I was going through my weight and balance papers this morning. To my shock and amazement when my 180 was new in '55 in weighed 1700 pounds! It was first owned by a construction company in Utah and was full IFR including an autopilot!

It is now very basic VFR with no navs and only one com. No doubt a rarity for an airplane to lose 128 pounds over time.

Deleted. Nothing to add.

I just put my 67 180h on the scales and it weighed in at 1726 lb with 12 quarts in the sump and 26 inch tires. I was short on time and did not measure the gear stations. Does anyone here know these for a later 180 or a 185?

Should be 18"... but one can never assume. Could have the gear fwd at 22". Easy enough to measure.

On a side note, 1726 seems pretty light for an H.

bigrenna wrote:Should be 18"... but one can never assume. Could have the gear fwd at 22". Easy enough to measure.

On a side note, 1726 seems pretty light for an H.

Wouldn't it have a lower arm # if the gear was forward? Since it would be closer to the firewall. I agree, it should be measured though.

Guys-

A couple of notes. The Ti gear is available now, checkout the Landing Gear Works.

I did a lot of research on this weight thing for my 180A. And it seems to me the verbiage the factory used means they did not weigh every airplane as it came out of the factory. They weighed the first airplane and then did paperwork on each airplane with what it had in it. I seriously think that the actual weight was off for most airplanes from the beginning.

According to the instructions to weigh the aircraft you are supposed to measure each time, each aircraft. I think its reasonable to measure only once for a particular airplane/ configuration. You are also supposed to weigh with only unusable fuel and full oil on the airplane. When you are finished you can subtract the oil and its moment.

The Seaplane equipped airplanes were at least 65b heavier than the pure land planes.

I did a LOT of work reducing the weight on my airplane. It had a seriously aft CG and was heavy anyway. I ended up getting about 120b off the airplane. A complete re-wire, mostly utility interior. Minimal avionics, but I did go a little overboard. My empty weight with 8.00x600 tires is 1755b. I do have quite a few weight adding mods on the airplane... and WingX still to come.

So, if it was a landline it might have been just under 1700b. I suspect that most early 180's are in that range... and not just over 1500b.

YMMV,
gunny

How much does my airplane weigh? Getting a little personal don't you think?

59LC weighs in at 1788lbs. 1959, pponk 0-470-50, 185 gear, sportsman stol on 8.5 x 6. Weighed it with fuel and subtracted 55 gallons. She's a little fat, but she's fast and can climb out just fine. I'll move the battery sometime after I complete the radio upgrade(keeping it simple).

I could get angry and plead for some diet pills and maybe even a surprise gym membership for her birthday, but why upset a beautiful relationship. She looks good and performs amazing, even with a little junk in the trunk.........

robw56 wrote:

bigrenna wrote:Should be 18"... but one can never assume. Could have the gear fwd at 22". Easy enough to measure.....

Wouldn't it have a lower arm # if the gear was forward? Since it would be closer to the firewall. I agree, it should be measured though.

Early gear is 21 to 22 inches, but was only used on 53 & 54 models. "Forward gear" should be 18 to 18.5".
I weighed mine last year, FWIW the MLG station was 18", t/w station was 260.7.
But airplanes are individuals, it'd be best to measure yours. Easy enough to do, with a whiskey stick ( aka spirit level), plumb-bob, straight-edge, & a 25' tape measure. New-fangled smart level & laser level/plumb-bob are nice and quicker /easier to use.

I weighed my 53 model last year, with 12 qts oil and zero fuel it came in at 1663# & 34.49" CG.
The FAA likes to see the unusable fuel included, with that added in it's at 1693# & 34.73" CG.
Kinda heavy, but lotsa mods which add weight:
88" Mac prop
K engine
185 gear
850's & double-pucks
V-brace
extended baggage
heavy stinger and 10" t/w
The only mods which lightened it up were BAS jumpseats & a firewall-mounted Odyssey battery.
It has the heavy Energizer starter & 35A generator.
FWIW a W&B sheet from 1993 indicate that changing from an A engine & 82" 2A36C prop to a K engine & 82" C203 prop added 26#. From my research, I think the threadless C203 prop might be as much as 15 pounds or so lighter than the earlier threaded prop, so the A engine coulda been as much as 40 pounds lighter than the K. I don't think a J is much if any heavier than an A. This is something to consider for those who are thinking about upgrading to a K or R engine from a J. I would be plenty happy if mine had come with a J. I know several people who've gotten good service from them and ran them to TBO & beyond.

bigrenna wrote:On a side note, 1726 seems pretty light for an H.

