Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 70

Thread: Thinking of The Dark Side, C182

  1. #1
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    20,153
    Post Thanks / Like

    Thinking of The Dark Side, C182

    Cathy and I have been looking at 182s. Doesn't help that someone dropped their airplane off and their ride home was a 1960 C180. Cathy liked the fit and the speeds the owner got. Funny thing was it sold the next morning. She learned to fly in a Tri-Pacer but it is a bit tight and slow. I'd love a C180 but not in the budget and she wouldn't feel comfortable flying it. Goal is to go places at speeds greater than my Super Cubs 90 mph and in an airplane she feels comfortable flying. She gets sick in the back of the Super Cub and isn't always comfortable in the front. We are kinda on a fact finding mission right now trying to learn all we can. I really like the straight tails and the prices though they seem high to me are more in line with what we have budgeted and they have dodged the door post AD that looks like it can be expensive. Any does, don't definite gotchas and things to look out for? Kinda out of my comfort zone.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes 8GCBC, Bill.Brine liked this post

  2. #2
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,250
    Post Thanks / Like
    Altho the early ones are neat airplanes, dont count out the mid to late 60s versions. They are great traveling planes.
    Had a 69 that I wish i still had.

    On the other hand those early 60s versions are just ugly!!

    Also dont count out a good 172 or 175 with a clean 180 lyc conversion.
    Last edited by S2D; 11-13-2020 at 11:02 PM.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  3. #3
    G44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    586
    Post Thanks / Like
    Steve, you are on the right track. The 182 old and newer are fantastic airplanes. Seems like we get too focused on where the single wheel is located and not the mission and by doing so we overlook some great airplanes. Having owned a 182 briefly I can recommend one. Wish I still had mine.

    Kurt
    Likes Bill.Brine liked this post

  4. #4
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    11,491
    Post Thanks / Like
    One of the guides up here uses them. One he converted to a 180 decades later. Was a slant tail. Big nose fork and 29” gar aeros.


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

  5. #5
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    11,491
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://www.airglas.com/FixedWing/Pro...3/Default.aspx


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

  6. #6
    behindpropellers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,841
    Post Thanks / Like
    SPAM CAN?? Pierce??

    Are you OK?


  7. #7
    skukum12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    The Last Frontier
    Posts
    1,165
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dad just picked up a 206. I have a mission list as long as my arm for that one. Different planes for different roles. A 182 is a great choice and seem to be under valued.

    Some O470s have a 1500 hour TBO. There has been a discussion about some sort of mandatory wing attach corrosion inspection, not sure which cessnas are involved. Be sure to install one of the mods to keep the pilot seat from rolling back on take off.
    Last edited by skukum12; 11-14-2020 at 01:47 AM.
    Likes mike mcs repair, moneyburner liked this post

  8. #8
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    3,665
    Post Thanks / Like
    Welcome to the dark side. 140 mph is good!
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God!"

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    706
    Post Thanks / Like
    You’ll never regret going to a 182.

  10. #10
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,200
    Post Thanks / Like
    I flew a friends fast back slant tail on. Big tires for a little while. It’s going to do 90% of what most 180 guys do with it realistically. Especially sense your not going to go on floats or skis. seems like the straight tails are gaining popularity. The fast back slant tails still had the trimable stab. If you’re going to put vg’s on wait and do the sportsman stol. It wasn’t near as bad as I thought it would be. Plus, you’ll get to laugh at your 180 buddies when you’re traveling somewhere and the wind is screaming.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Likes Steve Pierce, mike mcs repair, Bowie liked this post

  11. #11
    Charlie Longley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Arlington, WA
    Posts
    761
    Post Thanks / Like
    I owned a 1959 182 with an Avion panel briefly. Wish I still had it!

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,602
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dark side? Hardly. Welcome to the light!

    If I was looking for a 182 to travel I'd want a '62 or later. The cabin is 4" wider and a little taller. That was also the year 182s got electric flaps and a fixed stabilizer but gross weight increased, too. Great airplanes.

    Have you considered a Maule?
    Last edited by stewartb; 11-14-2020 at 09:37 AM.
    Likes mike mcs repair, Bowie liked this post

  13. #13
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,106
    Post Thanks / Like
    Steve,

    Just learn to protect that nose gear, which is no big deal....just has to be top of list on unprepared surfaces. We switched from working a 185 to a 206, and I thought I’d died and gone to heaven.

