Go for the 185

I have a 54 180, and I love it. But as was mentioned before, they can have very little useful load. Mine is IFR, AP, and leather interior, making it heavy. It weighs in at 1625, with a 2550 gross. By the time that you take 360 lbs of fuel and 250 lbs of yourself from 925, you have a real small number for a passenger or baggage, about 315 lbs.

Either one will be awesome!!!

When you get ready to buy let me know. Got a 1959 C180B that I will sell you cheap. I own it with another guy and he bought a C185. I got access to a C206 I can fly when ever I want just for gas so its surplus to our needs.

my advice: Take a long hard look at how far you want to go and how much you want to haul.
I looked at a 180 and settled on a 170, a 180 hauls more and goes faster even more so a 185 but honestly A LOT! of the time Im tooling around by myself or with one buddy looking at deer and moose, a j3 or tcraft would do the same thing a lot cheeper. If you have unlimited budget get a 185 or 206 and keep your citabra for messin around. unfortunatly most of us cant aford to have it all so look at your personal needs (wants) and dont price yourself out of flight time.
"Two flights in a citabra is twice as much fun as one in a 185."

Many people here have far far more time in the 180/182/185 than I, but I do believe I'm on solid ground when I say that an old straight tail 182 is a great choice if it meets your mission requirements.

The tricycle geared 182 can actually rotate to a higher deck angle than the tailwheel 180 on takeoff or landing, so there is the potential for it to be able to take off and land just a little shorter. I was surprised as hell that the old 172 I'm flying now can land in the same or less distance than the Taylorcraft I was flying previously. However, if you are on really rough ground and prop strikes are a concern then the tailwheel airplanes keep the prop out of the rocks better.

Like someone said before, make a list of the airstrips where a 182 cannot do the same thing as a 180 (assuming the same HP). Only the river bars with 6 inch rocks are the likely candidates for that difference IMHO.

In my opinion it would a relatively simple matter to lay out your mission requirements, load carrying needs, your comfort level of fuel burn, your insurance costs, your initial purchase cost, and figure out what airplane you need. All you have to do is be honest about what your actual needs are. Everyone would love to have the turbine Helio that can take off in three arm lengths with 8 CIA operatives and 10 burlap bags full of artificial sweetener. But that takes a CIA budget to accomplish and it's not realistic for most of us on a daily basis.

Mongo wrote:I would like to carry two adults, a child, and a dog into most of the strips in Idaho.

If your planning to be flying back and forth between Indy and Idaho, I'm thinking the 185 would probably be the way to go. The 185 probably has the most space inside for your family and all of the stuff you want to bring with you. For a 6'3" guy and his passengers/camping gear, that would be a long uncomfy trip in a striaght tail 182 from Indy to Idaho. My 58 striaght tail 182 is an awesome plane, but on long cross country's, I wish I had some extra elbo room!! Especially when I have someone sitting in the right seat.

But, I don't think you can beat the economics of the straight tail 182. On good days you can pull it way back and burn around 8-10 gph, insurance is cheap, some good deals on some nice straight tails right now and my last two annuals been under $1500.00.

And Mongo, if your in the Idaho area in the next year or so, give me a jingle and I'd be more than happy to give you a ride in my 182 and show you around some of the easier backcountry strips. There's plenty of 180/185's up here in the Boise area and I'm sure we can round up a ride in one of them, too. Might help in your decision making.

58Skylane wrote:

Mongo wrote:I would like to carry two adults, a child, and a dog into most of the strips in Idaho.

If your planning to be flying back and forth between Indy and Idaho, I'm thinking the 185 would probably be the way to go. The 185 probably has the most space inside for your family and all of the stuff you want to bring with you. For a 6'3" guy and his passengers/camping gear, that would be a long uncomfy trip in a striaght tail 182 from Indy to Idaho. My 58 striaght tail 182 is an awesome plane, but on long cross country's, I wish I had some extra elbo room!! Especially when I have someone sitting in the right seat.

But, I don't think you can beat the economics of the straight tail 182. On good days you can pull it way back and burn around 8-10 gph, insurance is cheap, some good deals on some nice straight tails right now and my last two annuals been under $1500.00.

