SA Maule wrote:Hello 182 stol driver, please give me more info on the straight tails, I am looking for something similar, do they have higher useful load etc?
My e mail is [email protected], I am in South Africa so will have to dissemble the plane and ship to South Africa , I need an affordable load hauler that can run on mogas to move goods between hunting camps

If you want to bump up the useful load add Wing-X extensions. You will get a new gross weight of 2950lbs which is 300-400lbs more depending on which year straight tail you get. This is what I would do if I had one.

We would beat the crap out of Subarus in Baja way (way) before there was legal gay marriage! Great little truck for two dudes (heterosexual) and a few surfboards in my opinion.

Magnet wrote:

58Skylane wrote:How about outside the box like an RV4? Almost 200mph on about 5-7 gph??

Agree with the official Colorado car, the Subaru. You will have to buy Berkenstocks and put a Gay Rights sticker on the bumper but nothing wrong with that.

Say what??? I might be a little slow on this one. But how do you get a Subaru mixed with an RV4?

I've owned a 172,182, M5 Maule and several other airplanes. For your flying profile, I'd go with the 182 in a heart beat. Get an early model straight tail, remove the rear seats and extend the baggage are and fly it all day long. ...great airplane.

58Skylane wrote:

Magnet wrote:

58Skylane wrote:How about outside the box like an RV4? Almost 200mph on about 5-7 gph??

Agree with the official Colorado car, the Subaru. You will have to buy Berkenstocks and put a Gay Rights sticker on the bumper but nothing wrong with that.

Say what??? I might be a little slow on this one. But how do you get a Subaru mixed with an RV4?

You press return at the wrong time

I was in school in Denver two years ago and commuted quite a bit between Denver and Durango, the route mentioned earlier is indeed probably the least mountainous. The shortest and best route I have found though is over Kenosha, direct to Monarch pass, over Monarch, Direct to Rio Grande Reservoir, then Weiminuche Pass to Vallecito Lake and then to 00C. This route is almost a straight line and you only need to pop up for Kenosha, Monarch, and then a bit just outside of Creede. I fly it at 10,000 feet or so with a few climbs to get higher. There's an AWOS at Kenosha and Monarch so you know the ridge-top winds and there's no part of the route where I would not be able to glide to survivable landing spot. There are a few times however where you have higher terrain off of each wing.

I'm based at Animas too, get in touch when you are in town if you have any questions.

Brad

Brad.

I would really prefer to base at 00C instead of DRO to save on drive time. How much are hangar rentals (availability)? Tie downs? Any other feedback regarding your experiences at 00C and DRO, flying Durango to the Front Range, etc. would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Aaron

I do the route from front range over kenosha and monarch to gunnison fairly often. I'm not commuting mind you - but its pretty comfortable run in my 85hp J3C. I bet there would only be a few days when you would get through but I wouldn't. You still need to be very careful with winds and mtn obscuration - but it's one of the better ones. There are a couple spots you don't want to go down - but yes should be survivable if you keep your wits about you.

Also consider LaVeta and Mosca passes further south. One of the two are usually open - then you sneak on the south side of Monarch - forget the pass name - sometimes clear when monarch is not.

Hey Aaron-

No problem, give me a call if you have any questions that come up 970-946-7630. 00C is great, nice group of folks and Gregg Flying Service provides great service, support and fueling. The runway takes a bit of getting used too, especially if your used to a big airport, but get a couple lessons with a local guy and you'll be fine. Its nice to have the backup of Durango too if it gets windy.

Call the folks at Gregg's about tie down and hangar space, they will know whats up. I own one of the hangars to the north and am a bit out of the loop.

Brad

For a few years did a bi weekly commute over the Alps - aircraft of choice was an Aztec. It was a reliable workhorse but with the arrival of lo cost airlines became uneconomic.

I sometimes think how much money I would have saved doing the commute in a 182 - dispatch due to weather may have been somewhat lower - I estimate 10-20 percent less, and en route time would have been around 40 minutes more each way. But would have saved tons of avgas, airway charges (USA being blessed by their absence), and maintenance.

