As some of you may know, I've been considering trading the Maule M5-235 in for either a 180 or a 182. I'm really digging into the research side and was looking for some feedback. I've been considering this for some time, but am giving it serious thought after returning from my Yellowknife trip, where I went with 2 other guys with early model 180's, P-Ponk motors, and Aerocet 3500's. I was pretty impressed with their performance - quicker take off time (significantly with same load in plane - 900 lbs give or take), 15 mph quicker cruise, and same or less fuel on every fill up.

I like my M5, but some things id like would be 1. more leg room and seat adjustability 2. more floatation with storage(i have 2440's) 3. A little more HP. 4. metalized fuselage. I did some posting earlier this year regarding a 182 but now my eyes have been opened to a 180. Russ on the site here gave me some good 182 info. Most people I talk to, say to get a 180 for float operations. This is most of my flying although as I get a little older, i may want to substitute floats for wheels in the winter for flying down south. People tell me the 180 is a better float plane out for the box, where a 182 needs the mods. I'm not too concerned with cost, and if cost was not an issue, and I was prepared to upgrade a 182 with motor, motor mounts, float kit, etc. - I'm wondering what the performance difference would be between that and a 180? The only reason I'm considering the 182 is the additional cabin room.

On the 180 side, I'm looking for some information. Everyone so far that I have spoken to, says to get the earlier model as they were lighter. My reasearch so far tell me that its 100 lbs or so. Is it worth it? Is that the only advantage? What is considered early model? '58 and earlier? Anything else I'm not thinking about?

Any feeback would be appreciated.

garth

I believe that the early 182's were just 180 nose draggers. the C 180H+ models (I believe) were all 6 place so one of them would have more room over all but still be a few inches narrower. Also 180's hold there value much better that the 182.

Reuben

PS ask the pro's not me..... lol

I've been in a mid-70s 180 and a mid-70s 182, both with 520s, both on Aerocets, both with Sportsman STOL. Sweet set ups and I'm told the Aerocets are about as good as it gets. They say earlier is lighter and better but these planes were no slouches and I personally prefer the longer (3 window) cabin of the post mid-60s 180s. The 182 is clearly a little comfier with the extra couple inches across the cabin but obviously if you go to wheels you'll have a nosewheel - the other upside being that there are some steals on well-set up 182s these days. If I were solely interested in float ops no question a 182 would be the way to go but if your waistline can handle it and you want to enjoy kicking the rudder in the pattern a 180 is tough to beat.

i have no real desire for a tailwheel - at this point, i dont have plans for ski flying or much backcountry stuff on wheels. all my backcountry flying is on floats. thanks for the input and keep the responses coming.

garth

I have said this before, but with your mission not requiring skis, the only downside I can see is the electric flaps VS the manual ones on the 180 (can't pop the flaps for takeoff). Put a 550 in a 182 and you have a good horse. I have the Aerocet's and would do it again, never get much water when they are pumped and the storage lockers are huge.

Garth, if you're not ski flying or off roading on wheels and traveling in comfort is important, the 182 is just a whole lot more roomy. Having spent time in 180's and 185's, they are not better float planes out of the box. Any post 50's vintage 182 will need to be converted. Once the conversion is done you will have a plane that is as strong or stronger than the 180/185. I'm not bashing the 180/185 crowd. Last weekend I had a Canadian friend for a ride in my 182. He has a 73 185. Same year has my 182. He couldn't believe how much roomier my 182 was in the front seats. The converted 182's also will have the seaplane's west mount. Very few 180's you'll find will. He commented how much smoother my 182 was than his 185 because of the mount. The 182 will flat out outrun the 180/185's in speed on floats, given the same engine prop combo. In today's market you'll most likely end up with a 10 year newer 182 with fewer hours on it for the same or less $ than a 180 even after you have paid for the seaplane conversion costs. A lot of the 70's vintage 182's have respectable panels and AP. Most have lived in hangars and flown off of paved runways their whole life. They are all good planes and all have stood the test of time. If you look at 180s or 182s, I highly recommend the Pponk, Texas Skyways or IO520/550 conversions. The extra power on floats adds safety. Steve mentioned the electric flaps. I thought that might be a disadvantage when I first bought the 182 after having manual flaps int he past. After 3 seasons of use I actually prefer the electric flaps. I take off with zero flaps until I'm on step and accelerating, then tap the flap lever down to 20, takes less than 5 seconds and it flys off. Russ

You also might want to compare a M6-235 or M7-235 The longer wings of these models vs. the M5 make them better float planes, also the negative flaps on the M7 are designed to improve airspeed at cruise.

I would bet you can get into either of these birds for far fewer $$ than a C-180 or 182. You will also miss the Maule loading doors.

TD

The m6's and 7's still ride on 2440's. My friends M7 is a fine performing float plane, but when you load them up and get them out in the wind/waves you still wish you had bigger pipes under them. His 7 is no slouch speed wise, a little faster than a 180B on 2870's, but not much.

