Hey Tim

Yes, they will be there, but that was supposed to be kept a secret, to reward those that endured those vast wastelands of Nevada.

Gary

Mongo:

There are probably as many opinions as members. I own my second 180.

I agree with Gump and MTV. For all around utility, it is really hard to beat a 180.

You would probably be well advised to visit skywagons.com, which is a website maintained by Joe Stancel. He brokers a lot of 180 / 185s. He details all models of 180s through 185s from 1953 through the end of production and goes into every change made from beginning to end. It is a good education on the differences. In my mind, the only real advantages of later 180s or 185s were the higher gross weights (that presumes that you worry about the gross weights with 180s, which many don't) and bigger engines. For my money, you are dollars ahead to get an earlier version with an engine upgrade.

I have 4 kids and have done a fair amount of airplane camping with my boys. I second the comment that "if you can get it in the door, you can take off". Four years ago we went to Oshkosh from NM with two of my boys. There was literally not an ounce of available space (full tanks, cooler full of beer, 8 person Coleman tent, etc...). Our field is at 4,800' and went directly up to 12,500' to get over the mountains to the East and to take advantage of the winds up high. The 180 just loped with no problems.

A few of the 180 upgrades I would want on my bird:

1. I like the earlier model versions because they tend to be slightly lighter (don't have luxo sled interior, less avionics, etc.).
2. I love the bigger engine on these early models. It makes them jump off the ground. The fastest 180 / 185 I have ever seen was a 59 180, with the PPonk conversion, injected and the higher compression pistons. It outran everything in site. But he spent a lot of time (and money) rigging it fairing it and beefing up the engine. Normally speaking the later model 180 and 185s were slightly faster (but a lot more expensive).
3. Akroguy lives on my airfield and in his 180, he did the conversion taking the battery from the baggage area to the firewall. That then allows you to put in the extended baggage from ceiling to floor (you can fit massive amounts of stuff). Add a cargo net to the mix and you are ready to haul in the luxo car-camping gear!!!
4. I have the Atlee Dodge jump seats. If you don't have to haul the kids, the seats fold up and leave you even more room.
5. Oversize tires to flatten out the bumps.

A lean, mean early 180 thus equipped is pound for pound, one of the best utility wagons ever to fly!!! You won't regret it if you pull the trigger.

Good luck in your search!!!

I think I will go with a 180 for sure, now I just have to wait.
What is considered an early model, which you all say are a bit lighter?

Thanks for all your input.

the first year or two didnt have a baggage door which is well worth having especially with extended baggage. Im not sure what year they really started gaining weight but any of the ones in the 50s seem to really perform.

3 180's, all old ones, and a '76 185. All working aircraft, not used to go to Sunday breakfast with the boys.

The 185 had a real tired engine, so it wasn't overly impressive. Empty, it felt like a 180 with half a load. It was for some reason just a tick faster and easier to handle on the ground.

After working and fixing them, we learned a few things. The first recommendation is avoid the pre-61 (I think) models with the old cowling. Those big cowl flaps really take a beating and the million screws to deal with is a real pain in the ass. Guys get frustrated taking them off and putting them back on, so screws are left out, nut plates broken, and damage is done. The huge, floppy cowl access doors are always looking for a way to fall apart. If you do find one that isn't all cracked up with repairs on top of repairs, count yourself very luck. Also, the dual exhaust system the old ones have sucks, frankly. The entire system is junked - up with individual header pipes, risers, dual mufflers, etc. all put together with a bunch of leaking clamps. Again, you may find one someone has gone through and if you do, that's a real bonus. Remember, a lot of them are more than 50 years old and like MTV said, most have been well used at one time or another.

Yes, the newer ones are a little heavier, but I'd get used to it.

Then there is the engine issue. Guys get along fine with the pre-K engines who have them, but you will take a beating if you ever go to sell it.

The old panels don't have a lot of room for radio gear. Some have been converted to center stack. The visibility over the panel on the older ones is very good, almost as good as a 170.

The old ones have a pretty small useful, I think around 850 pounds is pretty standard. It is hard not to go over gross with much fuel on board.

Inter-granular corrosion and/or pulled rivets is a common issue in the gearboxes. Look for that. Around $5K per side (depending on the shop) to replace them with the good machined 6061 PPonk boxes. Cracks in the firewall where the engine mount bolts come through are also common. Corrosion hidden in the vertical, beat up elevators and horizontals, jack screw issues...all stuff to look for that really gets expensive. The best one we ever had was the one that had been wrecked the most times...had lots of new parts.

There are some good buys on 180's out there. A good utility airplane. It is said to have really put Cessna on the map.

gb

Mongo wrote:I think I will go with a 180 for sure, now I just have to wait.
What is considered an early model, which you all say are a bit lighter?

http://skywagons.com/modelchgsweb.html

Good reference. Weight went up in 57 and again in 64.

I used to have a C170B with the Avcon conversion. I regret selling it, but it was necessary at the time. I now enjoy having a C180H instead of a C185 because of all the advantages mentioned in the previous posts. Its very nice to be able to burn mogas and hand prop it if required. The reduced fuel burn is appreciated too. My plane has never been commercially operated whereas most 185s have been. If you really need the extra power of a 185 go for it. The skywagons can be fitted with various size tires, floats and skis to handle any mission. They are very versitile planes that have held their value well.

I am planning on installing skis this winter for the first time in many years... woohoo.

Mongo wrote:Man who wouldn't like to have a 195, but I think I would have to take my own life if I ever bent it...

Did someone say Tits..............

Hey hey now !! We're supposed to be focussing on 180/185 here !!

