Should I buy a 2nd plane- " fast family hauler"

[aktango58]

I have always assumed the 180 and the 182 had similar performance and useful load but it seems I was way wrong on that. I have a PA-28-180 (last year of the straight wings) and a friend has a C-182J. We sometimes go to the same places on overnight camping trips. His 182 takes a far bigger load and cruises much faster than my PA-28-180. I burn less gas.

PA-28-180 is "fast" compared to a Super Cub or even an FX-3 but I would never have considered it a fast airplane. For fast(er) in a Piper I'd be thinking Turbo Arrow or Cherokee 6.

What prop are you running? The Cherokee 180 I was around had an 1,100 useful load and cruised around 140, it stayed right with my C-180 with 870 useful load.

[aktango58]

Who knows. So many choices. This bearhawk 5 looks pretty cool though if i can find 2000 hrs to build a plane. Ha.

Thanks for all the insight.

I have a Maule, partly because I could not afford a 180 or cub. So much less expensive to maintain it, and has a door large enough to put 55 gallon drums. Helps when carrying Caterpillar parts! My wife likes the Maule!

The Bearhawk is an exceptional plane.

Check out different planes with your bride, it will pay dividends in your flying!

[Rob]

I guess I should define “fast.” Most of my time is cub time- so I cruise at 90mph. 140-160 is very “fast” to me- but not in the scheme of things.

I guess I want a balance of speed and short field capability (not to throw a wrench in this many month discussion)- but if you look at OP I wasnt originally talkikg about airplane choice in the first place- just if I should own 2 airplanes of any flavor.

Who knows. So many choices. This bearhawk 5 looks pretty cool though if i can find 2000 hrs to build a plane. Ha.

Thanks for all the insight.

Good forward thinking. The more we get exposed to traveling, the easier it is to lose sight of 'fast'. The produce market is hot right now, I imagine the farmers still trudging along in King Airs will bump it up to light jet partnerships, and the ones already there will up the ante to bigger or faster.

I once picked my daughter up for a family weekend. She lives in Flagstaff, AZ and we live close to Yuma. It's a 5hr +/- drive, a tank of gas and an all day affair in a cub, or an hour and change each way in the 180. I made great time on the way up (tailwind). Picking her up, I took off over the trees for Yuma, and 15 - 20 minutes later I was over the small mining town that once was, Jerome. Damn the wind or some such I mumbled .... to which my daughter jumped up and began scolding, DAD! we just left Flagstaff a few minutes ago and we are now zipping along over Jerome, It would have literally taken me all day to get here if we wanted to visit by truck. Sorry Pepe

A lot of years ago, I used to fly my cub from AZ to AK to play. typically 32 hrs. over parts of 5 days to get there. Same route in the 180 lops DAYS not HOURS off the trip, or adds time to enjoy the stops along the way.

The world is a much smaller place at 140 MPH, and if you ever get the opportunity to find an unfortunate sudden stop at that speed, I think you will agree that you were going fast.

Wind? Groundloops? Handling? these comments are getting the cart ahead of the horse. I didn't see where anyone advised flying in 35 mph wind. The statement was;

If you fly a lot 35 mph isn’t a big deal.

I happen to agree with the mindset, which said another way means, with little experience, you will not be able to handle much wind. Keep the argument generating semantics in check please.

Flying is a wonderful responsibility, that deserves a responsible approach. This gentleman is asking for help in his research (and this is bare bones groundwork) to potentially move forward in a direction many here have traveled. Like wise many here have owned turbo props, and even a few with jets. Assuming he has the wherewithal to afford one of those, would it be fair to say he can't own or fly one of those because he is currently a lowly supercub owner? I'm not a very optimistic soul, and I don't give people the benefit of the doubt as often as I should, but I would like to believe that if this gentleman wants to put his own flesh and blood in an airplane, he'll probably do the right thing and get the appropriate training. Sure, there will be those that don't, that person also isn't going to seek advise or put much stock in the advise given.

