Im in the process of airplane shopping, as im sure most of us are to one degree or another, and ive come up with a question regarding the gear height of early 182s.

From what i've gathered, In 1956 the 182 was tall, like they just moved the gear legs aft on a 180 and bolted nose gear to the firewall. Then in 1957 the gear got 4ish inches shorter and continued getting sorter as the years progressed.

With respect to prop clearance, did it decrease as the gear got shorter i.e. the whole plane got closer to the ground? or did it get better as the gear got shorter i.e. main gear got shorter while nose gear remained the same thus increasing the nose up AOA at rest.

Apologies if this has already been covered but i did look before posting

Thanks in advance
SD

The '56 is indeed the tallest, for that year only. The gear was lowered but remained tall(ish) on the '57 thru the 1960 "C" model. Lots of these in the backcountry with larger nose wheel forks and tires. Provides great clearance especially if you service the nose strut to the upper end of the scale.

The 1961 "D" model was the only narrow body 182 with the "low" gear which people generally despise for backcountry purposes even though the wider-1962 "E" models and sub. had the same gear and again with larger tires and nose fork offer decent clearance. Many visit all kinds of dirt and grass strips with only the wheel pants removed . Later they changed to tubular gear instead of spring-steel and you still see those in the backcountry. 182's seem to just work well.

3 blade props help too if absolute ground clearance is the goal but may not be necessary for most ops.

I have an E model (62). It is a bit of a battle to keep the prop out of the grass. I've flown earlier and later models, and they definitely have significantly more prop clearance (inches). The earlier models also don't try and tattoo my forehead....the wing is up higher.

I pretty much solved most of my prop mowing/gravel crushing problem by doing two things: 1) More air in the strut (people have referred to me as the 181.5 because of the low tail I keep in the summer). 2) I also install a rubber plumbing coupler (from Home Depot) to keep the strut extended 3" higher than the bottomed out position. The combo works well, although the takeoff attitude is pretty nose high. I also believe folks when they say the strut may be more vulnerable when extended more, so I do everything I can to make sure the tail is practically dragging on the ground on a rough or soft strip like Soldier Bar or Fish Lake (aft CG, full nose down trim on roll out).

It keeps the left side of the plane from turning green, for the most part, and reduces the yearly prop dressing a lot.

I have 2ea.1956 Cessna 182's and it is 4 inches higher than the 57 model.A lot of the early Serial Numbers had both 180/182 gear boxes installed at factory. I still prefer the 1956 182 over the 180 in many ways,Insurance, utility, Shorter Takeoff, Better ground handling in strong cross winds.I also own 3 more 182's of various years and conditions.I consider all after 1956 models(un altered) "low riders" -because of there lower ground clearance .1956 high gear -Best of the Breed

Thanks for the input folks, pretty much confirms what I was thinking. I'm still a little ways from being able to pull the trigger on something but I think I've narrowed it down to the 56 high gear 182 due to:

ground clearance
useful load
takeoff/climb performance
available power
cruise speed
stability as IFR platform
insurance
acquisition cost
trimmable stabilizer

I am a little leary of the "glass jaw" nose gear but confident that pilot ability/training/experience will make that no more of an issue than anything else. Any other glaring pros or cons that I missed?


SD

I've actually measured from the center of the spinner to the ground on a stock 56 compared to a stock 66 and the difference was only about 1"??? The mains are higher on the 56 however the nose gear isn't so the distance between the prop tip to the ground is very similair on both models. I also remember the tail cone of the 56 was much higher than my 66 which also makes me think the difference is only at the mains. I didn't see much advantage of the 56 for slow taxiing around rocks and gopher holes. What am I missing? The performance difference is so minor between the 56-59 and mid-sixties models that it's almost un-noticable(don't know about the 60 &61 models). I like the sexiness of the early models but that wide cabin, camloc cowling fasteners, better door/window latches, LR fuel is pretty nice...

The difference might be in the in-between years then. Mine is a few inches lower than the square tail I compared it to, and my strut is kept extended quite a bit more.

66skylane wrote:I've actually measured from the center of the spinner to the ground on a stock 56 compared to a stock 66 and the difference was only about 1"??? The mains are higher on the 56 however the nose gear isn't so the distance between the prop tip to the ground is very similair on both models. I also remember the tail cone of the 56 was much higher than my 66 which also makes me think the difference is only at the mains. I didn't see much advantage of the 56 for slow taxiing around rocks and gopher holes. What am I missing? The performance difference is so minor between the 56-59 and mid-sixties models that it's almost un-noticable(don't know about the 60 &61 models). I like the sexiness of the early models but that wide cabin, camloc cowling fasteners, better door/window latches, LR fuel is pretty nice...

Wrong on all counts 66 sky lane . The belly of the fuselage is a good 5-6 inches higher on 56 than your 66 low rider .I have 2 1956's 'a 1959 and a 1964 and 1967 and more . Performance is a mile apart from early straight tail 182's to the after 1962 and on. Been there done that

Perhaps a better way to evaluate gear legs is to measure direct distance from fuse skin to axle attach, as well as outside arc length and angle. It seems like measuring spinner, belly, etc are arbitrary and subject to being variable due to loaded weight, nose strut inflation, tires, etc.

182 STOL driver wrote:

66skylane wrote:I've actually measured from the center of the spinner to the ground on a stock 56 compared to a stock 66 and the difference was only about 1"??? The mains are higher on the 56 however the nose gear isn't so the distance between the prop tip to the ground is very similair on both models. I also remember the tail cone of the 56 was much higher than my 66 which also makes me think the difference is only at the mains. I didn't see much advantage of the 56 for slow taxiing around rocks and gopher holes. What am I missing? The performance difference is so minor between the 56-59 and mid-sixties models that it's almost un-noticable(don't know about the 60 &61 models). I like the sexiness of the early models but that wide cabin, camloc cowling fasteners, better door/window latches, LR fuel is pretty nice...

Wrong on all counts 66 sky lane . The belly of the fuselage is a good 5-6 inches higher on 56 than your 66 low rider .I have 2 1956's 'a 1959 and a 1964 and 1967 and more . Performance is a mile apart from early straight tail 182's to the after 1962 and on. Been there done that

Maybe I should have been more clear. I am only talking about prop clearance and I don't really care how high the belly skin is from the ground. Since you have so many 182's of different years why don't you go measure from the spinner tip to the axle of the nose wheel on each and report back to us. Isn't that the best measure of ground clearance anyway since the goal is to keep the prop out of the bad stuff while taxiing around rocks and gopher holes??? I will agree the early ones will do certain things slightly better but to say they are "miles apart" is a stretch. They are all individuals and both vintages will outperform some and be outperformed by others.

I'm a fairly tall guy, and the straight tail 182's are a whole lot nicer when walking around under the wing. I have to step up into them slightly, and the trailing edge won't leave gashes on my forehead like my '62 will.

As for prop clearance, the propeller of the straight tail tied outside my hangar for a while wasn't anywhere near the tire even with only a few fingers of strut extension. My '62 strut need to be pumped up to the top 1/3 of extension to get the same clearance. I have read that the gear height was progressively decreased to improve crosswind handling. I really wish they had not done that, but extra air and a rubber bumper on the strut address the problem fairly well.

lesuther wrote:I'm a fairly tall guy, and the straight tail 182's are a whole lot nicer when walking around under the wing. I have to step up into them slightly, and the trailing edge won't leave gashes on my forehead like my '62 will.

As for prop clearance, the propeller of the straight tail tied outside my hangar for a while wasn't anywhere near the tire even with only a few fingers of strut extension. My '62 strut need to be pumped up to the top 1/3 of extension to get the same clearance. I have read that the gear height was progressively decreased to improve crosswind handling. I really wish they had not done that, but extra air and a rubber bumper on the strut address the problem fairly well.

