Who gives a s*it what they cost! You can micro-anylize yourself right out of any purchase in life. I mean come on, seven hundred a year difference in insurance, gallon or three in more fuel per hour, hangar rent fifty dollars difference at this airport than that, boo hoo.
Your not thinking about it right. Airplanes are like a raging crack habit and need to be treated as such. Buy what you want and sell some stuff to keep the fix going!
180, 185, Stinson, Maule WHATEVER, JUST BUY ONE and then fly the crap out of it!
I personally like 180's and 185's, be irresponsible, put it on credit and pay for it later!
I do believe the fuel burn thing though as well. With GAMI's and LEAN of peak I'd bet my 180 he was at 8-9 gph hangin' with a little 170.

Desert185 wrote:10GPH average (lean of peak again) is normal stuff if you know how to manage the power during cruise on an IO-520.

To quote Lili von Shtup (from Silent Movie), "it's twooo, It's TWOOO!"

Even without running LOP, I've averaged 11.5 gph in the IO-520 on long trips above 12,000 in the 206. For local joyrides, I dial it back to 18/2000, lean it out and burn 8 gph at around 4,000'.

Fuel injection and the CS prop add a lot of efficiency compared to carburation and fixed pitch props. They're more expensive to overhaul and likely to be more expensive to maintain (FI has been trouble-free, but I've shelled out major bucks on CS props in the past).

Overall, I don't expect to pay much more for fuel in for the IO-520 than I did for the O-470, and I would expect that those figures wouldn't be all that different if I made the same trips in planes with 320s or 360s. My take is that fuel burn is a bit of a red herring when it comes to deciding whether you can afford a bigger plane.

CAVU

I agree... doesn't matter what you buy, buy it and fly the wings off
of it. You only live once. I use to try to micro-analyze the cost, but
now it's just a fact of life (whatever it costs to support my habit, I'll
work overtime, sell stuff, build/restore/repair stuff for other people,
doesn't matter).

As far as the 180/185 thing goes, the saying I heard years ago
from a good friend is that there are two types of pilots out there...
Ones that want a Skywagon and ones that own one

Then there's the other joke that goes "How much money will it take
to own, insure, operate, hangar and maintain an [insert type of aircraft
here]?

Answer: All of it!

Congrats on your new bird!!!! This is the first time I have posted here though I have been a member for a while. I have to agree with the last couple of posts, and you have the right mindset about 180 ownership. If you beat yourself up over the costs you will begin to resent the plane, and no longer enjoy it. This great group of backcountry pilots will keep you encouraged!

BUT I have one small point to make. Everybody here talks about GPH in airplanes, because that is what we know. You ever think about what the MPG is on a x-country?????? I owned a 2000 American Champion Scout before my 180. LOVED IT. But I actually get about 12 MPG in the 180, 10MPG in the Scout!!!! So for the SAME trip length I fill up with LESS fuel. Think about a Beaver burning 22-25GPH but only flying 130kts!!! Your RV was very efficient. I cleaned up my 180 and true at 8000' 160KTS. Yes I have a O-520, but that doesn't solve the efficiency issue. The clean up with the Snider Kit did alot.

Cost of ownership on these birds is a WHOLE different issue. 2x the cost of the Scout, oh well.

As long as you have fun that is what matters, for some of us no matter what the cost!

Welcome.

Splashpilot wrote: Think about a Beaver burning 22-25GPH but only flying 130kts!!! Your RV was very efficient. I cleaned up my 180 and true at 8000' 160KTS. Yes I have a O-520, but that doesn't solve the efficiency issue. The clean up with the Snider Kit did alot.


Welcome.

Even at that high a fuel flow, I have never seen 130 kts in a Beaver. I fly low, lean it to an average of 18 GPH and indicate 100-110 kts. Adding power doesn't seem to make it go faster, but the fuel flow goes up. This in a straight Beaver with a good engine.

Splash,
Another way of further justifying spending huge quantities of money is to not only figure straight mpg. but on a PER SEAT MILE PER GALLON. You were only 20 mpg total in the Scout, now up to 48 mpg.! If you had a later model that could hold six you'd be up to 72 mpg total. That's a good one! That's how I've gotten the justification to put in the third row bench for the little kiddies.
I've only ever flown Beavers on floats so I don't know for sure but if it was goin' 130 kts. I'd have to say that was ONE SLICK BEAVER!
G-

George,
That's nothing. His 180 is slightly faster than our 210

Just don't let the wife find out that the airplane costs more in up keep than the house does.

Well hello splash. Good to see another Columbia resident here. I guess you and Mark are acquainted. Don't think I had the pleasure the last time i was at Columbia, though as you know that wasn't a good experience for me. Just have to say that everyone I met at Columbia was just great and so helpful. Casey was fantastic in his hospitality, offering his Hangar to store our camping gear and, having us stay at his place when we came to pick the maule up. I look forward to a return trip there, although I will take Casey's advice and land on the grass strip next time. You have a beautiful 180, wish I could afford one....

a64pilot wrote:Just don't let the wife find out that the airplane costs more in up keep than the house does.

Too late. At least she's frugal by nature. Even when she tries, she can't outspend me on the house.

My ex was a different matter. She liked fancy horses. That marriage was, among other things, a financial suicide pact.

