qmdv wrote:..... And the final conclusion is to just keep the 182B cus it has a strait tail, power, load carying abillity, burns just slightly more fuel than a 170 or 172 with an O360 in it and lastly I got it into this crappy state without paying sales tax . Hard to do that again. Tim

I agree, why change? Unless you are a tailwheel fanatic, which apparently you are not cuz you already own a nosewheel airplane. Is there an area of performance or utility in which your 182 is lacking? In truth, most places that people "need" 180's to get into can be handled just fine in a good 182. The main concern I'd have would be a prop strike-- bigger front tire, bigger nose fork, and/or the radiator hose on the nose strut trick should be helpful in avoiding this. Your 182 is also more crosswind-capable than a tailwheel airplane, at least for most pilots-- I rarely hear about anyone ground-looping a nosedragger.
Warning- if you change to a 170/172 or maybe even a 180-horse version of same, you will be disappointed after flying behind the 470. I know two guys who fly C150's after owning hogher performance airplanes ( a C185 & an M4-220), and I don't know how they can stand it.

Tim,

I owned/flew a '56 182 for almost 10 years. It was converted to conventional gear (Pponk) in Kalispell Mt. before we bought it. We operated off airport on big tires in the summer and skis in the winter. Great airplane! Honest 4 person aircraft or 2 person plus a serious load of gear and game meat. Essentially a C180 except that model year 182 didn't have cowl flaps. I now fly a '52 170B (big tires, Sportsman, Pponk, 180 gear, 0-300, sea plane prop). It is also a great airplane with a lighter, sweeter feel on the controls but has its limitations. The 170 lands much shorter than typical take off run. It is basically a 2 person airplane unless I am flying off asphalt. I have to watch my weight. It is slow compared to the 182/180. Fuel flow is low compared to the 0-470 which is great when I am just out getting air time, but fuel consumption is not that much different for cross-country mission. If you really, really want to fly in front of a tailwheel, converting your own airplane is not unreasonable IMHO. The typical 180 in Alaska is worked harder and looks rougher than a 182; you either need to accept an airframe with a few dings or pay a premium for a cherry one. You already know all the quirks of your 182. Take a look at the insurance rates for 180 vs 182; we were careful to tell our broker we were on conventional gear and big tires operating off airport but still were rated as a 182 because that is what it says on the aircraft data plate. We paid a lot less for full hull coverage than our buddies flying 180s. Incidentally, our old 182/180 is for sale at http://alaskaslist.com/1/posts/10_Trans ... a_180.html if you want to check on what it costs to add floats too.


Cheers, Bill
C170B