Every aircraft has something you don’t really notice until you’ve flown it for a while—how it handles, performs, or reacts. What’s something that caught you off guard with yours? Did it change how you fly?

Wow, great question.

I was shocked when I was a passenger in my plane and Virgil Irwin (owner of BH) was flying. The stuff he did in my plane was amazing, unbelievable steep banks turns, very short takeoff (I really never do short field take offs as I get off short anyway) and a super slow and steep approach with a smooth touchdown.

As for my flying…..

It is as fast as I thought with TAS in the low to mid 130’s mph, but slower than I expected as my average touchdown IAS is 39 mph. That touchdown average is from uploading all of my flight data from my Dynon into Flysto. No doubt my plane would be faster with a constant speed prop, but, but… but maybe someday I will hit the lottery and put on a CS prop.

Bottom line, my plane does everything as well or better than I had hoped. No big tires, no landing off airport, just good fun, gets there fast, lands slow, stops short and hauls a lot.

All the places where water can collect in the airframe if you don't unplug the weep holes periodically!

How much money it was going to cost to maintain. Way more than I expected but still no regrets. The 180's performance has exceeded all my performance expectations.


Josh

How special they really are. I can’t find anything else, certified or experimental, that does better for my mission than what I have. It’s a plane that’s really hard to upgrade out of. And it isn’t for lack of trying, I’m constantly looking for my next project. Unbelievable that 70 some years of human innovation since the 180 rolled off the assembly line hasn’t made an all around better Wagon clone. They’re the shit.

Likewise for my 170B, it has pleasantly surprised me on many occasions with it's capabilities following the 0-360 engine upgrade. It nicely tic all my boxes and I can still afford the occasional upgrade to scratch my "tinkering" itch.

My 170 is amazing, does so much well. The 180hp just makes it fly in that sweet spot at higher DAs and loads.

Just getting into the cub, I have about 50 hrs mostly just circuits and messing around. It is even more amazing in a small zone. Ridiculously easy to land and takeoff short. And so much fun to fly in the summer evenings with both doors off. Ruckus with a useful load.



But what amazes me most is that both of these planes are 65+ years old, and still do a really useful job. Just amazing, simple, fixable engineering.

Pretty much just have to echo what others have said about their planes. My 206 just checks pretty well all my boxes. Be it landing sandbars, long cross countries, and hauling loads. It gets in and out very short and slow, but still very respectable cruise speeds at low fuel burns. Ive been averaging 156mph at 12.3GPA with 8.50s all around. The addition of the autopilot has made the long cross countries much nicer, as I usually do a few 6.5hr cross countries per year. I wouldn't mind picking up a Citabria type for ski flying in the winter, but it isn't necessary. The 206 isn't a taildragger, but the air tractors I fly all summer scratch that itch. They are amazing in their own right. The loads they can haul, how responsive they are to small control inputs, to the amount of work one get get done in a day without being overly tired. Amazing machines.

How truly bad-ass a light, 180 hp Pacer is.

How much the chicks dig it.

The satisfaction it gives me every time I fly….a place of peace and retreat from the crazy world we live in….ok…enough of the philosophy

The satisfaction it gives me every time I fly….a place of peace and retreat from the crazy world we live in….ok…enough of the philosophy

“I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things. ”
― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

I switched from a Super Cub to a Cessna 180 in 2010. The 180 carries twice as much, is three times as fast (when you factor in the lack of fuel stops), and is twice as capable for the kind of flying I do (since it'll go IFR). Yeah, it doesn't land as short and my 8.50s won't go where the 31s would go but I don't fly that way so that part doesn't matter so much to me.

But what surprised me is how twitchy the 180 is in a crosswind compared to the Super Cub. I know, experts say they can land in a 40-knot direct cross (I saw one of these experts last week say this in response to a ground loop on Fakebook). I have flown with an excellent CFI in crosswind components up into the teens and it is sporty. Any crosswind gets my attention, and any crosswind greater than the book recommendation of 12 knots really gets my attention, to the point of maybe going somewhere else. The type of wind gets my attention too. A steady crosswind (maybe an onshore flow along a coast somewhere) is way more comfortable than one of those swirly crosswinds on a thermally or convective afternoon.

I've landed plenty of times in winds gusting to 30, and that's no problem if it's within 20-30 degrees of the runway (even though a 30 knot wind that's 30 degrees off is 15 knots of crosswind). But once that crosswind swings out to 50-90 degrees off runway, it's time to think about other options.

This is the only airplane I’ve ever flown that goes slower when I add power. If I’m in the pattern going 70kt, get a little low, and add power, I’ll wind up at 60kt and only kind of going up.

Push,trim, push, trim…..

I’m always shocked at how much damn fuel mine burns

I think what is most striking to me isn’t necessarily specific to the plane, but how far I feel I’ve come as a pilot over the years and how many more places I’m willing to go because this 206 is so capable. I’m very conservative so there were a lot of strips that I simply wouldn’t go into with my 182 even though that plane was certainly up to the task. The squishy tires and HP on this 206 give me the confidence to go to about 1/2 the places it's actually capable of going into.

185er wrote:How special they really are. I can’t find anything else, certified or experimental, that does better for my mission than what I have. It’s a plane that’s really hard to upgrade out of. And it isn’t for lack of trying, I’m constantly looking for my next project. Unbelievable that 70 some years of human innovation since the 180 rolled off the assembly line hasn’t made an all around better Wagon clone. They’re the shit.

I feel the same way. Crazy that nobody can beat the overall versatility of the wagon after all these years. It doesn’t do anything perfectly but it does everything.

Coming from 172’s, the biggest surprise was (and still is some days) the sink rate. With the Skyhawk - as soon as I had the runway made, I’d chop power. When my instincts told me to start flaring, I’d pause for an extra half-second and could perform the prettiest, nose-high touchdowns and then fly the nose wheel down - airliner style.

Nearly three years with the 182, and I’m still chasing the right power setting and that airliner landing.