AG,
Welcome to the wonderful world of Skywagons! I have owned six different airplanes, always trading looking for that "just a little bit more..". I found it two years ago in my '56 180. We did a trip to Monument Valley last year accompanied by a friends '58 172. We put on a little over four hours of time with me throttled back to keep pace. Three hours into the trip, we stopped into Nucla, CO (A1B) for fuel. I put on three (!!) more gallons than my buddy. Turn right around and load my wife, three kids, water and lunch (third seat + Selkirk ext. baggage + firewall battery) and take a day trip to Dolores Point.
Stop into Del Norte (8V1) sometime, we will talk skywagon!

Sorry to disagree with akroguy, but a 180 could cost much more to keep than a 172. I fly a 73 185, prop overhaul $3400 because of a loose dowel in the hub, prop gov overhaul $1050 do to a shaft and cover, fuel bladders, parts $900 each plus labor. You get the picture, lots of hidden costs. The up side is a useful of 1504 pounds, 5 1/2 hours fuel at 160 mph, full IFR with IFR GPS, lots of power for wheel skis. Now if I wanted to control my exposure to costs, it would be a 180 hp fixed pitched prop 170B or a 180 fixed pitch Maule. Still 3 seats from a short strip or on skis, fun to fly, and has the little wheel on the correct end. All that said if you can afford the risk, any 180 is hard to beat, and a big engine one is even better. Just my 2 cents worth.

Tim

bat443,
You hit the nail on the head. I have been around planes and mechanics for 20+ years and have seen the cost associated with many different planes. When I was refering to more complex....I was mainly refering to the CS prop and the bigger thirstier engine. And the fuel bladders is another issue....guess I figure they should have made them wet wings like the 172.
I really don't need the extra room/useful load much anymore. The kids are all grown and out of the house so I am looking more for speed and the ability to keep it at my farm strip. That 27 mile drive to town to get the plane out of the hangar gets old. I currently keep the Champ on the Farm and it is nice to walk out the house....open the hanger door and go flying.
Always had a soft spot for those 180's.

WW, if you're looking for speed, reliability, and efficiency...




Get a 140.

Also.. get the 140 for comfort!

Here's the best example I got.

I made it from Santa Fe, NM to Charleston, SC in 17 hours(one day) and five fuel stops. I was going 80-90kts headed east(had a headwind). On the way home I made 106-110kts(slight tailwind). Same amount of fuel stops.

The whole trip worked out to around 700 bucks. Cheaper than airlines, considering I didn't have but 1 day's notice to go. (It was my Grandma's funeral.)

Anyways.. Get a 140

We've got a '55 180, bushwheels, sportsman, and VG's. It's slow and burns lots of gas. But it fits the bill perfectly for us. Just need to fly them a little more often or it'll humble you right quick.

Had a 250 Commanche years ago. Would be my choice again if circumstances permitted. Good X/C economy, reasonably fast, and 6.00's all the way around...worked just fine on gravel and grass strips, and would get in and out about the same as a stock 182. Looks like the prices are falling on them, too.

gb

Mister Willie you crack me up...a 140??? LOL!! Heck if I want speed and comfort I'll take my trusty Super Champ. Its definitely comfortable since I put temperfoam seats in it. And speed???....It's a 7AC converted with an Lyc O-235...a whopping 108-115 galloping horse power!!! It'll smoke all but the fastest ultralights out there!

Seriously though. I left my 172 in Douglas, AZ while we were stationed overseas for 7 years. When we were transfered to Ft. Gordon, Ga. I went to AZ and flew it back to Ga. When I was going through a pass near El Paso, I had a GPS ground speed of nearly 160MPH!!! I had a great tailwind. The good thing was I was burning less than 8 gph. I flight plan for 8 gph at the speed I normally fly but usually burn 7.2-7.3 gph @ 22-2300RPM.

WWhunter wrote:Mister Willie you crack me up...a 140??? LOL!! Heck if I want speed and comfort

Ya know... Thanks to the ex's lawyer, when it became "mine is mine, and yours is mine" and all the $$$$ and my beloved C180 went south, I scrounged up a little C120 and rebuilt the thing from spinner to tailwheel. A very capable little machine, and it got me in and out of some cool places, but....