My 73 182 has been great for me. I have Aerocet amphib's, cruise is about 110kts with fuel in 16gph range with a 520. Seaplanes West also has the weight increase available now.

I also targeted a 185 for about a year and found several nice ones but found lots of damage history, missing logs, old floats, and other issue's of concern. I found several 182's for 30-75 thousand less than 185's and they had a way better panel set up. New floats and needed nothing.

As for the Electric flaps just put it on the step and hit the switch to 20degrees and it gets off the water. It might not pop out but it launches well and the Aerocets handle rough water well.

pilotpw1 brings up another good point. With the bigger engine on P model 182's and newer, you get gross weight increase to 3360. On 180's, even with the Kenmore GW increase STC, you only go to 3190. The seaplanes west home page has a few interesting weight tables to look at comparing 180/182/185's after various gross weight packages. The only plane that will have a higher GW than the 182 will be the 185 with wing extensions, think that brings it up to 3500. useful load will probably be about the same as 182 though. If I win the lottery I'm going to sell my Aerocet straights and get the Aerocet amphips.

No doubt the 182 is a great float plane. Its a mini 206.

BUT...are you guys really saying you like the electric flaps over the manuel ones??? Come on now....I guess if your not operating on short strips it really doesn't matter, but an extra 3-5 seconds is a whole lot of runway to wait for 20 degrees.

Maules do not have to be on EDO 2440 floats with no hatches.
Aqua 2400, Bauman 2720, Wipaire 3000 are all approved for Maules and all have large hatches and nice flat decks.
Maybe look at a 235 or 260 hp Maule M7 with more wing.
Then of course there is the M7-420shp turbine version if you really want performance.
This Maule holds the world record of time to 10,000msl for water landing planes.
It was wrested from the Russians some years ago.

For float ops, I have maybe 400-500 hours with manual flaps, and 300 with electric. I can honestly say I prefer the electric. You will lose no takeoff distance using the accelerating on step and tap to 20 method versus start at 10, get up to speed on step then pop to 20 in the 180/185. I like having my head up and hands free that the electric flaps offer. Lets say a 185 and 182 both with wing extensions will fly off at about 45-50 mph with flaps at 20. With the 185, you wait till you get to 45 or so, then take hand off throttle, grab flaps, and jerk - maybe 3 seconds or so? With the electric you tap the flaps at 40, in the five seconds or less it takes for them to drop from 0 to 20 you have now accelerated to 45 and you're off. Either way you're off at 45 mph, the difference is when you grap or tap the flaps. You do it a couple seconds earlier in the 182/206, overall time to lift off doesn't change. You're also on step a little quicker and accelerating a little faster at zero degrees flap. the 180/185 would reguire a large pull to 20 or two pulls to accomplish the same thing. I can 't say how they do or dont' work on land ops, since I only float in the 182. I was skeptical when I went to the electric flaps. time it once, how long does it take with electrics to go from 10 to 20 with a reach over and tap, versus a 180/185 going from 10 to 20 by reaching down and pulling. I'm betting no more than 1 second difference. And most pops I've used and seen used are really a 2 to 3 second lift and not a sudden jerk. Same time as the electrics. Once you get over the cool factor of the Johnson bar you realize there is not a whole lot of difference. I'm thinking if there was someone would have an STC and every workhorse 206 out there would be manual flaps. Fire away. Russ

Not picking a Maule vs. Cessna fight maules.com, but the only real float in your list is the Wip 3000. Bauman is out of business, and the Aqua's are again small at gross weights in big waves. I wasn't referring to float locker space or flat vs round tops. Its a floatation issue at gross weights in the wind. I have no first hand experience with Wip's on a maule, but the pictures I've seen make it look like the float is as long as the fuselage, which would seem to make rotation a challenge - much like a the 2960's can be vs 2870's on Cessna's. I think the lenght of the Cessna tail gives and advantage to pulling a longer float off the water without digging the heels. As far as Cessna's I'm seeing with new floats, I'd say 2 to 1 are on Aerocets versus Wips.

As the resident Prince of Flap Handles, and after doing more research and homework on this subject than most, I can guarantee you in no uncertain terms that offering a flap-related STC is not something that anyone in their right mind would or could do on a 206. If it was technically possible, most of the 206 drivers would probably love it for the same reasons the 100 series drivers do. But the existing Cessna manual flap system on all the 100 series 4 seat aircraft could not ever be FAA certified today. It creates several safety, ergonomic and visibility issues, and many pilots have trouble with it on one end of the travel or another. The 206's have higher wing loadings, higher speeds and larger flaps. So the muscle force required would be very high. That problem can be mitigated by longer travel on the flap lever, but the travel is already way too much (80 degrees) on the 100 series and it would need to be 120 degrees or more on the 200 size airplane. You'd be grabbing it on the floor under the panel, pulling it up to your shoulder, then turning around and shoving it in the back seat.

