Family is going to be growing and going to need more seats than the -12 has. Starting to look for a good 4 place taildragger. Strip at home is 1500'. What are the pros and cons of c-180 and a Maule 235?
Family is going to be growing and going to need more seats than the -12 has. Starting to look for a good 4 place taildragger. Strip at home is 1500'. What are the pros and cons of c-180 and a Maule 235?
My hunting partner has had both. He now has one flying Maule, and one in project mode.
He told me that the 180 flies easier hands off, and is easier to get it to perform.
He likes the Maule because it has lots of structure, is a fun flier, and easy to work on... for less than a 180.
Either will do the job. Fabric from the factory is poor, so buy one that is recovered.
If not in a hanger, aluminum skin is nice.
I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
Tyrone,
These were the two planes I was looking at also. I not only wanted more space, I also wanted a distance machine which is why I chose the 180. It's really comfortable and manageable on a longer trip (say, 1000 miles). Having said that, I do like the big Lycoming engines. I have flown five or six different Maules, old ones and new ones. I love the HP of the late models but I have to say I find comfort in the way the Cessna handles by comparison.
sj
"Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
------------------------------------------
The Cessna will have a better useful load with enough gas to go somewhere. With the Maule you'll be trading gas for cabin load. Maules perform well, no doubt. Their workmanship from the factory is poor, though, especially their paint process. As George says, look for one that's been rebuilt. Frankly, there's no comparison though when it comes to durability and robust construction. the 180 is stout. But, they're also older. Many well kept examples out there, though.
If I were putting my family in an airplane like this, it would be a 180.
Finally, check insurance rates comparatively.
MTV
180s are like all other airplanes in that if you buy a cheap one, it'll cost you maintenance and upgrade dollars the aggregate of which usually exceed the cost of buying the best one you can find. And like other planes, some fly better than others. If you happen upon a good one, it'll become part of the family. My kid grew up in mine. Wife, kid, dog(s), and whatever we wanted to take were no problem. The kid flew the coup. I still have the 180.
Why are you limited to a tail dragger? Dollar for dollar I think the early 182s are the best value in the market. I say early models because I'm fond of manual flaps but my time in an electric flap nose dragger was good, too. Tail draggers work better for me on skis for but other than that the 182 is a workhorse. I wouldn't pass on a 205, either, if one came up. A 206 would be the ultimate family machine.
Growing family? Another child? Congratulations.
Last edited by sierra bravo; 06-25-2012 at 08:35 AM.
I certainly agree with SB on the 182. It is the best bang for the airplane buck going in my opinion, and a great all around plane. I have more that twice what I paid for my 180 invested in it now. It would have been cheaper to buy something that had already been upgraded, etc, by someone else for sure. However, I do know exactly what I have now, which provides me some level of comfort.
sj
"Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
------------------------------------------
I thought of a 182 . Do they have the same takeoff and landing performances as a 180? My farm strip is 1500' from fence to slough, with 50' obstacles at both ends. I have no trouble with my -12 but my boss has a 182 and he's not sure if he can make it in and out without any wind. We also have a cabin and go there a lot in the winter to ice fish so would like something that works well with skis. Is the fuel burn around the same in-between the 0-470vs235?
In the 1970s three of us partnered up to buy an airplane. We looked at Maules, 180s, and Mooneys. (we got the Mooney).
Then we got a little bit wealthier - one got a 1956 C-180, we kept the Mooney, and another got a 210hp Maule. I got to do the pickup and chckouts in all three. We flew them all the time, in the pattern and on trips. No Sandbars, but we often looked for performance on marked pavement.
The Mooney was great for economical, fast cross- country, but that early 180 was an absolute joy. The Maule was interesting, but I'd rather have a Clipper with a 160 Lyc. The Maule was slow and cramped.
Opinion.
1500 with 50' on either end... I don't think you can take any of the discussed out of there fully loaded on a hot day...
I have not issue getting into there, but be careful of loads out as the temp goes up. But that said, I have often had to use longer places to get totally loaded on long trips. Move to the big strip and load the last of it. did that lots on skis.
I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
I've had 3 engine failures with big Lycomings! None with Continentals. My 2 cents.Originally Posted by SJ
I have a 54 180. Dad had a 75 model. Love them both. The 54 has an 0470r and 88" prop, performs awesome. The 75 was more stout but the 54 is light and flies accordingly.
I looked at maules as well but could not find any I wanted. Wanted a m6. I paid what I thought was a fair price for the 180 with 11 hrs smoh. I've put about 12 into a new panel. With the exception of poor paint it has the mods I wanted and now rigged out like I wanted.
Both the 180's I have time in we're previously wrecked and repaired, this doesn't bother me. Hard to find one without some history and if you do you will pay. Only complaint with the 180, and it's a big complaint, is the price of parts.
Fyi, the insurance was about $500 more a year for a maule to 180 at comparable hull values.
Lance
and you can also put the big 29x10" main tires on 182, and landes nose fork with 8:50x6 .... (are bushwheels approved on mains? I would assume??)
Tyrone8 this is nothing personal.
Another way to look at it. Keep what you have.
I've seen others get a bigger airplane with the intent to take the family,
and then no one wants to / has time to go flying with them. Familes are a dyanamic thing.
With the "smaller" airplane one gets to spend quality one on one time with selected family members on those outings.