And Mongo, if your in the Idaho area in the next year or so, give me a jingle and I'd be more than happy to give you a ride in my 182 and show you around some of the easier backcountry strips. There's plenty of 180/185's up here in the Boise area and I'm sure we can round up a ride in one of them, too. Might help in your decision making.

Thanks for the offer I hope to bring the 7GCBC out there this coming Fall, I will look you up.
I would like to have two airplanes (185 and 7GCBC) but I dont think the wife would like to sell the house and live in a hanger.

Mongo,
About the space issue. Here is the real skinny.

WIDTH - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN CABIN WIDTH IN THE WHOLE CESSNA 180 LINE FROM BEGINNING TO END AND it is the SAME as a 185 FROM BEGINNING TO END AND all 182's are THAT SAME WIDTH FROM BEGINNING ('56) UNTIL 1963 (which was a three window "fastback" 180/185 fuselage with a nosewheel and a swept tail).
So to reiterate, you aren't getting any space difference in ANY 180 or 185 OR early 182.
If you want width you'll need a 1964 or later 182, 205 or 206. Their ain't no widebody Cessna taildraggers, except for the 190/195, period.

The only way you get shoulder room in these is to put in bubble windows. They give you a place to put your outside elbow and shoulder.

Length - You really aren't getting any real difference in length either. The three window fuselages which are ALL 185's (starting in 1961) and I believe 1964 and after 180's (and of course 1960 to 1963 182's) might be an inch or three longer in the cabin than the two window style, but that we'd have to measure. I''ve got a buddy that has a '58 180 that was converted to the third window style and I don't believe they had to "plug" the fuselage to do it.
The real gainer in space of length is EXTENDED BAGGAGE. I believe that one mod is what makes one pf these planes about 100% more functional. Although I don't have it....yet (I only have the standard factory type) my favorite choice is the Selkirk "flat floor" extended baggage. Check it out.

I used to own a 185 with a 550 in it as well,flew another on amphibs first with a 520 then 550, and all of the comments made above are true. It's bitchen and when you need the pow pow, you got it. I would say on floats to definetly go 185. I'm gonna fly mine on floats but we're talking 100 hours in 5 years, I'll manage.
I just find that at least 70% of my missions are two guys, maybe light gear, or three people. I'd have problems justifying that added $60k of bitchenness and the inability to burn auto if I needed to and the inability to prop it in the boonies if I needed to.

Mongo,

There has been a lot of good comments. The 182 would be a good choice for all the reasons stated and more. Smaller purchase price, better selection, cheaper insurance, reasonable fuel burn as oposed to the big engine machines and a wider, more comfortable cabin in those made after 63 or whenever, than the Wagons, with about the same speed. Downside is the need to be more careful with the nosewheel, the electric flaps (in my opinion), as oposed to the Johnson bar flaps, (if you get a later model with the wider cabin). I guess it just depends on your mission, whether a bigger engine makes sense. It would seem if you are not going to get in real tight situations, that the 470 would be enough. If you are going in tight, with a big load then horsepower is your friend. Remember, horsepower=gallons burned+extra purchase price. My 185 (IO520 300 horse) burns 17 GPH day in and out. The 182 (that I had for 17 years) burned 14 GPH. Yes, I know, throttle back, but that is my experience, in a common day of flying.

In summary, I love my 185, it is a pickup truck and that is OK, but if I was on wheels, not using it on floats, hauling an outboard motor, gear and a couple of passengers, I would really consider the 182 to be sufficient. Look at the guys that are going into some of the well known western strips with retractables and Cherokees. I am lusting for a tandem of some sort again, to add to the fleet, for ski use, since selling my Super Cub. We are never satisfied. A 182 and your Citabria would make a nice combo, plus you could save the house. Steve

lowflyin'G3 wrote:Mongo,
About the space issue. Here is the real skinny.

WIDTH - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN CABIN WIDTH IN THE WHOLE CESSNA 180 LINE FROM BEGINNING TO END AND it is the SAME as a 185 FROM BEGINNING TO END AND all 182's are THAT SAME WIDTH FROM BEGINNING ('56) UNTIL 1963 (which was a three window "fastback" 180/185 fuselage with a nosewheel and a swept tail).
So to reiterate, you aren't getting any space difference in ANY 180 or 185 OR early 182.
If you want width you'll need a 1964 or later 182, 205 or 206. Their ain't no widebody Cessna taildraggers, except for the 190/195, period.

Small correction: The 1960 C and 1961 D model 182's are the three window fastback models with swept-tails. These were the last of the narrow body 182's. The '61 had the stubby gear which hurts it for backcountry purposes. The 1962 E model 182 was the fist year of the 4 inch wider fuse and the end of the trimmable stab.

My favorite 182 is the 1960 model but I'm not sure I can deal with the narrow cabin being a bit of wide-body myself. I fly with a friend in his '59 and we have to stagger the front seats as our shoulders exceed the cabin width. I hope to be in a 182 of my own within the next year.

62,
I corrected myself further down in the post in the "length" part but didn't go back and fix it in the first paragraph. Good eye though.

One other difference between the 180 and 185...the 185's are all fuel injected. With fuel injection, whether you're running a 520 or a 550, you can (and should in my opinion) run lean of peak EGT. To do so, you need to install GAMI injectors and a graphic engine monitor, but the cost of those will be quickly refunded in fuel savings.

I ran a C-206 with a 550 at 13 gph for over a thousand hours. You need to know what you're doing with LOP, but saving 4 gallons per hour or so is a big help. And, your speed will suffer a LITTLE, but not much.

Running a carbureted engine LOP is a lot more difficult, and I've never felt comfortable doing so, for several reasons.

In my experience, many of the 180's are actually faster in cruise than the 185's, mostly due to lower total weight.

Remember, just because you have 300 horsepower available to you doesn't mean you HAVE to use it all the time. Easier said than dones sometimes, of course....

Also, look at the current prices of 180's and 182's. Not that much difference these days for comparable machines. The 185 will be a slight premium, but they are almost all newer airplanes as well.

MTV

I of course agree with your wife. Get the Bonanza. I've been thrashing mine around Idaho and Montana for the last 4 years. Sold my 182 to do it. But it depends on where you want to land. With the same load(not weight, but load) my Bo needs about 20% more runway to land or takeoff than did my 182. So instead of 450 feet for my 182 I need about 550 for takeoff or landing the Bo with myself and 40 gallons. I have more prop clearance with the Bo than with the 182 although a smaller tire.(5.00x5 vs a 6.00x6 on the 182). The gear itself is stronger than a 182, especially the weak link of the 182, the nose gear. Low wing has proven not to be a problem in the mountains as I'm not finding strips to run the wings thru bushes. Come to think about it I never found any with the 182 either. It is nice to sit under the wing of a Cessna, it gives you more options. I can sit under the V Tail but there's less of it and it's at the back of the plane. It's nice to sit under the wing of a Cessna and judge everybody else's landings.
I had bigger tires on the 182 and could get about 127 knots wide open(approx 13 GPH), now I'm at about 173 kts at 75%(15.3 GPH). If you're coming from a long way away that'll really make the country smaller. One of the things I really like is more space in the plane than any 182. In the 182 I installed the Selkirk extended baggage and that helped. The Bo is a six seater, you have about the same space as a 206. The Bo gets better gas mileage than any of the Cessna's you are considering. Another way to look at it is any place we go I'll get there faster and using less gas. If we go the same speed I'll use a lot less gas. The example of that is we have relatives in the MSP area. 640 nautical from here. Going nonstop in the 182 was 4+40 hours and 55 gallons, that's WOT and top of the green RPM. Same setting in the Bo is 3+50 hours and 50 gallons. Go the same TAS as the 182 it would take 40 gallons in the Bo.
I have found there to be less maintenance with the Bo than the 182 over the first four years that I owned each one. The annuals on the 182 settled in at about $1,200 a year and the Bo has settled in at about $1500, same mechanic. But the 182 needs more during the year because they are not built as well. The Bo costs 50% more to insure, $1500 vs $1000 although I have the Bo insured for $10K more. I use less gas overall in the Bo because in the local area I'll run at 45% burning 8.5 GPH vs going top of the green most of the time in the 182 at around 12.5-13 GPH just because the 182 was slow at around 135-140 MPH indicated. The Bo is 10 MPH faster at the 45% setting. If you have the discipline to run the 182 at lower power setting you won't get smoked so bad on the fuel cost. I didn't.
When my wife and I looked at the Bo when we saw it at Schafer Meadows in the summer of 2005 my wife sat in it and said buy it. Turns out in the 182 her feet barely touched the floor and was always at least a little uncomfortable for her. In the Bo you sit on the main spar and short people like her can put her feet on that like a footrest. Sometimes it's the damndest things.
So you have to weigh what you're looking to do, not only in the mountains but all the other times too.

