Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: 180 vs 182 floatplane?

  1. #1

    Default 180 vs 182 floatplane?

    Found out the 185 I put money down on had two accidents. One ground loop and one time it went on it's back on a beach. Needles to say I backed out of that deal.

    Now I'm searching again. There are a couple older 180's out there and a really nice 182 with all the right mods and with aerocet 3500 floats. Anyone have any pros or cons on modified 182's?

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Correctly repaired damage is no big deal. You may have passed on the better plane. A 182 can be a good float plane but it lacks what most guys want for wheel and ski ops.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Pid View Post
    Correctly repaired damage is no big deal. You may have passed on the better plane. A 182 can be a good float plane but it lacks what most guys want for wheel and ski ops.
    What he said.
    14 Days to Alaska
    Also available on Kindle and Nook

  4. #4
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,218

    Default

    What Herr Pid said.
    Additionally, most 182s I have flown on floats are heavy (empty) compared to a 180.
    It also seems to me that the 180's and 185's will trim further back (nose up) on floats since their trim system was made for a tail wheel configuration.

    My plane was wrecked into pieces in 1952...... The only original pieces still flying are the data plate, paperwork and control sticks.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    East Haddam , Connecticut
    Posts
    111

    Default

    I would look at how long ago the damage occurred and who did the repairs and how many hours the airplane flown since. A damage history should not be a total deal breaker unless he lied about it. This is why paying to do a pre purchase inspection is money well spent. Lets also face some facts of life here the kind of airplanes that we like, Ie Piper Super Cubs 180, 185's have been out of production for a good number of years, yea Cub Crafters build new Super Cubs and then there are the Aviat Husky, new airplanes are well out of reach for most. So we have to go with what we can afford, and some times that means airplanes that have a few things like some damage in their past. There is no getting around it, right now I am looking at a Cessna 172 texas tail dragger conversion. Its under 40K, their is a 185 F near were I live that looks pretty good on paper but its they are also asking 215K for it too. No way I can afford that airplane, the 172 I can, I know that its going to be just me myself and I flying in it, so performance and load carrying wise it might work for me. Heck I would love to be able to just go buy a beaver but I can't.

  6. #6
    Member Sierra Hotel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    637

    Default

    For the early model 182's ('56-'59) the only differences between the 180 and 182 was that Cessna swapped locations on the third wheel (which involved changing location of the gear box rearward on the 182), changed the exhaust because of interference from the nosewheel on the 182, and got rid of the cowl flaps for the same reason (cowl flaps returned a few years later). Comparing performance of the '56-'59 models should come very close to being a wash on floats, as the airframes are identical with the exception of the differences noted above. Early tests of the 182 showed about a 5 knot penalty in cruise due to the additional drag of the nosegear, and new airplanes off the line were about 60# heavier than the 180.

    FP - I found nothing in the documentation the 182 indicating that the trim system was changed until 1960, the C and D Models received a change in stabilizer travel (from Up 1 degree 50 minutes/Down 8 degrees 20 minutes to Up 0 degrees 45 minutes/Down 8 degrees 45 minutes). In 62, Cessna changed the horizontal stab from a fully movable tail to the fixed tail with a trim tab. This was probably where the two models diverged significantly.

    I looked at both models two years ago when I bought my 182, and the 182 gave me far more value for the money. Of course all the knuckle-draggers make fun of the nose being in front of the airplane, but similar 180's were running $20-40K higher! Yeah, I'm not running 36" ABT's on it and landing it on gravel bars or on the side of a mountain near Lime Village, but I probably would not have done that with a 180 either. I'm running 8.50's on the mains, and a 6" on the nose, and I go everywhere I need to go.

    Ideally, either the 180 or the 182 would have a P-Ponk (O-470-50) engine giving 270hp instead of the stock 235. I've got the P-Ponk, and it's a beast in that airframe, and the 3-blade McCauley makes it look just soooo sexy sitting on the ramp. Unfortunately, there was no factory float kit for my model year, and it's a $30K adder from Kenmore Air . . .

    There's a nice one on Barnstormer's right now on amphib floats that I'd look at real hard if I were of a mind . . . .

    Good luck with your search.
    SH

    .watermarked_d85b8805725f8cd7449e47de0d3c6449.jpg
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. #7
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,218

    Default

    FP - I found nothing in the documentation the 182 indicating that the trim system was changed until 1960, the C and D Models received a change in stabilizer travel (from Up 1 degree 50 minutes/Down 8 degrees 20 minutes to Up 0 degrees 45 minutes/Down 8 degrees 45 minutes). In 62, Cessna changed the horizontal stab from a fully movable tail to the fixed tail with a trim tab. This was probably where the two models diverged significantly.
    Just basing my thoughts on the A/C I have flown or those in which I have given BFRs and Float ratings... I do not think the original poster said what year of 182 he was casting his eyes upon... Personally I like 182s on wheels, and old 180s (like 59s) on floats. I don't like anything on Amphips unless it has two engines and a hull fuselage.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  8. #8
    Member Sierra Hotel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Float Pilot View Post
    I don't like anything on Amphips unless it has two engines and a hull fuselage.
    Doing the ROFLCOPTER thingy

