Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 81 to 102 of 102

Thread: 185 vs Supercub

  1. #81
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    9,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    You're right, corrected.
    And, TIO——Lycoming doesn’t use the S in their turbo charged engine designations...

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.....

    MTV
    Last edited by mvivion; 02-10-2018 at 06:45 PM.
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  2. #82
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    1,906
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    I just looked in the parts manual. It is on all 180 and 185. Perhaps it is for adequate nose down trim at aft CG? Just like the Cub uses an up cable/spring for nose up trim.
    Incorrect.
    The 1953-62 C180/182 IPC shows that spring, but indicates it's installed on
    C182 s/n 52359 and up,
    and on C180 s/n 50662 and up.
    This corresponds with the start of 1960 production per Stancils information,
    and also concurs with Stancil's notes for 1960 model: "new stabilizer-elevator down spring to improve longitudinal stability".

    FWIW Stancil's list of year-by-year model changes is extremely comprehensive, and as far as I've seen, very accurate also.
    He no longer owns Skywagons-R-Us (or whatever) but the list is still on their website and is a great resource.

    http://skywagons.com/content/cessna-...n-year-changes
    Last edited by hotrod180; 02-12-2018 at 12:30 PM.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  3. #83
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    Incorrect.
    The 1953-62 C180/182 IPC shows that spring, but indicates it's installed on
    C182 s/n 52359 and up,
    and on C180 s/n 50662 and up.
    This corresponds with the start of 1960 production per Stancils information,
    and also concurs with Stancil's notes for 1960 model: "new stabilizer-elevator down spring to improve longitudinal stability".

    FWIW Stancil's list of year-by-year model changes is extremely comprehensive, and as far as I've seen, very accurate also.
    He no longer owns Skywagons-R-Us (or whatever) but the list is still on their website and is a great resource.

    http://skywagons.com/content/cessna-...n-year-changes
    Whatever, I bought my manual from Cessna and that is what is in it.
    N1PA

  4. #84
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,293
    Post Thanks / Like
    What year range manual and parts "usable on" codes?

    Cessna made plenty of mistakes/typo's along the way.

  5. #85
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,868
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's the answer Dave. Page one 1974 thru 1985 Model 180 & 185 series. 3 February 1997 never had a need for an earlier version.
    N1PA
    Thanks Dave Calkins thanked for this post

  6. #86
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    1,906
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dont blame Cessna if youre looking jn the wrong book.
    Thats why I specified looking jn the 1953-62 IPC.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  7. #87
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,293
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not to assign fault, but Cessnas books and pretty much all the manufacturers books are chock full of error.

    ......I was trying to help Pete save some face.......
    Thanks skywagon8a thanked for this post
    Likes 180Marty liked this post

  8. #88
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    8,596
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    That's the answer Dave. Page one 1974 thru 1985 Model 180 & 185 series. 3 February 1997 never had a need for an earlier version.
    Changes were to correct for weakness...

    Think about that.
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3,313
    Post Thanks / Like
    My thoughts on the early vs late model 180s? I think it’s safe to say that in the early years guys bought Skywagons as tools, not toys. That explains why the airplane got heavier duty and higher gross limits through the years. It evolved to suit market demand. These days lots of guys choose planes as toys, not tools. Less is more. Whatever floats your boat. They’re all good.
    Likes FdxLou, Bill.Brine liked this post

  10. #90
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    1,906
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aktango58 View Post
    Changes were to correct for weakness... Think about that.
    From the compute/software / IT field: "that's not a glitch, it's a feature".
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  11. #91

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you were going to fly 8-900 lbs (pilot, two passengers, 2-300 lbs of cargo) to and from short (given the load) gravel bars and strips that are a little on the rough side would you choose an early, light 180 or would you be more inclined to use a later 180 or a 185 that has been beefed up a little?

  12. #92

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Meanwhile,...
    Posts
    4,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by StudentPilot479 View Post
    If you were going to fly 8-900 lbs (pilot, two passengers, 2-300 lbs of cargo) to and from short (given the load) gravel bars and strips that are a little on the rough side would you choose an early, light 180 or would you be more inclined to use a later 180 or a 185 that has been beefed up a little?
    I personally think the later model wing flys better when heavy.
    Remember, These are the Good old Days!

