So, a question to our Backcountry Aviators:

I've owned a fantastic 170B (145hp w/STOL) the last 9 years and flown it into all of the MT/ID backcountry strips, with exception of the Big Four. Typically done with me, light load, and mornings/late afternoons. Very conservative and I feel safe.

Now I am looking towards the future and seriously considering a nice old 182, somewhat 'mountainized' with STOL, larger tires, and 3 blade.

The reason is I want to expand my 'range of operations' a bit, maybe an occasional trip to AK/BC, want to fly a bit more with 1-2 pax, and also an occasional student for backcountry ops. (I have been a CFII for many years).

Although I have analyzed the cost/benefits to no end, I remain uncertain if this move to such a larger, more complex, and certainly more expensive plane is a good thing to do. Because let's face it, with the $$$ of 100LL and the fact that the 170 is also a great bird; I want to go into this fully informed. I have ruled out the 180 Avcon conversion for the 170 for many reasons.

So I would very much appreciate thoughts from those that have made this, or similar transitions; as I remain very interested to see how things worked out and if their expectations were met.

Thank you

You will wonder why you didn't do it sooner if you've not flown the 180/182 before. I loved my old 170B for 550 hrs then stepped up to the 180 the 170 is seriously underpowered.

+1 on the above. You will never want to go back to the O-300.

Gump

I owned a '56 C182 (converted to tailwheel) for a time and now fly a '52 C170B. Big difference in horsepower and corresponding difference in operating expense if you want to go fast. You will want to go fast so plan on 12.5+/- gph fuel consumption and figure on slightly more expensive annual. I recall the 182/180 feeling a bit more like a truck compared to the handling of the 170B. If it is the early 182 with small horizontal stabilizer, you will have trouble flaring unless you carry some power. If you trim nose up to help you in the flare, you will have both hands on the yoke to keep the nose down in a full power go-round.

I transitioned from a 170B to a 180H. I do not miss the O-300. I do however, miss the awesome visibility and light feel of the 170. The 180 is much more comfortable in turbulence. It is always eager to climb, which the 170 is not. I have an eye for design details, and feel that the 180 benefits from being a more highly evolved 170. It is a very well designed airplane. I do find myself looking at Cubs, scouts, and lighter planes because the fun of a light plane is somewhat lost in the 180.

When I was a kid my dad had a 170b with 0 300 pumping out a whopping 145 HP to a 2200 (I think ) gw airplane . Early 182 straight tail 182s are excellent investment .More power is the name of the game my old 02B is sporting 250 HP plus on 0470r . It will soon sport a turbo charged /ray jay /manual waste gate fire breathing TIO-470-D of close to 280hp up to 20,000 ft. Mel. With Sportsman STOL kit and oversized wheels and brakes. You can't go wrong with old straight tail 182.

The extra HP of the 182 is flat-out addicting. Your annuals might be a tad more, but not much. Your insurance could be less..quite a bit less in the 182. Plan on 12.2 gph down lower (MT and ID) at full cruise speeds (130 kts or so). The fuel burn is somewhat offset by the reduction in air time hauling yourself over the rocks rather than around them.

The wide body models ('62+) make them capable 4 person planes at times, or 3 people with all their toys and fuel for the back country. You can throw a couple of bikes and camping gear pretty easily in the back when you want to. If you empty the plane and go light, you can putter around in Idaho at 18"/2100 RPM all over the place, burning about the same fuel at the same speed as you did in a 170, but being able to access 1200 fpm or more to climb out of the hole to the next drainage when you want to, and being able to speed things up getting back home when the time comes.

The stock wheels are just fine for all but a few of the strips up there during most of the (dry) usable year. Bigger tires will help keep the prop from mowing so much grass (and sand).

As for the ineffective elevator thing, it is an issue for some models (like mine). I've made some mods to my elevator that I could share if interested, and there are hints to get around the problems as well.

I love my 170B... But I do wish I had more power. I find myself looking at 180s and early 182s all the time.. The extra cruise speed and climb would be very nice.

robw56 wrote:I love my 170B... But I do wish I had more power. I find myself looking at 180s and early 182s all the time.. The extra cruise speed and climb would be very nice.

Rob
here's a secret don't tell anybody else. Go buy 6 ECI cyls kits with C-85 pistons have them flow balanced, take the cam to Lycon in Visalia have em do the special grind. Put them on that O-300, Have the carb re-jetted, this should get you about 30-40 more ponies you just cant burn mogas.

40 more ponies would be nice! Can't find mogas without ethanol anyways...

I have heard of the mythical 180 horse 0-300 engines but how does the Feds remain happy? Field approval, some super secret STC, or do you just use grandpa's theory when keeping grandma happy? (Just do it & not let her know)

I wish we had the Canook version of the Owner Maintenance Program (from how it was explained to me) you can do your own annuals, maintenance, & modifications if you can show the mod as an accepted change.