    MTV

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    ME, ID, AK - what time of year is it?
    Posts
    534
    Post Thanks / Like
    After hundreds of hours flying one around the southwest, I’d concur with folks and agree that a 182 is a good solid airplane for moving two people around comfortably, at reasonable speed, at relatively low maintenance costs and at comparatively low acquisition costs. Certainly your elbows will thank you for it, and the family dog, and the spouse, and your luggage, and your...
    you get the picture.
    J
    Likes NorthcountryPilot liked this post

  15. #15
    Cub junkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    My Moms basement
    Posts
    2,124
    Post Thanks / Like
    There has never been a undesirable 182 ever built, they're all great airplanes. I like the '56 tall gear model. Its a STOL airplane in stock form.
    Likes 8GCBC liked this post

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    aviation
    Posts
    31
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    Cathy and I have been looking at 182s. Doesn't help that someone dropped their airplane off and their ride home was a 1960 C180. Cathy liked the fit and the speeds the owner got. Funny thing was it sold the next morning. She learned to fly in a Tri-Pacer but it is a bit tight and slow. I'd love a C180 but not in the budget and she wouldn't feel comfortable flying it. Goal is to go places at speeds greater than my Super Cubs 90 mph and in an airplane she feels comfortable flying. She gets sick in the back of the Super Cub and isn't always comfortable in the front. We are kinda on a fact finding mission right now trying to learn all we can. I really like the straight tails and the prices though they seem high to me are more in line with what we have budgeted and they have dodged the door post AD that looks like it can be expensive. Any does, don't definite gotchas and things to look out for? Kinda out of my comfort zone.

    Steve,Besides the usual things one can find in a Cessna aircraft older then ourselves one needs to think about the fuel bladders and lower firewall where the nose gear fitting attaches.


    The new empanage AD applies to the models with the trimable tail.


    It's all about the mission isn't it. You have a choice:


    -keep the tires tinny and go fast then get a wide body cause you won't need the trimable stab and electric flaps will work just fine.
    -big tires and soft fields then you need manual flaps, the trimable stab, big wheels and tires, airglas nose fork and big tire, stol kit and VG's, ...


    After a couple thousand hours checking most of the boxes in my Tripacer, good and bad, I acquired a B model, fugly, put a pair of 10x10 bush weeks and some used beaver tires 8x10 and an 8:50 on the airglass fork, super low pressures, and never looked back. No stol kit. No VG's cause I can't do the wing covers with the darn things without a whole lot of jacking around when it's -10f or colder. Took about 300 hours to really get to be one with her but that was in one year. An early 182 can land so much slower once you get the hang of it and you stuff some weight in the back and for dogs sake don't move the battery to the firewall.


    I had about a 100 hours in a wide body, E model I think, it's the one I won the engine out power line lottery in a few years ago. It was nice but I'm mostly trim, 5'8" and under 195lbs normally. I didn't notice any difference between the two except I had to reach farther to open the glove box and I had to duck when walking under the wings.


    Regardless, buy the bird with the best low time engine and the rest will follow if you don't get trapped into a gold plated panel or going all Oshkosh, these bird are tough.


    I would stay away from an A model for a few reasons. I think the B is the best if you get the stc for the later engine model, don't have the particulars in front of me but betting someone has the details handy.


    Rocket
    Thanks Bowie thanked for this post
    Likes mike mcs repair, 46 Cub liked this post

  17. #17
    skukum12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    The Last Frontier
    Posts
    1,165
    Post Thanks / Like
    ....an addendum, 182 yes. 172, no. 172 in my opinion could be the most boring airplane ever built. I have flown in, flown and watched a guy try to work one. All I thought was get me out of this thing.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,602
    Post Thanks / Like
    210hp Hawk XP. Good fun.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    I went for a ride in a wide body a while back, very impressed with the space. That is what I would look for in a machine meant to travel.
    DENNY

  20. #20
    Utah-Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Heber City, UT
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like
    An S-21 with a Titan or a 915 would be just as fast I would think

    https://3bf21215-1086-4c74-9760-9481...e22ae30719.pdf
    Thanks Coulee Clipper thanked for this post

  21. #21
    SuperCub MD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Collins, Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Steve, nothing wrong with a 182, if you are going nose dragger. But giving you can do your own maintenance, there are a lot of options out there under 50k. If I was looking for a 182, I would also be looking hard for a 205, lot's more plane for a 182 price, if you can find a old work horse. For a family cruiser, any comanche is a good buy these days, pick your horse power that suits your needs. Light twins are being sold at salvage price now. Twin comanche, apache, there is a twin navion on tap now I would be looking at. If you are not needing floats or skis it is a buyers market, take your time, explore all your options, and enjoy the ride.