  13. #93

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3,313
    Post Thanks / Like
    My priority would be to get the best condition airplane. Model year would be less important.
    Last edited by stewartb; 02-14-2018 at 07:05 PM.
    Likes DENNY liked this post

  14. #94

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    StudentPilot
    So, Pilot and two passengers/cargo/fuel 61 gal. 600 lbs + 300 lbs + 360= 1260 lbs. The big questions are do you need more than 61 gal and how long are you sandbars? Lower 48 it may not be a issue but in Alaska fuel is always an issue unless you never cross the Range. Factory seaplane kit will give you more beef. You can usually find a good 185 with big tanks and big motor for less than you modify a 180. Don't look at Valdez SOTL videos to figure out what loaded planes will do in no wind condition.
    DENNY

  15. #95

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    MA & ME
    Posts
    282
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DENNY View Post
    in Alaska fuel is always an issue unless you never cross the Range.
    DENNY
    That's why I love a low compression engine that can run just fine with some 4-stroke snowmobile or generator gasoline thrown in it!
    Likes DENNY, aktango58 liked this post

  16. #96

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just some more Cessna trivia the first 180C serial number is only three numbers 624.
    DENNY

  17. #97
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    8,596
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by StudentPilot479 View Post
    If you were going to fly 8-900 lbs (pilot, two passengers, 2-300 lbs of cargo) to and from short (given the load) gravel bars and strips that are a little on the rough side would you choose an early, light 180 or would you be more inclined to use a later 180 or a 185 that has been beefed up a little?
    Stewart nailed this one.

    Denny, I did plenty of flying with less than full tanks. With reasonable weather there are not lots of places folks normally go that is more than an hours flight to fuel with a 180. If working really far out there very much you would stage fuel anyway, just my experience.

    No matter what plane you buy, how short it will land and depart, how much it will carry- you will want to have another 20lbs and find a spot you feel you have to land just a little shorter than you need. Lots of guys come to the airport asking for the 185 and show up with a Beaver load. Or come for the Beaver and have an Otter load... just how it goes.

    Learn your ability and the equipment's abilities, and stay inside that envelope. Get better with time and envelope expands.

    My choice: The one I could afford to purchase, maintain and fly!
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
    Likes DENNY, Colorguns liked this post

  18. #98

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks for the replies. Fuel is not an issue, I can get away with 25-35 gallons 90% of the time courtesy of a fuel cache, although tankering fuel is cheaper.

    I took a 185 into a shorter strip last summer with a light load (5-600 lbs at a time). Conditions were about perfect so it was a non-event. I got thinking a light 180 with a big engine might allow a higher payload to that strip, or the same load into a couple slightly shorter strips, but I was wondering if the lighter construction would be a drawback. I have access to a nice 185, so I guess I will stick with that and see if I can get more practice in.
    Thanks Bill.Brine thanked for this post
    Likes Bill.Brine liked this post

  19. #99

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3,313
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you generalized and said an early model was 200# lighter and flew both planes with 900-1000# loads you wouldn’t notice much difference in landing or takeoff performance. For a stock 180 you’d find that you could easily land in distances you can’t get back out of without shedding that load before leaving. If you want to take off better or have a better margin over obstacles? Add horse power. With 1000# in the plane the 185 (or a big engine 180) will out-perform the stock engine 180. 30% more horsepower overcomes 7-1/2% more weight.

    If you want to flit around like a bird it's about wing loading. If you want to pack the mail it's about power loading. In my feeble mind, anyway.
    Last edited by stewartb; 02-15-2018 at 10:52 AM.
    Likes FdxLou liked this post

  20. #100
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    1,906
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DENNY View Post
    .... Pilot and two passengers/cargo/fuel 61 gal. 600 lbs + 300 lbs + 360= 1260 lbs.....
    My 53 model C180 weighs 1650-ih empty, grosses at 2550.
    So with only 900# useful, my airplane is legally not even in the running in your scenario.
    ("I coulda been a contender....")
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  21. #101
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    1,906
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DENNY View Post
    Just some more Cessna trivia the first 180C serial number is only three numbers 624.
    That didn't sound right so I looked up the s/n on the FAA registry.
    Darned if you're not correct. But I wonder if that's a typo?
    Stancil's old model-year info page says the C model started with s/n 50662.
    I did some poking around on the FAA site and it sez s/n 50662 is a 180C, N9162T (owned by Cessna).
    It also sez s/n 50661 is a 180B, N9161T (also owned by Cessna).
    So that pretty much bears out Stancil's info.
    I noticed that the s/n 624 airplane's tail number is N180BS.
    BS....hmmm.....
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  22. #102

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    Joe is a friend of mine so he is the first one I called on the number question. He said it did not sound right and then called me back because he remembered he had also owned one with only three numbers once also. If you dig a bit you will find the number in Cessna manuals and other publications. They will list the 180C serial numbers starting with 624 then the five digit numbers. Google Cessna 180 production list, they show 4 Cessna 180s that only had 3 digit numbers, I believe they are the prototype planes when they had bigger changes. The best part of the N number is you get to call Zero BS when ever you want!!!!
    DENNY
    Likes marcusofcotton liked this post

Bookmarks

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
  •