  9. #9

    Default



    This is the info on the 182

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

  10. #10

    Default

    This is the 180


    $112,000Description:*Airframe Time: 3400Engine SMOH: 650Float KitNice EDO 2960 Floats with hatches and large ruddersSkyways 520 and 88 401 PropWing ExtensionsAtlee Folding seatsBAS Harnesses and HandlesFirewall BatteryVGsExtended BaggageP. Ponk Landing Gear SupportsCleveland wheels and brakes26 Good year tundra tiresRosen Sun VisorsDoor StewardsLED landing lightsModern BeaconFS450 Digital Fuel FlowKX 155 nav comGarmin 496 panel dockKing KT76A tansponderIntercomCarb tempEI digital egt/cht/oatHorizon digital tach1600 lb weight with 1300 lb useful load on wheelsMore Details:*Great paint.*Very nice cowling and sheet metal.*Great interior.*Terrific spec list.*Last two annuals by Cessna Service Station. Lots of money spent on details.*



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loose Change View Post
    This is the 180


    $112,000Description:*Airframe Time: 3400Engine SMOH: 650Float KitNice EDO 2960 Floats with hatches and large ruddersSkyways 520 and 88 401 PropWing ExtensionsAtlee Folding seatsBAS Harnesses and HandlesFirewall BatteryVGsExtended BaggageP. Ponk Landing Gear SupportsCleveland wheels and brakes26 Good year tundra tiresRosen Sun VisorsDoor StewardsLED landing lightsModern BeaconFS450 Digital Fuel FlowKX 155 nav comGarmin 496 panel dockKing KT76A tansponderIntercomCarb tempEI digital egt/cht/oatHorizon digital tach1600 lb weight with 1300 lb useful load on wheelsMore Details:*Great paint.*Very nice cowling and sheet metal.*Great interior.*Terrific spec list.*Last two annuals by Cessna Service Station. Lots of money spent on details.*



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loose Change View Post


    This is the info on the 182

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Float Pilot View Post
    Just basing my thoughts on the A/C I have flown or those in which I have given BFRs and Float ratings... I do not think the original poster said what year of 182 he was casting his eyes upon... Personally I like 182s on wheels, and old 180s (like 59s) on floats. I don't like anything on Amphips unless it has two engines and a hull fuselage.
    Oh, my . . . . . you really should fly a turbocharged C-206 on Wipline's 3750 amphibious floats. A MARVEL !!!

  14. #14
    Member Sierra Hotel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    637

    Default

    Loose Change - WOW, things to really like on both those birds. There's no mention of the vintage of the 180' but given the split windscreen I'm betting mid to late 50's, which means manual flaps - a good thing. Having the Western Skyways 520 means another 40 horses, another good thing. The 520 also comes with a 2000 TBO, way better than the 1500 hour TBO on the O-470, another good thing. Being an older airframe it will cost you more for maintenance, and a good pre-buy with a top-notch A&P who knows the 180 inside out will make the decision for you in regards to any accident history (you mentioned earlier, I assume this bird is one of the two you were talking about).

    The 182 is a newer bird, which should translate into lower maintenance costs in the long haul, but with the nose gear your switchover from floats to wheels is going to cost a lot more if you go that route.

    Good luck with the decision, it's a good problem to have!

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    All 180/185s have straps mid-windscreen unless modified by aftermarket STC.
    All 180/185s have manual flaps.
    Coincidentally, all 180/185s use a full trimming tail, aka a jackscrew. Only straight tail 182s (pre '62) share that. The 182 in the ad has electric trim and an elevator trim tab. Whether that's good or bad depends on the owner's preference.

    There's no rule that older airframes are more costly to maintain. The condition of the plane depends on how well previous owners maintained it. A well maintained older and high time airframe will cost less to keep than a neglected newer airframe. The differences may be difficult to spot. That's why you need a good mechanic to look at it.

  16. #16
    Member Sierra Hotel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    637

    Default

    Thanks Mr. Pid, I learned something today! My ignorance of the Skywagons is exposed . I'd still wager as a rule, the older bird will be more costly to maintain just 'cause stuff wears out - says the guy with a '58 182 . Well maintained bird, but every year there's something else to work on or replace. Comes with the territory, and I expected it.

  17. #17
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,218

    Default

    That 180B was born in 1959.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  18. #18

    Default

    I like them both. Wish the 182 had the Pponk conversion. Or the Texas skyways but I hear the mounting brackets are different which could add costs.

    The 180 is missing a Sportsmans cuff. Not sure why you would do all those modifications and skimp out on that?

    And I'm not too crazey about the old style yokes. But I could fix that easily. This has the old panel layout but I have seen a few 180s that have new panel inserts and they look good.

    Everyone has provided good info and I'm learning alot as I try to find the right plane for me and in my wifes price range!



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •