I guess the honest answer is that I don't really need to be on either skis or floats. But here in Maine, both are incredibly attractive options. Owning a plane is about having another way to explore this beautiful state I live in, which is also why I'm looking for a 4 seater as my family likes to see it too. There is no way that I could afford (either in purchase or insurance) amphibs, it'd have to be straight floats for me. Good news is that it's hard to live in Maine where you're not within spitting distance of a lake. I have a great place to dock my plane that's just 7 miles up the road if I elect to go that route. Where I keep the plane in the winter, I cannot operate on straight skis. The way we have to plow, there's no way to get around the snowbanks.

I had the seaplanes west float kit put on my 1973 182P. total cost, including install, painting the small pieces, fly wires (or v brace) fueling steps and handles,everything - including the Seaplanes West heavy duty engine mount - was $15,000 including labor. 2 years ago. Park Rapids Aviation here in MN specializes in converting 182's to floats. I don't think you can do the kit without the mount. You would want that mount for seaplane ops anyway. I agree with Mike, assuming you can make due without skis, I think you'd be money ahead putting the float kit on. Especially considering the motor you have already. It would make an awesome plane out of it. buy a snowmobile for the winter. You can go when the vis is bad that way.

The classic mistake...buying an aircraft before learning to fly tailwheel (or floats, or aerobatics, or IFR, or loosing your medical, or having a family). The good thing is that a C-182 is just about as strong a value aircraft as there ever was....

There is a STC to convert the few "fast back" 182 with the swept tail to a taildragger with a straight tail. I should know, we have done one. In fact, it is sitting about 100 feet or so from my shop door. The main gear conversion is the easy part because it uses off the shelf parts. The tail however is a different animal. You have to find a good straight tail and you have to replace the rear bulkhead in order to accept the stinger spring for the tail wheel. The one we did wound up using the bulkhead out of a wrecked 185. All in all, it made a great airplane, but after sinking the money into it the owner knows that there is no way he could re-coupe his investment.

Brian.

Brian, can you tell me approximately how much that tailwheel conversion cost the owner?

$15k to do the Seaplanes West conversion is an eye opener. I think I might be able to find a 180 with a timed out motor and a float kit, and then upgrade it to a Pponk motor and in the end maybe only have spent nominally more, and if I ever want to sell it, will have an actual 180 to sell instead of a 182 taildragger.

Rhyppa, I just sold my sled and trailer cuz I'm so hooked on this flying thing! Tough to fit the whole clan on my sled.

Pundy...you have got to sell that 182...to me I like 182's and my favorite is the C model, nice lines IMO. Methinks you should post a few photos of it.

Perhaps you should trade it in on a PA-28-180 and live out all your backcountry dreams I know where a good one is...

How much does it cost to convert a 182 to a 180. I got a line on a mint 59 C182B that I can buy for next to nothing. Im only interested in it for that purpose.

I can look in my paperwork to see how much it cost the customer on our end. I do not however know how much he spent on his own.....Best bet there would be to ask him.....I believe he is a member here so I might be able to get him to comment here also.

Brian.

Just looked at the old Invoice.....

Now keep in mind that the owner of the airplane worked under our supervision in order to save on some of the labor costs.

We charged him $7000.00 in Labor....plus some of the parts the total invoice was just over 8K.

I do not know how much more he spent in the cost of the STC and the parts that we did not buy. If I were to guess I would say he probably has 10-12K into the conversion. Would have to confirm that with the owner though.

Brian.

I recently talked to a gentleman that finished a conversion just as you guys are discussing. He did the majoity of the work under the supervision of an IA. His assesment after it was all done....Next time he would just sell the 182 and buy a 180 and he would have been further ahead.
WW

Perhaps you should trade it in on a PA-28-180 and live out all your backcountry dreams

IMO, if you buy a Cherokee for back country you will have the wrong plane.

I assume you meant a PA 18 180. Right?

Two points for this thread...

1 - it's almost invariably more cost effective to sell what you have and buy exactly what you want than to convert what you have. You can find someone who will do just about anything you want to your plane, the cost is the issue. I've been on the check writing end of a fairly involved engine conversion STC and it would have been far more cost effective to buy one that someone else had done. That said, if you do it yourself (or oversee the work being done) you know what you've got, that may justify the added cost.

2 - Is there really a wrong plane? I prefer to think of it as the right plane at the right time. Am I correct in understanding that you have about 100 hrs total? If so your 182 is a great machine to build time and experience in and you aren't likely to exceed its capabilities anytime soon (outside of expanding into float and ski ops). I'd argue that you'd do best by continuing to fly the 182 for a while but take advantage of every opportunity to fly and log time in your buddies' cubs and 180s. Regardless of when you would switch to a 180 your insurance will go up, but the more time and ratings you have (not to mention time in type) the less of a differential it'll be.

