As far as the engine, Ravi, I would have to agree with you. The Lyc. 360 is as bullet proof as they come. I think the 235 is a little better probably just because it's making less power per cubic inch.
My experience is that Lycomings usually make TBO more often than most.

Roger - tell us (me) more about your 182/180. Was it converted on an STC or field approval. Do you do it or find it already converted? Seems like this is one of the best routes to getting a 180 that hasn't been totally worked over as the 182s seem to live gentler lives. I have been daydreaming about his possibility as I contemplate stepping up from my Stinson.

Sidenote - for Zanes benefit - my Stinson has done everything I have asked of it to date. Great for two people with gear that don't mind making 100kts on 10 gal/hr of mogas. I'll be relocating to Ravi's neighborhood soon though, so my 165 is about to explore its limits.

I am also knew here as of 08-07-07.
I fly a C-170B with some "Back Country" mods.

4650C actually had 185 gear legs when I bought it in McCall Idaho. <11/16" thick>. Problem was that there was no viable paperwork to support the installation.

Most information about Cessna Taildragger gear legs is availavle on the XP Mods web site. Since I was re-building my plane for Back Country use I bought a set of new 180 legs to save a bit of weight since I also wanted to put on double Piston Brakes for the planned 26" tires.

Originally I could not find an STC for 850 tires, and had seen one stuck in a squirrel hole at Sulphur Crick on a 180. So, I wanted the 26" Alaska Bushweel tires as I often fly alone and would not have the help to lift my plane out of a wide and deep squirrel hole.

Now I am one who believes that the Insurance industry has more absolute control over the "outcome" of my flying than the FAA and or Lockout Martin, SO, what I finally found was/is a sort of round about way to get Double Piston Brakes and 26" tires on my 170 with as much legal STC support as I coud dig up.

The KEY to the process for me was STC SA01756NY.
This STC allows for the installation of "heavier" gear legs on the 170.

Eric C Leclerq
QCR Aviation
694 St.-Gregoire
Les Cedres, QC J7T 3A4
Canada
450-452-2567
$230

This STC allows for the installation of "heavier" gear legs on the 170.
Next is the Alaska Bushweel STC which authourizes the use of thier tires on 170s. They also sell the double piston brake sets at the same time.

Recently had an opportunity to actually be glad I had the 26s while landing on an unlisted strip in Idaho. Landing went OK and was feeling a big smug until I did a turnaround on the take-off end and felt a firm bump a thump while swinging the tail around. Looked back to see a large squirrel hole with a smooth tire track right over the middle of it.

When I first bought the plane the single piston brakes would not even hold during run-up with only 800 6x6s at 1800 with a shorter prop. Now I can even do a McCall run up with enough power to set the mixture.

Above all be safe

Hi Vick, my 182/180 is a 1960 182C. The 1960 & 61 182's have a similar airframe as the later model 180 & 185's (three window side and a few more inches of backseat headroom) with the exception of the slant tail. I bought it with the sole intention of converting it into a Tw on a one time STC using factory 180 & 185 parts. Last year a gentleman in Florida obtained a multiple STC for converting 1956 thru 1961 182's and I bought the first one, making it a lot simpler.

The conversion STC calls for all Cessna parts right out of the 180 parts book and also required installing a straight tail fin and rudder. It was over my head but any airplane mechanic that has any tin can repairs under his belt would probably consider this a moderate challenge at best. Again I'm not that talented and was only chief rivet driller and bucking bar support. Hope my insurance pays for those new hearing aids I now need. My friend Steve from Steve's Aircraft (Gascolator fame) was my boss on this project and had more time saving short cuts than I could ever dream up. (Someone once told me I wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed...what he mean by that )

If you or anyone would like more detailed information or have specific questions I'd be happy to share them, especially if I can save you heartburn on what not to do.

It was a lot of work but for me I'm glad I went this route. The plus is I got a NDH airframe that hasn't been molested. I guess the negatives are it's still considered a 182 by the feds when trying to get additional STC paper work. We asked the FAA for a verbal OK for installing a Pponk kit on this airplane and got a "No it's a 182 you can't do that", but I got a quick OK from them when I installed G/Y 26" tires because they indicated no STC was available for this combination. Go figure!

Roger

Oh ya almost forgot......

Zane, thanks for the warm welcome. Nice job on the B/C forum site.

Roger

My 1952 170 B has a Lycoming O-360, with Hartzell 80 inch propeller (which also includes a 10 pound harmonic damper assy), a sling seat for the rear, and early 180 gear legs, with ski axles. It also has Flint tip tanks, for a 60 gallon useable.

Empty weight (actually weighed, not calculated) is 1356 on 8.50 x 6.00 tires.

I am about to remove the Hartzell and replace it with an MT composite propeller, which will remove an additional 30 pounds of weight.

I really prefer the early 180 gear legs. The 170 gear legs move around a LOT in off airport operations, particularly on places like steep beaches or other irregular surfaces. Even on pavement, the 180 gear is a lot nicer, in my opinion.