Furthermore, with respect to the 180 itself, that thing (in the air) is for all intents and purposes the same airplane as the 182 that so many believe is far safer. That's it... zip, zilch, over and done. So we're assuming this gentleman can't land an airplane? or worse yet can't learn that skill? Pretty tough crowd here. Of the half dozen airplanes I am blessed to be the current caretaker of, and the many more I am blessed to have the privilege of flying, I'd have to say the 180 is probably one of the absolute most tolerant and easy to get along with. She's docile, yet powerful. She's slow on the bottom end, she's reasonably FAST on the top, she's nimble enough to be sporty, but stable enough to drink a cup of coffee in, in all but the worst weather. So much so, that I've never even considered adding an AP to mine, because outside of hard IFR (where you shouldn't be in one) this thing is a rock.

A couple decades ago a member here had a cub. That's it... when I met him in, he had a cub. And he was looking for a back seater to help him get to one of the gatherings in TX, Reklaw maybe?
Then he had two. Later that morphed into 2 cubs and 2 180's. His work started benefiting from airplane ownership and a 206 was added. He jumped in with some cash on the R&D of the Kodiak, which he eventually recieved, but IIRC he beat that one to the punch with a Caravan, which at some point morphed in to a King Air. We both have incredibly busy lives, so don't keep in touch, but I'd sure love to know what he's flying these days. And sure glad when he was diving in he didn't receive the same 'warm welcome'.

Nah man, don't let the negative nellies piss on your wheaties. Find the airplane that fits your mission best. And by the way, part of that mission should include aesthetics and what 'lights your soul on fire', or no one could own a Howard, a Stearman, or a P51..... And then.... DO your due diligence and learn to fly it right.

I hope your next thread is ' My 180 is out grown, should I buy a Kodiak 900? "

Take care, Rob

Oh and although it was not part of the OP, both the Maule and BH5 are by definition 'shorter coupled' airplanes than a 180. How did we get to a place of throwing reason to the wind?

[frequent_flyer]

What prop are you running? The Cherokee 180 I was around had an 1,100 useful load and cruised around 140, it stayed right with my C-180 with 870 useful load.

My PA-28-180 manual lists the gross at 2,450 and "standard" empty weight at 1,404. The earliest W/B seems to indicate my airplane came out of the factory at 1,492 lb. I have never weighed it but the most recent W/B shows an empty weight of 1510 for a useful load of 940 lb. A Cherokee with 1,100 useful load is surprising to me. Maybe the earlier Cherokee 180 with the smaller tail was a lot lighter.

With the density altitudes typical for AZ I have no interest in loading to anywhere near max gross. The friend with the 182 is happy to load anything he can get through the door. (That doesn't bother me as I used to fly a 182 jump plane.)

Prop is 76EM8S5-0-60 which is standard for the 1975 PA-28-180.

To be fair I never cruise it WOT. Usually run 2,400 rpm even on a long flight.

[stewartb]

I hope the Maule guys like their planes as much as I like my 180. It’s a choice, not a competition. Load the plane and go have some adventures. Family is the best reason to do it. If you’re lucky you’ll get a part 2 with the grandkids. Life is good. Stop thinking, start doing.

[aktango58]

I hope the Maule guys like their planes as much as I like my 180. It’s a choice, not a competition. Load the plane and go have some adventures. Family is the best reason to do it. If you’re lucky you’ll get a part 2 with the grandkids. Life is good. Stop thinking, start doing.

Very well said!!

Seems like every flight I would like a different plane for that mission. Heck, going to Seattle I would like a Lear, until time to pay the fuel bills.

Not many 'bad' planes out there, just hard to meet every mission with limited budgets!

A P-51 would sure be nice when I head the 450 miles to work, save commute time!

[mvivion]

[QUOTE=aktango58;837114]What prop are you running? The Cherokee 180 I was around had an 1,100 useful load and cruised around 140, it stayed right with my C-180 with 870 useful load.[/QUOT

I have to laugh at a lot of the comments on this thread. Like this one, comparing a Cherokee 180 (180 is the horsepower rating, BTW) to a Cessna 182....all of which were originally equipped with a 230 hp engine.....so, let's see, that 182 is running FIFTY more horsepower at least at takeoff than that Cherokee. In cruise, why would it surprise anyone that it might also be a fair bit faster. Granted, the 182 guy could pull the power back to something comparable to the Cherokee, but I sure wouldn't, if I'm going somewhere.

