Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 102

Thread: 185 vs Supercub

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    King Salmon, AK
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ha, I don't think he does. Pretty sure he is on his 3rd engine in his 180. Its bare bones at 1800# and a carbureted 520. This year in Port Alsworth Fly in he had a 83' takeoff 10 kts of wind and my cub was 103'. Granted I was still pretty new but he is one hell of a Cessna driver. Almost makes me mad what he can do compared to my cub...

    On another note, the biggest plus I see to the cub is the ability to get into the tight spots but they really shine in the soft or rough stuff. Looking at energy distribution to the gear legs of a 180 vs the TK1 shocks on an exp cub is night and day. Plus I can taxi through and land with 35s at 4.5 psi way better than a 180 on 31 will do.

  2. #42
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,045
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyR View Post
    Does he give lessons?
    J
    Just takes practice and a feel for the plane. Lots of practice, then more.

    You must fly the plane controlled on approach right at the lowest speed you can, and hit the spot perfect every time.

    I would be at 50 mph indicated on final, then slow to 40 short final and be holding brakes at touchdown. The tail is buffeting slightly, as in the yoke oscillates quickly forward and back a bit when that slow.

    You also have to be current in the plane, and have good air. Takes practice, and practice.
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    MA & ME
    Posts
    393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Practice, practice! I'm putting time in the saddle, slowly & carefully exploring the limits, trying to get the judgement along with the perspective and muscle movement. Just wish someone would pay me to do this!

    The Skywagon sure is a different beast at or near gross. While mine is 1,850 empty, it feels relatively light and responsive in the sub-2,000's compared to 3,200. Wallows like a water buffalo full of inertia.

    Quote Originally Posted by aktango58 View Post
    Just takes practice and a feel for the plane. Lots of practice, then more.

    You must fly the plane controlled on approach right at the lowest speed you can, and hit the spot perfect every time.

    I would be at 50 mph indicated on final, then slow to 40 short final and be holding brakes at touchdown. The tail is buffeting slightly, as in the yoke oscillates quickly forward and back a bit when that slow.

    You also have to be current in the plane, and have good air. Takes practice, and practice.

  4. #44
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,045
    Post Thanks / Like
    That is heavy compared to what I had. My memory is 1620 or so empty. Horton Stol, no vg's.
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  5. #45
    algonquin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Seldovia,Ak
    Posts
    841
    Post Thanks / Like
    I had a 56' that weighted about 1630 pure stock and at gross you could. Slow to 45 mph on short final, and at 42 it would land short in a river ,lol, or so I'm told. 6" of water and three feet or so short. After that I set the limit to 45 on approaches. I now have a 185 with a much higher gross but the speeds don't compare at all. I miss the 56' but no range with small tanks, still love flying the wagon.
    I can't wait to get my Husky done to play in the bush!

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    MA & ME
    Posts
    393
    Post Thanks / Like
    What are your stall speeds at ~3,000? I realize every airplane is different, but am curious. My perception is that my '73 is essentially an underpowered 185 in terms of flight characteristics. Hence the hunt for a big motor option. Thus far PPonk seems the best fit.
    J

    Quote Originally Posted by algonquin View Post
    I had a 56' that weighted about 1630 pure stock and at gross you could. Slow to 45 mph on short final, and at 42 it would land short in a river ,lol, or so I'm told. 6" of water and three feet or so short. After that I set the limit to 45 on approaches. I now have a 185 with a much higher gross but the speeds don't compare at all. I miss the 56' but no range with small tanks, still love flying the wagon.
    I can't wait to get my Husky done to play in the bush!

  7. #47
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,045
    Post Thanks / Like
    The early models grossed out around 2,600, (been years since I looked at that number). Later models had beefed up wings and stiffer gear.

    Which tail do you have?

    No matter what you do to your 73, I don't think it will ever be the STOL plane the early models were. The control feel of the late models are that of a 206- when our DO flew the 185 for the first time she had a hard time pulling up because the force was way beyond what she was used to, and her brain was saying DANGER! That was just normal.

    Early models have control forces that of the 172s, light and nimble.

    For light and nimble you give up beef in structure, which means gross weight and strength.

    Great planes, but different.
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Don't worry Johnny, your '73 will do fine. It just needs a power boost to let it comfortably get out of places it can get into.


  9. #49

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    MA & ME
    Posts
    393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aktango58 View Post

    Which tail do you have?
    185 tail w/ upgross to 3190. Don’t think I would have bought one without it, as our mission frequently requires 1,000+ lbs payload.
    Disconnecting the elevator return spring made a huge difference and it is now balanced and light. Not required for land planes, per Cessna MM.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    MA & ME
    Posts
    393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    Don't worry Johnny, your '73 will do fine. It just needs a power boost to let it comfortably get out of places it can get into.