The only time, and I mean only time, in 37+ years and more hours than I'll ever keep track of, I got a sensation of height in an airplane, and had that "standing on the edge of the roof feeling" was in that C120. I was flying out of Bella Coola BC, heading for Williams Lake, right wingtip about 10 feet off the rock of the Coastal Range, looking down about 9,000 feet towards the valley floor.

That damn airplane was just too small, and I felt completely naked flying there. I've flown the same mountains and same route for years in my Cubs and the T Cart I had on floats, but never had that feeling in any of them, just in the C120.

Great airplane, and docile little taildragger, but comfy long distance traveler.... Not.

Gump

I've been kicking the idea of getting a 180 around for a couple years, with the alternative being a maule or a 170 with a 180hp CS prop. Honestly the greatest allure of the 180 is there's just a hell of a lot more of them to choose from.

Now I've heard more than one veteran flyer wax poetic on how a certain 180 was the best plane they ever flew, and I don't doubt it. But I've also noticed that quite a few of those pilots do not own a 180...

I've tried crunching the numbers every which way, but it seems impossible to escape that a 180 is significantly more expensive to own and operate than a smaller plane. More out of pocket, higher fuel burn, more expensive overhaul, shorter TBO times...when people who have thousands of hours in them and who KNOW that it's the best plane out there don't have one, that tells me something.

I'm still looking, and I'm still trying to find a way to convince myself that a 180 is the best plane for me, but as someone earlier pointed out, it seems that a 180 is on the wrong side of the line that separates an expensive hobby from an extremely expensive hobby.

Hammer wrote:when people who have thousands of hours in them and who KNOW that it's the best plane out there don't have one, that tells me something..

Yeah, I'm one of those people.

Bought my first C180 for $11,000. 1,800 TTAF, mid-time engine, and at the time a decent, modern radio stack. Sold it for 20K a few years later to buy a bit higher time machine that had a float kit installed, both '56's by the way. Put about 2,000 hrs on that airplane and was forced to sell it for divorce stuff at 40K.

Same airplanes now????? I can't justify the expense.

Gump

Hammer,

I agree wholeheartedly. I have been "crunching the numbers" for many years (nearly 20) and I can't ever seem to make it work for me either. I kept thinking that once the kids left the house things would change. But since fuel costs have sky rocketed I doubt I will ever be able to "make it work". I think it costs me less to operate my 172 and my Champ combined than what it would cost to feed and take care of a 180. Besides, it wouldn't be as easy to just hop in and go joy riding in a 180 verses the Champ.

WWhunter wrote:Just curious as to what are you getting for fuel burn in your 180? I've got a chance to trade my 172 for an early 180 that has few hours on the engine. But I honestly don't think I can afford to put fuel in the thing.

Seems to be some pretty good prices on 180's now because of the high cost of fuel. Heck, I've been looking at Supercubs and a guy can get a real nice 180- for the same or even less money.

The only reason I am thinking of the 180 is all the kids are grown and out of the house and they are scattered across the US. I could get to them quicker in a 180 than either my 172 or my speed demon Champ.
Figuring 12-13 gl/ hr vs 8gl/hr. I would probably burn the same amount of fuel flying to see them only being able to travel faster in a 180.

Thanks,
Keith

My son, in his 170, tagged along with our 185 going to AK two years ago. We flew at his speed and had his fuel flow (8-9 GPH), as a result. Want fuel economy? Fly slow. Want to go faster? The 185 burns 10-12 GPH (depending on altitude) with GAMI's. Either way, the almost 1700# of useful load is a welcome bonus. Hard to beat a Skywagon with 84 gals of fuel.

My son, in his 170, tagged along with our 185 going to AK two years ago. We flew at his speed and had his fuel flow (8-9 GPH), as a result. Want fuel economy? Fly slow. Want to go faster? The 185 burns 10-12 GPH (depending on altitude) with GAMI's. Either way, the almost 1700# of useful load is a welcome bonus. Hard to beat a Skywagon with 84 gals of fuel.

I'm not questioning your honesty, but I just can't believe you flew a 185 at 8.5 GPH. While I've often heard the argument that powering down a larger engine will result in the same burn as a smaller engine powered up, it's never worked for me. And the only people who seem to adhere to that philosophy have either been trying to sell me a large-engine plane or defending their ownership of one.