And, then there are all the 180 guys who equate "Cessna 180" to "Cessna 185". They are not quite the same, in some ways.

But, here's another question for the OP....and you should ask yourself this question, no need to answer here: Are you done having kids? If so, there are a lot of planes out there that will carry four. There are fewer that will carry four and gear.

Add one more child, and now you NEED a bigger plane. As others have noted, the Cessna 206 or the Cherokee 6 (later models called the Saratoga) are really great traveling machines and really nice load haulers as well. Both will also access most "back country" airstrips (look at what most of the air taxi operators use in the Idaho back country) just fine.

Your insurance comparison between a 206 and 185 probably didn't take tailwheel time or time in type into consideration. But, a true six seat plane is going to cost more to insure.

Either of these types are available in either normally aspirated or turbo charged flavors. Frankly, I'd be pretty comfortable in either of these with normally aspirated engines.

These also are really pretty easy airplanes to fly. They were aimed at traveling, so control feel is a little heavier, but that is nice in a traveling machine.

Frankly, after flying one of these beasts, after a little experience, you might just find yourself taking IT flying on most missions....especially when it's windy.

MTV

[hotrod180]

....I am hesitant for a couple of reasons:
1. Hassle of owning two planes vs one.
2. Concerns about how much would I actually fly the fast hauler? ....

Even if your wallet can accommodate the purchase of a second airplane,
and your hangar can accommodate housing it,
there are the on-going issues of ownership.
1) a second insurance policy to buy
2) a second annual inspection, along with ongoing maintenance
3) flying both airplanes enough to stay proficient.

I toyed with the idea of owning two airplanes for a long time,
I finally bought a hangar big enough to house two.
Still haven't bought a second airplane, mainly due to reason # 3 above.

My C180 is overkill for most of the flying I do,
but it does everything pretty well & I enjoy flying it.
Unless you're doing some fairly hard core, off-airport stuff,
I would suggest just buying a 180 or 185 & selling your cub.
It'll do most of what your cub can do, but do it faster with more people & gear on board.
My two cents worth...

[WWhunter]

I have owned 3 planes at one time, but there combined value still wouldn't afford me to buy a Cessna 180. Heck, for what I originally paid for the 3 combined could barely buy a nice 170 these days. The 3 were a 172A, Murphy Rebel and a Rans s-7. I only owned the 3 for a short time as the purchase of the Rebel was due to my son taking ownership of the 172 when he returned from his overseas deployment. We flew it to Oregon last summer to it's new home.

The Rans and Rebel serve very similar missions although the Rebel is much more stable, faster and the one I prefer to fly in any kind of windy/turbulent weather. One of the two will be sold eventually, as has been said in a previous post....it's hard to stay current in both. Especially when one is kept in town at the airport and the other is here at my property. You can guess which one gets flown the most.

Back on topic, even having 2 experimental types at the same time is very time consuming. It seems there is maintenance or upgrades needed on one or the other at all times, not including condition inspections. I have been lucky all these years, even with keeping the 172 in flying condition, as I have always had IA's allow me to do most of the work under their supervision. Granted, I can do most everything myself since they are experimental, which saves me a lot of aviation units. But, this money savings comes at a huge cost in my free time. Insurance and hangar rental end up not penciling out for the amount of hours I get on the one in town. Unless you have a lot of disposable income, renting that heavy hauler might be the best route.

[Sturgill]

Two personal airplanes are fine, if you can afford to run them. I have a C170B, and a Bonanza, which are a good pair. One good Cessna 180 is 95% as good as having those two. The problems come with more than two. Even if you can afford it, there is not enough time in your life to really handle them. I have a couple other oddball airplanes and a glider, and they never get enough attention to warrant the trouble.

[stewartb]

Do any of you have two cars? One for the family and one maybe not as practical? I have a truck because I need one and a commuter car because I don't like to feed the truck any more than I have to. Think of airplanes like cars and more than one makes more sense.