I was slightly disappointed that it did not weigh very close to the1635 lb, as asserted by the original W & B. On the other hand, I'm certainly glad that it isn't pushing up against the portly 1800 lb mark. One thing that I know is that it is a noticeably greater load under muscle and bone than my hangar mates 56 model when rearranging ships in the hangar space. It would come in at 1667 with no oil and 6.00 x 6 tires, but I would probably not fly it that way.

On a side note, have you flown your 180 at 3190 lb Greg? Curious about how it performs at that weight.

180lamb wrote:I could get angry and plead for some diet pills and maybe even a surprise gym membership for her birthday, but why upset a beautiful relationship. She looks good and performs amazing, even with a little junk in the trunk.........

Words of wisdom right there

I'll level it out and measure the stations a little later today and let you know where they sit.

It's always a hassle to get that tail up to level the airplane.
Something like a 180 is a two man show, or one man plus a mechanical device.
Trying to hold onto the tailcone is like trying to grab a greased pig,
and I don't wanna put that kinda strain on the BAS pull handles or the horizontal by trying to use them.

What works well with my airplane is a 4x4 (8' long or so) with a guy on either end of it, across the bottom of the tailwheel assembly just in front of the wheel. It's then an easy lift up onto a table or something, then keep raising the tail and adding cribbing until it's level at the top door jamb. You can level it left & right (within reason) by adjusting tire pressure.

I'd suggest measuring the W&B arms before or after it's on the scales, not while. Sweep the hangar floor, plumb down or square down marks at each MLG axle and snap a line between them. Then measure out & mark the airplane's centerline onto that line. Then plumb down the firewall arm at the centerline. Your table or whatever will be in the way of plumbing down the t/w station, I measure forward a foot or 18 inches, plumb that down, then measure back that foot or 18" and mark the t/w station. Then stretch out the tape measure for the dimensions of the two stations from the firewall datum.

Doesn't take long, and it's actually kinda fun. The old carpenter's adage about measuring twice really applies here, ditto on the calculations. I've spotted mistakes on the W&B sheet on a lot of airplanes, usually (with Pipers) by using the wrong datum. With Cessnas it's usually either mismeasuring the stations or a math error. That's why it's nice to have the marks on the floor, you can double-check later. I have to admit that I goofed up on the t/w arm when I did my 180, but I went back & re-measured my marks & corrected it before making up the new W&B sheet and putting the W&B info in the logbook.

My model year 1959 C180B empty weight is 1662 lbs with arm 34.2" with LakeVue/BAS Seats, Airglas extended baggage, KX-155/KT-76 avionics, EI CGR-30P, Selkirk insulation, Door Stewards, stock tanks, Plane Power 70 amp alternator, Sky Tec ST-4 Starter, firewall mounted Odyssey batter, PPonk O-470-50, McCauley C58, Cleveland Brakes, and Goodyear 8.50x6 tires. Adding oil increases that by 22.5 lbs. That weight is all calculated from the original Cessna numbers.: I've been told that weighing a Cessna is a sad event.

According to the Continental O-470-K specification, engine dry weight is 404 lbs, and the PPonk O-470-50 STC weight is 416 lbs.

The FAA Weight and Balance Handbook FAA-H-8130-1a (2007) allows weighing with full fuel - see page 3-2:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies ... 083-1A.pdf

For the early Cessna, it makes sense to weigh with full fuel as the empty weight unusable fuel, and as a consequence the empty weight, is AD 75-16-01 driven, rather than being determined by when the fuel stops draining, apparently to account for fuel flow in unusual attitudes. On my aircraft there are about 3 extra gallons in each side in comparison to the fuel stops draining number.

Weighing a Skywagon is no biggie and a one man job. I love when this topic comes up because there seems to be so many "different" ways to do it. Lots of ways to get by, but to be anal and do it right, the answer is right in TCDS 5A6. Drain ALL fuel from the tanks and lines. Empty ALL oil (except the later models.) Weight the bird, do not include oil and add back in the stated unusable fuel (not actual.) Generate a WB...

Current weight and balance report together with list of equipment included in certificated empty weight and loading instructions when necessary must be provided for each aircraft at the time of original certification. The certificated empty weight and corresponding C.G. location must include unusable fuel of 30 lb. at (+46) on Models 180, 180E, 180F, 180G, 180H, 180J, and 180K through S/N 18053000, and 60 lbs. at (+48) on Models 180A, 180B, 180C and 180D, and undrainable oil of 0.0 lbs. at -15.0 through S/N 1805260; full oil of 22.0 lbs. at -15.0 S/N 18052621 and on.


