I read many times , the 182 straight tail is prefered as a backcountry plane over the swept tail.
What are the differences , advantages, behaviour?

I know the older ones were lighter.
Never flown in one though.

Straight tail 182. Lighter means better power to weight/ ratio. = Better acceleration/ lower take-off speeds. Bigger smiles. Taller landing gear, clear those bushes, brush, small trees. A higher wing makes you feel better than having to stoop under your wing. Effective horizontal stabilizer. My 63 182E had the early wide body with short gear and undersized horizontal stab, swept tail. Ive flown all the models in many different stol mods and never really felt rudder/ vertical stab differences. My Stol 550 206s at times do not have enough Vertical stab/ rudder authority. Do you big engine 180 / 185 guys notice a difference in vertical stab / rudder size?

Taller would be nicer for sure.
I looked for ways to rise the height on mine , now that Im putting a 83" MT prop (no bigger tires are allowed so ended up buying a Elite retread tire for the front slightly larger than a regular tire ) and will increase air pressure in the strut.
Also have lost track of how many times I have hit my head with the wing, especially the first year I had the plane.

Because they look better when converted to a taildragger....

The trimmable horizontal stabilizer, instead of elevator trim, is also a good feature on the straight tails.

Manual flaps and spring steel main gear a plus, too.

And what Zane said.

I have a '62 E model. It does not have enough elevator for slow forward CG landings without a blast of the prop and lots of nose down trim. The rudder seems fine, and 35 knot crosswinds are nothing to wrinkle my knickers over. I love the extra width, and makes it easy to carry a big mtn bike or two. The rear windows are nice. The panel has the extra room for a relatively modern instrument arrangement. Electric flaps (which I prefer, frankly, for the extra floor space and the ease of use).

-However-

The earlier ones are absolutely easier on the flare at much lower speeds without any extra help, climb slightly faster (weight, most likely), and are high enough that don't leave a tattoo on my 6'8 forehead when I don't duck in time. The increased prop clearance is a big deal to me, and I am jealous of guys whose 182's don't turn their props and left struts green in July and need filed every annual.

RWM wrote:The trimmable horizontal stabilizer, instead of elevator trim, is also a good feature on the straight tails.

Manual flaps and spring steel main gear a plus, too.

The straight tail is the most noticable aspect of those model years with the manual flaps and trimable horizontal stabilizer (as opposed to the elevator trim tab), so I think that's why people give that detail to look for... However, I tell folks to look at the 1960/61 year models as well, as they had all of these attributes except the straight tail. In fact they are also on the list of model years which can be converted to conventional gear. These had the swept tail, but also had the same fuselage as the later model skywagons with the third window. So if you converted it and put on a straight tail, it would look like a late model skywagon! The gear was the tallest on the 56 model and a bit shorter on the 57/58 and then pretty standard after that.

As far as the trimmable stab, I find that without it, the 182s loaded 2 up front tend to be more nose heavy and pilots will have more issue keeping the nosewheel out of the bumps.

"and 35 knot crosswinds are nothing to wrinkle my knickers over" Where can we meet to watch this I give a case of your choice of beverage to see you complete a true 35 kt crosswind landing. Entertainment factor only

motoadve wrote:I read many times , the 182 straight tail is prefered as a backcountry plane over the swept tail.
What are the differences , advantages, behaviour?

I know the older ones were lighter.
Never flown in one though.

Here's a boat load or should I say a book load of info.
http://www.mountainflying.com/Menu/mtn_ ... _menu.html

35kts? I'll throw in a case to see this statement backed up also! I don't care what year skylane you choose to fly.

