Let me start by saying I sincerely enjoy the vast knowledge available on the B/C forum.I have learned many things while exploring your forums. I currently have an itch that I need to scratch but I can’t decide if it can be done on a budget and I honestly don’t know where to start.
So here it goes,I currently own a 1958 Cessna 182/A that I love but I have been thinking of looking for a plane to add to the stable with a bit more of an off airport mission in mind.I realize that my 182 could be up fitted to meet most of my needs and probably out perform my skill but where is the fun in that,
So here my idea of what I would like to accomplish.I would like to find a tail wheel aircraft with side by side seating with the ability to haul 2 up with minimal camping gear with enough power to fly into remote strips in UT ID and Colorado.I have an initial budget of 20 to 25 k .low and slow is my goal. I have been looking at C 140s ,Pipers and other vintage planes.So I guess my question is can it be done on my budget or am I dreaming the impossible! Thanks in advance for any ideas or information.

Why worry about budgeting for a new bird. You have the perfect airplane for the stated mission. The old straight-tails are incredible backcountry airplanes. You could consider a nosewheel fork and bigger tires for better prop clearance. I have the same plane with the tailwheel - C180A. I love flying tailwheels but I pay the price with high insurance premiums. I would also consider adding a sportsman STOL kit. Save the money and hassle owning two airplanes and make some mods to your C182.



Josh

Dog is right on. There is no 20k-25k two seater tandem that you'd like better than your 182 in the high da of Utah or Idaho.

And to be perfectly honest there are very few places in the Lwr 48 that a properly equipped nose dragger can't just as easily go as a tail dragger. So why pick up added insurance cost and added maintenance cost if you don't need to and really can't afford.

But believe me I understand you wanderlust feeling, so here are my thoughts. take that 20k-25k and do as many of these as make sense (assuming your 182 is a solid bird and you've still got time on the engine):

1. Bigger tires all the way around with an extended, heavy duty fork up front.
2. Better propellor now that you've got increased ground clearance.
3. Sportsmans STOL

Okay so now you've got a very capable straight tail 182, but when you sit in it it feels like the same plane. So:

1. Gut the interior and do a super clean utility interior and get the seats reupholstered.
2. Get the plane stripped and repainted (not one of those swoopy paint jobs please, something befitting of a straight tail 182), or leave it stripped (saving what like 50 pounds or something) and polish it constantly- or go for the rat rod look with a natural patina as it ages.
3. Change the N number to really make it feel like a different plane.

Granted, most nose wheel aircraft never turn heads, but I have seen a couple (only a couple) "bush" 182's that I actually said out loud "wow, I'd love to have that plane"- fortunately no one over heard me.

Now you have a plane that is very backcountry capable, cheap on insurance, looks, feels and flys like a new plane for you, is a head turner, and is far more capable then you are. And that's where the fun really starts. Getting to where you can do 200 foot landings at sea level, most cub drivers can't do that.

And with whatever left over money you have hire an Idaho backcountry instructor and learn how to go in and out of the really cool, challenging strips.

You've got good bones with the 182, run with it, you'll get to that "sweet spot" before the tube & fabric gals & guys get there.

We have all done those mental gymnastics in the past. Like others have said you have one of the best platforms to work from already in your hangar. I own a 1959 C-182B that I have modified to fit my mission of a combination backcountry and useable x-country airplane; PPponk, bigger tires and nose fork, Atlee Dodge rear jump seats etc., etc. I pay $550/year for insurance and really have no worries except flying.

This week I flew into the Frank Church Wilderness to do a little late season fishing on the middle fork of the salmon river. The photo below was taken on Tuesday while I was waiting for my coffee pot to finish making me a hot cup!

My suggestions are as follows w/ your $25k budget;

1,) Send me the money and I will tell you, you had a good time.
2.) Make some appropriate mods to your bird and spend the balance on avgas and enjoy.