Good luck what ever way ya go.
P.S. 180
Yes, I'm an Oenophilia. And I VOTE...!!
That is a good point.
Keep the small plane for most days, rent a big one when you need it.
I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
Why give up cub performance.......PA-14? 4 place cub!
Outlaw N5139H
Tyrone,
You don't mention the average density altitude where you are at (and I did not bother to try to figure it out). If it is close to (and sometimes below) sea level where a number of these Alaska folks operate, you will see HUGE performance differences than if it is say 5000' on average. Here in KC, a 1000 foot is easy in the winter, and scary in the summer when the D.A. is really high. I always get concerned when people say "1500 feet should be no problem with obstacles" but don't mention where that 1500' is located, or the average DA - can make all the difference in the world. Your boss might have valid concerns if it is hot and high where you are.
sj
"Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
------------------------------------------
Tyrone, If you like building Kit Planes or have the time.. You might look into a Bearhawk. 4pl.
My strip is 2425' ASL it isn't your average strip. It is kind of on a side hill for most of it and is down hill to middle from both 30 and 12. All of are land has a lot of rolling hills and that was the best spot my grandpa could find when he built it and his hanger back in the 60's. He had Chief and a -12 and never needed any more. I know a 180 has been in and out. Thats why I was thinking of them two planes.
Be a lot of money to spend only to find you can't really get in and out OK. Every time I set up to take the family, something got in the way. Now I've settled in to a '51 Pacer-150 with the back seat out. Space, baggage and my wife of 37 years. Just right. The C-180 uses plenty of fuel, and is a somewhat expensive plane - parts wise. If you've got the dough, then you could go to an O-550 conversion, and STOl kit, but it won't be inexpensive.
My 180 burns a little less than twice as many GPH of fuel than my -12. In doing so it carries way better than 3 times the payload at nearly twice the speed. Per leg MPG is remarkably similar but payload moved per gallon favors the 180, as does pound moved per hour of operation. At the end of the day the 180 is far more efficient than my -12 providing I have a payload that exceeds 300#. (Payload is useful load less fixed overhead, i.e. pilot, fuel, survival gear, tools). With relatively comparable loads my 180 outperforms my -12 for exiting my 1000' cabin strip over tall trees. Both planes do it easily but the obstacle clearance in the Cessna is greater. That remains true with double+ the PA-12's load capacity. Would I go over the trees in marginal weather at full gross? Of course not. But for my family of three plus dog and the typical gear two girls like to take? I never needed to go at full gross in the 180. The same load would have taken two trips in the -12 at full gross.
Watch at 2:57
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm3kH5t5CCM
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas Edison
The cub and the 180 both get about the same mpg
When the Okies were down here if flew along with them in the 180 burning about the same or a bit less gph
I don't think a Maule can be compared favourably with a 180. The 180 is a real plane.
My PA-12-180 and my 185 get virtually the same MPG. Leaving tomorrow with the 12 for Talkeetna and really not looking forward to the trip. Vicky calls it a butt numbing ride. She's right. Weather doesn't look good either. I'd much rather be taking the Cessna but am taking the 12 and going to leave it up there. The smokers are much cheaper transportation.
Mike
I will be here all but Thursday night Mike, (Haines).
My inlaws will be here though, and strip is now mowed.
SB, I think that your cabin DA is far different than what Alberta summers at 2400 feet will be...
and a 'load' for one may be totally different than another.
How much fuel do you usually have leaving your cabin? When I had the 180, my fuel load made all the difference in performance.
I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
I've always manage my airplane loads with departure and destination conditions in mind. I assumed everybody did. My fuel load is determined by what I need for a flight or for a round-robin trip. I don't carry extra fuel without good reason. All I need is enough plus a reasonable reserve.
To the density altitude comment? I never intended to encourage Tyrone to use my performance numbers. I provided him an honest pirep of the comparison between my 160hp PA-12 and C-180 and identified the conditions that I operate my planes in. Limited space. Big trees. I know which plane can do what in that setting. Sometimes I fly them both on the same day, so I figured I could make qualified comments about the two models, one with which he's very familiar. He sounds like a smart guy with a family history in farm strip aviation. He can interpret my comments with reflection on his own PA-12 experience. I'm confident he got the point.
The 180 will do what you need. The maule is junk, I don't care what model it is...
Sorry if my comment seemed short or rude, did not mean it that way.
After a bit of time in the 180, most will figure out how much to carry out of a strip, but if one has not flown them, it is an eye opener when you fly it loaded with fuel after only being empty...
Had a student about kiss it when they tanked down and put some gear in the back after their check out... they did not expect the long ground run in comparison.
Also the folks that buy one and bring it home, flying full fuel all the way... then take off for a pattern with only 1 hour of fuel do not expect it to come off the ground quick.
I got the impression that the plane would be used for family trips, wanting long legs. To me that means lots of fuel, lots of weight, needing lots of room for takeoff in high DA
Last edited by aktango58; 06-27-2012 at 09:38 AM.
I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
Take a look at the Bearhawk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux3Uu2JfXVg
That's Bob taking off and Landing on his home grass strip. He often delivers 0-540's in his Bearhawk.
I'm building (very slowly) a Bearhawk QB Kit. Hopefully with a 0-360 CS (180 hp) I'll come in at 1300 pounds, just need to keep fighting the urge to add more stuff.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks