Ford, as much as I hate to admit it, you don't have to be a super pilot to fly a Skywagon, but I think you would agree, for one that does not fly wheels much, grass can be your friend. For someone with mostly float time during the year, jumping in a Skywagon, landing on hard surface, throw in some cross wind and it can be a religous experience. There is a reason why such a high percentage of Skywagon's that have been used on wheels have groundloop history in their logs.

I agree about the price of amphibs, my 182 was very well equipped, with low times, selling price of the plane was still $20,000 short of just the cost of getting a plane set up with a new set of amphibs.

Russ, on a side note, we flew over and fished No.. lake yesterday, we caught more lake trout than you can believe, jig and minnow. It was just like sitting on a reef pulling in walleye, they were on the feed bag.

Steve

steve wrote: There is a reason why such a high percentage of Skywagon's that have been used on wheels have groundloop history in their logs. Steve

Actually, one of the primary reasons that many 185's have groundloop damage history is because most of them have been worked, and worked hard. Whereas most at least later model 180s have never operated commercially, a very high percentage of 185s have been worked commercially, and that exposes them to a lot more potential for accidents.

But, I agree that it's a busy airplane, and demands that the pilot pay attention. Then again, I checked out a 17 year old gent in his Dad's 185, and within 12 hours, he was flying the thing like a pro.

MTV

another draw back tho of going 185 or 206 is fuel burn. Don't know much about 206's on floats, but hear performance isnt the best.
Still leaning towards182 at this point but the reserch continues. Had a long and good talk today with Steve Knopp (Mr. PPONK). Good guy and very helpful. PPONK looks like a great option, regardless of 180 or 182.

garth

ps - I hear 185's have alternator issues that are expensive to repair - right Float Flyer?

Garth,

When I had the 182 (stock 470) and 185 (io520) on wheels at the same time, the 185 seemed to burn about 2-3 gallon per hour more. I never really got the great economy out of the 182 others talk about and planned for 14 GPH. There really is no way to judge fuel burn on the Wagon now on floats, it is significant, but when I go fishing, usually there are three men, outboard and too much gear,(because it will haul it). I guess I would have to wonder, if there would really be much difference in fuel burn between the 182,185 or 206, if they were all running about the same HP engines, probably not significant in the scheme of things.

I would agree that fuel burn difference will not be that significant. figure for the average 50-75 hour per year weekend warrior float flyer, the difference at most might be 150 gallons in a season which is $800 or so. If $800 is going to break someone's budget owing a 180/182/185/206, they can't afford the plane. Future availability of 100LL might be a bigger consideration. Steve, got back a week ago from 10 day trip in that area. As usual fishing was great. Nothing big, just lots.

gear wrote:another draw back tho of going 185 or 206 is fuel burn. Don't know much about 206's on floats, but hear performance isnt the best.
Still leaning towards182 at this point but the reserch continues. Had a long and good talk today with Steve Knopp (Mr. PPONK). Good guy and very helpful. PPONK looks like a great option, regardless of 180 or 182.

garth

The PPonk kit has it's detractors as well as it's supporters. The detractor's argument goes like this: If you damage a stock airplane bad enough to take the gear out, it'll do some damage to the gearbox, no doubt, but that damage is typically not that difficult to repair. No doubt, the Ponk kit will protect the gearbox and permit a LITTLE more energy to be tolerated by the gearbox. BUT, it's still quite possible to take out the gear with the PONK kit installed, and if you do THAT, you're looking at close to a total wreck.

So, the question you need to ask yourself regarding that kit is this: How bad are you going to crash?

Full disclosure: I have the Ponk kit on my airplane. Ya never know...

As to the 206 performance, the advent of better floats and GOOD performing propellers have relegated those stories to the category of myths nowadays.

For years I operated Cessna 185s on four different float models out of the same float pond, a long narrow one, where it is easy to determine precisely where you are getting airborne ("right in front of the red and yellow Maule", for example). I then operated a couple of 206s out of the same pond. Both those airplanes had IO 550 engines and big three blade McCauley props. Both those airplanes went out at 3800 pounds, compared to the 185's leaving at 3350 lbs. It took some familiarity with the 206 characteristics, but after a bit of practice, I'd launch the 206 within 50 to 100 feet of where I'd have launched in the 185, and carrying a lot more stuff, to boot.

The 206 is a great seaplane, but like anything else, it needs to be properly equipped and it's characteristics have to be learned. Every float plane has a little different technique that it likes, sometimes even apparently duplicate airplanes. Rigging makes a big difference, and not all are created equal.

Unfortunately, when the 206 first came out, it was typically equipped with pretty poor propellers, and the floats weren't optimized for that airplane either. All that has changed now, and the IO 550 engine permits going from 3600 GW to 3800.

Great airplanes, though they sort of fly like a truck, compared to a 185, due to differences in the control surfaces. But, that means stability, which is also nice to have in turbulence, or when the pilot needs a little nap...

MTV

Mike, I think in reference to Pponk Garth was talking about the Pponk motors, not the gearbox kits.

Ah, so....

