CH AG, Does the prop pitch change lever give the same rapid response as throttle on a piston airplane?

[quote="CenterHillAg" 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.[/quote]

Just about every ag pilot I’ve asked what their favorite all time airplane was said the Ag Cat. Of course these were mostly flying Air Tractors at the time. I’ve always wanted to fly one.
I flew joe Soloy’s 206 with the Allison engine....not quite as much power as that PT-6, but still a horse. Too thirsty for what I was doing, but fun. On amphibious floats, full gas and four up, the thing came out of a 2200 foot bank to bank pond without breaking a sweat.

But, you’re right...last plane I flew for FWS was a Wip converted F model 206, with a 550. 3800 gross weight, and 13.4 gob all day, LOP.

MTV

The C182 is just a great all around airplane with the only real weakness being the nose gear attachment point. Just have to protect the firewall and land on the mains at all times. As mentioned by most on this thread - you can't go wrong with a C182.

I personally just love flying tailwheel aircraft. There is nothing rational about it either. The challenge and difficulty with controlling them on the ground makes the experience more gratifying flying them. It also forces one to maintain very precise longitudinal axis control. I like not worrying as much about prop clearance when I am taxiing off airport. With that said - you will save a lot of money insuring a nosewheel airplane and for most missions they are just as capable as any tailwheel aircraft. The other issue with the tailwheel airplanes is most have been ground looped and repaired. You will need to find good paperwork and records on the airplanes that report prior damage and be on the look out for unreported damage in airplanes that report NDH. The closest performance comparison for the C182 would be a C180 or C185. I think the market is still showing quite the premium for the Skywagons compared to Skylanes. But then again everything is super expensive right now. I would steer toward a P model or later C182 - it has the camber lift wing, long range fuel, and improved gross weight. I like the older straight tail C182s too - they look cooler but lack some of the benefits mentioned.


Josh

Again, if you can find a decent Peterson conversion 182, like a Katmai, it would probably be a really good compromise between hard surfaces and soft fields.

Disclaimer:

I only know about Wrens and Katmais from the internet. They may be junk.

Sent from my ASUS_I001D using Tapatalk

I fly a Cessna R172K Hawk XP....210 HP CS Prop, Airglas HD Fork and 8.5 MLG w/ 6 NLG with VG's and it can take me just about anywhere my TD buddies land. These are a little harder to find than the normal 172 but it's been a wonderful plane for backcountry flying in Utah, CO, and Idaho. I live at 4800' so the extra HP is helpful on high HD days.

Here's a link to videos demonstrating its performance

Mexican mountain. https://youtu.be/5_wurQaMLr0

Marble, Co: https://youtu.be/xGaqpaVzJEI

Mineral Canyon: https://youtu.be/E4APDTHxg1Q

With that said...I am currently building a Glasair Sportsman as a Trike and will probably convert to a TD someday!

John,
Congratulations on your license, that’s amazing. I’d sure love to own a taildragger, it would be awesome! I work on them often, it seems like the 180’s and 185’s can be quite a handful. I certainly enjoy helping them live to see another day.

It’s great to hear of your interest in the Cessna 182! I finished mine the end of March last year. It’s been neat to start flying it in the Backcountry some. I haven’t been to Johnson Creek or Big Creek yet with it, so I can’t speak to those extremes, but it’s a pretty capable aircraft I must say!

Would love to have you come to Montana and fly mine. Happy to share as well pictures of what it’s capable of.

Richard

Hey,

I'm a 55 yr old new pilot with a couple hundred hours and a '68 182.

I dreamed of buying a maule, citabria or a 170 before starting lessons. When I drove up to the flight school, I looked at the citabria I was going to train in and then decided to train in the flight school's 172 as I'm around 6'-2" and 200#'s. I also thought the citabria was pretty little and my wife wouldn't like sitting in the back.

I then thought about getting a 172 with the 180hp engine. When i mentioned this to my CFI's they all said get a 182 as it will perform better than the 172 and cost less.

For where I am at and where I live I was glad I purchased the 182 for the following reasons:
1. It's a little bigger than the 172 (I'm 6-2 200#)
2. Bigger engine. I fly out of Marina airport in CA and want to fly to Tahoe and other areas in the Sierras so I thought a bigger engine would be nice.
3. Marina airport gets some good crosswinds
4. I've taken out the back seat so there's room for my mountain bike.

