It's fascinating once again to see a thread, written by a fellow who states clearly early on that he is only interested in specific airplanes, and only tailwheel types, taken over by the trike drivers to justify their ownership of tricycle gear airplanes .

His question, guys, was whether he should buy a 180 or a 185. Nobody has any doubts that YOU made the right airplane buying decision for you. You don't have to justify it to the rest of the world.

182's and Bonanzas, etc, are great airplanes, no doubt.

But, what he asked about was 180 vs 185. Why not start ANOTHER thread on the merits of Bonanza vs 182? I'm sure it would be interesting as well.

As to the bubble windows--they work great, and do give you a little more room. THe biggest advantage to me is being able to inspect the wheel skis to verfiy position. The only down side I've ever seen to them is you can no longer open the side windows all the way open (as in up against the wing) and in VERY cold temperatures, they're a little harder to keep de fogged. I've run them on 170/180 and 185 aircraft, and will install them next time side windows are needed.

MTV

mtv wrote:It's fascinating once again to see a thread, written by a fellow who states clearly early on that he is only interested in specific airplanes, and only tailwheel types, taken over by the trike drivers to justify their ownership of tricycle gear airplanes .

His question, guys, was whether he should buy a 180 or a 185. Nobody has any doubts that YOU made the right airplane buying decision for you. You don't have to justify it to the rest of the world.

182's and Bonanzas, etc, are great airplanes, no doubt.

But, what he asked about was 180 vs 185. Why not start ANOTHER thread on the merits of Bonanza vs 182? I'm sure it would be interesting as well.

As to the bubble windows--they work great, and do give you a little more room. THe biggest advantage to me is being able to inspect the wheel skis to verfiy position. The only down side I've ever seen to them is you can no longer open the side windows all the way open (as in up against the wing) and in VERY cold temperatures, they're a little harder to keep de fogged. I've run them on 170/180 and 185 aircraft, and will install them next time side windows are needed.

MTV

I'll be the first to apoligize! I was actually thinking the same thing while and after posting what I have been writing in the previous post's above. I knew from the get go that this was going to happen and has been (as far as I know) good clean talk so far, not a couple of guys battling back and forth about a Bonanza and a 182. Trust me, I get irritated with threads that get way off base too, especially when they get into pissing matches, name calling and people slamming each other in an open public forum for no good reason (especially people that may not have ever met in person).

So anyway, I'm done talking about anything other than items pertaining to 180 and 185's on this thread . Unless someone else chimes in about a 182 and I have something productive to say

58Skylane wrote:

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! )

The club that I'm in in Nampa has a 182 with the bubble windows installed in it. If you wanna come check it out sometime I'd be glad to show it to ya.

mtv wrote:It's fascinating once again to see a thread, written by a fellow who states clearly early on that he is only interested in specific airplanes, and only tailwheel types, taken over by the trike drivers to justify their ownership of tricycle gear airplanes

WTF ? It's fascinating to see how quickly any given pot gets stirred up with a little too much testosterone sometimes.

If the original poster wants to re-focus the discussion on tailwheel-only airplanes and ask others to exclude any trike suggestions, then it is his sole authority to do so. The early 182 and 180 are nearly identical aircraft save for the tailwheel, and there was more than enough relevance to this fellow's intended mission to justify (more than person) bringing up the cost savings in buy-in and insurance.

Speaking of taking a topic over to "justify" their ownership of something... The original post didn't have anything to do with someone taking over the thread to discuss bubble windows, if I recall.

(Having owned 10+ tailwheel airplanes and 2 nosewheel airplanes I don't need to justify my ownership of a nosewheel, embarrassing though it may be. My current airplane was cheap and I needed it to develop a new product. I can hacksaw off that nosewheel soon enough if desired.)

We've already got you in a 182. One more page and you'll be in a Maule.

It's a classic recipe.

I think it's funny how these threads essentially become equivalent to asking "What plane do you own?"

Since I am lucky enough to own a 1959 180B, I'm going to follow the script and say definitely, get a 1959 180B! There's nothing better!

(kase apparently has one for sale). Hey, is that the actual plane that beat the Supercubs in the STOL contest at New Holstein?

Student BCP wrote:

58Skylane wrote:

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! )

The club that I'm in in Nampa has a 182 with the bubble windows installed in it. If you wanna come check it out sometime I'd be glad to show it to ya.

I'll take you up on that offer. Thanks!!

For now on, when I have a question not relating directly to the thread, I'll send a PM to the person that I have a question for ( ). Sorry, didn't mean to be one of the guys to get side tracked on this thread! Some of these people on this forum make this way more than it should be . I believe most of us are here on this forum for the same reason. To gather, transfer, and discuse information relating to all types of flying. If this thread has gotton way out there in left field for some, sorry! But I have not heard any negative comments from the original poster (Mongo)about telling us 182, Bonanza, Maule drivers to shut the heck up. Maybe he is taken in this extra info and keeping an open mind for now? Who knows.....

Damn, I got to get back to work!!

Wow . Sorry for the rant again!!

Let's get out there and fly and be happy!!

