You really need to pick an aircraft for what you intend to do 80% of the time. It is rare to find that turboheliamphibianjet that will do everything for you. Comparing a Maule and a 180/185 is not exactly a fair comparison as they are rather different aircraft. The 180/185 comparison is mainly $$$ and load. If your shopping in the early market, then the price difference narrows. In the later market the gap in price widens as does the effective load.

For me, it is a perfect fit with a 185, I can tank it up full and really not worry about overloading it. The biggest thing I tend to carry are bikes. I liked my first 185 due to it's stretcher door. Made bike transport a snap. It is more of a PIA in my current model, but float models are worth more.

I've seen 180's with a 550 on them and the price was very reasonable. You still lose some load capability, a 470 equipped 180 will be slightly more economical, but thats really splitting hairs. The 185 has a strengthened tail. I only recently learned that it has more internal structure than the 180's, which can get a bit of a diagonal crease, but I do believe the later models ended up with the same internals for production ease.

It really boils down to budget and how much you really intend to do. In my case, my family would rather be skinned and dipped in lemon juice, than fly. Somehow the boys ended up with their mother's sensitivity to motion. So my passengers end up being confined to me, my bikes and any thrill seeking friends who won't puke all over my panel. It wasn't just the 185 that caused my lads issues, the Birddog did, Caravan did, the 206 did as well as the Chieftain. So I would test my kids and wife on a few trips before I made my final decision on what kind of aircraft you should buy, if flying them around is your intention. If it is just you, then figure out what you normally expect to take with you, weigh it, figure the range you need and see which model will do it. Add about 20% to what you weigh out, you'll always end up taking more.

BTW,
I would never buy any plane based on if it can be repaired with duct tape. I have had the doors ripped off by a bear on the NOAA UH-1H/205 helicopter and still flew it out. You can fly some really f*cked up airplanes if you have to. My Canadian buddies talk of pee patches on old fabric aircraft in the Arctic. Get a rip on a surface, cut the patch out, pee on it. Lay it on the rip, let it freeze solid. Apparently works just fine. I just couldn't figure why they insisted on peeing on it, rather than just pouring some water on it from a bottle???

I just couldn't figure why they insisted on peeing on it, rather than just pouring some water on it from a bottle???

Probably wanted to pre-warm their hands before installing the patch.

180 obviously...

dogpilot wrote:I just couldn't figure why they insisted on peeing on it, rather than just pouring some water on it from a bottle???

Because "water patch" doesn't sound nearly as hard core? Lads can't miss an opportunity to piss on something for utility sake.

A warm liquid will freeze quicker than a cold one because of the shape of the molecules.

cstolaircraft wrote:A warm liquid will freeze quicker than a cold one because of the shape of the molecules.

This is contrary to most accepted standards, and takes so very long for pilots to grasp the idea. Its like saying that the particular shape of molecules of a hot chick can freeze up faster than the shape of a cold chick's molecules. It's just contrary.

The water bottle was already frozen solid if it is cold enough to freeze pee!!
Besides, who wants to hold on to a water bottle until it thaws??
GT

Make some money by explaining why hot pee freezes faster.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... eze-faster

Doesn't it have to get cold to freeze?

When we are making ice at our hockey rink, we use some of each. The theory I have been told (keep in mind this is volunteer labor, often having a few drinks as we sit at the rink for hours on end..) is that the warm water spreads out thinner on the ice than the cold water. This allows it to freeze quicker.

Just what I heard, but it might be the beer talking

Pee on an airplane--not nice!!

A modified early 180...



Or three of them...


AKT

Sorry mongo I think I caused the thread to be high jacked. anyhow just saying hot water freezes faster then cold. google it . don't know exactly why... it just does.

just get a Helio....

If you can find a later 185 in good condition, I'd buy that over the 180, assuming you can afford the premium price tag. I fly a 1985 A185F for work and I've flown a 1980 180. The 185 doesn't care how much you load it - performance is still pretty much the same. The one I fly has 80 gallon tanks. We always fly it with full fuel and never have to worry about overloading it. Not so for the 180. The IO-520 engine is much more powerful than the O-470. I can get 150 kts cruise out of the 185 and land at 60 kts. My only gripe about the 185 is baggage compartment access. It's hard to load bulky objects and they may not fit through the baggage door or over the rear seat into the baggage compartment. Much easier to load and unload baggage from my personally-owned Maule MX-7-180. The only other gripe I've heard about the 185 also applies to the 180. Owners who fly them with bushwheels say that they sometimes get oscillations in the main gear legs during flight. The 185 that I fly at work has 8.00x6 tires and I don't get any oscillation.

I agree on the baggage door, it could have been bigger. Putting in the Atlee seats helped (I normally only use one), before them it was even more of a pain coming through a front door with the larger items, then having to hoist them over the back of the rear seat. For the loads I carry most of the time on floats ( 3 people, 80 gallons of fuel, fishing equipment, outboard with gas, ect) plus the need to get off the water quickly to clear the trees, the 1980-185F I ended up with made sense. I have had it since 2004, with no major complaints, only wish the baggage door was bigger and the cabin was wider like the later 182's. Everyone's mission is different and for many the 180 with the 470 would be the perfect plane, it is when the load hauling ability comes in to play, the 185 has some advantages.