[Eferr]

I’ve got a cub and a Maule. I know they satisfy a similar mission and I’ve considered parting with the Maule to get a bonanza. In all fairness I don’t fly either plane enough and seem to be doing a lot of handwringing over it. Honestly, the rental idea may be a good way to go for the family ride. I don’t think there is a single right answer. More, what do you want and how much are you willing to spend to get it?


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

[dgapilot]

My needs changed, so my PA-16 project is on the back burner. I’ve been doing lots of travel up and down the east coast, so picked up a Twin Comanche for a traveling machine. Airplane was cheap, catching up on ADs and deferred maintenance has about doubled my investment, but I’m still less than $50k into it. Insurance was expensive, but actually less than what I was expecting. Won’t be using it to go gravel bar hopping, but you pick the machine that fits the mission.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HorseDoc]

Having owned three aircraft and flown for about 15 years I am at that point where I am finally realizing how little I really know. However, I dragged my wife into my aviation dream and when shopping for aircraft she quickly learned what was good/bad, what avionics were preferred, what listed times really meant.... She enjoyed looking at possibilities and helping me make choices. Her favorite plane was our 182 because the seat would lay almost flat and she could sleep comfortably. The Bonanza was the best traveling craft but very uncomfortable for her. The SuperCub is by far the most fun for me and she tolerates it best when I stack up the luggage to make her a headrest. I too am considering a traveling plane again as a second aircraft, likely in partnership. My only other partnership was perfect. I doubt that will ever happen again.
Get your instrument rating and exercise it regularly in VFR, file an IFR flight plan for every cross country, so if you ever find yourself in IMC you will fly out of it without consternation.

If you can afford the second plane, involve your wife in the decision and do it!

[dgapilot]

Having owned three aircraft and flown for about 15 years I am at that point where I am finally realizing how little I really know. However, I dragged my wife into my aviation dream and when shopping for aircraft she quickly learned what was good/bad, what avionics were preferred, what listed times really meant.... She enjoyed looking at possibilities and helping me make choices. Her favorite plane was our 182 because the seat would lay almost flat and she could sleep comfortably. The Bonanza was the best traveling craft but very uncomfortable for her. The SuperCub is by far the most fun for me and she tolerates it best when I stack up the luggage to make her a headrest. I too am considering a traveling plane again as a second aircraft, likely in partnership. My only other partnership was perfect. I doubt that will ever happen again.
Get your instrument rating and exercise it regularly in VFR, file an IFR flight plan for every cross country, so if you ever find yourself in IMC you will fly out of it without consternation.

If you can afford the second plane, involve your wife in the decision and do it!

The only airplane partnership I was in was ok until my partner wrecked my Howard DGA-15. I had it about 5 years by myself and let him buy into it. I flew with him for 50 hours before I’d let him take it by himself, then about 6 months later he forgot what his feet were for and went through the airport perimeter fence. At least nobody was hurt and we had full coverage so we were ok financially. The friendship didn’t last long after that though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bob turner]

Opinion: if you have a Cub, and want a second airplane to go from A to B, then Mooney 201. Get one with recent bladders and a good engine.

Also if you can only support one aircraft, but need four seats and still want a fun flying machine, an early 180 with Horton or similar cuffs would be my choice.

[dgapilot]

Opinion: if you have a Cub, and want a second airplane to go from A to B, then Mooney 201. Get one with recent bladders and a good engine.

Also if you can only support one aircraft, but need four seats and still want a fun flying machine, an early 180 with Horton or similar cuffs would be my choice.

Yeah, I only wish I could afford a 180, but could buy a couple twin Comanches for what a 180 would cost. The Twin Comanche gets me in the 200mph range on about 15 to 17 gph and has a lot more room, payload and range than a Mooney.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[skywagon8a]

Yeah, I only wish I could afford a 180, but could buy a couple twin Comanches for what a 180 would cost. The Twin Comanche gets me in the 200mph range on about 15 to 17 gph and has a lot more room, payload and range than a Mooney.

Excellent choice for your purpose.

[dgapilot]

Excellent choice for your purpose.

