180-185 which one

[Tom3holer]

Hi,

I have posted here several times about looking for a nice 180. Its been several months and have not found the right plane yet. My main mission is to fly form Cape Cod to northern Maine for camping and fishing. The 180 seemed the way to go. I had a 58 180 20 years ago and loved it. Sold it for a Debonair which served its purpose but always missed the flying qualities of that 180. Now things have changed and my C-90-8 powered J3 just doesn't fit the bill for my Maine excursions. My needs were L/R fuel a stol kit and an autopilot would be nice. Didn't need fancy electronics as I am a mini ipad Foreflight believer. The Pponk 0-520 conversions seemed the way to go.

I just heard from a gentleman not too far away with a 74 184 io-520 powered with a Mccauley 3 bladed prop that looked nice. My wife really liked the paint scheme which as many of you know is very important.
I got to thinking and rationalized that a IO-520 with Gami's would probably burn quite close to a stock O-470. In looking at 185 now it seems they are not much more than 180's.
I plan on looking at it next week.

Just looking for some thoughts and input on the choice.

Tom

 

[mvivion]

The 185 will wind up burning more fuel. Yes, as the story goes, if you run the same horsepower in cruise, your engine will burn the same fuel. The fly in that ointment is US, the pilots. Generally, most of us don't buy an airplane with a lot of power then not use it.

The 185 is indeed a nice airplane. Lots of power, lots of performance. And, that's the difference between the 180 and the 185....performance. At one time I owned a 1966 H model 180, and I flew a 1985 model 185 at work. Both were on floats. My 180 had seven more pounds of useful load than the 185, with the same four hours of fuel aboard. But, that 185 would get out of the water a good bit shorter than the 180, when loaded. This 180 was bone stock, with an O-470, so the same airplane with a bigger engine would have performed better, but....

The down side with 185s these days is that they haven't been built since 1985, so they're all getting up there in years, AND most of them have worked commercially at some point in their life. Granted the 180s are generally older, some a lot older, but many 185s have been seriously thrashed. But, that's something you can evaluate on a pre-buy.....so do a very careful one.

If I had that choice, and could find a good one, I'd probably buy the 185, for the extra load and better performance. They are great airplanes. They feel a little heavier on the controls compared to a 180, particularly an early 180, but you get used to it pretty quick.

Either way, if you do a good pre buy inspection, I don't think you'll go wrong. My favorite of the 180s is the H models, built in the late sixties.

MTV

 

[Tom3holer]

MTV,

Thank you for the info. I really don't need the load carrying capacity of the 185 but it seems that the price difference is quite small. Its true I haven't seen any low time 185's
Fortunate to have a AI that is quite familiar with them.
Thanks again,
Tom

 

[stewartb]

There are lots of nice, pampered 185s out there. As there are 180s. If you're targeting the later three window 180s you'd be wise to include 185s in your search. Buy the best condition, most ideally equipped airplane you can find. Whatever attributes a 180 or 185 has or doesn't have won't make or break your mission.

 

[jjack]

Interesting! I have been looking 180's/ 185's also. Not sure why except NC to Montana /Idaho is a long haul in a cub!

 

[SteveE]

Interesting! I have been looking 180's/ 185's also. Not sure why except NC to Montana /Idaho is a long haul in a cub!

And u do it how often? Suck it up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stewartb]

Pay attention to the empty weight. That is an important consideration with later model 180s and 185s when reviewing an airplane for potential purchase.

 

[jjack]

And u do it how often? Suck it up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually my ass can take it, but my wife is a different story. Guess a 185 won't help with that!

 

[stewartb]

My wife loves our Skywagon. A few days ago I mentioned that I expected to sell ours when the EX Cub was finished. She told me to think again.

Life is Good!!!

Happy New Year

 

[sub3]

I have a low time 180H with long range tanks.. Boy do I love that airplane. My opinion is, unless you're flying at gross a lot, I think a 180 in good hands will fly just as good or better than an average pilot can fly a 185 at a lower operating cost BUT there is ZERO substitute for horsepower. I'm, slowly making my 180 the way I want it, take stewart's advice, spend a little more, buy one that is up to date and equipped the way you want it. The route I went is much more expensive and time consuming – On the flip side, the brothers who owned 05Y before me owned it for nearly 40 years. We stay in touch, I send them pictures, and they re-live past flying memories.. can't get that from a broker. Making memories is a big part of why we choose to fly off the beaten path. Take your time, get a good pre-buy form someone who knows Skywagons and for Gods sake, put some dents in your stabilizer, and get the bottom side of your wings dirty!

