I have gone back and forth for a year on the idea of changing my nosedragger around. I love my airplane and feel like I know it well and would be very reluctant to part with it but I can not shake the tailwheel disease. I have found very little that is current on the internet and have PM'd and searched a number of BCP members with little luck.

The current upgrades and modifications that we are all following on a couple of C-180's on this forum are not helping me manage this tailwheel disease.

I have also discovered the "Skywagon" club would never let me in the group but that does not bother me.

Does anyone have a current STC and is performing these routinely? cost ? issues? I have a 1959 "B" model so it seems like it would be a good canidate. Thoughts?

Have you seen this yet?
http://www.sillsaviation.com/id9.html

mountainmatt » Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:18 pm

Have you seen this yet?
http://www.sillsaviation.com/id9.html

Thanks Matt- I did find this link earlier and found it to be about the only current info. I was planning on contacting them for additional details.

Baer Aviation in Montana holds the STC. It's around $2000 for the paperwork, and the total cost after scrounging parts comes to between $10-15k. The easiest way to do it is to find a tailcone from a 180, 185, or 188. Have the parts yard pull the entire assembly including the cables. I plan on converting my 57' 182 within the next few years.

I too investigated doing this conversion on a real nice 59' 182 that I could aquire from a friend for a good price. Unless you have a donor aircraft for the parts, its totally cost prohibitive to do the conversion just for the parts alone not including the labor involved. If you were rebuilding a wreck and incorporated the conversion at the same time it might work out ok. Really to be perfectly honest, unless you really need a tail dragger for skis, just enjoy your 182. If you want to go play in the dirt, you can go just about everywhere the 180 goes on wheels if you have some big tires and a big nose wheel. A whole heck of a lot cheaper too. I have a friend thats on a budget and has his 58' 182 all modded out with big tires and a wing cuff and it goes everywhere no problem. At least places that good judgment would dictate.

Really, very few of us needs a taildragger. As you have discovered, it's a disease that many of us can't shake, and there's no point in trying to rationalize it, like most of the costs in flying. It's a love affair, otherwise we wouldn't bother.

I think a 180 is more attractive than a 182...by a long mile. That is, until you're staring a big crosswind in the face. I've found the tailwheel Cessnas to be harder to manage on the ground when rolling out in a crosswind than say, a Cub or Champ variant. Your mileage may vary based on skill and experience.

As others have said, a conversion is expensive. The converted 182 will never be worth as much as you put into it. It may actually cost you less to buy a Champ or Taylorcraft or something to have fun in, and honestly that's where the fun is-- lightweight taildraggers. Then you'd have 2 planes! If you've got money though, and your dream is to have a 180, do it. It's not like there's a shortage of 182's and you're ruining it.

I know two guys in MN that do those conversions. JR at http://www.aerostructuresllc.com/ 218-280-3348 out of Bemidji area and Dave with Aero Specialty in Foley MN 320 968 6504. Both really good guys, I've done business with both. Both very experienced with converting a 182 to 180 and experts at sheet metal work. They might have some used parts too.

You might send a PM to one of our own.....dprathe
He's very talented with a wrench and converted his 1956 182 into a TW
I'm certain he would be a wealth of information.

Why don't you sell the 182 and then buy a Maule??

58Skylane » Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:58 pm

Why don't you sell the 182 and then buy a Maule??

You are killin me

I converted a 175 and Like it. This is a personnel choice and yes the182 will do about anything the 180 will do. I did it for prop clearance and ability to turn around on narrow runways in the back country also like not having concerns of putting the nose gear in hole and damaging prop which I have done. The 1959 model would be my choice for this. It won't be cheap but neither is fixing up a 180 that has been to Alaska, wrecked cobbled back together ridden hard and put away wet.

Many good posts here concerning the pros and cons, everything is a trade off. If this is what you want, go for it you will like it.

Monte

I'm slowly getting closer to completion of the Cessna nosewheel-to-tailwheel conversion STC-PMA kit. The 172 and 175 will be first, then the 182 will be added (my parts are being designed from a clean sheet to be good up to a 2650 lb. gross). As I've mentioned previously, a very large amount of time, money and energy has been spent to make this a faster, easier, and less aggravating process than previous conversion systems. A very well qualified structural engineer has calculated the main landing gear attach fittings and associated structure (commonly called "gear boxes") will have three to four times the strength and durability of the OEM Cessna parts. The cost will be significantly less (both in parts and labor) than using OEM Cessna parts.

