C-180 vs. C-185

[375handh]

Could some of you guys comment on the differences between the 180 and the 185? The likes and dislikes?

Thanks.

375HandH

[pzinck]

I like the performance of the early 180's.AA friend has a 53 pponked high hp in my hangar.It performs better than most 185's.I like the higher usefull of the 185.Our 185 performs darn good,but has lot's of junk in it.I am sure without the amphib power pack,autopilot,full ifr it would fly much better.Both are hard to beat in the 4 place category.

[FiftyNineSC]

Well, I've never owned a 185, but I've owned a 180 for the past few years. I have been around them probably more than any other model of plane in my life, though. With the exception of the 50's models 180's and the first 5 years of the 185 ('61-65), they are basically identical from a structural stand point.

The big differences are horse power, useful load, fuel injection vs. Carburted, and insurance. All 185's came with either an IO-470 or an IO-520. They are all high compression engines. All 180's came with a Carbureted 470. The last 4 years of 180's were high compression engines (Read: no car gas).

Bottom line, I like 'em both. The only detractor, for me, is the fuel injection. I like carburetors. Also, many people believe that for a private owner just taking trips and getting hamburgers....the 185 is a little over-kill. I just sold my 180, but in a couple of years when I'm back in the market I'm just going to look for the best plane out there for the money and buy it. Regardless of whether or not it's a 180 or a 185.

[Ruidoso Ron]

I just sold my 180......

Bill, I thought I told you that I made that mistake. You didn't need to repeat it!

[85Mike]

[quote="N4653B"]

Bottom line, I like 'em both. The only detractor, for me, is the fuel injection. I like carburetors.

Fuel injection a detractor?? That's a first for me. Not only more efficient but no carb ice problems.
I've owned my 185 for 18 years and love the load capacity. Other than that I don't think there's much real difference in handling. Most 180's I've flown are also lighter on the controls. My VFR 185 weighs 1789 lbs. empty. Certified scales so that's the real number.
Mike

[mvivion]

This is an apples and oranges discussion, but not because of the different models being compared, but because the different model YEARS make so much difference in both airplanes.

Here's an example: My 1966 C-180 on 2870 floats had a higher legal useful load than the 1985 C-185 on PK 3500's that I flew for work.

Now, ask me which one came out of the water better on a hot day at gross weight......

If I were going to choose "the ideal" rendition of these two models, I'd pick an early to mid 60's 180 with a Kenmore O-520 KAH engine or one of the other 520 conversions, big tanks, and keep it as light as possible.

There are a lot of people who don't like fuel injection, particularly on floats (note the aforementioned Kenmore conversion, which they specifically carbureted for their own fleet operations) because of hot starting issues. There is a learning curve associated with hot starting a fuel injected CONTINENTAL on the 185/206, but it can be done.

Frankly, if you're on floats and you turn loose of land before you're sure the engine will start, you'll find problems somewheres down the road.

The early 185's were great performers, and with the Wing-X STOL kits can go to (I believe) 3550 GW. The Wing X is also a good deal for the 180, but these things extend the wing a good bit, and so T-Hangars don't work as well any more, unless the doors are big. The Wing X increases the legal gross, and does wonders for the planes on floats.

MTV

[FiftyNineSC]

I just sold my 180......

Bill, I thought I told you that I made that mistake. You didn't need to repeat it!

I know, I know. :crazyeyes:

I need to get some things squared away financially, then I'll be back in the market for a later model. When I get another I promise to fly out we'll go break it in. :D

[185 Bushbird]

I've had a 54, 55 & 60 C180's and have flown many more models but like my 76 C185 with 3525 gross, Wing-X and VG's with 1372 lb. useful on 3430 edo's[115-120 knots] and 1700 lb. and change on wheels with 84 gallons fuel. I compare them like a 1/2 ton vs 3/4 ton pickup truck. I like fuel injection and with the right technique, no problem with hot starts at the dock.

[FiftyNineSC]

[quote=N4653B]

Bottom line, I like 'em both. The only detractor, for me, is the fuel injection. I like carburetors.

Fuel injection a detractor?? That's a first for me.

