now being used as a substitute for Grade 80 aviation gasoline under STCs issued by the FAA. Most major oil companies
and engine manufacturers continue to recommend that aircraft piston engines be operated only on aviation gasoline. Deterioration of engine and fuel system parts have been reported in aircraft using auto fuel. Operators should consider the added risk of using auto fuel in aircraft. Remember — a pilot can’t pull over to the side of the road when fuel creates a problem with the engine.

In other words...using mogas is, according to Lycoming, stupid. Whether or not you agree is up to you, but I'll side with the company that actually built the engine.

Hammer wrote:

Run Mogas in your strait tail skylane, and it will get out shorter, climb stronger, carry more and go faster, on roughly the same fuel cost as a 180hp/172. The L model and later O-470 is a great motor and will last you a long time.

(skylane)130knots on 12 gal/hr = 10.83mpg @ 2.80/gal (local)=.26/mile
(skyhawk)120knots on 9 gal/hr = 13.3 mpg @ 4.56/gal (local)=.34/mile

Sorry TwinPOS, but that's pretty spurious logic. For one thing, many people won't run mogas through their aircraft engine, and while the debate rages on, every single aircraft engine manufacturer clearly and unequivocally states that to do so is simply stupid. But if that's your choice, what's to keep you from running it in the Lycoming?

Your math also fails to take into account the difference in rebuild cost between the two engines, and the fact that the Lycoming will statistically run longer than the O-470. It's a significant difference in the operational cost of the plane.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but I don't buy that it's cheaper to fly a 182 than a 172.

The logic is precisely right. If you run mogas at that price then that would be the difference in cost. If you don't run mogas, well then, DUH. I ran mogas for about 1000 hours in a 67 182 I used to have, you'd be awfully dumb not to if it's available. The engine manufacturers never let science get in the way of their logic. They are the last people to go to for the proper operation of their own damn engines.
He made no statements on overhaul costs or engine longevity. After 1500 hours the savings is $11,160 based on his stated gas costs. So when you subtract the cost of the engine what really is the difference in costs between the two? I paid $1000 a year for my 182 for insurance for a $70K hull. The 172 will be a little less but not significantly so. Not counting the engine the cost of the annual should be pretty damn close and the engine alone isn't going to raise the cost of the annual much, if at all. You do have two more cylinders to maintain and Continentals will need more cylinder work over its life than a Lyc 360. But you'll never have to replace a rusted cam on an O-470.
So over 1500 hours and an $11,000 head start the 182 wins, hands down.

Hammer wrote:Sorry TwinPOS, but that's pretty spurious logic. For one thing, many people won't run mogas through their aircraft engine, and while the debate rages on, every single aircraft engine manufacturer clearly and unequivocally states that to do so is simply stupid. But if that's your choice, what's to keep you from running it in the Lycoming?

Your math also fails to take into account the difference in rebuild cost between the two engines, and the fact that the Lycoming will statistically run longer than the O-470. It's a significant difference in the operational cost of the plane.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but I don't buy that it's cheaper to fly a 182 than a 172.

If you look back I said the fuel costs will be less then I proved it. Mogas may not be everyone's choice I was just pointing it out as an option. As for running it through the Lycoming not all 0-360's can legally run it, those that can require 91 min octane, so the fuel savings start to diminsish when you mix in 100ll.
As for the stupidity of using mogas, I have exceeded TBO in continentals and Lycomings and paid for the overhauls with the difference in fuel cost. I am literally laughing (stupidly) all the way to the bank.
I personally don't call anyone stupid for running Avgas

Wow. For just reading words on the internet or on paper there is an expert lurking in every corner. I have read the Bible and man it is the way the human factory said to live so any other way is just stupid. From some post I have seen and some things that some have done, there will be a new expert on engines and airframes here after graduation. The new and improved BCP IA/AP PL manuals are in and are only $9.99 at your local cracker ass store.

It's been confirmed...the mogas debate is officially Biblical. Good to hear how much smarter we all are than the folks that actually built the engines we fly behind.

Thanks for all of your reply's. As usual, there are things Ive failed to consider. I would really like the payload of the 182 and the ability to do some of the basic backcountry strips. The Cherokee actually hauls 1049 pounds and I'm amazed at how many more capable airplanes don't. ( New $550,000 Cirrus Turbo: Useful Load..1080lbs???? Not.

I guess Im afraid of taking the Cherokee off-road because a friend and I were asked to help extract a Warrior from Spiral Jetty a few years ago. The mains could not take the uneven surface and folded. I remember thinking "what kind of Nutsack would bring a Warrior out to a place like that" and now I'm that Nutsack!

Dont know if any of you have read Galen Hanselman's new fly Utah book but it is a superb reference and read. He used his 182 on most of the strips in the book but the Cub guys had the tricky ones all to themselves. That will have to be okay with me (I've got an XR650R for those strips). Oh yeah, Galen wrecked his original 182 on Dark Canyon but he does seem to hit the majority of strips with good skill and a decent plane.

I guess I'm surprised that many dont consider a 182 an able backcountry steed. I def. have a lot to learn.

As for economics, the 12.5 gallon per hour fuel burn would hurt with todays gas prices but I would prolly survive. An engine overhaul I may not. The Cherokee got a Western Skyways reman this past summer and it almost put me over the edge. I should prolly just fly it and enjoy it and work on my flying skills for a while..........but Spiral Jetty calls.......and this little birdie in my head says I can do it.......

Lance

The fuel debate is entertaining as well