Yeah, started looking at a 180 Comanche and as I looked, then moved to 250/260 Comanches, then the PA-30. They were all priced about the same, missed a couple that looked like good deals and then used my tried and true method of aircraft searching, mailed letters to owners! Sent out about 80 letters to owners in MD, VA and PA. Got about 10 responses, some over my budget, some turbocharged and some at the sweet spot. Got a call on this one and went to look at it the same afternoon. Couldn’t even get to it for all the junk in the hangar and at that point they hadn’t found the log books. I mad an offer based on salvage value for the engines and props. They accepted my offer and I’ve been working on ADs and the annual for about 3 months now. Almost ready to go, hopefully by the first of the year. They aren’t charging me hangar rent while I’m working on it. It’s at a private 3700’ grass strip, but about 2 hours away so I waste a lot of travel time going to work on it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BC12D-4-85]

This local C-182 example would haul the family. Radio tracking antennas optional> https://alaskaslist.com/1/posts/10_T...ssna_182P.html

Gary

[Cub Builder]

For the OP, define your missions and buy a second plane that fits your budget to fill the second mission role. It's not a purchase for life. If you find it's not the right plane or find another plane that suits your changing missions or abilities better, you can always sell it and buy something different as you learn.

FWIW, over the past 47 years, I've kept two planes most of the time, and sometimes 3. All had different missions. I currently have a SuperCub Clone for slow fun, a RV-6 for get there-itis, and a biplane for upside down fun. My wife was never interested in flying with me unless we are traveling to visit family, and the kids just didn't think aviation was cool enough since it was Dad's hobby. (Boy do they regret that attitude now that they are adults without pilots licenses).

The point is, your missions will change, and you'll find yourself lusting for a different airplane. Don't be afraid to sell what you've got and buy something else. The three in my stable are airplanes #11, 12, and 13 for me. Some planes I liked well enough to buy a second of the same model later on in life. Consequently, I've owned two of several models over the years.

-Cub Builder

[Cardiff Kook]

OP here.

So much good info. Really gave me alot to think about.

Want some more advice? Skip the second airplane for a few years and buy a hangar home. Living with airplanes is the best aviation decision I ever made and I wish I did it a long time ago. I'd rather have one airplane in my garage than two across town.

Took Stewarts advice and went under contract on a nice airpark home. 50 x 50 hangar- so will have a enough room for the second plane whenever that comes (which I cant imagine will be in the too distant future.) Hopefully this solves my “won’t have time to fly” problem. Now if the kid goes down for a nap i can just roll out the plane and do some laps.

Pretty excited about it.

[stewartb]

Bravo! Merry Christmas!

[Cardiff Kook]

As an update...

I ended up with a 1979 185, 2700TT, io-550. Airplane was based in Phoenix since delivery. I bought it off a guy who has owned it for the past 42 years- he bought it with 125 hours on it. Pretty unmolested (naked wing) with exception of engine and panel upgrade over a decade ago.

I put 20 hours on it last month. Lots to learn. A bit of a transition from the super cub.

Thanks for all the input! You all gave me alot to think about and I am not sure I could have pulled it off without the guidance on the site (same with my PA-18 purchase.)

I am building proficiency and one day look forward to sharing some adventures with the family.

[SJ]

Great looking airplane! Take your time during the transition - it will be worth the wait!

sj

[G44]

Congratulations, looks nice!

Now, Never Never Never tie your 185 or Super Cub or any other airplane down with chains! NEVER! Always carry ropes and if there are chains connected to the tie down anchor tie the rope to the anchor if room or first link in the chain. Figure out what ever it takes to not use chains. Chains have no give, they will hard stop the rocking motion in the wind and over time cause cracks or other damage at the wing and strut attach point. I witnessed a fatal accident due to this.

Kurt

As an update...

I ended up with a 1979 185, 2700TT, io-550. Airplane was based in Phoenix since delivery. I bought it off a guy who has owned it for the past 42 years- he bought it with 125 hours on it. Pretty unmolested (naked wing) with exception of engine and panel upgrade over a decade ago.

I put 20 hours on it last month. Lots to learn. A bit of a transition from the super cub.

Thanks for all the input! You all gave me alot to think about and I am not sure I could have pulled it off without the guidance on the site (same with my PA-18 purchase.)

I am building proficiency and one day look forward to sharing some adventures with the family.