These airplanes can be kept light if you work at it a bit. Mine is basic VFR--no gyros, etc. Portable GPS.

I really love early 180's and I'd trade my airplane for one in a heartbeat, if it were in decent condition. But the 170 works fine for me and what I do.

There is no upgross kit for the 170, but at 1326 empty, I'll be really close to a lot of Super Cubs, and this airplane will perform as well as many Cubs. It will perform comparably on takeoff and landing with a Maule, but the Maules are faster, no doubt. Look carefully at the Maule's useful load and fuel burn, but they'll do a good job as well.

Find a good 170 OR 180 and you won't go wrong.

MTV

I was checking out your 18..0..2...5? At the Prospect SAR fly-in. Had me scratchin my head , It looks sharp. I was flying the 182 that landed long and you landed behind me. Taxing back I thought that's a nice 180 getting ready for paint. Then I thought no, it's and early 185, but then it didn't have the big dorsal fin on the tail, so then it didn't look right to be a 70s model 180? Then I got to b.s.ing Beagle and he gave me the scoop. One of these days if I get over that way again I would like to talk with you about the coversion.

Take care, Bub

this is a topic i have been researching for a while the early 180 gear and the late 170 [lady legs 1954 and later] are the same shape and thickness but the 180 gear is 2in longer and a 1.25 further ahead the weight difference is negligable. the only real advantage of 180 gear is a slightly heavier tail and a slightly greater angle of attack. as for weight XPmods makes titanium 180 legs that are stronger and lighter than any cessna gear the downside $10000 . as for o360 conversions Delair has one with a 200lb gross weight increase for later 172s but as of last time i spoke with him it was not yet approved on early 172 or 170s but it is in the process. if you put the WINGX STOL on a 170b 180h you get a gross increase as well as incredible float performance. the MT propeller is now approved for this plane it weighs the same as a fixed pitch but is constant speed and cannot be watter damaged plus it has the same static thrust or more than a 180 with a stock prop .
As a side note my writeup is so long because i am stranded in Ft Nelson BC trying to ferry a supercub with a borer prop and 35in bushweels to whitehorse i would trade for a 170 any time [preferably IFR] 84 MPH makes whitehorse a long ride.

Just a test to see if this comes up where I hope it will.
Did a reply the other day as a new member and got a couple of PM replies but have never seen my original post anywhere yet

Hmmm

Lots of new tricks to learn for an old dog

ccurie,

You are correct on the XP Mods gear, but it is REALLY expensive. It was close to parity with new stock gear, but now, stock gear is a lot cheaper.

The additional AOA on takeoff does help, by the way.

As to the WingX STOL kit, it is not yet approved in the US, and according to its manufacturer, it probably will NOT carry with it a 200 pound GW increase when approved in the US, whenever that happens. I believe that they are trying pretty hard, but the FAA has really clamped down on GW increases without major flight test.

Also, unfortunately, the wing extensions preclude hangaring the airplane in most standard T-Hangars. It is a great mod, however.

MTV

Any thoughts?

This is interesting.

http://www.m5maule.com/

Regards...Rob

RobBurson wrote:

Any thoughts?

This is interesting.

http://www.m5maule.com/

So is this

gang,
i drive by this plane everyday when i go home from work. if anyone from out of town wants me to stop and take a close look i would be glad to. the look of course would not be in lue (sp) of an a&i inspection because i am only a pilot. i have owned an m4 since 1997 and an m6 since 2003.
rog pfeifer [email protected]

I'd be happy to show you my plane. I'll be camping on the Alvord Desert dry lake (North East end) this Saturday night watching the meteor shower "show". That's only a hop, skip and a bounce for you. Jump on over and bring your tent and bag and a good chair that leans back.

Roger

The M-5 listed may be an okay plane, but the tbo on those IO-360's is very short, so the motor is close. Fiber Floats are pretty much orphans now, and I'd probably consider them worthless, though they work okay if in decent shape. The fact that the bottoms have been reworked suggests otherwise. Retail price of the floats alone is really low, so don't bump the price due to them. Again, a set in good shape works okay, though they have some characteristics that you need to watch out for. They have eated a few Maules in past. If these haven't had some mods done, they should have them done prior to use, in my opinion.

Primary mods on the Fiberfloats is to replace the suspension system with hard struts, and replace the water steering system with "real" water rudders. This one appears to have the hard struts, but original "rudders".

MTV

Roger S wrote:I'd be happy to show you my plane. I'll be camping on the Alvord Desert dry lake (North East end) this Saturday night watching the meteor shower "show". That's only a hop, skip and a bounce for you. Jump on over and bring your tent and bag and a good chair that leans back.

Roger

Roger,

I would like to come down, however leaveing PDX Friday morning at Oh dark thirty headed to Cancun, Mexico. Will have to suffer through a week down there I'll catch up one of these days, Rogue Valley is home originally. So I get that way often.

Enjoy your time on the Alvord. See ya, Bub

Roger, sent you a PM