Vick you are correct, I have 100 hours at this point. But, as I'm prone to arguing both sides of the point, aside from the insurance cost, doesn't it make more sense for me to be flying a taildragger if that is indeed what I want to be flying eventually? Also, don't you feel it's smarter to own the plane you want in the long run to 1. get familiar with it 2. get the bugs worked out (ie be paying to repair and upgrade it instead of a plane you know you'll be selling anyway?)

Pundy wrote:Vick you are correct, I have 100 hours at this point. But, as I'm prone to arguing both sides of the point, aside from the insurance cost, doesn't it make more sense for me to be flying a taildragger if that is indeed what I want to be flying eventually? Also, don't you feel it's smarter to own the plane you want in the long run to 1. get familiar with it 2. get the bugs worked out (ie be paying to repair and upgrade it instead of a plane you know you'll be selling anyway?)

If you can afford it quit debating it, do it.

I know, I know, can you tell I need to talk things through?

Ok, one last question. Am I nuts to be looking at a 180 with 10,000 hours on the airframe? It has seen time on floats and skis.

The insurance cost (of you switching into a 180) quite probably just made your decision for you. The amount of avgas and annuals that will get vaporized by that insurance bump will harm you far more than the (admittedly awful) disgrace of flying a nosewheel aircraft in public for a few years.

I would predict that just about every highly and medium-ly experienced member of this forum will tell you the 182 is more than enough for you for the next couple of hundred hours or five hundred landings. That's your family sitting in there with you, and a groundlooping a 180 in some remote place with no cell phone signal can mean safety problems for the wife and kids.

Then, I would direct you to my friend 182STOL, who will cheerfully demonstrate for you how a 182 can get on and off the ground as short or shorter than a 180. There is no back country strip based on length that a 180 can get in/out of that Bill and his JATO 182 cannot. Of course if you are flying off basketball size rocks the taildraggers have an advantage in prop clearance. Look at BCP member 58 Skylane's beautiful 182 with big tires. I'll bet that his airplane can operate off the majority of rough back country strips where a stock 182 cannot.

There will still be places where the 180's and Cubs go that you cannot. But not that many. I am guessing you can have many years of fun and family adventure in fairly desolate back country operations with a 182 equipped with a STOL leading edge cuff, VG's, and big tires. Learn how to get the most out of your 182, both in technique and the good modifications that help you get the most out of it. For older 182's, the Sportsman STOL has a large number of people happy with it. VG's are loved by the majority of people too. An inexpensive upgrade boasting 100% pilot satisfaction in the red text below

Pundy wrote:I know, I know, can you tell I need to talk things through?

Ok, one last question. Am I nuts to be looking at a 180 with 10,000 hours on the airframe? It has seen time on floats and skis.

Float flying is probably the hardest on any plane, there is no give to the landing gear is there? 10,000 is alot of time on an airframe add float time to that.

Have you priced insurance for your low time add a tailwheel, floats, you might want to be sitting down. I'd guess you'll be between $3,000-$4,000 if your hull value is up there in the $90k range.

Pundy wrote:Vick you are correct, I have 100 hours at this point. But, as I'm prone to arguing both sides of the point, aside from the insurance cost, doesn't it make more sense for me to be flying a taildragger if that is indeed what I want to be flying eventually? Also, don't you feel it's smarter to own the plane you want in the long run to 1. get familiar with it 2. get the bugs worked out (ie be paying to repair and upgrade it instead of a plane you know you'll be selling anyway?)

No doubt, you can't go wrong either way - and as others have pointed it, if you can afford it go for it. My point was simply that it's not like you have a machine you've already outgrown. And it's not like further experience in the 182 will detract in any way from transitioning to a 180. Ask AKT how his considerable experience in his 182 translates to flying his 180, I'll bet he'd say it has only helped him.

Pundy wrote:I know, I know, can you tell I need to talk things through?

Ok, one last question. Am I nuts to be looking at a 180 with 10,000 hours on the airframe? It has seen time on floats and skis.

You looking at the orange 180? If so, it is set up nicely but it's basically got a runout engine and prop. And do an NTSB search on the tail# - it had some rough time on floats. Factor all that in along with 10k on the airframe and I think he's about 25-30k overpriced on it, looks cool otherewise though.

Vick, that indeed is the plane. Can you tell me what website you use to search N#'s that will tell you damage history?