I grew up flying around in a 180 that dad has owned for 33 years and now I own a 66 skylane so have spent a fair amount of time in each. The old straight tails are much more enjoyable to fly and very responsive and light on the controls compared to my 66. My 66 doesn't have enough elevator trim and with my 520 and 3 blade prop it's uncomforably heavy with forward CG during approach and landing. I have gotten really used to the wide cabin and comfort of the 66 182 and with the big engine, big fork/tires and x baggage it's a very nice back country machine. Any of the Idaho backcountry strips I fly into are very suitable for most any year of skylane but rough and rocky strips like Cabin Creek are hard on low props and wheel pants. I used to fly a 76 skylane and it was an absolute pig and could hardly get out of it's own way. May have just been that specific airplane but most other 180's and earlier 182's ran circles around it. If I were to buy a straight tail it would have to be a 180/185 but if I were to buy another 182 I would want a wide cabin 60's model. Don't get me wrong they are all good but that's just my preference from my experiences.

Glidergeek wrote:"and 35 knot crosswinds are nothing to wrinkle my knickers over" Where can we meet to watch this I give a case of your choice of beverage to see you complete a true 35 kt crosswind landing. Entertainment factor only

I had a breezy day here in Longmont in early March during a blow of 28G30(something) right across the runway from the south. It wasn't 35G(something), but I never came close to running out of rudder. In fact, it was harder to keep things straight once I slowed down to roll off the runway. The limits are certainly well above 30.

The point is, the rudder in any 182 is capable of slipping things straight down the runway in a mighty big blow, and is not inadequate at all for a nosedragger.

lesuther wrote:

Glidergeek wrote:"and 35 knot crosswinds are nothing to wrinkle my knickers over" Where can we meet to watch this I give a case of your choice of beverage to see you complete a true 35 kt crosswind landing. Entertainment factor only

I had a breezy day here in Longmont in early March during a blow of 28G30(something) right across the runway from the south. It wasn't 35G(something), but I never came close to running out of rudder. In fact, it was harder to keep things straight once I slowed down to roll off the runway. The limits are certainly well above 30.

The point is, the rudder in any 182 is capable of slipping things straight down the runway in a mighty big blow, and is not inadequate at all for a nosedragger.

I can't say for the 35 kt claim, but I'll back this one up. I was going around a Tstorm last August in my '59 182 and needed fuel. Ozona was my closest (not only) option and they only have one rwy. The wind was 90* crosswind at 28G35. I figured I would fly an approach to see if the plane would handle it, and if not, go elsewhere. The plane handled it well, was a handful but manageable. As lesuther said, the rollout and turnaround was more squirrelly than the landing. Never felt like I was running out of rudder. Might not have been much left, but there was enough.

When I had the 59 182, I came back to Boise trying to beat thunderstorms in. The winds were in the 30s and the actual crosswind component was in the mid 20s at the minimum. There was a 737 that was orbiting, waiting for the winds to become more favorable. Hadn't seen or heard that before, but it sure gets your attention! (I assume there is a max company limit?) Knowing the coming weather would likely have increased gusts, I wasn't interested in waiting. I managed to get it down on the second go without any sort of skidding or side load to the gear. Taxiing off the 737 called up and said they wanted to come down and test the waters.

Jose,

Sounds like you are focused on short take off in your later model 182, right? I have one also, and think keeping light, especially on fuel is so critical to really enhancing your take off performance in late model 182's, making performance more comparable to early model straight tails if you do. Early ones empty weight was around 1650, mine is 1900 with the back seat out! Early ones didn't carry near as much fuel either, I try and keep less than 40 gals. if possible on hot summer mornings at higher elevation on short strips (FS 450 fuel gauge is handy), ideal to be less than 2400 lbs, our MGTOW is 2950 if yours is the same as mine, early ones were like 2650 I believe. Big difference! Your flying looks very cool from the videos I have watched. Just keep it real light taking off from the short ones, especially for the first time in and out. Keep away from the pucker factor, if you understand that expression in ingles!!!!! Be safe.

The '62 is 1701# with the back seat in and a full panel. 79 gals usable. 2800 lb gross. Where do they put 200# more in later models?