 

[hotrod180]

I have posted here several time about looking for a nice 180. Its been several months and have not found the right plane yet. My main mission is to fly form Cape Cod to northern Maine for camping and fishing.......
My needs were L/R fuel a stol kit and an autopilot would be nice. Didn't need fancy electronics as I am a mini ipad Foreflight believer. The Pponk 0-520 conversions seemed the way to go ......
In looking at 185 now it seems they are not much more than 180's......

My impression is different re prices, as I rarely see a 185 listed for less than $100K. On the other hand, I see lots & lots of 180 for less than $100K. There's some early model 180's out there for $75K and under, but maybe you just must have a later model airplane. Lots of ponked 180's, lots of STOL kitted 180's, not as many but some LR fueled 180's. Might be hard getting a 180 with all three features-- you might have to pick your most important 2 out of 3.
If you have to do it yourself, a Sportsman kit is about $2K and maybe another $2K to install?
I have no idea on the cost to buy and / or install LR tanks or an autopilot.

 

[cubdriver2]

Just curious but...............it's only a 2hr flight from Cape Cod to upper Maine in a 90 horse J3. So why do you need an auto pilot in a 180?

Glenn

 

[behindpropellers]

Hi,

I have posted here several time about looking for a nice 180. Its been several months and have not found the right plane yet. My main mission is to fly form Cape Cod to northern Maine for camping and fishing. The 180 seemed the way to go. I had a 58 180 20 years ago and loved it. Sold it for a Debonair which served its purpose but always missed the flying qualities of that 180. Now things have changed and my C-90-8 powered J3 just doesn't fit the bill for my Maine excursions. My needs were L/R fuel a stol kit and an autopilot would be nice. Didn't need fancy electronics as I am a mini ipad Foreflight believer. The Pponk 0-520 conversions seemed the way to go.

I just heard from a gentleman not too far away with a 74 184 io-520 powered with a Mccauley 3 bladed prop that looked nice. My wife really liked the paint scheme which as many of you know is very important.
I got to thinking and rationalized that a IO-520 with Gami's would probably burn quite close to a stock O-470. In looking at 185 now it seems they are not much more than 180's.
I plan on looking at it next week.

Just looking for some thoughts and input on the choice.

Tom

GPH means nothing. MPG is what you need to look at. After flying an io520 I'll never go back to a carbureted engine again.

Tim

 

[aktango58]

It has not been mentioned that the large tail 180s, (forgot the year it changed) can all be modified to ha higher gross weight. Kenmore Air had a kit which was simply a plate that covered the lightning hole in the front of the stabilator. Need to remove the tail, but the entire kit could be installed in less than a day as I recall.

The gross weight then was that of a 185.

most of my time was in a 57 180. I never had an issue with the carb... but saw lots of injected issues on the 185. You do need to pull carb heat on the 180... OFTEN.

Don't know where you are landing, but you are forgetting a couple very economical and less expensive options that might fit the bill very well: 182 and 205.

The 182 is not uncommonly set up with all the bells and whistles for long range IFR, for less than a solid 180 without much avionics.

The 205 is not super common, but has great room, speed, and are not expensive either.

Ok, nose pickers, but if you are looking to go from a to b fast and often...


Back to 180/185- you are not far from the question I have been asking myself... but started with the wife request: 4 seats and land at the cabin. Narrowed down the field quickly, (670' of rough and not so good approach, one way). I had to write down the must haves, then the want to haves...

I put $ amounts to mod planes on each mod for if I purchased a plane without and had to add... a real eye opener.

I am thinking of going to Kansas City during a Royals game and just 'borrow' a 180 with a big motor8)

 

[stewartb]

For the record.... '75 and later (J and K model) factory seaplanes came with the big dorsal. On those planes the only way a passer-by can tell it's a 180 and not a 185 is the absence of the small chin scoop that's found on the underside of a 185 cowling. All 180Gs and later (3 window cabin) are eligible for the Kenmore 3190# mod but require the big dorsal to be added. So while the Kenmore mod is easy for a J or K seaplane it isn't as easy for the others.

Carb ice seems to be something that's specific to individual airplanes. Mine doesn't make ice. Never has through three different engines. Guys with seemingly identical airplanes report theirs do make ice. It's a fascinating topic and I wish we had a good understanding of why. At any rate it's simple to use carb heat when you need it. Get to know that airplane and learn how to manage it. That's the fun of owning one.

One thing that may interest you in a 185 would be the ability to run LOP if that's important to you. The induction system on a 180 doesn't fare well for precise leaning or equal temp distribution when leaning for economy so most of the guys I know run ROP. I run mine at 24/2400 or a little higher and see cruise fuel burns around 16gph/150mph/1000' MSL (big tires) if I want to keep my temps equalized.

 

[aktango58]

Thank you for the outline on that Stewart. I knew that you had to have the big dorsal, or big tail, but did not realize that it was only factory seaplanes that came with that.