In the words of a good friend of mine, "I feel strongly both ways"!

My personal choice is an early 180, and that's what I have. It has the combination of style, handling, utility and performance I'm looking for. I've had mine for 15 years now and can't imagine anything being better. However, having said that, I know that other people have other mission requirements and other priorities so the later 180s, 185s or 182s (or even 206s) might be better for them.

The bottom line, as others have suggested, is to carefully define your mission requirements and then apply those requirements to the various aircraft you consider. If you follow this procedure the "right" airplane for you will come to the forefront.

Good luck in your search!

Bonanza Man wrote: I have found there to be less maintenance with the Bo than the 182 over the first four years that I owned each one. The annuals on the 182 settled in at about $1,200 a year and the Bo has settled in at about $1500, same mechanic. But the 182 needs more during the year because they are not built as well.

B Man, what year 182 did you own?

I've had my 58 182 for about three years now and my maintenance expense hasn't been much at all. Except for the usual oil and oil filter change around 25-30 hours, air filter cleaning, and small things here and there. And like I said earlier, my annuals been well under $1500.00 a year (about what yours was). Other than the firewall being a little fragile, I believe the 182 (early straight tails) are a pretty rock solid airplane. I'll be honest with you, but I haven't been into too many rough strips yet, but been into a pretty rocky field along the Owyhee River with no problems . Maybe I'm being too nice to my 182 .

But yeah.....on another note, the BO would be a great cross country plane also!! If I won the Super Lotto, a BO would more than likely be part of my aircraft collection. Is there much of a differance between the BO and a Lance?

What do you guys consider expensive insurance? Our 180 is not too bad, about $1800 for 75K. I am a low time guy, about 425 total and 250 tailwheel. The cost is in line with our Cherokee 180, about $850 for 35K.

It is cheaper than our old champ, that costs about a grand for 25k in coverage. (my dad wrecked it and filed a claim about 10 years ago, not sure how long that carries with you??)

How much does 75k in coverage cost for a 182?

lancef53 wrote:What do you guys consider expensive insurance? Our 180 is not too bad, about $1800 for 75K. I am a low time guy, about 425 total and 250 tailwheel. The cost is in line with our Cherokee 180, about $850 for 35K.

It is cheaper than our old champ, that costs about a grand for 25k in coverage. (my dad wrecked it and filed a claim about 10 years ago, not sure how long that carries with you??)

How much does 75k in coverage cost for a 182?

My 58 182 will be about $900.00 next year. That's insuring the hull for $60K. I'm a low time (about 200 hrs) pilot also.

I have over 1000 hrs in 182B's. Am IFR rated. 50K hull, land anywhere insurance was $920 last time arround. Comes up for renewal but now it is on my ranch in a hanger. Strip is 2200ft x 44 ft turf. wonder what they will say bout that.

Tim

lowflyin'G3 wrote:The only way you get shoulder room in these is to put in bubble windows. They give you a place to put your outside elbow and shoulder.

Hey George, have you flown a 182/180/185 with the bubble windows? (or, has anyone else) If so, how did you like them? I've thought about trying them, but wasn't sure about my view being disturted from the bubble effect (if that makes sence or is true). I dunno...

I guess there not too expensive (at least the last time I checked), so maybe worth a try?

