Since the weak link on both the Cessna 172 and 182 is really the fire wall attachment, can anyone tell me which model has the strongest fire wall? If both planes have the STCd nose fork and both have 800X6 nose wheel tires and 850X6 main tires, is there a difference in which one is more likely to survive rough strips. Does the difference in the weight of each plane mean that the 172 will actually do better, or is the 182 fire wall stronger and therefore will do better, or are they really about equal? An inquiring mind wants to know!

An expert I'm not, but I did happen to ask my IA that exact question. His exact answer, "They're both pretty weak." I'd guess, though, that because it's easier to keep the nose up on a 172, it's less likely to get damaged.

Cary

Cary wrote:An expert I'm not, but I did happen to ask my IA that exact question. His exact answer, "They're both pretty weak." I'd guess, though, that because it's easier to keep the nose up on a 172, it's less likely to get damaged.

Cary

That is true if you compare the 172 to the 182's built in 1962, 63 and 64. That is where the heavy nose reputation came from. If you compare the 172 to the 1956 to 1961 the 182 is hands down easier to keep the nose up because of the trimable horizontal stabilizer

Tim

The STC firewall mods Ive seen try and reinforce a wimpy flat plate by using a wimpy reinforcement on top of the wimpy firewall. When the firewall is wrinkled in the bent up 182's I looked at, the real failure seemed to be the tunnel buckling in behind the firewall.

If you stiffen the tunnel, the nose gear attachment can take a lot more abuse. And it is way easier than the firewall mods. It requires a fraction of the time, little disassembly, etc. It requires a 337 since nobody takes this approach in an STC.

I agree that the tunnel is the weak link....a buckled tunnel also has the potential to jam controls for you......

I agree with qmdv, though, the early 182s are a lot better in this regard for the reason he noted.

MTV