But see, that's the whole beauty of threads like this. Let me tell you a short story. When I was in the market for a plane, all I was interested in was a taildragger, too. Just like Mongo, I wanted a 180/185, but also thought about a Supercub, Scout and even considered a Maule (yes, really). But after consulting with some of my friends from Idaho (some of the best backcountry pilots in the lower 48 [Cub/Scout drivers] mind you) and my budget, I quickly realized that those models were not in the game for me just yet. So, with some good advice from one of the best Cub Drivers in Idaho I focussed on looking for an early model 182 and with his help and help from his Brother In Law, I was very lucky to find an awesome 182 for a killer deal at the time. So far it has been a perfect plane for me and has introduced me to some of the best flying in the world, right here in my back yard. My plans are to keep the 182 for a long time to come. Anyway, that's it for now.........

I think just the '53 model didn't have a baggage door, my 54 has the door.

My 54 has the Avion panel mod, I am not sure if that makes the glareshield a different height or not. I am 6'4, and my view when taxiing is blocked by the hood, not the panel. I am not sure when that changed, I have heard others complain about seeing over the glareshield.

Have fun with whatever you choose!! If you get close to North Dakota, we can go for a ride in mine if you want.

A 195 would be the bees knees, though

Boats, airplanes (especially floatplanes) and wives...

The two happiest days in your life are the day you get 'em, and the day you get rid of 'em.

My second '56 had an R engine, with upgraded cowl, cowl flaps, and single muffler exhaust system. Required upgrades in my book. The old "T" yoke was still in place, but I managed to stuff a decent IFR panel in the thing, and the view was completely unobstructed with the low glareshield. That airplane served me well for several thousand hours up north as my main personal transportation, and Lower 48 in Sonoma County as my family truckster, and I leased it to the sheriff's dept I was working for as the dept's fixed wing aircraft. IFR/VFR, day/night, it worked hard hauling detectives, VIP's, and prisoners all over the west coast.

A true joy to fly.

Gump

A friend of mine used to say "if it flies,floats,or f#*%s...rent it." He seems to have alot in common with Gump.

One thing to remember about different year models of 180's: While the early model 180's are indeed lighter, there are several very good reasons they are lighter than later models. The primary one is: Less structure. As far as interiors and other "stuff", most of that stuff has been changed several times in most of these airplanes, and is more a function of who did the work, rather than the model year of the airplane.

As an example, the very first 180 (1953) is identical to its predecessor, the 170 from the door post aft.

My all time favorite 180's were early 60s machines. I flew an early 64 model, which still had the two side window fuselage-that changed mid year 64. That was a great airplane in many ways. Later panels and cowlings (and the man is right--don't underestimate the importance of those cowlings--and last I checked, a NEW cowling from Cessna for a 180/185 was $26,000) on these airplanes, most had the R engine to start with, higher GW, but still not the 185 fuselage, so not quite as heavy as later ones.

Things like instrument panels can be upgraded, but it's pretty tough to change the structure much.

Again, one of the reasons for the increase in weight of the later 180's (the last 180's made shared the structure with the 185) is structure, and sometimes more structure is a good thing, particularly in a load hauler which is intended to carry your family.

MTV

Gotta say, I love my 185. Had it for 6 months or so and it just gets better and better. A bit of a work out though.

-Brad

My $.02
The newer 180, 185, and I'll add the 206.
Best damn work horse, Truck out there bar none for there size.
Like MTV said, if you are going to use them, maybe structure not weight is what you need to look at.
You can use and abuse them more than just about anything flying!
You can make them do some pretty incredible feats!
You can do some super stupid things and they will save your ass!
Not pay attention at the right time and then they will slap your ass real hard!!
? my only question is why would you want one if you didn't have to fly it to make a living??
They fly just like they are a truck, Rock solid and Heavy.
That said, if they make you feel good buy it and fly it!!
Smile all the time you're in it.
Have fun GT

This thread is getting good!!

Now we have a guy that flys a 195 for fun asking why someone would want a 180 or 185 if they didn't plan on working it

Just kidding M6RV6--I wish I had a 195!!!

GT, I want to take a ride with you in that 195 next summer!

Now the only reason I have the 195 IS
I've got it. I wanted it, it looks good to me, and it sounds good, I'm damn lucky to have it, And there aren't that many out there.I could go on and on.
Would I have it if it was the only thing I could fly Nope!
But I'm spoiled. I know it!
But thats OK with me.
Z Maybe when you come up to Red this winter, we can work out a ride, It's in a Hangar at 63S so the snow is plowed all winter.
Smilin
GT

Can we please get back to 180/185's??? Let's focus guy's!



I'm going to chime back in on 182's here in a bit, if we keep this up.........

Snce we're not focused.
Yeah my favortie family ride would be a Twin Otter, maybe turbine Single Otter or Porter if I wanted to skimp on space.
A 200 series with -34's, four blade props and really big tires and a set of CAP 12000's sitting around for going fishing in the fall. Full IFR panel, de-iced and bench seats for careful balance of friends and beer to maximize the backcountry experience.

I mean if we're gonna do it, we might as well just blow the roof off this bitch.

lowflyin'G3 wrote:Snce we're not focused.
Yeah my favortie family ride would be a Twin Otter, maybe turbine Single Otter or Porter if I wanted to skimp on space.
A 200 series with -34's, four blade props and really big tires and a set of CAP 12000's sitting around for going fishing in the fall. Full IFR panel, de-iced and bench seats for careful balance of friends and beer to maximize the backcountry experience.

I mean if we're gonna do it, we might as well just blow the roof off this bitch.

That's what I'm talking about!!

There's gentlemen at Caldwell that has a Twin Otter on floats park at Toledo (KTDO) for now. I think he's going to try and move it to Caldwell one of these days. Cool plane, just wouldn't want to feed it's extremely hungry azz!!