  22. #22
    phdigger123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Mn
    Posts
    322
    Post Thanks / Like
    I had a 182 for a few years. They fly great, carry a good load, ride well in turbulence, handle cross winds well and are also easy to get in and out of. It is also the easiest landing airplane I ever flew. The only reason I sold it was to help pay for my new hangar. I think the 1962 and newer are a better choice as the have a wider fuselage and a lower center of gravity on the ground. Mine had an O-470U and that engine has a 2000 hour tbo. Get a good one, you will get your money back if you decide to sell it.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Anderson Lake, Wasilla
    Posts
    109
    Post Thanks / Like
    Nice to hear all the buck 82 love here! I have '67 182K with a 300 hp P-ponk "Sealane" conversion. Since I'm 6'-6" the extra room really works for me. That heavy engine with a 3 blade McCauley on just an 8:00 nose tire can get you stuck though. I'm pretty careful with where I take it after one gravel bar adventure shortened my blades a tad...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20201114_231445.jpg 
Views:	92 
Size:	112.5 KB 
ID:	52343
    Last edited by N3243A; 11-15-2020 at 03:39 AM. Reason: duplicate pics

  24. #24
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kansas City, USA
    Posts
    15,239
    Post Thanks / Like
    When you flight instruct, everybody asks you what the "perfect" airplane is and I have always said it is hard to beat a 182. There is a lot to know. I personally prefer the johnson bar flaps, but those were only on the earliest smaller ones, there are lots of opinions around bladders or wet wings - some people say bladders is the only way and the wet wings when they start to leak can be an expensive proposition, others say the opposite.

    Steve the one you saw me in the other day was a 69 (8:50's, airglass front fork, wing stol cuff) and it was a darn nice airplane. The two we have here that are Pponked are very popular also.

    As you would say, it's only "cubic dollars"...

    sj
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------
    Likes Penguin liked this post

  25. #25
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kansas City, USA
    Posts
    15,239
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SJ View Post
    When you flight instruct, everybody asks you what the "perfect" airplane is and I have always said it is hard to beat a 182. There is a lot to know. I personally prefer the johnson bar flaps, but those were only on the earliest smaller ones, there are lots of opinions around bladders or wet wings - some people say bladders is the only way and the wet wings when they start to leak can be an expensive proposition, others say the opposite.

    Steve the one you saw me in the other day was a 69 (8:50's, airglass front fork, wing stol cuff) and it was a darn nice airplane. The two we have here that are Pponked are very popular also.

    As you would say, it's only "cubic dollars"...

    sj
    P.S. there are some GREAT Cessna forums out there where you can spend the rest of your remaining time when you are not on here or shortwingpipers.org...
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------
    Likes RaisedByWolves, jrussl liked this post

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    ME, ID, AK - what time of year is it?
    Posts
    534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yep.
    If I wasn't on skis or flying around AK with prop clearance/damage issues, I'd be in a 182 - they work well enough for most things for most people. "Almost perfect" 2-person plane?

    Quote Originally Posted by SJ View Post
    When you flight instruct, everybody asks you what the "perfect" airplane is and I have always said it is hard to beat a 182. There is a lot to know. I personally prefer the johnson bar flaps, but those were only on the earliest smaller ones, there are lots of opinions around bladders or wet wings - some people say bladders is the only way and the wet wings when they start to leak can be an expensive proposition, others say the opposite.

    Steve the one you saw me in the other day was a 69 (8:50's, airglass front fork, wing stol cuff) and it was a darn nice airplane. The two we have here that are Pponked are very popular also.

    As you would say, it's only "cubic dollars"...

    sj

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SW Colorado
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have always thought that the C182 is the best all-around airplane out there. Also I think has the best safety record of any single. That is because it is so easy to fly, yet has the power to get you out of trouble.

    It is also boring as can be to fly. Get one with an autopilot and you can leave your brain at home. That was the reason I went to a 180 years ago, most of the advantages, but landings will keep you humble. I know the 180/185 is bringing ridiculous money these days, but after the cub flying you've done, the 182 will be a snoozer.

    Hard to beat an O-470U for a Continental. Stock in about '77 on.

    John

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    Steve Pierce

    SJ will give me a questionable reference as a person, and even less of a reference as a Pilot, I recently did some Commercial training with SJ here in KC....

