In the next 6-8 months I am looking at buying a C-180. I was wondering if there are better years than others. Those of you who have a 180 or have flown a C-180 can you give me some opinions. I am looking at a couple of older 180’s. Does the O-470 have enough power for the plane? It will primarily be a backcountry plane. I plan on keeping the C-170. I am looking for any and all information you guys may have.

You must have gotten your economic stimulus check too.

Yeh the guys with ten wives and 45 kids get a pretty good check.

Tim

I have heard, from more than one Idaho pilot, that the stock 54 / 55 180s are the best backcountry planes. They are the lightest. Only mod. recomended was/is the longer Sea Plane prop.
Just be careful as some of them did not, or do not, have an impulse starter. so I am also told.

Oh, and the P-Ponk with possible the 185 gear. They are 1/16th thicker than the stock 180 legs.
I even have a spare set of 185 gear legs. Put on new 180 legs in minor attempt to lighten it up a bit up front.

Great airplane! The early ones...late 50's mostly, tend to be lighter. Avoid "A" model engines. J or K models are common in the early birds. I have a K and it's smooth, doesn't leak and really pulls. The stock -470 engine is terrific, burns about 12gph in cruise but you can really reduce the burn for local flying. I fly around at 17"map all the time and lean it out. Another benefit of the 470...MOGAS STC. Well, for as long as we can get it without ethanol.

The STC options are numerous and you can configure the airplane for your mission. Strip the interior out, put 8.50's or tundra tires on it and go off-roading. Or, plush it out, put fairings on everything and enjoy a nice, stable touring airplane. Great flexibility! Even with the 8.50's and an 88" seaplane prop, I get an honest 150mph.

If you really need to haul the freight, a 520 upgrade or a C-185 is better. I have no problem hauling four adults and full fuel aloft at a mile high elevation, but I wouldn't fly into the boonies with all this and the extended baggage compartment loaded up. JC, yes, but the really short stuff, no.

I'm only one year into owning my 180 and still have a lot to learn. These airplanes really sing with the right set of hands on the controls. I'm having a ball earning my way into the choir.

Brian

Oh boy, the opinions about Skywagons are as varied as Super Cubs.

Just to let you know where I am coming from on my opinion about 180's. I owned a brand new AC Scout before my 180. Things in life changed and as much as I LOVED the Scout, I had to sell it to buy the 180. I wanted a 4 seat plane that could do at least 90% of what a Scout could do with the same or better performance, loaded. So I spent 8 months searching for a 180. I was jaded with owning a new plane, only to go looking for a 50 year old used one. The good thing is that there is more stuff to modify a Skywagon than you can imagine, second only to Cubs. Many are good practical upgrades because of the age of the aircraft and past use.

I think most pilots who have flown all the 180 models will agree the early models are the best handling, like your 170. It just feeeeels right. As time went on they got heavier with minor changes that may or may not have made a big difference. Check this website out: http://www.skywagons.com/modelchgsweb.html

I have a 1955 with a P-Ponk O-520 and I think it makes for the perfect personal plane. Its has enough mods on it to make it a hybrid, the best of the 180's and 185's with out the extra stuff I don't need. The gross weight is not has high as the newer ones but so what? I don't need to haul 1300lbs. It will still haul it though. There is a saying about 180's, if you load it and can close the doors it will haul it.

The O-470 is a good reliable engine and if you watch your weight, a good performer in the 180. I would recommend that if you are even THINKING about overhauling the engine or upgrading you go with a O-520 and Mac 401 prop. P-Ponk does a fantastic job making them sewing machine smooth. The cost is only a couple grand more, but the performance increase in climb and cruise, including a 2000 hr. TBO compared to 1500 hr on a O-470, makes it worth it by far. Plus its still a simple, low compression, carbureted, big liter O-470. I think its the best compromise in cost vs gain. The 550 is ridiculously expensive for the additional gain, unless you are using it on floats, but if you have the $$$ you can justify anything.