1956 Cessna 182 nose gear is 4 inches longer than the 57 model . I'd like to attach a picture of the gear -then you can see , Mains are closer together and taller. 57 widened mains and cut 4 inches off nose gear.People ask me why Cessna increased gross weight 100 lbs in 1957--- heavier spar in horizontal stab and thicker main gear and adding 5 gallon total fuel capacity -empty weight up 50 lbs --so it's a wash except for performance. More weight on wing area with factory airfoil (NACA 2412 I believe) = higher wing loading .The 1966 was(is ) a 2800 lbs airplane on same wing area --more weight per sq. ft=less performance . Now some performance gains can be recovered by more powerful engines and 3 blade props. Adding SPORTSMAN STOL kit (14 lbs) adds another 9 sq. of wing area =more lift + better low speed dynamics. I've got a video (DVD) of my 56 coming off ground in less than 150 ft ground roll -full tanks -5200ft, Density altitude- gross weight of 2550lbs.10 megs that can be had at [email protected]

182 STOL driver wrote:....1956 high gear -Best of the Breed

The very earliest C182's didn't have cowl flaps, it's my understanding they were added in 1959 on the B model. How big a deal are they-- do you have cooling/over-cooling issues without them? I always figured that I wouldn't mind having one of the early ones without cowl flaps-- one less thing to break or to forget to reconfigure in flight.

182 STOL Thanks for answering that question as to which landing gear components actually got shorter, that's exactly what i was looking for even if it was jumbled up in my overly wordsy question.

SD

I measured my 66 last night and from the center of the spinner to the ground is 56". I didn't lift up to extend the strut to the max or compress it down, just measured the way it sat in the hanger. That is with a 7.00 on the nose which measured 8.5 inches from the center of the wheel to the ground. STOL 182 Driver; How does this compare to your 56?

No doubt the earlier ones will TO shorter and land shorter. I do have a horton STOL and Pponk w/3 blade on my 66 so it does better than a stock bird.

This is not dissing the 182 but......An early 182 of my acquaintance had an equipped useful load of about 800 pounds. My 180hp Mooney M20C carried 927 pounds with a couple of old fashioned radios. What year do 182s begin to carry some weight??

EB

Emory Bored wrote:This is not dissing the 182 but......An early 182 of my acquaintance had an equipped useful load of about 800 pounds. My 180hp Mooney M20C carried 927 pounds with a couple of old fashioned radios. What year do 182s begin to carry some weight??

EB

My 66 Skylane has a useful of around 1070 ish. Gross of 2800 and empty of 1730 +/-.

66skylane wrote:

Emory Bored wrote:This is not dissing the 182 but......An early 182 of my acquaintance had an equipped useful load of about 800 pounds. My 180hp Mooney M20C carried 927 pounds with a couple of old fashioned radios. What year do 182s begin to carry some weight??

EB

My 66 Skylane has a useful of around 1070 ish. Gross of 2800 and empty of 1730 +/-.

Empty weight 1522 gross 2550 = 1028 useful

182 STOL driver wrote:

66skylane wrote:

Emory Bored wrote:This is not dissing the 182 but......An early 182 of my acquaintance had an equipped useful load of about 800 pounds. My 180hp Mooney M20C carried 927 pounds with a couple of old fashioned radios. What year do 182s begin to carry some weight??

EB

My 66 Skylane has a useful of around 1070 ish. Gross of 2800 and empty of 1730 +/-.

Empty weight 1522 gross 2550 = 1028 useful

Better check your scales. They may be out of calibration. My books said mine was around 1650 until we actually weighed it...

EB[/quote]

My 66 Skylane has a useful of around 1070 ish. Gross of 2800 and empty of 1730 +/-.[/quote]

Empty weight 1522 gross 2550 = 1028 useful[/quote]

Better check your scales. They may be out of calibration. My books said mine was around 1650 until we actually weighed it...[/quote]

I'm a A&P /I.A and weigh aircraft all the time -- Scales are Calibrated ever other year to be within .1 Percent of each pad from National Bureau of Standards certification. $350 for you + expenses -- everyone else $250 + expenses .