I'm hoping to get into one of these that I can burn auto gas in and keep for next 30 years (hoping my last plane!) I would like to go up to Alaska and just travel to more grass strips around America. I'm based in Minnesota on a grass strip.
I have a commercial, instrument, and taildragger endorsement, not a lot of hours in a tailwheel but I don't get careless landing or taking off so I don't think tailwheel will be a problem?

I know everyone has an opinion and that's what I'm looking for to help me make my choice and start looking.

All three of these airplanes will serve your mission. In the end you should buy the airplane that you enjoy flying most and that also serves the mission. I have a lot of time in both 180s and 182s and no time in Maules. The C182 is a very capable airplane - even on harsh backcountry strips. You will need to get bigger tires and watch your ground handling due to the nosewheel and prop clearance. I personally love flying my 180. For me - the nosewheel on trikes just gets in the way and it is nice not worrying about it with the Skywagon. I have great prop clearance making it easier to land off airport or on harsher terrain, I pay more for insurance than I would in a C182. The performance for both of these airplanes is really close. My 180 is a tad bit faster in cruise due to the reduced parasitic drag from not having a nosewheel. Cessna parts are expensive and sometimes tough to source. This is where buying a Maule would have an advantage. I hear Maule parts are easy to source and relatively inexpensive. I have also heard Maule insurance is more expensive than C180 insurance. For me, I just love flying tailwheel airplanes and wouldn't consider buying the C182. I love the way they look both flying and parked but that's really just a personal decision. They are a little more difficult during landings/takeoffs and ground rolls but with experience they become relatively easy to manage.




Josh

Josh hit the nail on the head.
I could not have said it better, and I completely agree.
To me the Cessna 180 is as close to an all around “Forever” aircraft as there is for me.
I will add that I have owned and flown lots Maules and have about 500 hours in them. Also a fair amount of time in C170’s, both stock and up engined.
To me Maules bridge the gap between a Supercub and a Cessna 180. They are good airplanes with unmatched factory support. For me, as a big guy, they are a little tight. Other than that I like them.
180 hp+ Cessna 170’s are greet aircraft, also, but other than fuel burn, to me a C180 outperforms them in every way hands down. Especially for what an up engined C170 is going for these days.
But for your stated mission, a C180 would be my choice. I know if I had to own only one aircraft that’s what it would be.

Maules are harder to climb into.
Spring gear on cessna vs oleo or spring on Maule.
Maule 5kt slower cruise for similar size engine and tires.
Maules have more shoulder room, less legroom (due to cessna sliding seat rails).
Maule lycoming vs cessna continental.
I'd take a maule into rougher places than a cessna because steel vs aluminum.
Fabric vs sheet metal.
Factory support (maule) vs large aftermarket (cessna).
40-70 year old aluminum on cessnas.


Smart choice is C182, nearly always when people ask. C180 if you want the glamour and prestige. Maule if you want to be considered a low life but land shorter rougher places.

- Former C180 owner, current Maule owner. My forever plane will one day be a 185.

A 182 can do most of what the 180 can, but the conventional gear is a much better arrangement for rough fields, ground maneuverability in tight spaces and prop clearance.

The Cessna Skywagons are regarded by many as "an airplane that cannot be upgraded from".

I have had mine for ten years now and maintain every intention of handing it down to my children. It has carried us through all kinds of weather to places where most folks would not consider landing a plane; always exhibiting commendable reliability and exceptional performance. The 180 is a trustworthy and confidence inspiring companion that if cared for properly will deliver a lifetime of adventure.

I'm sure that Maules are great airplanes, but there are reasons that they have not obsoleted the Skywagon as the preferred utility workhorse in this weight class.

The market tells us a lot. 180/185s fetch a premium and the good ones don't usually make it to the swap pages.

My recommendation is for a 180

Maules leave me flat on looks. 180s are pretty. Get a 180.

I would say 182. It will do almost what the 180 will do and if the winds get really ratty and squirrelly you will be glad you had a 182 instead of a 180 unless you are very proficient in the 180. 182 is much cheaper to buy than a comparable 180. 182 much easier to insure. a 182 is a very capable airplane and if you put a Landes fork and bigger tires on it then you will have an even more capable airplane. You would be hard pressed to find a place that you couldn't take the 182 where you could take the 180 in the lower 48 states. Besides, you would have to really be on your game in your 180 to get into that place anyway. 180’s are great airplanes, don't get me wrong but the 182 does almost as much for less money and is easier to fly in all conditions but it does have its limitations. Now, if you really must have a tailwheel just due to “want” then by all means get the 180. As a former 180, 182 and 2 time 185 owner this is my opinion.