[Farmer Hank]

G44 gave you very good advice. You may also want to fabricate devices to lock the flaps with the ailerons. (On a Super Cub the flaps can bang up and down when the wind is behind the airplane when it is tied down. And some airplanes need a rudder lock. In Ames, Iowa, I taxied out behind a Stearman 4E that still had his rudder lock in place. “I owe you a case of beer!” Never got it.

[stewartb]

Cessna flaps lock. Ailerons are generally locked at the yoke. No need for a rudder lock. When the wind blows hard I remove the yoke lock and let the elevators droop. I have flap-aileron locks to keep the ailerons quiet. Cessnas are tough. My 180 rode out the 2003 Lake Hood windstorm clocked at 117 mph and the wind was from right rear. No problem.

[PIPER J5.5]

Here’s our family hauler. Great second airplane.

[soyAnarchisto]

q: How many airplanes does one person need?

a: Just one more!

Congrats on the skywagon - they are fantastic planes! I think the skywagon/cub combo is the perfect 2-plane quiver. After that you'll need something with a PT-6, or a gigantic radial.

[mam90]

Someone once asked me why I had 2 airplanes. “Because I can’t afford 3” was my answer….,
And the Turbine Commander was was one of my favorite airplanes to fly. Great airplane.

[Waldo M]

Congrats, Cardiff! You have essentially found a unicorn; a low time Cessna 185. What a great performer, especially with the O-550 engine mod you have.

I recently flew an old friend's low time 185 to Wipaire and back for installation of 3000A floats. I did that with another old friend that owns another 185 on 3730As. Both of those airplanes have fresh O-550s on them. It was a great reminder of what a good airplane it is and what good friends I have. We were getting cruise speeds of 140 KTAS on wheels and 125 KTAS on floats with the same power settings and similar altitudes and temperatures

My first exposure to a 185 was hauling four other guys and gear to Oshkosh in an early model with the O-470F engine. I was impressed by how well the airplane handled the load as well as the fact that we did that without exceeding the gross weight limitation. [That was more than four decades ago and all of us were lighter.]

[Cardiff Kook]

OP here.

Interesting thing happened after a few months flying primarily the 185- my Super Cub landings got much better. Kind of odd given I havent been flying the cub nearly as much as previously (still LOVE the cub but trying to get my proficiency in in the 185.)

Only thing i can think of is things happen much more quickly in 185 so maybe my brain just learned to process stuff more quickly in general when flying?

[Cardiff Kook]

Could also be that what worked in the cub didnt work in the 185 so I had to adjust technique and those techniques actually transferred to the cub?

[Cardiff Kook]

Could also be that I had some landing in the 185 that were so bad that comparatively those in the cub appeared infinitely better

[BC12D-4-85]

What speeds do you land at in both? Yes heavy happens quickly so reaction times speed up. Try missing a pothole in the road at 60 vs 40.

Gary

[Cardiff Kook]

In calm/no wind short final is 60 knots in cessna. 60 mph in cub. Thats what my IAS says anyways…

[BC12D-4-85]

In calm/no wind short final is 60 knots in cessna. 60 mph in cub. Thats what my IAS says anyways…

60 (k or mph) is a good number. Aircraft have probably flown around the world at that speed.

I like to find indicated stall speed in the landing configuration, then use 1.3x that while maneuvering until final in smooth air, then slow to 1.2x or 1.1x prior to touchdown. It's a choice. If I tried to land my Taylorcraft at 60 it'd run out of runway.

Gary

[mvivion]

In calm/no wind short final is 60 knots in cessna. 60 mph in cub. Thats what my IAS says anyways…

What is your definition of “short final”? Some call half mile (or one mile) “short final”.

More to the point, what’s your speed at the initiation of the flare?

MTV

[stewartb]

Cardiff, as a rusty Wagon pilot recognizing my own deficiencies? Try slowing down to 65 mph and maintain some power. Some of my problem is flying an empty plane that requires back pressure since it runs out of trim. Simple solution to make landings more consistent.. add some weight in the back. You’ll struggle with smooth approaches if you’re wrestling the yoke the whole way down. I know I do. If you can maintain 65 with trim and use throttle to control rate of descent? Landings will be easier.