Perhaps the analogy is flawed, but by the same logic you should expect the same fuel economy out of any given land vehicle, regardless of the engine, since the calculations are based on the same highway speeds. But that's not the case. Any car out there will suffer in the fuel economy when you go to a larger engine. Everything else about the vehicle is exactly the same, but it's not uncommon to see a 20% drop in fuel economy when you go from a 4 to 6 cylinder engine, or from a six to an eight cylinder engine.

And I WANT to believe...if there was some way I could convince myself that feeding a Cessna 180 wasn't going to take all the fun out of flying, I'd have one by the end of the month. By the same token, if I could believe that a 235hp Maule could be flown for anything close to the cost of a 180hp Maule, I'd have thirty times as many possible planes to choose from.

I guess the other side of the equation is the cost per hour, which is not entirely based on the fuel burn. If you take a Cessna 185 and fly it at the speed of a Cessna 170, your fuel burn might go down some, but your hobbs meter still ticks over at the same speed, and you're burning time on a MUCH more expensive engine.

I suppose all this comes up because I'm having a hell of a time finding ANY four seater with a tailwheel and a 180hp engine turing a CS prop.

Stinsons are good birds. I think they are still the best priced 4 seater out there. And there are a few out there with 180 hp and cs props. We converted one last year from the 165 franklin to the 180 franklin and it sure made a great airplane even greater.

If I did not already own my 180 I would be looking around for a good Stinson.

Dave

I suppose all this comes up because I'm having a hell of a time finding ANY four seater with a tailwheel and a 180hp engine turing a CS prop.

Hammer,

Have you considered building an airplane? The Bearhawk is one mighty nice ship...four seats, tailwheel, rag/tube, four or six banger engine, experimental...FAST...YOU build it exactly how you want it. If I had the time, I might have gone this route. Building is tough, but one of my life's greatest achievements that I'll never forget. (RV8, built '97-'99)

The 180 isn't the cheapest way to go, that's for sure. I try not to think about what it costs me hourly to fly it. It's just too painful. When the bills arrive, I write the check and consider it money well spent. (It's still cheaper than therapy.) Again, I do my own maintenance, (with A&P/IA supervision for beer money mostly). My plane has lots of new, spendy stuff already on board so the big ticket items are a ways off...hopefully. After getting over the need for speed (having an RV will spoil you there), I've learned to slow down and enjoy the view. Pull the knobs back and the wallet doesn't get hit so hard. You just don't HAVE to go blasting around all the time. The power and loading capabilities open up more possibilities to me. If I need to get somewhere at a reasonable speed, with four adults, I can still do that. I can throttle up and git'r done. Otherwise, taker easy, and smell the roses. A smaller engined airplane would not fulfill the four adults to Vegas need. I decided that if I was going to sell the RV for a bigger, more utilitarian mission, I would not cut corners. It's high and hot here, so we're always leaned out, year-round. I can motor around for an hour and burn 10gph or less. 8.5gph? I dunno. That would be tough. I have flown comparative performance missions in the RV8, with a smaller engined RV in formation. We both filled up after the flight. I took on .5 gallon LESS. So I think you can run a bigger engine in "economy mode" and have plenty of fun.

Yeah, I'm still trying to justify the big dollars for a big plane. I know. Sometimes I wonder what I was thinking while preflighting an airplane that I need a ladder to fuel up just to go drone around solo for a while. But then I grin big time when that big engine roars to life and the 88" Mac prop bites into the wind on takeoff...solo..half tanks...Yeehaw!

Then I look back later...see that huge cargo area and know I don't have to worry about "will it fit" or "will I have to tell wifey to travel light all the time". My wife, young son and I flew to Disneyland last summer. My son was able to sit on the floor, nap, play with his toys and stretch out while in cruise. He had room to spare, we loaded up on bags, took everything we wanted, just as if flying the airlines. That alone....all three of us, in comfort, at 150mph with plenty of performance, proved to me I had made the right decision for a family airplane. Oh, and the ship is just dead sexy too. Clyde Cessna done good on this one.

If, like me, you have to sometimes make a move that is questionable just to PROVE to YOURSELF that yes, maybe it's really NOT the right decision, then get the 180 and enjoy it just to satisfy your curiosity. If it just doesn't work out, you will not (or should not) lose any money on it if purchased right initially. That's a whole 'nuther story there. So many 180/185's are really beat up. Caveat emptor big time here.