Kurt

Maules have more shoulder room, less legroom (due to cessna sliding seat rails).

I didn't realize that a Maule had more should room, I have none that I know of close to me, never seen one in person.

G44 wrote:I would say 182. It will do almost what the 180 will do and if the winds get really ratty and squirrelly you will be glad you had a 182 instead of a 180 unless you are very proficient in the 180. 182 is much cheaper to buy than a comparable 180. 182 much easier to insure. a 182 is a very capable airplane and if you put a Landes fork and bigger tires on it then you will have an even more capable airplane. You would be hard pressed to find a place that you couldn't take the 182 where you could take the 180 in the lower 48 states. Besides, you would have to really be on your game in your 180 to get into that place anyway. 180’s are great airplanes, don't get me wrong but the 182 does almost as much for less money and is easier to fly in all conditions but it does have its limitations. Now, if you really must have a tailwheel just due to “want” then by all means get the 180. As a former 180, 182 and 2 time 185 owner this is my opinion.

Kurt

Does the insurance ever come together if you get enough hours in a dragger?

Panther1400 wrote:Maules have more shoulder room, less legroom (due to cessna sliding seat rails).

I didn't realize that a Maule had more should room, I have none that I know of close to me, never seen one in person.

It's the shape of the doors. Cessna doors are vertical, maules bow out substantially

Panther1400 wrote:

G44 wrote:I would say 182. It will do almost what the 180 will do and if the winds get really ratty and squirrelly you will be glad you had a 182 instead of a 180 unless you are very proficient in the 180. 182 is much cheaper to buy than a comparable 180. 182 much easier to insure. a 182 is a very capable airplane and if you put a Landes fork and bigger tires on it then you will have an even more capable airplane. You would be hard pressed to find a place that you couldn't take the 182 where you could take the 180 in the lower 48 states. Besides, you would have to really be on your game in your 180 to get into that place anyway. 180’s are great airplanes, don't get me wrong but the 182 does almost as much for less money and is easier to fly in all conditions but it does have its limitations. Now, if you really must have a tailwheel just due to “want” then by all means get the 180. As a former 180, 182 and 2 time 185 owner this is my opinion.

Kurt

Does the insurance ever come together if you get enough hours in a dragger?

Nope, trust me……

MTV

Panther1400 wrote:

G44 wrote:I would say 182. It will do almost what the 180 will do and if the winds get really ratty and squirrelly you will be glad you had a 182 instead of a 180 unless you are very proficient in the 180. 182 is much cheaper to buy than a comparable 180. 182 much easier to insure. a 182 is a very capable airplane and if you put a Landes fork and bigger tires on it then you will have an even more capable airplane. You would be hard pressed to find a place that you couldn't take the 182 where you could take the 180 in the lower 48 states. Besides, you would have to really be on your game in your 180 to get into that place anyway. 180’s are great airplanes, don't get me wrong but the 182 does almost as much for less money and is easier to fly in all conditions but it does have its limitations. Now, if you really must have a tailwheel just due to “want” then by all means get the 180. As a former 180, 182 and 2 time 185 owner this is my opinion.

Kurt

Does the insurance ever come together if you get enough hours in a dragger?[/quote

Not really, the 182 (apples to apples, comparable 180/182) will always be cheaper to insure even if you have thousands of hours in the 180.

Insurance is probably twice the cost for a 180 vs a 182. Id guess 2400 for a 180 and 1200 for a 182 for annual premiums for pleasure and business policy with market value hull declaration.

Rates have gone up significantly over the last three or four years, but still not a horrible cost to insure a 150000-250000 investment that is pretty likely to get balled up at some point. Well worth the cost if you need it.

People who you would never expect to lose control of a taildragger on the ground do time and again...

Don’t try to be too practical though. That kind of thinking leads a guy directly to a life without airplanes.

