The search continues...

Scout's and Husky's can't carry crap.

Maule's rape you year after year on insurance.

Big engine 170's are rare, and the fuel tanks are small.

Nose wheels remind me too much of the short bus I rode to school on.

So what's left? Well, there are a lot of Cessna 180's out there...

Everywhere I turn I read about how people who fly the bush just love their 180's...that while the super cub and the beaver are the romantic darlings of the bush, the 180 is the all time favorite work plane of one venerable bush pilot after another.

What I've never been able to figure out is just what it is about a 180 that so many people seem to love so much. Honestly it seems like a LOT of airplane for two people, but I can't say I've heard anyone complain about owning one.

I'm also starting to wonder if the cost per mile of flying a 180 is going to be much higher than a 180hp 170 once you figure the increased cruise speed into the equation. I'm sure the cost per hour will be higher.

All the big engine 170's I've seen for sale are only about 10K less than an equivalent condition/equipment/hours 180, and there are a hell of a lot more 180's out there to choose from. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or an indication of how much people love their big 170's...

For those of you who have flown/owned them, why would you recommend for or against a cessna 180 for two people who want to carry a couple bicycles and camping gear and fly the backcountry?

ravi,

You already pretty well covered it. Speed. Load carrying capability. Performance (when kept light).

MTV

Ravi
I have had both.

Short story

Both great planes

Probably not a big dif. in cost/mi.

180 carries a bigger load/more stable in turbulence

170 flies much lighter(which I like alot)

Cont. vs. Lyc. engine Alot of people prefer Lycs.

For backcountry flying, either will carry "enough" fuel

Personally, I don't usually have more than 40 gals when
flying backcountry. I would rather buy fuel more often and
fly lighter.

180's were mase into the' 80's so you can buy one much newer.

I prefer older with lower time because they are lighter and less
expensive.

Gary

ravi wrote:For those of you who have flown/owned them, why would you recommend for or against a cessna 180 for two people who want to carry a couple bicycles and camping gear and fly the backcountry?

Well... After a whole lotta years, and a whole lotta hours, in a whole lotta different airplanes, when I look back at it all, the airplane I enjoyed the most, and truly miss damn near to the point of tears is my '56 C180 (Close second is the C207... Yeah, I know, a big truck, and it ain't a off the road airplane, but I love it anyway).

A properly rigged C180 with a strong engine does everything well, and really nothing poorly. Lightly to moderately loaded it plays in the dirt where any sane Cub guys can go, and later in the day fill it with fuel and stuffs and head off IFR to any big airport out there at speeds that'll keep ATC from screaming at you.

I've worked/played on beaches, gravel bars and tundra, and in the same airplane slid down the ILS into SFO at 130 kts and held cruise power 3/4 of the way down the runway, still touching down at 50 kts and keeping my time on the runway under 15 seconds.

It's docile and extremely flexible in ground handling, and you have to really work hard to make it want to bite you. Contrary to comments on prior posts, a C180 is a very capable crosswind airplane. Once stuck on the ground and flaps dumped, it will ride out most anything you get yourself in to. And... For X-wind takeoff, you have enough horsepower to minimize your ground-run, and get in the air before being pushed too far off to the side.

The O-470 might not be the most likely to make TBO engine out there, and exhaust valve guides will be your new best friend, but it will get you home in one piece, and it's not real fussy about what kind of gas you dump in it. And, like the O-300, that engine runs so smooth and nice, and once you get to know it you learn to relax and trust it.

Except for the absolutely insane prices to buy one (my first one was 11K for a '54 that had 1,800 hrs total time, one owner) I can't think of a better two-person airplane with a load of camping gear in the back.

Gump

I will probably buy and sell several more airplanes throughout life, but I will always have my 180. It's the best all around airplane I've found. I can get it in and out of most places my Supercub goes. Fuel efficiency not far off the Supercub. And go home at 140kts(with Bushwheels). The early ones are great performers...especially with a 520 up front.

Gump hit that right on the head.

