7853H wrote:The 180 is more plane than any converted 170. The tail and rudder have more authority on the 180 and the 180 also has an adjustable horizontal not just a trim tab on the 170.

I understand that the last several 170's to roll of the line were equipped with the adjustable horizontal. Quite rare, apparently, but highly desirable. Anyone ever seen one of these?

-DP

Pundy:

You don't say what the desired mission is and there are HUGE differences in capabilities between the two.

I have owned (1) 170 and (2) 180s. The best illustration I can give you is my "Tale of Two Airplanes".

I now have 4 kids, but at the time of my first story, I had one kid and a wife who thinks traveling and "truck size luggage" are synonymous. So we traveled to Colorado from Albuquerque over the pint sized 12,000 foot rocks you find running all through Colorado (dodged the larger 14,000 foot ones). I was and still am based at E98, 4,800 feet and 3,500 foot runway. The 170 was a 48 straight 170 with the stock 145hp in it (fresh, strong engine). In an effort to be proactive and limit my close horse wife to a manageable luggage level, I explained to her that she would be limited to one suitcase. To which she indicated would be no problem. Day of travel arrived and she was true to her word. There was only one suitcase. However, an Olympic weight lifter who can clean jerk 300 lbs couldn't have lifted that suitcase. When you added full fuel, stroller, portable crib, car seat, etc... we were definitely at gross (of course I would never fly over gross).

A quarter mile north of my strip is a line of trees about 40 to 50 feet high and I had to dodge them to clear the trees. My wife calmly asked if it was normal to be at tree level and I explained to her that I really wanted to provide the best view possibly for her and the little one and to not mind the sweat beading on my forehead.

We mushed along for another 30 miles and finally caught thermals and burned gas so that by the time I got to the Rocky Mtns, I had enough clearance to get over (barely), but there was definitely a period of time when I was wondering if I was going to have to return to base and load up the vehicle and use the travel mode of mere mortals.

Fast forward 10 years, I now have 3 mean, trouble making boys and decide to fly 2 of them and myself to Oshkosh and do the camping thing (although what possessed me to put my two trouble making boys in close proximity with millions of dollars of airplanes still escapes me). The phrase "get the hell away from that" was uttered more than a few times that weekend. I have extended baggage in my current bird and the BAS stowable seats. There was not an ounce of free space in that plane. With the monster Coleman family tent I tote around, the two coolers full of beer, soda and food, clothes, portable seats, etc. we were loaded to the gills and right at gross (of course I would never fly over gross). I left the same (E98) 3,500 foot strip at 4,800 feet elevation and the plane sprang off the ground. Immediately to the east (about 35 miles away) of the strip is a 10,000 foot mountain and we climbed straight over it. The airplane was just a sheer pleasure to travel in and there was no comparison to the old 170 days. The old adage of "if you can get it in the 180, you can lift it is pretty true.

I know the 180s are a level more expensive than the 170 but your capability will be so much more.

I am assuming that if you are on this website, you are probably into backcountry flying. If so, the 180 is just a much more capable bird.

If you can afford it, go the 180 route. You won't regret it. One of the best all around airplanes ever built.

Whatever transpires, good luck!! Larry

have you considered a 195

Glidergeek wrote:have you considered a 195

How about a Maule?

58Skylane wrote:

Glidergeek wrote:have you considered a 195

How about a Maule?

Just get a 182.

Tim

qmdv wrote:

58Skylane wrote:

Glidergeek wrote:have you considered a 195

How about a Maule?

Just get a 182.

Tim

Pay attention Tim he's got a 182 it ain't good enough for him

A one-eighty-two is a durn good airplane. I appreciate mine (over a big tail dragger) each time I write my annual insurance premium check, and it fits 95+% of my mission profiles. I also have a fun little cub. OK. Maybe their not 'swagger factor' airplanes, but some of us like to pay the premium for that (SF), and others don't. To each their own. Look in the mirror. Why are you changing planes? Size yourself up, besides sizing up your normal mission profiles. Size up your 'big tail dragger' pilot skills' and how often you fly to stay REAL sharp. When whatever you decide is done and blows over, the only one on this website that will be SERIOUSLY second guessing your decision will be.........YOU.

It is hard to be wrong either way 182 or 180/185 if you have/buy a good one and get/STAY sharp.

I am sure we all wish you well either way......

lc

I read the other thread about the wrong plane. Just being Tim. I have a 182B and live it. I have 600 in front and 700's on the mains. Does almost everything and even gets over frozen cow turds.

Now and then I fly over a gravel bar and wish I had a 180 with 29" bushwheels. But then I realize that I do not have enough time to practice, practice, and then practice. Instead of flying today (cold air, no wind and clear skys), I am helping a wido friend run a water line to some trees we will be planting for her in two weeks. I enjoy that sort of thing as much as flying. But then I guess I am not living my dream as was put so well on that other post about the young guy that killed himself.

I will stick to the 182

Tim

qmdv wrote:I have a 182B and live it.

Tim

So, do you "live in" your 182? Or do you "love" your 182??

Thanks for all the feedback guys. It's not that a 182 is "not good enough", it just appears to not fit my flying needs. If I lived out west and was able to fly into all sorts of cool backcountry strips, I think it would fit the mission quite nicely. However, our version of backcountry strips in Maine are all the lakes we have. So, float flying and skis are on my wish list, thus a taildragger fits the bill better than the 182. Now, if I were like Lil' Cub and could own a 182 and a Cub, then that'd be the ticket!

