I just sold my Kitfox and am looking for something with 4 seats that is a good capable backcountry airplane. I would like a C180 but after looking, it seems I can buy much more airplane in the old C182 (1956 thru 1959) for about $10k to $15k less. My A&P told me that the 1956 is vitually identical to the '56 180 except with a nose wheel. I think the only STC I would like right off would be a Landis nosefork and 8.50s all around but I want to see what the group has to say. Those of you that have flown or owned one of these, is this really the only "necessary" upgrade needed to be comfortable flying this into some of the rougher strips in Idaho, or do I need to look at other STCs like a STOL kit, etc. I don't plan on Mile Hi, etc. but I would like to feel comfortable going into Fish Lake, chamberlain, etc.

I have also heard there is a pretty nasty AD on the original props...can anyone tell me what the AD is or requires? Anyone have advice on which year I should be looking at? I like the tall gear and the climb rate on the '56 but I also like the cowl flaps on the '59...which one do I want or does it matter?

Darin

Get the 1959 182 for the cowl flaps. Most of the ones in the trade papers for sale have the newer prop. I really want a 180 bad, but with the price of fuel the older 182's are going for a steal IMO.

I love the 180's and I'd have one of them if I could... but I understand one of the big dark secrets in the back country world is that the tall-gear early 182 can rotate to a higher AOA on takeoff and landing than the 180 before the tailskid hits the ground. Which means that you can often get off sooner and land shorter with the tricycle gear than you can with the tailwheel gear because you can get to a higher AOA.

Now there's still a valid reason some back country people prefer the tailwheel, but it's not because you can takeoff and land shorter. I think it's prop clearance and the tailwheel gear forcing the nose up higher on a bounce. But the more experienced 180/182 drivers here can fill in that blank better than I can.

Bottom line is that the 182 can probably operate out of the vast majority of same back country strips that a 180 can. The 180 is a few pounds lighter if for no other reason than the nosegear. But the huge difference in price is important too, if you are one of those people whose "mission profile" and actual needs will work with a 182 as much as a 180.

"58Skylane" has a beautiful 182 with big tires on it and my guess is that there are not very many places a 180 can go that he cannot take the 182.

My kid just got his private in a friends 182A. I used to have a 67 182K. The early models are a lot lighter than the one I had, they sit taller on their gear too. There's no dark secret about the 182's being able to get in the air sooner than the 180. They're the same plane. If they're the same weight they'll get off at the same time. Same applies for landing. Both should land in the same distance and when you're talking that short you're really just talking about pilot skill. That's how a C180 beat all the Cubs and a Rans for Christs sake, at the New Holstein fly in short landing contest during OSH this year. The Cub guys didn't fly their planes correctly. One place where the 182 is better is that when I had mine I was not worried about cross winds and especially tailwinds. Just fly it into the ground and stomp on the brakes. The 180's advantage is prop clearance and the fact the 182 nose gear attach point is a weak link. If you're not landing in the boulder field this won't matter.

'56 was the only year with the really tall gear, it was lowered 4 inches in '57 and then lowered further still later in the early 60's. To me, when I see a '56 at an airport the tall gear makes the plane almost curious-looking.

Here's one link to a history of model changes.

You are on the right track. For 98% of pilots a tricycle gear will go the same places. When I step up I will think hard whether a taildragger justifies higher insurance premiums and a higher price (if I choose to stay with Cessna which isn't to say I will.) I love flying mine now but it just isn't a dealbreaker for me.

On the other hand I do know two different pilots who within the last year had to deal with repair issues after they dropped a nosewheel into a hole (a 172 and a 206.)

'56 was the only year with the really tall gear, it was lowered 4 inches in '57 and then lowered further still later in the 60's.

This is my understanding also that the '56 was the one that had the really tall gear. It is also about 100 lbs. lighter then the next years model.

but I understand one of the big dark secrets in the back country world is that the tall-gear early 182 can rotate to a higher AOA on takeoff and landing than the 180 before the tailskid hits the ground. Which means that you can often get off sooner and land shorter with the tricycle gear than you can with the tailwheel gear because you can get to a higher AOA.

This is exactly what my A&P told me even though he has a 185 and has owned 2 180s. I would rather have the 180 because tailwheel is all I have flown since I got my ticket and I like the looks of them much better but I will be doing a lot of flying with my 3 young boys now and I want to get rid of those nerves I always have when landing a tailwheel on those tight strips. I know many of you are thinking I am a pansy, and maybe I am but the last thing I want is to end up on my back in the backcountry with my boys. I guess with the nose wheel this is also possible but you really have to screw up to get that far. There are always the pesky gopher holes that can wreak havoc on the nosewheels but hopefully, the larger tires will help with this.

On the other hand I do know two different pilots who recently had to deal with repair issues they dropped a nosewheel into a hole (a 172 and a 206.)