Well, mike kind of touched on the detractor for some...hot starts. Not really a big deal for me though. I just like the fact that a carburetor is easy to troubleshoot and repair. I can fix any carburetor myself. Not so with fuel injection. I also don't like the idea of an injector plugging and destroying a cylinder. Seen it happen more than once. Again, this is just my opinion.

Bill

[85Mike]

Mike
I agree. The hot start on the FI 520,s can some times be an issue. The only problem for me, in my 18 yrs. came at Memaloose airstrip in NE Oregon. At nearly 7000' and 70 degrees (11AM) it made me wonder if it was gonna fire. But it did. My instructor who checked me out in the 185. taught the flood start method which has worked every time with the one above noted exception. I had a bad battery connection that one time but it started after I cleaned the corrosion on the + terminal.
Mike

[185 Bushbird]

I've also seen more bad exhaust valves on O-470's than 520's. They both have their pluses and minuses.

[glassjet]

I got a nice cub so my dream machine is...

A light 68 C-180 with Extended wings (gross weight increase), vortex generators. long range fuel, belly pod with a IO-520 up front... Now that is what I call a Fire breathing dragon.

[akbhm]

Mike has it correct; even if he understated the performance difference. Raw horsepower cannot be beat when short lake or short field are in play.
Too many Alaskan 180's have failed to make the grade on takeoff where a 185 easily launches.

[cubscout]

Who's got the STC for high compression pistons etc for the 0-470 in C-180?

A friend has one and it pulls like a raped ape, but doesn't return my emails....

[375handh]

Thanks for all the information guys. Did anyone ever do an STC for a turbine in a 180/185?

Soloy did a prototype at one time:

http://www.supercub.org/photopost/data//500/medium/Turbine185.jpg

[FiftyNineSC]

Who's got the STC for high compression pistons etc for the 0-470 in C-180?

A friend has one and it pulls like a raped ape, but doesn't return my emails....

I had the O470 U conversion in my '55 model. It's 8.6:1 compression. It ran great. When spun up to 2600-2700 RPM they make a little over 260 HP on the dyno. Very similar to the IO-470 in the early 185's but just with a Carburetor. You also get a longer TBO.

Texas Skyways has the STC for sure....I think AirPlains has it as well.

Bill

[mvivion]

The Soloy was the prototype to test the gearbox/engine setup. Basically just a testbed. I think it got dissassembled later, and is no longer a turbine.

I've flown a couple of Soloy turbine 206's, though, and they kick arse--hard.

I just can't think of a much nicer personal airplane than a reasonably light, big engine 180, though.

The hot starts are doable. I did em all the time, and it's just a matter of learning the technique. As to injectors, I've cleaned DOZENS of injectors in the field. In fact, when flying those airplanes, I always carried the tools to remove and clean injectors and it's no big deal. On the other hand, I've had carburetors nobody could figure out. Pick yer poisen, I reckon.

That's also why you need a graphic engine monitor. You'll see a partially fouled injector right now with those.

MTV

[Jerry Gaston]

What is the proper procedure for a hot start in a IO-520 ? I've owned a 185 for several years and have not had any problems starting on a hot engine but I'm not sure I know the proper way .

[Scooter7779h]

I have a tad over 3,000 hours in C-185 on floats, mostly all river work, all in Alaska. I never had a starting problem, and I owned a 76, 78 and 81 A185F models. Most of my days included 20-30 engine starts, and a lot of it in the interior where we got temperatures in the 90s. If you start the engine pretty soon after shutting down (5 minutes or less), usually just mixture rich, throttle cracked slightly, crank and advance the throttle slowly until it started. If wont start on ten blades or so, just hit the high boost for a couple of seconds while still cranking and that was it. I never got where this was a problem with hot starting. Probably most finicky is if the start was say 10-20 minutes after shut down, because the heat in the injector lines. In that case, full rich, open throttle and high boost for a few (3-7) seconds to push cold fuel in the injectors. Then same procedure, leave full rich, throttle slightly cracked, crank and slowly advance throttle until it started.

I had a fair amount of IO-520 time in C-310's both with and without RAM conversions. Whole different procedure there. But the 185 install always was a snap to start, and most of the time I depended on it in brushy rivers with fast current.