1SeventyZ wrote:We've already got you in a 182. One more page and you'll be in a Maule.

It's a classic recipe.

Actually, Mongo said he wasn't interested in a Maule

58Skylane wrote:

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.

1956 Cessna insured for 60K hull and all that 1 million liability stuff -- About $730 a year.More time doing mag check or hovering helicopters than many who read this web site or fly total. I really like my 182 and take it wherever I want -even where 180/185 claim
there "turf".Yes I've had all three 180/182/185 Cessna's--3-180's, 5-182's and 2-185's ,4-206's ,1 -207, 5-210's---4 Cessna twins etc.

Mongo wrote:Yep, I like them, but I just love tail wheel aircraft.
If it was up to the wife we would have a Mooney or Bonanza,she just want's to get there fast.

Opps!! I guess Mongo clearly states right here early on that he's pretty much only interested in tail wheel aircraft. Sorry

I enjoy watching these post turn around and I appreciate all input, so by all means continue.

Jeremy Milless (Mongo)

58Skylane wrote:

1SeventyZ wrote:We've already got you in a 182. One more page and you'll be in a Maule.

It's a classic recipe.

Actually, Mongo said he wasn't interested in a Maule

Since when does it matter what the OP specifies!!??

I change my vote to Bellanca Aircruiser.

(kase apparently has one for sale). Hey, is that the actual plane that beat the Supercubs in the STOL contest at New Holstein?

Actually it is. Landed in 193ft and take off 256 ft. Stock wing, no vgs, 82" prop, 3 mph wind, 2 hours of fuel on board and 40 lbs in the baggage. Just shows what good planes they are. I only have around 125 hours in type.

kase wrote:Actually it is. Landed in 193ft and take off 256 ft. Stock wing, no vgs, 82" prop, 3 mph wind, 2 hours of fuel on board and 40 lbs in the baggage. Just shows what good planes they are. I only have around 125 hours in type.

Kase, I'm seriously humbled by your flying skills! I have essentially the exact same plane. They are fantastic ships, but clearly mine needs an upgrade of the nut connecting the yoke to the seat!

Just goes to show what a great pilot can do with the stock wing. Awesome.

I'm flying a '75 180 and lov'in it . I've flown a number of taildraggers but this is a close to the silver bullet as I think I'll get. If you haven't taken a flight in one, offer to buy the pilot breakfast, you'll enjoy the ride. I think a 180 does well for a land plane but the 185 would handle floats better so the useful load isn't diminished. Me, I'm conservative, 'belt and suspenders' if you will. I like my 180's low compression O-470 S model (not all 180's are low compression engines). The versatility of burning autogas is a big plus for me. It comes in handy. If fuel prices climb or 100LL becomes difficult to get I can always burn autogas. Petersen doesn't have an autogas STC for the 185. The 180 serves me well. If you haven't read it, the "Cowboy's Guide to the 185" is a fun article. Here's the link,


http://www.skywagon.info/newsletter/A%2 ... %20185.pdf

TJ Carr wrote:The versatility of burning autogas is a big plus for me.

That's a big issue too when it comes to private ownership and you're the one paying the fuel bill. And an O-470 is a whole lot easier to hand prop than the IO-520/550 (yes, I have hand propped 520's before with three bladed props)if you're stuck out somewhere with a dead battery.

Gump

How much money are you willing to spend for style?

It is a serious question.

I pay a premium to have my 170B. A premium in price, a premium in insurance, and a bit of a premium in maintenance over a 172. Why? Only one reason. I've never bothered to put it on skis like I thought I would and the off-airport stuff I limit myself to could easily be accomplished in a tri-gear with a little caution.

I'm soul searching this question myself as I consider my next plane after this one - could happen next month, could happen in two years, depending on where the job takes me next. The probable mission requirements and budget dictate an earlier 182 or - God forbid - an early Bonanza or Mooney - not a taildragger. My soul says early 180 with the upgross wingtips and extended baggage How much am I willing to pay in purchase price and insurance for that? And when I am cruising the 700-800nm trips IFR will I be cursing the 180 and be wanting the 58 Bonanza instead? You betcha

Anyway, the chief benefit of the 185 over a 180 in my view is the HP. Faster cruise, shorter ground run loaded and faster climb especially if you are climbing on top for longer trips. If you aren't limited by the old hangar width you can get a wingtip STC for an upgross to 2950lbs (though the CG can be tricky near the top of the envelope) and extended baggage that can make a 180 a darn-comparible utilitarian airplane for a lot less money than a 185, even with the cost of the aftermarket mods.

1SeventyZ wrote:We've already got you in a 182. One more page and you'll be in a Maule.

It's a classic recipe.

Well, he should really consider a 300hp C195. More class than a 180 or 185, close performance and a bit more elbow room for those cruises over the breadbasket states - so long as you have ANC headsets

I have a straight tail 182 and I don't have any mods added to it. I take it into most of the Idaho back country strips. If you haven't looked there are some videos you can check out here: www.youtube.com/skybobb I will haul a load and get you in and out.