Very true...my buddy dropped his 182's nose in a gopher hole at Chamberlain and had a $24k rebuilt on it. Well actually the teardown indicated that all was fine but he opted to do a complete rebuild as his engine had 800+ hours on it.

So is the '56 the one I want or does the lower gear stance really matter?

Darinh wrote:

On the other hand I do know two different pilots who recently had to deal with repair issues they dropped a nosewheel into a hole (a 172 and a 206.)

Very true...my buddy dropped his 182's nose in a gopher hole at Chamberlain and had a $24k rebuilt on it. Well actually the teardown indicated that all was fine but he opted to do a complete rebuild as his engine had 800+ hours on it.

So is the '56 the one I want or does the lower gear stance really matter?

I've got a 56 182 -number 502 off the line .The gross is 2550 with same wing,tail,fuse as 180 . Cowl on 180 has cowl flaps. The 182 didn't get cowl flaps until 1959. My 0-470- R runs cool like 200-220 F. Cylinder head temp even in August 110 degree heat. The Straight Tail 182's are great airplanes in the backcountry- the 1956 182 (Skylane didn't appear until 1958) was the highest ground clearance 182 ever produced. With 7x 6 mains and 6 inch nose wheel
I go where ever I want. 10-11 GPH at 130-140 Kts. TRUE airspeed .

I would also consider the 1960-C model which is the same as a 1959 with a swept tail and a few other nice mods. I think it is the classiest-looking early Skylane but I like the strait tails almost as much. If I could sell my Cherokee quick without taking a bath, I would buy this plane: http://denver.craigslist.org/for/1343001806.html

The guy told me he would take 35K- Bottom line and he has a brand new prop ($6,500) way low time, new bladders!!... So I offer it up here for a fellow Utard. If you get it, I want a ride!!!

1956 – 182 Gross weight 2550 pounds
1. Tricycle gear version of Cessna Model 180.
2. Nose cowl changed from Cessna 180 to accommodate nose gear.
3. 230 HP Continental O-470-L engine.

1957- 182A Gross weight 2650 pounds
1. Main landing gear lowered four inches, increasing gear track 5.4 inches.
2. Main gear strut material thickness increased from 11/1 6 inch to 3/4 inch.
3. Stronger seat frames.
4. Rear seat back support improved.
5. Upholstery rolled around door frame for better finish.
6. Flush door latches.
7. Redesigned instrument panel and fuel gauges.
8. Generator low voltage light standard.
9. Key lock baggage door.
10. Fuel tank capacity increased to 65 gallons.
11. Electric fuel gauges.
12. Gross weight increased from 2550 lbs. to 2650 lbs.

1958 - 182A Gross weight 2650 lbs.
1. Exhaust stack moved to right side to improve cylinder cooling.
2. Deluxe model 182 “Skylane” introduced, included upgraded interior, three color overall exterior paint, full instrument panel and wheel fairings standard.
3. Serial Number range changed from 34000’s to 51000’s to avoid conflicting with other models.
4. Bungee type rudder trim installed.
5. Improved instrument lighting.

1959 - 182B Gross weight 2650 lbs.
1. More streamlined cowling.
2. Cowl flaps.
3. Improved rear seat ventilation.
4. Royalite instrument panel cover redesigned.
5. Second chart box added to instrument panel.

1960 - 182C Gross weight
1. Tail changed to 35 degree swept design increasing overall length 25 inches to 27 feet four inches.
2. Larger rear seat windows.
3. Two additional side windows just aft of the rear seat area. The two additional windows add a ten percent increase in glass area.
4. New rear seat area bulkhead, which provides additional head room for rear seat passengers.
5. Flush fuel caps replaced “thermos bottle” caps
6. Headliner redesigned for increased headroom.
7. Control wheels changed from metal to plastic.
8. Redesigned seat cushions.
9. Smaller wingroot filets. With the new rear seat area bulkhead, small wing fillets allow a small fairing and blending between the wing and cabin top and fuselage contours. The new fillets allow a more simple assembly and elimination of two splice plates at the aft edge of the cabin top.
10. Elevator downspring added.
11. Rerouting of the main gear brake lines through the landing gear bulkhead and the same skin opening utilized by the landing gear. This allows brake line routing down the aft side of the gear, requiring fewer fittings and clamps as well as reducing drag.
12. Redesigned flap handle knob of molded plastic. A recess in the end of the knob accentuates the grip during flap operation.
13. Nose wheel fairing redesigned to provide ease of removal without disassembly of the nose gear strut to remove the fairing. Are movable plate on top of the fairing allows it to slip down over the nose gear fork when the wheel and tire are removed.
14. Visor support tube redesigned to allow visor to lie flat against the cabin roof when not in use.