    I am a KMKC based 1977 IO-550 C182Q Owner Operator, I’m not as hands on maintenance and engineering-wise as seemingly a lot of folks here, and other Aviation Forums often are, but I’ve studied the C182 hard - I designed and “had my aircraft rebuilt” for traveling, not the Back Country per se

    Some thoughts

    1) Email me at McBobKC@gmail.com and I can send you some meaningful info
    2) BeechTalk has a Forum “Brand X” that has some very good C182 discussions / Threads at www.BeechTalk.com - you have to register, then be accepted before you can Post or Search, not a big deal, just a process
    3) Cessna Pilots Society aka CPS / www.Cessna-Pilots.net is also a very good source, same drill to have to register, then be accepted
    4) Cessna Pilots Association aka CPA / www.Cessna.org / John Frank’s old organization (now deceased) 4 years ago “was” THE DEFINITIVE Cessna website / Forum group - a “paid admission” website, sadly, a website crash in early 2017 started a cascade of events that has left CPA a shadow of its former self, but still lots of great technical information available for maybe $75 a year ?

    Some quick personal thoughts
    1) AVOID Wet Wing C182s / 1979 and beyond have Wet Wings / Integral Fuel Tanks - the sealing of the integral fuel tanks is failing and a real struggle to ever really get fixed - maybe for a “Guy like Steve Pierce,” it wouldn’t be a big deal, but for the Common Man paying someone else to repair, I’ve heard numbers such as $15,000 per wing, 4 to 6 months, and NO Guarantees

    2) Bladder Fuel tanks are a GOOD THING in the 1978 and earlier models

    3) P and Q Models are The Sweet Spot, IMO

    4) Given what I assume are your Back Country desires a Stock 230 carbureted engine is very good, added horsepower via a P Ponk, Air Plains IO-520 or IO-550 Conversion is GREAT - I’m personally not as much of a fan of the Texas Skyways O-550 Conversion, as Texas Skyways takes off the induction system and adds a carburetor, I personally prefer an injected engine, albeit all at a cost...

    I took my aircraft to an illogical extreme towards serious cross country travel and IFR Operations, only since meeting SJ and Laura am I just now considering taking my pants off ( Wheel Pants ) and exploring and learning some Back Country flying

    Really too much to type, SJ, feel free to give out my contact info, toward a call, etc
    Last edited by McBobKC; 11-15-2020 at 09:39 AM.
    Likes SJ liked this post

  29. #29
    DJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bolivia
    Posts
    254
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have time in the 56, 57, 59, 60, 66, 79, 81 T182 and newer T182T.

    Worked the 66 in the jungle. The bigger cabin is cool and will fit three skinny folks on the bench but I hated the lowrider gear ('61-'71). When loaded anywhere near gross the tail sits super low.
    P model (mid 70s) is the last for mogas although there is an STC to put the 470S in the Q as well.

    Maintained a 1960 C model in Guyana for a year with WingX and sportsman. It was a workhorse. Loved the tall gear.

    A few weeks ago we got a 1961 D model (fast back with low gear) donated for jungle work in Bolivia. They dinged the firewall and tail on a steep airstrip in PNG. It has about every possible mod and a new engine so we sent it to MMS in Ohio for rebuild. I want to try field approving taller gear on it. There is an optional tall gear but it seems to be rare.

    BTW Pierce a friend developed a field approval for the 182 the allows a C310 fork with 6 or 7.00 tire and 8, 8.50 or 26 GY on the mains. Let me know if you need copies. We have put it on a bunch of them. Works great and much cheaper/lighter than the Airglass option.

    For fun the early straight tails look the best are cheaper and fly nice and light.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20201106_154540.jpeg 
Views:	77 
Size:	174.9 KB 
ID:	52345Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20201109_102339.jpeg 
Views:	75 
Size:	122.4 KB 
ID:	52346

    Sent from my SM-G965U1 using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Psalms 19:1
    Likes Dave Calkins, S2D, moneyburner liked this post

  30. #30
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kansas City, USA
    Posts
    15,239
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by McBobKC View Post
    Steve Pierce

    SJ will give me a questionable reference as a person, and even less of a reference as a Pilot, I recently did some Commercial training with SJ here in KC....

    I
    Some people will carry self-deprecation to an extreme... we don't see that much here Mike!

