My 1975 182P is 'Green' inside (factory corrosion protection), so they are out there. It also has factory skylights, Sportsman kit and Wing-X applied by Stene Aviation, is pretty low time E & Airframe (what am I doing here.?.....), original paint & interior (I'm gunshy about buying a older plane with a brand new paint job) a real decent plane all the way around.....(Argahh!....)
I don't fly it enough to justify keeping it......(Oh.....this is hard....) that I would let go (Oh, my!) for a $100 grand.....(damn!)
Somebody should be enjoying it instead of it gathering dust and getting annuals while I fly my cub......
Oh, it has auto fuel STC.

Maybe its 'cause I just woke up and I'm woozy, I had been planning to fly a lot when I retire, but with those retirement accts 'going the wrong way', I'll be workin' longer and it is not good for planes to sit long.......

lc

It has logs (in German). It was made in Kansas, then test flown in 'green', wings removed and containerized for trip to Reims (France). There it was re-assembled, painted and finished out and delivered to customer in Germany. It was ferried back about 7 (or so) years ago and I bought it.

PM me if you are reasonably serious about buying for adnl details

Corrosion proofing was all over the scale with Cessna, depending on model and year of manufacture.

Don't fool yourself that corrosion isn't a big deal in fresh water. Much of that depends on the lake. I can show you some serious galvanic corrosion in seaplanes that never see salt. Again, much of that depends on the water you're operating in, but my point was simply that corrosion proofing is a desireable feature in a seaplane, and many if not most 182s weren't WELL corrosion proofed. Aluminum boats aren't a great comparison, since airplanes have so many dissimilar metals in comparison, and that's where the corrosion generally originates.

Of course, late seventies and early eighties Cessna 206s with float kits also weren't WELL corrosion proofed either.

MTV

A question to hitch-hike on the other topic questions:....
If the claims made by the sellers of Boeshield (and competitors) are close to real (that fogged into the closed spaces of an aluminum plane it prevents corrosion), why is factory 'green' (zinc chromate) still considered to be an important option for seaplanes? Seems like if it/they worked as advertised, 'green' would be a small consideration. Are there other problems? Does it not live up to advertising hype? What is the story?..... Is someone in the 'know' willing to share the info......

Thank you in advance
lc

If the claims made by the sellers of Boeshield (and competitors) are close to real

I can tell you ACF50 is real. I started squirting my plane in 1989 and the stuff is still weeping out from the skin laps. It is a little messy but it sure stops corrosion. The jack screws turn pretty easy also.

so a few questions on corrosion proofing as i know zip about the subject. When we talk corrosion proofing, are we talking about the green paint i see on my maule frame? is this the same thing? Were all 180's done and 182's not? How hard would it be to do this after the fact on a 182?

garth

The aftermarket corrosion preventive coatings do work, and for an airplane without factory corrosion proofing, would be mandatory in my opinion.

They are not the same as a good coating of primer applied at manufacture however, for a couple reasons:

Corrosion X, BoeShield, etc, have to be re-applied periodically to be really effective.

These anti corrosion products "weep", as noted above, leaving a residue. That can be a little messy, but at least it tells you the stuff is getting in where it should.

Even an airplane with factory corrosion proofing, operated in a highly corrosive environment, would benefit from application of these products.

I operated a Super Cub and a Beaver for some 8 years in Kodiak, AK, a VERY corrosive environment. Both airplanes were on floats and both were in and out of salt water pretty much all year. Both airplanes had been properly corrosion proofed at the factory, and while fighting corrosion was pretty much a daily battle, both airplanes held up very well, even though they were operated in a highly corrosive environment. In the early 80's many of the air taxi operators started operating new C-206s on floats, and those airplanes, while factory "corrosion proofed", suffered pretty badly from corrosion, largely under their paint, since Cessna didn't do a good job of priming the airplanes prior to final paint.

If i were going to operate an airplane on floats in fresh water, I wouldn't totally discount one that has not been corrosion proofed, but that would certainly be a factor in my decision making.

Bear in mind that Cessna never intended the 182 to go on floats, so there is no factory float kit, and the factory didn't corrosion proof them like they did the 180/185 with float kits. Not to say they weren't primed internally in some cases.

My 170 has a factory float kit, and in those days, Cessna actually shot the rivets wet to ensure corrosion proofing in the lap joints. Many later airplanes were just fogged inside with zinc chromate after construction.

Again, I wouldn't discount an airplane without corrosion proofing factory installed, but I'd take it into consideration, and I'd definitely have Corrosion X or BoeShield applied regularly.
MTV

Many later airplanes were just fogged inside with zinc chromate after construction.

