The factory WB sheet for my 53 model (#68 off the line) shows it at 1520#. No individual weights shown for each wheel, so I'm guessing this was what #1 weighed and they just used the same number for the rest.

Jump ahead to 1991, here's a W&B sheet showing 1645#. Wow, a 125# increase. Of course, full paint, radio gear, K engine, whatever, plus almost 40 years of dirt & grime-- it all adds up. The current W&B sheet from 2002 shows 1651 (with the CG at 34.9").

Near as I can tell, all the revisions were calculated, not weighed. I'm sure there's been some mods done that weren't included in the calculations. I'm fixing to install a set of door stewards, plus fueling steps & handles, and as soon as I'm done with that I'll weight it and see what I come up with. I'd like to think that it'll be less than that 1650-ish figure, but in reality I'm hoping that it's not even more.

In my 14 years on the shop floor I weighed roughly 50 airplanes and, no exaggeration, not once did one get lighter. Generally speaking calculated weights err on the lighter side.

An easy way to get more useful load for your floatplane is to weigh the airplane on wheels then use the float manufacturers "weight affidavit" to do the W&B, its legal and effective

gbflyer wrote:Get one new enough to have a cowling with 1/4 turns on the cowl. The rest of it is trivial in my opinion. I HATE those old cowls with 5 million screws in them.

My 53 model has skybolt camloc fasteners on the cowling. They have their own frustrations but I will say they are a lot quicker than screws. Don't know if I'd make a buy / reject decision based just on cowl fasteners however.

hotrod180 wrote:

gbflyer wrote:Get one new enough to have a cowling with 1/4 turns on the cowl. The rest of it is trivial in my opinion. I HATE those old cowls with 5 million screws in them.

My 53 model has skybolt camloc fasteners on the cowling. They have their own frustrations but I will say they are a lot quicker than screws. Don't know if I'd make a buy / reject decision based just on cowl fasteners however.

Thats cool that someone fixed yours. All the ones we ever had were a mismash of screws, nutplates, tinnermans, over sized screws, and patched up cracks. The ordeal to uncowl becomes an issue of not looking under there as often as one should.

I think Cessna had it right with the through 1952 C120/140/170 hinged upper cowls, but when they did away with the plenum type cooling they did away with the hinged cowl also. Unfortunate, the supercub kept that type of arrangement right up through the end.

I think the little ring behind the spinner is a PITA, I've discovered that I have to get those four bolts in first before fastening the cowls to each other or the boot cowl, or else it's a real struggle. I think they did away with that ring in later years, I don't know that it does much except maybe keep the nosebowl opening stiffened up.

I still wonder why the "Buy a lite model" comes up and why one would look away from better factory improvements made on later ones say early/mid 60's. Yes all airplanes are good, There are a lot of 180 owners early, mid and late models out there and on here. Nothing against any in this shared experience. The 180 market seems to have a lot of interests in the recent years and now. Look how many have changed owners. Before the 60's Cessna made a few hundred per year. Then only made less than 200 and even less than a 100 in following years up til end of production. A friend of mine is in the market for a 180 right now. The value is good on a 180 and prices are a 50K spread give or take. In doing reasearch he said he was looking at the lite one's. I asked what is a lite one. He had herd the late 50's are the ones to get. I asked why. He did not know why but that is what he was told by other's. He knows there are the first year 180's out there under 50K and does not want one for resale purpose and just a few years later had more improvements and the price is worth getting a later one. He wants more fuel for sure which started in 1962. This lite model comes up when you get out of the 50's and seems to be part of the conversation. I asked they all start to weigh about the same and why not look for one that has improved fuel system,cowling,exhaust,flaps,trimwheel,center stack,fuel caps and amount g/w increase more stc mods, door hinges, structure etc for the same price range as a lite model. He did not know and just was going off of what he had herd. So this is why I asked weight on early ones to say mid one's.. Seems like being there were so many built before 1960 and so many had them flown them it is the one to have. Seems like it is a hear say myth in today's GA world with all the gismo add on's avalible. Now with the so called early lite one's with 80k prices a 80K H model makes a lot more sense. If he could only find one now he may be the new owner. Anyone here who bought the red& white H model from skywagons listed at 79K.?

hotrod180 wrote:I think Cessna had it right with the through 1952 C120/140/170 hinged upper cowls, but when they did away with the plenum type cooling they did away with the hinged cowl also. Unfortunate, the supercub kept that type of arrangement right up through the end.

