I am starting this thread as to not take over another where this conversation started. It is to talk about Cessna 182's verses 180/185's, modifications, and well what ever else I feel like talking about with them.

In response to AKflyer182B

akflyr182b wrote:If you are not going to be using skis or out pioneering new strips. The 182 is good short field performer, for half the price of a 180. With 8.50x6 on the nose and 8.50x10 on the mains it makes for a very capable machine. My strip is 650' long and the 182 works well with 1/2 tanks 2 people and light on gear. A 180 is an awesome machine but don't pass up the 182 as it to will also get the job done.

That is so awesome, that has long been my dream to have my own place in Alaska where I could land at my house. I am really hoping to move up there soon. Getting back into flying is a big part of it, I have been out of it for quite a while now.

I was supposed to solo Sept 13th 2001, needless to say that didn't happen, I was in the Navy, and with everything that happened there I wound up not being able to finish it, and since then one thing or another has got in the way even though I have a bunch of hours racked up.

I am putting every dime I can away right now towards buying a 182, I have been finding 64-69 models for less than 50 grand frequently, and the setup you have on yours is about exactly what I had in mind.

I had also thought about getting a 206, but that is a lot of airplane for a first airplane. I know the 182 would cost much less to operate.

There is a couple 205s on barnstormers right now in the 50K range they don't perform quite like a 206 but they are really roomy.

Typical 182 approach for sure... ADD that power in the final moments to arrest sink !!! Then kill it and land. I just leave the flaps where they are. BIG aero brakes... very consistent.

The only thing wrong with a 182 is the nose gear is kind of weak, I think the 205 has the stronger 206 style nose gear.

I really like the 180 or 185 with a stretcher door. Really like the King Katmai for a nose wheel configuration. I love my Maule, but if $$$ were no issue I would have a 185 or 206

G'Day

ccurrie wrote:There is a couple 205s on barnstormers right now in the 50K range they don't perform quite like a 206 but they are really roomy.

You know I had never really thought about the 205, I am going to have to go check them out.

OregonMaule wrote:I really like the 180 or 185 with a stretcher door. Really like the King Katmai for a nose wheel configuration. I love my Maule, but if $$$ were no issue I would have a 185 or 206

G'Day

I have always loved the Maule's too, the problem is I got to sit in one and I could hardly get in or out of it I am so big.

I guess the question to ask, is how closely related are the 205 and 206?

It is my understanding they quit making the 205 in the mid 60's I'm wondering how hard it is going to be to find parts for them.

Found this 205 last night, I really like it, thinking it would be a good first bird, it is too bad I am probably a year out from being able to afford it.

I have a Cessna question for the wise and experienced...
If the weak point in a 182 is the firewall... which may wrinkle when plunking the heavy nose down, what good does changing to a big tire and larger fork do?
Am I missing something? Is the firewall attach section replaced and beefed up during the conversion.
In Alaska, it is common to see a bit of radiator hose around the strut to keep it extended more for ground clearance. So, the expensive tire, wheel, fork and labor.... Do you still risk buggering it all up if you land on the nose? Somebody enlighten me while I eat my lunch. Thanks !

flightlogic wrote:I have a Cessna question for the wise and experienced...
If the weak point in a 182 is the firewall... which may wrinkle when plunking the heavy nose down, what good does changing to a big tire and larger fork do?
Am I missing something? Is the firewall attach section replaced and beefed up during the conversion.
In Alaska, it is common to see a bit of radiator hose around the strut to keep it extended more for ground clearance. So, the expensive tire, wheel, fork and labor.... Do you still risk buggering it all up if you land on the nose? Somebody enlighten me while I eat my lunch. Thanks !

Consider yourself enlightened... You hit the nail on the head really. Having the old 182 for 10 years was a treat but I was always afraid of the nose wheel/firewall until one day...well, lets just say it happened. The big tire / big fork combo is great and works as the larger tire is better for beaches, backcountry etc. The 182 does its job! Its an awesome aircraft. Even more so when it is souped up and retro fitted to be a real BC flyer.....but...it still has that damn wheel in the front, limiting you on some places that we like to fly. Not many honestly, but then again, a lot depending on your flying and mission.

BigNick-, I too am no little guy (6'2" 210) but the 180 fits ME nice. Even with my 295 lb father in front that puts me way out of CG but with his arm around me it works. The 182 was better. Personally, I like the fit of the 180/185 much better as it "fits like a glove" so to speak. The 182 felt big inside and now even bigger when I climb into one. You discuss a 1st plane scenario...get a 182 and learn how to fly. I mean really fly. SIt of your pants type flying. Once you have a good handle on that, get your 180/185. Its going to take you at least 5 years and 500 plus hours to get to that point. There are always good deals out there. Just my 2c

AKT

Plain and simple a bigger tire will roll over a bigger hole without falling in, or bigger bump, or softer sand, plus it gives you better prop clearance as does the rad hose trick. But when you do find a big enough hole to swallow your big tire you are still screwed.

flightlogic wrote:I have a Cessna question for the wise and experienced...
If the weak point in a 182 is the firewall... which may wrinkle when plunking the heavy nose down, what good does changing to a big tire and larger fork do?
Am I missing something? Is the firewall attach section replaced and beefed up during the conversion.
In Alaska, it is common to see a bit of radiator hose around the strut to keep it extended more for ground clearance. So, the expensive tire, wheel, fork and labor.... Do you still risk buggering it all up if you land on the nose? Somebody enlighten me while I eat my lunch. Thanks !