One day I'd like to learn to fly a tail dragger and maybe buy one. Right now the 182 fits where I'm at in the game and lets me fly more than a tail dragger due to the winds at my airport and my skill level.

Good luck with your search & I hope you are still racing cars

Dale

I’ve kind of cycled through the line up, a 172, PA28, a Citabria, 2 Maules, a Pawnee, a 206, a180 and a Husky. I just bought a182G. I’ve only been flying about 50 hours a year for a while now, that’s not enough to stay sharp on a TD. Life is a compromise, the art is managing your compromises in a way that works best for you. A 182 is less cool but less stress. I might be cheating a little though, I still have the Husky too.

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 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

I trained in a cessna 150 I owned 150-150 for a few years and bought a Merlin tail wheel. I fall into the God Forsaken Winds and the 99% of places most people go categories. It’s been awhile since I have flown a cessna nd but I was a lot more comfortable flying one in the high constantly changing winds we have here in my area. I know I would have more flying days if I would have kept my cessna.

It's interesting what that so many folks are talking about having tricycle gear because of wind. I actually went the other way, but I suppose that is due to my more unusual situation. We have so much strong wind here and it always seems to be out of the wrong direction so that I would frequently be fighting not to weathervane into the wind in my PA-22 while on gravel strips. Thankfully, on gravel, you can crab into the wind a little while still on the ground and that countered the effect some. There were just too many times that I was almost blown off the road by sudden gusts, though, so I went the tailwheel and big tire route so that I can always land in the fields, facing directly into the wind. There are no trees and little terrain here, so it works great. What you need just depends on what your mission is. Having an airplane is kind of like having a motorcycle. Vespa, BossHoss, Ninja, YZF, GS, Sportster, TXT etc. They all have different uses. The key is discovering what you want to do with it, and it may not always be what you think.

"Real aviators fly taildraggers"

- Amelia Reid Aviation

Another choice is the Maule MXT 7-180. It's a tri-gear Maule with a Lyc o-360 and a constant speed prop. It handles the high DA environment here in NM very well with the same or better performance as a TW Maule. They made a 235 and 260 hp version but I have heard that they are a bit nose heavy. Mine cruises around 130 mph true at 10 gph at 6000 ft and stalls at 40 mph and carries up to 73 gallons of gas. In the past i have owned a M4-220 and a M5-220 (both TW). They are a little faster but the MXT can get in and out shorter. The gear is very stout and the nose wheel is about as strong as you can find. Just watch out for soft sand and goffer holes, as with any nose dragger. Cockpit can be tight for 2 big folks, but my wife and I are very comfortable(170 and 110 lbs). Basically it will do anything but the real rough stuff. For the extreme rough stuff we fly our Supercub...(real lucky as my wife is an accomplished pilot).
Mike

I've owned trikes and tailwheel aircraft. My last plane was a 182 with a Texas Skyways engine conversion. It was actually the plane that JFK junior flew before he bought the Piper Saratoga that got the better of him. That 182 was capable and noteworthy because of past ownership, but it wasn't fun. It was also thirsty as can be. I sold my share in that plane (it was a 6 way partnership) and bought a 180 Hp Maule MX7-180-C. I fly the Maule a lot more than I flew the 182, I smile more when I'm flying it, and it's cheaper to operate. I never liked the plastic interior pieces in Cessna aircraft and I had a crush on Maule taildraggers for years before buying one. Some folks with 182s can go places I won't attempt with my Maule, but that's more pilot skill than airplane. I'm just an average Joe in the cockpit. The Maule takes me and my other toys (like bikes and camping gear) all the places I want to go and I enjoy every minute of flying it. I like the option of doing wheel, or 3 point landings, and I like looking at my plane when it's parked. I've had pilots of private jets come look at my Maule on the ramp, then offer me a tour of their plane. A 182 isn't likely to generate that kind of exchange. So, it isn't about capability for me, is all about the fun factor a particular plane offers, and that calculation is personal. I have the plane that makes me smile. I hope you can say the same whatever you wind up with.

Both interior and exterior plastic, that has to live in the sun all day on a working airplane, really cheapens Cessna, an otherwise fine looking airplane. More older ones are TD, have aluminum parts, and look good even with the stop crack drill holes and bent aluminum. Of course, fabric will always look best, especially old taught fabric that looks like it is doing the job after so many years. If you like shinny paint, get an automobile. Its skin doesn't have to be flexible.

contactflying wrote:..fabric will always look best, especially old taught fabric that looks like it is doing the job after so many years. ....