Thanks -

I'm going to have to agree with the above posts. My plan was to build my 206 and then build another small plane for fun. Turns out my 206 is rather cubish and I dont really need another plane, except for maybe the rough sand bars. So now I have changed my search to a R44. Haha. Heresy I know!

You can fly your 182 off airport, just have your tailwheel friend's land first and check the conditions for you the first time
You need to protect the nose gear so be more careful, but can be done for sure.

I agree with most of the above. Keep your plane, Sportsman STOL, Landes nose fork, 8.50 mains and 8.00 nose gear, and when the engine is about timed out, upgrade it to a PPonk.

Here's some thoughts on the small airplane, in your budget range:

Possible candidates (your specs, side by side, tailwheel and less than $25K) are Taylorcraft BC 12, Luscomb 8 series, Cessna 120/140, maybe Piper J-4. Other candidates could be a Piper Pacer, but it's four seats and probably if in good shape, more than that price point.

I probably missed some, but look at the useful load and performance of those aircraft. Your stated goal is two people and some camping gear. With these airplanes, filled with gas the two people need to be fairly light, and your camping gear will be one sleeping bag, and plan on down..... That's a bit of an exaggeration, but seriously, you're not going to legally carry much with two adults and gas to go anywhere.

Performance: Any of those airplanes will go pretty much anywhere in the west, but again, loaded, you're going to need to listen to Contact on this forum about "wind surfing" ridges to get somewhere.....like pretty much on every flight. Oh, and these are all pretty slow airplanes, compared to what you're used to....so you'll be hunting fuel much of the time as well.

Yes, there are two seat side by side planes that'll fulfill your mission, like Kitfox, Rans, etc. But, nowhere near that price point.

So, if twer me, I'd make a plan on mods I want, prioritized to use that $25K, and make that 182 your perfect backcountry ride. Frankly, I'm jealous....

MTV
MTV

All of the previous posts are spot on. DENNY

You have all made valid points,Possibly not the one I was looking for but all true and correct.My current 182 straight tail has a stol kit installed as well as flap gap seals.My biggest worry is the dreaded fire wall.Mabee I am over thinking the potential issues with off airport capability and need to suck it up and just get more proficient with the bird I have.

I have been looking for a 310/206 HD nose fork with no luck so far.I know that a airglass fork can be purchased with STC.As a question to all of you 182 drivers what has been the best tire size combo and what are your feelings on the HD nose fork vs airglass nose fork?.Also do any of you have any input on the addition of vortex generators?

I guess I am just jealous when I see you tail dragger pilots plop it down on a hillside in the middle of no where ! Its good to dream.

Thanks again for all the input

Oh heck no!! All those guys are nuts...none of them said anything you should adhere to. LOL

The best option...sell me you 182 and then you'll have a much bigger budget to get something to fir your dedire! See..easy!

Ok, now for my honest opinion...listen to all those other guys above.
But if you're still determined to get something else, you can chose my option. Ney, deer season opened and I'm bored.

You have all made valid points,Possibly not the one I was looking for but all true and correct.My current 182 straight tail has a stol kit installed as well as flap gap seals.My biggest worry is the dreaded fire wall.Mabee I am over thinking the potential issues with off airport capability and need to suck it up and just get more proficient with the bird I have.

I have been looking for a 310/206 HD nose fork with no luck so far.I know that a airglass fork can be purchased with STC.As a question to all of you 182 drivers what has been the best tire size combo and what are your feelings on the HD nose fork vs airglass nose fork?.Also do any of you have any input on the addition of vortex generators?

I guess I am just jealous when I see you tail dragger pilots plop it down on a hillside in the middle of no where ! Its good to dream.

Thanks again for all the input

My opinion on your questions above;

Best tire option and configuration/vortex generator comments-

1.) 850's on the mains w/ double puck brakes, Airglass nose fork w/ 800 on the front.
2.) I have vortex generators on my 182 - I would not do it again. It is really effective on some planes, just my opinion I would not do it again on my 182.

You will not fly ANY 182 into ALL of the places I can go with my light taildragger, but you could fly it into MANY of them, with the right experience.