(maybe I should be asking in another thread??) (don't mean to get side tracked on Mongo's thread here! )

I had a 67 182K, put 1000 hours on it over 7 years. Things just aren't designed/built as well, however I pay for that with a plane that has an empty weight about 200 pounds over the 182. For example we both have shimmy dampers on the nose wheel. Cessna's are infamous for nosewheel shimmy. If you own a Cessna you have now or have had nose wheel shimmy. Almost unheard of in the Bo, it's literally never talked about in the online groups. Nosewheel attachment is built like a 206, bullet proof. Bo prices, like everything else, are down right now. What's a 58 182 worth, $40-50K or so? That puts you in the ballpark, you don't even need to win a lottery. Older Bo's, say early to mid 50's are in that range. The S model, like mine, is a better starting point for a number of reasons....first year for the 520 and biggest cabin, lightest plane with the 520, gear strength upgrade, it's the same gear as on the Baron that year that weighed more than a ton more. You'll rip the wings off the plane before you hurt the gear. The Bo has always been certified in the utility category(4.4 G's vs 3. like many planes however the Bo allows utility category all the way to gross weight. Virtually no other planes do that.
The Lance is more of a comparison to an A36, that's the extended cabin version of the Bo that is referred to in Bo circles as the Piper Tailed Stretch Debbie. They both have the barn doors. The A36 is heavier than the short bodied Bo's(33's and 35's) and so is not as good for short takeoff and landing. The Lance will have a wider cabin and be probably 20 knots slower. Some A36's have club seating, some don't and some that do can be set up either way. Can't remember what the Lance's have.
A friend of mine has a 57 182, it's a lot lighter than the 182 I had. Almost like flying a 172 compared to the newer ones. I could see an older 182 as a second plane.

Bonanza Man wrote:I had a 67 182K, put 1000 hours on it over 7 years. Things just aren't designed/built as well, however I pay for that with a plane that has an empty weight about 200 pounds over the 182. For example we both have shimmy dampers on the nose wheel. Cessna's are infamous for nosewheel shimmy. If you own a Cessna you have now or have had nose wheel shimmy. Almost unheard of in the Bo, it's literally never talked about in the online groups. Nosewheel attachment is built like a 206, bullet proof. Bo prices, like everything else, are down right now. What's a 58 182 worth, $40-50K or so? That puts you in the ballpark, you don't even need to win a lottery. Older Bo's, say early to mid 50's are in that range. The S model, like mine, is a better starting point for a number of reasons....first year for the 520 and biggest cabin, lightest plane with the 520, gear strength upgrade, it's the same gear as on the Baron that year that weighed more than a ton more. You'll rip the wings off the plane before you hurt the gear. The Bo has always been certified in the utility category(4.4 G's vs 3. like many planes however the Bo allows utility category all the way to gross weight. Virtually no other planes do that.
The Lance is more of a comparison to an A36, that's the extended cabin version of the Bo that is referred to in Bo circles as the Piper Tailed Stretch Debbie. They both have the barn doors. The A36 is heavier than the short bodied Bo's(33's and 35's) and so is not as good for short takeoff and landing. The Lance will have a wider cabin and be probably 20 knots slower. Some A36's have club seating, some don't and some that do can be set up either way. Can't remember what the Lance's have.
A friend of mine has a 57 182, it's a lot lighter than the 182 I had. Almost like flying a 172 compared to the newer ones. I could see an older 182 as a second plane.

Yeah, I've got the shimmy damper on my 182 nose gear, so no problems there. I didn't realize the earlier BO's were selling for that little. When I think of a BO, I think of atleast $150k -$200k. I don't know why (something in the brian, I guess). I'm not sure what year it was, but I have about 1.5 hours in the right seat of a BO. I really liked the plane, but seemed heavy on the controls. It was very comfy, too. So I can see where it can be a comfortable long cross country plane. Especially for someone like Mongo wanting to fly from Indy to Idaho. The reason I asked about the Lance is because I have about 4 hours in the right seat of that plane, too. Lot's of room for a big guy like myself and I was happy with the performance and relitively easy to fly. But yeah, a little slower than the BO. Anyway, good talk here!