I would still be flying my 180 if insurance hadn't became an issue. It was a 54 model, Horton STOl kit, PPonk gear box kit, It had the J engine, extended baggage, 88" Prop. The J engine purred like a kitten, smooth running. It was light with a KY 97Com, Transponder, hand held GPS. Probably the smoothest flying airplane I've flown.

If money were not an issue I would have another one in a heart beat. Early model one for me 53 thru 59. Or an Early 185 w/ the IO-470.

Or like Skywagon said w/ a 520 Man that would be fun!

See ya, Bub

Big engine 170s may relatively rare, but they can run with 67 gals for close to 7 hrs. at 130 TAS. Even with 26" tires.

I can fly direct from San Jose RHV to McCall and still have enough fuel for breakfast at Big Creek or Sulphur Crick the next morning.

Since I have learned to cruise at 11.5 or 10.5 I have averaged about 9 gph.

Would it cost a lot to buy it off of me,? you bet!. My problem is that at my age I found it hard to ground handle the 180.

Why I bought and build the 170-B is that I talked to lots of folks in Idaho, and the most effective argument I got was from Mike Dorris in McCall who stated that the 170b with 180hp conversion was the best "Super Cub" around. He still flys his family's 170B into one of the ugliest strips regularly as he works for the new owners of the old Willey Ranch in the bottom of the South Fork.

If this old dog ever learns the new trick of getting pictures up I will do so.
I have learned how to "e-mail" some of them one at a time if anyone is interested.

I would not trade my 180 for any other plane... seems to do everything well... whether you are flying cross country solo or hauling camping gear into a rough backcountry strip. The only thing I will do, come TBO time, will be to swap out the 470 for a 520 due to the high density altitudes I routinely fly in the west.

I noticed you forgot to mention a Stinson 108-3 in your list of planes. I've never flown one but I hear they're a nice plane when you've got the right engine up front. I'd think with the back seat out you could haul whatever gear you want.

It all boils down to the fact that there is no "perfect plane" out there. If you want short field well, you're probably not going to be able to combine that with a 200 mph plane. If you want to haul gear like a pick-up well, you're probably not going to be able to get into that 200 ft sheep hunting strip at the top of the ridge. If you want a plane that comes close to being perfect well, you're probably not going to be able to buy it for $30,000 or insure it for chicken feed.
I tell people to make a list of things that are important to them...speed, short field, economy, price...etc. and then rate these things on the level of importance. Once that gets ironed out, deciding on a plane gets a little easier.
I've never flown a 180 but considering the price for one that's not a POS in our area, I could buy a decent Maule and insure the thing for a lot of years before even coming close to what I'd spend on a 180.

The only thing I will do, come TBO time, will be to swap out the 470 for a 520 due to the high density altitudes I routinely fly in the west.

My god man, what are you carrying? One of my biggest concerns about a 180 is that it's too much engine and I'll end up feeding a plowhorse when all I wanted was a pet goat. Just how much weight do you have to put in a plane before 220 ponies aren't enough???

Regarding the initial expense...well everyone's funny about money. Personally I don't mind the up front expense nearly as much as the maintainance/insurance expenses. I'd much rather pay an extra ten grand on a plane than give the same ten grand to an insurance company over the next ten years. I've always had a bee in my bonnet about insurance companies...

When you get right down to it, a 180hp Maule with a CS prop is probably the right plane for me. But that extra $1000+ EVERY YEAR because it's a Maule pisses me off so much I see red.

Ravi go buy the Maule, quit procrastinating. Just buy liability insurance and that should take care of the seeing red problem

Ravi go buy the Maule, quit procrastinating. Just buy liability insurance and that should take care of the seeing red problem

Yes, you're probably right. However, if I or my newly minted pilot wife happen to bend the plane and it's not insurred, I think the red might come back...

