I was wondering if any of you REALLY experienced 180/185 specific pilots have done water to land transitions with bushwheels. I understand the nautical/aeronautical factors at work. Cubs, Scouts, etc. do it all the time, lightweight/big tire/slow speeds. But,.. the heavier plane, the faster you need to go, depending on the tire size, and lift. I know you can waterski a 185 with 600's but it is not practical to transition to a beach at over 100mph.

So my Skywagon specific question is,... What is the smallest practical bushwheel you would use? 26"??? What are the average speeds to hydroplane with 26-29-31"'s? My guess would be a 3300lbs 185 with 29's would be around 60mph? A 2500lb 180 about 55mph or so? Or are the speeds too high to make using water practical at all?

I just opened up a can-of-worms, I'm sure.

Thanks

It doesn't do a thing to answer your question, but somewhere on here are pictures of a super-170 with bushwheels that didn't do so well as a swamp boat...after one look I gave the idea up for good.

My rule of thumb is, if I need bigger tires than 8.50's on my 185, I need a Cub.

I can tell you your guess is wrong

Maybe you can start a Backcountry Blunders list

splashpilot:

That sure is a nice looking 180 you've got there.

I've been a passenger doing what you're talking about in a 180 on 26" Goodyears. The guy is pretty good at it, but has bent his share of metal getting there to be certain. It was basically a non - event from a passenger's standpoint. Went to the 29" Bushwheels later on, and seemed to work good, too. This guy lands hot on the mains no matter what, and uses lots of brakes when he gets to the dirt.

I can't risk the repairs it takes to learn that stuff, but it sure is fun.

gb

Two factors to consider besides your penetration speed... Do you want to miss judge and clip a small cutbank going faster than 60 mph (your 185 IS going to penetrate above that) with anything smaller than 29s? hitting that small cutbank slower might even be worse
The other is, can your skywagon accelerate quick enough on gravel / sand to use LESS water on the way out? because if you need more water on the way out than you needed on the way in it's going to be ugly...
just food for thought

You all make valid points regarding the risk, I'm not crazy, just very calculating. There have been huge discussions on Supercub.org about it being sane or not. I think I got all the info I need on that issue, but alot of pilots think my job is insane too. I think it's managed risk.

I can see there is a point at which it is not very practical or useful. If I can fly it on at 50mph, there is no point to use the water.

Rob, and there lies the rub, it will lift off shorter than I am willing to land it.

I'm a fairly calculating guy myself but I feel that skiing a Cessna might be a bit too shreddy. The bigger, heavier sleds will penetrate so high on the speed that I don't think that you'll gain much by sliding up on the shore with wet brake pads as opposed to just taking touching down at a minimum speed with dry brakes. The footage of Greg trying to ski the Sherpa was a bit sketchy in itself mostly due to the fact that he was touching down too slow and it wouldn't maintain the surface. Where you have a headwind you may not get to take advantage of it when skiing on when you would when just landing on the bar. That will all depend on your penetration speed. I believe you could get into a situation where you were having to go a faster ground speed on the water than you could just fly in thatsame wind situation. Worst case scenario of this would also be going with the current, into the wind.
I have played with this a LITTLE in a Cub and two words that come to my mind for the successful execution of this operation are light and nimble. I'm not exactly sure that I classify the 180 as either of those when this close to the edge.
Post some video though when you're doing it!

Splash,
hope you don't mind a bit of a hijack but I have a question that fits here. I am not a "REALLY" experienced 180 guy, and zero 185 time. I'm wondering if it's the norm to be able to get out shorter in the skywagons than it is to land?
I see in your signature that you have pponk or skyways power, I do get to fly a similarly equipped C305 and while I take off shorter in it than land I'm sure in the hands of a more proficient person it would be the other way around.

To mirror Desert185, if I need to waterski to get to a gravel bar, I'm going to take a boat.

I'm as technically skilled as any pilot I know, and if need be, I'll fly into anything as long as I'm working my Plan B's for a way out. But the odds are stacked the wrong way with waterskiing. Sooner or later it's going to bite you.

Especially in a beautiful C180/185. Be like walking down an inner city alley late at night. I'd do it with a couple well armed buddies, not with the girl I was dating.

Gump

Rob, I think a stock 180 has the close to the same t-o/ldg distance with a good pilot, not what the POH says, but I have seen it. The 275hp engine will fly it off at 2000lbs in 250' or less with a bit of wind but with numerous variables during landing, I don't want to be forced to land it in the same distance. Though by the time I touch and hammer the brakes it will stop comfortably around 500', light. If I chose a gravel bar its going to be 900' or so anyway.

I know a MAF pilot, and they expect their pilots to fly a fully gross-weight 185 on and off in 750' consistently before they are signed off for the jungle. But of course we are talking a much heavier plane. Still impressive.