You learn something new every day.

 

[L18C-95]

There are a couple of 185A, and a 185B on the UK register, still active and with the -470F engine. I am thinking they can be flown with similar or less gph than a 180.

The 182C is an interesting design, variable incidence tail plane, 185 fuselage, and arguably the fastest normally aspirated 182 built. There is a nice one for sale in the UK.

 

[skywagon8a]

My needs were....... a stol kit .....

The only STOL mod which I would consider for a 1973 or newer 180/185 would be the Wing-X wing extensions. http://www.wingxstol.com/ The stock 180/185 wing does a great job all on it's own. Any of the LE cuff mods give up a little something for the gains which they claim. I can get a stock 185 with two on board in less than 200 feet and out at about 300 feet. Unless you need to do something drastically better than that leave it stock. The extended wings are winners at all ends of the flying envelope. Well drooping ailerons are a plus, however they do have cross wind drawbacks.

 

[stewartb]

I can get a stock 185 with two on board in less than 200 feet and out at about 300 feet.

And for the record..... I can't! Pass the salt!

 

[slowmover]

Tom,
I went through this decision process six years ago when I bought my 180. I only wanted a 180 because of the cost delta (purchase plus fuel burn) but looking back on it, I'd jump on a 185 if I found a good one. I do most of my flying in the eastern half of the U.S. and didn't think I needed the performance, but I've had it out west a couple times where the extra power would be nice.

My 180 is a 1980 K model. My empty weight is 1798 which makes my useful load almost 1400 pounds since I did the 3190 mod. It's a bit of a pig when it's that heavy though. I run an O-470U but when overhaul time comes I will probably look for something a little bigger, or maybe a diesel. I get about 140 true out of it on about 12 gph if I'm trying to go somewhere. 88 gal of fuel. It's a great x-c airplane.

Good luck on the search.

Joe

 

[Barnstormer]

I guess whether there is not much difference in cost between a good 180 and a good 185 would depend on your definition of “not much difference”. ;-) Seems to me it’s most likely about the cost of an engine. Having said that if you want a good 185 your are probably in the neighborhood of $125k. And remember this they cost more then an equivalently equipped 180 for a reason, it may or may not be a reason you care about. A sweet, heavily modified 185 is going to cost you ~ $200k.


Tailwheel aircraft are super sexy, we all know that, and real pilots fly tailwheel aircraft, we all know that. But do you really need a tailwheel aircraft? They are “sportier” to takeoff and land, insurance costs more, and in the case of the 180/185 they cost more then an equivalent 182. A swept tail 182 will have more shoulder room then a 180/185, if shoulder room matters.


If you need the performance/useable weight/prop clearance or the sex appeal of a dragger then by all means get a 180/185. Otherwise a 182 might be a better choice, or even a 206. Or a Bonanza.


2-axis auto pilot? That certainly wouldn’t be a deal breaker in my purchase of a plane unless I was planning on immediately upgrading to to 3 axis ($7,500 for my plane). My 185 came with a 2-axis autopilot. I never had an autopilot before so it became “important” to me until the newness wore off. Until I realized that in rough air, when an autopilot could really be handy, I had to hand fly the plane because the autopilot was missing altitude hold. In rough air, with one wing dipping and then the other, a 2-axis autopilot will start to hunt altitude, diving and climbing, and you’ll give up and turn it off.


I love my 185. Do I “need” her in the lower 48, realistically, no. A tricked out 182, or a 206 would be a more logical and practical choice, and have more cabin room. But I love the sex appeal of a tailwheel airplane. And maybe when I get her up in Alaska she will become the more logical, practical choice as well.


Anyway, good luck and have fun on your search (and forget about the 2-axis autopilot).

 

[CamTom12]

Any of the LE cuff mods give up a little something for the gains which they claim.

I didn't know this! I thought the beauty of the sportsman kit was no change in cruise speeds.

I've flown one 185, on floats with sportsman and wing-x. That airplane just wanted to fly, it was a very nice rig.

 

[bat443]

1- axis autopilot=ailerons, 2- axis autopilot=ailerons+elevator, 3- axis autopilot=ailerons+elevator+rudder. Some 2- and 3- axis autopilots have auto trim, few if any for the 180/185 do.

185's demand a higher price because it gets you from 3190 to 3350 pounds, if you are working the airplane or putting it on amphibian floats 160 pounds or even more with wing extensions make it worth the difference.