1961- 182D Gross weight 2650 lbs.
1. Key operated start switch.
2. Cam-lock fasteners on cowling, identical to those used on 210 and 310 series aircraft.
3. Heavier reinforcements around the parting line between the upper and lower cowlings.
4. Gear height decreased an additional 4 inches, increases useful load 4 lbs., improves ground handling, more streamlined appearance.
5. ”182” added to serial number prefix.
6. Stronger nose wheel fork, similar to model 210.
7. Lower appearance, redesigned black Royalite instrument panel.
8. Lever-type cowl flap control provides more positive adjustment for full open, half open and full closed positions.
9. Radio selector switch console added to upper right center section of the panel.
10. Optional front seats with three-position hinged backs.

Darinh wrote:

'56 was the only year with the really tall gear, it was lowered 4 inches in '57 and then lowered further still later in the 60's.

This is my understanding also that the '56 was the one that had the really tall gear. It is also about 100 lbs. lighter then the next years model.

but I understand one of the big dark secrets in the back country world is that the tall-gear early 182 can rotate to a higher AOA on takeoff and landing than the 180 before the tailskid hits the ground. Which means that you can often get off sooner and land shorter with the tricycle gear than you can with the tailwheel gear because you can get to a higher AOA.

This is exactly what my A&P told me even though he has a 185 and has owned 2 180s. I would rather have the 180 because tailwheel is all I have flown since I got my ticket and I like the looks of them much better but I will be doing a lot of flying with my 3 young boys now and I want to get rid of those nerves I always have when landing a tailwheel on those tight strips. I know many of you are thinking I am a pansy, and maybe I am but the last thing I want is to end up on my back in the backcountry with my boys. I guess with the nose wheel this is also possible but you really have to screw up to get that far. There are always the pesky gopher holes that can wreak havoc on the nosewheels but hopefully, the larger tires will help with this.

I left the tail wheel world for pretty much the same reason, and yes, I am a pansy. I've had 3 180's, all old ones, and used a 185 for a season.

A Landis fork on the nose with an 8.50 and 8.50X10's on the mains is a good way to go. One can find plenty of trouble to get into with that set - up and it will do a good job of keeping the prop out of the weeds.

I suggest that on any of the Cessna models, you opt for one new enough to get away from those old cowlings with a million screws in them. There is maintenance that needs to be performed under there, and one hesitates to do so when it is such a chore to un-cowl. In addition, a few of those old 180's and 182's still have that old -A engine. If you buy one, figure on throwing it away when it's time to overhaul it 'cause the rebuild shops won't touch it. Another consideration one the strait tail is the jackscrews. It is an effective trim system, but can be very, very expensive.

If I didn't need the 6 seats, I'd swap for a 182 in a flash.

gb

Good point, the Cessna cowl is a joke. It's like they had a staff meeting and tried to find the absolute worst design possible. My Bo uses 4 camlocs per side and I have the whole engine exposed in 30 seconds. On my 67 182 the top cowl was OK but not great, at least the screws stayed on the cowl. The lower cowl, with the stupid fittings on the air box tunnel and cowl flap nuts/bolts, were the same old joke Cessna has always had.

all very good viable points...with my low(800) hrs, all in 182's...i have found that it is a very user-friendly platform for just about any mission...the 470 motors in most, non T/C, work pretty well. probably a better power-plant than my current 540 Turbo...BUT, when u need more boost, like the B on a hot a.m. departure, or any of the shorter ones, it is definitely a bonus. you simply have to manage it closer on the temps, and it has been bullet-proof...was just in a recently restored '58 straight-tail with the taller gear and it is really a great horse. if u can buy one for about 50K with good #.s, it is a steal for the utility aspect...if u want room and safety and affordable ins...and resale seems to be holding o.k....

would also consider the 1960-C model which is the same as a 1959 with a swept tail and a few other nice mods. I think it is the classiest-looking early Skylane but I like the strait tails almost as much.

I actually like the straight tail better but that does look like a great buy you show there except the engine looks like it is up there a bit.

a few of those old 180's and 182's still have that old -A engine. If you buy one, figure on throwing it away when it's time to overhaul it 'cause the rebuild shops won't touch it.

The one I am looking at is the O-470-L and it has 290 SMOH...what was the first O-470? I would assume it was tagged O-470-A but don't know?

Anyone know a good A&P near Butte, MT?

Darinh wrote:

would also consider the 1960-C model which is the same as a 1959 with a swept tail and a few other nice mods. I think it is the classiest-looking early Skylane but I like the strait tails almost as much.

I actually like the straight tail better but that does look like a great buy you show there except the engine looks like it is up there a bit.

a few of those old 180's and 182's still have that old -A engine. If you buy one, figure on throwing it away when it's time to overhaul it 'cause the rebuild shops won't touch it.

The one I am looking at is the O-470-L and it has 290 SMOH...what was the first O-470? I would assume it was tagged O-470-A but don't know?

