I keep kicking around the idea of doing the tail wheel conversion on my 182.
I have done a 172 in the past and lots of other sheet metal projects. Labor is free and I probably have time and space this winter.
I'm also pretty good at scrounging parts and can probably do it relatively less expensive then new parts.
I would really like to be on skis again but not in a trike.
My 182 Is a straight up bad ass bird with the big pponk motor. I could never afford a 180 with a big motor. Also a motor I assembled myself is appealing to me.
One idea has been buy a cheap 180 with an airworthy motor and transfer my pponk motor to the 180 and stock 470 into the 182 and sell it.
Does the STC cover skis on the tail wheel conversion? Long props? Who has the STC? Are there more then one?
I think a few of you have Td 182 so speak up please.

Its still a 182. Ski/float/accessory issues. Better off with your 180 engine swap idea IMO.

One of the big issues, as I understand it, is that it is getting hard to find a low time Skywagon that has not been wrecked, rebuilt, beat half to death, etc.

If you build a 182 taildragger conversion, you might wind up with a lower time or less banged up airframe.

I'm not nearly an expert on 180's or 182 conversions... one of the far more experienced mechanics here might know of something that makes a 182TD still not functinoally equal to a 180.

There is a company in Montana that has the STC for the 182 conversion.

The parts for the 172 conversion I was developing were also going to be usable on the 182 conversion, but that is on hold for now.

I know lots of people that prefer taildraggers...but why would you prefer a taildragger skiplane? Trike skiplanes have lots more flotation, and can handle stuff that taildragger skiplanes get stuck in...

I have a tailcone and stinger I would sell cheap if you decide to do it.

I'm off to the races, so it will be short for now. I work at aircraft structural repair in stevensville, mt. Just finishing up a conversion on a Cessna 182D. Very nice airplane, but it is a lot of work. Not sure if the owner would want to do another or not. I know he has accumulated some parts. Just got out of paint and being assembled. New 88 inch prop, sportsman stol and vgs. Structurally speaking it is like a new airplane. Can give more details but need to get to work at the moment.

Richard

First thing I'd do is toddle down the ramp to the FSDO and visit with them about field approvals for things like skis. It seems to me that, though the thing would still be technically a 182, since skis are approved on the 182 and that this machine is now effectively a 180 that they MIGHT consider a field approval to install skis per the 180 TC. Maybe. Worth a shot. Same for props?? Maybe, but then again, with that engine, a three bladed prop should have short enough blades to qualify on the 182, but still pull fine on the front of a "180".

On the other hand, if all you want to do is fly on skis, the 182 does make a decent ski plane....just be careful with the nose gear. Nose gear unto itself does not imply that it'd be a poor ski plane. The only concern I can envision would be the sorta frail nose gear attach.

MTV

About five years ago, I purchased the Baer Aviation STC ($2K) to convert my '56 C182. I had a low time airframe (3250TT; NDH) and a nice low time O470L (300TSMOH; Penn Yan Aero OH), so a conversion seemed to make more economic sense than finding and buying a comparable C180 (then around $80K+). Most of the parts and advice came from Peter at Skywagon City (RIP). I did almost all the work myself (except for bucking rivets) under the supervision of my A&P/IA over a period of six months or so working evenings and weekends. The total cost (not including labor) was around $12K net after selling my nose gear, main gear and tail-cone. When all was said and done, I had around $60K invested in the airplane and owned what I thought (for all practical purposes) was a nice C180. I can't think of anything about the finished airplane that made it less useful than or inferior to C180 (except it would always be a C182TW). Though not included in the Baer STC, parts and approvals for float and ski kits are readily available. I think one key to making the conversion practical is finding a complete C180 tail-cone from a salvage yard. Converting a C182 tail-cone would, in my opinion, be a nightmare. Fortunately, the C182 straight tail main landing gear bulkheads are already set up for C180 gear bracket and hardware, so that makes the job a bit easier. You'll still need a heavier floor section over those bulkheads (salvage), a new belly skin (salvage or new from Cessna) and a variety of other reinforcing brackets and pieces that can be purchased or fabricated. Though not for the faint of heart, it was more of a grind for me than a technically difficult project. I'm not a particularly good wrench, so I'm sure anyone with a bit of mechanical talent would have an easier time of it than I.

