When I was shopping for a Wagon, I had many "learned" people tell me to only look at an H or a J or newer. Many citing all the shortcomings of a 53 or a 54 with an A or a J, Mccauley brakes, straight gear, etc... A good friend told me not to overlook the early ones, citing lower empty weights, and lighter controls.

I bought a '53 and have never been disappointed, while nearly all my time is in my '53, I have flown late model 185's all decked out. While the early early ones originally had some lesser components, most of them have been updated by now. With Cleveland brakes, later model gear legs, 520's, and fiberglass cowlings, there aren't many legit downsides to an early 180.

If 180's and 185's have the same wing area and same horsepower, which one will perform better?

About now I expect plenty of people will chime in and profess the 2550 gross weight of the originals and their smaller tanks make them basically useless in the real world. But, most of us do NOT live in Alaska where we might want to carry 80 gallons of fuel, or not want to make two trips to pack out a camp. I live in Idaho, I used to venture out with full tanks all the time, loaded with camping gear, guns, and a cute little copilot, then I got a fuel tank at home, now I venture out with all the gear, the Girl, but with 30 gallons of fuel. Even flying to Alaska, I was not too inconvenienced by 55 gallons usable. Clearly I don't have the fuel to fly the coast to Alaska, and that might be cool, but I don't like to sit that long anyway.

So, those of you that would only look at an H model or newer, why?

What is it that makes the early model 180's lighter, are they structurally different. I have a 170B and I'd be very reluctant to add anything to the structure, for example wing extensions.

My experience mostly pertains to float flying. I had a 59 180B with the 0-470K in it and a McCauley C66. It was a great float plane and compared to my 185 much lighter on the controls. Both my 180 and current 185 have Wing-X but the 180 would really float (glide) compared to the 185. Even in BC the smaller fuel capacity of the 180 was only a minor inconvenience, it never stopped me from getting anywhere. All that said my 185 can get a bigger load off the water and over the mountains and it's a great plane too. In a float application in BC here where we're dealing with DA on a lot of lakes, I don't think I'd be interested in a late 180, basically 185 weight and 180 power.

FWIW my AME put it this way of the early 180, even very early examples. They're great as a private use plane, even private float ops, but he felt for commercial ops, especially float ops the later airframe stood up to that abuse better.

Fraser Farmer wrote:....... I don't think I'd be interested in a late 180, basically 185 weight and 180 power......

Bingo.

If 180's and 185's have the same wing area and same horsepower, which one will perform better?

What is your definition of Performance? Speed, light controls, long range, heavy load carrying, STOL performance, or simple trainer. The answer as usual boils down to what is the mission because what plane you pick can have a big impact on what you are doing with it. I have a 180C with wing X and Sportsman on wheels and floats. It is based at Lake Hood. We are limited by fuel and load capacity. We can get by with it but a 185 would be a much better fit for most of what we would like to do. Pick what fits you mission and pocketbook and be happy.
DENNY

Any 180 is better than no 180. The only problem with a 180 is that is isn’t a 185. They’re all better than Maules.

Curious how many of you with any model Skywagon acquired 7+ years ago could afford to buy it today.

I would venture to say that for the large majority of us buying an airplane is a want not a need, it's a crime of passion over practicality. So go with the make & model you are passionate about, I'm sure it will more that serve your "needs"

Zzz wrote:Curious how many of you with any model Skywagon acquired 7+ years ago could afford to buy it today.

I couldn’t afford my wagon when I did but it, never mind today.

I bought my first 185f 76 in1981 for 40000.i was working as mechanic for 9 bucks an hr .now have a 77k 180 for almost 30 years paid 87ooo us . I would not trade for a 185 i have flown many different wagons. Have worked on all years would not have real early one seen to many problems with them

Zzz wrote:Curious how many of you with any model Skywagon acquired 7+ years ago could afford to buy it today.

Yes, prices have gone up for 180's, but then again everything is more expensive.
I've owned my 53 180 not quite 12 years.
I'd guess to buy a comparable one today I'd have to spend (at least) double the price.

"Afford to buy" is a relative expression--
if you want something bad enough, you can generally find a way to make it happen.
Whether the financial trade-off (old car, crappy house, etc) is worth it is a question that only you can answer.

Just about any old plane is a better investment than say a new truck, camper, boat. Old planes more or less track inflation.

A typical wagon is worth about 10x it’s original price, and money is worth 10x less now than it was back in the 60’s.

Ross4289 wrote:Just about any old plane is a better investment than say a new truck, camper, boat. Old planes more or less track inflation.

A typical wagon is worth about 10x it’s original price, and money is worth 10x less now than it was back in the 60’s.

Used GA aircraft pricing has significantly outpaced broader inflation in the US, at least in the trailing 5-6 years. Even talk of “correction” or market softening doesn’t seem to affect pricing much. Link.

Of course, there is a difference between list price and final sale price, which is hard to get visibility on, but the nice aircraft usually have a documented cost basis and sell quickly. Delusional junk peddlers with basket case airplanes see those list prices and match accordingly. Tough landscape to navigate presently.

Zzz wrote:Curious how many of you with any model Skywagon acquired 7+ years ago could afford to buy it today.

