In the US it would be difficult to do legally methinks. Cessna parts books are very specific by serial number in terms of what parts go on which airplanes, outside of that for something big like MLG you're looking at a field approval.

Have you tried big tires? 850x6 mains on my '62 made a big difference on tail height, brought the whole airplane up much further than I expected. @ 6'4" I can easily walk under the wing outside of the strut, used to stoop considerably to get under there. 850x10 or 29s would better yet.

Sam

Chris:
1956 Cessna 182 was (is) tallest of the 182s period. in 1957 they lowered Fuselage 4 1/2 inches to ground. Tim Avery and I have 56's (Tim is lowered with later model gear) .Bigger tires do help but less than the gear. As long as you can get motorcycle or truck up to 40 mph without loosing control you can land and take off - even with smaller tires. I'd recommend 700 mains and 600 nose as a really good combo. Adding those "alaskan bush wheels " (at $3000.00 bucks a pair) adds much more drag .Pre 62 182's are what I call "best of the 182's " depends on your mission. Main gear is attached with "U" bolt hardware that can be changed (and damaged) -nose struts are longer and robust. One of the post by Gump talks about trim able elevator -pre 62 had whole horizontal move up and down rather than that little trim tab . Straight tail is best for control and tri gear adds control in strong cross wind that 180 guys dream of. The no back window to leak,trim able stab, Manual flaps ,lightweight airframe ,and bulletproof 0-470- is where the money meets the mission.With a SPORTSMAN stol kit added to basic air frame you've got best of all worlds .These old straight tail 182 were built by a bunch of farmers(of which were my aunts and uncles) in winter for operating on thin budgets and remote field conditions .You can add thousands and thousands of airplane dollars to a after 1959 182 to get the same level of PERFORMANCE . I've got over 2500 hours on my old straight tails and they are my airplane of choice. Wish I could post pictures here of my numerous "off road experiences". Bill Berle -Tim Avery and others here have been with me on some of these adventures
into the world of off pavement LZs.

SA Maule wrote:I am trying to find out if it is possible to fit the longer pre 1960 Cessna 182 gear to a later model C 182, the idea is to gain the extra 4 inches ground clearance that the pre 1960 model cessna had on a newer model

1960 C model already has the higher gear unless you are talking about the '56 model as Bill said. The '61 model has the lower gear.

THE C AND D MODEL 182'S OFFER THE SAME PERFORMANCE AS A STRAIGHT TAIL EXCEPT CESSNA LISTS THEM AS A FEW KNOTS FASTER…. FASTER IN FACT THAN ALL STOCK 182'S!!!!!

THESE ARE NARROW BODY 182'S-

SixTwoLeemer wrote:

SA Maule wrote:I am trying to find out if it is possible to fit the longer pre 1960 Cessna 182 gear to a later model C 182, the idea is to gain the extra 4 inches ground clearance that the pre 1960 model cessna had on a newer model

1960 C model already has the higher gear unless you are talking about the '56 model as Bill said. The '61 model has the lower gear.

THE C AND D MODEL 182'S OFFER THE SAME PERFORMANCE AS A STRAIGHT TAIL EXCEPT CESSNA LISTS THEM AS A FEW KNOTS FASTER…. FASTER IN FACT THAN ALL STOCK 182'S!!!!!

THESE ARE NARROW BODY 182'S-

The pre 1962 "wider body" ( by 4 inches ) has 1.33sq.ft. more wing area than after . 4 inches x 4 ft cord - hence heavy er wing loading .1956 Cessna 182s were 2550 gross weight airplanes - as opposed to 2650 or more in later airplanes . The latest 182 go upwards of 3100 lbs. On same wing area . = higher wing loading per sq. Ft. Higher lbs. Tend to cruise faster with same thrust . When Cessna developed these airplanes in early 50s it was about getting the most performance from there aircraft . The wing platform / airfoil has been basicly been unchanged in 60 years. In 1974-75 they added the "para-lift" ( kinda Midwest STOL) to leading edge . The after 62 airplanes are more comfortable AT the cost of bigger frontal area drag and heavy er weight . I have both pre and after 1962 182s both have slightly different mission's. The addition of newer and more powerful motors (along with good prop ) will produce more TRUST to propell you r machine thru the air,and add to your fuel burn.

SA Maule wrote:This is very good news, it widens my spectrum of available aircraft, I therefore understand that any pre 62 is the way to go, not many of those going around in South Africa but who knows, I might get lucky. For my typical mission I need 1400 lbs useful load 4 hours endurance excluding reserve, must get up in 600 feet and handle unprepared , improvised strips AND run on mogas, will probably have to add wing extensions sportsman stol goes without saying . Thank you all participants, this helps a lot, now let the search begin

1400 lbs use full load is a little tough but do able , with a little planning . This takes into account of the empty weight /options / fuel and inside cabin stuff. I weigh airplanes of all kinds and typical non wing x airplane is 1500-1800 lbs. add 1400 lbs. and you soon see 2900 + lbs. Even with wing Extensions it adds up. Trying to lift a ton and a half of airplane off a 600 ft. strip takes a big red "S" on your t-shirt . The addition of a SPORTSMAN will do wonders . Also get a LFI -Lift Reserve Indicator -and use it . Reminds me of a video I saw some time back where overloaded Maule (that had just hit a tree on landing) crashed on takeoff . Be weight conciseness of every ounce of what goes in. BTW there's a 58 182 down at ranch with For Sale written all over it. Barnstormers has a few including a 59 project that could be had in low 20s.

SA Maule wrote:Sounds great thanks Bill, if I don't find something in SA I will definitely get back to you. At the moment I am constantly flying the maule 300 to 500 lbs over gross, I reckon it's just time before she bites me, BTW where can I buy a lift reserve indicator and most importantly, how does t work, might be worthwhile to fit one in the maule any way

Lift reserve Indicator has a web site -I prefer the mechanical version my self. Works with air pressure under the wing with differential of pressure- like a very sensitive rate of climb /airspeed indicator . Takes a little calibration but works under any condition . RED/Yellow and green wiper screen.

Assuming sea level conditions and say 2600 lbs all up mass, what would a realistic, repeatable dry, tarmac runway length be for an early 182 (A through C), fitted with the Sportsman STOL wing leading edge cuff. What would be your typical approach speed in normal conditions?

I would use 400 metres as a working hypothesis.

Emphasis is on repeatable - so assume some average safety factor.

I had a 182H without stol, so will let the experts answer your question. 400 meters = 1312 feet for those metrically challenged (I suffer through that daily).

Steve

L18C-95 wrote:Assuming sea level conditions and say 2600 lbs all up mass, what would a realistic, repeatable dry, tarmac runway length be for an early 182 (A through C), fitted with the Sportsman STOL wing leading edge cuff. What would be your typical approach speed in normal conditions?

I would use 400 metres as a working hypothesis.

Emphasis is on repeatable - so assume some average safety factor.

At 16.0 meters per sec approach at my grass strip (804 m elevation) 304 meters works for me.

tim

Despite Jefferson and other fathers of the Republic being francophile, it is always good to see the Imperial units prevailing over SI stateside.