Here is a link to my sheet: http://i2.wp.com/bushwagoneast.com/wp-c ... /03/WB.png

In my case, with empty fuel/oil on 8.5x6s Im 1744. 8qts oil and unusable fuel its 1789. This is w/ NO back seat. I worked very hard at the weight savings with most of the "lightning" mods incl. a MT 2 blade. I added back in WingX (15lbs) and Sportsman (15lbs) big stab and have extended range tanks, but feel that there isnt much more I could do save pull the 430 out (not much savings) or go insane and buy TW Toms $13k Ti gear. With the 29's on, Im just about 1803 lbs on the dot. (all configs were weighed and not computed)

I would say a bone stock, non float, mid model 180, VFR "gutted" (with the common lightness mods) on 8.5x6's with useable fuel and proper oil should come in right around 1740. Early models about 100-125 ish lbs lighter. Any other claims I get skeptical. Of course WTF do I know, but this is the area where the most noses grow...

Gunny is totally right that Cessna didnt actually weigh every bird, and yes, they are MUCH heavier than the paperwork usually says. As has been said, if you have what appears to be a super light Wagon be prepared to shed a tear if its weighted.... But then again, who are you really fooling if you dont actually learn the real weight?

Rob: I mis typed early this AM. FWD gear is 18. The other is 22". Should be written in the orig equip list.

185 gear: I see a lot of folks with 185 gear. FWIW, some think this is an "upgrade" and have it on the mod list. If so, take it off your list as (IMO) they are a tiny bit heavier and just too stiff.

Scoloplax: I was the same exact way having delusions of a low 1600lb Wagon. So funny that we keep thinking we can get them that light... Yes, I have flown it at the 3190. I flew a bunch of cement up to a camp in ME. I had all the seats out half fuel, me, and about 1000 lbs of mix. Flew a big piggish, but I was still able to get out with respectable performance.

FWIW, my 62 E model weighs in at 1751 with the stock back seat. Actual weight, not calculated. This is a factory sea plane with a Horton STOL kit, airglas extended baggage, 3 blade Hartzell, Firewall mounted odyssey, 8.50x6 mains. Gutting it, cleaning the panel up and going just VFR, some upholstery work and a different prop and it would be pretty danged close to 1700. My biggest improvement would be a lighter prop as it would help move the CG back, it's pretty far forward right now. I'd be pretty happy sitting just over 1700lbs.

The real bummer about the early 180s and 182 (1956 and earlier) is the 2550 gross weight. Increased to 2650 in 1957.

bigrenna wrote: Weighing a Skywagon is no biggie and a one man job. .......
185 gear: I see a lot of folks with 185 gear. FWIW, some think this is an "upgrade" and have it on the mod list. If so, take it off your list as (IMO) they are a tiny bit heavier and just too stiff.....

I agree-- mine has the 185 gear, installed by a previous owner, and I think it might be overkill. I've ridden in a few mid-50's 180's with the stock gear and thought it was fine. I haven't flown a 53 or 54 with the stock "aft gear", but a buddy of mine has a '54 with it and it seems fine, haven't ever seen him get close to nosing it over. His still has the J engine however, with a heavier K or later engine the CG moves forward a ways. The original CG from the factory W&B on mine was 36.2", now it's 34.6", so the forward gear might be a good thing, but I'm sure the more-forward CG on aft gear could be compensated for by proper technique. .

Renna, if you can hoist the tail of your 180 by yourself, without any sort of device or comtraption, you must be more of a man than I am. It isn't so much the weight, although I don't know what the tail weighs on the ground (level mine's 113#)-- it's getting ahold of the darn thing. A buddy of mine used to park his 170 in his hangar with the t/w up on a bucket to keep mice out (dunno if that worked or not)-- he used a long bar which hooked onto the tailspring and gave him some leverage to pick it up. I guess a guy could rig up something like that to hook onto the 180's tubular stinger.

.

Hoeschen wrote:The real bummer about the early 180s and 182 (1956 and earlier) is the 2550 gross weight. Increased to 2650 in 1957.

True, but the early 180s "should" be lighter, hopefully giving them about the same useful load. If I had one I would put the Wing-X on it and bump the gross weight to 2950.

I've been looking at that but adding 3' (39' total after the mod) really makes for a tight fit in many hangars!

Hoeschen wrote:I've been looking at that but adding 3' (39' total after the mod) really makes for a tight fit in many hangars!

That's true, I've measured my hangar and I think I would have a couple inches to spare on each side!