I gave this option serious consideration and evaluation about three years ago for my 1959 182B. In the end, I finally determined it was more cost effective keep my 182 as -is and invest the money I would have spent in avgas.

I know someone with a 180 tailcone, stinger, gearbox, legs, wheels...the whole shebang that might be willing to sell it (he won't part it out tho)

PM if interested.

I bought a 172 that had been modified by an outfit in Maine called Twitchels. There are often ones that come up on Barnstormers for sale. I am not sure why, but it seems to make the value hard to recapture when these mods are made and often you can get the plane cheaper when you buy one rather than building one.

However, if you have a plane in mind to modify that has been your steady ride for the past years and you're comfortable with doing the work yourself or with the help of an AP, then this could be a real nice way to get the plane you ultimately want.

obxbushpilot wrote:.. often you can get the plane cheaper when you buy one rather than building one.
.....

This has been my experience. Nothing wrong with a converted nosedragger- look at all the PA-22/20's out there. I think they might even outnumber the original PA20's! I owned a nice C150/150TD for about 6 years, and have seen a number of C172TD's. I've seen a couple straight-tail 182's that were converted to tailwheel gear, and they were both very nice. But it might be cheaper to buy one already done than do it yourself.

Thanks for all the ideas.
I have never flown a trike on skis. I have heard they are really challenging to turn very well. I'm also not very confident in the stresses that nose gear can take on skis. I know take it to smooth places you say but as all you ski plane pilots know "it looked smooth." Lol
I can get some early model straight 180 legs for nothing but I wonder is 185 gear is a must for skis. Pretty rare I work on a 180 that has original gear

PAMR MX wrote:Thanks for all the ideas.
I have never flown a trike on skis. I have heard they are really challenging to turn very well. I'm also not very confident in the stresses that nose gear can take on skis. I know take it to smooth places you say but as all you ski plane pilots know "it looked smooth." Lol
I can get some early model straight 180 legs for nothing but I wonder is 185 gear is a must for skis. Pretty rare I work on a 180 that has original gear

Actually, if you learn to turn them around, a tricycle gear plane on skis turns as well as most tailwheel planes. Gotta get the weight off the nose ski.....

I share your concern for nosegear durability.....and failure there is really expensive and difficult to repair.

As to 180 gear, it depends on what model year the gear is.....there are a few different "flavors" of 180 gear. I think later gear would be fine. Later than what??? Not sure. In any case, I wouldn't be afraid of most good 180 gear on a TW 182, since those are going to be lighter by definition.

MTV

mtv wrote:..... In any case, I wouldn't be afraid of most good 180 gear on a TW 182, since those are going to be lighter by definition. MTV

"Those" being the 182 taildragger? Please explain the lighter-by-definition comment.

Early to mid year 180 gear is lighter than any stock 185 gear. And, either is lighter than the tri gear removed.
The very late 180 gear is the same as 185 gear, I believe.

MTV

I would be surprised if 182 gear is lighter than 180/185 gear, the taildragger gear seems longer.
FWIW here's the 180 landing gear rundown:
1953-54: ("aft gear") p/n 0741001-1 (LH) and -2 (RH)
1955-56: (3" forward) p/n 0741001-3 & -4 (.650" thick)
1957-63: p/n 0741001-5 & -6 (.700" thick)
1964-on: p/n 0741001-7 & -8 (185 gear) (.730" thick?)

hotrod180 wrote:I would be surprised if 182 gear is lighter than 180/185 gear,

What I said was that any of the TW gear is going to be lighter than the tricycle gear. I think that's what you're saying as well, as I read it????

Yes, the main gear legs are a little longer, but that nose gear and tire are pretty heavy, particularly when you consider the attach structure as well.

Maybe.

MTV

mtv wrote:........ but that nose gear and tire are pretty heavy, particularly when you consider the attach structure as well. ...

Oops, forgot about that nose gear.

I know this is an old thread but I'm looking for some up-to-date info on this topic; Does anyone know if the STC is still available?

I'm looking at buying a 1956 182 Skylane (not an A or B) that needs a complete restoration, though all the parts are there. It's been sitting for 16 years in a farm field & it'll cost more than it's worth to get flying again, I'm sure

I'd like to do the TW conversion since we're looking at moving to an area where we can build a grass or gravel runway & the plane needs to come apart entirely anyway, but I can't find any info on the STC online (other than this thread).