WWhunter said:
I have been tossing the idea of a 180 around in my head. I have found several decent ones for less that I can get a good SC. What are most of you 180 guys getting for fuel burn? I realize that the operating expenses will be nearly double of an SC but on a long cross country it would even out. I can still keep the SuperChamp for playing I guess.
Are there any major maintaince issues with an early 180 (53-59) that I should be aware of other than the fuel bladders?
Thanks,
Keith
Figure 11-13 GPH depending upon how you lean and how bad you
need to get where you're going. Having previously flown my 170B along
side my buddies' 180s, if they brought the power back to stay with
my 170 (aka slow-poke speed), we ended up taking on the same amount
of gas at our destination (within 1/2 a gallon). Like you say though,
it evens out.... At the 180's normal cruise speed, you're burning more
gas but you get there quicker. I did the math (compared to my 170)
as follows:
200nm trip
C-170; 100 knots @ 8gph = 16 gallons (@ $4.12/gallon = $65.92) for 2 hours of flight, nmpg = 12.5 nmpg (14 smpg)
C-180; 130 knots @ 12gph = 18.46 gallons (@ $4.12/gallon = $76.06) for 1.54 hours of flight = 10.83 nmpg (12.13 smpg)
The 170 is quite an efficient airplane, but with the 180, it's a nice trade-off
to spend just a skosh more for the trip and not have to worry about
clearing the trees at whatever strip you're trying to get out of, and it's
also nice to know that whatever you can stuff into the 180 and get the
doors closed on, it'll haul it into the air. The 180 also "shines" at altitude
(mine did 162mph @ 22 squared at 6500 feet with 600x6s and wheel
pants on it, don't know how much mounting 8.50s on there will reduce
that yet).
As far as what to look out for, a lot of the early 180's out there were used
up in the lower 48 before they got sold to Alaska, then they got used
up more up there landing on boulders 'n such, then they got sold
to Canada where they got further used up, and then gomers like me
buy them and import them back into the states to restore them back
to the way they should be (grins). All kidding aside, the guys tell me the
early bladders ('53-'56) tend to hold up better than the later ones (Cessna
changed the rubber composition around 1957). If it has an O-470A,
walk away. The J is OK, but the two bolt exhaust flanges need constant
attention unless you replace them with thicker (1/4"?) flanges.
Other than that, the 180 is an overgrown 170 with a big block up
front and a funny, squared off tail. Other than the constant speed
prop and governer, airframe maintenance (ADs and the like) won't
be that much more/different than, say, a 170. Insurance is a factor
of hull value (among other things) and will be more (my 170B was
around $950/year for $40K hull, my 180 is currently $1,600/year
for $70K hull).
To the other question about brakes, I can't believe anyone is still
driving around on the Goodyear wheels & brakes! If you're friend
doesn't want to spend $1K on a new conversion kit, used stuff
can be found/had. Check eBay, Barnstormers or the aircraft
salvage yards.
Bela P. Havasreti