Nothing irritates a taildragger pilot more then seeing a very competently flown nose dragger being flown off airport, I'm talking to you motoadve! I'd also suggest you save the money you want to spend for what would be a bare bones marginal off airport TD, and up grade what you have. I wish I had the room to haul what you can in the back of a 182! Then again, I'm guessing 3.2 gph fuel burns with a 182 are unrealistic?

I would not put VG’s on the 182. Also, get rid of the flap gap seals. 182’s are fantastic airplanes!

Kurt

First, check your weight and balance, And, if worry of pranging the firewall with that nose gear is your hang up, build yourself a good survival kit (30ish pounds) and a basic tool kit (15 pounds or so) fasten them firmly in an appropriate location aft, like that Selkirk aft baggage you’re going to instal by the way.

Now go practice. I think you’ll find it’s easy to keep the nose off. And you’ll have lots. Of space for light stuff, like sleeping bags, camp chairs, etc.

As I noted above, my favorite footgear on tricycle gear Cessnas is 8.50 on mains, Landes Airglass nose fork with 8.00 x 6 on the nose. I’ve taken 206s with that setup into some places that weren’t fun in a 185.

MTV

In side by side in that price range, I assume you are going to have a passenger. Pretty heavy as MTV says. Otherwise up front solo in original small Continental tandems is comfortable. Luscombe 8A is fine but no baggage and a little slick and fast. Slow on really short is doable, but always have to be way ahead of things or too fast. Ercoupe will go a lot of places and has a strong gear, but not maneuverable enough. Colt, another trike, has the bigger, 105 hp I think I remember, engine and lots of baggage space. It is the same airplane as the Tri-Pacer with lighter tubing. Same gas tanks, as well. But the right tank is a reserve tank, say 5 gal, with two people. Fill right tank and you are flying a dog in the mountains. As with any PA 22, strong tubing mounted nose gear. Not firewall mounted.

As MTV said, I wouldn't have been able to fly any of the above in the high mountains, save meybe the Colt, without extensive use of orographic and thermal lift. But, I used orographic and thermal lift with everything I flew, including your 182. I seldom knew when I wouldn't have had enough engine. And I flew all of them all day long. In the heat of day, wind and thermals often, not always, made up for the lack of big engine. Down drainage egress was always on my mind.

You’ve got the perfect airplane, these 182’s are pretty special. If you’d like to try the Sportsman out with 8’s on the mains and a 6 up front with a stock engine, I’m here at 32S, it won’t cost you a dime.

I’d be more than happy as well if you show up with yours to show a few things that have worked for me, nosing around Idaho.

What has been said above is dead on and you should heed their advice.

However, I can understand the desire to have something more fun to fly. I flew my Luscombe around the Idaho wilderness for 10 years. I was pretty much always 2-up with gear and at gross weight. I had a blast and really miss flying that airplane. I had 511lbs useful load, 25 gallons of fuel, cruised at 100mph while burning 4gph. On one solo trip to the wilderness I flew from home, spent a day flying around, then dumped in the 5 gallons of gas I had in the baggage and flew home the next morning.

If you have the budget for a second airplane then get what you want. IMO a small plane like a Luscombe or probably a 140/120, t-craft, Champ, etc will make you smile in a way a C182 never will regardless of the number of mods or amount of gas you put into it.

I'll throw in my sixty-something old man thoughts.

I have a 182-G that is mostly on amphib floats but a few years ago I built up a great wheel gear setup with both 29" ABW's and 8.50's mounted on their own rims so I could swap easily, and both an 8.50 and a 7.00 nose gear to go with them. Cleveland double puck brakes, and Airglas fork. Great setup. I could land anywhere I was willing to, including in front of my house. Even competed a bit at STOL-Drag and beat all the four-place taildraggers. Had a lot of fun. Has the Sportsman STOL, Wing-X extensions, and Micro Aero VGs. Great backcountry rig.