I figure the money spent on a plane purchase isn't really spent, but rather tied up in a plane for the duration of your ownership. As long as you don't do anything too stupid you'll at least get your money back when you're done but probably your money plus inflation. The cost is in the maintenance, fuel, insurance and maintenance of a hangar. The same actually applies to the hangar ownership.
So could afford? Yeah. Would I be willing to jump in at these prices without having a decade of ownership and knowledge of aircraft values over time? Probably not. Would my wife let me at this point? Probably not.

20 years ago or so, the late vs early model was a much more valid question. Today with the last one ever built approaching 45 years old, and earlier examples reaching their 70's, they all have the potential to be overweight, over molested, paperwork nightmares.

Yes, a '53 has the potential to be the lightest, but potential is the key word. Likewise, an '81 could possibly be the least molested or lowest timed. Neither will be a cream puff in everyone's eyes, and either could be a lemon for the wrong buyer.

When 'personalizing' mine, I tried to keep it light within reason, while maintaining creature comforts. One of the things I swapped out was the green crushed velour with diamond concho seat fabric for leather.
I maintained the light original round backs, but ditched the skirting. At the time the upholstery shop owner offered up a set of late model articulating seats for trade free of charge. I declined but he was persistent and kept commenting on how the round backs made it look so old . Guess it didn't occur to him that it really was old and some of us are a-ok with that.

I think one of the key issues in a person's perspective of affordability is knowledge. When you go in with 'eyes wide open' it is far easier to discern weather a purchase of this size makes financial sense (it never does).
Conversely, if you were active in this segment of aviation when flying examples cost half or a third of what today's market brings, that knowledge makes it hard for you to justify the cost, but the reality is that a nice pickup hauling a good fishing boat, sand rail, or race car will cost more.

Given the potential for what aviation has to offer the select few that commit to it, it my belief that we are still getting a pretty darn good bargain for our dollar.


Take care,
Rob

I actually still think these planes are quite cheap considering their capability, long term value proposition, and particularly the more or less fixed supply of them in small numbers.

My neighbor just bought a $170k pontoon boat, loaded pickups and SUV’s are $100k and campers can be similar bucks and they will all be worth pretty much nothing in 20 years.

A new loaded Cirrus is now 1.4 million and it’s a similar sized aircraft but it can only do one thing. (Get you from one airport to another airport). A skywagon can do almost any mission but it does none of them perfectly.

A new 206 is also somewhere north of a million.

“Used GA aircraft pricing has significantly outpaced broader inflation in the US, at least in the trailing 5-6 years“

185’s are about the same ask price as they were when I bought 48T in 2021.

But if they are really outpacing inflation, that is super good news if you are wanting to buy one.

If you bought a plane at the recent high in about 2023 and are trying to sell now, tough luck.

The argument between the early vs late 180s is, as others have noted, somewhat specious nowadays, considering as Rob noted, they are ALL very old, and most are well used.

That said, Cub180 hit the nail on the head......180s gained weight over the course of their production, and yes, some of that was undoubtedly, fluff. But, some of it was beef up. Gross weights went up, which tells me there were PROBABLY structural changes, etc......

But, for example, I witnessed a similar argument about Scouts vs Super Cubs the other day......Very different airplanes, but because both have tailwheels and tandem seating, these guys figure one is "better" than the other, because......

The point is, buy whatever floats your boat, and don't judge somone else's choices.

Price: I once owned a 66 H model 180, with floats, wheels and retractable skis....paid $22,500 with a fresh annual, and IFR equipped. That would have been in about 1985. Try anything even vaguely similar today.

It was posted that someone has seen too many problems with the very early ones. So I ask, specifically what?

It has also been mentioned twice that its possible that the later models are "beefier" or "heavier duty", until this thread I had never heard that theory. Are the fuselage skins thicker? Are there more ribs? are they thicker ribs? Are the struts or their attach points bigger? Are the spars thicker? more plys? Does anyone have data that would suggest a 53 fuselage is any different structurally than up though an H model?

My '53 weighs 1712, weighed, not theory. That is with 185 legs, 6 bolt wheels, 29" bushwheels, steel axles, float kit, 10" tailwheel, full IFR panel, fiberglass cowl (not so light), dual exhaust, 86" 401, PPonk gear reinforcement, extended baggage. It has a steel right side window frame, but original seat frames, very spartan interior but not bare.

I know of other with pretty stock planes in the mid 1600's with big tires.

These planes are all old, I don't believe the age matters. Unless it was not taken care of, beaten like a red headed step child, or has corrosion.

Problems I have seen on early one ic smoking rivets in gear dox area. On wing main spar any where there are flush rivets . Seen the main carry through front spar with sheared rivets. Who checks there with head liner in place .new models have high shear rivets .top of wing get cracks then they put diamond patches on . The newer ones have thicker shins .my 77k weighing in at 1805 in scales . 520 3 blade Hartzell sea planes mount heavier exhaust. Cog would be to far forward if not for 14 in tail wheel 1 1/8 stinger 185 tail rudder centering kit . My plane came for factory with a 185 horizontal stab . I reskinned it in 2010 with 025 metal I made shins by vacuum bagging also heavier. My plane has about 5500 hrs I worked it hard for 20 years and it is tight. Anyone who rides in it makes that comment. Replace right hand outer gear casting my self a long time ago . Took me 16 hrs and a lot of cuts on my arms all rivets like original.i do not like cherry max like I see on a lot of planes