cessna cabin width

[mike Halstead]

It appears that the cabin width of 182's and I presume 180's and 185's jumped from 40 or so inches to 44 in the early to mid sixties. My buddies 1958 182 seems really tight. the links to skywagons.com (stancil) has an extensive model change history for each year but never mentions cabin width. Some of my friends are supersized so long trips are a little touchy.I hope to move from renter to owner soon and it helps to know what years to look for. Anyone have some answers?

[qmdv]

The cabin width in the 182 increased in size in 1962. I believe that the cabin width in pre 62 182's is the same as all 180's and 185's. If you are thinking of buying a Cessna then I strongly advise you to join yet another organization but this one costs a little. http://www.cessna.org/

The cost is well woth it. I have been a member sence 89. They have model specific forums all with a host of experts. You can any Cessna question answered there.

If your friends are super sized you better get a Beaver.

Tim

[Skylane]

Mike,

I have had a 180 and 182, both early models. Yes they can be a bit cramped with big folks. Me, I go around 250 and I have flown with one guy particular that is in the 280 range. With a "67" and "75" 182, and a 205 I flew for awhile, we could ride side by side in the front. With the early model Cessna's whom ever is doing the flying slides the seat forward, and the other stays back. Me, I like the earlier models because of the trimable stabilizer and manual flaps, plus they seem a little lighter on the controls. Seems there are always some trade offs somewhere. The Mrs. is only 120 or so, so most the time there it's a none issue.

Good luck in your hunt.

Bub

[steve]

Mike, I have a 1980-185, they did not increase the cabin width. A couple of years ago I (6'3-220 lbs) took a 6'0-280 lb friend on a 6 hour trip in my 1965-182 (which is the wider cabin), it was snug, the Skywagon would have been awfull.

[Zzz]

I do not feel sorry for you guys.

[a64pilot]

Zane,
Just think how hard it must be to drag one of those 185's in the hanger

[ccurrie]

all you need to do is go spend a few hours in a tcraft cessna 120 or a moony and a skywagon will feel huge.

[mtv]

I used to do flight reviews and annual tuneups with a young man who was a hockey player and a significant weight lifter in his Dad's 180. This young man was about as wide as he was tall, and not an ounce of fat on him.

When he went for the flap lever, I got the hell out of his way .

He is a really good pilot, but those sessions were, shall we say, a bit tight..

MTV

[once&futr_alaskaflyer]

I do not feel sorry for you guys.

Actually not that much difference in the 170 v. 180 v. early 172 v. early 182. Someone else can check me but I believe it is a difference of two inches.

[maules.com]

I think the C182 is 42.5" at the elbow, the same as a Maule with patroller doors.
Jeremy

[RockyTFS]

According to my Flight Manual, the width of a 180 at the bottom of the window frame is 40.25 inches. It stays that width to the rear doorpost, then narrows to 39 inches at the back of the rear seat and 34 inches at the baggage area.

These numbers did not change from the first 180 to the last 185, and are very close to the 170. If you see a stripped 170 fuselage next to a stripped 185 fuselage they are very hard to tell apart except for the skin doublers.

I thought that the 182's went to 44 inches at the shoulder when they changed the fuselage..... definitely a big difference in perceived room for the pax with the new teardrop windows and rear window.

Rocky

[qmdv]

Pretty sure that the 182 and 180 (except for gear) were just about the same tell 1960 when they put the swept tail on the 182. They did keep the trimable horizontal stabilizer on 182 in 60 and 61 as well as the same cabin width. Also in 60 they gave a bit more headroom for the back seat and the unintended consequence was a plane with slightly less drag and a few kts more airspeed.

In 62 they widened the plane to I believe 44, got rid of the trimable horizontal stabilizer and IMHO just ruined the 182. They should have called it a 183. That is when the 182 got the rep for being nose heavy cus in 62 it was. I chalenge anybody to land a stock 1962 182 as slow as I can land my 1959 182 unless he has three cases of oil in the bagage comp.

Tim

[a64pilot]

I think the C182 is 42.5" at the elbow, the same as a Maule with patroller doors.
Jeremy

Now that makes me feel a little better. I always thought my Maule was a lot smaller. I guess I'm just old and fat now.

[RockyTFS]

Now that makes me feel a little better. I always thought my Maule was a lot smaller. I guess I'm just old and fat now.

