hotrod180 wrote:

[email protected] wrote:Here's a quote from a GA News article about a guy whose airplane has been in his family since about 1960:
“It gets up and goes 130 knots without any trouble at all, and then lands on these little postage stamps.”
He happened to be writing about a C180 but it could just as easily been about a 182.

https://generalaviationnews.com/2021/01 ... he-family/

I'd say go for it!

It's super creepy that Jim's dad is named Jim, his mom is named Linda, and his wife is named Linda. I would not trust anything in this article because of that fact. Too many red flags.

I'm as big a TW guy as the next. Half my time or more is TW. But my 206 puts such a big grin on my face everytime I push the throttle ahead and take off in not much more room then a supercub needs. And I can haul 1750lbs, have extra width compared to the Cessna TWs, and is just plain more comfortable. Doesn't look as cool on the ground for sure, but when the wind is howling across the runway it is much nicer. The 200feet on ground roll and the taxi in is really the only time that you know its not a TW, they all fly the same once in the sky. I think the 182 will perform admirably for you.

Now to the really important question, for my next plane should I get a Beaver (deleted)

I fixed it for you, its ok you can thank me later

My opinion is that the answer of ND vs TD is more simple when you look at the advantages and disadvantages of each. This can go more deeply than I will address superficially, but my thoughts about NDs and TDs are as follows and don’t have much to do with aesthetics or coolness:

Big Rocks and Holes. TD >>> ND

Most Ski Flying. TD >> ND

Very Deep Snow Ski Flying. Do not take ND.

Soft Sandy Places. TD >>> ND. In fact, just don’t go there in the ND.

Places with high brush where 10” prop clearance won’t cut it. TD >>> ND.

God Forsaken Winds. ND >>>>> TD

99% of places most people go. ND >>>>>>> TD

And for the reasons above, insurance rates are thusly TD >>>>>>>>>> ND

And just for fun... Ease of loading, comfort while flying, better wing design, more cabin volume, ease of flying, and probably a host of other factors. 206 >>>>>>> 185.

Manual flaps, high insurance rates, AD on the horizontal. 185 >>> 206

If I was doing your mission I would buy the tricycle. the 182 is a good traveling machine. When the winds are howling or gusty it removes the stress when you have to get there for work. Remember that some of that perceived extra crosswind capability of the tricycle gear airplane comes from the coefficient of friction of the nose wheel on the runway so if it is slippery take that into consideration. Now for me, now days I fly for fun, did all the traveling I want to ever do in big airplanes with lots of engines so my mission is to fly within an hour of home on nice days. The fun for me is takeoffs and landings and I enjoy the extra challenge of a tail wheel airplane. I have half jokingly told people if I had to fly a 172 I would buy a bigger boat. Just my opinion.

Tim, 180 hp 170B owner

Mapleflt wrote:Now to the really important question, for my next plane should I get a Beaver (deleted)

I fixed it for you, its ok you can thank me later

Thanks for fixing that. Yea that's what I'm thinking.

Squash wrote:My opinion is that the answer of ND vs TD is more simple when you look at the advantages and disadvantages of each. This can go more deeply than I will address superficially, but my thoughts about NDs and TDs are as follows and don’t have much to do with aesthetics or

Most Ski Flying. TD >> ND

Very Deep Snow Ski Flying. Do not take ND.

Pretty good quote, all in all, except for the two above. You need to go visit Joe Mattie, who is a trapper and fur buyer in FAI. He flies a 206 on Fi Lite 4000s, and that thing really floats nice. And turns around better than a 185. The Hudson’s operated a TU206 on the same skis on McKinley (I know....it’s now Denali, sue me) and that airplane worked great.

Geeez, now you guys got me thinking I need to get rid of this tailwheel airplane and buy something with a nose wheel

MTV

Barnstormer wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:Now to the really important question, for my next plane should I get a Beaver (deleted)

I fixed it for you, its ok you can thank me later

Thanks for fixing that. Yea that's what I'm thinking.

BCP is like AA; your amongst friends here, we help each other through the hard life decisions and I'm sure you'll be there for me one day as well.

Anybody want to trade a super nice 185 for a 206?

