a64pilot wrote:Consider this an unbiased opinion because I don't own one, but a 182 is in my opinion about the most flexable, useful and affordable aircraft ever built. If you can't take a 182 there, then what kind of tricycle gear four place certified airplane can you take there?

A nosewheel Maule!

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:

a64pilot wrote:Consider this an unbiased opinion because I don't own one, but a 182 is in my opinion about the most flexable, useful and affordable aircraft ever built. If you can't take a 182 there, then what kind of tricycle gear four place certified airplane can you take there?

A nosewheel Maule!

You got me, but I thought we weren't allowed to use the "M" word?

Fuel Bladders, Good point! Having done a set in a 182, and a 206 I am here to tell you have someone else do it. I am convinced that if you do not live your mortal life well you are sentenced to change Cessna Bladders in Hell.

If you are brave (foolish)enough to attempt this yourself, at least start with a new bladder, an industrial hair dryer and a HOT Hangar.

As for big tires on a 182, they will not reduce the firewall stress, and it will cost you money you could have spent on a VG kit. But at least you will be slower in cruise. Pump the strut in the front, and fly the plane properly and you will not have a problem.

PS Maules are awesome.

All the guys that have paid for the vg's on their 182's love them cus they paid so much and will not admit defeat.

Spend that money on mountain instruction then get the vg's and stol kits after you learn to fly the plane well.

I got the mountain flying class done in a 182B and the instructors told me not to waste my money on stol kits and vg's.

My 2 pennies worth.

Tim

Vg's work, and they are cheap. I have flown them on a half dozen planes and I can unequivocally tell you they shorten ground roll on take off, you can safely climb steeper, and you will have more aileron authority at low speed. Remember if you get off shorter you are punishing that nose wheel less.

Of course back country instruction is the best place to spend your $ (look at my earlier posts) but a vg kit gives a nice safety margin among other benefits depending upon the plane you fly.

Read my lips. Buy good instruction and spend the bucks on the gas.

I will look into the vg's. I think I have an open mind. Probably not. Anybody have vg's without a stol kit on a strait tail 182. I would fly to you for a demo unless you are in Guam

Tim

I'm still trying to figure out how Mogas will get me off quicker

Viagra and lack-o-nooky does that

Tim

qmdv wrote:Read my lips. Buy good instruction and spend the bucks on the gas.

I will look into the vg's. I think I have an open mind. Probably not. Anybody have vg's without a stol kit on a strait tail 182. I would fly to you for a demo unless you are in Guam

Tim

A Little hard to read lips, but I heard you the first time. You say you haven't flown a vg equipped plane? hmmm

a64pilot wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how Mogas will get me off quicker

Less lead=less weight

Less weight = better performance. Look into an old straight-tail 182 jump plane-- extremely light weight, plus the jump door might be handy too. If you can buy one that isn't too beat up for a reasonable price it would make an excellent back country rig.
Everybody talks about pulling back the knobs when you have a 470 or bigger for better economy, but unless you're flying along with a slower airplane, I don't think too many guys do it. At normal cruise, a buddy's Ponk 520-equipped 180 burns about 13 or 14 gph doing in maybe 160 mph. That's 70% more fuel than the 8 gph I burn dong about 120, for only 35% more speed. So that "same miles-per-gallon" thing doesn't seem to work out. However, it's a different story if you want to factor in payload-- some sort of composite , miles-per-gallon-per-pound composite formula. And there's no denying that a 180 makes a much better back country flyer- if you can pay the price of admission.

Eric

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:12 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still trying to figure out how Mogas will get me off quicker

Wasn't it Sgt. Mogas that busted Larry Craig in the john?

For anybody interested there's a pretty good lookin '57 182 on barnstormers for like $41,500 with really low times.

I fly a 182J and couldn't be much more happy. Sometimes I wish it were a scout or a cub, but really I couldn't have a better plane. It will go anywhere I'm likely to go, and carry just about anything I can fit into it.
I haven't flown the straight tail 182, but I like the possibility of extending the baggage area so that it could carry a couple of bikes.
And on the topic of mogas:
I talked to my mechanic about it, and he mentioned that auto fuel is likely to cause a shortened life to the fuel bladders. Anyone have experience with that problem?

I just helped a friend change out his bladders last winter, he had been running Auto gas for decades and the bladders were original (1967). Of course this is a hangared aircraft, I would venture a guess that warm bladders last longer regardless of the type of fuel used. His engine is 110 past TBO and running strong.

BTW I just filled up the plane with 71 gallons of Mogas total cost 191.70
Saved 132.77 on one fill up. Hell, I can't afford NOT to fly

Owned a 1959 182B, now a 1974 180J.
182B Gross Weight 2650. Empty weight 1720. Useful load 930.
180J Gross Weight 2800. Empty 1835. Useful 965.
Both IFR. O470 engines. The 180 has Robertson STOL and VGs. Anyone want to bet which gets off the ground faster? A good light early model 182/180 will win every time and has about the same "useful" load. The 150 lb increase in gross tends to be eaten up by "improvements" like "deluxe" interior, articulating seats, 5/6 passenger seats, paint!, floatplane kit reinforcements. In later model 182s, the wider cabin and other creature comforts change the characteristics.

I can not say enough about how the move away from the adjustable stabilizer changed the capabilities of the 182. 182s are all capable, but you will hear about crinkled firewalls and nose heavy flight. This is NOT the case with the '60 and earlier models because of the stabilizer. If you drop a 180 tire in a badger hole, you may be ripping out the gear box all the same. No one is immune. If the grass is tall, I will get out and walk it before taking the plane there.

I would carry more pressure in my nose strut, but elected not to put a spacer or piece of hose on the nose strut because of the force that would then be transmitted to the firewall.

'59 and later had a centralized stack, but not the tall center stack that some may think of.

I do like the large tanks for cross country and when I consider IFR in the western state with limited alternates. I do end up carrying around a lot of extra weight in fuel. Hopefully will rectify this with the fuel flow coming soon.

I got the 182 in a partnership with my father, a non-tailwheel pilot. I wanted to run skis and floats so got the 180, but it was still a hard decision to spend the extra cash because the 182 did everything else besides floats and skis that I needed it to.

Good luck with the search.
Matt

Tim, do a search on the CPA Fourm for VG's. I know they work on some planes but if I remember correctly four of the CPA members got a deal on Micro VG's out of Anacortes I believe some of them actually removed them. It might be worth reviewing their results.
Bruce

I don't think the VG's help that much on the Cessna wing. Put them on 2 180's and a 185 so far, both Micro Aero and Boundary Layer. There is some improvement in slow speed handling, but nothing remarkable like when installing them on a cub. I guess they're OK, I just don't think they are a must have mod.

Money spent on a Horton or Sportsman STOL is more effective for slow speed handling qualities, at least in my opinion. And if you don't slow the airplane down, you'll hate the extra float on landing that the STOL kit will give you. Lots of the high time very experienced pilots say the best thing to do to the wing is leave it just the way Cessna built it. I saw a picture of Gail Ranney in Outdoor Life (or was it F&S) the other day with her 185...she's got over 25,000 hours in those things and I didn't see a cuff or VG's on that airplane.

For my meager abilities, I like the Sportsman best.

gb