Also if you could PM me with some info on who to get information for the items/specs changed to put C-85 pistons in the 0-300.

Thanks
byeBill

I've owned in partnership 2 182s, a 1970 and a 1979 TR182 bought new in 1979. Both were great airplanes (once all the new bugs were worked out of the TR182--Cessna's quality control was awful at that time). 182s are probably as good an airplane as you can buy, assuming that you need the load carrying capability, reasonable speed, and good short field performance.

But when it came time to buy my own without a partner, I looked for a 180hp CS 172. I found my airplane, a 1963 P172D converted to a Lycoming O-360, low time airframe, only 960 hours on the engine, outstanding condition. I was sorely disappointed when the engine threw a rod only 15 hours after I bought her, because that added a humongous cost to the purchase price, which was already a premium--but that's the risk of buying any airplane.

But otherwise, I've really loved my little airplane. I can carry 4 adults in a pinch by reducing the fuel load, although I usually fly alone with my dog or with just one passenger; it's fun and very easy to fly, and its hourly maintenance costs are pretty reasonable. It burns a little less than 10 gph consistently at 115 knots. I usually fly VFR, but the airplane is IFR certified and well equipped, so almost all of my longer cross countries are IFR in VMC or in light IMC. I have no difficulty with back country strips which are reasonably smooth, though obviously it's not appropriate for any rough strips. Flying reasonably light, it's very capable in the mountains.

You'll gain a lot of capability with any 182; you'll lose some of the fun of flying, because they are definitely heavier in all respects. It's nothing like flying a 210, but the controls are very much heavier than your 170B. As they say, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Cary

cessnaford wrote:I have heard of the mythical 180 horse 0-300 engines but how does the Feds remain happy? Field approval, some super secret STC, or do you just use grandpa's theory when keeping grandma happy? (Just do it & not let her know)

I wish we had the Canook version of the Owner Maintenance Program (from how it was explained to me) you can do your own annuals, maintenance, & modifications if you can show the mod as an accepted change.

Also if you could PM me with some info on who to get information for the items/specs changed to put C-85 pistons in the 0-300.

Thanks
byeBill

I would also appreciate the same PM info, if not appropriate to post.

C85 pistons into an O-200 or O-300 are an old Formula One racer trick, but are a don't ask/don't tell mod for certificated airplanes as far as I know. They just bump the compression ratio up a little, so I doubt if it's enough to gain 40 horsepower unless you do some other stuff too. The lumpy cam, head work, & carb rework as mentioned along with the pistons might do it-- just don't get caught.

I did the same with my T cart on Edos with O-200. C-85 pistons and Ritter cam. Bumped up HP, flatter prop to tweak the RPM. Worked fine, but had to take it all apart and back to legal when I sold the airplane.

Gump

hotrod150 wrote:C85 pistons into an O-200 or O-300 are an old Formula One racer trick, but are a don't ask/don't tell mod for certificated airplanes as far as I know. They just bump the compression ratio up a little, so I doubt if it's enough to gain 40 horsepower unless you do some other stuff too. The lumpy cam, head work, & carb rework as mentioned along with the pistons might do it-- just don't get caught.

Disclaimer
I wasn't suggesting to do anything illegal

Heaven forbid!

hotrod150 wrote:C85 pistons into an O-200 or O-300 are an old Formula One racer trick, but are a don't ask/don't tell mod for certificated airplanes as far as I know. They just bump the compression ratio up a little, so I doubt if it's enough to gain 40 horsepower unless you do some other stuff too. The lumpy cam, head work, & carb rework as mentioned along with the pistons might do it-- just don't get caught.

I did mention other stuff

I had a 170B with and O-360 and STOL. It was a real nice airplane, but I later converted to a '58 C182 with STOL that I really liked as well. I did a lot of heavy hauling with both (took out the back seats and extended the baggage area in both). The mission kind of dictated which was superior. I really liked flying both, but the fuel consumption of the 182 was certainly higher than that of the 170. I have since changed my mission and fly a Husky and love that airplane. NTL, if you have ruled out the Avcom conversion, I certainly think that a 182 straight tail is a fine airplane that I would consider owning again. Either is a good choice in my opinion -- but an underpowered O-300 C170B -- nope, not where I live. I think that you will really enjoy going from your present 170B to a 182.

I had a '52 170B which I really liked, sold it when the second kid came out, got a 180. Aside from the lack of altitude performance, on a typical routine 600mi. trip:

4 hours, non-stop in 180, 11,500 to 12,500 altitude, 40 gal fuel;

3 hours, in 170, 8,500 to 9,500 altitude, 1 hour fuel stop, 3 more hours, 42 gal fuel.

However, really liked the lighter weight, easier ground handling of 170. Mission objective is important.