Pinecone wrote:An old straight tail 182 is better bang for your buck than a hod rod 172 or 175.

And...

That old straight tail C182 has a trimmable horizontal, not a trim tab. No matter what you stick on the front of a C172/175, you're stuck with the tail.

I wouldn't be too afraid of high airframe times if things look good at inspection. There's a whole lot of working single engine Cessnas (and others) still out there earning their keep every day, now pushing 40K hours on the airframes. Some of my favorite work airplanes were also by far the highest timers, and the nicest flyers.

Gump

I may be talking out my a** but I thought the difference between a real Cessna 180 and a 182 converted to tail dragger was that the real 180 had a trimmable horizontal and the 182 had a tab.
All my 182 time is in later model RGs, and my potentially faulty recollection is that they all had tabs

aftCG wrote:I may be talking out my a** but I thought the difference between a real Cessna 180 and a 182 converted to tail dragger was that the real 180 had a trimmable horizontal and the 182 had a tab.
All my 182 time is in later model RGs, and my potentially faulty recollection is that they all had tabs

The older 182s had the trimble stab, same as the 180.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

A1Skinner wrote:The older 182s had the trimble stab, same as the 180.

Yup, in '62 the C182 lost the trimmable stabilizer, manual flaps, and got fat.

Gump