I think some of the 182 verse 180/185 difference in hull insurance is difference in hull value and the fact that the insurance is a percentage of hull value. That is driven by supply and demand, there is to put it simply a larger supply of 182's than 180/185's so the purchase price goes up. In addition some of the higher cost is driven by the cost of replacement part cost if a repair is required, more 182's mean more used parts available for repairs. And then there are probably more repairs due to the type of damage that come close to the point of totaling the aircraft on 180/185's in the case of ground loops but not quite enough to justify totaling the aircraft verse repair. Plus remember the insurance company is going to get stuck paying the transportation cost of the aircraft to a place where a repair takes place. Even if the aircraft is totaled someone is going to have to remove the wreckage. They don't want you to leave your broken airplane on the ice of the local lake or the strip on North Fox Island, or any of the strips in the Idaho back country, you get the idea. All of those are much more costly that at the local airport loader, maintenance shop and easy road access. That coverage that includes landing off airport comes at a cost. Just my take on why things cost what they do. For all of you 182 owners that say that I do all of those things you are the beneficiaries of being in the same insurance pool as all of the 182 owners who would never land their airplanes on the grass. Be happy that the insurance company doesn't split you out.

Tim

Might be worth looking at a 4 place Bearhawk with an o540 or io 540. Huge payload, easy loading big cargo doors, sliding seats, good at fast and slow and a real pussy cat on the ground and big fuel tanks.

bat443 wrote:I think some of the 182 verse 180/185 difference in hull insurance is difference in hull value and the fact that the insurance is a percentage of hull value. That is driven by supply and demand, there is to put it simply a larger supply of 182's than 180/185's so the purchase price goes up. In addition some of the higher cost is driven by the cost of replacement part cost if a repair is required, more 182's mean more used parts available for repairs. And then there are probably more repairs due to the type of damage that come close to the point of totaling the aircraft on 180/185's in the case of ground loops but not quite enough to justify totaling the aircraft verse repair. Plus remember the insurance company is going to get stuck paying the transportation cost of the aircraft to a place where a repair takes place. Even if the aircraft is totaled someone is going to have to remove the wreckage. They don't want you to leave your broken airplane on the ice of the local lake or the strip on North Fox Island, or any of the strips in the Idaho back country, you get the idea. All of those are much more costly that at the local airport loader, maintenance shop and easy road access. That coverage that includes landing off airport comes at a cost. Just my take on why things cost what they do. For all of you 182 owners that say that I do all of those things you are the beneficiaries of being in the same insurance pool as all of the 182 owners who would never land their airplanes on the grass. Be happy that the insurance company doesn't split you out.

Tim

d

This makes a lot of sense to me. Someone once told me everyone ends up with a 182 in the end. They really do a lot of things well.

As far as I know most of the insurance companies have not required separate coverage for off airport or backcountry ops. My fear is that the rise of inter google web warriors (One I watched recently had way north of 500 hrs!!!!) will lead to more accidents, scrutiny and a change in this. I think everyone should learn to fly in the backcountry, but it takes time and you can’t learn it all on YouTube.

Panther1400 wrote: I'm hoping to get into one of these that I can burn auto gas in......

Pretty simple STC from EAA or Petersen allows you to run mogas in a 180 or 182-- at least if it doesn't have a 470U.
I believe mogas approval for Maules is only available from Maule,
and depending on the engine, may involve things like different fuel pump(s).
You might want to check into that before buying, if mogas use is a big factor.

Thanks for all your advise I will let you all know what I find.

Maule if you want to be considered a low life but land shorter rougher places. Or be considered a Rebel. hahahaha

If you don't want to spend $300,000.00 to make a 60 plus year old Cessna 180 NEW!! You can buy a brand new Maule.

If I were going to land off airport. I WOULD NOT GET A NOSE WHEEL!!!! I have had multiple friends get nose wheels stuck in sand. I have helped replace a bent prop on nose wheels from taxiing off airport.

I personally had a bad landing at High Boy. If I had been in a 182, I would have bent the nose wheel and probably got the prop. The Maule took it all in stride. My pride, not so much. hahaha

OregonMaule wrote:I personally had a bad landing at High Boy. If I had been in a 182, I would have bent the nose wheel and probably got the prop. The Maule took it all in stride. My pride, not so much. hahaha

I've seen the video (if its the one I'm thinking of, with Kevin and crew?) and it would have been a very bad day in a 182.