DBI wrote:

58Skylane » Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:58 pm

Why don't you sell the 182 and then buy a Maule??

You are killin me

Sorry I couldn't hold back.

EZFlap wrote:I'm slowly getting closer to completion of the Cessna nosewheel-to-tailwheel conversion STC-PMA kit. The 172 and 175 will be first, then the 182 will be added (my parts are being designed from a clean sheet to be good up to a 2650 lb. gross). As I've mentioned previously, a very large amount of time, money and energy has been spent to make this a faster, easier, and less aggravating process than previous conversion systems. A very well qualified structural engineer has calculated the main landing gear attach fittings and associated structure (commonly called "gear boxes") will have three to four times the strength and durability of the OEM Cessna parts. The cost will be significantly less (both in parts and labor) than using OEM Cessna parts.

I was looking for a post by you flap. These STC's pass around so often that it's hard to keep up with them. I certainly romance the 182 conversion too.

Emory,

Bill(EZFlap) was kind enough to spend 2 hours with me, when I was passing through the Valley over Thanksgiving weekend, to show me all the parts he has designed to allow the correct end of a Cessna to rest on the ground/snow. Excellent quality of workmanship, excellent design work, he has designed the parts to streamline the process, using tricks to make up for the task of doing the job after Cessna assembled the plane rather than taking the necessary parts of the plane apart to start from scratch again, even designing around existing structures and fabrication, to make this a very user-friendly process. I would recommend waiting for the job to be done through the STC process, which would make the work require less labor. I know we all want something done right now, though.

Didn't you used to be associated with a 175?

macktruckfarm wrote:Emory,

Bill(EZFlap) was kind enough to spend 2 hours with me, when I was passing through the Valley over Thanksgiving weekend, to show me all the parts he has designed to allow the correct end of a Cessna to rest on the ground/snow. Excellent quality of workmanship, excellent design work, he has designed the parts to streamline the process, using tricks to make up for the task of doing the job after Cessna assembled the plane rather than taking the necessary parts of the plane apart to start from scratch again, even designing around existing structures and fabrication, to make this a very user-friendly process. I would recommend waiting for the job to be done through the STC process, which would make the work require less labor. I know we all want something done right now, though.

Didn't you used to be associated with a 175?

Agree on the merits of STCs and mister Bill. On the 175, I have never had one. Jaerl (the guy with the winged dog Avatar) had one but he had to give it away.

Thanks everyone for providing some really good info on this potential conversion. Lot's of good info from the BCP community out there. Interesting, everyone that I have talked to that has had this conversion done has zero regrets and would do it again. The reasons I am considering this conversion are not all completely fiscally justifiable- but this again is general aviation.

First and foremost I love my 182, low time airframe, NDH, and most of all 100 hrs on a new PPonk and 3 blade scimitar. Just can not get over that smooth power of the 0-470-50 and when I shop for a C-180 w/ a PPonk it tops $130k - yikes

The more romantic and less justifiable reason is I got my tailwheel endorsement last fall and just got caught up with the "tailwheel thing". Also, please stop the threads on these C-180 upgrades and overhauls, I have a sense it is going to cost me a ton

Ahhh it is just money...us "site" workers can afford anything

EZFlap wrote:I'm slowly getting closer to completion of the Cessna nosewheel-to-tailwheel conversion STC-PMA kit. The 172 and 175 will be first, then the 182 will be added (my parts are being designed from a clean sheet to be good up to a 2650 lb. gross). As I've mentioned previously, a very large amount of time, money and energy has been spent to make this a faster, easier, and less aggravating process than previous conversion systems. A very well qualified structural engineer has calculated the main landing gear attach fittings and associated structure (commonly called "gear boxes") will have three to four times the strength and durability of the OEM Cessna parts. The cost will be significantly less (both in parts and labor) than using OEM Cessna parts.

George Thomas old 59 Float Plane is first in line for T/W conversion from Bill Berle. I've got to repair firewall and stringers .Bill Berle is trying hard to keep it more simplified and accessible.It just so happens that this candidate is mine and needing work on front end.

I was having lunch at the Barnstormer at GXY on Saturday, when an old straight back 182 came in, with humongous mains and a slightly smaller nose gear, so prop clearance over a huge rock wouldn't have been a problem, and the airplane sat level. Did a quick N-number check--it was registered in Couer d'alene. Didn't get a chance to visit, but the pilot's GF was sure a looker!

Cary