I had a A185F, sold it when my airline job went away, now building a 180H project, will have a O470R and McCauley C203 prop as I just can't justify the additional purchase and operational cost of a pponk and C401 for what I want to do which is to operate on wheel skis out of 2200 ft behind my house at 1100 ft MSL It will have the stock, no stol kit, pre leading edge cuff wing, the 185 large fin and rudder and the Kenmore 3190 gross weight STC. I do not plan to operate at my house at 3190 but would like to be able to legally exceed 2800 by a few pounds when on skis. If I was planning to operate even occasionally at 3000 pounds (not on skis) I would probably reconsider the pponk.

Just to throw a little extra information out there. My A185F was a 73 model without a float kit, with a factory center line photo port and a stretcher door. The installation drawings for the Wipaire (Fluidyne) C3200 and C3600 skis on the 180J, 180K and A185F require the float or ski plane rudder centering kit and more importantly the aileron rudder interconnect located on the aft side of the 65.33 bulkhead (aft door post) under the floor. The aileron rudder interconnect can not be installed with the center line photo port. This requirement for the rudder centering or aileron rudder interconnect does not apply to the earlier models.

Hope this helps, Tim

 

[Barnstormer]

Tim, thanks for the Axis number correction (still sucks without elevator AP control no matter what the number is). Have you got any photos of the '73 A185F you had? Would be cool to see the camera port/stretcher door rig as mine is a '73 A185F Float Kit.

 

[bat443]

Phil, I know I have photos of the stretcher door and possibly the photo port. I will try to find them tonight and figure out how to post then. I agree, I don't think I would want an autopilot without altitude control.

I should have added before, rudder trim on the 185 and optionally on the later model 180 sure is nice.

Tim

 

[Ouapetec]

Hi,

I have posted here several times about looking for a nice 180. Its been several months and have not found the right plane yet. My main mission is to fly form Cape Cod to northern Maine for camping and fishing. The 180 seemed the way to go. I had a 58 180 20 years ago and loved it. Sold it for a Debonair which served its purpose but always missed the flying qualities of that 180. Now things have changed and my C-90-8 powered J3 just doesn't fit the bill for my Maine excursions. My needs were L/R fuel a stol kit and an autopilot would be nice. Didn't need fancy electronics as I am a mini ipad Foreflight believer. The Pponk 0-520 conversions seemed the way to go.

I just heard from a gentleman not too far away with a 74 184 io-520 powered with a Mccauley 3 bladed prop that looked nice. My wife really liked the paint scheme which as many of you know is very important.
I got to thinking and rationalized that a IO-520 with Gami's would probably burn quite close to a stock O-470. In looking at 185 now it seems they are not much more than 180's.
I plan on looking at it next week.

Just looking for some thoughts and input on the choice.

Tom

You might want to take a look at this one.... Not familiar with this A/C at all, but with the exchange rate where it is now it could be a good avenue.

http://www.csplane.com/7396.htm

Karl

 

[Tom3holer]

GPH means nothing. MPG is what you need to look at. After flying an io520 I'll never go back to a carbureted engine again.

Tim

Tim,

Yes, you are absolutely correct and it seemed that a 180 was quite close to my cub in terms of MPG.
On the IO-520 subject it looks like a IO-520 with Gami's running LOP will be in the same GPH range as a 180 for the same speed; is that correct?

Tom

 

[Tom3holer]

You might want to take a look at this one.... Not familiar with this A/C at all, but with the exchange rate where it is now it could be a good avenue.

http://www.csplane.com/7396.htm

Karl

Karl,

Thank you for the post.
I did see and indeed its probably the lowest time 185 around. The problem is twofold. First its too expensive for me and second the engine is 40 years old without an overhaul.

Tom

 

[Tom3holer]

The autopilot thing was that I see many 180's with them and having owned a Debonair for 10 years with a 2axis autopilot it made longer trips much more enjoyable.

Some of the places I plan on going are remote strips with gravel and grass, and one in particular is a bit rough.
I do have a good deal of time in a 180 having owned one for 8 years. After about 100 hrs in it I felt very comfortable and enjoyed flying it more than any other plane I've owned.
I also look at the resale of the Cessna twins 180/185. They are more expensive than a 182 because they can go safely into places a 182 should not thus are more sought after I believe.
It does seem that the market is quite soft now from what I see.

Tom

 

[Barnstormer]

...On the IO-520 subject it looks like a IO-520 with Gami's running LOP will be in the same GPH range as a 180 for the same speed; is that correct?

Of course there are lots of variables to take into consideration (engine, prop, tires, etc), but in generalality when I'm flying next to my friends in their 180's my 185 running LOP is either matching their fuel burn or using 1/2 gph less. If I richen to max power or ROP then I'm flying away from my friends and burning a bit more fuel then they are.

When I pull back (which is bottom of the green) to fly with my Carbon Cub friends my 185 LOP is burning 4 gph, perhaps less, it's hard to know for sure because the needle is pegged on the bottom of the gauge.