Steve

I recently had the same decision to make, a 180 or 185. My mechanic, who flys a 180, was trying to convince me to pick that because of the pain of hot starting the fuel injected continental.

My first plane, which I still have, is a 220hp Stearman. My second, which I also still have, is a 450hp Stearman. I like to tell people the 220 is all about energy management, the 450 about fuel management. I thoroughly enjoy flying them both, but if I could only keep one it would be the 450. It has taught me that horsepower is king.

So I purchased a 185. Yes it's a pain to start hot although I'm getting close to understanding what she needs, the added horsepower is fantastic. On a recent trip to Taos, NM we found ourselves at 14,500 climbing at just over 600 fpm and I still hadn't pushed the prop all the way in. Horsepower is indeed king.

Since I've installed Gamijectors and a JPI EDM, I can get to 10gph at 23 squared between 3,500 to 4,500 feet, which is generally where I fly her here in Texas. This is Lean Of Peak of course. Haven't had a chance to try LOP at other altitudes yet. So fuel burn is at least as good as a carbureted 180 (comparing my friends which is the only 180 I've flown in).

Of course a 185 is significantly more expensive to purchase then a 180, so there is that. Both planes are obviously fantastic as evidenced by their resale value.

As an aside I do enjoy taking my Mooney and Bonanza friends for their first ride in a 185. Getting off the ground long before they've ever imagined possible, max climbing her with her nose pointed to the stars, cruising at 160mph, and then of course staying high for landing, so high they are 100% certain you will have to do a go around, then riding the elevator down and stopping her in 300 feet. Then turning to see their astonished faces and saying "oh.....you can't do this?" Not that I've ever done anything like this, I've just heard about it.

There are obviously a lot of folks on both sides of this issue. Price budget, mission, desired avionics, etc. all play into the mix.

But, the fastest 180/185 I have ever seen was a 59 180 with an injected 520. He made a lot of the 185 guys crazy by outrunning them. I saw him mix it up with a number of pretty cherry 185s and never saw anyone that could outrun him. Had a Sportsman and Wing X and got off pretty nicely as well.

The later model 180s / 185s were 4 inches wider with a little heavier tail to support the weight increase and they did have bigger engines. Other than that, there were very little real differences.

I have owned 2 early model 180s. My current bird has the PPonk 520 and it is amazing the difference 50 hp can make. Can only imagine what the 550 must be like. I know some don't worry much about being "over gross" (theoretically speaking of course, as I would never lift off over gross). The old adage, if you can get it in a 180 you can take off, seems pretty accurate. Worry more about placement of the weight. I have lifted off a couple of times with pretty heavy weights in the tail and you could really feel it before takeoff / landing. Consequently, I do a better job of spreading out weight since then.

Either way 180 or 185, they are just hard airplanes to beat. Kind of like saying which is better, 59 or 63 vette. Hard to go wrong either way.

Interesting discussion though.

The 180/185 are the same width, start to finish. They got heavier, but the cabin width is the same thru the years. The 182 got wider, but not the 180/85. They just got longer.

Lance:

I have often heard that later models were wider and assumed that was correct. But, I went back and reviewed the list on skywagons.com and appears you were right. Change to cabin was higher not wider as follows:

Following from 1960 Model changes:

"Increased headroom in the third and fourth seats due to a redesigned bulkhead and skin on top of fuselage"

Thanks, Larry

88H wrote:Lance:

I have often heard that later models were wider and assumed that was correct. But, I went back and reviewed the list on skywagons.com and appears you were right. Change to cabin was higher not wider as follows:

Following from 1960 Model changes:

"Increased headroom in the third and fourth seats due to a redesigned bulkhead and skin on top of fuselage"

Thanks, Larry

C170/172/180/185 40" at the side door windows early 182's 40" later (1965?) 182's 44"

I think it was in 63 or 64 that the cabin was widened on the 182's. I kept a 1965-182 around for several years after getting the 185, there is a noticable difference in shoulder room.

Steve

Operating costs, unless you are burning Mogas in a low compression O-470, are very similar if the injected engines are run LOP. A 185 with bushwheels can go 145 MPH at 11.5 gph. Maintenance costs are basically the same. Therefore, as others have noted, entry price is the major difference between similarly equipped 180s and 185s.

I think that modifying a 180 until it starts looking like a 185 comes out behind buying a good 185 from the beginning. The 185's legal useful load comes in really handy especially when on floats or when trying to carry 4 people. It doesn't take much to overload a 180 when you put 720# of people in the plane (4x180) and 40 gal of gas at 240#. With no gear, the load is 960# or about the max useful load of most currently equipped backcountry 180s. For a 185, this load is comfortable. I have seen light 180s with IO-520s turn into absolute rockets, but they come up short on the useful load. Depends on your needs I suppose.

My vote is: 185