Gump, I agree, just trying to see if I was missing anything in the physics of it. If I can't find the logic in it I won't do it just to do it. The 180 allows me to further the adventures I enjoy, not to live one packing out with it upside-down in a river.

I've not flown everything, but I haven't flown anything that uses less to T/O than land. As long as the landing surface isn't slick that is.

Splashpilot....beautiful skywagon. I use to have a '55 with that same paint job, only mine was painted like that 40 years before I bought it. Seeing that, brought back fond memories. John

Well I have a few hours in 180/185 airplanes, and I've watched the big rocks, long props and some water skiing videos on you tube. I'm not near as experianced as most on this forum. However I would not try that unless it was a last resort and I had to stick it on a river bar because of some major mechanical issue. To much risk for me. It would be one thing to do it in a tube and fabric bird. But a $75K or more 180/185.


Fly smart, be safe, Bub

GumpAir wrote:
Be like walking down an inner city alley late at night. I'd do it with a couple well armed buddies, not with the girl I was dating.

Gump

You crack me up...

The transition to the beach at over 100mph did it for me.

[quote="a64pilot"]I've not flown everything, but I haven't flown anything that uses less to T/O than land. As long as the landing surface isn't slick that is.[/quote]

I'm no wiz but if you are talking about actual distances required and not ground roll, I can takeoff shorter than I can land. I land on 1400' quite a bit and would probably feel comfortable on 1000' runway for landing but I would feel just fine taking off a 700' runway. I have a dirt strip I go to that has been measured and marked every 100'. I can lift off fairly consistently at about 500' - 600' mark. On a bad day landing, I haven't even touched down by that point. This is in my 56 180 lightly loaded at field elevations of about 1500'. Higher elevations make a difference, of course.

Wayne

Not so long ago, I was on the other side of the curve so don't take any offense. If you are taking off shorter than landing, you may not be flying at your aiplane's full capability (includes being able to reuse the craft after the landing!) Think about what airspeed you are lifting off at when you try to get off short. How much faster than this are you crossing the threshold? With many/most pilots - quite a bit. If you are able to touch down consistently within a 20 ft spot and at the time of touchdown are just barely above flyable speed, your speeds at T/O and landing are probably comparable, depending on your technique. Now, which can accelerate the weight of your aircraft more effectively, your propeller or your brakes (negative acceleration)? Add in that air and ground surface friction are affecting both operations and the contest is weighted toward being able to stop quicker than you can accelerate even if prop and brakes are equivalent (which isn't likely). Again, if you are touching down at a slow enough speed, all out braking shouldn't be necessary to nicely roll out to the equivalent T/O distance. The best money spent on STOL capability for your aircraft is the gas you bought to go practice. I've been flying the citabria the past couple weeks ski flying and neglecting my new to me skywagon. I went for a hop out to the Owyhees in the 180 and my landing distances were much longer with just a slight absence.

c180pilot wrote: I can lift off fairly consistently at about 500' - 600' mark. On a bad day landing, I haven't even touched down by that point.
Wayne

Hi Wayne,
1) Please don't take this the wrong way.
2) I'm guessing I must be reading this or interpreting this wrong.

3) If on ANY day you have missed your touch down mark by 500'-600',
water assisted landings are probably not for you
4) you do bring up a good point though, It doesn't matter how short you can get stopped, if you can't pick where that short landing is going to start at

Take care, Rob

Hello all,

On a nill wind day I can land my 180 in a shorter distance than I can take off in.

On a windy and turbulent day, I find my runway requirements to be far greater due to the extra approach speed that I need to loose. The take off distance is normally shorter on these days.

Never tried those water transition landings tho, nor do I have a need to, but it would be interesting to know if it was possible.

Like Matt said practice, practice. And remember practice doesn't make perfect neccessarily. Perfect practice does make perfect performance though.
I am lucky in that I've got a setup with two taxiways about 500' apart. I make it usual practice to land and depart between them in the dirt whenever possible. Not usually at gross (3700' field elevation) but full fuel and two guys and a bit of gear. It's uphill east and downhill west. I am fairly proficient at it. When I'm heavier I usually start with 10' of flap and stroke in full when I get to the other taxiway. I like that method when you want to break ground but can accelerate in ground effect. It isn't so critical that I'd wreck the airplane if I over ran it but it would get pretty bouncy. This allows me to know fairly precisely what my capabilities are with my airplane and because I do it all the time I feel comfortable with it.
The best thing you can do when practicing is to be really specific about where you want to land do it until you get the sight picture and then do it five more times in rapid succession.
I like the MAF rule of 700' at gross. I don't think I could do that at 3700' but I bet I could do 900' or so.