MW

Traded my 180 for a 206 awhile ago . 180 was fun but I like the 206.Much more elbow room

https://alaskaslist.com/-3/posts/10_Tra ... U206C.html
https://alaskaslist.com/-3/posts/10_Tra ... a_182.html

I'd be happy to ferry either down south for you

Just cause it's cold and I can't go fishing doesn't mean you guys should encourage me to be looking at planes on the Internet.

Can anyone tell me what the cruise speed is likely to be for this one?

https://skywagons.com/airplanes-forsale/1980-cessna-tu-206g-stationair-289500-here-placerville-n4716x

mtv wrote:

Squash wrote:My opinion is that the answer of ND vs TD is more simple when you look at the advantages and disadvantages of each. This can go more deeply than I will address superficially, but my thoughts about NDs and TDs are as follows and don’t have much to do with aesthetics or

Most Ski Flying. TD >> ND

Very Deep Snow Ski Flying. Do not take ND.

Pretty good quote, all in all, except for the two above. You need to go visit Joe Mattie, who is a trapper and fur buyer in FAI. He flies a 206 on Fi Lite 4000s, and that thing really floats nice. And turns around better than a 185. The Hudson’s operated a TU206 on the same skis on McKinley (I know....it’s now Denali, sue me) and that airplane worked great.

Geeez, now you guys got me thinking I need to get rid of this tailwheel airplane and buy something with a nose wheel

MTV

I’m going to stick with my “Very Deep Snow Ski Flying. Do not take ND.” You know that uncomfortable moment when on your third pass to track out the landing area, the snow is so deep that the tracks just get deeper and deeper until the belly is basically riding the snow and who even knows what the prop is enduring? Slowing just a bit more to see how the plane settles, and it’s just too deep so full power is applied but the plane keeps slowing while the skis starts sinking in the lightest and fluffiest snow you can possibly imagine (and you know the backcountry skiing is going to be epic), but you are now down to like 5 mph in a cloud of snow and zero viz, and after a takeoff run of what seems like 2 min, you accelerate to 20 mph and realize that you won’t have to spend the next 2 hours unsticking the plane and tromping down a runway. Do not take a ND there if you are a mere mortal like me. That trapper and the McKinley guys can have at it in their 206 on whatever skis they want to use. I mean Denali. Shoot. It’s kinda like the Barrow thing except I actually cannot retain Barrow’s new name in my brain.

And now for my aesthetic comment. I would absolutely own a 206 if I didn’t think they were so dang ugly. So there you go. After all of the advantages of the 206 over the 185, I end up with the plane that makes me stagger the seats so the shoulders of my passenger don’t squash me (and I’m not a big guy) just because I like the lines of the TD skywagon.

Barnstormer wrote:Just cause it's cold and I can't go fishing doesn't mean you guys should encourage me to be looking at planes on the Internet.

Can anyone tell me what the cruise speed is likely to be for this one?

https://skywagons.com/airplanes-forsale/1980-cessna-tu-206g-stationair-289500-here-placerville-n4716x

We are your friends and that's just what friends do for each other, spend their friend's money.

I agree a tailwheel airplane looks cool, and its better for off airport operations, and lots of fun to fly I love flying the 170, its a different experience, but tailwheel airplanes are more expensive to buy and insure.

The feeling of landing a heavy airplane like the 182 in challenging remote small strips gives you an unmatched feel.
I am spending this winter flying my 182 in Costa Rica and I can tell you, you can do a lot and have a lot of fun in a 182.

Squash wrote:

mtv wrote:

Squash wrote:My opinion is that the answer of ND vs TD is more simple when you look at the advantages and disadvantages of each. This can go more deeply than I will address superficially, but my thoughts about NDs and TDs are as follows and don’t have much to do with aesthetics or

Most Ski Flying. TD >> ND

Very Deep Snow Ski Flying. Do not take ND.

Pretty good quote, all in all, except for the two above. You need to go visit Joe Mattie, who is a trapper and fur buyer in FAI. He flies a 206 on Fi Lite 4000s, and that thing really floats nice. And turns around better than a 185. The Hudson’s operated a TU206 on the same skis on McKinley (I know....it’s now Denali, sue me) and that airplane worked great.