After having spent more time talking with pilots about their flap systems than most anyone else here, I have a very unique perspective, and there is definitely an overwhelming consensus among experienced pilots. The manual flap lever allows more precise control over the airplane, it gives some pilots another sensory input "feeling" the airflow over the wing, and it allows much faster flap deployment or retraction when it matters. Maybe it doesn't matter on water as much, but the guys flying off short strips believe that the extra one or two seconds matters.


But the biggest reason for the love is the far lower maintenance and replacement costs associated with manual flap components.

All really good comments - i appreciate them. Wip's are an option for the M5, but that doesnt solve my cockpit concern (a little too cramped) I'm also not 100% sold on the fabric. Not against it by any means but still not sure on it. Been talking to some 182 and 180 float guys around here and got similar feedback to Russ's. Even the 180 guy said if he was to to again, he'd buy a 182 (he travels alot and would appreciate more cockpit room). The only negative comment he had, was that there was something better on the rear of the 180 relative to the tail design that helps you "fly" off the water vs the 182 which because of it's design, takes a little longer. He explained it quickly but I don't fully understand. Something about the stabilizer??? Can anyone expand here?

garth

Something about the stabilizer??? Can anyone expand here?

180/185's and early 182's had a flying tail with jack screws(the whole horizontal pivots for trim). The later 182's have a trim tab on the elevator and the horizontal doesn't move.

Yup, trimable rear stabilizer, versus a trim tab on the elevator. More effective in that you are moving the entire stab surface. I'm not sure that will get you off the water any better. I may help you fly faster, particularly when loaded aft. Never had any trim problems in the 182 when loaded. But the huge lockers on the Aerocets tend to allow you to put all the heavy stuff right at your CG, instead of stuffed back behind the rear seats. I believe somewhere about the H model 182 they gave it more horizontal stab surface area, which to a degree helps the tail "fly" better.

There's more to the trim issue than just the different method of getting it done (trim tab on later 182 vs trimmable stabilizer on early 182 and all 180/185. The first few years after the 182 went to the wider fuselage and the trim tab on the elevator, the airplane didn't have much elevator authority. Talk to a lot of folks who have flown those mid year 182s and you'll find a lot of damaged nose gears, bent firewalls, etc. Cessna fixed that issue with bigger surfaces or more deflection (not sure which) in the later models.

I agree with Ryppa on the electric flaps vs manual. I have a lot of time in seaplanes with manual flaps, and a couple thousand hours in Cessna 206 on floats. Learn to fly the thing, and after a while you won't care which style flap it has. As to "popping" flaps, it has been my experience that, in general, this technique (and yes, I've used it many hundreds of times myself) does more harm than good for a pilot who isn't flying that plane on an almost daily basis. I've played around with popping flaps, rolling up on one float, etc, etc and it is my OPINION that if you're really in tune with the airplane, you don't really gain MUCH if any using this technique, WITH MOST FLOAT/AIRPLANE combinations.

That said, there are airplane/float combinations that are somewhat more water loving than others, and popping flaps can help a bit with those.

Finally, with regard to 182 vs 180, bear in mind that Cessna did a really lousy job of internal corrosion proofing on non-float kit equipped airplanes, and none of the 182s had float kits, early or late. On the other hand, many of the 180s out there have float kits, and all those airpalnes have MUCH better internal corrosion proofing. If you're going to go on straight floats especially, good corrosion proofing is essential in my opinion.

The 182s have not had float conversions long enough to see much in the way of bad corrosion issues, but I wonder if this is not down the road for those airplanes.

Myself, I'd want a well corrosion proofed airplane if it was going on floats.

MTV

Mike, corrosion may be an issue in salt water, but I'm not so sure about fresh. When was the last time you saw a 20-30, or even 50 year old aluminum boat in the midwest that had corrosion? I've never seen it. I own a few 60's and 70's vinatage aluminum boats that sit outside, in the water and dirt, in the woods year round and have for 40 years, and not the slightest bit of corrosion on any of them. I'm not saying corrosion proofing is a bad thing. I just think its basically a non-factor except in coastal areas. If fresh water hurts them, all aluminum planes sitting outside in the rain are going to corrode. Again, I'm not saying the 182 is the greatest plane ever built. I'd be proud to own many 180/182/185 or 206 seaplanes I've seen. They all have advantages and disadvantages. I don't see electric flaps or lack of corrosion proofing in freshwater areas as a disadvantage. The rear window in a 182, while nice for passengers at times, does let a lot of sun and heat in. That's one thing I'm not crazy about. For another, the panel is higher, and over the nose visibility is less than 180/185 series. Give me a 185 body style, with the width of the 182/206, that goes to tri gear in the offseason since my only interest anymore is flying south, with the rear loading doors of a 206, flaps of a 206, that has 300 plus horses on auto fuel, that would be my ideal float plane. Let me add that it needs 1200 useful on aerocet amphibs.