If you want a little engineering take of it, I'd say look at impulsive forces.

You're making a good point that the weight of the aircraft and strength of the firewall dont change...
The bigger tire's sidewall and longer HD oleo are able to absorb the energy from the landing more slowly, and dissipate it over a longer period of time. That means the metal feels less stress overall, directly proportional to how long it takes for that momentum to be transferred. So what do I mean:

Suppose it takes 0.5 second for a stock 182's front oleo and tire sidewall to soak up the nose's momentum from a certain landing. Then if an 8.5x6 nosewheel with bigger sidewall and a longer HD oleo takes 1 second (twice as long) to soak up that same nose momentum, then the stresses transferred to the firewall will only be half as much. It's an oversimplified example, but that's the theory. It could make a big difference.

aktahoe1 wrote:
BigNick-, I too am no little guy (6'2" 210) but the 180 fits ME nice. Even with my 295 lb father in front that puts me way out of CG but with his arm around me it works. The 182 was better. Personally, I like the fit of the 180/185 much better as it "fits like a glove" so to speak. The 182 felt big inside and now even bigger when I climb into one. You discuss a 1st plane scenario...get a 182 and learn how to fly. I mean really fly. SIt of your pants type flying. Once you have a good handle on that, get your 180/185. Its going to take you at least 5 years and 500 plus hours to get to that point. There are always good deals out there. Just my 2c

AKT

That is some pretty sound advice. I really need to get myself the opportunity to sit in a 180/185 and see how it fits.

There are a lot of things about that air frame I like such as the manual flaps ect, I do know where I can buy a 185 project right now, but it is an airframe with no engine. So it would be a ton of $$$ to get it flying again, but it would be exactly how I wanted it.

I will probably wind up starting with a 182, or possibly a 205/206 Sometimes I see the P206 for a decent price.

Ultimately I want to have my back country bird which is still the undecided, and I want a P337 Riley Rocket for doing cross country flying.

flightlogic wrote:I have a Cessna question for the wise and experienced...
If the weak point in a 182 is the firewall... which may wrinkle when plunking the heavy nose down, what good does changing to a big tire and larger fork do?
Am I missing something? Is the firewall attach section replaced and beefed up during the conversion.
In Alaska, it is common to see a bit of radiator hose around the strut to keep it extended more for ground clearance. So, the expensive tire, wheel, fork and labor.... Do you still risk buggering it all up if you land on the nose? Somebody enlighten me while I eat my lunch. Thanks !

A good way to mod a 182 with bigger tires.

flightlogic wrote:I have a Cessna question for the wise and experienced...
If the weak point in a 182 is the firewall... which may wrinkle when plunking the heavy nose down, what good does changing to a big tire and larger fork do?
Am I missing something? Is the firewall attach section replaced and beefed up during the conversion.
In Alaska, it is common to see a bit of radiator hose around the strut to keep it extended more for ground clearance. So, the expensive tire, wheel, fork and labor.... Do you still risk buggering it all up if you land on the nose? Somebody enlighten me while I eat my lunch. Thanks !

Mine (1959 Cessna 182), which you saw in Sedona, has damage history of the collapse. The firewall was replaced and the larger nose fork with tire put on.

For the original posters post -- I think you should look for a straight tail 182 over a mid-60's. I have flown them both and I am biased. The straight tail 182's are a 180 with the wheel in the front and less money. A great first airplane.

I will miss mine once it's sold..

Terry wrote:

flightlogic wrote:I have a Cessna question for the wise and experienced...
If the weak point in a 182 is the firewall... which may wrinkle when plunking the heavy nose down, what good does changing to a big tire and larger fork do?
Am I missing something? Is the firewall attach section replaced and beefed up during the conversion.
In Alaska, it is common to see a bit of radiator hose around the strut to keep it extended more for ground clearance. So, the expensive tire, wheel, fork and labor.... Do you still risk buggering it all up if you land on the nose? Somebody enlighten me while I eat my lunch. Thanks !

A good way to mod a 182 with bigger tires.

I love it!

How much did it cost to have it converted?

A bunch of work is required to do the conversion, so it is not cheep.
I think a lot of the conversions you see were done after the nose gear collapsed.

Terry wrote:A bunch of work is required to do the conversion, so it is not cheep.
I think a lot of the conversions you see were done after the nose gear collapsed.

I can see that. I am going to run down to see my buddy who has the 56 182 and spend some time sitting in it with out him in it and see how coumfy I am.

If I am more comfortable by myself in it I may look at getting a square tail and running it until I have a bunch of time racked up, then swapping it over to a tail dragger instead of selling it and starting over. I don't want to get a plane, spend the money putting a GPS and radios in it to just sell it later.

I need to be IFR equipped because I will be flying back and forth to Montana with it. And well hopefully Alaska

I have a question for the A&P folks here, Would it be possible or legal to throw a square tail on a 1960 C182 I have been looking at a few and they appear to be the same body as the 180/185 just with tri gear and a sweped tail.