    Hoping for it this November! I have to talk to you about that Acorn exhaust...

  11. #51

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    There it is. Smooth flowing risers and collector running to a gutted muffler. The seaplane tailpipe is gusseted and the shroud is dammed off to vent that pesky crack area and not include it under the shroud. My old exhaust had the leaky clamped joints. This is a big improvement for leaks and the performance boost is a bonus.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	008.JPG 
Views:	52 
Size:	343.2 KB 
ID:	35163


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    Thanks JohnnyR thanked for this post
    Likes JohnnyR liked this post

  12. #52
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyR View Post
    My perception is that my '73 is essentially an underpowered 185 in terms of flight characteristics. Hence the hunt for a big motor option. Thus far PPonk seems the best fit.
    J
    This is less $$$ than more horsepower and gives improved short field landing performance with the throttle closed as well as take off, climb and cruise. https://www.wingxstol.com/html/products.html
    N1PA

  13. #53

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    MA & ME
    Posts
    393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    This is less $$$ than more horsepower and gives improved short field landing performance with the throttle closed as well as take off, climb and cruise. https://www.wingxstol.com/html/products.html
    I hear ya. However, I’m going to need a new engine shortly (low compressions and high time don’t justify just a top overhaul)and the delta between a well built 470 and the PPonk is likely less than the cost of WingX plus install. Either way, I need a new engine and since we fly heavy, high and short, with the promise of skis next year and floats in the summer, the HP increase just makes sense...
    J
    p.s. Shorter landings with throttles closed are news to me. How’s that occur? I’ve experienced the opposite and can land on the spot I want by dumping power held through final. Maybe another thread needed for that discussion...

  14. #54
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyR View Post
    p.s. Shorter landings with throttles closed are news to me. How’s that occur? I’ve experienced the opposite and can land on the spot I want by dumping power held through final. Maybe another thread needed for that discussion...
    Simple, more wing area, lower stall speeds, same (throttle closed) power, less runway required.
    N1PA

  15. #55

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    So why did you add a 550 to your own plane? It appears you subscribe to the power component. Just not for others?

  16. #56
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Don't be arrogant stewart, My plane has had wing extensions and drooping ailerons for 35+ years. I made my own before the STC products were available.
    N1PA

  17. #57

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wasn't intending to be arrogant. It was a question.

    A 180 will land shorter than it'll take off. Horsepower is the best solution I know to equalize that. The heavier the 180 the more it helps. My own 3190# 180 needed the power boost to make the capacity useful.

  18. #58
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm always in favor of the most horsepower one can practically install taking into consideration weight and balance. You can always pull the power back for economy purposes, but you can't push it further if you need it. Some, like the Lycoming TSIO-540-J2BD in the 185 are too heavy to be practical as they become too nose heavy requiring too much ballast. They do go upstairs fast though and they do love gasoline.
    Last edited by skywagon8a; 02-10-2018 at 05:05 PM.
    N1PA

  19. #59

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    MA & ME
    Posts
    393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Simple, more wing area, lower stall speeds, same (throttle closed) power, less runway required.
    Are we talking about power off approaches? How can you land precisely with power off during final/short final?

    I ask because in short strips or off airport zones that don't give much leeway for error, a power-off approach leaves too many uncontrolled variables on the table for me, not least of which is the ability to control my glide path with precision. At least when flying a power on, stabilized approach you will have precise control over approach path, descent rate, and touchdown speed. And, how do I compensate for wind gusts, lift, sink and turbulence with the power off?

    My plane stalls at slower speeds with power on than power off. Doesn't yours?


  20. #60

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    I'm always in favor of the most horsepower one can practically install taking into consideration weight and balance. You can always pull the power back for economy purposes, but you can't push it further if you need it. Some, like the Lycoming TSIO-520-J2BD in the 185 are too heavy to be practical as they become too nose heavy requiring too much ballast. They do go upstairs fast though and they do love gasoline.
    I've never flown a 350hp Skywagon but it sure sounds like fun. Last I looked, Wup Winn had a Maule listed on his webpage with that 350hp motor. That would be a monster!

  21. #61
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyR View Post
    Are we talking about power off approaches? How can you land precisely with power off during final/short final?
    I'm not talking about piloting techniques, only airplane capabilities. Point being that in the landing phase, like airplanes will be the same no matter what the horsepower is. The one with the longer wing will do better landing. Take off is where the horsepower shines.
    N1PA
    Thanks JohnnyR thanked for this post
    Likes DENNY liked this post

  22. #62

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyR View Post
    185 tail w/ upgross to 3190. Don’t think I would have bought one without it, as our mission frequently requires 1,000+ lbs payload.
    Disconnecting the elevator return spring made a huge difference and it is now balanced and light. Not required for land planes, per Cessna MM.
    Can you enlighten more on the legality of disconnecting the elevator return spring on the late model 180’s? When I enquired about doing this I was told “cant be done”?