That is why I think the stuff that weeps is the best. Also, if you look at lots of zinc chromated skins, the paint has been scraped off or is peeling.

I realize it's 60 years too late for this to be done at the factory, but what about Alodine, Alumiprep and the chemical dip conversion coatings? I think those processes were around back then, so how come they didn't dip the parts in huge vats and have a better long-term solution? I gotta believe the "economy of scale" has to make dipping the parts cheaper than spraying paints or resin based coatings. And a lot safer than airborne chromate pigments that are not good for you.

Anyone kow come the people building RV's and other metal homebuilts are not using this method instead of Zinc Chromate or other spray paints?

The modern primers are self reversionary (or some such tongue twister word) coatings, thus no need to acid etch and alodine. The primers do those jobs on their own.

If you're set up to acid etch and alodine, it's not that huge a deal. I've done a couple sets of floats. It's messy, but if, as the manufacturers do, you had a dedicated booth to do the deed, it's no big deal. The BIG deal is that once that acid is put on, you MUST get it washed off completely.

MTV

anyone know if there are full glass doors for the 182's?

There were doors for the 180/185 that had a glass panel below the regular window, but glass doors on any of these airplanes are pretty much useless, since the pilot's seat, in flight, winds up pretty much covering the entire lower portion of the door. Unless of course, you're 7 feet tall.

The passenger side door might be a better deal, since the pax could slide their seat back considerably.

Frankly, though, bubble windows are a much easier and more useful mod.

MTV

I don't think the bubble windows would be of much use on a 182. You're further forward and lower down, at least I am, that in the 180/185. I don't think I could get my head far enough back to stick my face into a bubble window. Also in the 180/185 they tend to add some much needed shoulder width, which isn't needed in the 182. I believe from the firewall to the rear door post the 182 is or is almost identical dimensions to the 206. You don't see many bubble windows in 206's either. Just not as useful in the wider bodied 182/206.

gear wrote:anyone know if there are full glass doors for the 182's?

Here's a picture of a real nice 185 with the patroller doors and bubble windows, just to give you an idea of what it looks like.

robw56 wrote:
Here's a picture of a real nice 185 with the patroller doors and bubble windows,

BLING !!!

It should also be mentioned, the issue of the windows not opening fully when bubbles are installed. Not particularly a good thing, as it limits one other possibility of escape in a flip over. I am over 6 ft, weigh 210 lbs and have flown with a monster of a guy in my 185, he is real tall and probably close to 300, it was a little crowded, but not a big deal for a one hour flight, I have also flown him on a 6 hour flight when I had the 182 and it was much more pleasant. My thought for short hops, the 180 is fine, but if you are doing many longer hauls the 182 is more comfortable. In your situation, the 182 would seem to be a good fit.

I can see 3 to 4 - 2000 mile trips per winter when im older, so comfort is definately a consideration.

Garth, if you're going to fly wheels south in the winter, tri gear is going to be much less demanding. You don't pull the 185 off floats, put on the wheels, and head south unless you are very proficient in tail wheel work. There are definitely pilots who can take a 185 on wheels anywhere a 182/206 will go with crosswinds. But for the average guy that doesn't work at staying proficient its a recipe for bent metal. Now the ultimate would be to have amphips and just leave them on year round. there's a 206 on amphibs for sale in Barnstormers here in MN. Price is so low makes me wonder what is wrong with it. You couldn't build up a 182 for what they are asking for it.

I agree with most of what Rhyppa says, but you do not need to be a super pilot to fly a Skywagon on wheels. You do need to be comfortable with reasonable crosswind landings. As far as taking an amphib on long cross country trips, you are severly limited for float operations once you leave Canada, and you are SLOW. The ultimate solution is 2 planes, floatplane and something that is a decent cross country plane. I would probably prefer a 172 for a 2,000 mile trip than a 185 on amphibs! If money is not that big a deal, take the floats off and put wheels on OR buy another plane. FF

As mentioned on another thread here.....

Airplanes are like margaritas, one is not enough-and three are too many.......

lc

I dream of amphibs for my 182. But realistically, I could buy another 182 on wheels for less than the price of the amphibs. They would be nice for trips to the far north. Fuel can be a challenge on straight floats in northern Canada and Alaska. Back to the original thread, with the price of some 206's out there now, I would take a real long hard look at them. I've seen some that perform real well on straight floats, and boy the room and baggage doors are nice. For the person who flys wheels a few times a year, a 180/185 can be a challenge. A friend bent his last spring while bringing it to the mechanic to get the floats put on. Again, proficient pilots who either have a lots of skywagon time and/or stay current can handle the crosswind challenges. That doesn't fit a lot of us who primarily fly floats.