Geeez, now you guys got me thinking I need to get rid of this tailwheel airplane and buy something with a nose wheel

MTV

I’m going to stick with my “Very Deep Snow Ski Flying. Do not take ND.” You know that uncomfortable moment when on your third pass to track out the landing area, the snow is so deep that the tracks just get deeper and deeper until the belly is basically riding the snow and who even knows what the prop is enduring? Slowing just a bit more to see how the plane settles, and it’s just too deep so full power is applied but the plane keeps slowing while the skis starts sinking in the lightest and fluffiest snow you can possibly imagine (and you know the backcountry skiing is going to be epic), but you are now down to like 5 mph in a cloud of snow and zero viz, and after a takeoff run of what seems like 2 min, you accelerate to 20 mph and realize that you won’t have to spend the next 2 hours unsticking the plane and tromping down a runway. Do not take a ND there if you are a mere mortal like me. That trapper and the McKinley guys can have at it in their 206 on whatever skis they want to use. I mean Denali. Shoot. It’s kinda like the Barrow thing except I actually cannot retain Barrow’s new name in my brain.

And now for my aesthetic comment. I would absolutely own a 206 if I didn’t think they were so dang ugly. So there you go. After all of the advantages of the 206 over the 185, I end up with the plane that makes me stagger the seats so the shoulders of my passenger don’t squash me (and I’m not a big guy) just because I like the lines of the TD skywagon.

Ah, but what you’re failing to take into account in that deep snow dissertation is that VERY large NOSE ski on the 206. Which provides huge additional float, and really helps keep the prop up out of the snow. Really, you should go out with someone with a 206 on FliLite 4000. Note that I did NOT suggest a 206 on c-3600 skis, BTW. One of my massively stuck stories involves that setup..... But, on Fli Lites, I’d put a good strong light 206 up against a 185 most days in deep stuff.

Of course, they’re scarce as hens teeth.

MTV

Cessna’s are the most boring, stable flying, predictable airplanes to fly. By design of course, which is what makes them so great. My bone stock ‘56 182 does everything I’ve asked of it, taken it into all the gravel strips I work off of without issue. If someone held a gun to my head and said to get the best 185 or 206, I’d be taking my money to Wipaire to get a 550 powered 206. Or a turbine like the sky diving one on here, that’d be a blast.

I’m biased though, I fly a turbine Ag Cat for work. That’s quite possibly the best flying airplane I’ll ever fly in my life. Since I get all my he-man testosterone tailwheel flying in it, flying a tricycle for pleasure is fine by me.

But that big strong tail gear makes the Ag Cat sit up straight like a trike.

contactflying wrote:But that big strong tail gear makes the Ag Cat sit up straight like a trike.

Still a thrill a minute packing loads off an old railroad bed, have to use all the peripheral vision you can muster to keep it straight.

Congratulations on the decision to take up flying John!

Some of the big advantages of tailwheel airplanes for backcountry flying are:

1. They have more Prop clearance
2. Most of the aircraft's weight is borne on the main landing gear, vs the third wheel, which is the most significant advantage
3. Maneuverability on the ground is much better - also a huge advantage
4. Folks will walk right by a 182 on the line at Johnson Creek on their way to drool all over the 185 (this may or may not be an advantage?)
5. Panache

The big disadvantages of a tailwheel are:

1. Limited over the nose visibility
2. Tendency for loss of directional control on the ground - huge disadvantage for those whose stick and rudder skills are not all tuned up
3. Insurance is much more expensive

The Cessna 182 is a capable and versatile airplane that performs solidly and predictably for most of what the majority of us do. They are not terribly exciting, as some have mentioned here, but in aviation "exciting" is not always a good thing.

My best advice for operating a 182 on unimproved surfaces is to carry some weight in the back. The nose gear is the weak link and stuffing it in a gopher hole can lead to significant problems that will prevent you from flying it home. Most 182s are easy to load up to and even out of the forward end of the CG envelope. In this condition, the nose gear is really loaded up. 30-50 pounds in the aft baggage will redistribute the weight more favorably for uncertain conditions and the rough stuff.