Hello all, I've searched the forum and found some interesting info on the 182's. I've found that an early model straight tail is probably the way to go in regards to back country flying. Do you all have any suggestions/recommendations on what to look for in the purchase process? I've found differing opinions on years. Any specific years that you would recommend for back country flights? Thanks for you input and I know this has been covered somewhat before. Have a great day!

Have several old straight tail 182s available here - contact me directly at stingers61b@ cox.net or text/call 702-581-2022 .

Email sent

Some thoughts.
>182s are plentiful--don't fall in love with pretty paint on some far off 182 that you find in Barnstormers, Trade-a-plane, or anywhere else.
>Look more locally; check with local mechanics and FBOs who may be aware of potential sellers.
>When you find one you like, cut your deal, get it in writing, and make sure that there's a pre-buy clause that allows you out of the deal if the pre-buy shows any significant problems.
>Then have your own trusted mechanic do a pre-buy, which includes a review of the logbooks.
>The single most serious and common problem with 182s of all years is damaged firewalls from hard landings on the nose gear. That's a $15,000 problem at best, plus a whole lot of down-time. If it happened, make sure it was repaired properly.
>If the accident that bent the nose gear resulted in an excursion from the runway, one or both main gear boxes may have been damaged, to the tune of roughly $4000 each for used parts plus installation.
>Make sure that the logbook review shows everything that's been done to the airplane--sloppy or missing logs can really reduce the resale value.
>Don't fall for "fresh annual" advertising, because there are annuals and then there are annuals.
>Avionics are expensive, so look for one already equipped the way you expect to use it--and think into the future, with expanding controlled airspace and ADS-B just around the corner.
>Keep in mind that any airplane purchase is a gamble, so plan on having a 25% or more reserve for repairing things the first year. In other words, if all you can afford is the purchase price of the airplane, you probably shouldn't buy it.

Cary

Cary, thanks for the valuable information. I wasn't aware of those issues to look for. I'll start looking locally and see what I can find.... I'll also be selling my 1969 Cherokee 140/150 in the next few months. If anyone know somebody that would be interested shoot me a pm.

What Cary said. I have seen some real junk on the ramps. Even in dry northern Arizona. Don't get stuck by being in a hurry.

flightlogic wrote:What Cary said. I have seen some real junk on the ramps. Even in dry northern Arizona. Don't get stuck by being in a hurry.

Thanks , it is sometimes hard to be patient though. I spent about 6 months looking for the cherokee that I currently own. She's been a good plane.

What Cary said.......

And inspect the seat rails very close and if the seller seems overly proud of the plane they are trying to sell, they might be trying to hide something. So yeah, don't fall in love with the first planes you look at. Take your time and have them thoroughly inspected.

Good luck on your find!!

Thanks 58Skylane, I appreciate the advice!

TxKiger wrote: Any specific years that you would recommend for back country flights?

1960 182C is my fave, it has all of the desirable mods as the '59 (cowl flaps, better panel layout, etc…) but its tail isn't straight. Just make sure you include it in the narrow-body Skylane search. The '61 'D model had its gear lowered 4 inches for passengers so it isn't as desirable as the previous models.

Just remember the '62 and later Skylanes are almost totally different airplanes than the narrow-bodies. Still good ships.. they are just heavier (and roomier!) and do fine in the backcountry but the pre-'62's are basically tri-gear 180's.

SixTwoLeemer wrote:

TxKiger wrote: Any specific years that you would recommend for back country flights?

1960 182C is my fave, it has all of the desirable mods as the '59 (cowl flaps, better panel layout, etc…) but its tail isn't straight. Just make sure you include it in the narrow-body Skylane search. The '61 'D model had its gear lowered 4 inched for passengers so it isn't as desirable as the previous models.

Just remember the '62 and later Skylanes are almost totally different airplanes than the narrow-bodies. Still good ships.. they are just heavier (and roomier!) and do fine in the backcountry but the pre-'62's are basically tri-gear 180's.

Good to know, thanks Leemer

A buddy of mine in Hamilton, Mt. has a 58 Cessna 182 with the stock engine. 8's on the mains, 6 on the nose, Sportsman STOL. He takes it to the Idaho backcountry on a regular basis. He has been in and out of all of the "Cub only strips", including the Big Quad, all with a 200+ pound passenger as well as over 45lbs. of safety gear, and enough fuel to return. His aircraft is not a beater, but looks like it came off the showroom floor.

Contact Willie Stene of Stene Aviation in Polson, Montana. Ask to see the testimonial and pictures of the 58 Skylane. Absolutely amazing what a Cessna 182 can do with his Sportsman STOL installed. You will not be disappointed with a straight tail 182. Willie provides a quality product and first rate service.

Richard

Hey Richard, I'll definitely look into the sportsman stol. That seems like a great mod for the 182. I'll have to give Stene Aviation a call when I pull the trigger on the 182.

Check the flap trailing edges for cracks round the rivets, be mindful of the fuel bladders, rubber grommets where the ngone mount meets the firewall, look at the landing gear where the step is attached for signs of rust, the '56 is the only year that used it's particular main landing gear, and the myth is that the 180 gear is the same, IT IS NOT. I love my '56, but a gear leg replacement was hard to find and expensive, so in that way, the 57-59 might be more desirable. I've also found that cooling without cowl flaps is not a problem, as is sometimes discussed. I have 55 gals useable fuel, and find it to be adequate, but the next year I think had 65, which would be nice. I like my straight tail and called on several before I decided, and it still needed a little more work than I figured, but I love it nonetheless, and for backcountry work, the light, narrow bird is great!

I have a 56 model 182. In about 1999 the then owner replace the main gear legs with with legs from a 1958 model and shortened the nose tube 4 " and installed a 310 fork.

All 182's are great planes. The 56 model is 100 pounds lighter than the 57 through 61. Leemer stated that the 61 model is lower than the 60. I think he is wrong. The 62 model is wider and heavier and was the first year without the trimable horizontal stabilizer. That feature alone makes the 56 through 61 model superior to all others.

If you live near me I will be happy to give you a ride.

Tim

qmdv wrote:. Leemer stated that the 61 model is lower than the 60. I think he is wrong.

I think Tim still hasn't seen the ball since kickoff

Just kidding Tim, got love for ya. In fact, I have decided to keep you from being further confused by the facts and included a link to the entire history of the 182 for your continued education.

http://www.seaplaneswest.com/documents/182hist.pdf

SixTwoLeemer wrote:

qmdv wrote:. Leemer stated that the 61 model is lower than the 60. I think he is wrong.

I think Tim still hasn't seen the ball since kickoff

Just kidding Tim, got love for ya. In fact, I have decided to keep you from being further confused by the facts and included a link to the entire history of the 182 for your continued education.

http://www.seaplaneswest.com/documents/182hist.pdf

OK OK I stand corrected

Tim