IMHO the C-185 is night and day difference from an O470 C-180. If you are going to work them, especially on floats, there is nothing like 300hp. I got into some really small places on floats (<600') where I had to strip everything out of the 185 and drain fuel to get out, but a 180 would have never gotten out of there. I hate the carb ice issue with the 180, and would take the fuel injection over the carb any day. I never have flown an IO-520 C-180, bet that is a nice plane.

I did fly a Soloy C-206 on floats, what a machine. If I remember right they removed the yellow arc, and the green went all the way to the 160 knot VNE. You could cruise at VNE on floats with about 65% torque. At gross, would come out of the water in 10-14 seconds, and climb at 120 knots nearly 3,000 fpm. It would put you back in the seat pretty good when you put it all in, better have those seat rail locks installed in case you didn't get it latched good. It was cool to back into the dock in Beta to show off.

[180Marty]

I've been with a guy in Louisiana on floats that would do it this way after 20 minutes or so. Mixture rich, boost pump for a few seconds, throttle wide open, hit the starter and pull the throttle towards idle and it would catch somewhere in the middle or sweet spot as he called it. One time was a IO 550 and the other times 520.
Marty

[mvivion]

Scooter described the procedure I used. As he said, the hardest starts is after the plane has sat in the heat and cooked those injector lines on top of the engine for 20 or 30 minutes. Causes vapor in the lines, which you have to purge, which is why you cycle on the high boost for a bit with everything forward. You are putting (relatively) cool fuel from the tanks, and circulating it through those lines, forcing the vapor out of the lines.

Once you've got fuel to the injectors, it'll run.

I never had a problem starting 185's.

Actually carb ice never bothered me too much on the 180's either, but they are a bitch to keep warm enough in cold weather. Make sure and insulate that forward cross over tube with some pipe insulation, or it won't run for beans at temps colder than freezing.

They are both great airplanes. For recreation, I'd go for a big engine 180. They can be a bit lighter, therefore more fun to fly.

If you're working it, its' hard to beat a 185. But they are a "muscle" airplane--sometimes they like to be treated like a lady, sometimes you've got to muscle em around to get the most out of them.

Great airplanes both.

MTV

[jnorris]

Fuel injection a detractor?? That's a first for me.

I'm with Bill on this one. I like carburetors. Call me old fashioned, but I like the simplicity of a carb. It will start every time, hot or cold. It will not complain when using car gas. For the most part it's just trouble free. Can't beat it!

[Crash]

My '57 C-180 has a Bendix RSA fuel injection system on an IO-520. The Bendix system is very simple with no header tank, no high / low boost pump, and no return line to the fuel tanks (C-185 has all of this).

Hot starts are throttle set at 1/8, mixture full lean, crank till it fires then shove the mixture in and its running.

So far it seems to be a pretty good system.

Back to the original topic......

If I were going part 135 then a C-185 would be my choice.

For personal use its hard to beat a "hot rod" early C-180 ('53 to '59, '57 to '59 being the best years). "Hot Rod" means an IO-520, big prop, Sportsman cuff and larger tanks.

Take care.

Crash

[mr.jinks]

howcome nobody mentions the robertson stol?

[bob turner]

Okay. I took a 300 HP 185 up to Robertson for conversion, and was treated to the factory course. Included an aileron roll to "loosen it up".

I loved it - but for my personal use I would choose an early 180. I figure that the 180 is the best all-around lightplane, if you like to go places. I would opt for the leading edge cuff, and red and yellow paint. Period. Maybe 185 gear legs.

Not having the budget, I opted for a Super Decathlon, and have never been sorry. I have owned it for six years, and have never had a start go bad - yet, I expect it on each and every hot start. It is simply anxiety-producing. But with injectors it runs much better upside down.

[Cub Drivers Local 907]

I have a 62' 185 that was stone stock when I purchased it. I bought the airplane to haul a load and was really disappointed. I figured if I didn't do something soon it would end in a bad way. I stripped the interior out installed the Atlee jump seats, replaced the IO 470 with a 550, wing X, sportsman, vg's. I use it on floats ,skis & wheels often at over 3500 lbs and it is an amazing performer, a hot rodded pick up truck but it is no cub and I would rather fly the cub any day of the week.

Hank