The Maule IS smaller! See above.

Rocky

[Hammer]

I'm with Zane. I'm 6'5" and fly a Cessna 140. Anyone who doesn't have room in a 180/182, regardless of the year, should take a cold, hard look at their life style.

[lesuther]

That is when the 182 got the rep for being nose heavy cus in 62 it was. I chalenge anybody to land a stock 1962 182 as slow as I can land my 1959 182 unless he has three cases of oil in the bagage comp.
Tim

It is nose heavier in the '62. Just gotta use nose down trim on slow approaches and the problem largely goes away, but you have to use your forearms. Extra weight in the back helps and gets you a couple mph faster to boot. The extra 4" up front is a great thing- hauling three people with a lot of camping gear becomes a lot more civilized. It's downright comfy up front even with equally large passengers. I usually have the tie downs, ready kit, and heavier camping items in the back for flying the woodies anyway, so I really can't complain.

[SkyTruck]

Mike,
I have a late model 185 and the "Only" thing I long for is a wider cabin.
I'm 6'2" and 215 and agree that to be comfy the pax must keep their seat slid(?) back.
Other than that, I couldn't imagine of being without the utility of a 185.
The only other plane I would consider for utility would be a 206.
For fun, I'm looking at an experimental Cub
Fraser
'80 A185f

[tblooma]

I'm with Fraser love my 185 but a cub would be a great complement!

[Sierra Hotel]

Mike, qmdv just demonstrated the value of BCP - his advice to join the Cessna Pilot's Association is sterling. I bought the Cessna 182 Buyer's Guide from CPA, and it was the single best investment I made when researching my aircraft purchase last year.

According to the Guide, the early 180 and 182's had the same fuselage with the introduction of the 182 in 1956. In fact, the '56 and some '57's still had the gearbox for the 180's main gear installed. In 1962, Cessna widened the fuselage 4" and lowered the floor 3/4".

I was torn between wanting the wider fuselage of the post '62 planes, and the manual flaps and "flying tail" of the earlier models.

I bought a '58 last year, and was concerned over cabin size being 6'4" and 280 (at the time). One factor for me was that 5077D has 6" bubble windows, which make a HUGE difference in shoulder room. It lets me or the co-pilot lean away from one another for "breathing room", and I can prop an elbow up in the window well too, lending to the "roominess" factor. Since September, I have embarked on a program to reduce the plane's weight and maximize payload. I am moving the battery to the firewall, which will save some 20#, and I took 40# off the pilot frame, which helps with the weight forward position of the 182's, not to mention creating more room in the cockpit! Cheapest method I could find for taking weight out of the plane! Another 20 to go . . .

Good luck with your search.

SH

[Glidergeek]

Mike, qmdv just demonstrated the value of BCP - his advice to join the Cessna Pilot's Association is sterling. I bought the Cessna 182 Buyer's Guide from CPA, and it was the single best investment I made when researching my aircraft purchase last year.

According to the Guide, the early 180 and 182's had the same fuselage with the introduction of the 182 in 1956. In fact, the '56 and some '57's still had the gearbox for the 180's main gear installed. In 1962, Cessna widened the fuselage 4" and lowered the floor 3/4".

I was torn between wanting the wider fuselage of the post '62 planes, and the manual flaps and "flying tail" of the earlier models.

I bought a '58 last year, and was concerned over cabin size being 6'4" and 280 (at the time). One factor for me was that 5077D has 6" bubble windows, which make a HUGE difference in shoulder room. It lets me or the co-pilot lean away from one another for "breathing room", and I can prop an elbow up in the window well too, lending to the "roominess" factor. Since September, I have embarked on a program to reduce the plane's weight and maximize payload. I am moving the battery to the firewall, which will save some 20#, and I took 40# off the pilot frame, which helps with the weight forward position of the 182's, not to mention creating more room in the cockpit! Cheapest method I could find for taking weight out of the plane! Another 20 to go . . .

Good luck with your search.

SH

Consider the light weight starters and a plane power alternator will help offset the forward CG (and your bank account) your having. When I moved the battery forward I took 38lbs of battery, box & cable out. I put about 15lbs back on the firewall. Changed the generator & starter to the light weight stuff and lightened 12 more lbs.