  23. #63

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    He may be confusing it with the rudder centering spring that's part of the float kit.
    Likes hotrod180 liked this post

  24. #64

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    MA & ME
    Posts
    393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    He may be confusing it with the rudder centering spring that's part of the float kit.
    Perhaps I am...

  25. #65
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jagunson View Post
    Can you enlighten more on the legality of disconnecting the elevator return spring on the late model 180’s? When I enquired about doing this I was told “cant be done”?
    I had one of those elevator springs break one time. It didn't fly very well without it.
    N1PA

  26. #66
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pete, I always equated the relatively heavier pitch forces of the latemodel 185's with that spring.

    Can you say a bit more about this and also why it didnt fly very well without it? thanks.

  27. #67
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dave, It was a long time ago and all that I can remember is that the elevators became so light that it seemed too light and perhaps too easy to over control.

    Are you saying that the older ones don't have this spring? If so, perhaps it became necessary when the bigger engines were installed in order to pass the balked landing test. It would help the pilot in pushing/holding the nose down when applying full power.
    N1PA

  28. #68
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    One early 1 I know of does not have it. I will check a parts book.

    I suppose it couldve been for the balked landing flight test, But full nose up trim provides the least tension on that spring. And thus the least assistance in that mode.
    Thanks Skalywag thanked for this post
    Likes Skalywag liked this post

  29. #69

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    MA & ME
    Posts
    393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Dave, It was a long time ago and all that I can remember is that the elevators became so light that it seemed too light and perhaps too easy to over control.

    Are you saying that the older ones don't have this spring? If so, perhaps it became necessary when the bigger engines were installed in order to pass the balked landing test. It would help the pilot in pushing/holding the nose down when applying full power.
    Stancil's old "history of the Skywagon" tells me that it was introduced in the 1960 C model.

    "It was designed to improve longitudinal stability" and, per our maintenance manual, is supposed to be adjusted so as to "not induce any load on the elevator push-pull tube until the elevators pass through the zero degree (streamlined) position relative to the horizontal stab."
    It gives the truck-like feel and is a bear to hold full back stick during taxi for any extended period.
    Likes Bill.Brine liked this post

  30. #70
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Calkins View Post
    One early 1 I know of does not have it. I will check a parts book.

    I suppose it couldve been for the balked landing flight test, But full nose up trim provides the least tension on that spring. And thus the least assistance in that mode.
    Then the balked landing is not the reason. That was just a quick thought. I'll have to look more closely at it.
    N1PA

  31. #71

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    MA & ME
    Posts
    393
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'd wager it was done to prevent pilots from over-rotating on takeoff as well as stalling during arrival -- a constant reminder of what to do... or not do, I guess. I'm not a fan.

  32. #72
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    N1PA

  33. #73
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,034
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Some, like the Lycoming TSIO-520-J2BD in the 185 are too heavy to be practical as they become too nose heavy requiring too much ballast. They do go upstairs fast though and they do love gasoline.
    540 ? perhaps a typo


    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  34. #74
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by S2D View Post
    540 ? perhaps a typo


    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
    You're right, corrected.
    N1PA

  35. #75
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    It is not on all 180's Pete.

    The Skywagon 1 I flew had other anomolies, maybe it shoulda been on it. Great airplane without, tho

  36. #76
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    The parts manual doesn't specify 180 or 185 nor any serial numbers.
    N1PA

  37. #77

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    MA & ME
    Posts
    393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    The parts manual doesn't specify 180 or 185 nor any serial numbers.
    You're probably looking at the 3 FEB 1997 PM from the skywagons clubsite. Bet if you had one of the superseded pre-1960's PM's, you'd find that spring missing.

  38. #78
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    No, this is the expensive hard copy from Cessna of that same date.
    N1PA

  39. #79

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    MA & ME
    Posts
    393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    No, this is the expensive hard copy from Cessna of that same date.
    Fancy! But the earlier pages would still have been pulled in the superseding PM...

  40. #80
    180Marty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Paullina, Ia
    Posts
    2,019
    Post Thanks / Like
    My 54 180 doesn't have any spring on the elevator system and never did. Early ones didn't. According to my parts book the spring on the elevator was for serial 50662(1960 yr model) and on. 182's were 52359 and on.
    Last edited by 180Marty; 02-10-2018 at 06:15 PM.

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
  •