I am looking at a 1960 Cessna 180 to buy. The spec sheet says it only has a 850lb useful load. That seems to me to by rather limiting. Full fuel and maybe 2 lightweights in the cockpit and no baggage.

Does anyone know of a gross weight increase kit for a 1960 model without wing extensions?
If it makes any difference it does not have a float kit.

Thanks for any advice,

Tom

The Kenmore air STC will give you some I think. It requires as late model or 185 vertical and dorsal fin and some beefing up of the horizontal spar. This should get you up to 3190 GW.

I believe that the Kenmore STC only covers the later model 180s.

Dean

The gross weight of a 1960 180C is 2650#. Useful load of 850 means it weighs 1800# with oil and unusable fuel. Seems kinda heavy unless it's pretty pimped out. My 53's got some weight-adding mods-- 185 gear legs, 850's & doublepucks, V-brace, extended baggage, heavy stinger, 10" t/w-- so it's not esp light, and it comes in at 1695.

In my experience, you'll find the W&B sheet goofed up on a lotta airplanes-- that might be the case with this 1960 model, but hard to know until you buy it, or have it weighed as part of a pre-purchase inspection.

Here's a link to Kenmore 3190 STC, not much info as to what has to be done to the airplane.
http://www.kenmoreairharbor.com/uploads ... nw_ref.pdf
Dean's correct, applies only to the G model-on.

I knew the Kenmore only applied to later models and was hoping that there was something else. The empty weight may be correct as there are extra wing tanks bringing the total to 100gal. The problem is in order to actually use it you can only have one light pilot and no baggage.

T

Are they the flint tip tanks? Or is there a different stc for bigger tanks?
I guess if it's the early ones they didn't have an up gross. That is Sucky...

a3holerman wrote:The empty weight may be correct as there are extra wing tanks bringing the total to 100gal. The problem is in order to actually use it you can only have one light pilot and no baggage.

Kinda makes you wonder how often and by how much it was flown over gross weight.

Hartwig aircraft has a conversion that adds 18 gal per side just outboard of the mains. The flints are 13 gallon at the end of the wing. My understanding is the hartwig is preferable because of the location of the fuel and no pumps to transfer fuel to the mains. Just what I have been told, I have no experience with either.

Doesn't wing X bring the gross up?

No, there are no wing extensions on the plane so they must be just outboard of the mains.

I was hoping there was an stc to up the GW without adding wing extensions but have not been able to find one.

a3holerman wrote:No, there are no wing extensions on the plane so they must be just outboard of the mains.

I was hoping there was an stc to up the GW without adding wing extensions but have not been able to find one.

One of the Flint tank mods slips the tank into the outboard rib bay.....no wing extension. But those tanks only add ~ 12.5 gallons a side.

Fuel tanks themselves don't add that much weight. There's got to be a lot of other pork in there.

MTV

mtv wrote:

a3holerman wrote:No, there are no wing extensions on the plane so they must be just outboard of the mains.

I was hoping there was an stc to up the GW without adding wing extensions but have not been able to find one.

One of the Flint tank mods slips the tank into the outboard rib bay.....no wing extension. But those tanks only add ~ 12.5 gallons a side.

Fuel tanks themselves don't add that much weight. There's got to be a lot of other pork in there.

MTV

The Flints add 24 ish lbs.

I agree with Mike... Something isn't correct. When was the last actual weight done? If it's truly that heavy, you can do a bunch to get that down...

The Kenmore gross weight increase applies just to G, H, J, K model 180s, for future reference

a3holerman wrote:....The empty weight may be correct as there are extra wing tanks bringing the total to 100gal. The problem is in order to actually use it you can only have one light pilot and no baggage.

Who says you have to fill the tanks? My 53 has the standard 60 gallon tanks, but I generally start off for a normal day of local or semi-local flying with about 40 gallons-- that's 3 hours at 11 gph plus about a half-hour's reserve.

850 useful= 360# fuel (60 gallons), two 170# people, and 150# of whatever.
Even with a full 100 gallons on board (600#), you have 250 pounds left over. That's one big pilot, or the FAA-standard 170-pounder + 80 pounds misc.

hotrod180 wrote: you have 250 pounds left over. That's one big pilot, or the FAA-standard 170-pounder + 80 pounds misc.

Hey!!


In regards to the OP, and to echo what others are saying/alluding to....sounds heavy. From experience my early model was in high 1600's. My late model, with EVERY mod was around 2000. If it's a great plane, I wouldn't let it hold me back. Just focus on weight savings and not flying with all that gas. I plan for 15 gph and rarely fly locally with more than 50. My bladder and legs only last about max 4 hours anyways. I have 84 (total, 74 usable..Edited) and only fill up when it's cheap, then offload or when I'm flying to other states.

Bill

hotrod180 wrote: two 170# people...

Where the hell do I find some of those?

I plan to fly to some out of the way, No gas, locations in the North Country of Maine and it would have been nice to carry round trip fuel and to tanker when worthwhile. I will investigate the owners W/B sheets and ask if there might be a discrepancy.
It is listed on Skywagons website.

Here's something to think about-
if you find an STC to increase the gross weight without any aerodynamic changes (wing extensions, cuffs, etc), I think that it would fly like an overweight C-180. Although that may not be too bad of a consequence. I don't know a whole lot about the Cessna 180, but I don't think the aerodynamics have changed much through the years, but the gross weight has certainly increased.

I think (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the same thing applies with the Super Cub and the 2000 lb STC, just a structural reinforcement with nothing done to the aerodynamics.

It sounds like you are willing to spend some money to get a gross weight increase. If you like the plane and it's condition, maybe you could think about spending some money to lower the empty weight. Newer or less radios, lighter interior, etc. There are lot's of options, especially if it's real heavy to start.

That's just some of my thoughts. Although I'd be in the same boat if there was a gross weight increase available for my plane, as it would be tempting.
Good luck with whatever you end up doing.