Enough of my rant. Ya'll have a great day out there.

akroguy wrote:Enough of my rant. Ya'll have a great day out there.

Thanks Akro,

It's nice to read things like your post whenever I start moaning to myself about the 180's operating cost...(usually happens every winter)! I usually run about 23 square everywhere, maybe I ought to take your advice and dial it down more often. Could be just an old wives tale about the -U liking higher power ops.

Rocky

Some sage advice I heard from one of the CFI greybeards around here: "You like to fly, right? So, what's your hurry?"

Sure there are times when you gotta get there....it's rough, gotta pee, weather, etc, but in general, you're already ahead of game vs. driving by going in a straight line more or less with no traffic lights.

I figure if I spend more time going slower for local pleasure flying, the more $$ I free up for the longer x/c flights when it's firewalled all the way.

Yeah, winter ops tend to demand richer settings. With greater air density, comes thirstier engines! But wow....the power.

Hammer

I suppose all this comes up because I'm having a hell of a time finding ANY four seater with a tailwheel and a 180hp engine turing a CS prop.

I am flying a four seater tailwheel and a 180hp engine turning a CS prop. It is a Maule M5 180C. Took me a couple months to find one and I am glad I did. My experience has been good with the airplane. Not sure it would actually haul around four adults at today's average weight, but three adults or two adults and two kids is easy.

I get as low as 7.1 GPH and as much as 10 GPH (going full blast). A bit more expensive to maintain than the Luscombe 8A I had before but not unreasonable. As has been discussed before, the insurance is the kicker.

My hangar partner has a very nice 180 with a c/s prop, bells and whistles, ect and it flies great! That said, I love my 170B and it, too, flies great. I can't hang with the 180HP 170 of my buddy but, it does do everything I need it to do (xcntry, grass, dirt, humble pie) and it's a comfortable 115 MPH @ 7.4 GPH. With 37 usable, it 's usually time for a break before I need gas

Hammer wrote:

My son, in his 170, tagged along with our 185 going to AK two years ago. We flew at his speed and had his fuel flow (8-9 GPH), as a result. Want fuel economy? Fly slow. Want to go faster? The 185 burns 10-12 GPH (depending on altitude) with GAMI's. Either way, the almost 1700# of useful load is a welcome bonus. Hard to beat a Skywagon with 84 gals of fuel.

I'm not questioning your honesty, but I just can't believe you flew a 185 at 8.5 GPH. While I've often heard the argument that powering down a larger engine will result in the same burn as a smaller engine powered up, it's never worked for me. And the only people who seem to adhere to that philosophy have either been trying to sell me a large-engine plane or defending their ownership of one.

I guess the other side of the equation is the cost per hour, which is not entirely based on the fuel burn. If you take a Cessna 185 and fly it at the speed of a Cessna 170, your fuel burn might go down some, but your hobbs meter still ticks over at the same speed, and you're burning time on a MUCH more expensive engine.

I suppose all this comes up because I'm having a hell of a time finding ANY four seater with a tailwheel and a 180hp engine turing a CS prop.

I once flew from Prince George to Whitehorse in five hours and put 50 gallons of gas in at arrival. The weather was good and we went high via the Trench and cut the corner before Watson Lake, but still...10GPH average (lean of peak again) is normal stuff if you know how to manage the power during cruise on an IO-520. This with two onboard, stuff piled high in the back and the aft baggage with 50# of survival gear and other items.

I may have justifiably been called a lot of things, but liar isn't one of them. It stands to reason that when you pull the power back to 17-18" MAP, that the fuel flow is going down. This wasn't one leg, it was over a three day, 20 hour period between Nevada and Alaska. The 170 WOT and the 185 was flying in formation, lean of peak. Ask around for substantiating info.

Engine overhaul is going to be more, of course, but if you need the weight carrying capability of a Skywagon (almost 1700# in ours) or the performance, the cost of overhaul is a necessary evil. We operate out of a 1400' gravel strip @ 5400' MSL. Again the Skywagon 185 gets the job done.

The 235HP Maule MT-7 I flew with two onboard and full fuel had essentially no remaining useful load. Back to the Skywagon 185 for our needs...400# of people, 84 gal of gas and still room for 780# of stuff. Not bad.