MTV

yes i was referring to engines, but thanks Mike for the gear info

As far as fuel burn - russ is right - $800 isnt going to make or break the situation, but it's one more factor to consider. I can't speak for the 182 with PPONK engine, but the 2 - 180's i flew with to Yellowknife last month were both PPonked. I have an 0-540 in the maule, was loaded to about 900 lbs, and burned 13 gph. Of the guys i was with, one was almost to the penny the same as me, the other was a little less, and they were flying 15 mph faster than me as well (similar load). Not sure of their prop set-up but I would assume the 182 would be similar?? Anyway, of the 185 guys I've spoken to, my understanding is that their running in the 18 gph area. Im burning in the area of $3000 / year in fuel, and if my 185 numbers are correct, and a 182 PPonk is similar to what I'm burning now, then with a 185, I'd be in the $4000 range or an extra $1000 / year.

These numbers seem to be similar to what Steve is saying as well.

garth

Garth,

18 gph is REALLY high for a 185. I've always flight planned 16 gph, and that's pretty conservative. Generally, 15 gph works pretty well at most "normal" power settings. Remember, particularly on floats, you can shove a lot more gas through the thing, but you won't necessarily go much faster. For the 185, the best combination comes at around 15 to 16 gph, running rich of peak. Lean of peak would get you down some more. I've never been real comfortable running an IO 520 LOP MUCH. The 550 is a butt kicking engine, and loves to run LOP. I ran 13.2 gph every day in a float equipped 206, running LOP with a 550.

MTV

I have an IO-520 BA in my Bo at 285 HP. I have the standard injectors, not GAMI's. I run LOP all the time in cruise. At 11,500 and above, WOT and 2500 I'll dial it back to 12 GPH. 7500-9500 I'll be 14-13 GPH. CHT's will be upper 200's to lower 300's. The book fuel flow for 75% is 15.2 but that is a bad place to run a 520.

BM,

Not to disagree, but cooling airflow through the cowling is a VERY different issue between a Bonanza and a Cessna 185 on floats. As I noted, I never ran them very much LOP, but I'd sure experiment with it at times. Cooling airflow on floats can be a real issue on those engines.

The IO 550 engines run much cooler, for the most part, and they are loafing at the same power settings that most IO 520s run. Both good engines, in any case.

But, I stand by my statement that 18 gph is a LOT of fuel to run through a 520.

MTV

After running long trips this summer in northern Canada and from years past in my 520 - 185 on Edo 3430's with a shaddin fuel computer and running beside our other 185 without a shaddin i will burn 15-16 ROP at 24 squared with 4 1/2 hours plus reserve and 12.5-13 LOP 24 squared with 6 hours and reserve when i need the range and running with slower planes on my arctic trips. I even can stretch it out to 7 hours when running with Huskies and Cubs on the trips. MTV is right on with 206's as i have flown several and have been thinking of one for myself, when you start approaching $300K i would get a H model 206, 1998 or newer with corrosion proofing, wing extensions and either Aerocet 3500 or 3450 Wips and have a real load hauler but not as high of legal useful load as the older 206's. For $200 - 250K you can have a very nice 1970"s - 1980's 206 set up very nice also with a 550 and wing extensions, they are asking too high of prices for some of the 182 big engine conversions[just my opinion].

My Pponked 0-520 182P on 3500 Aerocets will burn about 14.5 gph on the Shadin computer running 23 squared, 75 ROP, loaded at 3300 pounds, which gives me about 130 mph at 3000 feet. Pull back to the low 2000's and it is at about 13 gph and 125 mph. The additional fuel does not give a lot of additional speed. 24 squared about 16 gph pushing 137 mph. Running along side a friend in his IO 520 powered 185 on 3430's - both of us running 125 mph, he's burning about 2 gph more. He pretty much has to firewall it to keep up with me at 135. My 182 is hands down faster at any given fuel flow. I have the 2 blade MT, he has 88 inch 2 blade mac. Brian is correct about people asking too much for some of the 182's converted to large motors, just like a lot of people are asking too much for any plane in this market. I bought my 182 with a 900 hour Pponk on wheels for under $60,000. Russ

Everybody wants a 'hot' buy......
It is all about finding a motivated seller, whether it is a house or an airplane. Also, one really good deal by a buyer does not 'set' the market. It will commonly be used to try to 'beat' some other seller down somewhere, but it doesn't set the market any more than one deal that is way high.
As we all know, this economy has put a lot of motivation into a lot of people in various markets, making it more likely to find someone that actually does 'have to sell'.

Value is still where you find it......
A truly 'good deal' is one that is fair to both parties.
lc

Well, the whole debate is all irrelavent now for me - I took the plunge this weekend and purchased a 182P with a Texas Skyways 0-520 (280HP) engine. Float fittings are ordered and will go on shortly and Aerocet 3500's will be ordered soon.

Thanks to all for your comments / advice. I'm pretty pumped and can't wait for the spring. Just need to sell my Maule now

Special thanks to Russ who seems to have the closest thing to what I bought so all the extra PM's / discussions were real helpful.

garth

Congrats Garth, I am sure you will love it.

Steve