But my first alternative to an Aztruck would have been a 182, ideally the early models (A-C) with the 180/185 fuselage and variable incidence tail plane trim. The C model is a favorite, ideally with a strengthened nose fork mod. After the C accountants designed the trim system.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4071/4529 ... b6e5_z.jpg

L18C-95 wrote:But my first alternative to an Aztruck would have been a 182, ideally the early models (A-C) with the 180/185 fuselage and variable incidence tail plane trim. The C model is a favorite, ideally with a strengthened nose fork mod. After the C accountants designed the trim system.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4071/4529 ... b6e5_z.jpg

+1

C Model is the best looking 182 and performs the same as the coveted '59 straight tail.

soyAnarchisto wrote:I do the route from front range over kenosha and monarch to gunnison fairly often. I'm not commuting mind you - but its pretty comfortable run in my 85hp J3C. I bet there would only be a few days when you would get through but I wouldn't.

Hey Greg -- How are you getting down to Kenosha? Are you heading south along the foothills then following 285 through Bailey up over Kenosha then south to 50 via Trout Creek Pass and Salida etc etc etc etc, or...?

I've only done Kenosha in the Citabrias and not my Cubby yet, and your J3 performance is near identical to what I expect hence the question...

robw56 wrote:

SA Maule wrote:........If you want to bump up the useful load add Wing-X extensions. You will get a new gross weight of 2950lbs which is 300-400lbs more depending on which year straight tail you get. This is what I would do if I had one.

The trouble with wing extensions is that you end up with longer wings (duh!). Wont work with most single-hangar doors, or at best is too tight a squeeze . Even if you can shoehorn it in, it's just a matter of time before you smear off the nav lights or bust a wingtip.

SA Maule wrote:Not worried got a BIIIG hanger, looking out for a straight tail 182, in South Africa, wil probably end up having to import one from the USA , spoken to Bill in the mean time

If you buy a 182 here then let's fly the damn thing back to SA! Think of the fun we could have along the way

Mooney. The E model 1965 thru 1967 are the best years for the 200 horse and will go about 170mph true on about 9 gph. Most have the same or better useful load as an early 182 without needing to carry all the extra fuel. Mine carried 52 gallons and with those 1st generation transistor radios I had left me with just over 600 pounds inside the cabin with full tanks. If a guy worked to lighten up a bit I'm sure you could get it to 650. The wing is big and they will glide forever if the fan should quit. They have a monstrous crosswind capability too. If you use the word "commute" you can't ignore fuel economy.

SixTwoLeemer wrote:

L18C-95 wrote:C Model is the best looking 182 and performs the same as the coveted '59 straight tail.

"Best looking" is a personal choice, and personally I would vote for the straight-tails as the best looking of the bunch. I'm a 180 fan from way back though.
What year 182's came with the third window fuselage? That was what the 185 was introduced with in 1961, eventually (1964) the third window was added to the 180 also so that it & the 185 used a common fuselage. Less parts for Cessna to have to produce, I guess. But I still prefer the look of the 2 window style. I never saw the need for the third window on a 4-seat airplane, unless the baggage complains about the lack of a view..

The 1960 "C" model and 1961 "D" model had three windows per side and they are both narrow-body 182's, basically tricycle 180's.

The '59 "B" model seems to be the most desired straight tail as it has cowl flaps (some say you don't need them) and a more standard panel for mounting radios and the big air filter up front. The C model used the swept tail and 3 windows per side but is otherwise identical… excepting small changes. Thats why I remind people that Cessna had swept tail narrow-body 182's as well, they only lasted two years tho. Unfortunately the "D" model they lowered the gear 4 inches for easier entry so its not as desirable for backcountry work.

C- taller gear


D- short gear

I appreciate all the great feedback. Hopefully I can find the right 182 for me in the next few months!

Aaron

enjoy your search!

A little bump to my original BCP thread. My first "commute" from 00C to KFNL was a week ago. It was a smooth 2:10 minute flight on the way up. I made my first no-go decision two days later when winds were 20 G 30 back at 00C/KDRO. The flight back the following morning was into a stiff headwind so it took 30 minutes longer, but 2:40 flying is WAY better than 7-8 driving! My route was 00C - Wolf Creek Pass - Hayden Pass - Gorje and then north on the west side of Denver Class B to KFNL.my view north of Pagosa Springs