I have to call BS on this,
I've seen way too many airplanes with raggedy-ass old fabric.
Some years back, I was in the market for a Pacer,
but all the ones I found either had old, raggedy looking, questionable fabric, or else very new fabric.
The raggedy ones were very affordable, the newly covered ones not so much.

mtv wrote:Just about every ag pilot I’ve asked what their favorite all time airplane was said the Ag Cat. Of course these were mostly flying Air Tractors at the time. I’ve always wanted to fly one.

If you ever find yourself in South Tx I’d be happy to let you take my R985 powered Cat out for a flight, multiple Cat pilots agree that it’s one of the best flying they’ve been behind. Both of mine are A models, shorter wings but enough to carry a full load, the turbine does at least, working off whatever piece of land has been scratched out and called a strip. The plane practically flys itself and you’re just there to manage it, doesn’t wear you out at all. I don’t see myself ever buying a bigger plane, they’re highly profitable machines that are great to fly.

Contact, I don’t fool with the prop lever much, just set it to 2000 after takeoff, although it’s about the same response speed as a hydromatic prop control on a round engine. However, I have my prop set to be very(!) flat with the throttle at idle. Set up like that, I can push the prop back to 2200 10 seconds before landing, and use your brisk walk approach to touchdown, only it’s more of a dead sprint followed by an immediate deceleration pulling to idle.

Anyway... nothing wrong with Cessna nosedraggers.

Hotrod180,

I flew the very raggedy ones because they were cheap. Several tired engines let me down, but never raggedy fabric. I leased a CallAir with fabric that I could put my finger through anywhere there was no road department yellow paint. One of the mechanics worked for MODOT, Missouri Dept of Transportation. I don't know where that yellow paint came from, but it got applied regular and was exactly the same color as on the road. Anyway, that yellow paint deflected air sufficient to provide good lift. I sprayed with a Stearman with the fabric on the bottom of both wings just taped up. The end of the crop dusting business I worked in didn't replace any fabric until the airplane crashed. I was too young and poor to complain, but fount it to be adequate. For the recreational pilot with limited funds, I think there is a very good place between show plane and the raggedy ones I flew that is reasonably priced. That goes for ugly tin as well.

contact

Considering Tricycle vs TD and aluminum vs fabric, putting money into a good AI and pre-buy inspection is safer than assuming the really pretty one is the safer one.

contactflying wrote:Hotrod180,

I flew the very raggedy ones because they were cheap. Several tired engines let me down, but never raggedy fabric. I leased a CallAir with fabric that I could put my finger through anywhere there was no road department yellow paint. One of the mechanics worked for MODOT, Missouri Dept of Transportation. I don't know where that yellow paint came from, but it got applied regular and was exactly the same color as on the road. Anyway, that yellow paint deflected air sufficient to provide good lift. I sprayed with a Stearman with the fabric on the bottom of both wings just taped up. The end of the crop dusting business I worked in didn't replace any fabric until the airplane crashed. I was too young and poor to complain, but fount it to be adequate. For the recreational pilot with limited funds, I think there is a very good place between show plane and the raggedy ones I flew that is reasonably priced. That goes for ugly tin as well.

contact

None of that sounds airworthy.

Most of my trouble came with a pipeline patrol company that had show quality Ohio State paint jobs and immaculate maintenance logbooks and operations manuals and they paid well to keep pilots. I went two weeks (50 hours) on one mag but got new plastic interior as needed. After being complemented on my logs by a FAA maintenance inspector I had that very 172 almost burn up from a crack in the stack the mechanic would not weld because it was too long. It also had a hairline crack in the windscreen that the boss would not let him drill stop and lace with safety wire. That windscreen blew partly out and I was blinded in the right eye from missile damage ending my commercial pilot career. The windscreen blowout actually saved me from burning up because I was about to go about three hours completely across northern Louisiana. All the grey paint on the bottom cowl was brown from the heat.

Paying well for good airworthiness maintenance is well worth the money. Airworthiness. I was not a mechanic so I had to go by the word of mechanics and fly at a job that paid almost as well as my wife's teacher pay. My back hurt too much to spray or teach in the back of Cubs all day. This patrol company hired an fired mechanics monthly by the way. Anyway, some of us will compromise to fly.