Be careful when searching also, there is alot of junk out there. The planes history lends itself to getting beat up. My opinion, but if some one says they have a 180 with no damage history they are lieing or they lost the logs. Just be careful. My 180 does not have the logs before 1970, so what? I don't care about what happend to it 30 years ago. As long as the plane is straight, repaired correctly, corrosion free, and the current logs are in order that is what is important. A pre-buy by a Skywagon mechanic is very important. Does he know the correct tension of the control rigging? How about if its rigged straight in the wings, not with the trim tabs. These little details were things my mechanics found on mine. It can make a 10 mph speed difference!

If you want, you are welcome to fly a couple hours south to California and fly mine around. You can then decide for yourself what you might want or not want.

You will love it once you get one I am sure.

I've had my 1959 180 for about 2 1/2 years now, and it's just a fantastic airplane. I moved up from a 7GCBC both to get better high country performance and to be able to bring my family along on camping trips.

I think you're looking in the right direction looking at the earlier models, as others have said. The 1959 model I have has some refinements and improvements from the first few model years while still being light and simple.

Mine has an O470K engine, which is perfect for my needs. With my wife, myself and our kids in it, along with camping gear enough to fill our Subaru, we're still climbing out of hot and high places at a good clip. We cruise at 130 knots burning about 12GPH with 8.00 tires.

Can't say enough good things about these planes!

Oh, and the best mod on the 180 is to upgrade the nut that connects the yoke to the pilot seat. No mod will improve your flying more than good instruction and lots of stick time.

Okay, let me make this absolutely clear: There is no such thing as a bad 180.

Some's got some different doo dads in there, some's got higher gross weight, to offset some of the pork installed over the years (of course, some of that pork is actually structure as well....) and some, being lighter perform some better than others.

But the bottom line is that the Cessna 180 is a truly wonderful, all around, family friendly airplane for recreational flying.

I like the mid year models (about 1958 to 1964 or so). They have the more modern panel arrangement mostly, and therefore are easier and cheaper to upgrade. Not sure what year the center stack radios began, but that's where I'd start looking. In 64, they went to the three side windows, and to me the earlier airplanes just look better.

Of the O-470 engines, most folks agree that the R is probably the best all around, but don't be scared of the K's or J's either. The U's work fine, in the later airplanes.

An O-520 conversion turns these things into a real tiger.

Great airplanes. I owned a 66 H model, and rue the day I sold it.

MTV

Went from a turbo normalized 185 to a 57' 180.I think the 180 gets off the ground quicker.Knda small inside but I love it.Hey Splashpilot can I drive your 180 for awhile?That thing is sweet........

There were a number of improvements made in the 56 year. Landing gear geometry was changed to place the cg a little further aft of the main gear, the K model engine was installed, the vent intakes were placed outside of the propeller wash, and last but not least, the tailwheel steering was changed from a completely ineffective system to a very nice and effective system. I own a 56 and i bought it because it came up at the right time but I'm sure glad I got the tailwheel steering it has instead of what the earlier models have. I would recommend from 56 up. Earlier is lighter. And usually cheaper, too.

Wayne

Well everyone has an opinion.

I owned and flew a 54 180 from 1996 to 2002, had the O-470J with an 88 inch prop, Pponk gear mod, extended baggage, horton STOL, 8:00 x 6. Great airplane. 1 com, transponder, hand held gps. Most the time I had map in the lap for x ref to the gps. Very light a little less that 1500 pounds if memory serves me right.

Land short, take off short, all around good plane, only draw back was the J engine burns about a quart every 4 hours, so I packed oil everywhere. That and the cost of insurance.

I like the earlier models. But that's me.

C ya, Bub

low rider wrote:Hey Splashpilot can I drive your 180 for awhile?That thing is sweet........

Yeah really! I'm next! Damn fine paint scheme on that 'wagon. But then, I kinda like green.

I gotta finish the annual. I'm suffering withdrawals.

I've flown most of the variations, and owned two of the '56 models with R engines. If I cry in my sleep at night, it's either over loosing Hoser the Wonder Dog, or one of those two 180's. The '56 is the best of the bunch as far as I'm concerned. Light and docile if you're mindful of loads and DA, and she will never turn mean on you.