CAVU

Sorry my finger slipped when I typed the 130, I meant 120, and that is TRUE airspeed not indicated, at 5000' on a ferry flight on wheels.

Ya a bit more gas to go faster, thats true. The owner of the plane didn't give a shit, fuel was the least of his costs owning a Beaver. On floats forget it, whatever you get you get, 100 is normal.

The 160KTS TRUE I get is WOT and 2500rpms. On my way back from LA at 10.5K SoCal told me a Skylane was IFR 4 mi. in trail at 10k, 5 knots faster. I was doing 150kts GS and thought WHAT??? A Skylane? No way a 182 is faster unless he had a big engine or turbo. I asked the guy around Bakersfield if he was an RG,.... he was.

I did the TAS calc. 3 times after I got the engine and Snider kit on, because I was sure I had miscalculated. But its right. Standard day, standard temp, WOT (20") 2500rpm, 14GPH, 160TKTS at 8500'. Ask Wagonwrench, he is my mechanic, I am indicating 173mph at 4500'. Worth every penny, but here we go again, hahahhaha

G3 I like your analogy, I will use that one with my wife. Its a cost efficient plane, honestly! 48mpg, see,..........

Gotta love an light, early model 180 with a big engine!

Lets see...crack habits, slick beavers and big engines. Man, you guys know how to live!!

I think I'm gonna like it here.

Desert185 wrote:Even at that high a fuel flow, I have never seen 130 kts in a Beaver. I fly low, lean it to an average of 18 GPH and indicate 100-110 kts.

At what power setting? 1850/28?

Hello all, sorry to interrupt your feuding, has anybody got some updates on what might be the best diesel engine for the C180 ?

Diesel engines? Check out AvWeb this week. An operator has filed suit against Thielert over the engines in their Diamonds. I'm not sure they are there yet.

As to the rest of the rants, Hammer commented about all these 180 fans who don't own 180's.....I'm also one.

My story is I bought one, floats, wheels, wheel skis for $27 K. A few years later, being a single guy living in Kodiak, I sold it and bought a Super Cub. I rarely left Kodiak in those days, for a lot of reasons, except on a jet. The Cub worked fine till I got married. Then it didn't work at all.

By then, prices of 180s had skyrocketed, and there was no way I could justify, EVEN IN MY MIND, that kind of money for an airplane. Found a pretty good 170 with a 180 and still have it today.

Now, moved to MN. If it weren't for the &&909-- SALES taxes and registration taxes here in the Land of Ten Thousand Taxes, I'd have sold the 170 and bought something else--maybe a 180, but probably something with folding wheels. Or maybe a 180, now that prices have slid a bit. But, I'm damned if I care to hand the state of MN a wad of money to change planes, and the 170 does much of what I want to do. It's not and never will be, IFR approved, and it's slow.

I'd consider a 180 in a heartbeat, though, if I was in the market.

As to fuel burn comparisons between fuel injected aircraft and carbureted ones--the carbureted engine will never run as efficiently as the fuel injected one, because fuel distribution with the FI engines is so much better that you can lean much more aggessively. Also, its easier to run LOP with a fuel injected engine.

I think, though, if you look at the mpg parameter, with the 185, you are probably better off to crank the power up a bit and go faster at altitude, than to dog around at low power.

Any time I've operated engines with lots of power I've been inclined to use that power, whether in cruise or takeoff. That's probably human nature, but not required.

I ran a 200 hp Husky, and I could get the fuel flows down to one gph less than a 180 Husky WITHOUT going lean of peak. Difference was the FI system.

I'm with G3 on this one: If you want it, get it. If you can't afford it, sell it and buy something you can afford, or sell your other stuff to support your habit.

But, DON'T agonize over what flying costs. If you do, you'll stop flying.

MTV

Amen MTV

Can we talk about Maules or now

mtv wrote:But, DON'T agonize over what flying costs. If you do, you'll stop flying.

That is a Universal Truth.

The only time I've ever had "spare" money is when I flew other people's airplanes for a living. Work or play with my own aircraft, it seems the money just hemorrhages nonstop out of the wallet.

But... Though broke (or so it seems if I sit and feel sorry for myself) I've never gone hungry, I've always had a roof over my head (even if it might have been a tent under a Cessna 180 wing), and I've always had an airplane to fly. That puts me ahead of about 99.9% of the rest of the human beings on the face of this planet.

Like I told Ex #1 years ago when I traded up on Cessna 180's, "You can always sleep in the airplane, but you can't fly a house." Just a matter of priorities. Of course this is the same Ex who said, "You'd rather be at the airport with your alcoholic friends than home with me." I just looked at her and said, "Yep."

Another Universal Truth.

Gump

Student Pilot wrote:

Desert185 wrote:Even at that high a fuel flow, I have never seen 130 kts in a Beaver. I fly low, lean it to an average of 18 GPH and indicate 100-110 kts.

At what power setting? 1850/28?

That's in the ballpark.

Gump,
That was perfect - mind if I quote you?

Matt 7GCBC wrote:Gump,
That was perfect - mind if I quote you?

Quote away!!!!

I lived that quote not long after I said it. Kicked out of the house, I lived in my C180 while working for Ram Aviation in Barrow that summer. It was worth it, and now 30 years later the memories aren't quite so uncomfortable.

Gump