Cessna 185B

I tend to keep an eye out on out of annual, run out, interesting airframes which are in reasonable condition. A 1962 185B sitting quietly at the back of a hangar, in a remote European airport for some years is a subject of interest.

Is the 260HP Continental 470-F a keeper? Plan A would be to overhaul engine and prop and undertake a modest panel upgrade. New seatbelts and tail handle would follow, plus the usual checking the airframe for rectification/AD compliance.

There is no practical need for this 185 on my part, other than it is a noble type and it would be a pity to let it die unremarked.


Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org mobile app

Last summer a friend bought a 185 with an IO-470 for a wheel plane. I asked how he liked it compared to his float plane with an IO-520. He said it works great and he really likes the lower fuel consumption. Not advice, just a comment.

The first 185's with the IO-470F were good. Because they were relatively light, I suppose. I have some time in a 1961 Skywagon 1. Its a hoot with the IO-470F. It hauls its gross weight load with WingX far better than a latemodel 185 hauling its gross load. Better climb, shorter takeoffs and landings, nimbler handling. I will get some numbers on gross and useful to share.

If facing an overhaul of that engine, I would move up to an IO-520. Why not? Money will be spent either way.

Being in Europe I would guess you are subject to Cessna SID's. My 180 I purchased last year had just had SID's which cost $23k on a 2,200 hour, hangared airframe. Maybe $17k USD at the time.
Just a consideration.

telmex Europe in its wisdom applies the SID, and in particular the ageing SID, inconsistently. Some countries treat them as mandatory, others do not. Having said this, looking inside the inspection holes for the wing on some elderly Cessnas you get to respect the purpose of the SID. Cracks in rear bulkheads, Cessna did build those main gears as indestructible on the 152/172, also may only be apparent with a thorough inspection as required by the SID.


Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org

The 90HP took me yesterday to have a look at this specimen. It hasn’t flown for years and at 6,000TT has had a varied life in the UK. Initially a company hack for Fortune 500 (UK) type company. The seller is the second owner and has used it for banner towing, and some parachute jumping, but mostly for private use.

Airframe is corrosion free from a cursory look into some of the inspection hatches. Avionics are 1970’s and pretty well obsolete. It has had a re paint but not obvious from the logbooks - these only go back to the 1970’s. It doesn’t have the seaplane airframe mods and it would be interesting to know whether the absence of sea plane/floats airframe mods is a negative or neutral?

The owner is elderly and relatively indifferent whether he sells or not, but was not interested in my as is where is offer. I may have even over offered as I estimate not much change from $80-90k to get the aircraft into acceptable operating condition (engine overhaul, prop overhaul, basic avionics, interior, airframe rectification). Given that here is a nicely presented 1961 185 for $92k my offer would have resurrected a nice airframe but not saleable for what I would put into it.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...&model=185&listing_id=2310202&s-type=aircraft


Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org

Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org mobile app

Here is the owner and subject, nearly worth a caption competition, the owner establishing beyond any doubt the battery was truly dead


Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org

So what are you gonna do did you get to buy it , i hate seeing a plane sit !!!

I left the gentleman with a fair offer as is where is, but I think he is has other worries at the moment. Perhaps at a later date he might re consider.

I quite like the 470-S engined version, if it’s not a working aircraft this engine may be easier on the fuel and maintenance.


Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org

Will check up with the seller in a couple of months, but in the meantime am looking into the 195 type. They used to be a bargain and occasionally you find nicely rebuilt ones (haven’t 90%+ been rebuilt) for a fair price. Not sure about the practicality but there is one which hasn’t flown in years tucked away in the midlands here. Dwayne Wallace regarded it as the finest Cessna, although his engineers liked the Cutlass RG.


Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org

Still exploring the subject and trying to understand how much less runway the 185B might require over the 195. The POH shows 1400 feet over 50 feet obstacle for the 185, and 1485 feet for the 195, both at 3350 lbs.

The 185 has a 56 mph IAS stall speed with Flaps 40 o, and the 195 62 mph with flaps. Not sure what CAS might be.

With a public transport safety factor both types should be comfortable with 2000 to 2200 foot landing field, but with the lower stall speed and semi fowler flaps the 185 I imagine is much more comfortable than the 195. I know one 195 owner who operates comfortably out of 2200 feet, but shies away from a 1,500 foot runway.


Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org

CAS is “calibrated air speed”. It is indicated (IAS) air speed adjusted for position error. TAS is true air speed....that’s CAS adjusted for DA....density altitude. And so it goes...all stuff we learned 100 years ago as a student pilot.

Lou

Hi FdxLou I do remember still what is CAS, what I don’t know is the CAS stalling speed for the 185B and 195, although the 195 superior pitot probe may produce a closer CAS to IAS than the 185. However if the CAS at stalling in the landing configuration is proportionally similar to the published IAS, the 185 should be requiring around 20 per cent less landing distance, all things been equal. i.e. braking efficiency.


Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org

Found these photos of a nice quite original early 185 panel.




Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org mobile app