Unless you're gonna be flying IFR on a regular basis and need a big radio stack to keep up with approach, the old, low panel in the older 180's is nicer, and really has better visibility over the nose than the newer center stack models. If your main use is playing in the boondocks, stuff a Garmin 396/496 and single comm in the panel, and she'll get you where you want to go just fine.

Gump

GumpAir wrote: If your main use is playing in the boondocks, stuff a Garmin 396/496 and single comm in the panel, and she'll get you where you want to go just fine.

This is really just a great philosophy in general.

I use to have a 1955 180 I liked well. I am no expert, but guys use to tell me that this was a good year because that was the first year the gear legs were angled forward a few degrees, and that made a huge difference in the tendency of going over on their backs on short, heavy braking, wheel landings. jg

I have a 185, but now with the price of gas, would sure rather fuel the 470 in a 180. I flew in an older (think 1954) 180 this winter in Florida for 11 hours, doing additional float training, and it was a nice handling plane. It was for sale this spring and I believe it did have a gear with it. If I was in the market it would be on the list. He may still have it. If interested the plane is probably back in MN and you can contact Brian, his website is www.adventureseaplanes.com or feel free to PM me and I can tell you what I know. Some of the MN guys on here can probably also add insite on this plane.

Gump,

I fully agree with your instrument panel concept, as long as one accepts your caveat: That the thing be primarily a backcountry airplane.

That said, my counter is that the 180 is also a GREAT all purpose machine, a great cross country screamer, speed wise, and a really good stable IFR machine as well.

So, my counter would be a little later model, perhaps (though not necessarily) with a Garmin 430, a Garmin SL30 as back up a xponder and audio panel. Gyro instrumentation, and you have a pretty nice instrument airplane, AND its still going to be light.

I have a friend with a 66 H model equipped about like that. He is a mining geologist, and believe me, he spends far more time in the backcountry than most of us, working that airplane. Time to go home? Go. Weather is less of an issue.

And you can still keep it pretty light. As I said, there are some dogs out there, but every model year of 180 has a lot of good points. Some may be better for what you want to do, but they are all great airplanes.

MTV

Owned a 1955 model 180 for a few years, great experience. I had it upgraded with an O-470 U and kept it light. Great speed and it leapt off the ground.

Like a few have pointed out above, beware the condition. Cessna 180/185's are the "3/4 ton 4-wheel drive truck" of the aviation world and have been beat accordingly. To me, looking for a 180 is different than looking for any other type of plane, say like a 182. Paint, interior, panel and logs are all secondary to a straight airframe with no corrosion.

To answer part of your original post, horsepower is relative. Yes, 285-300 horse power is nice. The fact of the matter is though, a stock 180 that's lightly loaded will go anywhere except the most tricky of strips. I used my 180 pretty regularly out of 600-800.' Any shorter I figured I needed a Super Cub or a Helicopter.

Good Luck finding your 180....I'm in the hunt for a 185.

Bill

I have a couple of thoughts on flying. We do a fair amount of x-country flying. But most of all my wife and I enjoy the back country. For the x-country flights I enjoy flying, so I am in no real big hurry to get there. It would be nice to cruise a little faster than 95 knts though.

For the back country I want a plane that has a little more HP than my C-170. She is a great plane and I have no plans to sell her. But for some of the short strips that we want to camp at I would feel more comfortable with a little more HP. Of all the planes I looked at, the C-180 seemed to fit what I wanted, a little more cruise speed and a great back country plane.

I was wondering though??? I spoke with a guy that has about 6000 hours in a C-180. He has said several times that he refuses to land in a high x-wind. I have landed my C-170 in a 15 knt x-wind component actually one landing was about 18 knts, that one made me real nervous. He said he would never do that in a C-180 because of the large tail. Any thoughts on that from those of you who have experience on x-wind landing in a C-180.

Is the C-180 more of a plane to handle or is it nice like the C-170?

Thanks for all your opinions and thoughts.

A C180/185 is one of the nicest, most capable X-wind airplanes out there...

Didn't we start this brush fire last year???

Gump