Matt 7GCBC wrote:The straight tail is the most noticable aspect of those model years with the manual flaps and trimable horizontal stabilizer (as opposed to the elevator trim tab), so I think that's why people give that detail to look for... However, I tell folks to look at the 1960/61 year models as well, as they had all of these attributes except the straight tail. In fact they are also on the list of model years which can be converted to conventional gear. These had the swept tail, but also had the same fuselage as the later model skywagons with the third window. So if you converted it and put on a straight tail, it would look like a late model skywagon! The gear was the tallest on the 56 model and a bit shorter on the 57/58 and then pretty standard after that.

As far as the trimmable stab, I find that without it, the 182s loaded 2 up front tend to be more nose heavy and pilots will have more issue keeping the nosewheel out of the bumps.

Good info with one small correction. The 1961 Skylane had the gear lowered 4 inches, the only narrow-body with really low gear

The 1960 C model with the fastback is actually the fastest NA Skylane if you believe Cessna's numbers.

Everyone has covered the differences here but I look at it this way, poaching the theory from one Skylane expert. The narrow-body (thru 1961) are actually totally different airplanes than the wide-body (1962 +). Cessna kept their designation but they aren't that similar. As others have said, lighter airframe, trimmable stab, 40 degree manual flaps, tall gear = backcountry biased.

I'm working toward upgrading to a 182 someday and I struggle with choosing better performance or comfortable cabin.

I've been told the best wide-bodies are the '67 -'71 with the large tail, full panel, spring-steel gear and lower empty weight but I'd take any of them right now

Last year I was on a serious hunt for an airplane. I will not bore you with the drama, I just ended up with my final decision being a 1959 C-182B model. It came with the P-Ponk engine conversion and Horton Stol kit. Since then I have installed the bigger tires and nose fork. I have zero regrets and for the cost I strongly feel this first generation of 182's are a great value. I really love the 180's but I simply could not justify nearly double the cost for the little rear wheel in the back. Maybe someday.....

motoadve wrote:I read many times , the 182 straight tail is prefered as a backcountry plane over the swept tail.
What are the differences , advantages, behaviour?

I know the older ones were lighter.
Never flown in one though.

. Motodave and FLIGHT
I have serial 502 - 1956 Cessna. 182 off the line .Tallest gear ever produced in single engine Cessna airplan es. Started off life with 180 with a nose wheel . 2550 gross weight . In 1957 they lowered the fuselage cleanance to the ground 5 inches - wider gear stance and gross of 2650 . IN 1958 came the first Sky lane which added 3 color paint and rudder trim .1959 added cowl flaps .1960 they added the 3rd window ands slant tail . 1962 added back window and wider fuselage . Empty weight on N5502b is 1509 with 2 seats ~~ making 1050 useful . Manual flaps, triamable horizontal stab ,oversized gear ,firewall mounted battery ,extended baggage ,,Sportsman STOL , flys great ! Standard o470 r'moves it along at over 140 knots. Next year to be re engined the turbo fuel injected ( Thanks George) TIO 470 with Ray Jay in and out box turbo.

From what little straight-tail 182 experience I have (flying with 182 Stol Driver several times), I will offer the following opinion from a neutral point of view (because I don't own a 182, 180, 185, Maule, Super Cub, Boeing YL-15, etc.).

It looks like the straight tail 182 is the closest thing you can get to a Skywagon in terms of load hauling and raw performance, yet it is easier to fly, cheaper to insure. The earlier ones have lighter controls than the later wide body airplanes. The big dirty secret is that you can actually get an older 182 off the ground a tiny little bit shorter than an equally powered Skywagon, only because the maximum deck angle on the nosewheel airplane is slightly more than the three point attitude on MOST Skywagons. Of course, the extra prop clearance of the tailwheel Skywagon comes in very handy in real back country flying, and that is why the taildraggers are preferred by the working bush pilots for hard-core airplane porn work.

Jones 71 i have noticed the weight makes a big difference, I never go with more than 40 gallons, also noticed some weight in the cargo area helps . I will install the extended baggage kit, and 15 lbs less with the MT prop might fell better.
Mine weights 1740 empty.