Anyone know a good A&P near Butte, MT?

182's NEVER had a "A" model 0-470 that was limited to Cessna 180's until 1955 .Then the 180 went to a "J" model 0-470 (Another straight valve engine like the E-225) The first 5-6 years of 182 production were all equipped with the 0-470-L. After that the 182 went to the 0-470-R from then on to mid 1970's when they brought on the 0-470-"U". O-470 series engines are all great -I prefer them to the 520's any day. Keep good clean oil and baffles (keep cylinder head temp below 350) and you'll run thousands of trouble free hours. If you get Cylinder head temps much past 400 F. get a copy of Trade a plane and start looking for cylinders. If it goes 450 degrees you may want to call as soon as you get on ground ! Bottom end's of 0-470's are tough.

Bill, this one has the O-470-L with 290 SMOH. Does the L have any major issues? I understand the cylinder temperature issue but I don't know how it has been flown for those 290 hours...are there telltale signs of high temps to look for? Is there a STC to add cowl flaps to the early model 182s. It seems that if this is a problem, there would be a STC out there.

Darinh wrote:Bill, this one has the O-470-L with 290 SMOH. Does the L have any major issues? I understand the cylinder temperature issue but I don't know how it has been flown for those 290 hours...are there telltale signs of high temps to look for? Is there a STC to add cowl flaps to the early model 182s. It seems that if this is a problem, there would be a STC out there.

.
0-470-L is the first of the angle valve 470's > If you check the cylinder head temp probe should be on Cylinder #1 , should be a bayonet probe - factory installition . Spark plug heat sensors go 30-50 degrees hotter (indicated). Only way to check out how much heat cylinder's have experenced is to boreascope valves -see Sacremento Sky ranch web site . On before 1959 182's there are no cowl flaps and good airflow over cylinderes is regulated by the good/ bad baffles .As far as cowl flaps don't worry about adding them unless you want motor to run hotter.There is a STC to have fixed cowl flaps to after 1959 models. It cools down the cylinder head temp 30-50 degrees . check here http://www.horshamaviation.com.au/Produ ... wlMod.html. I do prebuys all over the world .

Sorry to jump into this so late in the game, especially after you've received such great advice from others, but I wanted to let you know I've owned a '56 182 for the last three years and am VERY happy with it. I like the tall gear as it gives me great ground clearance off road. I have the Landes nose fork with 8.00's all around and wouldn't change a thing. I take it all over the Idaho backcountry and regularly fly with friends who own 180's and 185's. They have yet to go anywhere I'm not comfortable following, including all the classic Idaho strips. Perhaps the best part is that I can land and take off in the same distances and can hang right with them on the climbout. Once in cruise, though, they can easily pull away if the want to, but if they pull back a bit we have no problems sticking together. 180's and 185's are certainly more capable, but considering the differences price and cost of insurance, it's a pretty good compromise. I wouldn't worry about not having cowl flaps as I have never had any issues with overheating and can easily keep my CHT's below 380df no matter what the OAT. If you have any questions about the '56, let me know and I'll try and answer them.

While the landing gear and the empty weight are issues don't over look the max gross weight.

It continued to change over the years and increased considerably.

I imagine there are gross weight increase STC's available.

I personally like the C182 a lot and think the new the better except for price.

MauleOne,

It seems that the first handfull of years on the 182 they would exchange gross weight for empty weight and the useful load didn't increase but performance suffered a bit. Until they went to 3100 gross, I think they were all about 1000 lb useful or so. My buddy has a '71 and it is a very nice plane but it is also very expensive. I am mainly looking at the early models because of price but I do really like the straight tail look better than the slanted tail.

nwkv8r,

Thanks for the info...I will PM you with questions.

I wouldn't get hung up on gross weight at all. All Continental powered 182's had 230hp. and the lightest ones perform the best. Period. Look at what happened to service ceiling as the airplane evolved. The earliest ones were something like 22,800ft (+/-) and by the late 70's they were down around 14,000ft. These later planes started out 300-350lbs heavier before you put the first drop of gas in them.

Barry Schiff had this to say in his recent AOPA story of flying a 1956 182:

"The rapid climb rate caught me off guard. The 1956 model is so much lighter than subsequent models, has the same horsepower (230), and easily outperforms them. The owner’s manual—there were no pilot’s operating handbooks in 1956—claims a climb rate of 220 fpm at 20,000 feet at the maximum-allowable gross weight of 2,550 pounds, outstanding numbers for an airplane without a turbocharger."

Cessna upped the gross weights because the plane gained weight and it would use its utility otherwise. People will tell you the early straight tails will carry as much or more than the higher gross weight birds even though you can't do it legally. The narrow body Skylanes (pre 1962) are noticeably faster too. And then there is the trim-able stab...