I bought a Maule M-5-210C many years ago and have not looked back. I wanted the efficiency of a small injected engine. Insurrance prices are high at this time but they have also been reasonable in the past. I have considered switching to a C-205 due to its' great useful load and fuel injection. But I really do not want to give up the "fun factor" of the Maule. Several years ago I flew with a 10,000 hour MAF pilot who flew C-180s in Africa. He had not flown Maules before and I was concerned that he would find my plane lacking in some respect. After several flights he exclaimed, "I like this plane." So do I.

Now that I have it I love it, but the reason I have a Maule is that I couldn't afford a 180. I guess that tells you what my opinion of them is.

My 180 is a '56. I have the Pponk 275HP. -50 engine. I fly a lot of 7-10,000'DA. I am usually just flying for fun, no reason to hurry, fun just ends sooner. So I usually fly at reduced power settings, 16-17". Gets me around 120mph and 11gph. Not to different from other planes with decent performance.

But it sure is a great feeling to have that extra power when you want it. For things like climbing out of a crappy situation, carrying a heavier than normal load, or just wanting to get somewhere a little quicker.

Gary

At 2000 RPM and 18" I burn about 8 GPH and make 95-100 knots. Also what is a light 180? mine weighs 1800. My buddy has a 53 model and it weighes 100 lb less. We have actually weighed them so we know what the real number is. If we hadn't weighed them they would each be a couple hundred pounds lighter(on paper).

My '54 180 weighs 1584 lbs with the (stock) back seat out (actually
weighed, not just a calculation from 10+ year old W&B sheets).
It has the J motor, which reportedly weighs 30+ lbs less than a
K or an R.

There was a no-paint, no interior '53 180 flying on my airport (until it was
wrecked) that weighed in the low 1500 lb range (forget the exact number),
and another neighbor's '53 180 with no paint, no interior and an R motor
weigh's 1540-something (both of these were actually weighed as well).

I also drive my 180 around when I'm just boring holes in the sky at
18" and 2000rpm, but I'm getting about 118mph indicated at about 9gph,
which is real close to what the stock-engined, 2500rpm cruise was in my
old 170B.

I fly a 182B (last strait tail) and it is a darn good plane. Have 600x6 on the nose and 700x6 on the mains. I would like an early 180 cus I think it good to have 26" bush wheels for foolin arround in Idaho but when I want to travel I would put on 600's with pants. Would not take long for the switch and a lot less drag.

Kind to hard to change a nose fork in order to drop a bit of drag.

Maybe just dreaming and should stick with the what I have.

Tim

I had my '54 on 850s until shortly before Oshkosh, then I put 600s
back on with the panties. It's not all because of the wheel pants (there
are too many airframe differences / variables, variations in rigging,
different leaning techniques, etc.) but I consistently put in between 4 and
6 gallons less than my buddy I was flying with to and from Oshkosh at
every fuel stop (he has a painted, basic interior '53 with an R motor). To
be fair, he was carrying a heavier load than I was....

Anyway, I figure it takes me about 4 hours to switch from 850s to
600s with wheel pants, and that's cleaning everyting up, re-rattlecan
painting the wheels, cleaning, inspecting & re-packing the wheel
bearings, etc. It would go a lot quicker if I'd just get another set of
Cleveland wheels that were all mounted with the 600s, ready to go....
Doing the swap-over with 600 tires mounted on another set of wheels
would probably halve the switch-over time, but you still have to change
the brake torque plates out, switch axle bolts (the bolts are longer to
make up for the thickness of the wheel pant backing plates).

If I'm going on a long cross country and I'm not planning on going
into rough / un-improved strips, switching to panties does appear
to help out the ole' pocket book when it comes to filling the tanks,
and it does seem to go at least a couple of mph faster than with
the 850s on there....

I had this same debate before i bought my 170B miles per gallon is verry similar but miles per cillender the O-360 kicks an O-470s ass and try to push a 180 in the hanger by your self. In my opinion 180h 170b to a 180 is the deviding line between a fun plane and a rich mans fun plane that line moves with your income though. in my experience a 180 will not disapoint until you pay your matinance bill.