I think the little ring behind the spinner is a PITA, I've discovered that I have to get those four bolts in first before fastening the cowls to each other or the boot cowl, or else it's a real struggle. I think they did away with that ring in later years, I don't know that it does much except maybe keep the nosebowl opening stiffened up.

The cowling on my H takes all of 10 minutes to remove and replace with about 24 or so 1/4 turn fasteners, diaper pins to disconnect cowl flaps and two screws connecting the air intake. There are a few maintenance items that I have handled through the cowl flaps with the actuator clevises disconnected and the flaps opened up. It's a great design.

I am amassing my 180 wants and desires too. Hopefully pulling the trigger by the end of the year. Ya'll have been an amazing source for excellent (no BS) on the type, and I thank you for your contributions!
Chris

The other things you'll likely see on an "old" one are multiple diamond patches covering cracks on the top of the wings. At some point the sheet metal got heavier or maybe better QC on the alloy because the "new" ones aren't as prone to that.

The gear box castings were also inferior, but thankfully most have been wrecked enough times that they have the PPonk machined boxes.

The lack of fuel is another one thats been touched on. An old one with one of those big engine conversion is very short - legged.

rcwflyer wrote:I am amassing my 180 wants and desires too. Hopefully pulling the trigger by the end of the year. Ya'll have been an amazing source for excellent (no BS) on the type, and I thank you for your contributions!
Chris

Buy an early one and spend $200K on it and you then have everything listed and more...I did not see the unhappy wife that reminds you about your bad spending habit list above though...

AKT

I hear ya! Fortunately, my wife flys too. So hopefully it will be an easier sell.

The caption states that the yellow late model had a bigger engine. Uh oh!

Red plane had the WingX...I am betting by looking at it

The Red plane does look to have longer wing to me as well. I would think the wing would make more of a difference than the engine, technique would play a big role as well. Interesting comparison though, disregarding technique..... the Wing-X makes a big difference.

gunny

The Wing X does make a tremendous difference in float operations. So does most any other mod which increases wing area.

And, as noted, pilot technique is also huge on floats.

Both of these effects are more pronounced on floats than on wheels.

MTV

Gunny and MTV I agree with the both of your comments. Another part of the equation is also the weight which plays a major part of how fast one will accelerate. Look how fast the red one came out of the hole.

Looks like the red one is on shorter floats (maybe 2870s) than the yellow one (maybe 2960s) which would allow it to rotate to a higher angle of attack at a lower airspeed without dragging the heels of the floats. The red one also looks to be much lighter based the free board of the floats, the yellow one is riding much lower in the water, Hard to know how much of that extra is airframe empty weight and how much is fuel and payload. Clearly the red one is the plane of choice in this instance, but that performance may be at the expense of maximum legal useful load. Way to many unknown variables to say objectively what made the difference in performance, Early or late the trick is to pick a plane that matches the mission, even if that mission is to modify the plane just because you like to change things.

Tim

.

I bought mine 5 years ago and I intentionally got a late model 180 because of some of the features it has... Like 84 gal of useable fuel and a 6 pack instrument layout. It's a 1980 180K.

When I bought it, it weighed 1820 with a max gross of 2800 and it was about as stock as it could get. I've done some mods, put a bunch of newer avionics in it, and redid the interior and now it weighs 1798 with a 3190 max gross. That's about 6 hours of fuel and I still can put almost 900 lbs in it. I'm pretty happy with it.

I'm sure I'd get thumped in a short takeoff contest by somebody with a bigger engine or bigger tires but that's not really what I use it for.

Quickdraw1 wrote:The caption states that the yellow late model had a bigger engine. Uh oh!

The red airplane has everything, I mean everything except the pilots seat removed. There is enough fuel to get around the lake once, I have heard the pilot even goes on a diet before the contest. I have also heard that it has a p ponked engine. He has been winning for years, and practices all summer.