58Skylane wrote:

qmdv wrote:I have a 182B and live it.

Tim

So, do you "live in" your 182? Or do you "love" your 182??

All three.

Tim

Are you sure you cant aford a cub too? If you sit down and ad up what you are thinking of spending to upgrade to a 180 with floats and skis then you consider that you can pick up a J3 with 85 or 90 horse and floats and skis for around 45000.00 plus the resale on two planes is beter than one. The fun per dollar on those things is huge, your face will hert after flying it from smiling the whole time, and the taildrager snob factor is higher when you start it with the prop!

But to get back to your actual question I am one of the biggest 170 fans there is, but for floats and skis a stock one dosent cut it and the only real advantage a lycoming powered one has over a 180 is the lycoming engine. You couldn't run fast enough to GIVE me one with a IO-360 cont. much less a turboed one! look up the AD list for that engine and the TBO. they have all the dependibility of a candle in a huricane!

PS electric flaps suck!

qmdv wrote:

58Skylane wrote:

qmdv wrote:I have a 182B and live it.

Tim

So, do you "live in" your 182? Or do you "love" your 182??

All three.

Tim

I only asked you about two (2) things!

denalipilot wrote: I understand that the last several 170's to roll of the line were equipped with the adjustable horizontal. Quite rare, apparently, but highly desirable. Anyone ever seen one of these?

I owned a 170 for over 10 years & was really into them, & I've never seen one with a trimmable stabilizer & in fact have never even heard of one.
IMHO hotrodded 170's are nice but a C180 is still a more capable airplane. Since a modified 170 costs about as much as a stock 180, it's smarter to just go for the real thing. The only drawback is that the 180 burns more gas.
The C180 is one of those benchmark airplanes that others are always compared to, as is the Bonanza & the Supercub.

I'd go with the 180 -more fuel but more performance

I'll bet the miles per gallon isn't much different between 180 and a 170 modified with an engine large enough to make it a useful float plane. And if you figure the ppmpg (people per mile per gallon) I'm sure the 180 will be ahead since it is a real 3 adult float plane and the 170 would be more realistically limited to 2 seats on floats. One thing about ski flying, ask your friends how much time they actually log in a winter. If its like 99% of the pilots here in northern MN, I'll bet its under 5 hours per winter, probably more like 2 or 3. You have no daylight in the evenings, and usually when you catch a sunny weekend up here its too damn cold. Combine that with the fact that 75% of the time the lakes are full of slush (like right now) and you really don't get much quality ski time before the lakes begin to melt. Unless you're retired and can go flying during the week, you just don't get much time to use a ski plane. I was on ski's every winter for 12 years. The past 2 I've left the plane on floats and parked it. Honestly, haven't missed it much. Saved lots of dollars. I sure haven't missed fighting the crappy lake conditions we seem to get here 3 out of 4 winters. The guys flying now just fly up and down the lake looking at all the slush and go back and land at the airport. Early and late winter when you see the ski planes flying 90% of that time you could land on wheels on the ice because there is almost no sno. You can do that in the plane you have with some 850's on it. Floats are different, lots of evenings to fly in the summer, and the lakes are always landable unless lots of wind. Could be Maine is different in the winter and you don't battle crappy conditions as much in the winter.

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:The insurance on a 170 will probably be less than your 182, on the 180 it's going to be more.

I don't know about the 170 insurance being cheaper than a 182-- the hull value might be less, but being a taildragger statistically there's more risk so the insurance is probably higher. 180 vs 182-- for equal hull values,no doubt the 180 insurance is more.

Postby ccurrie » Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:18 pm
Are you sure you cant aford a cub too? If you sit down and ad up what you are thinking of spending to upgrade to a 180 with floats and skis then you consider that you can pick up a J3 with 85 or 90 horse and floats and skis for around 45000.00 plus the resale on two planes is beter than one. The fun per dollar on those things is huge, your face will hert after flying it from smiling the whole time, and the taildrager snob factor is higher when you start it with the prop!

What HE said!

And the 2 ins. premiums will be about the same one "big" tail dragger.....

Hey All,
I'm kind of in the same boat, so to speak in that I'm looking for 170s or 180s.
However, I'm leaning towards 170 series Cessnas because they are just more pleasurable to fly.
The 180 rides like a 1-ton pickup, while the 170 is more like an SUV.
For that after work relaxing buzz around the patch I'm more likely to take the 170 over the 180.
But then again most of my flying is within a 100 mile radius.

AKclimber wrote:Hey All,
However, I'm leaning towards 170 series Cessnas because they are just more pleasurable to fly.
The 180 rides like a 1-ton pickup, while the 170 is more like an SUV.

I said this same thing to GumpAir once and he laughed at me, claiming that the 180 was a true pleasure to fly, in part due to the superior elevator trim system.

I have owned a 170B in the past, and only recently flew a 180A for the first time (aktahoe1's plane.) I had always shared your perspective, but that 180 flew nicely, not nearly the ox that I expected. I think the early vintage 180's with their lower profile panels and overall lower empty weight are the best.

Fuel burn is another issue entirely, but the comparison of control harmony and feel of the aircraft in flight, that '53 180 was very similar to my '53 170. It sounds like you have flown both as well, so this is just my impression of the early 180. Perhaps later vintage were heavier and had taller panels, which I cannot stand.