    FYI, Mike's 182 is the nicest I have ever flown in - including brand new ones fresh off the line. The deck angle at VX will water your eyes!

    sj
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------
    Likes jrussl, Bilair liked this post

  31. #31
    courierguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,664
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aflyer View Post
    I have always thought that the C182 is the best all-around airplane out there. Also I think has the best safety record of any single. That is because it is so easy to fly, yet has the power to get you out of trouble.

    It is also boring as can be to fly. Get one with an autopilot and you can leave your brain at home. That was the reason I went to a 180 years ago, most of the advantages, but landings will keep you humble. I know the 180/185 is bringing ridiculous money these days, but after the cub flying you've done, the 182 will be a snoozer.

    Hard to beat an O-470U for a Continental. Stock in about '77 on.

    John
    One of the claimed reasons a friend sold his, was because his wife absolutely could not stay awake in it! The same plane had about $8,000.00 worth of damage once, by horses chewing on it, while parked at the Big Southern Butte airstrip.
    Likes moneyburner liked this post

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,602
    Post Thanks / Like
    Cubs come and go. A Cessna becomes one of the family. Pick the right one. Grow old together.
    Likes WWhunter, mike mcs repair, slowmover liked this post

  33. #33
    85Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    506
    Post Thanks / Like
    My first owned plane was a '58 182 with a Robertson STOL kit. Bought at age 40 with a partner. It had oversize tires and was a wonderful backcountry plane. Flew it to many Idaho back country strips for weekend campouts with the wife. Partner owned a ranch in the Chilcotin area of central BC which we flew to many times. He dinged the prop on a landing at his BC ranch once and announced we were going to buy a 185. No way I could afford to be in a 185 but he made it happen. My first tailwheel experience was in that 185. Not the best plane to learn tailwheel. Flew that plane for 26 years, almost every year to AK and BC. The '58 182 was an awesome airplane!!
    Likes mam90, mike mcs repair, KevinJ liked this post

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    PAMR
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have a '59 that has been STOL modified with a Sportsman leading edge cuff, vg's, and 8.50s all around with an airglas 206 nose fork. It is reasonably fun to fly but gets slowed down by all the mods (125 mph IAS, trues out at about 140 mph at ~ 6000 ft).

    My main advice would be to run a w&b on your particular airplane before buying. Our CG is very far forward (battery moved to firewall) which can make flying with very much fuel a problem. Probably common sense, but I didn't do it before I bought mine and regret overlooking that. Also the older ones like mine have a low gross (1750 empty, 2650 max).
    Likes barrow pilot liked this post

  35. #35
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,250
    Post Thanks / Like
    77 model with new 252 hp engine conversion and way too much glass stuff!!
    Acting as safety pilot for ifr practice.

    Sent from my E6910 using Tapatalk
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.
    Likes moneyburner liked this post

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Meanwhile,...
    Posts
    5,314
    Post Thanks / Like
    Only problem with a 182 is nobody ever ooh's and ah's over them when you pull up to the pump.
    Remember, These are the Good old Days!

  37. #37
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kansas City, USA
    Posts
    15,239
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by OLDCROWE View Post
    Only problem with a 182 is nobody ever ooh's and ah's over them when you pull up to the pump.
    I think you might be mistaken...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2020-11-17 at 8.51.39 AM.jpg 
Views:	583 
Size:	124.0 KB 
ID:	52409
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    706
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SJ View Post
    I think you might be mistaken...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2020-11-17 at 8.51.39 AM.jpg 
Views:	583 
Size:	124.0 KB 
ID:	52409
    Ohhhh! Ahhhhh!

  39. #39
    Crash, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    250
    Post Thanks / Like
    I pity the pilot that has to keep all that aluminum polished. Sharp lookin plane though!
    Likes SJ, RaisedByWolves, Farmboy liked this post

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    I studied, considered, and priced Todd Peterson / Peterson Performance’s IO-550 King Katmai conversion - my recollection is the canard system added about $25,000 in 2016, and I was more interested in SPEED than STOL at that time

    My answer to adding whatever STOL Capabilities I might ever need was to add VGs, which DO make a difference

Similar Threads

  1. Moving to the dark side!!
    By DENNY in forum Cessna: C180/C182/C185
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-29-2017, 03:24 PM
  2. Moving to the dark side!!
    By DENNY in forum Everything Else (formerly:My Other Plane Is A....)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-29-2017, 03:24 PM
  3. 8.50X6 mains on a C182
    By n4873a in forum Everything Else (formerly:My Other Plane Is A....)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-21-2007, 07:57 AM
  4. Transition to the Dark Side
    By Taledrger in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-05-2006, 07:40 AM

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
  •