Then I decided to get a folding-wing plane to tow behind my pickup camper. I got a very nice Aerotrek A220 and I've been having a blast with it, just returning from a trip through northern NV, UT, CO, and southern UT. 182 is staying on the amphib floats again this winter, but one of these autumns I'm gonna put it back on the wheels and play with it again.

Previously had a 1959 taildragger 150 (Lowe conversion). So, having run the 182 and a couple of planes in the category you're thinking about, I have the following thoughts.

While I enjoy my little A220 a lot, it's not as robust or capable as that 182. No sub-700 pound plane can be. The small luggage box is limited to 50 lbs and much of it is taken up with flat repair supplies: patches, wrenches, jack, compressor, bicycle type pump.

I've had a flat tire from a small thorn, the type that flats mountain bike tires. That thorn would likely not have penetrated the ABW's or even 8.50's with good tubes. When I tried running the little 12V compressor from the lighter plug, it tripped the breaker before I could get 8 psi in, so I now also carry a bike pump. Just noting that because it seems everything on the smaller planes is a bit lighter duty.

I also put a good-sized rock through the fabric of the horizontal. The 182 has the thick abrasion boots on the leading edge of the horizontal and if the rock missed that, it likely would have just dented the aluminum. I also am more cautious of the little carbon fiber-wrapped LSA composite prop than I would be with the nickel-leading-edge MT on the 182.

The light plane with low wing loading is like a kite compared to the heavier 182. I really watch for forecast winds around the mountains. I can comfortably fly and land that 182 in a fair amount of wind.

From a practical standpoint, as the others have written, and I'm agreeing, the 182 is an excellent BC platform. I own three planes and even being mostly retired, it's a lot of work to look after multiple planes.

Pierre

Another option for an "inexpensive" 2-seat side-by-side taildragger would be a RANS S-6. "Under $30K" might be a stretch, but I've seen them in the low-to-mid thirties...

Mine is a 2007 build with tricycle gear, but there are also tailwheel versions. The "Sport Wing" version kits began shipping around 2006, and might be the best choice: 1320 GW, typically around 720 EW, for a useful load of 600 lbs. Earlier planes were lighter, but also had lower gross weights, so the ULs were generally slightly lower.

Wing tanks (9 gallons per side) and a Rotax 912ULS (100 HP burning 4.5-5.5 gph depending on how hard you push it), and two baggage areas: Smaller one behind the seats holds 50 lbs, larger one accessible through small triangular door on R/H side holds 30 lbs of bulky gear.

My S-6ES (trike with bigger / heavier 21-8:00-6 tires) weighs 750 lbs (570 lb UL), but still cruises at 100-110 mph for 3+ hours (with VFR reserve). It has an initial climb rate of over 1000 fpm, stall (with VGs) at well under the 36/41 mph (clean/flaps) claimed by RANS without VGs. I'm seeing roughly 30-32 mph-ish, though it's hard to get accurate speed readings when the ASI is well into the "bouncy" range at the bottom of its effective range. RANS claims 260-foot takeoff roll and 210-foot landing roll, and my relatively unscientific personal experience confirms those numbers. The cockpit is 45 inches wide, seats are pretty comfortable, and the doors are 99% Lexan (fantastic visibility).

I love mine, and even though it's not a tailwheel (which I would have preferred – this one was just too great of a deal to pass on), I am 100% confident I could land it anywhere I have any business attempting to land: pretty much any grass, gravel, or dirt runway, and many (but not ALL) unprepared fields. I would also avoid landing anywhere with "large-ish rocks" even though I've got 13+ inches of prop clearance. My "poor man's rule of thumb" is: If I can see the rocks from the air, they are probably too big!

But in reality, I'm with most of the folks on here... You've already got a really great airplane that could easily meet 90% of your mission statement, and would get you to the backcountry a LOT faster, and is useful for a LOT of other missions as well. Perhaps your best investment would be spending that $30K flying your plane a lot more. Motoave proves that a well-flown 182 can go a heck of a lot of places! Spend your money improving your flying skills, would be my advice.